I’m sure you will all have noticed the blazing BBC headline “Israel has 15o nuclear weapons”. Or at least so says Hamas’s best pal and America’s worst ever President Dhimmi Carter. Carter is soooo on-message for Al Beeb, you can just see the Beeboids drooling when Carter gibbers that Israeli treatment of Palestinians is “one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth”. Any chance to bash the Jews, eh? When you consider the sympathetic hearing that the Mad Mullahs in Tehran get, the endless apologising for the Palestinian savages in Hamas, and the propagandising for Hezbollah, it’s no surprise that the anti-Semitic ravings of Carter get blown up to nuclear proportions by the BBC .
GET CARTER.
Bookmark the permalink.
How can that idiot Carter – surely the worst US President of the 20th century – even bear to show his face in public?
Why the 20th century?
There’s been the merest hint of a mention of Karsenty on Al Beeb. There’s some discussion on one of the threads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7415858.stm
PS I found that by typing ‘Karsenty’ into the big search box on the BBC homepage. It is the second result:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?go=homepage&scope=all&tab=all&q=karsenty&Search=Search
Sarah Jane;
that’s an old report before the publication of the court’s full written decision, here it is:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/05/25/court-decision-i-would-not-like-to-be-charles-enderlin/
Perhaps the BBC doesn’t have a French translator? Or perhaps they’d rather keep it quiet…
Biodegradable,
The other link on the search page Sarah Jane provided is the news brief from four days ago. Notice how all it does is say that Karsenty’s group had a legitimate right to investigate France 2’s report. The BBC does not say that Karsenty’s criticism of forgery was correct. Worse still, it unashamedly gives France 2’s side of the story, that they sure did show the boy’s death for real, even though Enderlin basically admitted that they didn’t last year.
From the November article:
He concedes the actual moment of Muhammad’s death may not have been caught on film, but he is convinced that the boy was killed on that day.
Now from this latest news brief, after the ruling in Karsenty’s favor:
The state broadcaster sued, insisting it had shown the boy being killed.
But the court dismissed the libel case saying the website had “exercised in good faith” the right to criticism.
So, Karsenty wasn’t right after all, eh? Just doing his duty as an investigative reporter, and possibly wrong? Well, BBC?
The weak line about examination of the tape “did not dispel questions over its authenticity”, followed by “some observers” saying they saw scenes of boys pretending to be shot does give the reader some reason to doubt France 2’s claims, but this is hardly the most honest way of reporting the court’s decision.
Then there’s this:
The report broadcast by France 2 showed Jamal al-Durrah and his son Muhammad, 12, cowering in front of a wall.
In his comment, correspondent Charles Enderlin said they were being targeted from Israeli positions, and that the boy’s death throes had been caught on camera.
Notice how the BBC forgets to tell you about Enderlin’s admission from last year.
I’m still waiting for a more in-depth report. There won’t be any, since the BBC is terrified of this result, but I can dream.
thanks for the link Sarah-Jane.
I note the slightly strangled and confusing construction of the important opening sentence:
“A French court has ruled in favour of a media watchdog website accused of libel for claiming that footage of a shooting incident in Gaza in 2000 was fake.”
It is not impossible to work out what that means, but it might take a bit of work for someone unfamiliar with the case. Why not something simpler and more direct, as well as more accurate, like:
“A French court has ruled in favour of a media watchdog website which claimed that a Palestinian cameraman had faked a scene in which a Palestinian boy was supposedly shot by Israeli forces”.
Similarly the headline: “French TV loses Gaza footage case”. It is certainly not as instructive or as incisive as “Olmert ‘took cash in envelopes'”, “Israel ‘has 150 nuclear weapons'”, “Olmert questioned on ‘corruption'”, or “US strike ‘kills Iraqi civilians'” – all of which demonstrate a healthy ability to communicate the essence of a story in a handful of words.
How about:
“Palestinians ‘may have faked Gaza footage'”?
or
“French judge finds Palestinian Gaza footage ‘inconsistent'”?
But instead we do not find it made clear even once in the entire article that the cameraman who almost certainly faked this footage is an award-winning Palestinian stringer. Not one mention of this awkward fact. It’s a French media problem, I suppose…
Note also the completely misleading:
“The pictures of Palestinian boy and his father sheltering from gunfire in Gaza were seen around the world as a symbol of Palestinian suffering under Israeli rule”.
