NO DISPUTE – OCCUPIED.

I was listening to the BBC “Today” programme early this morning cover the news that the worlds “highest moral authority” – the United Nations – has appointed a law professor in the shape of Richard A. Falk – who has compared Israel to the Nazis – as special investigator on Israeli actions for a six-year term. Nothing odd so far – after all comparing Israel to the Nazis is a favoured rhetorical device for the morally bankrupt. But I then noticed that the BBC interviewer referred to the “Occupied Territories” as the location for these imagined genocidal crimes that the UN will investigate and I wondered WHY it is that the BBC gets away with this routine parroting of Palestinian propaganda? The territories concerned are “disputed”, they are not occupied. In fact last time I checked the only people “occupying” Gaza were the Jew-hating barbarians Hamas. The use of language is of fundamental importance in all news reporting and the BBC should not parrot terms which can clearly be seen to favour one side and not another. The neutral term to use in this situation is to define the given territories as “disputed.” Why won’t the BBC use it?

Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to NO DISPUTE – OCCUPIED.

  1. Sarah Jane says:

    Hi Max if you look at the guide I linked to earlier it is quite clear on when ‘Palestinian land’ should be used. I don’t think I have said we don’t use it, although I think I know where you are going with this one πŸ˜‰

    I notice that many of the other links in the 85 for ‘illegally occupied’ refer to settlements consider illegal by Israel itself – as Alan already pointed out, and others are links to HYS and other user content/input.

    Was there a question?

       0 likes

  2. Sarah Jane says:

    Ah – I was just getting a sense of deja-vu about some of this and sure enough I see that BioD ended his last post with a ‘Jew hating MSM/BBC’ slur.

       0 likes

  3. max says:

    Re:Was there a question?

    How are you today?

       0 likes

  4. Alan says:

    Meant to add that this point of yours sums up the situation pretty well IMO:
    “I for example would call the territories “occupied”. However it is not at all clear from the international law and UNSC resolutions where the (future) border is.
    That is what is being negotiated right now.”
    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 3:52 pm |

    But, SJ – that is because I want Israel to have nothing to do with Jenin and Ramallah except, maybe, one day good trade relations (although I am doubtful it will ever happen). I am biased on that. I think most Israelis agree with that and that is why a lot of them call it “occupied territories”. I care much more about Tel-Aviv than I care about Jewish religious sites in Hebron. But I believe Israel has every right to exist as a Jewish national state.
    Most Israelis when they use the term “occupied territories” they want to emphasize to the others that the West Bank is up for negotiation in exchange for a peace deal.
    So you see I am biased as well. If I were to be honest and not try to influence people I would call it “disputed”. Because it is disputed, not only in terms of its borders, but also in terms of its ownership.
    It was a British mandate, then it was occupied by Jordan. Which against all the pleas from Israel not to attack, did attack in 67′ (after Nasser lied to King Hussain). So it is not even “occupied” in the sense US was occupying Iraq before the elections there (now US is invited by the elected Iraqi govt.).

    However, SJ, you must understand that when Israelis or I use “occupied” we know that if Israel pulls out too fast, West Bank will be overrun by Hamas like Gaza was and rockets will start falling on Tel-Aviv, countless more will die on both sides.

    BBC as a global organization has the duty to be objective. It cannot shill for the Palestinians or on behalf of the Israeli peace camp. Some more extreme foreign funded Israeli “human rights” group seem to have BBC on speed-dial (e.g. B’Tselem). They are single minded, just like some of the hard-left in UK is.
    An example of single mindedness about this issue is JR on this board. He doesn’t even attempt to be objective and has a very selective reading of history as a result.
    BBC with its charter and global reach has the duty not to side with them on this. The reason is not only journalistic ethics. Demonization and libel is dangerous for obvious reason. Taking sides on such a powder keg is dangerous. Insinuating that Israelis are like Nazis is really dangerous. Richard Falk, whom the BBC quotes, admits he did it to shock people. He is irresponsible, but so is the BBC. BBC these days is pro-Hamas, not pro-Fatah.
    The end result of BBC anti-Israel hate propaganda might well be thousands of dead. Don’t you understand it?
    Al-Durah hoax for example directly inflamed people and caused dozens of dead.

    Finally, if Chinese rule in Tibet is not “occupation” than West Bank is certainly a “disputed” territory.
    You can’t have it both ways.

