. There is a great dissection of the BBC’s recent 60th birthday “tribute” “to Israel here over on Honest Reporting. The very fact that the BBC selected Jeremy Al Bowen to present this one hour documentary is surreal given HIS track record. It’s akin to having Hannibal Lecter front up a documentary on Veganism.
“A taste of things to come arrives in the first few seconds of the broadcast, which features images of Islam’s Dome of the Rock and a Christian crucifix against a Jerusalem backdrop. Despite the deep religious connection of Judaism to both Jerusalem and the land of Israel, this image is, incredibly, omitted. And herein lies the major flaw of the entire program – the legitimate roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel going back three millenia are either downplayed, delegitmized or ignored altogether.”
You should give it a read to see just how biased this disgraceful documentary was. I doubt that Hamas could have produced anything worse. There is something about any debate about Israel which brings out the very worst of Al Beeb.
This week’s coverage of Israel’s 60th anniversary has, in general, been abysmal, with the exception of the too few articles by Raffi Berg.
I was beginning to think that this was fairly balanced, until the last interview:
Israelis reflect on nation’s 60th
Six Israelis tell the BBC what they feel about their country and their hopes for the next 60 years.
Jonathan Rosenblum, member of the Haredi community
Haredim are the most theologically conservative of the Orthodox Jews. Young Haredi men are exempted from Israeli army service and spend their time studying traditional texts.
Well, it’s true that Haredim are exempt from compulsory military service, but they are free to volunteer, and many do, in fact there is a special brigade where they serve and are free to practice their devotions in their own way.
But Mr. Rosenblum is quoted as saying this:
“We have to understand that the fundamental values of this community are antithetical to the largely hedonistic, secular culture.
And that, by the way, is a major reason why I don’t believe you will ever find 18-year-old Haredi boys going into the army.”
In that case how do we explain this?
Nahal Haredi soldiers demand IDF reserve duty
A group of about 100 Nahal Haredi infantrymen who have completed their mandatory army service, unhappy that they have not yet been summoned for reserve duty, sent a letter to the IDF on Sunday demanding that they be called up immediately.
“We want to serve our country,” said Haim Galbstein, who finished his active duty in 2004 and has yet to receive a call to perform reserve duty. “I am not learning in yeshiva right now so I have an obligation to defend my people.”
(check out the photo)
or this:
http://www.nahalharedi.org/nahal_haredi_news.php?toc=media
You’d think Tim Franks would know better…
Melanie Phillips has now posted on Bowen’s mockumentary:
The war against the Jews (21)
My main thoughts concerning the Israelis and the Jews around the world is that “never again” certainly isn’t going to be as long as they hoped after the 1st Holocaust.
As the last of the WW2 generation and their children pass on to be replaced by generations indoctrinated by another era of demonization of Jewish
people, a new circumstance is being created justifying the cold-blooded murder of Jews in Israel. The murderers of Hezbollah, Fatah and Hama will soon have free reign to carry out what they proclaim loudly they purpose, all the while being cheered on by the idiotic western left.
Even now, America is getting ready to elect a typical anti-semite leftist as President. Obama has been the follower of a radical Jew-hating pastor for over 20 years and in 2000, his main foreign policy advisors advocated for America to use the US military to force Israel to accept Hama’s and Fatah’s demands.
It is going to be a sad spectacle as the Israelis are opposed by the UN, EU, and now the USA. I wonder what these imbeciles apologies will be when the Palistinians don’t turn out to be the peace-loving bunnies the western left glamorizes them to be.
“Opps, sorry you are dead, I guess we were mistaken” or more likely “What did you expect, you shouldn’t have tried to protect yourself earlier and just died, and the poor Palistinians would not have been made to massacre you.”
I am waiting for Britian to give back all the land it conquered.
Tim Franks provides another “Lets analyse the problem with Israel on it’s birthday” piece on Today this morning at 8.45. Depressing and relentless, that’s all I can say. Also Katya Adler provided more of the same on Kate Adie’s “From our Arab Correspondent” on Radio 4 yesterday. Indeed, listening to FOOC, it seems the BBC regard Israel as morally worse than Burma. Do the BBC ever remove their biased glasses when discussing Israel?
“Biodegradable:
Contrast & Compare:
Jewish return to Germany ‘humane'”
Yes, I noticed this insane contrast as well.