No; rather, they distracted the world from Arafat’s recent refusal of a decent offer at peace talks, and helped to form the world’s impression of Palestinian suffering.
That impression is not misplaced, but the suffering is the fault of the Palestinians, for their addiction to violence, their rejectionism, their voting for Hamas, their support of a criminal like Arafat, and their national immaturity.
Their attempt to frame Israel for their suffering is a fake, and hopefully more and more people will see it for what it is – especially if the BBC can somehow be forced to return to honest, impartial news reporting.
Or better still, if it can be broken up, stripped of public funding, and forced to pay its own way, so it can see how few people actually share its prejudices.
David Preiser (USA) | 27.05.08 – 6:29 pm
Yes, we talked about the BBC’s report on anther thread and I agree that there’s not much hope they’ll update the story even with the publication of the court’s full decision. The BBC has made its editorial mind up, it has its own “narrative” and will spin the story to suit unless some large and unavoidable truth smacks it in the head.
One reads about things like this and wonder how the BBC’s reporting from Gaza can be unbiased, surely they’re still paying for Alan Johnston’s freedom:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/05/27/hamas-continues-to-harrass-and-threaten-journalists
While they always make sure to tell us that they’re banned from reporting in Zimbabwe or Myanmar they never bother telling us about the restrictions they surely must face in Gaza.
BioD – I’m a bit confused. Gharqad Tree asked “I’ve been out of the country for a few days, so could anyone who has been following things closely let me know whether or not the BBC have deigned to mention the overturning of Karsenty’s conviction over the faked footage of the death of Al Dura?”
The article I linked to clearly does that and is titled ” French TV loses Gaza footage case”.
Am I missing something here?
Gharqad Tree I take your point about the stringer.
But while I am very open to different ways of funding the BBC, I am reasonably confident that the license fee could go away, and that a BBC funded by subscription could still have beeboids here having the same kind of arguments with eg BioD and Bryan.
Actually the beeboids probably wouldnt be here, and in many ways it might be more ‘dangerous’ as you would have something that was minority funded, but that had built a brand and level of impact based on being answerable to everybody.
This is the public utility argument currently used against a subscription model (because believe it or not, the BBC maximises revenue if it goes to subscription).
Personally I would go for it, I don’t think in terms of output it would be all that different, maybe a bit more Timeslike editorially and with less contrived attempts to buy off yoof etc – but as was so painfully pointed out the other day, I don’t really matter.
David –
“But the court dismissed the libel case saying the website had “exercised in good faith” the right to criticism.
So, Karsenty wasn’t right after all, eh? Just doing his duty as an investigative reporter, and possibly wrong? Well, BBC?”
I dont know much about French libel law, but the judge (I think) is saying that even if Karentsy had been wrong, he would still have not been guilty of libel because he has the defence of public interest.
The article now reads “In its ruling on Wednesday, the appeals court said it was “legitimate for a media watchdog to investigate the circumstances in which the report in question was filmed and broadcast, in view of the impact which the images criticised had on the entire world”.”
Well, I know that would be the case in the UK and the US. I would assume they are not that different in France.
Sarah Jane: your point about the BBC being more dangerous if transformed into a subscription service is interesting, but at the end of the day it misses the point.
As far as I am concerned, the main issues are:
a) that under those circumstances I would no longer be breaking the law if I chose to watch Sky News without paying the BBC for the privilege of doing so.
b) the BBC’s output would no longer be seen as speaking to the world on behalf of our country. As part of the new arrangement, and to underline the fact that the new arrangements would render the BBC no more ‘authoritatve’ than Sky’s or anyone else’s, the BBC would be obliged to operate under a new name, one which reflected that fact that they were no longer a state monopoly.
c) Say what you will, I believe that the BBC would be forced to scale down its output without the thug-gathered tax.
d) The output may become even more openly biased, indeed; I couldn’t care less, as long as I am not forced to pay for it, and as long as the world finally understands that the BBC does not speak for me any more than do the Daily Mail or the Banbury Cake.
a) fine by me
b) what would happen with the name is interesting, it is worth a lot of money, so presumably the new stakeholders in this activity would want to keep it
c) I agree; news, nature programmes, costume drama, CBeebies, the website, Radio 4 are all pretty safe. There is lots of stuff that probably wouldn’t be.
d)I am not going to doubt you, however, given that there are lots of commentors here, who choose to visit this site, when they dont have to pay for it at this moment, I am going to assume that moving to a subscription model would not entirely remove B-BBC or something like it.
