Wonder did anybody catch John Humphrys interviewing the spokesman for the Israeli government on the Today programme early this morning? Talk about a visceral dislike! In essence Humphrys interview was sheer shilling for the Hamas hudna, and he seemed determined to try and get the Israeli government spokesman to say that if Hamas stopped firing rockets – for even a few days – then Israel would respond by lifting the current blockade of Gaza. Not a mention of the overnight murder of two Israelis by “militants” from Humphrys. No, Hamas were being given the kid gloves treatment whilst Israel was being roughed up. I thought his interview was shallow, biased, and had an atmosphere about it that was downright unpleasant. As it happens, I think John Humphrys is a very good interviewer but when he is talking to someone representing Israel, his standards appear to fall – as they most certainly did this morning. What IS IT about Israel that so offends the Beeboids?
HUMPRHYS ON HUDNAS.
Bookmark the permalink.
Well I suppose it is at least consistent with the general approach of the BBC, which is to demonise Israel.
Typical of this approach is this article today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7366239.stm
which you can imagine the average Beeboid demanding be put on the website, in the interests of “balance”.
It contains Beeboidspeak such as:
“Many experts – not least in the US – were sceptical after the air strike, doubting that the target was actually a nuclear reactor.”
Ah yes, the “many”. No doubt many of the experts are Syrian or North Korean also.
Compare the BBC treatment of the above with their treatment of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7359258.stm
Try playing “spot the criticism” in this article, with the BBC as ever reverentially bowing to Mecca, even in the face of pure lunacy. Just imagine the way the BBC would have come out with all guns blazing if, say, a Christian religion had proposed “Rome time” instead of GMT.
I disagree that he is a good interviewer. Sure, he is a good BBC interviewer, that is to say, he always comes from the BBC position. It is sad that such hypocrites and bigots, ceaselessly peddling the party line, which in a civilised country would never become senior interviewers in a state broadcasting station, are now accepted as the norm.
I have not heard that interview. In general, however, I totally dispair of our spokesmen whether in Beeb interviews or otherwise. What is there to insist about except UN resolution 242, which has nothing on hudnas whether for two hours or ten years. It has “secure and recognized borders”. This is the only thing Israel has to repeatedly remind interviewers who take the side of those suggesting other arrangements, and in this reject the UN essential resolution in this matter.
I can’t remember the last pro Israeli report I heard on the beeb…has there ever been one? I was brought up admiring Israel and it saddens me to see to see the beeb in effect campaign for the destruction of the only true democracy in the middle east.A democracy that will probably have to deal with Iran…something we are too spineless to do…it’s truly shameful.
Thud – wholly agree. And as usual the Israelis aren’t going to get any thanks for their supremely dangerous and daring mission in destroying the Syrian nuclear reactor. They’ve really done the world a favour there.
Anat – Mark Regev was the Israeli spokesperson and he is as good as they get. It’s the BBCs John Humphrys who should be condemned.
What links these three stories?
The Foreign Secretary visits Baghdad
“Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that reconciliation has proved a success and all political blocs will return to the government,” Maliki’s office said in a statement after Maliki met visiting British Foreign Secretary David Miliband
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0434078820080424?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
The first British journalist visits Basra since the defeat of the Mahdi Army
“I now have the university life that I heard of at high school before the war and always dreamt about,” she told The Times. “It was a nightmare because of these militiamen. I only attended class three days a week but now I look forward to going every day.”
Al-Qaeda’s blasphemous insult against Islam has succeeded in uniting Iraqis
“It’s a beautiful thing that they are rebuilding the mosque,” said Abdul Jabar Salah, an unemployed father of three standing in line on Tuesday outside the mayor’s office, waiting to apply for a job helping with reconstruction of the shrine.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4714957
Good news from Iraq is ALWAYS ignored by the Beeboids (too busy Israeli-bashing, no doubt)
Oscar,
I think Mark Regev spoke well but the problem was that Humphyrs had his own predetermined agenda = Israel is bad.
Humphrys didn’t go into any detail about the nature of the Hamas offer -it was only at the end of the interview that Regev was able to make the point that the “offer” required Israel to hand over control of the border crossings. So the “truce offer” actually required a major concession from Israel, something Humphrys somehow failed to report. And the Beeb calls this journalism?