In fact, not knowing about the incident myself originally, when I read the piece first in the BBC, I was flummoxed by the point of the article. What was this unspoken accusation they were being defensive about with a headline like that? No real clues from the article itself. It took reading about it from other sources, like the AP source your provide, to understand what the hell the issue was. If that isn’t an example of bias by omission, or absurdly context-free reporting to the extent that a regular reader can’t decipher what the hidden meaning of the article is, I don’t know what is…Moreover, as presented on the BBC site, the article portrays the whole thing as as some sort of praiseworthy action on the part of the British, and only frames international objections to forcing Jewish Holocaust survivors to return to Germany a mere 2 years after the war as publicity stunts. Shameful.
“Hillhunt | 08.05.08 – 12:54 pm |”
Hillhunt,
Just read the general report on Israel’s 60th birthday from the AP ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/israel.anniversary.ap/index.html ) that appeared on CNN, in the L.A. Times, and elsewhere, and see if there is anything remotely resembling the kind of balance in that report on the BBC. Sorry, but there isn’t. It doesn’t come close. And the AP report has negatives, but it does not omit the positives, the way the BBC reports do. Bowen can’t even bring himself to say Israel was attacked by five Arab armies after the declaration of the state. It’s some mysterious “fighting” that went on that mysteriously led to Arabs fleeing or being kicked out. Please.
Would you represent Britain’s reflections and hopes for the future by interviews with Billy Bragg Nick Griffin Abu Qatada George Galloway Swampy The Archbishop of Canterbury, AntandDec? no you would not.
The Today Programme interviews a different Israeli to celebrate Israel’s 60th Birthday.
Tuesday. A Settler. To represent expansionist Israel & crazy delusions about what God wants.
(I liked the sound of her, she made settlements seem reasonable. But obviously that was not the intended reaction.)
Wednesday. A Palestinian Arab Israeli. To represent Apartheid Israel.
(He will not be watching the celebrations on the telly. He has a grievance. His Arabic speaking family are not treated equally. Palestinian Arab Israeli citizens, he feels, should be regarded as Israel’s National Assets, not a burden. “We are giving them a chance to prove their peaceful intentions.”
“The way they treat us is the way Israel should expect Jews to be treated in other countries” he suggested.
Yep, those yiddish speakin Jews, who live abroad and support the elimination of the countries they live in should be ‘persecuted’ like what we are.)
Thursday. Haredim. To represent religious fanatics who are ‘too frum to fight.’
Friday. Russian non Jew weeping for the stolen land. To Represent You and Me
As Mel would say….. “sigh..”
I never watched the revolting Bowen’s “documentary” (in fact increasingly I watch very little on the BBC) but is it real true that he never even mentioned the 800,000 Jews robbed and expelled from the Arab lands??
This is simply indefensible.
Hillhunt – what about Balen? Grow up!
Simon makes an excellent point – amongst the various Beeb articles on the anniversary I’ve tried in vain to find any but the curtest reference to the fact that Israel has achieved amazing things in it’s economy, the fields of science, culture, sport…
Publish the Balen Report!
Some first rate arab scholarship here courtesy of those reasonable chaps at Hamas.
Sorry I can’t get it to lonk properly, it’s worth cutting and pasting:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1756.htm
link, not lonk…
Cockney | 09.05.08 – 10:42 am,
Katya Adler mentioned it briefly on the World Service a few days ago, using words like Israel celebrating imposing survival, agriculture, medicine, high tech and then of course came the big bad but followed by Palestinians commemorating the ‘catastrophe’ with black flags, hundreds of thousands lost their homes during Israel’s War of Independence and then the baton was passed to Ali whathisname who had more of the same to say and added, Most of them still dream of coming home.
So we had the World Service undertaking to report on Israel’s 60th birthday celebrations but then dealing at least as much with Palestinian reaction to the celebrations.
Last night World Have Your Say continued the 60th birthday theme and at least had the sense to have a mostly Israeli panel on to discuss it, though the panel leaned heavily to the left:
[audio src="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20080508-2010.mp3" /]
However, the host, Ros Atkins, had the unmitigated gall to ask, Have the past 60 years justified [Israel’s] creation before going on to read out a typical anti-Israel e-mail from the UAE.
Still, it was followed by a pro-Israel e-mail so I guess this is the BBC being balanced.
The show included an Israeli who was present at the declaration of the State of Israel and a Palestinian who was apparently ejected from his village at the time. Fascinating listening.
I just noticed this lovely hit piece on Israel by Paul Adams, the BBC’s Diplomatic Correspondent. His depiction of Israel and Israelis is not at all what I would call “diplomatic”. It’s not so much a corollary to Bowen’s latest report as it is the hard right cross after his sucker punch.
