. 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.
Thanks David, I just sent an email there.
As the Mexicans say, “There’s more time than life”. 😉
What’s missing from this report?
(Context, what context?)
Hamas offers truce in Gaza Strip
[…]
Gaza has been a focus of recent violence, with the Israeli military carrying out raids to target Hamas members, while Hamas has fired rockets at nearby Israeli towns.
Israel has all but sealed off the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control of the area.
On Thursday, the UN said that it had halted food deliveries in Gaza because it had run out of fuel.
Israeli sanctions imposed in an attempt to curtail rocket fired by Palestinian group Hamas have caused shortages, but Israel says Hamas is preventing fuel distribution.
More than 80% of Gaza’s population rely on aid, with UN food hand-outs going to about 1.1 million people – many them children.
Not a word about the recent Hamas breaches of Israel’s borders to carry out attacks resulting in two Israeli civilians and two soldiers dead and more than a dozen Israeli soldiers wounded.
All of that simply airbrushed out by the BBC’s news team. Perhaps John Reith or Nick Reynolds can explain why?
Correction.
That should be two Israeli civilians and three Israeli soldiers dead…
Reith and Reynolds will tell us it’s old news.
But we know it’s the normalisation of terror – something the BBC has become quite expert at.
There is something nauseating about a supposed “news” organisation with its roots in the civilised West using words like “offer” and “truce” in the same sentence as bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists like Hamas without a hint of shame.
David,
I’m still banned so I’ve emailed my details from another address in case the other didn’t reach you.
Sorted.
Yeah!
Free at least! 🙂
Bryan,
The following paragraph is old news, but it still reports Israel’s actions as the first instance of “violence” and avoids reporting aggression against Israel and Israelis as such:
Gaza has been a focus of recent violence, with the Israeli military carrying out raids to target Hamas members, while Hamas has fired rockets at nearby Israeli towns.
The only instance of Hamas violence is the firing of rockets at inanimate “towns”.
And only in revenge for Israeli aggression.
Meanwhile the following new news doesn’t get any coverage by the BBC:
2 killed in shooting attack in Sharon region
Two Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists near Tulkarm
Instead the BBC leads on Hamas’ so-called offer of a so-called truce and the Middle East news pages features the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
* Gaza voices
How the fuel shortage is affecting education and healthcare
* Meeting La Familia
On the terraces with the notorious fans of Beitar Jerusalem
* Yearning for home
The Arab Christians who cannot return to their village in Israel
We were once told by John Reith that BBC doesn’t see fit to report every missile launched at Israel until they kill somebody, so I wonder what the criteria is for reporting on Jews killed by Arabs in cross-border attacks?
I wonder what the criteria is for reporting on Jews killed by Arabs in cross-border attacks?
Biodegradable | 25.04.08 – 12:53 pm
I guess the criteria is if they think they can hide it without any repercussions, they’ll hide it.
For the record, and to give some ‘context’, here’s some information and background on that latest attack that the BBC won’t give us:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/25/todays-terrorist-attacks/
Fuel crisis halts Gaza food aid
The United Nations says it has had to halt food distribution in the Gaza Strip because it has run out of fuel.
Distributions to 15,000 refugees took place on Thursday, but were then halted. Officials said deliveries due on Saturday will also not take place.
Israeli sanctions imposed in an attempt to curtail rocket fired by Palestinian group Hamas have caused shortages.
Reports say no fuel was pumped from Israel to Gaza on Thursday. Israel says Hamas is preventing fuel distribution.
It says there are a million litres of fuel at a border terminal which Gaza fuel distributors, with the backing of Hamas, have refused to collect in protest at the Israeli restrictions.
But the UN says fuel distributors who agreed to collect fuel not earmarked for the UN to help with distributions to refugees were stopped by protesters from the farming and fishing sectors – who have also been hit by the shortages.
One says, the other says, somebody else says… basically the facts say that any shortage is Hamas’s fault but the BBC’s reporting seems to blame Israel for everything.
More on these ‘protesters’:
Palestinian Arabs protest and close UNRWA offices; UNRWA goes on strike
What does UNRWA say about all this?
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/25/revealng-the-unrwas-true-colors/
“Gaza has been a focus of recent violence, with the Israeli military carrying out raids to target Hamas members, while Hamas has fired rockets at nearby Israeli towns.”
