I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem. However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder. Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students. You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed. No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists. I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal. I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.
THE JERUSALEM “INCIDENT”.
Bookmark the permalink.
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 6:18 pm |
If the Jerusalem Post and many more media share Bowen’s thrust on the symbolic significance of the yeshiva students, why is Bowen alone the one to be condemned?
The Jerusalem Post knows why the Palestinians consider the yeshiva to be legitimate target. The JP does represent the Palestinian point of view. Bowen does. That’s what his job is. He wouldn’t be there if he didn’t agree with them. Before you deny that, let me remind you of the encomiums lavished upon his predecessor during the “Free Alan Johnston” campaign. Remember the “he’s one of you”? Stuff? Johnston was not given the assignment because he was objective, and neither was Bowen.
I know you won’t admit there is any difference between the Jerusalem Post’s reporting on the incident and Bowen’s rallying cry, so I will link to a JP article on the incident and quote the opening section for all to see:
“Rarely have terrorists chosen their target with so much malicious care as in Thursday night’s attack on Jerusalem’s Mercaz Harav Yeshiva.
n striking the flagship institution of the religious Zionist movement, a Jerusalem landmark whose history is linked with the founding and fulfillment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel, the gunman aimed his weapon at the heart of the Zionist enterprise.
If the goal was to outrage the general public and to inflame that particular segment of it most skeptical of the possibility of Israel one day coming to terms with its most immediate Arab neighbors, then the bullets struck home with deadly and accurate force.”
Full article here.
Rational, honest people can decide the difference for themselves. Speaking for myself, I’m not fooled by your argument for one minute.
Your point about code is tosh. Bowen says what he says. There is no wink of the eye or nudge of the ribs, visible or invisible, in what he says.
Ah, so the words he used have no significance? False.
I’m very fond of the Grauniad….but have you seen its sales figures? It is the taste of a minority. As are those charged individuals who rant on HYS (and sites like this).
Are you referring to the minority who seek employment at the BBC and other media by checking the job ads? Or do you expect me to believe that everyone who post comments on Comment Is Free are subscribers? You must really think I’m a naive and gullible United Statesian.
Yes, Bowen refers to grievances. Same as any reporter covering ongoing and rancorous conflict like Israel, Ireland, Sri Lanka and many others down the years. He interprets events. And he does it honestly.
Once again, I must remind you that Bowen did not qualify the statements in question as Palestinian grievances or anything of the sort. He described the yeshiva using significant descriptive terms which have meaning. In fact, you yourself understand that the words he used refer to the grievances of Palestinians and anyone who agrees with them. Bowen doesn’t have to say that because everybody already knows. You denied that earlier as well, but you are wrong.
The reaction in UK was not the same as that described among the yeshiva killer’s family. It was, largely, shock and disbelief.
Disbelief? You just made that up. Shock? I doubt you could get 10 out of 100 people on the street to express shock at this attack.
Here’s a BBC piece about the hunt for one the 21/7 bombers:
The family of suspected would-be bomber Ibrahim Muktar Said have said they were “shocked” to discover he was being hunted over the 21 July London attacks.
In a statement, the family of the 27-year-old said that as soon as they saw his picture on news reports they contacted police.
Superintendent Richard Freeman said the family had been “really, really co-operating” with the investigation.
I bet they were “shocked”. I don’t suppose you would care to consider the difference in mentality, political stance, family cohesion, or anti-Israel feelings between one family and the other? Surely you can’t expect me to believe that this is a reasonable comparison.
“I never said terror tactics were legitimate. I said that the organisations using them are, by some, considered legitimate. To clarify, their political aims are considered legitimate if not the methods used to achieve them. In the case of such controversy, strongly negative language should be avoided for both sides.”
Well that even makes it worse than i tought.
1-So the Hamas and Fatah charters that propose the Israel destruction are legitimate for the BBC?
2-Besides that , so when the aims are legitim, the actions despite being completely homicidical, contrary to any rules of warfare and civilization are not refered by its name?
Anyone can Murder(and BBC will not tell us with an “emotional word”) if it fits BBC world view?
For BBC actions dont matter?
You know things that WE DO that MAKE WHAT WE ARE not what we think or say we are?
For a News organization that supposedely should scrutinize the Government i guess it is enough they just read a Public Relations flyer and that is it. Facts, Actions, Results dont matter. That fits the behavior of BBC. It just doesnt fits of an Organization that says it is there to inform us.
“Not the case. A study in 1988 found 109 different definitions of the word ‘terrorism’, so it is in fact an incredibly vague and uninformative word. The minor extent to which it is factually descriptive is far outweighed by its emotional connotations, which in the interests of impartial tone should be avoided as much as possible. The BBC can actually be more informative by using words such as ‘bomber’ or ‘gunman’, which are not only more neutral but also more specific.”
Au contraire!
Not more specific, it is much less. A Bomber or a Gunman might be making a legitimate attack , gaianst a legitimate target. If a Palestinian combatant is fighting a Israeli soldiers it is combating right or wrong but is legitimate(lets put aside that he isnt probably fighting with uniform and that is a War Crime if he is fighting from a civilian place) as such You and BBC are equaling someone that makes a legitimate fight and someone that isnt making a legitimate fight murdering civilians. Mudding the Waters, rewarding the killing of civilians turning it to same level of a combat between two willing military combat. As such that is a reprensible behavior by the BBC, contrary to the clarity for a supposed news organization. Worse, reverses a slow Historical evolution in Warfare that was more and more protecting civilians.
