. We all know just how oppressed those poor Palestinians that inhabit Gaza are. Why the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool bemoans that “Peace talks fail to hearten Gazans.” Funny how the BBC seems to have missed reporting what DOES hearten Gazans. Can you guess what it is? Yes, that’s right – suicide bombing missions against those pesky Jews. It seems the majority of Gazans both support and relish that – but Aleem has nothing to say about that. Who’s surprised?
GAZING AT GAZA
Bookmark the permalink.
Hi David
Many thanks for pointing me to this story. Do you know when the poll was released?
Sampling took place between 8 and 13 April and it would have taken a few days for data checking, analysis and report writing.
The BBC story appears to be from Saturday, 19 April. The JPost report from 21 April. Perhaps, Aleem could not have reported on the poll. You may know better since you think he should have included it in his piece on the 19th.
No doubt he will rush to update it (yawn)…
Gunnar,
You mean to say the BBC’s vast global resources can’t pick up new news? Really? Tell you what – as Bob says, the update should be worth waiting on – when do you think we can expect it?
David
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that you have linked to a BBC article that was released 2 days prior to the Jpost article covering the poll.
You state:
“It seems the majority of Gazans both support and relish that – but Aleem has nothing to say about that. Who’s surprised?”
Perhaps the poll was not released when Aleem wrote his story and could have therefore not reported on it.
From your assertions I must assume that the poll has been released somewhat before the 19th April. If this is the case, why did it take so long for Jpost to pick it up.
Having just done a bit of desk research I came across this:
“According to a study released over the weekend, 65 percent of Palestinian Authority Arabs living in Gaza support terrorist bombings and other attacks on Israeli citizens. The study was conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, and had a 3 percent margin of error.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125934
Israel National News appeared to report first on it on the 21st. So when exactly was the poll released?
Gunnar,
I guess my real point here is that the impression the BBC creates of Gaza is somewhat at odds with the reality of the view held by the majority of its residents. I wish the people of Gaza would revolt againt Hamas and show Israel that they DO seek peace – but instead they are merely revolting and support terrorism. The BBC should report this in order that we all get a balanced view of the inhabitants of Gaza, don’t you agree?
On a closely related topic, the BBC is equally on form reporting that Jimmy Carter (whose fingerprints are all over Arafat’s bloody Nobel Peace Prize) has failed in his efforts to solve the Israel/Palestinian crisis over a long weekend in Damascus.
Hamas rejects Israeli recognition
The BBC does admit right up front that Hamas (a Militant Group™) will not recognize Israel, but soften the blow by repeating the Hamas leader’s claim that they would offer a 10 year truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, eliminates all settlements, and gives up Jerusalem.
In the very next sentence, the BBC tells us that the US and Israelis don’t buy it. However, miracle of miracles (it’s Passover, so why not), the BBC explains that it may have something to do with the fact that Hamas’s Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in the region.
So, top marks to the BBC for telling the whole truth for a change, even though Hamas forced your hand.
But then the rebuttal.
The rest of the article shows that Israel is the problem. I guess this is an attempt at balance, seeing as how Hamas was portrayed in a negative light in the first part. But why, BBC, is it necessary to make the extra effort for balance when all you did was report the truth about Hamas? This wasn’t an analysis or anything. So, why?
Of course, the accompanying Paxman interview with Carter is pretty weak. While old Jeremy does ask a couple of pointed questions, it’s nothing stronger than anything stated in the above website article. Carter is allowed to say whatever he wants – he even says things about Hamas’ desires which are contradicted by the BBC article – and there is only the slightest hint of Paxman’s vaunted sighs, tough questioning, and histrionics. It’s mostly kid gloves for Jimmy, and the article to which I’ve linked even sums it up perfectly:
Asked how progress could be made given Israeli views of Hamas, Mr Carter said in an interview with the BBC’s Newsnight that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) had been classified as a terrorist organisation before becoming a negotiator for peace.
