In an act of political desperation, besieged by corruption charges, Israeli PM Osloid Olmert has been engaging in “peace talks” with Syria. These reduce to Olmert potentially handing over the Golan Heights to the Syrian fascists even though most Israelis oppose this. However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran! We all know this is about as unlikely as the BBC voluntarily severing its ties with the license fee. It’s ONLY when you get to the very last sentence that you read that “Mr Olmert is currently battling corruption allegations, and the BBC’s Katya Adler in Jerusalem says the prime minister’s critics believe the confirmation of peace talks may be an attempt to divert some attention from that. ” No. Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office and I am surprised that Katya Asler seems unaware of this. I wonder why? Doesn’t she know what goes on in Israel?
TROLLING FOR OLMERT.
Bookmark the permalink.
If Israel were to withdraw from the Golan it would be easily verifiable.
How on earth do you verify if Syria has “severed ties with Iran” or ceased its backing of Hezbollah and Hamas?
Will the leaders of those two terrorists groups be publicly put on planes out of the country? I think not.
One can only hope that Olmert is either thrown out of office or into jail, or both, before reaching such a suicidal agreement with the Syrian dictatorship.
We all know this is about as unlikely as the BBC voluntarily severing its ties with the license fee.
A funny and apt analogy.
Oh… and that’s all Israel need do to reach the Golan Heights of Stupidity?
Give up their natural barier to a country run by a crazed borderline psychopathic thuggocracy, and said thugs will “reign-in” terror-central Hezbollah.
Well that sounds so reasonable I’m sure the U.S. State Department, the “Europeans” and the UN will apply immense pressure on the only sane nation in the Middle East.
Giving stuff to Arabs always works out so well for the Jews.
Hi David,
I have read your analysis of the BBC piece you are linking to.
I believe one of your main point is this sentence:
“However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran!”
The BBC article actually states, that “He (Olmert) noted that previous Israeli leaders had been prepared to make “painful concessions” for peace with Syria.”
Further down the article continues with:
“Analysts suggest that, in return for any withdrawal, Israel would demand Syria sever its ties with Iran and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon.”
OK, we do not know how those analysts are, but there is no “will” but a “suggestion” of Syria severing its ties with Iran and Hezbollah.
I am not sure what your last point is trying to get across:
“It’s ONLY when you get to the very last sentence that you read that “Mr Olmert is currently battling corruption allegations, and the BBC’s Katya Adler in Jerusalem says the prime minister’s critics believe the confirmation of peace talks may be an attempt to divert some attention from that. ” No. Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office and I am surprised that Katya Asler seems unaware of this. I wonder why? Doesn’t she know what goes on in Israel?”
The BBC suggests that Mr Olmert is trying to divert attention from his corruption allegations.
You seem to say that he wants to “buy off” the liberal controlled media (could you back this up please, as this is the first time I have come across this), the judiciary and Prosecutors office.
If I understand this right, you are suggesting that the Israeli is corrupt and its institution are not democratic. In other words, when people say “Israel is the only democracy in the middle East” they are wrong. Is this interpretation of your words correct?
gunnar: if you carefully note the use of the word “attempt” in the sentance, you will relaise that none of your conclusons follow.
sorry for the typos above…lazy post-lunch fingers…
Hi aviv,
I have not made any conclusions. I just asked for clarification.
DV rejects the BBC interpretation and favours the one of the critics (no sources).
“Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office and I am surprised that Katya Asler seems unaware of this.”
The critics DV is citing, state the Olmert attempts to buy off media, judiciary and prosecutors office institutions. Please correct me if I am wrong. To suggest that he wants to buy off mentioned institutions, one must assume that possible. Or not? If one assumes that one can buy-off those institutions, one must also assume that are corruptable and not democratic.
Again, this is not my opinion (I do not live in Israel and have no first hand experience of that state), but what I take from David’s words.
“You are such a pendant!”
“Don’t you mean pedant?”
“See what I mean!”
Hi Biodegradable,
Well, DV is stating that the BBC is giving a pro-Olmert spin.
The example he is giving is not correct. He is misattributing.
Then he picks on the last sentence. Refuses it (No.) and suggests that she Katya Adler what Katya Adler should have written, which in turns lends itself to the interpretation that Israel’s institutions are corrupt and the media is liberally-controlled. Since no sources were provided I am asking for clarification.
hey Gunnar
how much do you know about the Israeli media?
Where did all the comments go?…My HaloScan has gone blank on the last 3 topics
That’s better…they are back!!
