Been away for a few days folks so just trying to catch up on the news! I see that Hamas, those nice people for whom the BBC carries such a candle, have decided to declare open season on Israel just in time for Christmas. As the BBC puts it, “The Egyptian-brokered deal began on 19 June but has been tested regularly by Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli operations in Gaza. ” Just wondering why the BBC equates Hamas terror attacks with Israeli efforts to, erm, prevent rocket attacks. Testing indeed.
EYELESS IN GAZA
Bookmark the permalink.
David,
Welcome back !
I don’t know how much we can flog the anti-semitism of the BBC , but there is an Israeli who has posted here earlier. Check it !
“Just wondering why the BBC equates Hamas terror attacks with Israeli efforts to, erm, prevent rocket attacks.”
I imagine it’s because the BBC have a horror of bias or partiality and wish to maintain scrupulous balance in their reporting.
Or… they think rocket attacks on civilians are kind of acceptable as long as those civilians are Israelis.
Or… they think that the IDF are essentially terrorists in uniform.
Either way, I suggest that we flog the anti-Semitism of the BBC for as long as they display it.
On a similar tack, wonder how many Jews are employed by the BBC ?
Look David this is how it is, when it come to the State of Israel, and other things.
If the powers that be, intend to blow the place up, it will blow up. If they want it to slowing bleed to death, it will do so. If they want peace, then peace will happen almost exactly when it is planned to happen.
The powers that be control the Jews and the Muslims. The strings may or may not be long or clearly visible, but very powerful all seeing strings they are all the same.
These strings are the same strings that tell the Irish Loyalists and Irish Republicans what to blow up or what not blow up “at all, at all.”
It really is not difficult to understand this. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and the physical evidence is there for all to see, if their minds can handle finding it.
There has always been some kind of unseen hand of secret government working every so called civilized system of control. By this I do not mean God, but I do mean, what was in the past known as The Priesthood or the effective King Makers. These often highly intelligent and always the most highly educated people armed with the power of occult or hidden knowledge have always worked their apparent magic behind the Crown.
Over time it is the priesthoods and not the crown that have accumulated true wealth and power. Now joined by official treaty with the worlds British banking establishment, and other elements of the criminal underworld.
They may have the odd big scrape and are in some respects competing with each other for position and status. But basically they are now united at the very top, against the rest of humanity.
Within this world conspiracy of command and control is also the Muslim Establishment. Who knows full well, even if its people are told otherwise. Or indeed told just as many bullshit lies as we are by the BBC. What the really big noise is, who is at the top of it all, and so would not dare to really pull its psychopathic tail.
The ordinary Muslims Jews and Christians are being set up again like clay pigeons at a county fare. By their own respective establishments.
Since we abandoned the idea of bounty to pay our troops to risk there lives for Empire. Mainly religion was then replaced by mainly Ideology. Remember “Reds under the beds?”
The REDS were in reality our own establishment running a massive scam to create a highly profitable for themselves, otherwise pointless Arms Race.
We sponsored and help organize the Russian Revolution. Then fort a world war as ALLIES, for gods sake. We then after, in conspiracy with others within mainly the KGB, spent several trillions on never to be used highly expensive military scrap metal.
Most of the ill gotten gains all ended up at effectively the same place. Which was firmly within the same British banking system in various private Swiss, American, French, German, Papal and City of London, bank accounts.
Wars make money for elites and/or give our masters excuses to control us ever more. That is why we have wars in the middle east, or anywhere else. There has never been any other rational for wars.
Atlas shrugged 2:30
What drives you ?
Mind control rays from the Pluthodian Pod People I reckon.
I wish he or she would fuck off and evangelise that sub X-Files conspiracy bullshit somewhere else. It’s embarrassing by association.
Can’t we just nuke ’em – it’s gonna happen anyway. They really are disgusting scum.
At least Atlas has taken Chuffer’s remarks regarding CAPITAL LETTERS to heart – only one outbreak noted above
An attitude of moral equivalence towards the two sides in this conflict is an improvement for BBC hacks. The BBC generally shows sympathy for Hamas terrorists and scorn for the Israelis who defend themselves against Hamas terror.
Bryan,
Good point. It says it al that moral equivalance between terrorist and terrorised is an IMPROVEMENT for Al-Beeb. That said, you know in their heart of hearts where sympathies lie, and it is NOT with the Jewish victims of Hamas hatred.
Why don’t the Israelis fire a similar-sized rocket into Gaza for every one fired into Israel?
Why risk Israeli lives again and again in an effort to avoid civilian casualties (and remember, every Arab ‘militant’ miraculously becomes a ‘civilian’ as soon as he/she is killed or wounded)when the world relentlessly condemns Israel anyway?
From the article:
Palestinian militant groups in Gaza say they are not expecting a six-month ceasefire with Israel which expires on Friday to be renewed.
