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?

Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to HUMPRHYS ON HUDNAS.

  1. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Millie, your rather fragmented post seemed a little confusing to me also 😉


  2. Biodegradable says:

    Dear Millie,

    To call a hudna, which is what Hamas call it in Arabic, by that name is not “giving currency to or being an unwitting mouthpiece for propagating the terminology and thinking of an ideology of terror and hate”.

    It is, I believe, misleading to call it something else like a “truce” or a “ceasefire” because what we think of when we hear those terms is something completely different to the intent and understanding in Arabic, and in the mind of those who speak the term “hudna” in their mother tongue.

    It is not always possible to directly translate one single word from a certain language and culture into one single other word in another language.

    For example the word “dhimmi” is not easily translated into English; it requires some explanation.

    To translate “jihad” as simply “struggle” is also to strip it of much of its significance as implied when used by a Muslim.

    To call a “hudna”, as used by Hamas, simply a “ceasefire” or “truce” would make me think of the Christmas truce between German and British troops in the trenches in France during WW1.

    The hudna allegedly proposed by Hamas is nothing like that, neither in intent nor effect.

    I believe its important to translate words, where necessary, giving due attention to the intentions or bias of the speaker, not the wishes of the listener, or the one who later reports the speech.

    The recent incident of the Israeli minister using the word shoah to mean disaster, not “Ha’ Shoah” meaning The Holocaust, is a good illustration of why accepting arbitrary translations can be dangerous.

    I’m sorry if you felt my previous reply, or this, was condescending, it wasn’t my intention.


  3. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Will Nick answer my question: why is the BBC propagating the outright lie that the Israeli minister said ‘Holocaust’?


  4. Biodegradable says:

    Melanie Phillips seems to have coined a new word.
    The Hamas hudwinka


  5. Bryan says:

    Yep, the BBC and other Hamas-friendly Western ideologues cerainly have been hudnawinked.


  6. davo says:

    Brian, I seriously doubt that The BBC have been hudna-winked. They are purposefully mis translating this COMMONLY recognised word to hudna-wink their own viewers.
    par for the course in their honouring of all things palestinian and shaming of all things Israeli.


  7. Bryan says:

    You’re probably right there davo, although there might be some idealistic young lefty BBC-ites fresh out of the BBC “journalism” college who don’t know what a hudna is. But there’s no doubt that seasoned old Hamas-friendly propagandists like Jeremy Bowen know exactly what it is.