That’s all you got out of the interview, BBC? Hamas just wants peace, and it’s Israel that must stop everything. In the meantime, Hamas sends a couple of suicide/car bombers at an Israeli border crossing, as a special celebration for Passover.
I look forward to former President Dubya getting such an easy time as Carter and (gush and swoon) Clinton get whenever they’re on with Naughtie on Today.
David
Many thanks for getting back to me. You still not have told me when the poll was released but I guess no answer is also an answer.
The poll itself is quite interesting.
Click to access no64-eng.pdf
47% of Palestinian support a two state solution (no difference between Gaza and West Bank). A bi national state has stronger support in the West Bank than Gaza (25.5% vs 19.6%).
Pessism about a peaceful Israeli Arab Peace settlement is stronger in Gaza (68.5% vs 59.9% WB). A majority of Palestinians support peace negotiations.
A majority would support Mazen threat to halt negotiations if Israel continues settlements activities but a minority believes that he will actually do it.
A minority would support starting the 3rd Intifada if negotiations fail by the end of 2008 and so on.
Wonder why this was not discussed in detail in the JPost.
Looks like the Palestinians are not a homogenous mass but have different opions and views. Thanks again for making me aware of the poll.
gunnar,
You may have some points about jpost, open to debate, but you miss the real point, if you follow your logic, its this…
I have to pay compulsory poll tax (aka licence fee) for the bbc output to be of a standard, but I pay nothing for jpost.
If you advocate no higher standard than other media outlets perhaps you could explain to me why they should not be funded by the market like anyone else and have their priveleged state broadcaster status removed.
Gunnar,
..and the pesky detail that the MAJORITY of those poor oppressed Gazans support suicide bombings? Worth a BBC headline, now, tomorrow, ever?
At the risk of repeating myself, I am extremely dubious of any polls taken in either Gaza or the West Bank.
1) Hamas supports suicide bombing. Hamas throws opponents off roofs. It would take either an extremely brave or extremely rash respondent to oppose the party line if there was any chance of Hamas finding out.
2) Fatah supports a two state solution. Fatah supports return of all those who left in 1948 (and millions of their descendants) to the area that is now the state of Israel. To Israelis those positions are incompatible but perhaps Palestinians think differently. In addition, Fatah periodically announces that the two state solution is a ruse until they are strong enough to make it a one state solution. Who would guess what the respondents thought they were responding to?
3) Even if we ignore points 1) & 2) does anyone really think pollsters can conduct a valid poll in either place or that the Palestinian society is sophisticated enough to give an honest response to a stranger with a clipboard?
4) 90% of Palestinians think pollsters are at best naive; possible house guests to whom it is polite not to contradict or at worst spies. OK I made that figure up but my gut feeling is that it is no less accurate than any poll.
deegee,
Fair comment. 100% of BBC coverage of this region is biased 😉
David
Still you have not answered my question.
You seem to be happy blaming others for getting things wrong, not covering them, etc. but for yourself other rules seem to apply.
Personally, I find it quite ironic that your latest story sits above one you titled: “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. Stones and Glasshouses or pot, kettle, black spring readily to mind.
BaggieJohnathan
I am not sure about the paying “nothing” argument. On the JPost side you are exposed to advertising which is you accepting unwanted content into your brain.
It would be good if the BBC covered the poll and I would hope that the coverage would be in a less biased way than David’s or JPost’s.
Talking of polls, the results of a poll by Palestinians of Palestinians last month revealed that a large majority supports the terror attack on the Jerusalem Yeshiva in which eight young Israeli students were mercilessly gunned down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
RAMALLAH, West Bank — A new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks.
The survey also shows unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.
A few months back the BBC published the results of a poll by a far left Israeli group that “showed” most Israeli Jews were racist towards Israel Arabs. By “published” I mean the BBC shouted it from the rooftops. It blared it out on the World Service Newscasts for at least ten hours and it was prominently displayed on the website. Funny, I don’t remember seeing the Palestinian poll that was reported by the NYT on the BBC.
