It’s always entertaining to read virtually any BBC report on matters concerning Israel to gauge the disgraceful bias that runs through BBC coverage. Take this summary of an Israeli government-appointed inquiry into Ehud Olmert’s handling of the 2006 confrontation with Hezbollah, Iran’s surrogates in Lebanon.
For starters we are informed that it was Hezbollah “fighters” whose actions in July 2006 precipitated the ensuing confrontation. Wrong. They were not fighters, they were terrorists. These are the people who hide behind women and children in order to conduct their vicious attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. Hezbollah is a terrorist cabal but we all know the linguistic trouble this causes the moral equivocators at the BBC. It gets worse though because the BBC report then blandly asserts that “In the conflict that followed, more than 1,000 Lebanese died, mostly civilians, along with 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers..” Where does this authoritative “more than 1000 Lebanese died, mostly civilians” come from? We know that the Lebanese government does not distinguish between terrorist and civilians so surely the BBC was not relying on it as the source? Out of this putative 1000, how many Hezbollah terrorists were killed? Al Beeb is coy on this but the IDF estimates 532 Hezbollah thugs were killed, more than half of the total number quoted by the BBC. Of the remainder, how many died either because they gave refuge or were forced to give refuge to Hezbollah? The picture is far from that portrayed by the BBC, although I am sure you will note that the final word on this report goes to a Hezbollah spokesman. Fair and balanced?
Isn’t “most” a wonderful word.
“Most” can mean anything between 50% and 100%. BBC uses it always to exaggerate without being technically wrong. In this case it uses it to exaggerate both.
Most Israelis killed were soldiers (it sounds as if only a few civilians died, so “most” in this case hides that >25% were civilians).
Even the anti-Israel UN puts the estimate of Hezbollah thugs at ~500.
Which would make it close to 50%. So “most” for Lebanese civilians is a only a bit over 50%.
Heh – consider this:
“most” people subconsciously consider “most” to be around 90%.
Is it only 51% that think that or 90%?
When you compare the face that >25% of Israelis were civilians and around 50% of Lebanese were civilians. Together with the fact that Israelis had shelters and Lebanese did not, and that Hezbollah was firing from civilian areas a totally different picture emerges.
Why, yes, of course it is. Al Beeb is not accusing Israel of starting it all for no reason (other than Jewish treachery, of course) – it admits that it was started by Hezbollah. That’s fair and objective, innit?
Hostilities broke out in July 2006, when Hezbollah fighters captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raid that left three other soldiers dead.
No mention of a Hezbollah’s diversion during this initial attack — just a couple of dozen of rockets on Northern Israel.
Israelis are grownups — they can stomach it – not even worth a mention. Right BBC?
When have any rocket attacks on Israel been taken seriously by Al Jazee…Beeb? Even around the Gaza strip, it’s only those dastardly Jews CLAIMING that the blockade was due to rockets.
When have any rocket attacks on Israel been taken seriously by Al Jazee…Beeb? Even around the Gaza strip, it’s only those dastardly Jews CLAIMING that the blockade was due to rockets.
Nearly Oxfordian | 30.01.08 – 9:54 pm |
“CLAIM” is not a correct Beeb-speak word, the correct form is Israelis “SAY” that rockets are reason. Like in “they are just ‘saying’ it, to confuse us”.
Here is an article written on the very subject by UPI;
Analysis: Hezbollah’s recovery timetable
But Hezbollah lost more than 500 men, even though it confirmed only some 60-odd killed. Israel identified 440 dead guerrillas by name and address, and experience shows that Israeli figures are half to two-thirds of the enemy’s real casualties. Therefore, Amidror estimated, Hezbollah’s death toll might be as high as 700.
……………….
Hezbollah made extensive use of anti-tank rockets, firing more than 1,000 at Israeli tanks and infantrymen.