A nation of warriors contemplates future
I could go on at tiresome length about every sick detail, but I’ll just show two quotes instead.
The opening line:
Israel has been fighting since day one. Every decade of the country’s history has brought a military convulsion of one kind or another.
Does Adams ever say why? No. Instead we get a belligerent portrait of the Israeli character, which segues neatly into a section on how some Israelis are finally having the courage to refuse to serve as oppressors in the “occupied territories”. (Gaza is still “occupied”?! Aren’t we always hearing from the BBC that Israel’s “siege” on Gaza? How can Israel hold Gaza under siege and occupy it at the same time? Even the Romans couldn’t do that. The BBC’s cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.)
So we get a gem like this:
Many have gone to military prison as a result.
Lotahn Raz’s decision not to serve landed him in jail for three months in 2000.
“Israelis for years have been made to feel scared, that we’re alone in a sea of people who want to kill us,” he told me in Jerusalem.
“And it’s degraded us. It’s had people… feeling that they have to attack to survive.”
So there you have it: the true belief of the BBC and the anti-Israel crowd. Israel is itself the problem. Any threat to its existence by other nations is purely imaginary.
Get bent, BBC.
Hizbollah’s latest attempt to overthrow the government of Lebanon and its occupation of west Beirut is relegated to a mere sidebar by the BBC – in striking contrast to their war against Israel a couple of years ago, reported on by the insufferable Kim Ghattas, and presented as Israel’s fault. What would she say now about these Iranian-backed jihadis attacking her own people?
The BBC and “Palestinian” propaganda, even when reporting on the murder of an Israeli civilian:
Gaza mortar attack kills Israeli
Earlier on Friday, medical workers said they had found the body of a Palestinian woman killed in fighting between Palestinians and Israelis.
Palestinian witnesses said the woman died after her house in southern Gaza was shelled by an Israeli tank.
Killed by an Israeli tank shell?
Body is found after Gaza clashes
Medical workers in the Gaza Strip say they have found the body of a woman killed at her home in clashes between Israelis and Palestinians.
The woman, a mother of seven, was shot dead by Israeli troops on Wednesday as they withdrew from the area in Abassan, southern Gaza, Palestinian reports say.
Palestinian eyewitnesses say the house came under Israeli tank shelling.
The Israeli army has not commented, but said earlier its operation had targeted Palestinian militants.
Palestinian reports also speak of Israeli troops damaging property and razing agricultural land with bulldozers.
Remember that recent report of a women and her kids killed when a “Palestinian” terrorist carrying explosives blew up outside their house after being hit by an Israeli missile? At the time “Palestinian witnesses” claimed variously that the house had been hit by a tank shell, or that a missile had crashed through the roof.
Publishing unconfirmed reports from “Palestinian” sources that the IDF shot a women “as they withdrew from the area”, and that “Palestinian reports also speak of Israeli troops damaging property and razing agricultural land with bulldozers” is a new low, even for the BBC.
And of course while providing plenty of propaganda value to the reports of an Arab woman allegedly killed by the IDF, the BBC doesn’t bother to inform us that an Israeli woman was also killed by a Hamas mortar.
Woman killed by mortar shell fired at kibbutz in Sha’ar Hanegev region
A woman was killed late Friday afternoon when four mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip landed in a kibbutz in the Sha’ar Hanegev region.
Another man was lightly injured in the attack and a number of people were treated for shock.
A number of buildings in the kibbutz were damaged by the shells.
This must be the one reported half-heartedly by the BBC – for them he doesn’t even deserve a report all to himself without also talking about the Arab woman!
48-year-old killed in Kibbutz Kfar Aza by mortar fired from Gaza
A 48-year-old Israeli man was killed late Friday afternoon when four mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip landed in Kibbutz Kfar Aza in the western Negev. The victim has been identified as father of four Jimmy Kedushim, a resident of the kibbutz. He was killed in the front yard of his house.
Even more the BBC doesn’t bother to tell us:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209627047149&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Earlier Friday, two IDF soldiers, residents of Kiryat Arba, were murdered whilst hiking in the Telem Valley. The Israelis, Ahikam Amihai and David Rubin, were shot and killed by Palestinian terrorists in a passing car.
What a pity!
No injuries as rocket hits BBC bureau in Baghdad
In case you hadn’t already guessed, the BBC blames Israel for the Hezbollah coup in Lebanon, yes really!
High stakes of Lebanon crisis
No messing about – first paragraph:
The more immediate causes of Lebanon’s current – and apparently unending – political crisis go back to the war between Israel and the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.