“The only instance of Hamas violence is the firing of rockets at inanimate “towns”.”
Note the BBC “makes excuses” for the Israelis, as you would probably put it, by saying they had a target for their “violence” and “raids”. No such justification for Hamas.
“And only in revenge for Israeli aggression.”
Not aware that that phrase was in the article.
“Meanwhile the following new news doesn’t get any coverage by the BBC: ‘2 killed in shooting attack in Sharon region’, ‘Two Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists near Tulkarm’”
Civilian deaths are far more newsworthy than military ones. “Foreign soldiers killed in military conflict overseas” is hardly a headline.
I believe those 2 Israelis were civilian security guards, but I may be wrong.
You are right. I’ve provide a link to the report in yahoo by the AP and in the Israeli press several times.
For example:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3535729,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870490120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/25/todays-terrorist-attacks/
Of course Alex doesn’t need to actually read the reports I’m talking about in order to have an opinion… based on what exactly?
Alex, you are an ignorant, prejudiced, evil little shit.
The AP report at Yahoo!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_4
My mistake, yes they were in fact security guards. But security guards are still not quite as newsworthy as civilians.
Standard civilians. You know what I mean.
And please note I mean ‘newsworthy’ and not ‘worthy of life’.
Give up Alex.
You have forfeited any right to further debates with me.
I’m sick of telling you to learn how to read and comprehend, and your insistence on trying to be right when you’re so clearly wrong, or simply pig ignorant, isn’t even amusing any more.
Do you win then? Would you like a prize or would you settle for a certificate?
Don’t give up the day job, Alex – you will never be a comedy scriptwriter. Why, you can’t even spot sarcasm (as when I wrote “And only in revenge for Israeli aggression” and you were too dumb to realise that and replied with
“Not aware that that phrase was in the article”. No, you idiot: it wasn’t there verbatim, but the whole tenor of BBC reports implies this attitude. And the claim above that ‘BBC makes excuses for the Israelis’ is only surpassed in stupidity by the claim that ‘security guards are less newsworthy than civilians’.
I think I’ll give up on you. Either you are stupid beyond belief, or you are an evil antisemite. And I can’t be bothered to find out which one it is.
“And the claim above that ‘BBC makes excuses for the Israelis’ is only surpassed in stupidity by the claim that ‘security guards are less newsworthy than civilians’.”
I never claimed that the BBC ‘made excuses’. I claimed the BBC explained Israel’s motives and actions – which is often referred to on this website as “making excuses”.
As for security guards being less newsworthy – are you actually going to refute that point or just call it ‘stupid’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ and stick your tongue out?
Dead Israelis are less newsworthy than dead “Palestinians” whether they’re soldiers, civilian security guards, or “standard civilians” (sic).
That’s a fact, and it is antisemitic.
Next you’ll be rating newsworthiness based on whether the dead Jew was an observant orthodox Jew or only a fairly secular reform Jew, or perhaps whether the dead Jew’s parents where both Jewish or only the mother, or perhaps the maternal grandmother.
Does that sound familiar? You describe yourself as a “Germanist” so you should know what I’m talking about.
You’re not stupid Alex. To quote Frank Zappa, “Stupidity has a certain charm, ignorance does not.”
Bio, I agree with everything you say but for one point: I regard Alex as stupid. Anyone who can’t see that a civilian’s profession is immaterial to the fact that he was murdered by Arab terrorists is not ignorant (well, he can be ignorant also, and Alex sure is): he is stupid. Like two very short, very thick planks.
According to Zappa’s definition Alex is not stupid because he lacks charm.
I also believe that Alex is worse than stupid; there is a nasty willfulness about his deliberate misrepresentations.
First he dismissed the BBC’s failure to report the death of two Israelis because, without even reading about the incident, he assumed they were soldiers. He says that Arab terrorists murdering Israeli soldiers isn’t worth reporting – not even to provide the famous ‘context’ or background to the next incident of Israel attempting to arrest Arab terrorists or neutralize rocket squads, for example.
Soldiers killed in war zones far from the UK is not “newsworthy”, he says. Should we then stop reporting US and UK military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Once it had been pointed out to him that they were in fact civilians he still shrugged his shoulders claiming that as security guards they weren’t “standard civilians”.
He even expects us to accept that as reasonable.
