Good to see the BBC’s Midde-East disinformation service exposed and watching the Beeboids forced into issuing apologies for the poor standard of reporting.
You recall all that hysteria the BBC spouted on March 7, following the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva massacre? The BBC showed a bulldozer demolishing a house, while correspondent Nick Miles told viewers: “Hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his family home” Just one problem. That’s right – the house was not demolished. Other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son’s actions.
Just over a week later in a news item entitled “Israel jets strike northern Gaza” the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in an operation targeting Qassam rocket launch sites in Gaza, and claiming that the United Nations secretary-general had described it as an attack on civilians. Following a complaint the BBC squirmed “We accept we should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the ‘excessive use of force’ by Israel. We have amended the report, also removing the reference to Israeli ‘attacks on civilians.”
Just what is it that makes BBC reporters see the imaginary demolition of houses? Just what is it that makes the BBC fail to report condemnation of Palestinian terrorists? The answer appears to be an endemic desire to want to believe the worst about Israel and simultaneously portray the Palestinians as doe-eyed innocents. This is BIAS incarnate and in these two instances, the BBC has been forced into providing the balance and accuracy that was lamentably lacking.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/106372/diff/0/1
For reference I found the revisionista.
I’ve been saying for some time that the BBC has a predisposition to believe the worst of Israel and to see, and project, the Arabs as the eternal victims.
I complained a month ago about the BBC reporting on Iran’s complaint to the UN that Israel had threatened it, while ignoring Iran’s threats to Israel.
See here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6446857346219047276/#390981
“Just what is it that makes BBC reporters see the imaginary demolition of houses?”
That isn’t quite what happened. A house clearly was demolished, the BBC simply lied about which one. This is not an imaginary demolition by any standards. You’ve hit gold here Fury. Try and keep it credible by not exaggerating.
“Just what is it that makes the BBC fail to report condemnation of Palestinian terrorists?”
It does, however, mention as early as Version 0 that:
“An Israeli army spokesman said the air strikes were a response to the firing of 12 rockets from Gaza into southern Israel.”
“‘The Israeli air force raid targeted a rocket launcher that was ready to fire in the Beit Hanoun area in the northern Gaza Strip,’ he told reporters.”
“Islamic Jihad said it had fired 15 rockets and 10 mortars.”
“they had intended to make arrests but opened fire when they saw that three of the militants were armed with assault rifles.”
All of which imply that this was an attack on militants. I can’t find the bit where
“the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians“.
Its important to note that the Ban quote they used partially was something he said some time earlier and referring to another incident. From the JPost report:
Hantman also pointed out that Ban’s attributed comments were made weeks earlier to the UN Security Council and not in reference to that particular attack. He added that it was also wrong to mention the UN secretary-general’s condemnation of Israel without mentioning his condemnation of Palestinian rocket attacks in the same statement.
“Ban’s statement, made some two weeks ago, did not refer to yesterday’s attack and did not describe Israel’s operations on Gaza as ‘attacks on civilians,'” Hantman noted. “He did, however, describe Palestinian rocket attacks as ‘acts of terrorism.'”
In his statement to the UN Security Council on March 1, Ban said: “While recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children… I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism.”
This is another unequivocal example of what the BBC calls mere “errors”.
First it uses video footage of one incident to accuse Israel of doing something that it didn’t do, then it selectively takes Ban’s comments out of context and out of time to accuse Israel without the balance that quoting Ban correctly and in full would provide.
I just don’t believe anything any BBC defender tells me about the BBC’s purported neutrality and balance.
This is not an imaginary demolition by any standards.
Of course it is!
The house they said was demolished is still standing as we speak.
How unreal, and untrue, is that?
If you study the footage carefully you will see a house being demolished. It is a real demolition. What the BBC lied/royally fucked up about is whose house it was.