       0 likes

  5. Sarah Jane says:

    Alan, because we quote people like Falk or Durgan, it doesn’t mean we endorse their views, but because of who they are, what they say is news.

    Grown-up British citizens look at what they say, and look at what Israel does, and are able to form their own opinions as to whether it is fair comment, media-attention seeking or malevolance.

    Bryan has made a similar ‘BBC is pro-Hamas, anti-Fatah’ comment before, this link:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5016012.stm
    did a reasonable job of convincing him, let’s see if it does for you.

    I see you’re also on the ‘hate propaganda’ thing now. Hyperbole does noone’s argument any good, even if this is highly emotive stuff.

       0 likes

  6. thud says:

    Its all very easy…palestinian/muslim occupied land…theirs…jewish occupied land…muslim also…where you or I live…muslim too!…that should sort that out.

       0 likes

  7. pounce says:

    The BBC, Its hatred of Israel and half a story.

    Israel stages major terror drill
    By Katya Al Adler
    At 10am on Tuesday sirens wailed throughout Israel. Israelis had been given ample warning: “Don’t panic, routine drill only.” Everyone was urged to take part and to run as fast as possible to their nearest bomb shelter. I was walking along a busy Jerusalem street when the sirens sounded. But the general reaction was muted at best. I didn’t see anyone running anywhere…. (Other Arab nations have offered to normalise ties if Israel pulls back to its 1967 borders and enables the founding of an independent Palestinian state.)…… Syrian and Lebanese officials have said they hope the military exercise is not an Israeli ruse to begin a new war in Lebanon.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7336998.stm

    The BBC reports on how nobody in Israel is really that bothered about rocket attacks and that maybe this drill is a prelude to war. (As per the views of Abu Bowen) The the BBC inform the great unwashed that if Israel hands over everything then they can all live in peace. Err as Alan kindly pointed out earlier Israel offered the Arab summit in 1967 held in Khartoum of that year all of the captured land back if they recognised the state of Israel. Err the Arabs came out with the infamous Free Nos.
    1. NO peace with Israel
    2. NO recognition of Israel
    3. NO negotiations with Israel
    Saying the ball is solely in Israel’s court kind of leaves out all the hard work the jews have put into trying to bring peace to the region. Unfortunately the BBC doesn’t wish you to know the facts so they just leave out the salient bits.
    Oh yes, the threat of a rocket spoiling your day in Israel is very real. Which is strange as I’ve never heard the BBC dismissing routine drills in the UK in response to terrorist attacks?

    The BBC, Its hatred of Israel and half a story.

       0 likes

  8. BaggieJonathan says:

    So is Chinese rule in Tibet an occupation or not?

    Every definition given above says it is.

    When it chooses BBC goes with ‘common usage’.

    When it chooses otherwise BBC goes with ‘legal definition’.

    Sound like the oportunity for bias to me.

       0 likes

  9. Biodegradable (Bannned) says:

    Ah – I was just getting a sense of deja-vu about some of this and sure enough I see that BioD ended his last post with a ‘Jew hating MSM/BBC’ slur.
    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 4:38 pm

    You see that as a “slur”. I see the BBC’s reporting of Israel as a constant slur.

    Does my opinion in any way invalidate my arguments, or the reasoning behind Israel’s stance that its presence in the West Bank and east Jerusalem is not an illegal occupation?

    What gives the BBC the right to state the following?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_3470000/newsid_3473600/3473699.stm
    These settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel does not agree with this.

    Who exactly considers this to be so? Don’t you think the BBC should say, and shouldn’t they say exactly why Israel disagrees?

    With what right and on what basis does the BBC maintain that territories are occupied and not disputed, including the Gaza Strip where no Israeli sets foot other than the occasional brief incursion by the IDF to neutralise rocket launchers, and east Jerusalem which has never been part of any state other than Israel?

    You claimed that the BBC sometimes referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – I showed that it in fact the BBC apologised to the Arabs for doing so.

    I note you choose to remain silent on that but instead take issue with my opinion that the BBC and most of the MSM hate, yes hate Israel.

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2905582878566930490/#393286

    .

       0 likes

  10. Biodegradable (Bannned) says:

    Correction:

    Ah – I was just getting a sense of deja-vu about some of this and sure enough I see that BioD ended his last post with a ‘Jew hating MSM/BBC’ slur.
    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 4:38 pm

    You see that as a “slur”. I see the BBC’s reporting of Israel as a constant slur.