To add to Bryan’s assessment, the BBC most certainly choses words in ways that delete Jewish history. Consider the term “Arab East Jerusalem”, which comes to imply that Jewish presence there is illegitimate.
The facts of the matter are as follows: When the British took over in 1917, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority. This was mainly East Jerusalem with a few new neighbourhoods outside the walls, but most of West Jerusalem was as yet non-existent. Jews were cleansed from East Jerusalem by Arabs during British rule. This culminated in 1948 with the cleansing of the remainder of Jews from the Old City following the Jordanian occupation. The Jordanian army that took over East Jerusalem was British trained, and the only countries to accept that takeover were Britain and Pakistan. Jerusalem then remained purely Arab for exactly nineteen years, until a renewed Arab offensive on the rest of Israel failed in 1967.
Calling the old city “Arab East Jerusalem” therefore:
1. Justifies ethnic cleansing.
2. Justifies a temporary conquest done by Arabs with British support.
This is BBC “morality”.
Calling the old city “Arab East Jerusalem” therefore:
1. Justifies ethnic cleansing.
2. Justifies a temporary conquest done by Arabs with British support.
Anat (Israel) | 09.03.08 – 4:21 am
It also ignores the significant Armenian population.
It also ignores the significant Armenian population.
deegee | 09.03.08 – 7:24 am |
Quite.
Anat, BBC hacks get confused and angered by inconvenient facts like those. To them, it’s thoughtcrime. They probably don’t even know how the Jordanians “administered” Jerusalem – the destruction of synagogues and the use of gravestones from Jewish cemeteries as paving stones and to build latrines.
Bryan,
Of course they don’t. They go for “narrative”, which is a fancy word for “fiction”.
But what really gets me is that they set themselves as judge and jury, whereas in fact they belong to the British side which has a fair share in the crime.
The Jordanian army of the time was British trained for the specific purpose of taking over Palestine from both the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, and against the UN partition plan on which Britain abstained. Then, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was recognized and accepted by only two countries in the whole world: Britain and Pakistan.
If the BBC is into atoning for British colonial crimes, here is a big one they can start with.
Anat, I’m currently rereading Battleground – Fact and Fantasy in Palestine by Samuel Katz. He explodes myth after myth of the Arab “narrative” and goes into great detail on crimes committed in Palestine against the Jews by the pro-Arab British.
If Al Beeb made some critical comment (most unlikely), about Hamas jihadists receiving training in Iran , its reporter there would be kicked out. So the corporation pursues its immoral line and becomes more enmeshed with the enemy:
“‘Iran is our mother’: Hamas says 150 jihadists currently training in Iran”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020232.php
“Last UK newspaper reporter leaves Iran”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13830
David P:
You have reached a Catch 22 of comment here.
Do Bowen’s words mean what they say?
No, you say, because he’s talking in code.
Does Bowen not find the same significance in the yeshiva as a target as all the other media, the JP included?
Yes, you say. But we know that Bowen is biased and therefore we define his words as hostile spin. Because we know he’s biased. And now that we have shown he’s biased again by reading his words through past assumptions of bias, we have further proof that he’s biased…
Do you really think the ordinary British people watching Bowen on BBC News are sitting there, muttering to themselves that the students had it coming?
Yes, because they’re all Muslims and Guardian readers.
Have you looked at the Guardian’s circulation figures?
Yes, but the rest of the BBC audience are cheap chisellers who won’t pay for the paper, but plug in to Comment is Free.
What? All of them?
Simon:
You misunderstood my argument. I was not suggesting that use of the word for the London bombings etc. was a mistake. I suggested that the bombings themselves were an isolated incident and, unlike attacks in Israel or Iraq, not part of a wider political and paramilitary campaign in which the BBC is right not to take sides.
Have another read of my post.
Lucklucky:
“So the Hamas and Fatah charters that propose the Israel destruction are legitimate for the BBC?”
No. They are legitimate for some sections of the pro-Palestine movement. The BBC, quite rightly, declines to side with or against this view.
“2-Besides that , so when the aims are legitim, the actions despite being completely homicidical, contrary to any rules of warfare and civilization are not refered by its name?”
It has lots of names. Attack, assault, bombing, shooting, strike, campaign etc., all of which the BBC uses. And as I said before, the aims do not necessarily have to be legitimate, just believed to be legitimate.
“Anyone can Murder(and BBC will not tell us with an “emotional word”) if it fits BBC world view? For BBC actions dont matter?”
No, for the BBC its reporters’ own opinions and emotional reactions do not matter. Therefore they should not be expressed.
“You know things that WE DO that MAKE WHAT WE ARE not what we think or say we are?”
Not sure of your point here.
“For a News organization that supposedely should scrutinize the Government i guess it is enough they just read a Public Relations flyer and that is it. Facts, Actions, Results dont matter.”
You’re digressing. The BBC reports facts, actions and results. It simply declines to editorialise by condemning or condoning them.
“That fits the behavior of BBC. It just doesnt fits of an Organization that says it is there to inform us.”
Actually you seem to be complaining that the BBC doesn’t pass judgement, rather than that it doesn’t inform us.
“Au contraire!
Not more specific, it is much less. A Bomber or a Gunman might be making a legitimate attack , gaianst a legitimate target.”
The BBC has no right to decide what is or is not a legitimate attack or a legitimate target. Therefore the kind of specificity the t-word gives, i.e. the speaker’s own moral judgement, is not appropriate.
“Mudding the Waters, rewarding the killing of civilians turning it to same level of a combat between two willing military combat.”