Amidror said those rockets hit fewer than 50 tanks, penetrated fewer than half. In each tank that was penetrated one soldier was killed. It upset many Israelis, but militarily was “nothing to write home about.”
http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2006/09/07/analysis_hezbollahs_recovery_timetable/8532/
Ah. Such a misnomer: Islamo-Fascists
http://freund.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/hizbullah_in_nazi_salute.jpg
Here’s a comment on the role of Hezbollah and the media:
“Hezbollah’s dark hand”.
http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2008/01/29/hezbollahs-dark-hand/
Very timely and very related to this thread – “Sixth anniversary of the murder of Daniel Pearl”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120165176905126961.html
(WSJ article is by Judea Pearl a famous Computer Scientist and Daniel Pearl’s father)
[…]
Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl in January 2002.
[…]
This was first brought to my attention by the Pakistani Consul General who came to offer condolences at our home in California. When we spoke about the anti-Semitic element in Danny’s murder she said: “What can you expect of these people who never saw a Jew in their lives and who have been exposed, day and night, to televised images of Israeli soldiers targeting and killing Palestinian children.”
At the time, it was not clear whether she was trying to exonerate Pakistan from responsibility for Danny’s murder, or to pass on the responsibility to European and Arab media for their persistent de-humanization of Jews, Americans and Israelis. The answer was unveiled in 2004, when a friend told me that photos of Muhammad Al Dura were used as background in the video tape of Danny’s murder.
Al Dura, readers may recall, is the 12-year-old Palestinian boy who allegedly died from Israeli bullets in Gaza in September of 2001. As we now know, the whole scene is very likely to have been a fraud, choreographed by stringers and cameramen of France 2, the official news channel of France. France 2 aired the tape repeatedly and distributed it all over the world to anyone who needed an excuse to ratchet up anger or violence, among them Danny’s killers.
The Pakistani Consul was right. The media cannot be totally exonerated from responsibility for Daniel’s murder, as well as for the “tsunami of hate” that has swept the world and continues to rise.
[…]
While the BBC never misses an opportunity to remind us that Israel doesn’t comply with UN resolutions it fails consistently to remember that UN resolution 1701, the one that the ceasefire and the end of the war was based on, called for the unconditional return of the two Israeli soldiers and the disarming of Hezbollah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4785963.stm
And I thought the raid in which the two soldiers were captured cost the lives of eight IDF soldiers, not three.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5283660.stm
The ceasefire was brokered by the UN after weeks of fighting in southern Lebanon. The conflict was sparked by a cross-border raid by Hezbollah fighters in which they captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178492.stm
Eight soldiers were killed and two were injured, in addition to the two captured in a Hezbollah ambush.
Rewriting history, to the terrorists’ advantage; it’s what we do!
Ok not exactly an example of BBC bias. (Well it does paint the Terrorists in a commanding light)
But, please BBC employ a defence expert who actually knows what he is on about.
Tough lessons for Israeli armour
One of the major military surprises of the fighting in Lebanon has been the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4794829.stm
Yes the report is 18 months old. And I did miss it the first time round but if the BBC is going to link it into the Winograd report as the top and most salient link. You can bet your bottom dinar somebody who knows a little something about the subject at hand is going to read it.
“The AT-13 Metis or Saxhorn is a modern tube-launched successor to the Sagger. Its tandem-shaped warhead can punch through armour of up to 46cm (18 inches) thick. The tandem warhead is designed to counter reactive armour as used on many Israeli vehicles.
While Israel was the first country to use reactive armour in an operational environment. (Lebanon 1982) Blazer and the subsequent ‘Blazer 2’ the IDF quickly realised that reactive armour wasn’t the way forward after 2 Magach 6B tanks (M60 tank on steroids) were hit by heavy Anti tank guided missiles (ATGM) in Nov 1997 resulting in 1 dead loader and 6 wounded men. The next variant of the said tank was the Magach BATASH which had instead of reactive armour, passive armour. (in other words the heavy stuff) All IDF tanks since then have used passive armour. In other words while the IDF sells reactive armour to other countries (US/Poland/UK) they tend not to use it as much as they used to and those vehicles which are fitted to wear it tend to be reserve stock.