    Does my opinion in any way invalidate my arguments, or the reasoning behind Israel’s stance that its presence in the West Bank and east Jerusalem is not an illegal occupation?

    What gives the BBC the right to state the following?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_3470000/newsid_3473600/3473699.stm
    These settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel does not agree with this.

    Who exactly considers this to be so? Don’t you think the BBC should say, and shouldn’t they say exactly why Israel disagrees?

    With what right and on what basis does the BBC maintain that territories are occupied and not disputed, including the Gaza Strip where no Israeli sets foot other than the occasional brief incursion by the IDF to neutralise rocket launchers, and east Jerusalem which has never been part of any state other than Israel?

    You claimed that the BBC sometimes referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – I showed that it in fact the BBC apologised to the Arabs for doing so.

    I note you choose to remain silent on that but instead take issue with my opinion that the BBC and most of the MSM hate, yes hate Israel.

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2905582878566930490/#393286

    .

       0 likes

  11. Anonymous says:

    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 5:31 pm |
    Alan, because we quote people like Falk or Durgan, it doesn’t mean we endorse their views, but because of who they are, what they say is news.
    Grown-up British citizens look at what they say, and look at what Israel does, and are able to form their own opinions as to whether it is fair comment, media-attention seeking or malevolance.

    Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this one. It is about the selection of issues and people they report on. Richard Falk is a crazy loon. Sudan et al. on the “Human Rights Council” picked him to bang Israel on the head.
    They gave him a mandate only to investigate Israeli side, not the Palestinian.

    He is well known for his extreme views on the US, and no US network would quote him seriously, just like they wouldn’t quote seriously Ward Churchill. Someone on the BBC wants to start the whole notion that Israelis are like Nazis rolling, by dripping it, just like they did with Duggard’s “apartheid”, soon after Guardian ran stories about that. There has been no crime against humanity Israel hasn’t been accused of. Richard Falk has already accused Israel of a future genocide it is going to commit against the Palestinians. I guess he has a time-machine.
    I guess the only high crime left that Israel hasn’t been accused of is xenocide (as in Ender’s Game books), where an alien civilization is exterminated.

    Also, with all my admiration for the British, after years of being fed selective news and the constant stream of inflammatory titles about the Israelis, I would be very surprised if many didn’t think that Hamas is firing harmless firecrackers into Israel. Since, Israel always “kills” Palestinians, while Israelis die or are hurt as if by a natural disaster, Israelis are monsters.
    20-30% of civilian collateral damage is presented as “many civilians” while 50% is “most are civilians”, etc.etc. Israeli casualties are the opposite (in Hezbullah war: “most” Israelis were soldiers, even though 30% were civilian). Israelis are basically deserving of dying as Jeremy Bowen presented the Jewish seminary 16 y/o victims, because they are somehow connected to the settler movement.
    This has all been pointed out on this blog numerous times. The sheer amount of focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is telling in itself. I would guess that in the number of stories on Darfur vs. Israel, Darfur loses 100:1, even though 100 times more people died in Darfur since 2001.

    Bryan has made a similar ‘BBC is pro-Hamas, anti-Fatah’ comment before, this link:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ 5016012.stm
    did a reasonable job of convincing him, let’s see if it does for you.

    SJ, neither am I saying that everyone at the BBC is biased, nor am I saying that every singe article is biased.
    If you search for my posts, in the past I have pointed out on several occasions articles I thought were fair.

    But, for example shilling for Hamas issue:
    How do you explain the BBC article about a Hamas man that died of torture by Fatah. Or the article about a Hamas man that was tortured in Egypt.
    Egypt tortures hundreds of their own Muslim Brotherhood. And since the takeover of Gaza, Hamas was going around Gaza with laptops with color coded names of Fatah followers and accordingly either killed them, shot them in kneecaps or beat them up.
    There were hundreds of Fatah followers that were killed or tortured by Hamas’. Is there a story on each one of them?
    Very few of the stories about Hamas cruelty were reported by the BBC. Yet every Hamas man is “valuable” to the BBC? I find it weird.

    I see you’re also on the ‘hate propaganda’ thing now.
    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 5:31 pm |

    No, what BBC is doing is not hate-propaganda, but it certainly is not balanced reporting and many times it amounts to hateful insinuations.

       0 likes

  12. Biodegradable (Bannned) says:

    The sheer amount of focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is telling in itself. I would guess that in the number of stories on Darfur vs. Israel, Darfur loses 100:1, even though 100 times more people died in Darfur since 2001.