‘Rewarding’? The BBC does not reward or punish anything. It withholds its own judgement. Would you prefer that the BBC editorialise on every conflict and decide who deserves to win?
“As such that is a reprensible behavior by the BBC, contrary to the clarity for a supposed news organization. Worse, reverses a slow Historical evolution in Warfare that was more and more protecting civilians.”
This is a rather hysterical reading of reluctance to use one word.
AYA
The BBC has no right to decide what is or is not a legitimate attack or a legitimate target.
You see the Beeb do implicitly decide what is legitimate and what is not. This is why the only report you’ll get about War Crimes is aimed at Israel because an air raid killed some Palestinian civilians (which is awful, tragic and horrible for the innocent victims) but won’t be levelled at the Hamas terrorists for deliberately embedding themselves in civilian populations. They know that any of their own innocent civilians killed will always be seen as Israel’s fault.
It’s so easy to set the agenda as a reporter by simply choosing to quote some Palestinian sympathiser who can always be found to accuse Israel of war crimes.
So I know your point is that the BBC is somehow ‘impartial’ but:
1. It can’t be – as I think we’ve agreed-ish on.
2. There are areas where it clearly isn’t – MMGW, multiculturalism, the evil of the BNP, gay rights, etc.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is that you, me and almost everyone who contributes to this site are on the same side in the sense we all want to play roughly the same game.
You know, the one about freedom of the individual, free expression, the rule of law, democracy, freedom of religion, equal rights for women and so on and we’d all be quite happy for everyone in the world to try and find happiness in whatever way they feel fit.
We may disagree about exactly how much the state should intervene and on various bits of military intervention abroad but we basically agree that it should be up to an elected parliament with a press free to rip it to pieces as they wish.
But there are some people in the world who don’t want to play this game at all. They really don’t want happiness for all. They want Islam for all, the destruction of Israel, subjugation of women and the murder of all the Jews.
Now, to be honest I really don’t the BBC should be impartial about this.
Your view is kind of:
– the BBC should be impartial and on the whole manages it
My view is that it’s impossible to be impartial (because of world views, blah) but at a minimum the BBC should essentially support those who play our game over right-wing, Islamist, homophobic racists. Becaue their aims are, not to put too fine a point on it, immoral, wrong and frankly against all the decent and civilised things the BBC should stand for. I mean, don’t you think?
Reprise to 2007:
“BBC Employing Hamas Members?”
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/06/bbc-employing-hamas-members.html
AYA
By the way, I’d commend you to read the Euston Manifesto:
http://eustonmanifesto.org/?page_id=132
It’s by proper left-wingers (who believe in Trade Unions and everything).
This is pretty much where I’m coming from.
“Becaue their aims are, not to put too fine a point on it, immoral, wrong and frankly against all the decent and civilised things the BBC should stand for. I mean, don’t you think?”
I agree on those principles, yes. But what I think is irrelevant. I would not object if the BBC did take a stance against oppressive religious and nationalist fanaticism. But this is difficult ground. Being too forthcoming against the Taliban could prejudice the debate on the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan. Attacking the BNP could affect the immigration debate.
And where to draw the line? George Bush has some fairly wacky ideas on God and the gays, likewise Ariel Sharon had somewhat jingoistic tendencies at times. Would the BBC be right to draw an arbitrary line above or below those two?
Some would say great, the BBC should get behind our troops, or stick up for long-suffering immigrants, or sock it to the chimp in the White House, or stand up for Palestinian human rights. But generally it’s a lot safer to do none of these things and stand up only for impartial reporting.
Yes there are exceptions, usually pragmatic ones. Nobody will write in and say “You know you’re giving the Madrid bombers rather a bad rap, this reflects unfairly on the commuter-bombing community” and, well, convincing the BNP that any source is about as easy as convincing them of peace, love and racial harmony.
But I can’t see what any report loses through omission of the word ‘terrorism’, especially if it is about one or more indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in order to intimidate the government and population. What it gains is a slightly calmer, slightly more neutral and therefore slightly more credible tone.
‘The American Thinker’:-
“Deconstructing the Anti-Israel Bias: The Jerusalem Yeshiva Massacre”
(-this article ends with paraody illustrating such bias if applied to 9/11), by Gary Wolf –
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/deconstructing_antiisrael_bias.html
“Gary Wolf is the author of futuristic novels that portray worlds in which multiculturalism and political correctness have run amok.”
Haha! Brilliant! Like a racist Garth Marenghie!
Angry Young Alex–
” I suggested that the (London) bombings themselves were an isolated incident and, unlike attacks in Israel or Iraq, not part of a wider political and paramilitary campaign in which the BBC is right not to take sides.”
So it’s right for the BBC to take sides in the “isolated” cases where British civilians are targeted and murdered deliberately, for political purposes, such as in Glasgow, Picadilly Circus, and in the subways on 7/7, and refer to the attacks as acts of “terror”, but it’s not right for the BBC to take sides in an “ongoing struggle” where Jewish civilians are targeted and murdered deliberately, for political purposes, in prayer halls, at pizza parlours, grocery stores, bus stops and discos?
I don’t understand your rationale in the least. If it’s that the acts of terror in Israel are part of a political agenda and the ones in Britain are not, just listen to what Ayman Al Zawahiri had to say about the 7/7 bombings in London ( http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081F5547-A5A6-429B-A53D-080568E5
2A5A.htm )
in which he ” claimed responsibility for London’s July attacks saying that the
British policy in Iraq and Palestine, and its hostility to Islam, justified what happened in London.”