Bye the way…
If you read Gunnar’s contributions using (in your head) the sing song, faux friendly and thoroughly patronising delivery of Eddie Mare…..the two go together really well. ;o)
Folks,
Haloscan is a nightmare today – my apologies for the odd way it is working – out of my control.
Hi Hettie,
I have not come across the term “liberal-controlled Israeli media” before. Hence my question to David to back it up and give more info.
Gunnar,
You have never come across the term “liberal controlled Israeli media”???? Seriously? Start with Haaretz.
Hi David,
Many thanks for getting back and letting me know that “Haaretz” is part of the “Israel’s liberal controlled media”.
I was hoping for more background information (ownership of various media channels (public, private, etc). Proportion of conservative, progressive, etc.
However, could you please get back on the other points I made. And may I ask, in what respect was the BBC article biased.
It’s amazing that there are ‘liberals’ in Israel. Don’t these people understand that the result of the policies which they advocate would be the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jews (including ‘liberals’) in that land. However, I would assume that these ‘liberals’, as with ‘liberals’ elsewhere in the world, have a bolt-hole in the US – a country paradoxically hated by ‘liberals’.
I was hoping for more background information (ownership of various media channels (public, private, etc). Proportion of conservative, progressive, etc.
gunnar | 22.05.08 – 5:31 pm | #
Gunner.. Not behind the door when asking someone else to do the heavy lifting for you, if you want that degree of information try doing the homework yourself.
Hi field.size
David makes a lot of assertions without backing anything up. How is anyone supposed the check the validity of his argument without any hint on what his assertions are based on. For what I know, he could have made the last sentence up himself attributing it to “Olmert’s critics who are clear …”.
David has also misattributed a quote to Syria that stems from what Olmert has said.
All of this is especially ironic on a blog that concerns itself with bias of the BBC. I would have thought, that one should get ones house in order before critising someone else.
Gunnar,
You seem to think I am here to provide you with endless detail. Tell you what – when I am in possession of 3bn a year, and god knows how many employees, I can do all that. In the meantime, suggest you read Dr Steven Plaut on the liberal Israeli media – he’s very good on it and can give you all the sources you may need.
Also, I am intrigued by your idea that I make things up. Can you provide sources, details abd cross references please? Thanks.
Hi David
Where are the sources for your assertions? On what is this sentence based?
“Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office and I am surprised that Katya Asler seems unaware of this. I wonder why? Doesn’t she know what goes on in Israel?”
Further, this sentence seems to imply that Israel’s institutions are corrupt and can be bought off. Could you please clarify.
Lastly, do you stand by this sentence?
“However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran!”
If I had not read the BBC source (to which you linked, I would have taked your misrepresentation of what has been written as the truth.
Yes, you are accusing someone of bias, so you should be backing your accusations up or not? Otherwise, the whole exercise becomes pretty meaningless.
gunnar, I’m really not comparing you to our canine friends, for whom I have the greatest respect and affection, but you are like a dog with an old bone.
Or a lazy student who doesn’t even know how to use Google to copy-paste homework projects …
…or someone with little understanding of the political situation in Israel? It is not my aim to educate th ill-informed and given Gunnar’s already expressed sympathies for the likes of Hugo Chavez when I referred to him as a thug, I have no desire to be sidetracked into side-alleys and dead-ends.
Well, this is a new one. A supposed -pro-Olmert’ piece is taken as an example of left-wing bias. This is one bizarre website.
Oh, Gunnar, this might interest you. A little while back, the ‘liberal’ Haaretz published a story in which the Accountant General claimed that Israel was the ‘most corrupt country in the West’:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813765.html
Note that this was published by a liberal paper, and was widely ignored by the right-wing press.
Hi David
You write:
“…or someone with little understanding of the political situation in Israel?”
Is this not another assertion that you will find difficult to back up?
“It is not my aim to educate th ill-informed”
I thought the whole purpose of this blog was to educate the ill-informed about BBC bias.
“and given Gunnar’s already expressed sympathies for the likes of Hugo Chavez when I referred to him as a thug”
Again, you are misrepresenting facts and events. I objected to the language you used after asking fellow posters to be civilised.
“I have no desire to be sidetracked into side-alleys and dead-ends.”
Mr Vance, I have politely asked for clarification what you have written.
Again, do you stand by this sentence:
“However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran!”
Can you please explain who those critics are and if I am to understand that Israel’s institutions are corruptable.
“Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office”
@Korova
Many thanks for this. Yes, very confusing indeed. Never really noticed Olmert and Kadima turning into a left-wing party. Well, one always learns.
Sadly, Gunnar, the possibility of learning anything of note on this website is severely limited. But I agree, learning that Olmert has suddenly become a socialist is certainly something new I have learnt from this website.
By the way, as a side-note, I have noticed that when confronted with facts and (dare I say it) logic, most commentors on this site merely resort to personal attacks and various attempts at obsfucation. To borrow a previous comment from Biodegradable:
Attempting a discussion with [them] is akin to trying to teach a dog how to sing; it just tires you out and annoys the dog.
Still, fair play to you for highlighting their rather weak arguments.
Hi Korova,
Yes, David does not seem to respond to questions. I find this really odd. Afterall, I asked politely for clarification of his words.
Perhaps, if I learned how to put sentences in italics, he would be more responsive.
Could you please advice on how to turn a sentence in italics.
Much appreciated.
No problem. Simply put at the start of the section you wish to put in italics and at the end. Hope that helps!
No problem. Simply put ” at the start of the section you wish to put in italics and ” at the end. You obviously need to delete the ‘ and delete the spaces. Hope that makes sense.
Gunnar – sorry, whatever way I typed that it was misleading. Try the following link:
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/_EM.html
That should help!
Let’s see.
Perhaps it is easier now to refer to quotations
Or perhaps not?
Korova,
Many thanks for this. Much appreciated.
Let’s see whether I still manage to do it tomorrow 😉
Gunnar – No problem. I look forward to reading more of your comments. I may lie low for a bit, but I always find this site an entertaining (if throughly pointless) read. 🙂
‘throughly’??? Should say thoroughly!
Christ. these two clowns are about as funny as Punt and Dennis.
“I always find this site an entertaining (if throughly pointless) read”
Unlike the infantile rants on your absurd ‘anarchist’ blog, I suppose.
“By the way, as a side-note, I have noticed that when confronted with facts and (dare I say it) logic, most commentors on this site merely resort to personal attacks and various attempts at obsfucation”
ROFLMAOWMP
All this idiot managed to say in response to my detailed comments about anarchists being right wing, was that I am ‘allegedly educated’ and that ‘the two are diametrically opposed’. That’s it. No attempt at rational refutation, just a categorical denial.
And this prat also claimed that Bush is responsible for the ‘greatest loss of civil liberties in modern history’, but ran a mile when I listed half a dozen mega-tyrants, from Stalin through Hitler to Pol Pot, who actually DID deprive millions of people of their civil liberties.
And then this utterly moronic loser has the nerve to whine about ‘attempts at obsfucation’.
BURIED OR FORGOTTEN? Mohammad al-Dura!
The bbc and this site, unless I missed it because it’s not exactly prominent, screw up again with omission. Go here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL21033039
“the possibility of learning anything of note on this website is severely limited.” korova
are you?
a) lying – presumably for political effect
or
b) believe this to be true, in which case your life is so very very very sad as you persistently read and post here anyway
Gunnar- “Can you please explain who those critics are and if I am to understand that Israel’s institutions are corruptable.”
You seem confused. All institutions, everywhere are potentially corruptible, for the simple reason that institutions are created and run by people, and people are morally imperfect. Consider some recent UK cases:
http://www.projects.ex.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html#brit
So, if your question is: “are Israeli institutions potentially corruptible?”, the answer is “yes”, as are UK, EU, US etc. institutions. The obvious difference between corruption in a democracy and corruption under a despot like Arafat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml
is that in democracies, hopefully such scandals are brought to light and punished, whereas under despotic regimes they generally are not.
I hope this helps clarify your thoughts. It’s not that hard, is it?
Hi aviv
Many thanks for your reply and thoughts.
It is not me who is suggesting that Mr Olmert is trying to corrupt the Israeli institutions. Mr Vance seemed to have suggested this. I have asked repeatedly to confirm whether my interpretation is correct and who those critics are, but Mr Vance has unfortunately not replied yet.
BTW, do you think that Mr Vance got this sentence right:
However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran!
Pot-Kettle-Black – (b), I believe this to be true. Your further hypothesis is entirely subjective regarding this matter.
Gunnar: “If I understand this right, you are suggesting that the Israeli is corrupt and its institution are not democratic. In other words, when people say “Israel is the only democracy in the middle East” they are wrong. Is this interpretation of your words correct?”