Palestinian “resistance” is hallowed ground to the BBC and it wouldn’t dream of publishing negative facts about majority Palestinian support for terror.
Do some research Gunnar, and you will start to understand what we are talking about here. The BBC has got to the point of no longer even trying to hide its bias.
Gunnar,
Do you think I am here to answer your questions? Think again.
I am not sure about the paying “nothing” argument. On the JPost side you are exposed to advertising which is you accepting unwanted content into your brain.
gunnar | 22.04.08 – 11:03 pm
Never heard of ad-blocking software? I use it all the time and don’t even see the ads the BBC puts on its web site for international users like me. I’m still looking for something that will save me from unwanted content from you and Alex.
The JPost offers print only versions of all its stories, like this one for example, not an ad in sight, and no sign of it on the BBC news site either:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870468855&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
It would be good if the BBC covered the poll and I would hope that the coverage would be in a less biased way than David’s or JPost’s.
gunnar | 22.04.08 – 11:03 pm
David has every right to be biased against the bias demonstrated every hour of every day by the BBC. So am I. He is guilty of no greater sin here than jumping the gun a bit. Now I’ve just scanned the BBC’s Middle East page and there is still nothing on the poll. Why not? Will you try to tell us next that the fact of increasing Palestinian radicalism is not of interest to anyone?
The Jerusalem Post’s report is biased in what way? It looks like straight reporting to me.
Here’s the BBC report on the poll I mentioned at 11:26 pm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm
Biodegradable, I owe you a hat tip. I first became aware of the NYT poll through one of your comments.
Mr Vance:
Do you think I am here to answer your questions? Think again.
Perish the thought that someone demanding accountability from the BBC should in any way be accountable themselves.
The Jerusalem Post’s report is biased in what way? It looks like straight reporting to me.
Bryan | 23.04.08 – 7:44 am
I hope the Jerusalem Post is biased in favour of Israel although not to the point of knowingly publishing lies. I hope the British Broadcasting Corporation is biased in favour of Britain although not to the point of knowingly publishing lies.
As a consumer of both media I am much more confidant of the 1st assertion than the 2nd.
Hillhunt
“Perish the thought that someone demanding accountability from the BBC should in any way be accountable themselves.”
Oh god who let him back on.
We pay for the Beeb and so they are accountable to us. Nobody on this blog, Vance included, owes you sweet fa.
Perish the thought that someone demanding accountability from the BBC should in any way be accountable themselves.
What’s your point?
Unlike the BBC, no one here forces YOU to pay a tax to access the blog.
I know this is a hard concept to grasp for those who think the Institutionally Leftist BBC is just peachy .. but that’s it:
Hillhunt,
Banned means banned. Bye.
“I am not sure about the paying “nothing” argument. On the JPost side you are exposed to advertising which is you accepting unwanted content into your brain.
It would be good if the BBC covered the poll and I would hope that the coverage would be in a less biased way than David’s or JPost’s.
gunnar | 22.04.08 – 11:03 pm”
What a steaming crock that outrageous false argument is!
You are being intentionally disingenuous?
It is a typical argument of those that reject the right of choice in favour of diktat.
If I reject jpost as bias and therefore do not read it the cost to me is precisely nothing, not even your dubious advertising argument, as I’m NOT viewing it.
If I reject bbc as bias and do not view it, not only is it still the state broadcaster, officially ‘representing’ my country (something jpost is not), and supposedly having higher standards than ‘rags’, but even more irksome I HAVE to pay the poll tax (aka licence fee) regardless of non viewing.
Still you have not answered my point.
Biodegradable, I owe you a hat tip. I first became aware of the NYT poll through one of your comments.
Bryan | 23.04.08 – 7:44 am
My pleasure! 🙂
I see the BBC still hasn’t picked up on the story I linked to above at the JPost about two “London men” arrested at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act.
Its really come to something when we get better coverage of UK events from the Israeli press than we do from the BBC!
The BBC: All the news we see fit to print!