And this, from Wikipedia:
“Al-Zawahiri described the 7/7 attacks as “a slap to the policy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair” and called the attacks a response to the UK’s foreign policy “just as 9/11 was a response to America’s”.
It seems 7/7 wasn’t an isolated incident, but part of an ongoing political struggle against British foreign policy. The only reason there haven’t been more such attacks is likely more due to the success of British intelligence services in keeping them at bay, than to any lack of resolve to commit them.
So again, I ask, isn’t it biased to “take sides” when the victims are British, but not when the victims are Israeli?
And by “take sides” I simply mean “use the word ‘terror’ in headlines and articles to charaterize attacks in which civilians are deliberately targeted and murdered for political purposes”.
Angry Young Alex–
Gary Wolf’s re-imagining of a news report on the events of 9-11, as filtered through the kind of overly-politically correct language used to characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in much of the mainstream western media, is pretty much spot on. I’m not sure what your problem is with it.
Right after Hamas won the election two years back, Jeremy Bowen wrote that Hamas’ charter commits Hamas to the destruction of the Jewish state, but that dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.
Seems like Jeremy Bowen is comfortable as a mouthpiece for terrorists. He also seems to have inside info on what they are planning.
I quite agreee with NovelPhenomena (3:00 pm) that, ….but at a minimum the BBC should essentially support those who play our game over right-wing, Islamist, homophobic racists.
But here we have Bowen, whose allegiance is clearly to the other side:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4065871030052814592/#388804
So, Young Alex, you may equivocate and deconstruct and reconstruct and pick concepts apart and try to put them back together again and tie yourself up in morally equivalent knots but sometimes things just are what they seem.
“So it’s right for the BBC to take sides in the “isolated” cases where British civilians are targeted and murdered deliberately, for political purposes, such as in Glasgow, Picadilly Circus, and in the subways on 7/7, and refer to the attacks as acts of “terror”
In this case, there is no ongoing debate as to whether the London bombers’ aims were reasonable and their methods justified.
but it’s not right for the BBC to take sides in an “ongoing struggle” where Jewish civilians are targeted and murdered deliberately, for political purposes, in prayer halls, at pizza parlours, grocery stores, bus stops and discos?”
In this case, there are plenty of people who do believe Hamas and/or Fateh are making legitimate claims and some who would defend their methods. There is an ongoing debate that the BBC would risk prejudicing were it to denigrate one side unnecessarily.
I think the BBC should avoid taking sides wherever possible, including in regard to 7/7. But I can’t quite bring myself to be upset that has sided against the London bombers.
“Hamas’ charter commits Hamas to the destruction of the Jewish state, but that dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.”
“Seems like Jeremy Bowen is comfortable as a mouthpiece for terrorists.”
Unless you are a manic anti-Semite I can’t for the life of me see how this is praise for Hamas.
Everyone knows Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel, everyone knows they’re not about to give it up, especially not after getting elected on that very promise. Everyone knows it, everyone says it. But when a “Beeboid” states the bleeding obvious, he’s somehow heaping praise upon them.
“He also seems to have inside info on what they are planning.”
Yes. There is absolutely no other way you could guess that Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel except to be in the personal confidence of the party top brass. They’re usually quite secretive about this sort of thing.
Seriously though, you’re grasping at straws here. You know Jeremy Bowen also faked the moon landings?
Have another look at the comment I linked to Alex. And have another look at this phrase: …dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions. I mean, actually have a close look at it.
Now I believe it was yesterday that you were insisting that the BBC didn’t need to tell us that Jews had a long history in Gaza because everyone and his dog knows it, or words to that effect. So why do you think Bowen is telling us the obvious here?
You can’t have this one both ways young one.
As for “grasping at straws,” I’m not drowning.
Angry Young Alex:
” I think the BBC should avoid taking sides wherever possible, including in regard to 7/7. But I can’t quite bring myself to be upset that has sided against the London bombers.”
So you WOULD be upset if it sided against the folks who blew up the Passover Seder, killing 30, in Netanya. Hmm.
Hillhunt | 08.03.08 – 7:36 pm
“The only bad stuff I hear about Jews is from the obvious sources – the nasty end of Islam, and the messianic end of the British far right. I hear far more general abuse about Muslims, from a wide spectrum of Brits and not just the pragmatic end of the British far right.
It’s a shame this forum is inadequate for proper debate. I find it surprising that you feel the need to stay buttoned of lip and would like to know more. ”
Hillhunt,
You’re here to defend the BBC not to allow the notion that it is biased or ill-informed to enter your head.
I actually do believe that the general British public may very well be watching the news and muttering that the Jerusalem students had it coming. Not because that public consisted of Muslims or Guardian readers, but because they have, over many years, been subjected to the slanted view of Israel that has been presented to them by the BBC.
Over the years this type of reporting has influenced and informed the majority and turned me into a minority. In our society, I am the whistleblower nobody will listen to. If I speak my mind I expect not only to be disbelieved, but disliked and accused of Islamophobia and heartlessness and of defending the indefensible.
Jeremy Bowen’s take on the situation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict which he sees as two people fighting over the same piece of land.
I do not see Israelis and Palestinians as enemies who view each other with equal hatred. The profound loathing that Islam has for Jews and Israel is at the very heart, both of their culture and the conflict. There is no parallel on the other side. What you call the nasty end of Islam is not something to be brushed aside. It’s not just a little marginal irritation.
This hatred is behind their desire to destroy Israel and is much more important to them than creating a separate state for the Palestinians, and to this end they have done everything they can to disrupt the peace process.