    Anonymous | 08.04.08 – 6:59 pm

    The BBC’s Childrens’ Guide to Hating Israel explains why here:

    Why is it in the news?
    Many of the news stories from the Middle East involve stories of fighting between Israelis and the Palestinians.

    Which of course doesn’t explain why Darfur receives so little attention.

    While I’m on the CBBC Guide this deserves a mention too, my emphases:

    Who are the Palestinians?
    The Palestinians are mostly Muslim Arabs, although some of them are Christians, who live in the Middle East but are also scattered around the world.

    Palestinians do not have a country to call their own. Most of the land they come from, which they call Palestine, was given to Israel in 1948. The rest of of the land, known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was captured by Israel in a war in 1967.

    […]

    Actually the vast majority of so called “Palestinians” migrated to British administered “Palestine” before 1948 from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries. Very few of those who now call themselves “Palestinians”, specially among the refugees, can trace their families back to “Palestine” before 1948. And of course the 1967 war wasn’t initiated by Israel in order to capture land, but don’t tell the kids that.

    Who are the Israelis?
    Israelis are people who live in Israel, which is at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

    Israel began as a homeland for Jewish people. In the early part of the 20th century thousands of Jews moved to the area before it became Israel to start new lives and set up new communities.

    Jews have long historical and religious ties to the land dating back thousands of years, but the country itself was only created in 1948.

    […]

    Right, so when Moses led his people out of Egypt he took them where exactly?

    King David and king Solomon were kings of what country?

    Jews, also known as Israelites came from which country exactly? (hint: it begins with “I” and ends with “l”)

       0 likes

  13. Biodegradable (Bannned) says:

    Continued…

    How was Israel created?
    […]

    After WW1 Britain took control of Palestine, but there were many troubles between the Arabs who lived there and Jews who wanted to live there too.

    […]

    So, according to the BBC the Arabs already lived there (no Jews) and “Jews wanted to live there too”.

    Is it any wonder that most people believe that the Jews have stolen land from “Palestinians” if this is what is taught to kids?

       0 likes

  14. Alan says:

    Anonymous | 08.04.08 – 6:59 pm |

    was me – cookies were gone for some reason…

       0 likes

  15. Bryan says:

    Sarah Jane , please don’t decide for me what I have or haven’t been convinced of:

    Bryan has made a similar ‘BBC is pro-Hamas, anti-Fatah’ comment before, this link:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ 5016012.stm
    did a reasonable job of convincing him, let’s see if it does for you.

    Sarah Jane | 08.04.08 – 5:31 pm

    I remember commenting that that particular article was a fair representation of the Hamas/Fatah situation. But this in no way negates the fact that the BBC is pro-Hamas. I have highlighted that fact frequently on this blog, the latest just a few days ago, and that was a comment that you commented on:

    *Loaded Have Your Say during the Hamas/Fatah conflict in Gaza with only apologists for Hamas terrorists invited.

    *Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur insisting that Saeb Erekat was “selling out” the Palestinians by talking to the West and Israel without Hamas.

    *Alan Johnston off “to have breakfast with the Prime Minister” (chief Gaza terrorist Ismael Haniyeh) on his release from his kidnappers.

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3032828703461241281/#392846

    Hell, Sarah Jane, are you becoming a propagandist now, or what?

    The BBC’s own guidelines actually maintain the disinformation while at the same time proposing the use of “disputed” only when talking about Israel’s position.

    Biodegradable (Bannned) | 08.04.08 – 2:08 pm

    Yes, I also noticed that. And guidelines or no guidelines, how many times have the BBC actually used the word “disputed” when reporting on issues related to the territories? Be interesting to see whether anyone can find that particular needle in the haystack.

       0 likes

  16. simon says:

    I would love to see a debate between Dersh and John Reith on this issue. In person, I mean.

    It would be fun to watch Dersh squash Reith.

       0 likes

  17. simon says:

    Maybe Reith and Sarah Jane could be on one side, arguing legalities with the youngest ever tenured professor of the world’s greatest law school. Yes, it would truly be fun.

       0 likes

  18. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    ‘International law’ is a complete myth. It is swallowed wholesale by the same people who are totally convinced that the emperor is clad on silk and satin down to his pink toes.