“The need for well-armoured infantry carriers that can keep pace with the tanks has led Israel to convert a large number of older tanks to carry troops. The Achzarit is a good example. It is based on the Russian T54/T55 tank which Israel captured in large numbers during the 1973 war. Its turret and main gun have been removed and various other changes made to allow it to accommodate a crew of three along with seven infantrymen. But all of these enhancements have not proved sufficiently effective against the most modern anti-tank systems operated by determined fighters on the ground.”
Actually not one Achzarit (Hebrew for cruel woman) has been taken out by an ATGM. You see the damn thing (as mentioned by the BBC) is based on the T55. Which at combat weight weighs 34 tons. Now the jews have removed the turret and then added lots of armour (And a new lighter engine) the damn thing comes in at 44 tons. In fact the damn thing has been tested to receive multiple hits from 125mm KE tank shells which are a lot more lethal to armour than ATGM . Yes they got hit in Lebanon (14 cases) but out of those 14 only 5 resulted in a penetration of which a total of 5 crew men died.
Just for the info around 50 tanks (out of 400) were hit by ATGM in Lebanon during 2006. out of that figure only in 22 cases did actual tank armour penetration take place. Of which 23 tank crew died. Funny enough of those examples there is the case of a Merkava MK4 (the latest) which was hit over 23 times before it was finally disabled with an actual tank armour penetration. By any standard I’d say that is a positive sign of how the armour worked and not as the BBC a negative.
Part of the answer may be to adopt new kinds of armour.
Some Defence expert if he has never heard of Trophy. I mean its not as if the Yanks haven’t fitted it to a number of their APCs in Iraq.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm
The BBC paints this picture of how Israel lost everything in 2006. And it has no problem adding somewhat biased comments by Hezbollah (Remember when the BBC gave lessons on how to pronounce its favourite terrorist groups name and that of its leader?)
“A semi-military organisation of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7218817.stm
Somebody from the BBC like to point out where in the report the above is, as for the life in me I cannot find it.
Here are a few snippets from that report the BBC doesn’t mention;
10. The main failures in the decisions made and the decision-making processes can be summed up as follows:
a. The decision to respond with an immediate, intensive military strike was not based on a detailed, comprehensive and authorized military plan, based on carefull study of the complex characteristics of the Lebanon arena. A meticulous examination of these characteristics would have revealed the following: the ability to achieve military gains having significant political-international weight was limited; an Israeli military strike would inevitably lead to missiles fired at the Israeli civilian north; there was not other effective military response to such missile attacks than an extensive and prolonged ground operation to capture the areas from which the missiles were fired – which would have a high “cost” and which did not enjoy broad support. These difficulties were not explicitly raised with the political leaders before the decision to strike was taken.
15. Concomitantly we determine that the failures listed here, and in the outcomes of the war, had many other partners.
a. The complexity of the Lebanon scene is basically outside Israel’s control.
b. The ability of Hezbollah to sit ‘on the border’, its ability to dictate the moment of escalation, and the growth of its military abilities and missile arsenal increased significantly as a result of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in May 2000 (which was not followed, as had been hoped, by The Lebanese Army deploying on the border with Israel.
And seeing as the BBC doesn’t link into the report here it is. (Can’t be telling the truth now can we?)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/Winograd+Inquiry+Commission+submits+Interim+Report+30-Apr-2007.htm
sorry if you’ve already seen this, (link posted in a letter re Balen report open secrets)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2007/03/the_bbc_v_steven_sugar_the_bal.html
Sue thanks for that video clip. I saw it a while ago. But it does indeed sum up the mindset which prevails at the BBC. I’m sure Reith will be sent on a mission in which to discredit that film clip. Yup something about receipts will turn up.
Once again Amnesty International and the BBC accuse the IDF of war crimes without a mention of the fact that Hezbollah’s use of unguided missiles fired indiscriminately at civilian areas are crimes against humanity. But Israel’s “claims” are sneered at.
Israel has denied committing war crimes, saying it tried to avoid civilian casualties but its foe Hezbollah used civilian areas to launch its indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians.
Israel war report ‘deeply flawed’
Again the BBC’s bottom line which I formally complained about yesterday:
Hostilities broke out in July 2006, when Hezbollah fighters captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raid that left three other soldiers dead.
In the conflict that followed, more than 1,000 Lebanese died, mostly civilians, along with 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers.