I do not believe that Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbolla are in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the Palestinian people. I am not persuaded by relentless displays of Palestinian victimhood that Israel is responsible for causing all their woes, and I believe the fault lies entirely with their own leadership.
Do you believe teaching hatred of the Jews to children, via the Hamas Bunny, bears any resemblance to what Israelis teach their children?
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1679wmv&ak=null
and for more, click on Palestinian media watch .
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.html
Most of you are aware of the ‘nasty end’ of Islam. But you feel safe enough because so far the finger is not pointing directly at you. Your instinct is to minimise the potential threat to us all by dismissing it as a minor irritation, nothing to get steamed up about. You are presented with evidence after evidence yet still choose to believe ‘it will never happen.’
It is a natural instinct to join the winning team and easy enough to distance yourself from ‘the Jews’ who might not be ‘quite like us.’ We’ll think about lobbies, cabals, conspiracies, stereotypes, Shylock, Fagin. Israel.
Palestinians, on the other hand, are presented to us as – the dispossessed, angel children and weeping women, arms permanently outstretched in despair, interspersed with a few hooded freedom fighters whose only wish is for a state of their own.
I’m told that in Britain today Jewish schools and synagogues have to have guards. The Jewish population here is small, only about 250,000. Would you sit back and see them all hounded out, to appease Islam?
We are all aware of the increasing influence of Islam in this country, and we have a government that seems willing to accommodate many of its demands. There are already people who say it is time for Jews to leave. My grandparents fled from pogroms in eastern Europe in the 1890s. If any of their family that remained were not destroyed at that time, they certainly would have been in the era of Hitler.
I was brought up outside any Jewish community and am not religious. But antisemitism is something that cuts me to the quick. It is a slur on my parents and theirs. My father was a scholar, a doctor, a gentle and sensitive man who did a great deal of good. At school in this country they called him Jew-boy. As an adult he felt the need to anglicise his name in order to be accepted.
I see numerous examples of an endemic low level antisemitic attitude, particularly prevalent in those that have never encountered a Jew. I fear they have the capacity to move up a level if fed with the right incendiary material. That is where the media has a role.
I have had many arguments about the Israel question and have lost friends over it. They believe passion, or compassion, alone, somehow bestows upon them the authority to pass judgment over what they know so little about. And they, especially the well educated, are unbelievably ignorant of the history of Israel and the Jewish people.
That’s why I have to keep my trap shut.
A long time ago I spent time on a kibbutz in Israel, I was young and had no political awareness or interest in history. I was surprised that people I met didn’t think much of the country I came from. They remembered the way the British had behaved during the mandate. I have since taken an interest in the conflict in the Middle East, and have an acute awareness of the injustice that has been done by the vilification of the Jewish state by the BBC and elements of the British press.
For some of us it does feel like the 1930s all over again.
“So you WOULD be upset if it sided against the folks who blew up the Passover Seder, killing 30, in Netanya. Hmm.”
I would be upset if it sided. Full stop.
dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.
I mean, actually have a close look at it.
What am I looking for. Yes, it’s vaguely worded but it’s obviously nothing more than standard political speculation. If the BBC said it was not conceivable for UKIP to drop opposition to the European Union you wouldn’t bat an eyelid.
“Now I believe it was yesterday that you were insisting that the BBC didn’t need to tell us that Jews had a long history in Gaza because everyone and his dog knows it, or words to that effect. So why do you think Bowen is telling us the obvious here?”
A lot more people know that the Israelites lived in Gaza for a bit than know the contents of the Hamas charter. For those that watch Hamas’ progress, it is fairly obvious and indisputable. For those that look at the BBC website to find out what this mysterious new party who just came to power are all about, this is exactly the kind of information they are after, and it hardly benefits Hamas’ agenda for them to get it. The one is a widely known fact. The other is less widely known, but still indisputable.
Now would you have preferred Bowen to say nothing on the subject?
Hillhunt | 09.03.08 – 12:31 pm |
You’re just playing games now.
The JP and other media sources who mention the probable (now admitted) reasons for the yeshiva being a target obviously say that this is Palestinian opinion, and/or call the murderer a terrorist, condemn the acts, etc. You cannot pretend it’s all the same. Bowen’s words do mean what he says. Notice with Bowen there’s no “that’s probably why” or “the Palestinians say”, or “Hamas has said”, or “according to” anybody. If someone is speaking in code, and knows what code words he is using, then he absolutely does mean what he says. You’re searching for a way to deny everything, but it won’t work.
I don’t think every British citizen is sitting there nodding there heads at Bowen’s words, thinking, “Yep, turnabout is fair play,” or whatever, as you suggest. Many do. Many people in the world think that. But by inflating that to “all”, you think you can dismiss the point. Your standard argument tactic of placing extreme definitions on everything isn’t going to work here. That’s not what I’m saying, and I won’t allow you to distract from discussing the point by inflating everything I say into hyperbolic silliness.
The same goes for this little bit of smoke:
Have you looked at the Guardian’s circulation figures?
Yes, but the rest of the BBC audience are cheap chisellers who won’t pay for the paper, but plug in to Comment is Free.
What? All of them?”
More false, hyperbolic representation, and a slick way to avoid real discussion.
You know this isn’t what I mean, yet you use this tactic as a dodge. You do it in discussions with others here as well.
I won’t fall for it.