He didn’t check his story because:
a) He couldn’t find the address.
b) He couldn’t move one inch without a Palestinian fixer.
c) He doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic so he has to use an ‘official’ Palestinian translator who will provide the correct message regardless of the question he asked.
d) His camera and sound men are Palestinian activists and they ‘told’ him that was the house.
e) He won’t challenge ‘a’ to ‘d’ because he would be blacklisted and be unable to work at all in the Palestinian Authority.
— and —
f) He knows that his editors are not too concerned with accuracy if the ‘error’ demonizes the Joos. After the damage has been done it can always be quietly hidden away.
“He knows that his editors are not too concerned with accuracy if the ‘error’ demonizes the Joos.”
How, exactly, does this error demonise the Jews? The fact that Israel demolishes terrorists’ houses is well-known and well-documented, not least by the footage the BBC showed. How exactly does claiming that the demolition shown was of the least sympathetic house in the Middle East show the “Joos” in a bad light?
Also, how does “Joo” work as anti-Semitic terminology? In my experience standard anti-Semitic practice is to spell ‘Jew’ correctly and just affix it in capitals wherever a part of their conspiracy theory contains a long /u:/ sound, e.g. the JEWropean Union.
CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD
One other thing I also noted from the limited BBC coverage that that Arab terrorist…
oh, I’m sorry I mean “gunman” murdered…
oh, I’m sorry I mean “killed” 8 “people” in a “terrorist attack” on a…
oh, I’m sorry I mean “the attack”…
So who were those eight people who mysterious “died,” in the “attack”..
Well three of them were…
Neria Cohen, 15, from Jerusalem, and Segev Peniel Avihail, 15, were scheduled to be laid to rest at the Mount of Olives. Avraham David Moses, 16, was to be buried in Kfar Etzion.
Mmmmm, I see. In Britain these people would qualify as “children.”
But then they’re only JEW children, so I guess the BBC decides they don’t get a proper description.
After all we wouldn’t want anyone to think that a Palestinian terrorist…
oh I’m sorry, I mean a “victim of the JEWS” would murder…
oh, I’m sorry, I mean accidentally kill “children” by firing over 500 rounds from an assault weapon at them.
I guess they are only “people” of a lesser God.
The BBC is firmly on the side of the Palestinians and its coverage of the issue continually flags thus up. But why is this? Is it that BBC is institutionally anti-Israel or maybe just naturally pro-Terrorist?
Jack,
“Children of a lesser god” succintly sums up BBC bias here.
All fixers and people surrounding the correspondent are part of the vast propaganda machine paid by PA that gets its money from EU taxpayers.
I posted a comment on the Jposts talkback facility, reading comments posted by Jewish people across the world the anger they show for the BBC has now spilled over into attacks against the British in general.
I hope the BBC is proud of it’s behaviour managing to tar all of us with it’s anti-Israeli brush.
The BBC is not a force for good it is a force for negativity and should be forced to make a grovelling apology at the start of it’s flagship news programmes, and make it clear that the huge majority of the British public do not agree with it’s biased reporting.
Quite, Deegee. You’d think Arabic would be a minimum requirement to work in that particular neighbourhood. It would be interesting to find out how many of Aunty’s middle-east correspondents are fluent in anything but anti-Israel bias.
Also, how does “Joo” work as anti-Semitic terminology?
Oh Alex, you really do try the pacience of us grown ups here. If you’re going to debate do please try to keep up with the rest of us!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jooos!
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1617
http://worldivided.com/2008/02/27/its-jooos-again/
http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2008/01/geert-wilders-and-jooos.html
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchWith=lgf&searchWhat=comments&maxPerPage=25&therange=&searchString=Jooos
(note: the more “o”s the merrier, ie: “Joooooooos”)
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchWith=lgf&searchWhat=comments&maxPerPage=25&therange=&searchString=Joooooooos
The BBC is not biased. Bias to me seems to imply some sort of subtle favouring of one side of an argument, you know the clever use of weasel words or omission of some context or other. It might even require a clever website to keep pointing it out.
This sort of thing (un-demolished houses and what not) .. this is just enemy propaganda and quite crude at that.