Eight Israeli soldiers were killed not three.
Possibly more than 50% of the Lebanese killed were armed Hezbollah “fighters”.
Amnesty concludes its statement by calling upon Hezbollah to treat the captured humanely and stop using rockets against Israel civilians.
See: Lebanon/Israel: Hezbollah Rockets Targeted Civilians in 2006 War
Attacks on Northern Israel Violated Laws of War
Lebanon: Hezbollah Rocket Attacks on Haifa Designed to Kill Civilians
Anti-personnel Ball Bearings Meant to Harm ‘Soft’ Targets
Rights group says silenced by Hezbollah, Lebanon over report
The international human rights organization Human Rights Watch said on Wednesday that Lebanese guerilla group Hezbollah and the Lebanese government are attempting to silence it and prevent the release of a report accusing Hezbollah of war crimes during the Second Lebanon War.
looks like they’ve succeeded in silencing Al Beeb…
Remember: When Al-Beeb apologise for Islam they apologise for this.
it wasn’t lack of hiz trying that kept the israeli civilian death toll down. 350,000 civilians were evacuated.
what would the israeli civilian death toll have been if hiz had big artillery or high tech multiple rocket systems ?
Typical Anti-Aunty rant. Of course the BBC says ‘fighter’ instead of ‘terrorist’. You see, most people see ‘terrorism’ as rather a bad thing, so to use emotive language like that does not imply an impartial view of Hezbollah combattants.
Also, those referred to were, almost indisputably, fighting. However, many of their attacks were on military rather than civilian targets, so it is impossible to say whether all of them were terrorists or not.
What you lot invariably do on these issues is have a go at the BBC for being too neutral when you want them to be more forthcoming in their condemnation.
You see, most people see ‘terrorism’ as rather a bad thing, so to use emotive language like that does not imply an impartial view of Hezbollah combattants.
Angry Young Alex | 09.02.08 – 10:32 pm
You of course see nothing bad about Hezbollah and its aims, you probably took to London’s streets shouting “we are all Hezbollah!” while protesting at Israel’s temerity in defending itself.
I’m afraid I see terrorism as “rather a bad thing”, oh yes I do!
http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3101
Current Goals: Hezbollah’s stated objectives include the establishment of a Shiite theocracy in Lebanon, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Western influences from the Middle East.
I expect you also see Hezbollah’s leader gloating that he has Israeli soldiers’ body parts as nothing to get emotive about.
Grow up young Alex!
Having Israeli soldiers’ body parts is not terrorism. It’s not NICE, but it’s not terrorism as Israeli soldiers’ body parts are by definition not civilian targets. And yes, it’s an emotive issue but the BBC’s job is to cover stories without being emotive.
Though terrorism may or may not be involved in their achievement, the goals of Shiite theocracy, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Western influences from the Middle East are also not in themselves terrorism, as none of them are attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in order to intimidate the government and population. Note the BBC does not shy away from calling Hezbollah Shiites or Islamists.
Now Ian Brady isn’t, by all accounts, a particularly nice man. I would never in my life refer to him as a terrorist though. A nasty piece of work, a deranged child-murderer, yes, but not a terrorist. This doesn’t mean I like the guy and want to have his babies, it just means I don’t think his crimes constitute terrorism.
When we’re dealing with the BBC, which has a conscious doctrine of impartiality, you have to be careful with words like terrorist. You also seem to agree that ‘terrorist’ is a rather negative word. So calling Hezbollah terrorists would portray it in a negative light. This might be accurate, but it isn’t impartial.
You might call this splitting hairs, but that does seem to be what the site is about.
One more thing – despite what the article says, Hezbollah definitely are “fighters”, you can tell that by the “fighting” they were doing in 2006.
So calling Hezbollah terrorists would portray it in a negative light. This might be accurate, but it isn’t impartial.
Are you saying that to be impartial one must not report negatively about anything? Are you saying that to be impartial the BBC has to avoid being negative about a terrorist group?
The BBC seems to have absolutely no qualms about portraying Israel in a negative light, mostly inaccurately, so why should it avoid reporting accurately on terrorism, if not to avoid portraying it in a negative light?