But let me ask you a question which goes to the heart of the matter:
If nobody here had raised the issue of “justification” at all, would you – on your own, in your own mind – have understood just from Bowen’s words and no other report, that this particular yeshiva was a legitimate target for a Palestinian attack because it’s involved in the settler movement, but especially because of the military connection? Before you answer, understand that I am in no way implying that you condone the attack. And may I remind you that it is clear from the report that these were not ordinary citizens, and I’m not asking if you think that ordinary citizens are legitimate targets.
David P:
If nobody here had raised the issue of “justification” at all, would you – on your own, in your own mind – have understood just from Bowen’s words and no other report, that this particular yeshiva was a legitimate target for a Palestinian attack
In all honesty, no. You’d have to be an idiot – and a cruel one at that – to imagine unarmed teenage students were legitimate targets. It is inconceivable that an audience in the UK would see it any other way, either. If that is the case, to whom would Bowen address the nudges and winks that you maintain, in the face of all reason, he is transmitting?
Hillhunt | 10.03.08 – 6:01 pm |
Then why mention all those details about the location and nature of the yeshiva? Why is Bowen using those descriptive terms at all?
It is very conceivable. We’re going to have to agree on each other’s blindness as this is going nowhere.
Jeremy Bowen’s take on the situation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict which he sees as two people fighting over the same piece of land.
Sue | 10.03.08 – 12:45 pm
I noticed that as well. In one sentence he eliminates militant Islam; panarabism; past and present super power politics; the local interests of individual states; European guilt over the Jews and colonialism; oil and geography as factors in the ongoing dispute. Talk about oversimplifying.
“In one sentence he eliminates militant Islam; panarabism; past and present super power politics; the local interests of individual states; European guilt over the Jews and colonialism; oil and geography as factors in the ongoing dispute.”
I don’t think any of those things explain why that particular Yeshiva was targeted.
Sue:
You’re here to defend the BBC not to allow the notion that it is biased or ill-informed to enter your head.
It would be mad to argue that the BBC is always perfectly well-informed or that it didn’t make mistakes on important stories. The irony is that these threads ignore most of what the BBC does get wrong because devotees are banging on about a handful of pet subjects • Islam, Israel, Global Warming…
I completely understand how your personal experiences now and in your family’s past, affect your views and make you especially sensitive to this.
On the other hand, I haven’t heard the word Jew-boy in many years. It’s the racial slur of an older generation, people now mostly dead or dying. The number of recent times I’ve heard any other epithets aimed at Jews is tiny.
Yet I hear my fellow Brits insult Muslims almost every day, usually behind their backs – f*cking paki, raghead, bomber and so on. I heard it in the gym on saturday; from a taxi-driver a day or two before. This was always around, but has got much worse since 9/11 and 7/7. It is a classic objective of terrorism to divide communities by making the majority despise the minority – the more alienated its potential supporters feel, the more it can recruit.
I don’t dispute that the Palestinian cause evokes sympathy here. But the very fear which 9/11, Madrid and 7/7 have provoked in the Western world counteracts any tendency to identify with those who adopt the trappings of Islamic terrorism. Militant Islam can market its grieving women all it likes • and people cannot help but empathise with a bereft mother • but who, seriously, is buying into an Islamic world solution in the West? It took us hundreds of years to shake off the nastiness of Papal domination and the narrow Christian sects which followed Rome’s retreat. Why welcome another lot of religious domination?
You confuse journalistic willingness to explain Palestinian feelings and political rhetoric with a desire for an Islamic outcome. They’re miles apart.
Consider this: The BNP has regularly been shown to be underpinned by the profound anti-semitism which its neo-Nazi predecessors openly displayed • Griffin caught out talking dirty about Jews with the KKK; its youth leader secretly filmed telling Channel 4 he would rather his kids be brought up in 1930s’ Nuremburg than modern Britain. The BNP are nothing if not political opportunists. Yet they’ve dropped all hints of Jew-hating from their public identity (they’ve also dropped a lot of their anti-Afro-Caribbean stuff as well). The reason? Hatred of Islam and the desire to banish Muslims from British life resonate with their potential audience. In other words, hitting on Jewish people doesn’t sell, so they won’t market it, (though it runs through their veins like poison).
So if anti-semitism is not selling to the punters, who is the target for all Bowen’s coded nods and winks? Who is sitting at home on their sofas cheering on the slaughter of unarmed students? Who is demanding that British Jews are hounded out; and where has anyone sensible suggested their willingness to see this happen?
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 10.03.08 – 1:56 pm,
Your justification for your stance rings hollow. If you are going to use the “its obvious and everyone knows it” excuse for Johnston not mentioning the long historical presence of Jews in Gaza (which is no excuse at all) then when the house of cards you built falls down, you should be big enough to admit that you had no valid argument in the first place. Johnston didn’t mention the Jews because he is a propagandist for his Islamic masters. Get over it.
Here’s Bowen again:
The founding charter of Hamas declares that the whole of Palestine is Islamic land – that includes the territory that now comprises Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
It commits Hamas to the destruction of the Jewish state. That commitment was not mentioned in the Hamas manifesto for the elections but it will stay.
Dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.
Is it becoming any clearer? I’ll give you a clue: There are no quotation marks.
I guess I should provide the link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652510.stm
I don’t think any of those things explain why that particular Yeshiva was targeted.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 10.03.08 – 11:06 pm
Jeremy Bowen was making a general statement which is why the piece was titled The Middle East’s asymmetric war and specifically refers to the killings as being only the latest example. However …
Hamas is a militant Islamist group which among other things supports jihad against the West; genocide against any Jews who don’t accept the 2nd class dhimmi status that Islam allows and return to Islamic control of any land that was once under Islamic control.