Biodegradable | 09.05.08 – 8:10 pm,
From your first link,
A mortar attack fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip…
Can one really fire an attack?
What’s wrong with A mortar attack on Israel… or Mortars fired at Israel… and it’s shorter – something the John Reiths of this world are always assuring us is good practice whenever they try to excuse the bias.
Don’t these stupid, prejudiced BBC hacks have any bloody editors? Or is it simply that the editors are also illiterate?
But this is a slight improvement on the usual bias and the grammar is even OK:
Palestinian militants frequently fire rockets and mortars at Israel…
I suppose they were reading the following exchange with John Reith:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7871377329522799787/#397197
But what’s this:
The attacks often provoke retaliation by the Israeli military.
I see. So Israel often responds to Gaza attack, which occur frequently. In other words, there are no guilty parties here, and terrorists are the same as those who defend themselves against terror. and retaliaton is the wrong word for a military that does everything humanly possible to pinpoint terrorists. The BBC, of course, if it can’t quite make the case of Israel being the guilty party here, settles for next best by maintaining that both sides are equally justified in their attacks.
Still, I guess it’s an improvement on the way the BBC usually portrays Israel – as blindly atacking Gaza for no reason.
From your second link:
The Israeli army has not commented, but said earlier its operation had targeted Palestinian militants.
Bullsh*t. The army habitually calls them terrorists, as it should.
Congratulations to the state of Israel and all Israelis, although the BBC has done it’s very best to demean the remarkable achievement of a country thriving in the face of hostile elements both in the Middle east and also in the left-leaning Western press, the cultural, political and stubborness of this nation should be applauded.
Paradoxically the German media have given the 60th birthday of Israel very favorable coverage in the media, and unlike the BBC they have concentrated on the overwhelmingly positive results of the creation of Israel.
David Preiser (USA) | 09.05.08 – 4:31 pm,
Paul Adams is among the worst of the BBC’s anti-Israel crew. He’s the one who proclaimed that UN personnel in Lebanon could “barely conceal their contempt” for Israel after four UN personnel were killed by Israeli shelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6552701.stm
Those who are aware of the way in which the BBC operates will understand that this is Adams barely concealing his own contempt for Israel.
I commented on Adams here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/479291044838395608/#375862
That sparked a lengthy debate, over a few threads, in which Reith accused me and others on this site of being apologists for murder. He was asked to apologise, but naturally he didn’t. Gharqad, for one, turned away from Reith in disgust at his stance.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if Reith ever takes his mask off here it turns out that he is in fact Paul Adams – Arab sympathiser, uncritical fan of the UN, hates Israel – typical BBC hack.
Patrick (Bonn) | 09.05.08 – 9:24 pm
Thanks for that. As I pointed out at 3:18 pm, the BBC has the cheek to ask Have the past 60 years justified [Israel’s] creation? Would the BBC ask such a question of Jordan, for example, or Iraq or any other country on the planet, with the exception of America? Of course not.
Germany has made great strides recently in atoning for the Holocaust.
As part of the BBC’s uncomfortable attempts to report on Israel’s 60th, we had Owen Bennett Jones talking on the World Service about Israelis “barbequeing industrial quantities of meat” during yesterday’s celebrations. I sincerely hope he didn’t have the industrial slaughter of the Holocaust in mind when making that analogy.
You never know with the BBC….
Bryan,
Ah, yes, I remember the “they could barely conceal their contempt” story; my brain didn’t connect Adams with that. I certainly remember the various arguments people here had with John Reith about that one.
Speaking of which, JR may be many things, but he’s definitely not Paul Adams, although that may very well be where he got his original talking points from when arguing here.
David Preiser (USA),
How can you be so certain he is not Adams? Anyway, whoever he is I imagine some prejudiced BBC hack is off somewhere on a lengthy project to produce yet more bias. That would explain Reith’s absence from this forum. Bias production requires fulltime effort.
Reith once told us that he is an occasional broadcaster for the BBC.
Hmmm,I’m just wondering about the slight hypocrisy of criticizing the Beeb’s coverage of Israel, but then accepting – without question – the coverage offered by the dubiously named “Honest Reporting”.
Even if you believe that the Beeb has an agenda with its Israel coverage, surely the same the critical stance should be upheld when analyzing Honest Coverage’s partisan views?
I’m not defending or attacking either side in the Israel/Palestine situation, I’m merely interested in journalism. Can anyone answer my question?
“Even if you believe that the Beeb has an agenda with its Israel coverage, surely the same the critical stance should be upheld when analyzing Honest Coverage’s partisan views?”