We need to move on and stop thinking and talking about the BBC as though the problem was bias. It’s way, way beyond that.
Off topic. From the Telegraph.
“Her husband Tom Boto made an outspoken attack on the corporation yesterday, saying she was bullied and given no support after uncovering “rotten work practices” at the World Service Trust.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/24/nbbc124.xml
If you’re not registered at LGF, which Alex no doubt isn’t, try this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Joooooooos
Thanks Galil, any idea where it comes from?
But more importantly, how does attaching the wrong address and previous inhabitant to footage of a house being demolished demonise the Jooooze?
But more importantly, how does attaching the wrong address and previous inhabitant to footage of a house being demolished demonise the Jooooze
I do not normally comment in this area as I don’t have specialised knowledge. However, from what I have read the original piece was shown as an example of an instantaneous revenge reprisal by the IDF. Wheras the people on the ground are well aware that although the IDF has bulldozed houses in the past this is only after a court hearing and due process taking place. That means that in this case the reprisal would have come weeks after the event and this wouldn’t make such a good story.
“That means that in this case the reprisal would have come weeks after the event and this wouldn’t make such a good story.”
This bit I agree with – it was probably jumped on as a good scoop, and does play on most people’s uninformed understanding of Israeli policy. But I don’t see how it portrays Israel in a much more negative light than a standard demolition.
Is there no end to the supernatural abilities of Beeboids?
They can see the future now. I just heard a beeboid hack sneer at an American general he was interviewing: “History is not going to be kind to the whole idea of invading Iraq.”
This is not reporting, its propaganda!
Alex
It seems to me that Galil et al are arguing that it’s BBC news executives’ READINESS to swallow any negative story about Israelis – without checking its accuracy – that indicates BBC complicity in demonising the Jewish State. For Israel and Jews are inseparable in public perception, however much anti-Zionist Jews wish it were not so.
Israel makes no secret that house-demolition is a method of retaliating for acts of terror committed against its citizens. House demolitions are widely reported by the Beeb, amongst others. What’s less well reported (although I am sure that it is equally well known amongst reporters is that families of terrorists and suicide bombers often receive substantial monetary compensation for their loss, along with enhanced social status. (see ‘Suicide Terrorism’ By Ami Pedahzur)
and here
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465438,00.html
and here
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js2426.htm
It’s the selective reporting, invariably favouring the so-called Palestinian narrative, which leads many of us to be suspicious of BBC intentions in their Mid-East coverage.
But I don’t see how it portrays Israel in a much more negative light than a standard demolition.
Perhaps because it shows the IDF to be out of control cowboys who demolish houses for fun as opposed to acting under the full authority of a juducial procedure that might or might not agree to the demolition.
“It seems to me that Galil et al are arguing that it’s BBC news executives’ READINESS to swallow any negative story about Israelis – without checking its accuracy – that indicates BBC complicity in demonising the Jewish State.”
This I would agree with in this case, but that hardly points to a concerted campaign of black propaganda. Just some inept or lazy research.
“Perhaps because it shows the IDF to be out of control cowboys who demolish houses for fun as opposed to acting under the full authority of a juducial procedure that might or might not agree to the demolition.”
So it disregards the Israeli judiciary’s insistence on due process? This certainly does have negative implications for Israel, but considering it is still true that Israel does demolish Palestinian houses and is debating demolishing the house in question, the amount actually fabricated and the incremental amount of bad press it causes is not as huge as you lot are making out.
As for the other story, where exactly in the BBC report does it mention Israel “deliberately targeting civilians”?
At least part of the hatred for modern Israel, BBC’s Tim Franks sums up in this article, weeping over the “Lost Israel” that was a Kibbutz communist paradise:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311102.stm
A modern, strong, hi-tech capitalist society is everything BBC hates the most.
Tim Franks is usually trying to turn every stone to find out a way to demonize Israel. The only good things he has to say is about a long-lost Israel’s kibutz communism.