Fatah is a panarabist party which for secular reasons sees power as resting only in Arab hands (which most Arabs see as being by definition Muslim hands).
Either one of these is a good over-all reason for targeting the Yeshiva. Personally I believe the reason is much simpler. The Yeshiva was a soft target and the killer may have had personal contact giving him knowledge of the lax security and building layout. The ideological connection to the settler movement may have been merely a secondary consideration.
Why do Palestinians target buses, restaurants and discos? Because they can.
Deegee: These factors might explain why a Yeshiva was targeted, but not this one in particular. Either the BBC gives some detail about the target, which almost certainly was chosen for a specific reason, or it deceptively gives the impression that this was a wholly random act of violence.
Bryan: [deep breath]
“Your justification for your stance rings hollow. If you are going to use the “its obvious and everyone knows it” excuse for Johnston not mentioning the long historical presence of Jews in Gaza (which is no excuse at all) then when the house of cards you built falls down, you should be big enough to admit that you had no valid argument in the first place.”
The one is obvious to everyone who knows a bit about the Old Testament. The other only obvious to people who already know a bit about Hamas. There are a lot more of the first than there are of the second.
I’ve explained this before. You clearly didn’t read it. “Jews in once lived in Middle East shocker” is not newsworthy. This is especially true in an article on all the people you never knew lived in Gaza. Hamas’ charter and the likelihood of compromise is rather newsworthy, especially in an article about their recent election.
On top of this, I did not say that the obviousness of Bowen’s comment justified it. I simply claimed that as it is a widely-known truth, pointing it out has little to no political significance. Particularly when it is very, very relevant to the story.
“Johnston didn’t mention the Jews because he is a propagandist for his Islamic masters. Get over it.”
Plausible explanations please. Do you have any evidence that Johnston is in the pay of radical Islam?
“The founding charter of Hamas declares that the whole of Palestine is Islamic land – that includes the territory that now comprises Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. It commits Hamas to the destruction of the Jewish state. That commitment was not mentioned in the Hamas manifesto for the elections but it will stay. Dropping it is not conceivable under current conditions.”
“Is it becoming any clearer? I’ll give you a clue: There are no quotation marks.”
Sorry, I don’t see the relevance of quotation marks. A lot of writers speculate as to the party’s future. So you’ll have to spoon-feed me your crackpot conspiracy theory. All I’m seeing is bog-standard political speculation.
Apologies, Deegee, I missed this bit.
“Personally I believe the reason is much simpler. The Yeshiva was a soft target and the killer may have had personal contact giving him knowledge of the lax security and building layout.”
This is a plausible explanation, but no more and no less than any other. And the fact remains that, if you’re the sort of person who is inclined to shoot up innocent Yeshiva students, this is a particularly valuable Yeshiva.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 11.03.08 – 12:45 am
The one is obvious to everyone who knows a bit about the Old Testament.
Who is talking about the Old Testament? Are you one of the millions who has been indoctrinated in the belief that the Jews’ only claim to the Holy Land is a biblical one? If so, you are a typical product of Johnston-type propaganda. Jews have always lived in this land, from biblical times till the present, though the population was seriously decimated for long periods of time. The link to the land, though tenuous, is unbroken. Johnston deliberately avoided any mention of it.
It’s time you stopped digging your hole on this issue, Alex. You came up with the absurd argument that Johnston didn’t need to mention Jews in Gaza because it’s “obvious”. Now you’ve revealed that it’s anything but obvious to you. Believe me, it’s also anything but obvious to countless others. The BBC and crew have done their insidious work very well indeed. If you want to understand Johnston’s bias by omission, read this:
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/gaza2.txt
And this:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2005/11/unto-river-of-egypt.html
“I have to go, I’m having breakfast with the prime minister,” Johnston gushed as he cut short his interview with the World Service shortly after being freed from his kidnappers. And no, he wasn’t talking about Ehud Olmert but, need I mention it, chief Hamas terrorist Ismael Haniyeh. That little bit had been edited out the next time they played a recording of the interview. I guess that even the BBC realised it was a little too revealing of how it cuddles up to Islamists and legitimises terror.
Hillhunt, I take some of your points yet there are some that to me don’t add up.
There maybe some truth in your first point that outright Jew insults are a thing of the past, though it doesn’t deal with attacks on synagogues or desecration of Jewish cemeteries, but your later point that though the BNP has ostensibly modified its antisemitic principles, but still has them coursing through its veins, begs the question, is the former simply a matter of modification to suit political correctness? Or is the latter now a thing of the past, having genuinely moved on from Jew-boy to Paki as it were?
You may not have heard outright name calling, although it seems even that is rearing its head again, but you have heard all about lobbies, cabals, and the ‘innocent until proved guilty’ protests that criticising Israel is nothing to do with feelings about Jews.
People do now insult Muslims openly, I agree. In the old days it was shocking to hear shouts of Paki, rag’ead, coon. Because they did that out of fear of ‘other.’ Maybe of losing something, job, familiar way of life, value of their house, etc. Very similar to the Jew-boy days. But the majority adapted, and immigration gradually became viewed as a positive thing, because it led to integration.
But something has happened to undermine that. The influx of a huge number of people who have overwhelmed us with their apparent unwillingness to adapt and their inflexible demands to which our governments seem to be bending over backwards to appease. Islam is a way of life we are told, and the alienation issue works both ways. It alienates us from them, them from us, be it a divisive tactic that helps recruit terrorists or not. At any rate, that explanation, if valid, is not the end of the matter. What are they recruiting terrorists for? A harmless bit of self destruction on the other side of the World? That’s O.K. then.