Sarah Jane:
BioD – I’m a bit confused. Gharqad Tree asked “I’ve been out of the country for a few days, so could anyone who has been following things closely let me know whether or not the BBC have deigned to mention the overturning of Karsenty’s conviction over the faked footage of the death of Al Dura?”
The article I linked to clearly does that and is titled ” French TV loses Gaza footage case”.
Am I missing something here?
I can’t say if you’re missing something. Are you suggesting that the BBC report is all that’s required and the BBC has done its job?
The BBC report is from last Thursday, a little more than “a few days” ago. I assumed that Gharqad Tree may well be aware of that report but was waiting, like me, for an updated version that covered the just published court decision in full. The court’s verdict had not been published in full when the BBC report was written.
I merely pointed out that more information is available since the original report, which the BBC doesn’t seem interested in noting, and you seem to be offended that I’ve even mentioned it.
The BBC report you linked to has been mentioned and briefly discussed on a few recent threads, somebody suggested perhaps it was worth a thread of its own.
Lemar:
Name these BBC anti Semites so I can pressure them. These scum are traitors to UK. They hate the Jews so much they would rather have a an atomic Hizbullah that would destroy Israel and UK rather than a disarmed Hizbullah.
I would bomb the BBC so they can see what carnage a suicide bomber does, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Lemar | 27.05.08 – 6:53 am | #
How come this hasn’t been deleted?
Nearly Oxfordian:
“Still, could have been worse, he could have supported Yassin like the Israelis”
Still the same unproven claim.
Nearly Oxfordian | 27.05.08 – 11:48 am | #
Unproven? How so? I have provided you a link to the evidence. If you feel it hasn’t be proven, back your argument up. Simply saying ‘it’s not true’ is not a convincing argument. Explain why the Israeli-based Institute for Counter Terrorism is unreliable as a source of information. Come on, argue your case properly, with evidence, in order to discredit the ICT. Explain why Larry Johnson is unreliable. Explain why US officials claimed that the military governor of Gaza (Yithaq Segev) had told US officials that he had helped fund Islamic movements to counter the PLO and the communists. Why are members of the Reagan/Bush administrations saying such things? Take apart the evidence and maybe then I will take you a little more seriously. Until then, you remain exactly what you are. An idiot who shouts abuse when people say things they do not like to hear.
Nope, not offended or I wouldn’t bother coming here 🙂 – just asking – I see what you are after now.
Not sure how often that kind of thing (full report following from verdict) gets reported to be honest. When it’s a criminal case and the judge sentances at a later date, then there is an obvious reason to follow-up. But when it’s a libel case and the judge finds in the public interest (or whatever the French equivalent is) then is there much to add? There won’t be anything in it that wasn’t said in court.
(I did read your link by the way)
Sarah Jane,
I hope a better English translation of the decision becomes available because I think it’s clear that there’s much more to it than the judge allowing criticism of France2 because the criticism was in good faith.
The judgment does go into detail about Karsenty’s claims and seems to agree with him about faked reporting, even though that wasn’t really the court’s brief in this case. The BBC’s reporting so far doesn’t confront the serious implications for the media in general.
More commentary here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Al-Dura_Trial_Karsenty_Wins_in_Paris.asp
In particular:
Karsenty said in a statement released after his victory:
The al-Dura lie is an assault on our ability to think, to criticize, to evaluate, and finally to reject information – especially the right to reject information on which we base our most cherished assumptions. One of Europe’s most cherished assumptions is that Israel is a vicious Nazi-like entity that deliberately murders Palestinian Arab children. Moreover, polls conducted in Europe have identified Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, greater than Iran and North Korea, Pakistan and Syria. The al-Dura hoax is one of the pillars on which these assumptions rely. …
Now it is time for France 2 to acknowledge that it created and is continuing to perpetuate the worst anti-Semitic libel of our era.
