I was reading Al Beeb’s latest bit of propagandising on behalf of the Great Leader and note that it says he is going to the “occupied territories”. I assume this was a typo and what the BBC meant to say was the “disputed territories” since the term they employ would otherwise be seen as little more than pathetic pro-Palestinian bias. And when we’re at it, maybe when dear Gordon is seeking to dispense even more money to the Palestinians, perhaps the BBC could ask why such savages who cheer-lead the release of child-killer Samir Kuntar deserve so much as one penny of our cash?
WHAT OCCUPIED TERRITORIES?
Bookmark the permalink.
Here is the proof of the British media anti-Istaeli bias: http://www.justjournalism.com/
beeboid drones wont present a balanced view of the said subject unless and until the Balen report is published
Release the Balen Report and jail all beeboids
Nice to think the Balen Report will see a public release one day, but I suspect the day we mere peasants get so much as a glimpse will be the day hell freezes over.
And even THAT will blamed on those nasty, evil Joos…
Strange for a Labour leader, but Actually I think Gordon Brown is not anti-Israel.
But obviously he’ll make all the PC moves expected of him. Western politicians, especially of the left, are absolutely paralysed by PC.
“How strong is the Arab claim to Palestine?” (Lawrence Auster).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F9FC5FA9-FF95-49BC-86A2-C9EBD546AD3D
Brilliant piece by Auster, George. I check FP Mag on a regular basis but missed that one.
Maybe Pa Broon is flying to the Falklands. Just as the term “greenhouse gasses” infers that the world is heating up like a greenhouse..(it isn’t). Occupied territories, infers that someone is occupying someone else’s territory.
Wrong again.
Which part of that area is occupied by Israel?
As far as Im aware the Palestinians already exercise self determination over their daily affairs in both Gaza and the West bank.
If it wasnt for their desire to spontaneously detonate on public transport or in restaurants the Israelis wouldnt interrupt their daily lives by taking out those planning on murdering joooos just because they are joooooos!
Mailman
Mailman | 20.07.08 – 1:08 am |
Which part of that area is occupied by Israel?
Israel, of course. But according to the BBC (and the rest of the Leftoid media), if there’s even one checkpoint somewhere, that’s “occupation”. Even with that liberal definition, though, to use the plural from, “territories”, is telling a lie. Only the West Bank can be considered “occupied” in that way. Hezbollah occupies Lebanon. Israel doesn’t.
Secretly, quite a few Beeboids believe that even Israel shouldn’t be occupied by Israelis, at least not the way it is now, with the Jews in control. If the walls ever come down and the public gets their hands on the logs of all those in-house chat groups, there will be no more illusions.
David P, (USA), it’s far past time when we realized that LEFTOIDS, have no interest in an honest debate. That they have no interest in a give and take in an exchange of viewpoints.
HERE-IN-LIES-THE-RUB.
If Arabs, Muzzlims, Islamists, Hezzbolah dudes, Palestinians, Iranians, etc etc etc etc, are regarded ss honourable and as EQUALS to those who aren’t savages and to those who have actually TRIED to negotiate. What is the point?
Lefties, BBC included, trust dishonourable terrorists, and are naive enough to consider them equals to Israel.
It’s that simple.
It’s that simple.
gus | 20.07.08 – 5:45 am |
That’s why you can’t reason with islamists, lefties and Al Beeb. We have to fight them…
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Sounds familiar? Where’s old Sir Winnie if you need him?
Disallusioned, I’m with you friend.
I’m half Yank-half Brit. I’ve read dozens of books on Mr.Churchill and one thing is clear. Winston Churhill was a Patriot, he was a leader, and he had balls. We’ve become fucking nancies. We’ve allowed millions of immigrants who neither love Britain, nor love you and I. And we’ve DOLED out to millions, who’s thank you, is the FINGER.
In short, what made the U.K and the U.S.A, the leaders and winners in the 2 world wars and in world progress,,, isn’t REVERED and BELOVED. Those who have GOTTEN and have TAKEN, have no respect, love nor REVERENCE for how their very subsistance was achieved or obtained.
It’s so clear and so easily documented.
The Patriotic love of The U.K. and the U.S.A. has been bastardized by those who have not SACRIFICED.
We have reaped what we have sewn.
Perhaps we should pick battles we can win? The BBC have an easy out on this one.
However wrongly and hypocritically, the United Nations and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office all use the term Occupied Territories. The term Disputed Territory is used as far as I can tell only by Israel.
As U.S. Ambassador to the UN (and no enemy of Israel) Madeleine Albright stated in March 1994: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory.” Still, even the Americans use the term freely.