Alex is worse than stupid; he is hypocritical and dishonest with a nasty vindictive streak.
He tries to be “amusing” and sarcastic á la Hillhunt but doesn’t have the sophistication to pull it off. Like Hillhunt he only seeks attention and to disrupt any thread he can.
In any discussion, as he’s shown in this one, he’s only interested in having the last word, usually one of disrespect for those with whom he’s debating. As each of his arguments are shown to be false, invalid or plain ridiculous he searches for straw men, red herrings, or any other way of avoiding admission of defeat.
His latest arguments on the comparative newsworthiness of murdered Israelis reveal the depth of his disdain for Israel and Jews. He hinted at it during the discussions on the massacre at the Yeshiva in Jerusalem.
I can’t imagine him applying such judgments to “Palestinian” civilians, terrorists and their enablers, just as I can’t imagine the BBC not reporting on any case it could find of a “Palestinian” allegedly suffering any kind of harm or discomfort at the hands of the dreaded Israelis whether that “Palestinian” be an armed terrorist, a member of the “Palestinian Security Forces” or a “Standard civilian”.
No, Alex, like the BBC itself, is willfully ignorant. He simply isn’t interested in hearing about anything that runs contrary to his prejudices, and like the BBC he shows his bias every time he claims to be neutral.
Alex isn’t stupid, he’s much, much worse than that.
You know you’re doing a piss-poor job of refusing to argue with me.
“Next you’ll be rating newsworthiness based on whether the dead Jew was an observant orthodox Jew or only a fairly secular reform Jew, or perhaps whether the dead Jew’s parents where both Jewish or only the mother, or perhaps the maternal grandmother. Does that sound familiar?”
Not really. I don’t think there’s any precedent for people doing that much background research into stories they don’t consider newsworthy. Also I doubt Der Stürmer ever much bothered with those fairly arbitrary definitions when deciding what to run on the front page.
“Anyone who can’t see that a civilian’s profession is immaterial to the fact that he was murdered by Arab terrorists is not ignorant”
In moral terms, yes, it is fairly immaterial. But in terms of what is worth reporting, security guards are different from your common or garden civilians. For a start they’re armed (or assumed to be even if they forgot their gun in the car) and in uniform and so are considered by some to be legitimate targets equivalent to soldiers. As it was an attack on a checking terminal, this case was probably not an arbitrary attack on a soft target but an attempt to kill Israelis that were at least considered combatants.
“Soldiers killed in war zones far from the UK is not “newsworthy”, he says. Should we then stop reporting US and UK military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq?”
Foreign soldiers killed in war zones far away. Israeli soldiers are both foreign and involved in a war that Britain is not. This is not a tendency exclusive to Israel. Search French soldiers on the BBC for comparison. If we exclude stories from Afghanistan (where Britain is involved) and stories where the deaths are simply given as background, we’re left with two from the first three pages. One is a large demonstration and the other is “The first French soldiers to be killed in combat in Ivory Coast since France sent 4,000 troops to the country to monitor a peace agreement it brokered in January” so in neither case is the death of foreign soldiers in a foreign war the only story.
And it seems the rule also applies to security guards. Again omitting wars involving Britain, only one from the first three pages involves security guard deaths exclusively, and this is not only about Israel, but also from a period of relative calm and mixed in with controversy over the security wall.
You know you’re doing a piss-poor job of refusing to argue with me.
I’m not arguing with you. My comments were written about you, not at you.
I will just answer this though, seeing as you’ve chosen to not see the point, although you should understand that I am not debating with you the “newsworthiness” or otherwise of the death of one Jew over another. I’ll leave judgments on “good Jews” and “bad Jews” to you:
“… whether the dead Jew was an observant orthodox Jew or only a fairly secular reform Jew, or perhaps whether the dead Jew’s parents where both Jewish or only the mother, or perhaps the maternal grandmother. Does that sound familiar?”
Not really. I don’t think there’s any precedent for people doing that much background research into stories they don’t consider newsworthy. Also I doubt Der Stürmer ever much bothered with those fairly arbitrary definitions when deciding what to run on the front page.
This is exactly what I mean about you being willfully ignorant and basically nasty.
There is precedent for the Nazis extensively researching the background of people to determine if they were Jewish enough to warrant extermination.