And:
Mozes spoke with some of the lawyers involved who had seen a copy of the judgment prior to its forthcoming release.
Amongst his observations and the comments from these lawyers was the court’s acceptance of the argument that protagonists operating in non-democratic regimes such as the Palestinian areas are inherently less reliable and should be carefully scrutinized as should have been the case with Talal Abu Rahma.
Essentially, the court decided the level of doubt associated with the al-Dura footage warrants deep analysis. It is perfectly legitimate to question it, not libelous.
Philippe Karsenty’s efforts have opened up France 2 to scrutiny and serves as an example of how the media should be held accountable for their material and the consequences of their reporting. France 2’s al-Dura footage has been shown in court to be unreliable and possibly fake. Along with a number of investigations concluding that Israel was not responsible for the bullets that allegedly killed the boy, the icon that is al-Dura – the edifice upon which so much hostility has been directed at Israel, aided and abetted by a willing media – comes toppling down.
But when it’s a libel case and the judge finds in the public interest (or whatever the French equivalent is) then is there much to add?
The point is that it is much more than a libel case. France2 accused Karsenty’ of libel because of his accusations against them.
But it’s really all about the accusations themselves, not his alleged, and now ruled non-existent libel.
The fact that he has now been cleared of charges of libel doesn’t mean, as the BBC and others may wish, that the case is closed. On the contrary it should now open up the Al-Dura case and France2’s version of it to a thorough investigation.
That is unlikely to happen but the focus should still remain on the possibility that the whole incident was faked, and that such occurrences are not unusual in the “Palestinian Administered” territories, and that the probability that the boy was (a) not even killed at all and (b) was not killed by Israeli gunfire hold as much, if not more credence, than the France2 version of events.
Sarah Jane: “I am not going to doubt you, however, given that there are lots of commentors here, who choose to visit this site, when they dont have to pay for it [the BBC] at this moment, I am going to assume that moving to a subscription model would not entirely remove B-BBC or something like it.”
That’s probably true, and it’s no bad thing. All journalists and reporters need to have their work held up to scrutiny, and their work loses something if it isn’t. I would continue to object if, for example, the FBBC* continued constantly to paint the USA, or Israel, or the so-called “so-called war on terror” in the worst possible light. But if that portrayal was the work of a slimmed-down broadcaster that was funded by voluntary subscription, and had an influence commensurate only with its actual audience share/market value, rather than an influence manufactured and maintained by a form of state-sanctioned extortion, the objections wouldn’t be accompanied by the same sense of injustice.
[* “Former British Broadcasting Corporation”]
And from this angle it does feel like an injustice: I am deprived of all television because I do not wish to fund the endless anti-American and anti-Israeli poison that I can see on the BBC website and which I remember being a staple of their televised output. It’s not fair. I’ll say it again: you are not forced to pay the Daily Mail a tax in order to read the Observer without fear of being fined and possibly imprisoned. That’s how anachronistic and damned unfair the present arrangement feels to a large number of people.
Goodnight all 🙂
The sense of injustice I feel at the output of the BBC would be basically the same whether or not it was funded by a tax enforced by law and inflicted on people by the thuggish intimidation of paid goons, letters of demand and sinister TV adverts – though obviously I feel for my fellow-sufferers who have to pay for it simply because they are British citizens.
As long as the BBC continues to act like thought police of the media, herding the unwary into the narrowest of lefty ideological cells with rigid PC rules and pet likes and dislikes, while purporting to be balanced and impartial, it will have to be challenged.
‘it’s not fair’
Actually, it’s also illegal: Al Beeb is in breach of its statutory charter 24/7.
The success of the Karsenty case is a huge story with major implications for the MSM, not least the propagandist BBC, infamous for swallowing Palestinian and Hezbollah propaganda whole. The BBC, predictably, took a shuddering look at the Karsenty result, fiddled with it unwillingly for the least possible amount of time and then dropped it like a hot potato. The BBC should be doing everything it possibly can to reverse the incorrect impression it gave the public by blindly accepting and pushing the faked video – which France 2 distributed to its rivals, including the BBC, in order to spread the word about the evil Israelis as far as possible. Instead, the BBC is giving the case the minimum possible coverage. Ain’t that just typical.