Hezbollah definitely are “fighters”, you can tell that by the “fighting” they were doing in 2006.
Hezbollah were definitely committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, you can tell by the fact that they fired missiles indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel using civilians as human shields in Lebanon. They also “fought” sometimes in civilian clothing and other times disguised as Israeli soldiers, all activities classed as war crimes according to the Geneva Conventions and The Laws & Customs of War. “Nice” friends you have!
Biodegradable, Ghostly or not,
Are you saying that to be impartial one must not report negatively about anything? Are you saying that to be impartial the BBC has to avoid being negative about a terrorist group?
I think that’s exactly what Young Alex is saying. And I think your post has nailed the BBC’s attitude as well.
I’m currently debating Martin Belam, who is ex-BBC but appears to have retained connections with it:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/02/bbc_news_user-generated_content.php
Part of the debate relates to a perfect example of the BBC pushing negative news about Israel, i.e. the World Service pumping out the results of the Israeli poll that “concluded” that the majority of Israeli Jews were racist towards Arabs. And not merely reporting it of course, but blaring it out as the 2nd most important news story worldwide for at least ten hours on the hour and half-hour. This is beyond mere bias. It’s whipping up anger against Israelis, and by extension against Jews since many of Israel’s enemies don’t distinguish between the two.
If our angry young friend can show me the BBC dealing in a similar way with Palestinian polls that find the majority approve of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, I’ll eat my keyboard.
I saw your mention of Martin Belam in the comments at BBC-Biased. I stick with my point that when the BBC admit to having an “agenda” they mean just that. There are hundreds of ways of referring to the format of a program and “agenda” is the one most likely not to be used.
I’m afraid I’ll have to remain in my ghostly form, seen through a proxy, until somebody “in charge” here decides to unblock my IP address. Allowing the myriad of trolls that infest this place now to post freely while continuing to ban me on Andrew’s whim does seem a little petty, to say the least. But that’s just my opinion…
Answer me this. What would the BBC’s reporting gain by the use of the word ‘terror’. If Hezbollah are as evil as you claim, surely simply reporting their actions and their death-tolls in neutral language is enough to demonstrate that without taking sides.
Now perhaps unfair weight is given to one sides actions, but despite the accusations of “state terrorism” so often levelled at Israel, at no point has the BBC referred to the IDF as such. Therefore, to repeat one side’s accusations of terrorism and not another’s would not be wholly impartial. Similarly with accusations of war crimes. Israel too has been accused of war crimes, however to date neither the IDF nor Hezbollah has been found guilty, so again to repeat one accusation and not the other would be siding with Israel.
And yes, I do believe impartiality requires, not so much refusing to report anything negative, but refusing to report anything negative in negative terms unless there is specific verification. Even though George Bush has arguably had a hand in more deaths than Ian Huntley, to call him a “murderer” would be grossly inappropriate. Huntley, however has a conviction for murder which he is currently serving, and so the word can be used with impunity.
Angry Young Alex, you haven’t answered my question as to why the BBC found it necessary to apologise to “Palestinians” for correctly stating that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem.
What would the BBC’s reporting gain by the use of the word ‘terror’. If Hezbollah are as evil as you claim, surely simply reporting their actions and their death-tolls in neutral language is enough to demonstrate that without taking sides.
Ah but the BBC does not simply report “in neutral language” just as it does not report Israel’s actions “in neutral language”. I make no claims about evilness or otherwise. The BBC does take sides and this blog and its commenters have provided many examples .
Now perhaps unfair weight is given to one sides actions, but despite the accusations of “state terrorism” so often levelled at Israel, at no point has the BBC referred to the IDF as such. Therefore, to repeat one side’s accusations of terrorism and not another’s would not be wholly impartial.
Only “perhaps”? To be fair I have never seen the BBC actually accuse Israel of “state terrorism”, but you have come close to it, your prejudice is showing young man!
The BBC is constantly repeating the Arab side’s accusations while brushing Israeli statements under the carpet.