“HUMPRHYS ON HUDNAS”
Is there no one in the BBC who isn’t on something?
Right you are, Oscar. And of course, ignorant and spineless tossers like Dennis Healey condemned the Israeli ‘regime’ [sic!] for destroying Osirac, which was another such daring and utterly necessary action.
Compare and contrast the Humphrys interview of the Israeli government with that by Edward Stourton of the Palestinian winner of the Orwell prize (c. 8.15am this morning). The latter was allowed to spout at length – without any real challenge – about how Palestine had been ruined by the nasty Israelis. Outrageous.
This should have been – if Today had been doing its job properly – an interview about why a supposedly prestigious literary prize had been subverted and hijacked by anti-Israeli judges. Instead, it was a fawning propaganda slot for Hamas.
Nearly Oxford Ian:
ignorant and spineless tossers like Dennis Healey condemned the Israeli ‘regime’ [sic!]
Nailed it in one, Ian. Healey is infamous for his spinelessness, especially his cowardly role as military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio all those years ago.
Tosser is too weak a word for yellerbelly Healey’s personal record in confronting evil. Wouldn’t you agree?
.
David Vance/Phil – absolutely agree. I also noticed the interview was abruptly cut off with no ‘thank yous’ at the end. Maybe Mark Regev revealed something that didn’t suit? I also noticed they buried the news that two Israeli guards had been killed this morning – mentioned as an aside in the news bulletin before Hamas’s alleged ‘truce’ offer, as if it was of no consequence.
You ask “What IS IT about Israel that so offends the Beeboids?”? The answer is clear; Israel’s existence offends Beeboids.
I agree, hillhunt, except I have no idea why you think my name is Ian 😉
As, e.g., ‘Honest reporting’ pointed out 5 years ago:-
“The media translate ‘hudna’ as ‘truce’, misrepresenting the terms’s religious, historical and modern meaning.”
See all article: ‘Hudna with Hamas’
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
And, as a specific update on this:
“The Duty to Inform” (by Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/14380
Hillhunt,
As you will have noticed, I’ve lifted the ban – so please keep it civil and you will be welcome to comment. You know the score.
What IS IT about Israel that so offends the Beeboids?
The fact that they’re Jews?
“What IS IT about Israel that so offends the Beeboids?
The fact that they’re Jews?”
Simple,Jews and Americans are the only ones the PC brigade can openly hate.They hate the English as well but in a more covert way.
Peter/Gordon,
I think you are right. It’s OK to hate Jews and Americans. (and Ulster Protestants!)
It’s OK to hate Jews, Americans, Ulster Unionists, members of Opus Dei, evangelical Christians, anyone ‘right wing’ and ? who wants to add to the list?
and – oh yes how could I forget – the white working class.
And the Welsh.
Straight married people.
Fox hunters
Vivisectionists
Pro-lifers
Capitalists
anyone who smokes or drinks
anyone who uses private health care
anyone who loaths Jihad
anyone who wants low taxes
anyone in favour of small government
It’s perfectly reasonable to be against the vicious scum who hunt foxes.
Nearly Oxfordian | 25.04.08 – 9:16 pm,
Dunno about that. Whatever one’s personal feelings about the issue, the BBC is supposed to be impartial and not jump on campaign bandwagons.
NO,
Bryan has a point. Whether one is for or against fox-huntind the BBC likes to pretend it is impartial. Therein lies the contradiction since NONE of us is impartial. The BBC should stop the pretense, admit it is biased (fair enough) and stop seeking our cash to fund its prejudices.
Don’t forget “dissident” or “denialist” scientists.
And anyone who thinks that their children are transported more sensibly and safely in a 4×4 than in a tiny soya-powered tin-can with biodegradable hemp tyres.
I too more or less loathe fox hunters, having grown up in a farming village where farmers routinely complained that their land had been trampled to buggery by hunts without their permission having been asked. I spent many a summer day helping local farmers re-erect fences that had been brought down by huntsmen.
I think I’ll refrain from throwing words like “scum” around though – because, despite everything else, posh girls are sometimes amazingly horny.