Brainless drivel from start to finish:
1. Al Beeb is antisemitic to the core, and this site has produced 1000s of documented examples.
2. Al Beeb is a tax-funded state broadcaster with a statutory charter, which it breaches every day. HR is not.
3. I won’t even bother to deal with HR’s record, which is stratospherically more honest than Al Beeb’s, because you are clearly John Simpson in mufti and won’t get it.
Can anyone answer my question?
Whipping Boy | 10.05.08 – 12:17 pm
Let’s throw the question back at you:
Can you present us with an example of Honest Reporting’s bias? You say they are partisan, so it shouldn’t be to hard to do. I submit that HR is not biased but simply strives to combat the worldwide media bias against Israel by pointing out the facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the areas where the media falls woefully short of balanced reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict and others.
Now if Honest Reporting behaved like the BBC – by distorting and hiding facts about the conflict for propaganda purposes – you would have some small justification for your argument.
It doesn’t. And apart from the fact that HR doesn’t leech off the overtaxed public as does the BBC, HR is as different from the BBC as chalk is from cheese. One has to examine the BBC with a bloody microscope to find any evidence of balance and fair play in its reporting.
Strange, when you think about it, that an organistion perceived by yourself and others to be partisan is actually balanced while the BBC, obliged to be balanced by its charter, is the partisan one. As an example, how often have you heard the BBC discuss the plight of Jewish refugees driven from Arab lands? If you get your news mostly from the left wing media, you wont know about these refugees, but you will have an endless flow of information at your fingertips about the so-called Palestinian refugees.
Hello, thanks for your responses.
@ Nearly Oxfordian: ‘Al Beeb is antisemitic to the core’ – I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
@ Bryan: By its nature, Honest Reporting focuses on news stories in the region searching only for any anti-Israel bias. It does not look for any stories that have an anti-Palestinian bias. It’s therefore only looking at one point of view and therefore its coverage is partisan.
Also, re the ‘plight of Jewish refugees driven from Arab lands’, are you talking in a historical sense or with regards to the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza?
Thanks for getting back to me anyway. It’s an interesting debate.
I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
ROTFLMFAO! I think you’re mixing up hatred of Jews with hatred of Israeli 😆
Also, re the ‘plight of Jewish refugees driven from Arab lands’, are you talking in a historical sense or with regards to the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza?
No, we’re talking about these:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2008/04/congress-adopts-first-ever-jewish.html
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-693217217048940768
Thanks for the links.
@Biodegradable
Was the refugee bill picked up by any mainstream media, Reuters, AP etc.? Got any other links?
Whipping, why do you post about things you clearly have no clue about?
“I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist” – no, I am not. Having an agenda that clearly regards the national homeland of the Jews as a contemptible invention, is antisemitic.
“Also, re the ‘plight of Jewish refugees driven from Arab lands’, are you talking in a historical sense or with regards to the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza?” – obviously you have never heard of the million or so Jews expelled and fleeing for their lives from Arab countries after 1948.
Oxfordian, I don’t presume that I know everything about this subject – far from it. I’m merely trying to look at the situation from a different angle.
The point I was making is that with regards to antisemitism/anti-Zionism, they are different things. There are some anti-Zionist Jews – are they antisemitic?
I have heard about the massive movements of people that went on in the region following the Second World War. Do I know a lot about them? Nope. Am I trying to find out more about them? Yup.
The trouble with the Israel/Palestine situation is that its such an emotive subject people’s judgement get clouded. Therefore, it’s difficult to try and determine what’s actually happening/happened. I’m just trying to look at it from different angles.
What would you recommend reading for finding out more about Jewish refugees in 1948?
@Biodegradable
Was the refugee bill picked up by any mainstream media, Reuters, AP etc.? Got any other links?
Whipping Boy | 10.05.08 – 2:36 pm
No it wasn’t AFAIK, certainly not by the BBC.
Links?
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/ has plenty of links, see the video in the other link I provided.
This article also talks about the Jewish refugees from Arab countries:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F7A3494C-0F97-4940-9852-ABD9F5B44A13
See this other film:
http://www.pierrerehov.com/exodus.htm
Google is your friend.
http://www.justiceforjews.com/
“When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”
– Martin Luther King
What would you recommend reading for finding out more about Jewish refugees in 1948?
Whipping Boy | 10.05.08 – 2:51 pm
The internet. But the quality of the information you get sometimes depends on how you frame your question when you Google. Sincere, straightforward historical queries should lead you to accurate sites, and not neoNazi and Islamofascist sites that hook onto the term ‘Jew’.