You differentiating between dead Jews worthy of news coverage or not, your inference that civilian guards checking Palestinians going to work in an Israeli industrial zone are somehow “combatants” and therefore legitimate targets, therefore their murders are not worthy of being reported on, all of that stinks to high heaven. Your sarcastic brushing off of that obvious reference is another example of how rancid your soul is, if you have one at all.
You keep insisting on it so I cannot believe you when you say, please note I mean ‘newsworthy’ and not ‘worthy of life’.
That is exactly what you do mean when you find excuses to not report the murder, the deliberate taking of life, of a non-combatant by an Arab terrorist.
Your comment about one of the guards leaving his weapon in his car is sick – I can imagine you gloating about it.
You are a sick and twisted excuse for a human being Alex.
Seconded.
I think the World Service was sabotaged at 13:00 GMT on Monday, or perhaps it was yesterday. I was half-listening to the newsreader droning on about the Egyptians discovering a tunnel used to smuggle fuel under the Rafah crossing into Gaza when my attention was grabbed by this:
….bypassing the Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Strip.
Now I believe that is the only time the World Service has ever mentioned that Egypt has a blockade of Gaza in place. I was flaggergasted. I’m sure someone switched the newsreaders’ copy and gave them one with that bit of information slipped in. Surely the World Service would never come up with it all on its own. I listened for it on later newscasts but they had dropped the story.
Now we need someone to switch more copy and get the BBC to inadvertently acknowledge that the “blockade” from the Israeli side is more like a sieve, with a constant stream of trucks entering Gaza with supplies including food and fuel.
Hell we could even get the BBC to speculate on the reason for the Gazans’ Egyptian brothers treating them worse than the Israelis.
Now wouldn’t that be something?
I had a brief look for the story on the net, but this was all I could find:
http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReader.aspx?Item=5_851629577
“There is precedent for the Nazis extensively researching the background of people to determine if they were Jewish enough to warrant extermination.”
This is true. However there is, to my knowledge, no precedent for Nazi journalists using racial background to decide which stories to cover, or of the Nazis running the Selektions taking into account whether or not the Jew in question was a security guard. Apart from both involving a decision and Jews, your analogy doesn’t fit. At all.
“You differentiating between dead Jews worthy of news coverage or not”
The fact that they were Jews is irrelevant and at no point did I claim otherwise. Quite the opposite, I actively went out of my way to provide comparable, non-Jewish examples. In fact it was you, not me, as always, that brought up the topic of the victims’ Jewishness.
“ your inference that civilian guards checking Palestinians going to work in an Israeli industrial zone are somehow “combatants” and therefore legitimate targets”
I claimed they were considered by some to be legitimate targets. The gunman, for example. Again, I was very careful to show that this was not my own opinion. Please don’t repeat your tiresome ‘reading comprehension’ jibes if you continue to wilfully misunderstand my statements.
“Your comment about one of the guards leaving his weapon in his car is sick – I can imagine you gloating about it.”
Qualification of the term ‘armed’. Nothing more.
“therefore their murders are not worthy of being reported on, all of that stinks to high heaven.”
I said “not newsworthy” rather than “Not worthy of being reported on”. The moral judgement your wording implies was never my intention and I was careful not to express it.
You are cunningly avoiding engaging with my actual arguments on whether the murder of foreign security guards in foreign conflicts is generally considered newsworthy. You seem to be getting very worked up over some straw Mel Gibson that you built yourself.
Alex, for a little weasely waste of space like you to talk about ‘cunningly avoiding engaging with my actual arguments’ is beyond parody.
Equally, the spurious distinction between “not newsworthy” and “Not worthy of being reported on” is pathetic from someone who talks about ‘reading comprehension’. You have none. Your level of textual sophistication is put to shame by the snails at the bottom of my garden.
Whether or not they were ‘considered’ by murdering scum to be ‘legitimate targets’ is irrelevant, and only an idiot like yourself and the BBC’s droids could possibly regard that as justification for the —BBC— to deem them ‘legitimate targets’ and therefore ‘not newsworthy’. They were CIVILIANS, you sad loser.
You have revealed your antisemitic mindset only too clearly.
I said “not newsworthy” rather than “Not worthy of being reported on”.
I’m afraid that’s too subtle for me. I’d need to have a mind as dishonest and devious as yours to be able to argue that point.
I’m not “cunningly” doing anything.