The next time you see the BBC quoting an Israeli source as saying “militant” please google the source in the Israeli media and you will find that the Israeli actually said “terrorist”. The BBC is so dishonest and biased it even deliberately distorts staements and attribtes them as verbatim quotes.
Similarly with accusations of war crimes. Israel too has been accused of war crimes, however to date neither the IDF nor Hezbollah has been found guilty, so again to repeat one accusation and not the other would be siding with Israel.
Yu are either willfully blind, stupid, or you really don’t “get it”.
Whether or not one or other “side” has been tried and found guilty it is fact that the BBC constantly repeats Arab accusations of Israeli war crimes while ignoring the actual facts, even when denounced by HWR and AI, that many, if not most actions of Hezbollah and Hamas are actual War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
You don’t need a friggin’ trial to know that firing unguided missiles at civilian areas where there are no military targets from within protected civilian areas such as schools and hospitals IS A WAR CRIME!
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm
“The BBC is constantly repeating the Arab side’s accusations while brushing Israeli statements under the carpet.”
Key word: repeating accusations. The BBC repeats them as reported speech. “Such and such SAID Israel is a terrorist state”, not “Israel is a terrorist state”. If the BBC refused to print every accusation of terrorism levelled at Israel, its entire Middle East department would be on the dole.
“The BBC is so dishonest and biased it even deliberately distorts staements and attributes them as verbatim quotes”
And I suppose Israeli soldiers and politicians give their interviews to Israeli journalists in the Queen’s English. Ha-Aretz has its translators. The BBC probably has its own translators. Different translations will use different words. Even if a derivation of “טרור” is used, “terrorist” and its rough synonyms probably have entirely different usages and connotations in Hebrew. So it’s not unlikely that translations will differ. Anyone with any knowledge of linguistics or translation studies could tell you that. Besides, all using ‘militant’ instead of ‘terrorist’ does is make the Israelis sound a little more calm and collected.
“You don’t need a friggin’ trial to know that firing unguided missiles at civilian areas where there are no military targets from within protected civilian areas such as schools and hospitals IS A WAR CRIME!”
Not to know it, no. To report it, yes you do need a trial, if you want to maintain a semblance of impartiality.
Now, the complaint here is not that the BBC accuses Israel of terrorism, but that it fails to do so with Hezbollah and Hamas. Whether the BBC uses negative and emotive language with Israel is an entirely different matter, whether Hezbollah actually is a terrorist organisation or a front for the Easter Bunny is irrelevant to the BBC’s bias or lack of. My point is that you are not campaigning for neutrality. As with much of this website, you want an anti-Hezbollah/anti-Hamas/anti-al-Qaeda bias.
Your other question I answered on the thread where you asked it.
P.S. I’ve had a look through this site and haven’t found any incidents where Israel was described in negative terms.
If I’ve missed any or if you’ve got any in your personal collection, could you point me to them? Genuine interest.
“The BBC is constantly repeating the Arab side’s accusations while brushing Israeli statements under the carpet.”
Key word: repeating accusations. The BBC repeats them as reported speech. “Such and such SAID Israel is a terrorist state”, not “Israel is a terrorist state”.
I wasn’t talking about reported speech, I was talking about the BBC as such acting as the terrorists’ mouthpiece by reporting in such a way as to repeat the terrorists’ line.
I’ll repat again, it’s YOu are talking about Israel being a “terrorist state”. I haven’t accused anybody else of saying such a thing apart from you. Your support for those who wish for Israel’s destruction is painfully obvious.
“The BBC is so dishonest and biased it even deliberately distorts staements and attributes them as verbatim quotes”
And I suppose Israeli soldiers and politicians give their interviews to Israeli journalists in the Queen’s English.
I’m reffering to statements made by Israeli spokespersons IN ENGLISH. Without going further afield there’s the example of Tony Blair’s statement following the London tube and bus bombs in which he used the word “terrorist” – the BBC QUOTED HIM (not reported speech) as saying either “militants” or “extremists”. I admit I don’t remember which but the fact is the BBC deliberately changed the PM?s spoken word and misquoted him.
“You don’t need a friggin’ trial to know that firing unguided missiles at civilian areas where there are no military targets from within protected civilian areas such as schools and hospitals IS A WAR CRIME!”