I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
I have had debates on the internet that have ended in people flinging the term ‘Zionist’ at me as if it were a swear word.
Why do people get so passionately anti-Zionist if they are not anti-Semitic? The fulfilment of the Zionist dream to establish Israel in the face of murderous opposition from all quarters up to, including and after the Holocaust was one of the most remarkable stories in world history. Why does it arouse such antagonism in people? If the motivating factor here is not Jew hatred, then what is it?
Are anti-Zionist Jews anti-Semitic? Generally, yes. They are known as self-hating Jews.
By its nature, Honest Reporting focuses on news stories in the region searching only for any anti-Israel bias. It does not look for any stories that have an anti-Palestinian bias. It’s therefore only looking at one point of view and therefore its coverage is partisan.
If you were being beaten up by a gang that had you up against a wall, would you appreciate being called “biased” because you tried to block the punches and get in a couple of your own rather than trying to empathise with the gang members about their poor upbringing and a bad report they got in one of the papers a few years back?
If HR tried to look for anti-Palestinian bias it wouldn’t find any in the all the main players reporting on this region – BBC, Reuters, CNN, AFP, al Jazeera, etc. You dodged my request to give us an example of Honest Reporting’s bias. Could that be because you can’t find any or is it that you don’t know where to look?
Jewish refugees in 1948 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
The Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. According to official Arab statistics, 856,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s. Some 600,000 resettled in Israel, [1] leaving behind property valued today at more than $300 billion.[2][3] Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands has been estimated at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel).
Jewish refugees and the suffering of 1948
@Bryan: I’m always wary of using the internet on topics such as these, which is why I tend to stick to my comfort zone of big news organisations – i.e. Reuters etc.. Mainly because, as you point out, there are a lot of nutters on the internet, each peddling their own prejudices and hatred.
I must admit, I find the notion of a self-hating Jew a confusing concept. I’ve heard the term used many times, but it never seems to sit comfortably. It seems to carry the assumption that Judaism is a religion, race and nationalist movement altogether. I don’t think it can be that simple. Why is Zionism a requirement to be a good Jew, rather than a self-hating one?
I agree with you that Zionism has become – for some people – a term of abuse for some people, which it should not be.
Re: the examples of Honest Reporting’s bias – I may be setting myself up for a kicking here, and if this the wrong reference then sorry.
I recall them being in Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News – this may, however, have been a similar organisation. I don’t have a copy of the text to hand, but I remember the organisation being singled out for criticism due to bias. Does anyone recall if Honest Reporting were the organisation that featured?
If they weren’t then apologies for my confusion.
I must admit I don’t think the situation is as simple as you make out with the gang analogy.
The reason Israel gets a bad coverage from much coverage is because it retaliates (justifiably or not) in a way that seems excessive.
“block the punches and get in a couple of your own” does not seem to be policy. Issues such as the West Bank Barrier make many, including myself, uneasy about Israeli policy.
It is, of course, a method of defence, but it severely harms the lives of all Palestinians. It just seems an extremely crude method.
I see this blood-libel is still online:
Body is found after Gaza clashes
Medical workers in the Gaza Strip say they have found the body of a woman killed at her home in clashes between Israelis and Palestinians.
The woman, a mother of seven, was shot dead by Israeli troops on Wednesday as they withdrew from the area in Abassan, southern Gaza, Palestinian reports say.
Palestinian eyewitnesses say the house came under Israeli tank shelling.
The Israeli army has not commented, but said earlier its operation had targeted Palestinian militants.
Palestinian reports also speak of Israeli troops damaging property and razing agricultural land with bulldozers.
Note that the word “alleged” is not to be found. BBC defenders often claim that the BBC omits information at times because it’s not confirmed. In this case the BBC are more than happy to parrot their “Palestinian sources” without confirmation.
I can find nothing, not even in the Arab media, to suggest that the woman “was shot dead by Israeli troops on Wednesday as they withdrew from the area”.
Most reports say her body was discovered “hours after the withdrawal”. If that is so there were no actual witnesses to her death.
This is the closest I can find to the BBC’s unconfirmed version:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=109727&d=9&m=5&y=2008
Hisham Abu Taha adds from Gaza: A 33-year-old mother for seven children was found dead inside her house in Abassan village east of Khan Younis city in the southern of Gaza Strip after the Israeli troops pulled out from the village late Wednesday, witnesses and medical sources said.
Medical sources said that Wafa Al-Daghma was hit in her head while the house came under an Israeli indiscriminate heavy gunfire. They added that paramedics were unable to get to the house to evacuate her from the scene but when the Israeli troops pulled out village late Wednesday, she was found dead in her house yard.