Banned means banned. Bye.
David Vance | Homepage | 23.04.08 – 11:03 am |
Hullo David 😉
Bio,
I did not ban you nor have any issue with you. So as far as I am concerned you are not banned on my watch! So hullo right back at you and please keep commenting 😉
David,
Any chance of you lifting the ban? It’s a real hassle to have to use a proxy in order to comment.
I could email you giving the IP address you need to unblock…
Has the BBC news website gone down?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ currently gives me the following:
No suitable nodes are available to serve your request.
If Vance is banning people just because they disagree with him, then he is every bit as bad as the BBC.
Nearly Oxfordian,
Hillhunt’s long overdue banning was down to his ad hominem attacks, general offensiveness and troll-like behaviour.
I love these people who still do not understand the vital difference between a state broadcaster like the BBC, funded by an oppressive tax, and private and commercially funded news services such as JP or even the dreaded FOX.
Are these people stupid on purpose or are they just clinging to straws in order that the British public keep having to stump up for sick left-wing views we do not agree with.
Its simple you BBC sychophants. Pay for that shit yourselves and dont expect us to pay for it because we have the temerity to own a television.
OK, Biodegradable (No longer banned, or maybe never banned in the first place – who can make head or tail of this saga?); fair enough.
Nearly Oxfordian:
I was banned by Andrew. I am still banned. All Haloscan comment windows show me the following:
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
I get around this by accessing the comment windows through a proxy, I’m currently using one at the University of Padua in Italy.
My computer connects to the internet via a static IP address, ie: it’s always the same, so easy to block and block and unblock.
Sure thing – I know how that works 😉
I didn’t know you were in Padua, and more to the point, I’ve never heard of Andrew (before my time, presumably), hence my confusion.
I’m in Spain, the proxy server is in Padua.
If I connect normally I’m banned. If I use the proxy in Padua I’m connecting via an IP that is not blocked and appear to be in Padua.
Meanwhile the BBC “report” that “”Israel has allowed fuel to be delivered to Gaza’s power plant, averting the possibility that it would be forced to shut down within hours.
Palestinian officials had warned that the plant would run out of fuel on Wednesday, plunging large areas of Gaza into darkness.
The resumption of supplies followed mediation by the European Union.
Israel is restricting fuel supplies to Gaza in an attempt to halt rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.”… Read the whole article here.
The only mention of what happened at the oil terminal this month is “Fuel supplies have been more sporadic that usual recently due to attacks by militants on the Nahal Oz depot through which they pass.”
Obviously the BBC just ran out of space or time to tell us that on 9 April, half a dozen Hamas raiders cut through the Gaza border fence, attacked the Nahal Oz oil terminal in Israel and murdered two workers, Oleg Lipson and Lev Cherniak. Why so coy BBC?
cicero,
spot on
What oppressive tax? Stop moaning, you spoiled metro lot. Think of the poor people of Gaza, ground under the heel of the fascist Israeli war machine: they would love to have the BBC as their state broadcaster.
Oops … they already do.
Going back to the kamikaze pilots: suicide bomber is NOT ‘more accurate’ than terrorist, because some suicide bombers are not terrorists.
Try drawing this as little circles, Nick (you know: some people are intelligent, some people work for the BBC, some people are both – at least in never-never land).
Nearly Oxfordian,
Unwitting or forced participants aside, suicide bombing is terrorism.
Mailman
Not kamikaze pilots, sorry: that was war against military personnel.
No suitable nodes are available to serve your request.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 23.04.08 – 11:35 am
This is getting contagious. Maybe the BBC website has also banned you?!
Meanwhile the BBC is manfully bracing itself and accepting powerfully negative and many well-informed comments on The Editors relating to its latest cheerful waste of others’ money on the new ‘design’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Peter Horrocks – second and third from top.
Baggie,
I guess you want an answer to why to BBC should be funded by the public.