Peter,
Shhhhhh! You have just used a banned word. (We know they have quite a little list.)I am not going to be so bold or subversive as to repeat a word deemed not suitable for public hearing. I will merely hint that it begins with “E”. Yes the E word is now taboo on the national broadcaster’s channels.
The point is that a specific Act of parliament has been passed legally, whether you like it or not, outlawing the practice. Anyone who deliberately sets out to break this law, and many of those people also commit conspiracy to break the law, is scum in my estimation and I do and will say so. Therefore, BBC (im)partiality does not apply to this issue in the same way that it applies to Jews, Israel, Thatcher etc.
Posh girls are sometimes amazingly horny, I dare say; so are shop assistants, factory girls and so on.
Driving your kids half a mile in a 4×4 is a sign of brain meltdown, imo.
You think they’re scum, message received.
Which factory do you mean?
We all have different views on many things; I expect I’m in a minority here supporting windfarms, opposing fox hunting, never having (yet at least) voted conservative, thinking the worst MPs in recent times have not been labour (ok ex labour, Galloway and Short, I will grant you). And more.
Thats not the point.
The point is its about the BBC’s duty to impartiality as long as we are lumbered with this appalling state broadcaster funded by its odious poll tax.
End the status of state broadcaster.
Abolish the poll tax aka licence fee.
Privatise the BBC, let it compete with sky and others, if its really so good it will thrive, if not it will die off and good riddance.
BJ – thumbs up for that. The point is the ingrained, ill-concealed, and Charter-defying bias, not whether we personally share the views they so clearly advocate. Well said.
Apart from my position on wind farms (which imo are a scam, since they require backup capacity equal to their total capacity) and the fact that hunting foxes with dogs is now illegal, I have no problem with what you are saying. Oh yes, and the fact that individual voting patterns over what, probably 50 years for some of the posters here for all I know, are not really that relevant.
All I am saying is that fox hunting is not quite in the same category as what are still (whether or not one agrees with this state of affairs) 4x4s in a city.
Or being white working-class. Or Welsh.
I keep coming across terms in this blog that I do not know the meaning of. The title of this thread has an example. Can’t people translate any term from a foreign language into English so we all know what they are on about? It’s all Greek to me…
Millie Tant | 26.04.08 – 10:42 am |
http://www.omdurman.org/hudna.html
“What is being touted as a ‘cease-fire’ is something called a ‘hudna.’ A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the “cease-fire” is called off.” — “Cease-fire?” by Shira A. Drissman
George R pointed to a good article on hudna earlier in this thread:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
I see that the BBC are at it again. This time the article itself is not too bad but the sub-headline on the World News page is “A 14-year-old girl dies during clashes between Israeli forces and militants in Gaza, hours after a truce offer.” If only those Joos had accepted the peace offer this 14 year old girl would still be alive; those shitty Joos.
‘Truce’? LOL.
Thanks, folks. I’ll call it a ceasefire or truce, then. Wouldn’t want to start using terms that could
Thanka, folks. I’ll call it ceasefire or truce, then. Have reservations about giving currency to or being an unwitting mouthpiece for propagating the terminology and thinking of an ideology of terror and hate.
Of course you’re welcome to call a lame duck a dove of peace if it makes you feel better, but it’s still a duck, and the duck even quacks.
Mashaal: Cease-fire is a ‘tactic’
In an interview on pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television Mashaal said that Hamas was ready to cooperate but added that “it is a tactic in conducting the struggle. … It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people’s interest … to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit. … The battle is to be run this way and Hamas is known for that.”
He also warned of an explosion of violence in Gaza if Israel rejected the truce.
“Hamas has asked the Egyptians for a document containing Israel’s commitment to abide by the truce,” Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal told reporters in Qatar. “On the basis of this document, Hamas will decide whether to continue with the truce or reject it.”
Mashaal said the truce was Egypt’s idea and that Hamas would agree to it only if Israel complied with certain conditions. “Hamas did not initiate the period of calm,” he said. “It came from the Egyptians.”
Sigh. Since it is clear that I am not looking for euphemisms, your ducks and doves attempt is singularly inapt and your comment condescending. Nobody here is suggesting that a ceasefire is NOT tactical – although the BBC is another matter.