    There is no ‘international law’ because there is no sovereign entity above that of individual states. The UN is a voluntary club (one mainly populated by fascist dictatorships, but let’s pass by that one for the moment). Its resolutions have no legal standing.

    As to the rest, there are only treaties between states. Those treaties cannot be legally enforced, for the reason stated above, and legal enforceability is one of the necessary conditions for the existence of (a body of) law.

    Thus, there is no such thing as ‘the territories are occupied under international law’. This phrase is simply shorthand for ‘I really really hate the fact that Israel exists, despite the Arabs’ unceasing efforts to annihilate it’.

    As has been correctly stated above, 242 is routinely misquoted by the same sort of people as those who hate Israel with visceral passion. And the Geneva conventions likewise. And I’ll leave it to you to guess in which direction.

    Those of you who read Melanie Philips’ blog on the Spectator website know that Al Beeb rejects correct complaints about its anti-Israel bias using the most absurd, weasely excuses, e.g. that ‘Palestinian’ is too long a word to fit neatly into its headlines. It claims that this is the only reason why it’s always ‘Israel shells Gaza’ but ‘Israelis killed by rockets’. Don’t you just love the impartiality of these people, impartiality required by their charter which they are in breach off every single day?

       0 likes

  19. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Among the many other outright lies peddled by the BBC where Jewish history is concerned, is the one that they only started returning to Israel ‘in the early 20th century’. I suppose all those villages and towns founded in the 19th century were established by Martians.

    And of course, there have always been Jews in Israel, at all times.

       0 likes

  20. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Sarah Jane claims that ‘common usage’ dictates that it should be ‘Chinese rule’ over Tibet. That would, indeed, tie in with Beeboid mentality: what’s important always is not the facts but mob consensus.

       0 likes

  21. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Nearly Oxfordian,

    It’s almost as if they refuse to do their homework properly and just read excerpts of Edward Said and Pallywood textbooks. They have already as much as admitted that they have no problem hiring extremely ignorant people.

       0 likes

  22. Biodegradable (Bannned) says:

    Israel to bar UN official for comparing Israelis to Nazis
    Foreign Ministry says won’t allow Richard Falk, appointed to investigate Israeli-Palestinian human rights, to enter country. According to BBC website, Falk defended statements he made last summer equating Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews during Holocaust
    Associated Press

    The Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it will not allow the UN official appointed to investigate Israeli-Palestinian human rights to enter the country, after he stood by comments comparing Israelis to Nazis.

    Richard Falk is scheduled to take up his post with the UN Human Rights Council in May, but Israel’s Foreign Ministry said it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, at least until a September meeting of the council.

    At that meeting, Israel intends to ask the council to expand the envoy’s mission to include investigating Palestinian human rights abuses against Israelis. The mandate currently allows him to monitor only human rights violations by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

    Israel will also express its displeasure with the council’s choice of Falk as investigator. ”If he already believes Israel is like the Nazis, how fair will he be?” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel.

    Israel has objected for years to what it perceives as anti-Israel bias by many UN bodies.

    According to a Tuesday posting on the BBC’s website, Falk defended statements he made last summer equating Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. He told BCC News that Israel has been unfairly shielded from international criticism.

    ‘Bizarre and outrageous’

    About 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II in an effort to liquidate all of Europe’s Jews. Mekel called Falk’s comments ”unacceptable and, in fact, a little strange.”

    ”To compare Israel to the Nazis is not just a total falsehood, it’s also a personal insult to everybody,” he said.

    Mekel said the choice of Falk is indicative of the Human Rights Council’s negative attitude toward Israel.

    ”Of all the people to be able to appoint, to find somebody who compares Israel to the Nazis is very bizarre and outrageous,” he said.

    The council’s previous investigator, John Dugard from South Africa, compared Israeli treatment of Palestinians to apartheid, the discriminatory policy of the previous white regime in South Africa toward blacks.

    Falk, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, could not be reached for comment.

    Meanwhile the BBC news website proudly proclaims, UN expert stands by Nazi comments

    (Note: no scare quotes around ‘expert’.)

       0 likes

  23. Anonymous says:

    “And of course, there have always been Jews in Israel, at all times.”

    Whereas Arabs lived on the Arabian Peninsula,every body else in the Middle East was Egyptian,Syrian,Persian etc.Only after the collapse of the Roman then the Byzantine Empires was Christianity driven out and Islam,the Arab faith replacing it.