So, she could just as easily have been killed by “Palestinian” gunfire, and note that according to the report above there was no tank shelling.
Here’s another version:
IDF kills three Palestinians, injures 20 others in fighting in the Gaza Strip (HA´ARETZ NEWS) By Haaretz Correspondents and Agencies , By Avi Issacharoff and Yuval Azoulay 05/09/08)
Palestinian witnesses said a total of 25 tanks and armored bulldozers entered Abassan, an area east of Khan Yunis, setting off battles with local militants.
Paragraph-5 Contains
Several hours after the Israeli forces withdrew from Abassan, medics also found the body of a Palestinian woman in her home.
Paragraph-6 Contains
According to the Palestinian Human Rights Center, the woman was killed when the IDF blew up her front door. The woman, Wafa al-Durma, 33, was mother to seven children.
Paragraph-7 Contains
IDF soldiers then detained her children for at least six hours before allowing them to call an ambulance to evacuate their mother´s body from the house, the center charged.
Even the Iranian media, not known for its love of Israel, doesn’t claim that she was shot dead by the IDF on its way home:
http://english.alalam.ir/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid=032030120080508174341
Late Wednesday, medics found the body of a Palestinian woman in an area of heavy fighting along Gaza’s border with the occupied lands under Israeli regime control.
The woman was discovered in her home in the Abassan village in southern Gaza. Palestinian health officials say she was 35 years and mother of seven children.
Earlier Wednesday, Israeli forces and Palestinian resistance fighters clashed in Abassan.
Where did the BBC obtain their version and did they check it?
Inquiring minds need to know…
Israeli Dave on “Spooks”:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/05/10/spooks-lets-demonize-israel/
Whipping,
OK, genuinely trying to find out the facts is fair enough. I wish you luck in sorting the facts from the antisemitic crap, though! I’ll try to find you some links (Encyclopaedia Judaica should be a good start, if it’s on the Web).
I do, however, completely reject the spurious distinction between most of what passes for ‘anti-zionism’ these days and antisemitism. Jews may legitimately argue against an independent Jewish state, IF their religious convictions are such that they believe they must wait for the Messiah to arrive on his white she-ass, heralded by the prophet Elijah.
EVERYBODY else, without exception, who argues against the Jews having an independent national homeland in Israel is an antisemite, UNLESS they are also arguing against EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH having an independent national homeland. In that last case, they are merely idiots.
“I tend to stick to my comfort zone of big news organisations – i.e. Reuters etc.. Mainly because, as you point out, there are a lot of nutters”
Reuters ARE nutters. Recently they peddled the lie – picked up, of course, by Al Beeb and the rest of the scum – that Israel threatened the people of Gaza with a ‘holocaust’.
A lie from start to finish.
“It seems to carry the assumption that Judaism is a religion, race and nationalist movement altogether”
No such thing as ‘race’. The Jews are a nation. They also happen to have their own distinct religion.
As a nation with a homeland, they have a national liberation movement. It’s called Zionism.
“I must admit I don’t think the situation is as simple as you make out with the gang analogy.”
It most certainly is, if you bother to read the history.
“The reason Israel gets a bad coverage from much coverage is because it retaliates (justifiably or not) in a way that seems excessive”
Nonsense. It’s only ‘excessive’ in the eyes of antisemites who don’t like the idea of Jews standing up for themselves instead of rolling over and dying, as is their proper role to do.
“Issues such as the West Bank Barrier make many, including myself, uneasy about Israeli policy”
Tough shit. Israel protects its people, regardless of what the Jew-haters say or think.
“It is, of course, a method of defence, but it severely harms the lives of all Palestinians”
No such thing as ‘Palestinians’.
“It just seems an extremely crude method”
Tough shit. If the Arabs stop their genocidal agenda, Israel won’t have to use any methods.
Biodegradable | 10.05.08 – 4:42 pm,
Now ain’t that just typical BBC. They are prepared to let the most gross bias stand. The licence fee simply has to go. Let them be funded by Iranian oil money and change their name to the Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation. They already have all the propaganda down pat.
Why is Zionism a requirement to be a good Jew, rather than a self-hating one?
It’s not a requirement. But non-Zionist Jews should at least refrain from attacking Zionists with all the blind venom usually delivered by Israel’s enemies. Many religious Jews are also vehemently opposed to Zionism since they don’t believe Israel should have been established yet, but they are certainly not anti-Semitic. The anti-Semitic Jew is usually of the far left variety and gets tremendously agitated about one hut built by a “settler” on “Palestinian” land but never condemns suicide bombing. I agree that the term “self-hating Jew” is unsatisfactory. But until someone comes up with a better one, it’s what we have.