One thing that always seemed faked to me was the positioning of the father and son.
Why would the father not put the son between himself and the barrel, where he would get maximum protection? What is the boy doing in the most exposed position?
I get it – so his “death” can be clearly seen.
If the libel judgement had been upheld, the BBC would have been all over the case. It would have been on every newscast on the World Service for hours and on Have Your Say and The Editors blogs. There’s no doubt about that. The BBC is despicable.
Bryan – agreed.
N Ox – I’m no lawyer, so I’ll stop when I reach unfairness. You may well know better.
Is it actually illegal for the BBC to breach its own charter? The charter may be statutory, but does that mean that when it is breached that the law is also breached?
Or are you using the word “illegal” in some broader sense?
I ask these questions not to be argumentative but because I genuinely don’t know and would like to know.
“The charter may be statutory, but does that mean that when it is breached that the law is also breached?”
So I have been assured by a lawyer acquaintance. That’s what ‘statutory’ means: one can challenge breaches of the charter (e.g. through a judicial review or whatever), and the high court has the power to require it to remedy those breaches.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Next question: why does it not happen? Or does it?
Cowardice and vested interests, I’d say.
There is nothing certain in politics except one thing: Jimmy Carter is ALWAYS wrong,
Korova,
My condemnation of Lemar’s comments was surely plain enough? Stick to topic.
The BBC’s meager and mean coverage of the Karsenty case has been swept under the carpet, hidden away. Those like gharqad tree who have been absent for a few days will no longer find it unless they use the search facility. It’s disappeared from the Middle East main page, the Europe main page where it first appeared, and from the Middle East RSS news feed. (see image)
In all those cases older stories are still listed so it has no bearing on chronology, or indeed on alphabetical order. The BBC would simply rather not talk about it, or not give its users the chance to know about it at all.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/kTwN3Br4.jpg
One thing that always seemed faked to me was the positioning of the father and son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E…h? v=E3Z4_11wLjw
Why would the father not put the son between himself and the barrel, where he would get maximum protection?
Because he was being stage directed by his “Palestinian” handlers, afraid of what they’d do to him this time if he didn’t obey?
Wounds of Mohamed al Dura’s Father Date Back to 1992, Surgeon Reveals
Philippe Karsenty, who is appealing his 2006 defamation conviction-for declaring on his Media-Ratings site that the al Dura news report was a blatant fake-obtained medical records proving that Jamal’s wounds were treated by an Israeli surgeon in 1994. Now the surgeon, Yehuda David, has confirmed this information on a December 12 newscast on Israel’s Arutz 10 TV. Jean Tsadik of Metula News Agency resumed the Hebrew-language newscast for French-speaking readers.
According to the Metula release, Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes. Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life but he lost the use of his right hand because they could not repair a ruptured tendon in the forearm. Palestinian doctors referred Jamal to Tal Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv in March 1994. Dr. Yehuda performed reconstructive surgery, grafting a tendon taken from the foot, and restoring almost normal use of the hand. The medical record of that operation also refers to the removal of “foreign bodies,” suggesting that other instruments besides axes were used in the 1992 attack.
See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U03h2oEZd0
So essentially, an incident that has had a global impact, that has led directly to so many deaths, that has been cited as the motivation for at least one infamous murder, and that has blackened the name of a country which had just offered Arafat almost everything he could ever hope for – may, according to an intelligent judge after a detailed judicial examination, have been a pack of lies.
And the BBC (along with most of the congenitally anti-Israeli media in the UK) choose to treat this staggering revelation as deserving of one brief mention that is quickly buried?
Surely even the Beeboids can see that this story should be enormous? Even if the BBC weren’t so pathologically predisposed to hate Israel it would still bury this story, because the prevailing ethos at the corporation seems to be that they are never wrong, that they pontificate by almost divine right, that we who say otherwise are an idiotic minority of Daily Mail readers, that anything contradictory of their chosen narratives – or anything that demonstrates how shoddy the media really are at doing their jobs – must be quietly buried.