My response was to the paragraph you wrote above, in which you state that because a country’s institutions may be corruptible then said country can not therefore be demorcatic. This is an incorrect statement, both from a logical point of view and from a practical perspective.
I have no idea whether Olmert is trying to corrupt various institutions. I rather doubt it. Indeed, it seems rather obvious that DV’s use of “buy off” is rhetorical and pertains to the notion that by making concessions he can garner media support (as opposed to handing over a suitcase full of money to various newspaper editors). One would have to be painfully obtuse, illiterate or pedantic not to notice the distinction.
As for the “nonsense of painful concessions on Syria” part, yes, I agree, not least becasue it would be impossible to verify whether such ties had been cut.
Hi aviv
Many thanks again for your reply.
We can talk for a while about what DV may have meant or not. Actually it is for him to clarify this. Easiest would be if he revealed his sources. He may have read this somewhere or it may be his opinion. Either way, it would clarify a lot, if he stated whatever it is.
On the “painful concessions” quote. David Vance misrepresented the BBC.
Here the BBC and the quote in context:
Mr Olmert’s office on Wednesday said the two sides were talking “in good faith and openly”.
The prime minister later told journalists that the “negotiations won’t be easy”.
He noted that previous Israeli leaders had been prepared to make “painful concessions” for peace with Syria.
Here the BBC severing ties with Iran:
Analysts suggest that, in return for any withdrawal, Israel would demand Syria sever its ties with Iran and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
And here David’s analysis:
However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran!
The BBC does not state that Syria will have to make “paibful concessions”, Mr Vance does.
Granted, the BBC does not clarify who those analysts are and if Mr Vance had commented on this, he had a valid point.
Dunno if this helps, but the probability that Olmert is using the Syria talks to distract attention from the allegations against him has been all over the Israeli news in the past few days. Speculation is that Olmert is calculating that he will be practically immune from prosecution if he can show that he is involved in vital talks regarding Israel’s future.
Gunnar, as people like Alex so often do, seems to want David to get involved in a spoofeeding operation. Those who want to try to disprove this post need to be adult enough to scout around for the appropriate evidence all by themselves. And if they are too bone idle or otherwise disinclined to do it, then they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
In connection with the debate on this site on the definition of terrorism, I think it was David Preiser who said something like, “Why do we have to provide you with the notes from past lessons?”
Well, precisely.
gunnar accepts BBC were biased shock!
“if Mr Vance had commented on this, he had a valid point.” i.e. the BBC WERE biased
korova
interesting argument by you
you say posting here is a waste of time yet you post here more than almost anyone
which part of that is subjective?
Hi Bryan,
You write:
Dunno if this helps, but the probability that Olmert is using the Syria talks to distract attention from the allegations against him has been all over the Israeli news in the past few days.
Katya Adler said the same.
Speculation is that Olmert is calculating that he will be practically immune from prosecution if he can show that he is involved in vital talks regarding Israel’s future.
This is not what David said but interesting.
Gunnar, as people like Alex so often do, seems to want David to get involved in a spoofeeding operation.
I would have thought that giving sources to what one states is a normal convention. It makes it easier for the reader to verify and evaluate the information.
Those who want to try to disprove this post need to be adult enough to scout around for the appropriate evidence all by themselves.
Well when I have disproved his allegation
that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran
I was met with a wall of silence. You too have not commented on this.
And if they are too bone idle or otherwise disinclined to do it, then they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
It seems that this should cut both ways. Korova put an allegation up on a thread further up and was attacked for not sourcing it. He even gave some clues were to find it but was critised in no civil terms.
In connection with the debate on this site on the definition of terrorism, I think it was David Preiser who said something like, “Why do we have to provide you with the notes from past lessons?”
Because you make the assertions.
Bryan | 23.05.08 – 10:50 pm |
In connection with the debate on this site on the definition of terrorism, I think it was David Preiser who said something like, “Why do we have to provide you with the notes from past lessons?”
Well, precisely.
Why not have a BBC definitions / dictionary (ie. real) definitions link on the main page that lists the various euphemisms the BBC likes to use – with linked sources so that people can see that what is said is not just hot air.
This applies to lots of issues & not just terrorism. For example I notice that the latest quote on the side bar is over a year old. Has no-one said anything quoteable since then?
Just an idea …
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 24.05.08 – 11:07 am
Good idea. I remember the BBC using the term ‘rebalance’. By that they mean distort obstinate non-PC news content until it more closely resembles the BBC’s anemic, PC point of view.