Before 67′ when Israel was shunned by the US, and had elements of crypto socialism, the Left adored it.
In the 60’s Soviets started spreading their influence by arming Syria and Egypt to the teeth.
And while America was having troubles in Vietnam, Israel kicked Soviet supported Arabs.
Soon after Egypt, under Sadat was brought under the American wing in return for Sinai. And the US alliance with Israel started. Up until then the only ally Israel had in the West was France.
The Left will never forgive Israel for the “crime” of stopping the Soviet expansion in that part of the world (mostly through Arab nationalist lunatics like Nasser).
BBC2008 REPORTING WW2
6 June 1944, Our Middle-East Correspondent, London.
It has been claimed by the British government that “Allied” forces have invaded the beaches of Normandy in an attempt to establish an Anglo-American beachhead on the French mainland.
A BBC correspondent embedded with the militant forces of the Third Reich reports high morale amongst the freedom fighters who vow to protect the homeland against the imperialist intentions of the Amereican and British.
In an exclusive interview with the German conservative leader Herr Hitler, still a hero to the German volks, der Fuehrer stated that the so-called “D-Day” invasion was nothing less than a continuation of the global Zionist plot to steal German lands and “drink the blood of our beloved German kinder.”
The German leader also went on to denounce “Allied” claims of human rights abuses against certain ethnic groups as lies and propaganda from those in the pay of Jews, and other Germophobes.
Meanwhile in Berlin, an “Allied” bomb destroyed a school and killed 45 German children.
If truth be told, I’m not much bothered about such details. It’s small change by comparison to BBC perfidy in central matters.
For instance, I have saved a copy of a BBC report from November 2006, describing a deliberate and open strategy of Hamas in using human shields, which is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. When the Israelis cancelled the planned attack in consequence, the BBC chose to lionize the criminals thus:
“The BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza says it appears that an unprecedented act of defiance by the Palestinians to a particular Israeli tactic has worked.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6162494.stm
The BBC advocating war crimes. If there is any justice, the Beeb should eventually meet their Nuremberg.
.
Alan:
“At least part of the hatred for modern Israel, BBC’s Tim Franks sums up in this article, weeping over the “Lost Israel” that was a Kibbutz communist paradise:”
This is sad. You’ve actually got two genuine incidences of the BBC reporting negatively and deceitfully on Israel and you’re focusing on a friendly interview with an Israeli ‘character’.
Anat:
“The BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza says it appears that an unprecedented act of defiance by the Palestinians to a particular Israeli tactic has worked.”
Well it did work The airstrike was called off. Ok, so ‘defiance’ is a mildly positive word, but do you have a better one? Certainly not ‘lionizing’ anyway.
Also, how does “Joo” work as anti-Semitic terminology?
As a WASP(ish), I can only comment from my experience working for a Jewish firm, where one colleague told me that the use of the term “Jew” was often seen as pejorative. He, for instance, would have been far more likely to say “I am Jewish” than “I am a Jew”.
Just as many Conservatives, for instance, will regard with suspicion someone who refers to “Tories”, so there is an assumption that someone who talks about “Jews” is less likely to be pro- or even ambivalent (as the BBC should be) towards Judaism and/or Israel.
“He, for instance, would have been far more likely to say “I am Jewish” than “I am a Jew”.”
This is interesting, but more an English grammatical tic than political correctness. We’d also say “I am English” more than “I am an Englishman” as it sounds less jingoistic. Oddly enough German Jews do say “Ich bin Jude” far more than “Ich bin jüdisch”, which sounds clumsy.
“At least part of the hatred for modern Israel, BBC’s Tim Franks sums up in this article, weeping over the “Lost Israel” that was a Kibbutz communist paradise:”
This is sad. You’ve actually got two genuine incidences of the BBC reporting negatively and deceitfully on Israel and you’re focusing on a friendly interview with an Israeli ‘character’.