Time to go, BBC.
they pontificate by almost divine right
Can’t remember who said it the other day, but I found it very illuminating: they are the modern equivalent of the catholic church ca. AD 1200, a state within a state, all-powerful and pontificating by divine right, utterly contemptuous of everybody else. To that one may add their system of acolytes: young journalists are indoctrinated into the institution’s ‘truth’. Those who absorb it and promote it, advance through the hierarchy. Those who don’t, are vilified and eventually may be excommunicated.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/
The question of a UCU boycott has reared its ugly head again.
I contend that the BBC is the primary source of this ill-informed vengeful attitude to Israel and the Jews held by the general public, academics and now the baying mob.
This is what I object to, and is more important to me than the license fee objection.
Taking advantage of the respect it earned in its heyday, the BBC retains the power to influence the public who still regard it as more or less infallable, albeit with the exceptional blip here and there.
I contend that the BBC is the primary source of this ill-informed vengeful attitude to Israel and the Jews held by the general public, academics and now the baying mob.
This is what I object to, and is more important to me than the license fee objection.
Hear hear!
I agree 120%, which is why I, as a non-telly tax paying ex-pat still campaign against BBC bias. here in Spain the BBC is seen as a Gold Standard of impartial reporting and it’s widely held that if the BBC says so it must be true.
The BBC’s influence extends far beyond the UK audience and that power should demand a responsibility to impartiality long since abandoned by the BBC we know today.
Nearly Oxfordian:
‘the Catholic Church circa AD 1200, a state within a state, all-powerful and pontificating by divine right..’
Ah, those were the days….
Because he was being stage directed by his “Palestinian” handlers, afraid of what they’d do to him this time if he didn’t obey?
I’ve only watched short clips of the Pallywood al Dura thing but it seems that the number of bullet holes in the wall remain constant. Funny, that.
I’m wondering when the Palestinians are going to get organised enough to employ special effects people to help them with Pallywood. Right now it’s woefully amateurish – bodies showing movement after a bloodless death and even sitting up and looking around and corpses getting off stretchers and running away.
Hell, can’t they get some red paint or something from their devoted UNRWA friends and put it in a bag and then burst it and lie still? Is that really beyond them?
President Carter knows absolutely that Israel has 150 Nuclear weapons because he went to Gaza and counted them.
I’ve only watched short clips of the Pallywood al Dura thing but it seems that the number of bullet holes in the wall remain constant. Funny, that.
If you watch the whole thing here you’ll notice how the father gesticulates frantically towards the camera, as if pleading with somebody in that direction to hold their fire.
Israeli ballistics experts who examined the scene said that those bullet holes appeared to have made by shots fired from the direction from which the camera was filming, not from the IDF position.
Given that al-Dura the father had previously been severely beaten up by “Palestinian militia” it doesn’t take much to believe that they used him and his son to set the whole thing up. They wouldn’t care if they died, they’d already tried to kill him once.
Biodegrable,
No matter what, there is a big edit between the last shot of the father and son actively cowering and the smoke clearing from an explosion revealing a bloodied, but still moving, boy.
Both camera angle and distance change dramatically from one frame to the next, which means that, unless this camera was shooting 5 frames per second or something (it isn’t), there is something missing in between. There is no way to see the source of whatever caused all that smoke and yelling. The viewer can only assume that there was an explosion of some kind because the camera seems to have been rocked violently as well.
Whether or not this explosion killed anyone is impossible to tell from this. Nor can anyone tell the source or say whether it was a grenade, rocket, tank shell, or what. Very strange that the crucial moment is left out. The BBC probably doesn’t want you to know that.
The holes in the wall were formed by something hitting them at a right angle, not in front of al Dura, at an acute angle.
The wall was also mysteriously demolished soon after and the ‘blood’ washed away. Suspicious, no?
Is the BBC still maintaining its news blackout on the trial?
Hey, BBC sorts out there: Comment please!
libertus | 29.05.08 – 5:10 pm |
Hey, BBC sorts out there: Comment please!