You invented the hypothetical argument that “foreign security guards in foreign conflicts is generally considered newsworthy” to defend the BBC’s failure to report the murder of two Israeli civilians, for civilians is what they are. You’ve even referred to it as a “rule”. Perhaps you thought you were being clever and “cunning”.
That argument is a straw man that you conjured out of the air as a possible explanation, you say, for the BBC’s failure, and as such I have no interest in debating it further with you.
It’s irrelevant and I’m not here to debate whatever irrelevant idiocy you choose to drag into a discussion. If you were a BBC employee, like Nick Reynolds for example, telling me that it was official policy it’d be different, but you’re not and it isn’t.
The AP report I linked to mentions that attacks against civilians launched from the West Bank were rare. That alone should make the incident “newsworthy”. AP certainly found it “newsworthy”.
The fact is, as I’ve already stated several times, the BBC chooses to ignore the murders of Israelis, or play down their deaths, whenever it can. Full stop.
The BBC hasn’t replied to my complaints. Even they haven’t tried to excuse themselves with the kind of pathetic arguments you’re trotting out.
Let’s get this straight, you first explained away the lack of reporting by saying it was because the dead Israelis were soldiers. You argued a false case without even knowing the facts!
Once you realised that they were not in fact soldiers you really should have just given up and stopped digging. But you didn’t.
You then said, with no hint of embarrassment, that civilian security guards were about the same as soldiers, ie: their deaths aren’t worth reporting and even went to the trouble of searching out examples (from 2003) that would “prove” your case.
You whole “case” is invented purely for the sake of arguing. I’m sick of it and I’m sick of you. You’ve dug yourself into a hole. I just wish somebody would fill it in with earth while you’re thrashing around in the bottom of it.
Regarding the other story of the week; the mother and kids that the BBC continued to allege were “killed” by the IDF, either a missile or a tank shell depending on which “Palestinian witness” you believe.
Confirmed: Palestinian Family Killed By Terrorists, Not IDF
Please do not respond Alex. I really am not interested in anything you may have to say.
Bio, he’ll now claim that it’s not newsworthy to update an Arab/Al Beeb lie and inform people of the truth.
It might get updated because I just lodged a complaint, then again if not Alex and the BBC will claim that it’s nothing new and it’s all been covered in the original report.
Another example of the BBC reporting “Palestinian” deaths but not Israeli ones. Not even the kids massacred in the Jerusalem yeshiva, or the two workers killed at the fuel depot – all civilians, and all the BBC bias revealed in one simple paragraph:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8501771973239251253/#396674
Biodegradable,
Back in February, I complained about the following grossly distorted reporting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7247983.stm
Here’s the complaint:
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.
Thanks for your attention.
Naturally they ignored it. However, I had partial success in complaining to this HYS about abusive comments:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=9012&start=0&edition=2&ttl=20080502194629
They removed this one:
Added: Saturday, 26 April, 2008, 08:08 GMT 09:08 UK
US allegations on Syria is completely False. and completely base less. Whyonly The US has all rights. US is black markc over theface of civilized world.
US sould be swap ofthae map.may God destroy US and Bastered Bush regieme.
Abdul Wahid, Meerut , India
Recommended by 3 people
But they let this one stand:
Added: Saturday, 26 April, 2008, 06:48 GMT 07:48 UK
So who died and made Israel Judge, Jury, and Executioner? How can these Chosen Savages attack any country they see fit. Let me take that back..they only attack countries who can’t strike back. Sooner or later they will screw up, y’know like bite their masters and their masters will put them in the kenel.
Arlan Santori
Recommended by 4 people
Strange the kind of comments the BBC feels are not abusive.
I see Alex is wondering around with his hair-splitter again:
I said “not newsworthy” rather than “Not worthy of being reported on”.
Problem is, that particular hair refuses to be split. Alex is simply trying to advance his fake ‘argument’. Wont work here. The omission of any mention of the killing of those two guards is a disturbing new low for the propagandist BBC. And his refusal to acknowledge the fact is a disturbing new low for Alex.
In the interest of saving space I will ignore the ad-hominem arguments and answer the few lines to do with the BBC’s reporting.
“They were CIVILIANS, you sad loser.”
Civilians with guns and uniforms. Not quite soldiers, as I conceded earlier, but more like soldiers than your average civilian.