       0 likes

  24. Bryan says:

    Biodegradable (Bannned) | 09.04.08 – 12:15 am

    Good spotting, and great news that the swine will not be allowed entry into Israel. This is really Incredible. Falk actually has the audacity to indicate that the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians is far worse than the Sudanese government’s genocide in Darfur:

    “If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison,” he said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7335875.stm

    How these little propagandists become “professors” is beyond me.

    I really hope he is no relation of Peter Falk. I really enjoyed the “Columbo” series.

       0 likes

  25. Bryan says:

    The BBC, as has been pointed out on this site, often misquotes people who use the dreaded ‘T’ word, misleading us that they have used the absurd ‘militants’ when speaking of terrorists. That said, terms misused often enough have their own momentum and influence and you find people, especially those with English as a second language, describing terrorists as ‘militants’ when the last thing they tend to convey is the normalisation of terror so enthusiastically propagated by the BBC and other far left media.

    This is a clear case of the BBC going against its own guidelines. So I don’t get too excited over guidelines that the BBC can describe the territories as “disputed…when it is clear that [it is] referring to or explaining [Israel’s] position.” (Sarah Jane 08.04.08 – 10:05 am). As long as the use of “disputed” is not evident in BBC reporting, the guidelines mean nothing. I suppose John Reith will pop in here with an article or two from ten years back in order to prove the BBC’s famed impartiality.

    Much has been made by Reith and others of the BBC’s review a few years ago of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the BBC-appointed panel came to the startling conclusion that the BBC favoured Israel over the Palestinians. But John Reith and co. are silent about the panel’s conclusion that the BBC should not be tiptoeing quite so delicately around the ‘T’ word. Typically, the BBC shunned that sound bit of advice, offered in the section on the BBC’s shortcomings:

    c) imprecision and inconsistency in the use of sensitive language and terminology. Although
    this is, rightly, an issue to which the BBC and its senior managers have given much thought,
    there is significant scope for improvement, particularly in reporting terrorism. The fact that
    these issues are difficult to get right makes it vital that when the BBC does reach a considered
    view on terminology, it is consistently followed in practice.

    And here is the recommendation on terrorism that the BBC so contemptuously dismisses:

    b) the BBC is right to avoid terms which are a barrier to understanding, and should use words
    which best express the desired meaning clearly and effectively. The term “terrorism” should
    accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for
    actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing
    terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state
    or non-state agencies. While those immediately responsible for the actions might be described
    as terrorists, the BBC is right to avoid so labelling organisations, except in attributed remarks;

    http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:bvYxATC4Pt0J:www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.pdf+BBC+Review+of+the+Israeli-Palestinian+conflict&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

       0 likes

  26. Squander Two says:

    You know, there are a lot of occupied territories in the world. Calais, for instance (used to belong to England), and bits of Poland that used to be German. And California, I suppose. Only one set of them is ever described by the BBC as “occupied territories”.

       0 likes

  27. Biodegradable (Banned) says:

    Bryan,

    “If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison,” he said.

    The fact of the matter is that the situations in Tibet and Darfur are more comparable to the Nazis treatment of the Jews than Israel’s treatment of the “Palestinians”.

    The mass beatings and humiliation of Buddhist monks is reminiscent of Kristalnacht, and the expulsion from their lands of the black Sudanese by the Arab Janjaweed (sp?) is directly comparable with the mass transfers of Jews and others carried out by the Nazis.

    Why isn’t anybody comparing the Chinese or the Arabs to Nazis? Is that gross insult reserved solely for the Nazis’ main victim… the Jews?

    On the question of the ‘occupation’ of Gaza I found this interesting admission today:

    Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes
    An Israeli soldier and a Hamas militant have been killed in clashes in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

    So if Hamas controls Gaza can we now please see an end to the lie that Israel is an occupying force?

    You can’t have your cake and eat it, BBC!

       0 likes

  28. Biodegradable (Banned) says:

    I just came across this list of Palestinian deaths and casualties caused by the same Palestinians – work accidents, honour killings, “Old Woman Killed Mistakenly by the Police in Gaza”, “Unknown Assailants”, “Abducted by Unknown Militants in Gaza”, “Woman Killed in Mysterious Circumstances”, “Palestinian Killed in a Training Accident”, “3 Palestinians Killed in Mysterious Explosion”, “Palestinian Killed and Ambulance Driver Injured in Armed Clan and Personal Clashes”.