I used the analogy “block the punches and get in a couple of your own” to refer specifically to Honest Reporting’s defence of Israel. It’s not bias and you have still failed to demonstrate any evidence to the contrary.
“Crude” defence? What the hell would you do about Islamic terror?
That West Bank barrier, about which you are uneasy, is one of the front lines in the battle betweeen Islamic terrorism and the West. It’s helping to hold back the Caliphate. Don’t you get it?
Now “Whipping Boy” I have an idea I’ve debated you before on this forum. Would you care to tell us who you are?
I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
Anti-Zionism means supporting people who have no trouble saying they want to kill Jews and mine the Koran for justification.
This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.
Anti-Zionism means reusing classical tropes of antisemitism againt Israel.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/3mqmOeTA.gif
Anti-Zionism means you’re on the same team as neo-Nazis.
“Conceptualizations of class and state converge in the white supremacist discourse in the characterization of the United States government as the “Zionist Occupation Government” (ZOG)… As indicated by the ubiquitous reference to the state as “ZOG” (“Zionist” is equated with “Jewish”) within these publications, the state is depicted as inherently “Jewish”, a racial identity within the discourse. The government, as well as the corporate elite, is supposedly “occupied” and controlled by Jews.” Daniels, Jesse. White Lies: Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse, Routledge (UK), ISBN 041591289X, p. 45.
Anti-Zionism means the one country whose very right to existence is questioned is not coincidentally the one and only country claimed by the Jews.
Hi Bryan,
I’m afraid I’m new here. I’ve occasionally flicked through the blog’s pages but never commented. Haven’t commented on any other websites about Israel/Palestine either.
I thought the whole point of blogs was so that people could retain their anonymity so they could insult people at will…
I’m called Duncan, I’m a student.
With regards to the barrier, I don’t think it is justifiable. It’s indiscriminate and in the end – I believe – will only lead to the radicalization of more Palestinians, thus helping to propagate terrorism, rather than defeat it.
I can’t point to any evidence directly because I don’t have the book where I thought I read it – as I said before, it may have just been a similar organisation.
Has anyone else read Flat Earth News and can recall which organisation was mentioned.
I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
This is what the Parliamentary Committee on Antisemitism concluded in its 2006 report:
…criticism of Zionism is not in itself antisemitic. However, in some quarters an antisemitic discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it views Zionism itself as a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history. This definition of Zionism bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept; that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation, born in the late nineteenth century, with a geographical focus limited to Israel. Having re-defined Zionism in this way, traditional antisemitic notions of Jewish conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion are then transferred from Jews (a religious or racial group) on to Zionism (a political movement). This is at the core of the ‘New Antisemitism’ on which so much has been written. Many witnesses described how anti-Zionism has become the ‘lingua franca of antisemitic movements’. para 83
…It is increasingly the case that, because anger over Israel’s policies can provide the pretext, condemnation [of ethnically and religiously motivated hatred] is often too slow and increasingly conditional. Regardless of the expressed motive, Jewish people and Jewish institutions are being targeted… para 89
the correlation between conflict in the Middle East and attacks on the Jewish community must be better understood if the problem is to be tackled. Summary
Good post, deegee.
With regards to the barrier, I don’t think it is justifiable. It’s indiscriminate and in the end – I believe – will only lead to the radicalization of more Palestinians, thus helping to propagate terrorism, rather than defeat it.
It has reduced the number of attacks dramatically, it has saved many lives. That justifies it. If it causes some inconvenience for those on the other side that’s regrettable, but you can’t allow Israelis to die so that “Palestinians” can be spared those “inconveniences”.
I read recently that since the barrier was built suicide attacks into Israel have gone from 60 in the last year to zero. Those attacks that have taken place were in places where the barrier hasn’t been completed yet, If that doesn’t justify it I don’t know what does. It’s there to protect Israelis, and it works as advertised.
“Palestinians” don’t need any more “radicalization”. The causes of terrorism lie in the charters of the PLO and Hamas. Find them with google, I’ve already done a lot of your work for you, read those charters then tell me if you still think that “Palestinian” terrorism is justified or caused by Israeli actions, which is what you seem to imply.
Has anyone else read Flat Earth News and can recall which organisation was mentioned.
I searched google and the HonestReporting site and found nothing.
deegee, thanks for the link to http://www.jcpa.org/