“You have revealed your antisemitic mindset only too clearly.”
Kindly point me to a negative comment I have made about Jews. As far as I can remember the most anti-Semitic thing I have said is that I could understand a bit of Yiddish.
“You invented the hypothetical argument that “foreign security guards in foreign conflicts is generally considered newsworthy” to defend the BBC’s failure to report the murder of two Israeli civilians, for civilians is what they are…It’s irrelevant”
You complained that the BBC had declined to mention the murder of two security guards. You falsely, in my opinion, concluded that this was down to anti-Israeli sentiment. It is therefore entirely relevant whether the BBC reports on similar attacks elsewhere, as this determines whether or not it is a double standard, and so whether this is an anti-security guard or an anti-Israel tendency.
“The fact is, as I’ve already stated several times, the BBC chooses to ignore the murders of Israelis, or play down their deaths, whenever it can. Full stop.”
A lot of people state a lot of things on this blog. What counts is, instead of ending with a “Full stop.” or a “FACT!”, backing up your gut feelings with examples.
“Regarding the other story of the week; the mother and kids that the BBC continued to allege were “killed” by the IDF, either a missile or a tank shell depending on which “Palestinian witness” you believe.”
Irrelevant. The BBC was right to report both sides before all the facts were confirmed.
“Civilians with guns and uniforms. Not quite soldiers, as I conceded earlier, but more like soldiers than your average civilian” – total and utter crap. Lots of civilians in various countries carry guns for various reasons. Lots of commissionaires in various countries wear a uniform. So do parking control operatives. They are still civilians.
Your antisemitic mindset is revealed by your stupid insistence that the murder of Jewish civilians by Arab terrorists in not newsworthy, and twisting like a corkscrew to defend this vile position.
And with that I stop answering your pathetic excuses. I have answered them once, I have answered them twice, others on this thread have answered them several times; if you are too thick to see it, or too dishonest to accept it, that’s just too bad.
Please do not respond Alex. I really am not interested in anything you may have to say.
Biodegradable | 02.05.08 – 5:35 pm
Alex, this really will be my last reply to you on this topic, and possibly any other topic.
Civilians with guns and uniforms. Not quite soldiers, as I conceded earlier, but more like soldiers than your average civilian.
I don’t care, that whole question of guns/no guns, uniforms/no uniforms, “standard civilians” is something you have dragged up. It is not relevant. I don’t care what you concede or not.
Kindly point me to a negative comment I have made about Jews.
One doesn’t need to make negative comments to express antisemitism. As Lord Jenner once famously said, quoting his father, “one can’t always see antisemitism, but one can always smell it”. Believe me Alex, I know that stench when I smell it.
You complained that the BBC had declined to mention the murder of two security guards.
I expressed outrage that the BBC has refused to report on the death of two Israelis. The distinction between soldiers, security guards and civilians is a red herring that you have introduced. I’ve explained ad nauseum that I don’t believe it has any bearing on the BBC’s decision not to report the incident, and you have no basis on which to claim that it does.
Your preoccupation with whether or not those murdered Israelis were civilians is similar to asking whether they deserved it or not. Similar in intent to the BBC pointing out that the yeshiva where young students were massacred in Jerusalem was connected with the “settler movement”.
“Regarding the other story of the week; the mother and kids that the BBC continued to allege were “killed” by the IDF, either a missile or a tank shell depending on which “Palestinian witness” you believe.”
Irrelevant. The BBC was right to report both sides before all the facts were confirmed.
Now that the IDF has confirmed the actual facts (including video evidence that the family was outside, not inside eating breakfast) I believe it is highly relevant and the BBC should also report that, but I have no doubt it won’t.
But I have no interest in your opinion on this, or indeed anything else.
Bryan | 02.05.08 – 8:05 pm
I remember all that. Glad you keep a record of it.
I’m keeping copies of all my complaints seeing as I don’t get so much as an acknowledgment from the BBC.
Yes, I also have a file for complaints to the BBC.
As I mentioned to you a while back, I’ve been debating BBC bias with Martin Belam, particularly the fact that the BBC trumpets the results of anti-Israeli polls but is totally silent on polls reflecting negatively on Palestinians, with their support for terror. One of his last responses was that their support for terror is a dog bites man story i.e. it’s unnecessary for the BBC to mention it. Unbelievable. Similar to Alex’s grotesque little dance around the concept of newsworthy:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/02/bbc_news_user-generated_content.php
Interesting debate you were having there Bryan, and yes, a page out of Alex’s handbook.