Unfortunately, Sarah Jane has already told us that the BBC generally does very little reporting on verdicts of any trial. Apparently they have no problem with extensive coverage of the accusations, but little interest in clearing the reputations of any innocents they drag through the mud. So we won’t be hearing anything more from Beeboids. We won’t hear anything from the usual defenders of the indefensible either, as they have nothing to gain here.
The BBC will remain silent on this because the decision against France 2 absolutely terrifies them. They share Enderlin’s concerns, as he stated in the last BBC report before the appeal:
Mr Enderlin insists he is the victim of a “campaign of intimidation” that has already had a chilling effect in some French newsrooms, where he says coverage of Israel’s treatment in Palestinians in the occupied territories is being toned down.
“I can’t imagine that a court can vindicate people who say that Muhammad al-Durrah’s death was staged. That would mean that you can cast doubt on any report,” he adds.
A court has done so, and the BBC would rather not think about it.
!50 nukes? Has anyone else noted the spooky conincidence?
This is exactly the same number as the 150 pre-pubescent boys Yassir Arafascist molested in 1994?
The same year he won the Nobel Prize for Peace of young boy ass!
Another consideration on the Peanut Farmer giving away Israel’s worst kept secret:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/05/27/jimmy-betraying-national-secrets/
Once upon a time, strange as it may sound now, Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States. As president, he was privy to a great deal of secret information that he was honor-bound to keep private.
Now, everyone assumes that Israel has nuclear weapons. No one really knows how many, though. Chances are that the United States government does have a much clearer idea of how many such weapons Israel has, and, as Israel is an ally of the US, it keeps mum.
What does one do with a president who, after he leaves office, decides to betray the trust that Americans and their allies placed in him?
This is not some investigative reporter coming up with these numbers, this is an ex-president. As such, they appear to have more inside information behind them.
If a former Israeli prime minister would tell a public venue about US spies found in Israel, or perhaps about US military capabilities and weaknesses discovered during joint exercises, what would be the US reaction? If Tony Blair announced the exact location of US submarines when he was prime minister, what kind of an uproar would that cause? Because this is exactly what Jimmy Carter just did to Israel.
He just gave priceless information to Iran about Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Does this make him a spy? A turncoat? I don’t know, but at the very least it should mean that whatever little credibility he still has as a decent human being is now utterly lost.
Is the BBC still maintaining its news blackout on the trial?
France2 have appealed the decision and will take it to France’s highest court.
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/05/26/round-three-france2-appeals-to-the-cour-de-cassation/
You can bet your hot-water bottie the BBC will cover that extensively if France2 win, which IMVHO is very unlikely.
Hear Karsenty here: http://podcast.shirenetworknews.net/:entry:tuatara-2008-05-27-0000/
Mr Enderlin insists he is the victim of a “campaign of intimidation” that has already had a chilling effect in some French newsrooms
Yep, those antisemites are being hounded mercilessly. A veritable witch hunt, blood libels and all. A complete violation of their human right to be racist liars. Complain to the UN!
Does the USA have no requirement that presidents sign an oath of allegiance to their office? And if they betray it, does that not make them liable to prosecution for treason?
But there is NO WAY we can allow the BBc to pass over the al-Durrah story in silence because they promulgated it on many occasions, starting here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1026340.stm
THeir reprot explicitly blames Israel for the alleged killing. If a court has ruled there are serious reasons to doubt this, the BBC is in breach of its Charter in failing to report on these developments.
BBC – ANSWER PLEASE!
The BBC contributed to promulgating the al-Durrah story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1026340.stm
Not to report on the French case (as they earlier did, IIRC) is to be in breach of their Charter.
Sorry about the almost-double reporting – caused by a blip on the screen. Can anyone find earlier BBC reporting on the trial?
OK, the BBC did report the case on May 22:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7415858.stm
But it appears under a bizarre title:
‘French TV loses Gaza footage case’,
which makes it sound as if a film box had been mislaid. The issue was about FRAUD and LIBEL, not ‘footage’.
Shades of their obfuscation over ‘peacekeepers’.
I’m sure a good part of that 36 million pounds they’ve flushed down the toilet went on busy little editors on the BBC website figuring out how to sweep major news stories that threaten to expose the BBC’s own bias under the carpet. A good way to start sweeping is to make the headline as bland and uninteresting as humanly possible. They are quite skilled at this.