Alex | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 7:59 pm |
It really is sad. BBC’s Tim Franks cannot say anything positive about Israel, unless it is a lament about Israel’s proto-socialist past before 67′, when it basically kicked Soviet ass. People tend to forget what brought about the change in the US-Israel relations. Before 67′ Isreal was not getting any support from the US. There were very few examples in the 60’s of Soviet backed forces on the run, like the Arabs were in 67 an 73.
This dramatically change the tune both within USSR and other Soviet run countries and in the attitude of various Marxists in the West, including many wackademics, which were up to that point very supportive of Israel.
i realy hate the bbc
But more importantly, how does attaching the wrong address and previous inhabitant to footage of a house being demolished demonise the Jooooze?
Alex | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 6:12 pm
Look Alex, you, hillhunt, and I, and others have already thrashed this out on another thread, including the aspect of that Fran mentioned of demolishing being used to counteract the prize money paid to families of terrorists:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4065871030052814592/#389322
If you haven’t understood our point by now you never will and are only interested in trolling and seeking more attention.
The BBC is firmly on the side of the Palestinians and its coverage of the issue continually flags thus up. But why is this? Is it that BBC is institutionally anti-Israel or maybe just naturally pro-Terrorist?
David Vance | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 5:13 pm |
Well there are many factors.
As I said the Left in general changed its tune overnight from being pro-Israel to being anti-Israel, only after Israel kicked Soviet backed Arab nationalists (Nasser’s Egyptian and Syrian forces in 67′ and 73).
Many Jewish Leftoids were at a loss as to what happened overnight and why did their communist friends turn against them: http://www.fiammanirenstein.com/articoli.asp?Categoria=5&Id=1722
The shift was remarkably swift (since at least in some of the cases it was under a directive from Moscow).
In communist countries, where I was born, books were literally reprinted that year to rewrite history.
Many in the West are unaware of the fact that Soviets spend on average $3 billion a year throughout the cold war to promote anti-War and revolutionary indoctrination in the West. This is somewhat similar to todays finance of various wackademics by the Saudis (by sponsoring various “research” projects, mostly in humanities throughout the universities in the West).
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pacepa031803.asp
Alex:
“He, for instance, would have been far more likely to say “I am Jewish” than “I am a Jew”.”
This is interesting, but more an English grammatical tic than political correctness.
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
Try it for yourself. Google “Jew” then “Jewish”.
By the way, I am a Jew.
DV, in addition to the above, BBC’s pro-terrorist and anti-Israel stance has a multitude of causes. I’ve listed some of them before:
1. Identification with real or in many cases exaggerated Palestinian suffering. So, they are fighting the good fight, facts and exaggeration be damned. This one is the most justified, so to an extent I can understand why someone like Martin Asser would be biased. Or for that matter poor Alan Johnston, who went totally native in Gaza, before being kidnapped. It never occurs to them that most of this suffering is self inflicted. When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 it expected it to turn into a coastal tourist destination. Yet, Iranian puppet masters had different plans.
2. Fiskian approach to the world: Post-colonial guilt, as epitomized in Jeremy Bowen’s history rewriting rants.
Somehow, Israel is a Western/British colonial enterprise!? Part of the Fiskian approach is also journalist activism – i.e. not merely reporting but fighting the good fight. Robert Fisk’s guilt ridden approach can be best understood through his suicidal tendencies ( http://www.counterpunch.org/fiskbeaten.html ). He desperately wants to generalize and propagate to the entire Western Civilization his own suicidal tendencies. So in conflict with radical Islam, West and Israel really, really deserve to die…
3. Single-mindedness and, well, backwardness, of today’s Left in general. The remnants of the Left these days pick generally easy causes and follow them with lynch mob mentality. They don’t even realize that most of their goals were set in the 70’s by Moscow — as any textbook from a Communist country from that era can testify. It just took another 20 odd years for it to diffuse into the West, mostly via radical academia.