Not to know it, no. To report it, yes you do need a trial, if you want to maintain a semblance of impartiality.
Don’t be so fucking obtuse!
We’re talking about ACCUSATIONS of war crimes being leveled at Israel frequently being reported while accusations of the same leveled at Hamas and Hizbollah are not reported.
As with much of this website, you want an anti-Hezbollah/anti-Hamas/anti-al-Qaeda bias.
Not at all. That’s a classic accusation we hear a lot here.
I for one, and probably most other egular posters here, want balance. Claiming, for example, that Israel is committing crimes against humanity by refusing to supply electricity to Gaza while at the same time not reporting Human Rights Watch’s accusations of war crimes commited by Hamas in Gaza is not balanced and is not impartial – it is selective reporting invariably weighted against Israel.
Your other question I answered on the thread where you asked it.
I can’t find it. Please either give me a link to your comment or simply repeat your answer here – why did the BBC feel obliged to apologise to the “Palestinians” ror correctly stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
P.S. I’ve had a look through this site and haven’t found any incidents where Israel was described in negative terms.
You only need to look at practically any reporting of Israel by the BBC to find that. The purpose of this blog, as far as I can see, is to show imbalance and bias in the BBC’s reporting, not mimic it.
To turn your statement around I haven’t found any reporting by the BBC which shows Israel in positive terms.
There’s plenty of good news from Israel:
http://newsoftheday.com/
Interesting phenomenon on the BBC website. I’d guess around a third of the And Finallys seem to be Israel-based. There was one the other day because… wait for it… it snowed there. This is, I’m guessing, an admirable attempt to humanise a country that is generally seen only in political terms. Now there are also occasional articles along similar “they’re people as well as weapons-platforms” lines for Palestine, but I’ve not counted nearly as many. Maybe Israelis are just zanier and have more novelty value. Just an aside though.
As for the quote-tampering, I’m not sure what incident you mean and I was not aware that it was in English. If it is a case of deliberately altering quotes, this is bad journalistic practice, but not necessarily bias, as as I said all it does is make the speaker seem less passionate about the situation.
“Claiming, for example, that Israel is committing crimes against humanity by refusing to supply electricity to Gaza while at the same time not reporting Human Rights Watch’s accusations of war crimes commited by Hamas in Gaza is not balanced and is not impartial – it is selective reporting invariably weighted against Israel.”
This one is a no-brainer. The Gaza blockade is not a typical war crime, nor are most of the war crimes Israel is accused of. Therefore these accusations are more newsworthy in their abnormality, not to mention that potentially accurate accusations are rarer against Israel than against its enemies. There is no controversy over whether blowing up a bus full of civilians or firing home-made rockets at Israeli townspeople are war crimes. Most people assume this is the case, usually to the point where they don’t bother saying it. If anything, using the phrase “war crimes” in articles on what everyone assumes to be war crimes anyway sounds patronising, melodramatic and just a little stupid. I doubt even the Israelis use the phrase that often. It probably doesn’t even crop up on Fox News.
Now this is not necessarily right. But it’s standard lazy journalism at worst, just plain normal journalism at best. The fact that it is news when Israel allegedly commits war crimes and not when Hamas does says more about Hamas and Israel than about the BBC. But if anything, the fact that the BBC even questions whether Israel is guilty of war crimes while ignoring the rather interesting question of whether attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah constitute war crimes or civilian crimes implies a slight unconscious bias towards Israel.
“Birds have feathers” is a stupid headline. “Dinosaurs may have had feathers” is not. It’s the same with “Hamas commits war crimes” and “Israel commits war crimes”.
Now I have looked at a lot of Israel articles on the BBC couldn’t find one that seemed to have any anti-Israeli implications. Pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah, it could (and regularly is) argued. Selective reporting, possibly. But I am yet to come across a single article where the style is even slightly anti-Israel, and neither, it seems, is B-BBC. Again, if you could point me to a specific case I’d be genuinely interested in seeing it.
You still haven’t answered my question:
Why did the BBC feel obliged to apologise to the “Palestinians” for correctly stating that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?