Why welcome another lot of religious domination? Why indeed. Probably to reverse the tide of lawlessness, greed, materialism, binge drinking, crime, blah blah blah.
Journalistic willingness to explain Palestinian feelings should be matched with a willingness to explain Israeli feelings with equal emphasis. I refer back to Jeremy Bowen and his unfortunate habit of reporting the possible reason for the murder of Israeli students.
If Bowen told us that a child was killed by an Israeli air strike and mentioned that “some say it was because the child was next to the militant target.” It would imply that Israelis did not deliberately intend to kill the child. It might even make the child’s death look inevitable.
But he doesn’t do that. He only does it when his team loses.
Bowen says “My team lost, people think because of a dodgy decision by the ref.” the explanation is mentioned every time he gives the result so we get the impression that it was a disappointing, unfair result. No matter which team we support. You may say, well. it happened, are you saying that he shouldn’t report something that happened? I may say, — not every time, not selectively, when it suits you.
Who is “demanding” that British Jews be hounded out? I’m afraid the way you phrase that has its own message. Ridicule it by making it extreme. The audience, groomed by Mr Bowen is receptive, and I am in a very small minority. This discussion is taking up nearly as much space as the furious philosophical foetus above, so I’ll sign off.
Sue:
I appreciate the thought and honesty in your answers.
Don’t despair.
.
Who is talking about the Old Testament? Are you one of the millions who has been indoctrinated in the belief that the Jews’ only claim to the Holy Land is a biblical one? If so, you are a typical product of Johnston-type propaganda.
Bollocks. The reason I mentioned the Old Testament is because that is how the vast majority of people know that Jews used to live there. Yes, there is archaeological evidence and so on, but generally, most people’s knowledge works.
Jews have always lived in this land, from biblical times till the present, though the population was seriously decimated for long periods of time. The link to the land, though tenuous, is unbroken. Johnston deliberately avoided any mention of it.
That’s how articles about all the people you never knew lived in Gaza work. You omit the people that most readers know lived in Gaza.
It’s time you stopped digging your hole on this issue, Alex. You came up with the absurd argument that Johnston didn’t need to mention Jews in Gaza because it’s “obvious”. Now you’ve revealed that it’s anything but obvious to you.
You’ve lost me. How have I revealed that?
Now I’ve explained why, as well as both being obvious, there are other factors at work which you have conveniently ignored twice now. But carry on hammering your tenuous point if it makes you happy.
Believe me, it’s also anything but obvious to countless others. The BBC and crew have done their insidious work very well indeed. If you want to understand Johnston’s bias by omission, read this: And this:
Maybe later. I do have other things to do and this is getting wildly off the point.
“I have to go, I’m having breakfast with the prime minister,” Johnston gushed as he cut short his interview with the World Service shortly after being freed from his kidnappers. And no, he wasn’t talking about Ehud Olmert but, need I mention it, chief Hamas terrorist Ismael Haniyeh.
Is Ismael Haniyeh not PM then? And was Johnston lying about having breakfast with him? What’s your point? Where’s the bias in that snippet of recording?
That little bit had been edited out the next time they played a recording of the interview. I guess that even the BBC realised it was a little too revealing of how it cuddles up to Islamists and legitimises terror.
So now you’re complaining that the BBC edited out the bit that it thought too pro-Hamas. Make your mind up.
Angry Young Alex,
Your retorts to these complaints are not in the least bit convincing. Full stop.
…and that’s putting it in the most polite possible fashion.
“Your retorts to these complaints are not in the least bit convincing. Full stop.”
Congratulations. You are now OFFICIALLY the winner. Bryan comes a close second.
Now what would you like for your prize?
Bryan and Simon.
Why do you keep picking him up?
Leave him in the pram.
I’ll be grateful if Hillhunt or AYA will explain this, please:
BBC Fabricates Home Demolition Report
If it’s true and anything other than the work of a complete schmuckwit, then there’s no justifying it.
Of course it’s true!
Follow the link, watch the video.
The “schmuckwit” has a name, he works for the BBC but obviously gets his information from dubious sources, and propagates it without checking – of course just like you he wouldn’t trust Israeli sources so he parrots Hamas propaganda and ends up looking like one of them, ie: a lying Jew hater.
Here’s more on the murderer of eight young students – scroll down to the photo of him in uniform.
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/03/12/galilee-freedom-batallions-and-the-1974-plo-phased-plan/
Now assuming this is deliberate fabrication or the product of knowingly following dubious leads, how does Nick Miles being a liar make Alan Johnston’s and Jeremy Bowen’s reporting biased?
Don’t change the subject and stop trying to avoid the issue Alex, and please explain why you go to such absurd lengths to defend and justify such dishonesty.
Nick Miles has merely added his name to the long list of BBC reporters whose bias is notorious and noted not only by this blog, along with Bowen, Johnston, Guerin, Plett et.al.
Anti-Israel bias is deep rooted in BBC mid-east reporters, this is just the latest and one of the most egregious examples.
The BBC showed a video of a burning house being bulldozed and falsely claimed it was the house of the family of the terrorist who murdered eight students in Jerusalem.
It wasn’t an accident or an error, and more than one person was involved in its production, editing and broadcasting. It’s a clear fabrication and the motive for inventing such a lie is clear anti-Israel bias.
Things like this do not happen in a vacuum.