In fact Zionism = Racism, Colonialism and Apartheid were the core tenets of the “non-aligned” movement. The supposedly non-aligned movement was in fact very aligned with pro-Communist countries and Soviet backed Arab world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- Aligned_Movement )
In fact to anyone (like myself growing up in Tito’s Yugoslavia) the “progressive” though of the Left in the first decade of 21 century, feels extremely primitive, since their rhetoric comes straight out of text-books they drove through our noses 30 years ago. BTW, that is why Israel enjoys much more respect in the Eastern Europe, even though classical antisemitism there is higher.
4. Dream of extreme multiculturalism, under which a Jewish State as a nation-state cannot exist (see, the Jews are 30-40 years too late and they should be embracing radical multiculturalism – of course we’ve all seen how this works when applied to the Middle East in the example of Lebanon). Also, it does not matter to the Left that dozens of other nation states were just recently created in the Balkans and ex-Soviet union. Just a month ago an almost ethnically clean (of Christian Serbs) – Kosovo was created. But I guess nice hotels and fast internet in Israel make it more evil than the rest. Also, note that a genocidal attempt by the Serbs to get rid of Albanians was punished by giving Albanians a second ethno-religious state.
However the Left thinks that a genocidal attempt by Arabs to get rid of a nascent Israel is nothing wrong…
5. Some in the continental Europe’s Left have a lingering guilt over the Holocaust, so if Jews are just like Nazis, they feel better. Of course in the entire Arab-Israeli conflict less than 80 thousand people died on both sides when put together in 60 years of wars. For comparison with recent conflicts: In Grozny, Chechniya 80,000 died in 2 weeks and in Soviet onslaught on Afganistan 1 million Afghanis were killed and 5 million fled. How about that for a Lancet report? – but I guess Leftoids do not feel they need to demonize their Soviet friends as they demonize the US and its allies.
6. I hate to bring this up, but there clearly exists an element of classical antisemitism that now mostly lives in the Left. While the centre-right purged itself of antisemitism, the Left never did. Stalin was having anti-semitic purges throughout Eastern Europe long after the demise of fascism.
The antisemitism of the Left is epitomized by conspiracy theories of jewish power and the mantra of “chosen people”. People, following the Leftist fashion of the day, are some times embedding certain motifs that don’t have anything to do with reality and only with prejudice. An example of this would be Jostein Gaarder Leftist pearl: “God’s Chosen People”. It’s seemingly humanitarian message is embroiled with classical antisemitic motifs – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Norwegian_Jostein_Gaarder_controversy
Or to quote a Sociology professor I talked with: “I recently realized why the Israelis are racists — the Jews, in fact, invented supremacist racism with their claim of being a chosen people”. Of course, for religious Jews, being “chosen” is about having more obligations to god than the others. It doesn’t have anything to do with some supremacist superiority complex. The Left, in fact, wants to wash its own oversized feelings of guilt, and is looking for a nail to hammer. It sees racism everything in the West (but never within Islamic world). Today’s Left doesn’t know their facts and is as irrational as the Right was in the 30’s. As I said, most of the right has denounced antisemitism 60 years ago during ww2, while the Soviets were having anti-semitic purges until the 90’s. The state propaganda in Islamic countries of course has no problem in using anti-Semitic motifs, and some of the people that grew up in Islamic countries think Jews have horns and drink children’s blood for Passover. What would you believe if this was broadcast day in and day out?
7. Cult of the victim. Being a victim in itself contains merit. Sadly, Palestinians have accepted this role, and to a certain extent it turned into a self-fulfilling prophesy. Palestinian society is now addicted to Western welfare. And their forms of resistance are increasingly counterproductive (differences between 1st to 2nd Intifada)
8. Moral and cultural relativism. Thus, a totally destructive (for Lebanon) fascist gang Hezbullah, that stands against everything the Left is supposed to stand for, are dubbed “freedom fighters” (freedom from what – Israel left years ago every last square meter of Lebanon).
9. Radicalism. Marxism is gone – these Islamists have spunk – they are sticking it up to the man – US/Bush/Israel/Pope, whomever. Hence in Britain you have Respect – a collusion of Marxists and Islamic Fascists. The meeting point of the extremes and diametrically opposed to common sense.