    Its from a Palestinian source so the John Reiths of this world should not be able to discount it as unreliable information. Hardly any of it has been reported by the BBC and many of the incidents have been blamed on Israel.

    Security Chaos and Misuse of Weapons

    From the death of a child first blamed on an Israeli tank shell:
    A Child Killed and His Brother Wounded in al-Boreij

    Yes, The Kid Was Killed by a Palestinian Arab Mortar

       0 likes

  29. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Lots of useless idiots become professors, especially (sadly) at Harvard. Take Fukuyama, for instance. Or those twerps in the early 1980s who boycotted a fellow academic because he was from South Africa, and didn’t have the mental equipment to understand that their behaviour was racist. And let’s not start on the screeching antisemites at Birmingham U, the Open U and UMIST.

       0 likes

  30. Biodegradable (Banned) says:

    Arab terrorists launch two separate attacks on Israeli troops, and the BBC just can’t resist adding its template justification for Arab terror:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7338055.stm
    Palestinian militants have attacked a border crossing between Gaza and Israel, killing at least two Israeli civilians, the Israeli army says.

    The attack happened near the Nahal Oz crossing in northern Gaza, where fuel is sent to the territory.

    At least one militant was also killed as the attackers fled, the army said.

    Earlier an Israeli soldier and a Hamas militant died in clashes in southern Gaza, as militants fired grenades and mortars at Israeli troops.

    The troops were carrying out a brief army operation backed by helicopters.

    The Israeli Defence Forces named the dead soldier as Saif Bissan, 21. Hamas named its dead militant as Mohammed Shamiya, also 21.

    Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.

       0 likes

  31. Biodegradable (Banned) says:

    When will the BBC add the following to its reports on Israel?

    Arab terrorists frequently mount raids into Israel and fire rockets at civilian locations, including schools and kindergartens, to try drive the Jews into the sea and kill as many innocent Jews as possible.

       0 likes

  32. JG says:

    Israeli civilians killed after border stormed
    Times Online

    Two Israelis Killed in Terror Attack at Border
    CNSNews

    Palestinian militants kill Israeli civilians in Gaza attack
    Guardian

    Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid
    CNN International

    Two Israeli civilians slain by terrorists from Gaza
    Jerusalem Newswire

    So it seems that these (and many more) sources are reporting on an attack on Israeli civilians.
    .
    .
    .
    But at the BBC it’s only the border under attack!

    Militant attack on Israeli border
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7338055.stm

       0 likes

  33. Sarah Jane (20% BBC) says:

    Sarah Jane , please don’t decide for me what I have or haven’t been convinced of:

    Bryan | 08.04.08 – 11:02 pm | #

    Why the hell or not – you decide lots of things about me for me: Political affiliation, various isms, my attitude towards Islam etc etc At least I was vaguely correct, whereas you are invariably completely wrong πŸ˜›

    The answer to the question at the end of your post is 576.

       0 likes

  34. Biodegradable (Banned) says:

    The answer to the question at the end of your post is 576.
    Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 09.04.08 – 11:10 pm

    I can only find 33, and some of those are comments in HYS or articles about Eritrea or the Falklands…

    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22disputed+territories%22,+Israel,+site:news.bbc.co.uk

       0 likes

  35. Bryan says:

    Sarah Jane,

    You seem to take my general observations about the BBC quite personally. Until I see an article on Hamas, for example, drenched in typical BBC appeasement and with your name at the top I wont accuse you of Political affiliation, various isms, [your] attitude towards Islam..

    Biodegradable (Banned) | 10.04.08 – 12:21 am

    Yes, it’s easy to Google something, get a figure and say look, that’s proof, until one starts actually looking at the “proof”.

       0 likes

  36. Bryan says:

    Its from a Palestinian source so the John Reiths of this world should not be able to discount it as unreliable information.

    Priceless. Yes, if it’s from the Palestinians Reith and co. will just have to embrace it.

       0 likes

  37. BaggieJonathan says:

    Surely by this definition Wales is more justifiable in calling it occupied.

    It was militarily conquered by England.

    Its people and language were historically persuecuted.

    English people took their lands and settled it in some parts though Welsh remain in the majority.

    It has no legal status even now, England Scotland and (Northern) Ireland form the union, Wales does not.

    They have no control over their borders and have to accept UK institutions and military and security forces whether they like it or not.

    Can we look forward to the BBC referring to Wales as the occupied territories?

       0 likes