Well, I would prefer a public broadcaster that is not pretending to be private broadcaster (i.e. chasing ratings). Common sense, at least mine, tells me that private broadcasters are more interested in the mass-market and do not do well in providing for minority interests. So on principle, I am happy to pay in the hope that some of the output will resonate with me. I would be foolish to demand, that all output is geared towards me.
In terms of the slant of the board here, I am not posting to defend the BBC news output. All I have done is pointing out David’s inconsistencies without taking side. If you look carefully at what I have written, this should be apparent. The problem is that so many people don’t even read what is in front of them but simply junp to conclusions.
Nearly Oxfordian,
I do NOT ban people just because they disagree with me. That is the BBC’s job 😉
Bio,
Please email me your details and I will lift any pesky ban. Your comments seem fine to me and I was unaware that there was history. I live in the present, can’t change the past, so I will lift your ban. You can email me via the editor address on my own site, A Tangled Web.
gunnar,
I suggest it is the BBC’s inconsistencies you address, I may have mine but I do not demand the nation pays me a tax to indulge them! (Then again..!)
Even when Al Beeb reports this:
“Israel resumes Gaza fuel supplies”
– Al Beeb does not explain how Hamas’s jihadists caused the fuel crisis by their murderous attack on Israelis in the first place.
Al Beeb sticks to its Hamas -appeasing euphemisms of “Islamist movement Hamas”, and “rocket attacks by Palestininian militants”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7362498.stm
‘Jihadwatch’ had it right about the Hamas Islamic Jihadists two weeks ago, with its headline and report:
“Bad idea: Unleashing your jihadists on your own primary fuel source”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020623.php
Even the ‘Washington Post’ had this:
“Gaza’s Fuel is Cut Off after Palestinian Attack on Terminal”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041003482.html
David,
As I do here quite often, that was a rhethorical question about banning people, even if this time there was no question mark. I didn’t understand what was going on, what with Bio and the other one whose name I forget 😉
Gunnar,
Won’t wash. The BBC is behaving like a private broadcaster, in other words it is pursuing a private agenda – whilst being financed by a state tax. This agenda being antisemitic and effectively an incitement to murder Jews on many occasions, is one issue; the fact that there is a political agenda at all means that it is in breach of its charter and no longer behaving like a public broadcaster. It has grown too powerful, too monolithic, too arrogant. My reading of history tells me that such organisations cannot be reformed (cf. USSR, UN, EU, ………). They need to be broken up, their bosses prosecuted, something completely new established. Unless, of course, you are happy with a fascist state broadcaster.
gunnar,
You acknowledge the BBC chase ratings (no different to private broadcasters)
You want to pay (as if you had the choice) for the vague possibility of public broadcasting, you use the word ‘hope’.
Show me the minority and service broadcasting on channels people actually watch or listen to, like BBC1, or radio2.
Even the channels no one watches or listens to have precious little.
Re-read and realise just how unacceptable it is.
If you want broadcasting for minority non ratings chasing items then fine pay your voluntary subscription like anyone does to sky, but don’t force us to pay it too.
And be careful, the state broadcaster has a lot power, whats more it could be used with a change in governemnt to be worse from your point of view.
The time for state broadcasters is over. We do not want their threat or even just potential threat to us.
Bio,
Please email me your details and I will lift any pesky ban. Your comments seem fine to me and I was unaware that there was history. I live in the present, can’t change the past, so I will lift your ban. You can email me via the editor address on my own site, A Tangled Web.
Hi David,
I just mailed you via your blog. If you need more details email me at the address I’ve used there.
Thanks!
Bryan:
No suitable nodes are available to serve your request.
Biodegradable (Banned) | 23.04.08 – 11:35 am
This is getting contagious. Maybe the BBC website has also banned you?!
I did think so too for a moment, but it must have been a temporary glitch, I was able to connect a few minutes later and haven’t had problems since.
Bio,
Can’t see the mail so I can sort it out. If you scroll down to the post on my blog entitled “How You can bring about world peace” you will find my personal email – send me there and I will deal with it. My apologies this is dragging but I will sort it.