10. BBC/AP/AFP stringers, cameramen, etc. are all locals, thus the Al-Durah hoax, or the BBC “report” that triggered this thread.
11. The sheer amount of hatred oozing from the Muslim world is overwhelming, some of it is penetrating the West by osmosis. If all these people are chanting death to Israel, death to America, they must have a point. State propaganda withing the Muslim world never occurs to the people as an explanation, even after Goebels and the 3rd Reich.
12. Contrary to the popular opinion, Israelis are really stupid when it comes to PR. Among their many faults, they are simply too honest and straightforward. Darfur refugees are fleeing Arab countries by their thousands into Israel. Yet, it would never occur to an Israeli PM to setup a Darfur refugee camp, in the occupied territories just for propaganda purposes. Just as it never occurred to Israelis to lockup 800,000 Jews fleeing from Arab countries in refugee camps for 60 years, like Arabs did to Palestinian refugees in all countries except Jordan.
An Arab-Canadian 20 year old (born in Canada) recently said, when asked why are Palestinians still living in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria: “What do you expect, letting them out would be letting Israel win!”
How do you even begin to compete with that attitude!?
Alan,
Good points.
Yes, excellent points from Alan. I especially liked 1-12!
I wonder what the BBC’s reaction will be if Israel launches a pre emptive attack on those who are calling,as Nasrullah has just done, for it’s destruction.With Syrian forces mobilized and Hezbollah armed to the teeth something looks about to happen.Is Israel denied the right to act as it sees fit in it’s own defense or must it first check with the BBC and the BBC’s interpretation of world opinion?Perhaps the expulsion of the BBC from Israel would be a necessary first step as the episode of the house has demonstrated that bias has now changed to outright falsification of events to suit an agenda.
BBC is anti Israel and anti Jewish because of its interests in Arab countries. It will be kicked out if it acts impartial and its reporters will be kidnapped again.
Alan: great analysis.
Number 1 is probably as important as all the others together. “Look at those poor suffering people”. This is then multiplied by the cult of victimhood which seems to have a lot of traction in our society. ( #7 )
David Vance | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 10:54 pm |
Rob | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 11:20 pm |
Jack Hughes | 25.03.08 – 12:30 am |
Thanks!
For completeness, I’ll add 3 more I thought of:
13. Man bites dog as DV noted several posts ago. By the way BBC is reporting, Israel, US, West are Man and Islamic societies are the Dog.
The coverage of a Palestinian “militant” killed deserves the same coverage as 40 people killed in Pakistan suicide bombing. IMHO, this is deeply racist towards the Left’s perceived Dogs – for example Arabs and they are treated as little children whose actions are to be excused. While Israel is treated as an adult with superhuman capability of self-control when attacked (like in 2006 war with Hezbullah). While rockets are raining on Israel, Israel is supposed to use science-fiction tech to avoid hitting civilians while hitting Hezbullah and Hamas hiding behind them. The same goes for the US in Iraq. It is the Islamists and various local militias that are doing the killing, yet they are perceived as little children, whose nanny – the US is not doing its job.
14. Israel is a proxy for attacking the US. The Left, like the Muslim world would like you to believe Americans are wantonly killing children and doing all sorts of high crimes. It won’t fly for US or British soldiers, but they can say it for Israelis – how many people have met and Israeli or have been to Israel to know it is not true?
15. Applying peace-time rules to a war like situation. Most Leftoids have never seen a war up close. They think that in a war where bullets are flying you are supposed to read a Miranda to a person pointing an AK47 at you. Abhorring violence doesn’t work when you are defending yourself against someone more than willing to use it to hurt you and your society. I think some people living at the border of Norway and Sweden will never be able to comprehend the meaning of armed defense or the need for it. “If we could all only get along” – sure tell that to the caricature like Hassan Nassrallah.