I did. But I’ll post it here as well for convenience:
Because it is disputed whether East Jerusalem belongs to Israel or to Palestine. Predictably enough, Palestinians say Palestine, Israelis say Israel. Therefore to say Jerusalem, rather than West Jerusalem, is the capital of Israel, is siding with Israel, and therefore not impartial. Now if the BBC had said “Berlin is the capital of the GDR” or “Belfast is a city in Ireland”, you lot would be screaming “Communism!” or “Republicanism!” at the top of your voices if not both with “Islamofascism!” thrown in for good measure. If the BBC is to avoid taking sides, it should have said ‘West Jerusalem’, in the same way as it shouldn’t refer to al-Quds as part of Palestine. The fact that Israel claims Jerusalem as a whole as its capital contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 478, which although non-binding, is a fairly neutral benchmark, your source of http://www.gov.il, though perhaps factually reliable, might have a teensy pro-Israel slant to it.
… UN Security Council Resolution 478, which although non-binding, is a fairly neutral benchmark, your source of http://www.gov.il, though perhaps factually reliable, might have a teensy pro-Israel slant to it.
So you do indeed believe that a sovereign state has no right to decide where its own capital is. According to you Israel should comply with a non-binding resolution from the UN and the genocidal wishes of some of its Arab neighbours.
By the way, if something is factually reliable
My last comment got cut off for some reason.
continued…
By the way, if something is factually reliable it is just that, no slant at all. What is not at all factually reliable are Arab claims to Jerusalem, as stated on the Israeli government web site.
You didn’t answer my other question, perhaps on another thread, which as why Jordan and Egypt didn’t allow the “Palestinians” to create their own state in the West bank and Gaza respectively when those two countries controlled those areas for many years.
One may also ask why Jordan didn’t declare Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine” when it controlled the city.
You also have still not named me one “Palestinian” leader prior to Yassir Arafat, the Egyptian.
You see, there has never been a “Palestinian” state, and if the Arabs continue the way they have followed for the last 60 years there never will be one.
Yahya Hamuda, his predecessor in the PLO. He has no predecessor in the Palestinian National Authority. Pop quizzes are meaningless in the age of Google. Especially when I’m actually doing it ON THE INTERNET.
Why Jordan and Egypt didn’t create a Palestinian state is irrelevant to the BBC.
Whether Jerusalem or West Jerusalem is capital is a matter of opinion, not fact. The Palestinians reckon it’s West Jerusalem, the Israelis reckon it’s Jerusalem comprising East and West. The ‘fact’ of the matter is that Jerusalem is rocks piled on other rocks by a bunch of carbon-based life-forms with short fuses.
Insisting that Israel comply with a non-binding resolution would be ridiculous, however the BBC’s decision to side with the UN rather than Israel is as neutral as could be hoped for.
Now a question for you: Would you demand an apology from the BBC if it named the capital of East Germany as ‘Berlin’?
Would you demand an apology from the BBC if it named the capital of East Germany as ‘Berlin’?
There is no “East Germany”, there is only Germany.
I once knew somebody from East Germany who before unification used to smuggle himself out and go on holiday in Pembrokeshire. While driving through the grey pebbledash suburbs of Haverfordwest his friend explained, “if this is Haverfordwest just think what Haverfordeast is like!”
Yahya Hamuda was never leader of any state called “Palestine” because there has never been a state called “Palestine”.
You didn’t ask me for a leader of the State of Palestine. You asked me for a Palestinian leader. I provided.
Incidentally between 1918 and 1948 there was a territory under British mandate by the name of ‘Palestine’. Of course in Hebrew and Yiddish it was ‘Eretz-Yisroel’, but let’s stick to English.
Now, I know that there is no longer an ‘East Germany’, seeing as I live in Germany and all. However, between 1945 and 1989 there was a place called “East Germany”. I asked you a question about it.
I have read with interest the to and fro, parry and reposte of Bio and Angry Young Alex.
And based on the use of reason, decency and down to earth common sense I hereby declare the winner to be……………drum roll……….Angry Young Alex.
Congratulations Alex.