We’re stuck with the term. Let the BBC start writing honestly and accurately about what happens there and not through their typical Left/Islamic prism. I will be happy.
Gus… try this one:
“A schools video produced last year on the Forties barely gives a walk-on part to Winston Churchill, a man who is being steadily written out of modern history because he does not fit the fashionable myth that the Tories sympathised with the Nazis and the Left were the only people who opposed Hitler….
LABOUR’S role in the rise of Hitler was to consistently vote against the rearmament measures which narrowly saved this country from slavery in 1940. Stalin’s insane orders to the German Communist Party, to refuse to co-operate with the Social Democrats, virtually ensured the Nazis would come to power in 1933.
This would be mirrored, six years later, in the joint victory parade staged by Nazi and Red Army troops in the then-Polish city of Brest, and the efficient supply of Soviet oil to Germany which fuelled the Nazi Blitzkrieg and the bombers which tore the heart out of London.
But millions of supposedly educated people know nothing of this, and are unaware that the one country which behaved with honour and courage when the fate of the world was being decided was Britain.”
It was the Left who were on Hitler’s side, not the conservatives. And the Left were on his side because he was one of them.”
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html
I should add: The above quote is by Peter Hitchens not by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) who wrote the excellent essay I linked below.
The left in this country the unions in particular were against taking action against Hitler from when he had a pact with their beloved Stalin until Hitler inevitably broke the pact, then the left were all for the war.
“Occupied” in stead of “Disputed”
I don’t see any bias here.
The BBC is biased, but this is not an example. Try this;
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/pressreleases/2008/07-july/pr080717-333.html
The BBC reported this big, but they haven’t made a correction of the story. Or have reported the ISAF side of the story.
deegee…As U.S. Ambassador to the UN (and no enemy of Israel) Madeleine Albright stated in March 1994:
She ain’t called Madeline Half-Bright for nothing. Not a good example to quote this maroon.
When I lived in Israel, the territories were described as “administered”. A neutral term, of course, and I prefer it that way. Jordan had occupied them from 1948 to 1967, an occupation recognised only by Britain and Pakistan, but had relinquished its (non-existent) claim. No Palestinian state had existed, so Israel was “administering” them, including the application of Jordanian law, with the assistance of policemen formally employed by Jordan.
I also travelled freely on the bus from Jerusalem to Hebron, and talked with the Arabs onboard; this was in 1974.
It was apparent that the two regions could become two states – until the settlements were set up, an act of folly, in my opinion.
Still, what the legal position is, is irrelevant; how it is felt, is the important bit. And so long as people feel oppressed, it is an “occupation”.
BBC report:
“Brown in £30m. Palestinian pledge”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7515786.stm
Melanie Phillips comment:
“With Friends Like These…”
[Extract]:-
“Gordon Brown is in his own mind a genuine and lifelong friend of Israel. But just like that other genuine friend of Israel Tony Blair, where his heart leads him in the Middle East his brain somehow fails to follow. Brown’s particular type of tunnel vision is to see every problem as an economic phenomenon, and the Middle East impasse is no exception. So he thinks that if the Palestinians are offered economic opportunities, their own self-interest will lead them to beat their rocket-launchers into greenhouse frames.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/847136/with-friends-like-these.thtml
The BBC Governors’ independent panel report on the impartiality of BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of its journalists’ guide to facts and terminology.
Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms:
Occupied territories’:
The general phrase “occupied territories” refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is not usually understood to refer to the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 war or Syrian-Israeli relations).
It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase “occupied West Bank” can also be used.
Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there. See that section for our use of language.
Try not to confuse the phrase “occupied territories” with Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories. (See those sections for the reasons why.)
The Israeli government’s preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is “disputed territories” and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#occupied
Joel | Homepage | 21.07.08 – 4:27 pm |
Well, the BBC needs to update their guidelines. Israel is no longer the occupying power in Gaza, even under “international law” (however they define it). Hamas controls the territory. Much of the water and electricity comes from Israel, but by that definition one could just as easily call Russia the occupying power of Georgia and Estonia, or France the occupying power of Monaco and Luxembourg.
The BBC is also wrong to call the West Bank “occupied”. But, as I said before, as long as there is even one checkpoint, it’s “occupied”. And the settlements don’t count because those people don’t control anything past their front gates.
But that would make Israel appear less nasty, wouldn’t it?
I notice the usual Israel-first suspects in here.
That paid by the post dodgy foundation cash from America sure gets around on the net.
ady | 23.07.08 – 10:55 am |
Care to address any actual arguments? Or are you just trolling again?