Then there’s also this example of the BBC lying and manipulating quotes. There are simply too many of these “errors” around lately:
BBC erases all traces of Bush speech lies; so what have we learned?
Can we have a general thread Mr V ?
Perhaps the expulsion of the BBC from Israel would be a necessary first step as the episode of the house has demonstrated that bias has now changed to outright falsification of events to suit an agenda.
dave s | 24.03.08 – 11:49 pm
Regarding this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247983.stm
I made a formal complaint to the BBC on 17/02:
I note that long after other respected news organisations like Reuters, AP and the Jerusalem Post have indicated that the killing of Islamic Jihad’s Ayman Fayed and others on Friday February 15th was most probably a “work accident” and not due to an Israeli aircraft attack, the BBC still portrays it as the latter.
While the website article does briefly mention that, “Israel said it had no knowledge of a raid being carried out on the area,” the entire thrust of the article is devoted to the almost certainly false claims by Islamic Jihad that it was an Israeli attack.
Other news agencies have mentioned that parts of what looked like Kassam rockets were found in the wreckage of the house, indicating a probable “work accident”. This is completely absent from the BBC report.
We expect the BBC to show responsibility and update the report so that it no longer gives a false impression of Israeli responsibility for the attack.
Typically, there was a contemptuous lack of response from the BBC to my complaint, and, need I add, no updating of the report. The BBC seems to be incapable of learning that it can get its collective arse checked in minutes on the internet. Or perhaps it is fully aware of this but just doesn’t give a damn, putting propaganda before professionalism.
While I agree that BBC bias has developed into falsification, this is not really new. Five years ago the BBC produced a “documentary” titled Israel’s Secret Weapon which was a real hatchet job on Israel and the Bomb:
Anyone newly arrived from Mars to view this documentary would conclude that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler. The venomous bias of the programme outraged the Israeli government and it suspended cooperation with the BBC.
(John Reith, naturally, defended the BBC here, saying there was nothing untrue in the transcript.)
So yes, I think it’s a great idea for Israel to actually kick the BBC out, as it has just done to Al Jazeera. But it should also improve its PR and use every opportunity to expose the BBC’s vile omission and distortion of facts in order to demonise Israel.
The BBC, of course, would be quite free to send Alan Johnston back into Gaza. But through Egypt’s Rafah crossing, not through Israel.
Why the hell should Israel host enemy correspondents in its war on terror?
Surely the first thing that needs to be done by the BBC is disciplining (recalling the reporters? demoting? sacking?) the reporters, editors and producers involved in this. Being generous, very generous, we could see this as a symptom of generally collapsed journalistic standards at the BBC. If that’s the case, then clear and public damage to the career-paths of those involved is the least one would expect.
Because, after all, this clearly isn’t bias at work – it’s either being really really cr*p at your job, or . . . well, it’s propaganda. Let’s see what they do.
I expect they’ll promote those responsible, just cautioning them with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink to cover their butts a bit more carefully in future.
That’s how much faith I have in the BBC.
David Vance | 24.03.08 – 10:54 pm |
Rob | 24.03.08 – 11:20 pm |
Jack Hughes | 25.03.08 – 12:30 am |
Alan | 25.03.08 – 1:32 am |
I’d like to add another on the list.
16. Appeasing Islam internationally; Eurabia domestically. While I can’t prove it, I suspect some Foreign Office guidance, on this issue.
Keep the Muslims happy by some minor concessions, (anti-Israel reporting; pro-Islam cover stories on the level of “What I did on my holidays – went to Mecca” and ignore religious/race crimes when committed by Muslims) and they won’t become violent (maybe) to British persons or property overseas or on our soil.
Alex | Homepage | 24.03.08 – 4:08 pm
All of which imply that this was an attack on militants. I can’t find the bit where
“the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians”.
Version 3 of the Revisionista you linked to says this:
“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Israel’s attacks on Palestinian civilians, calling them inappropriate and disproportionate.”
This is neither what Israel was doing nor what Ban Ki-Moon said.