Belam:
I mean, we all saw the shameful scenes of Palestinians celebrating and praying in the street with joy after the murders at the Mercaz Harav seminary earlier this year.
Errr, no Martin, we did not see anything of the sort on the BBC.
What we did see was a house in Bethlehem being demolished because some of the terrorist explosives it contained had gone off being described as the seminary murderer’s family’s house being demolished as collective punishment.
“Dog bites man” was exactly Alex’s argument then… something along the lines of, “Israelis demolish houses anyway, so what’s the problem?”
Alex, Belam, the BBC, all suffer from the same moral bankruptcy… or rather we all suffer as a result of it.
Errr, no Martin, we did not see anything of the sort on the BBC.
Yes, I was wondering what Belam was watching if he actually saw those scenes. I didn’t. How much can one actually absorb of the Palestinians?
Re the elections, I hardly drink these days, but if I did I would have got totally slammed last night.
Re the elections, I hardly drink these days, but if I did I would have got totally slammed last night.
Bryan | 03.05.08 – 6:55 am
I treated myself to a Glenfiddich with Ginger Ale and although I’ve never voted Conservative in my life I toasted Mayor Boris.
Talking of drinking, there had been various reports of Livingston drinking whiskey at morning meetings of the London Assembly so it was amusing to see him interviewed on the street yesterday afternoon. He was asked what he’d do if he won. “Have a bloody great drink”, was his reply. He was then asked by the same journalist what he’d do if he lost. “Have a bloody great drink”, he repeated.
I expect he’ll be legless by now and with nothing useful to do in the future he’ll probably turn into an alcoholic. It couldn’t happen to a nastier piece of work!
True.
“Your antisemitic mindset is revealed by your stupid insistence that the murder of Jewish civilians by Arab terrorists in not newsworthy, and twisting like a corkscrew to defend this vile position.”
At no point did I mention “Jewish” civilians or “Arab” terrorists. The introduction of Jewishness is purely on your part.
“One doesn’t need to make negative comments to express antisemitism. As Lord Jenner once famously said, quoting his father, “one can’t always see antisemitism, but one can always smell it”. Believe me Alex, I know that stench when I smell it.”
A convenient way to lend credibility to highly offensive accusations while not having to bother to prove them. If you can point to any comments I have made that ‘smell’ anti-Semitic, this would be just as good.
“I expressed outrage that the BBC has refused to report on the death of two Israelis. The distinction between soldiers, security guards and civilians is a red herring that you have introduced.”
You postulated that the editorial decision not to run this story was based on the victims’ being Israeli. I suggested two more factors, their profession and foreignness. You have yet to explain why the one and not the other is any more relevant except with offensive accusations.
Note the Telegraph, Times, Mail or Guardian don’t seem to have run any stories on “Nitzane Shalom” either. Only the fanatically pro-Israeli Independent seems to have anything on it.
“At no point did I mention “Jewish” civilians or “Arab” terrorists. The introduction of Jewishness is purely on your part”
What a vile, nasty, lying piece of antisemitic shit you are. Those civilians were Jewish, and their murderers were Arabs. You defended the BBC’s reporting on Arab civilian deaths. You defended the BBC NOT reporting on Jewish civilian deaths. My point is made, now go and f&ck yourself.
Complete bollocks from start to finish. Have you, for example, considered that I defended both because both were being (in my opinion, unfairly) criticised? In both cases I pointed to a large number of factors which were entirely unrelated to Jewishness or Arab-nessm, which you repeatedly disregarded. Unless the two events were identical except for the ethnicity of those involved, which is clearly not the case, then there is nothing to suggest that anti-Semitism is my motive except your own hysterical prejudices.
I shouldn’t be surprised, after this method of putting everything to your distaste down to anti-Semitism while denying even the most obvious other factors has already been tried heavily on the BBC.
Now might I ask, at what point did I:
a) Lie?
b) Say or imply ANYTHING about Jews?
The only hysterical screeching is from you. I analysed your bias in detail. The news was ABOUT Jews and ABOUT non-Jews. Evidently, you are far too dumb to get it. You are an asshole.