The Egyptian-brokered deal began on 19 June but has been tested regularly by Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli operations in Gaza.
How is a six month period of firing rockets regularly still a ceasefire? Which part of “cease” is not clear?
Last night’s 7pm Radio 4 news only gave Hamas’s side of this story, their views stated as fact and not a mention of an alternative point of view. The BBC’s anti-Israel/pro-Arab and indeed anti-Jewish/pro-Islamic stance is almost always on display. If the BBC wasn’t so biased then maybe they wouldn’t be so keen not to allow the release of the Balen report…
Here’s how the story was reported on R5L’s 5.30 news bulletin this morning:
“The armed wing of the Palestinian militant group Hamas says its six month ceasefire with Israel is over. People living in Gaza are bracing themselves for more violence.”
And that was it. It’s like that mock headline Mark Steyn likes to quote: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”
“Community leaders fear backlash after tomorrow’s bombing”
They think that they won’t get hurt.
The Left thinks it can support Islamic terrorism, but that its only Jews and Americans who will perish.
The superior, cultured elites of Europe are so drunk with their own superiority, that they actually believe their nuanced intelligence will win the fascists over.
Just as Chamberlain did so succesfully.
The BBC has no problem with Jews getting killed.
The day bombs start going off in Islington and Hampstead is the day the BBC wakes up.
That’s the day I will post a comment saying
“I’m against terrosism BUT….
On a similar tack, wonder how many Jews are employed by the BBC ?
Grant | 19.12.08 – 2:18 am
A fair number I think. Among the most prominent:
Gavin Esler
Jon Sopel
Robert Peston
Jonathan Marcus
Tim Franks
Katya Adler
Jonathan Charles
Mark Urban
Robin Lustig
Jonathan Ross
Jonny Dymond
Mark Damazer • Controller Radio 4
Richard Klein • Controller BBC 4
Danny Cohen • Controller BBC 3
Alan Yentob • Creative Director
tt
So right. It will be another case of “Dont kill me, I am on your side” but it will be too late just as it was for those that sucked up to the Nazi’s
‘How is a six month period of firing rockets regularly still a ceasefire? Which part of “cease” is not clear?’ – Roland Deschain.
Good question Roland. I think the answer is that Hamas expects the western media to cease reporting the attacks during the period of the ceasefire, in the naive belief that they are reported at other times.
David Vance | Homepage | 19.12.08 – 8:15 am,
Thanks. Yes, there is no doubt where the BBC’s sympathies lie.
You know, you can be a liberal lefty pink wacko commie, etc.. without supporting terrorism. It’s true!
ipreferred | 19.12.08 – 12:25 pm
You know, you can be a liberal lefty pink wacko commie, etc.. without supporting terrorism. It’s true!
Name one.
And, please don’t say Noam Chomsky.
Or Andreas Baader.
Or Che Guevara.
Or Trotsky.
Jonathan Woss is not Jewish. Nor is Gavin Esler. Nor is Damazer.
The others (esp Franks and ADLER) are, in that Kapo-like way. The court joos of al-Beeb. Yech.
Jonathan Woss is not Jewish. Nor is Gavin Esler. Nor is Damazer.
They may not be religious, but they come from Jewish families don’t they?
I’m sure the Damazer family deli in Willesden wasn’t an Irish one.
And the Eslers are to the Rifkinds in Edinburgh Jewish circles as the Cabots are to the Lowells in Puritan Boston.
Rani
You sure? According to a very quick Google search you are wrong. Woss is married to a Jewess, but is not himself Jewish.
you may be right about Ross…. seems no-one, not even wikipedia knows who his dad was.
Roland Deschain | 19.12.08 – 8:18 am |
How is a six month period of firing rockets regularly still a ceasefire? Which part of “cease” is not clear?
Well, this makes perfect sense if you’re the BBC editor who allowed the following:
The BBC’s Katya Adler, in Jerusalem, says at the moment there has been no mention by Palestinians of escalating the violence.
However, there have been regular outbreaks of violence in recent weeks.
Palestinian armed factions have fired more than 40 rockets at Israel over the Gaza border this week, according to Israel’s military.
What’s the point of even including Katya Adler’s quote? I wonder if the sub-editor even noticed that this makes her look pretty foolish? But I think it’s more of a reflexive sop from whoever put this together.
Nobody’s talking about escalating the violence (at least not to Beeboids), they’re just doing it. So maybe the BBC contingent over there never actually noticed all that activity during the “cease fire”. Or, they accept it, and consider it justifiable.
DP – nice one. Katyusha Adler, perhaps?
Dr Michael Jones | 19.12.08 – 2:39 pm,
That’s exactly how I see Adler and Franks. They’ve sold out to the anti-Israel (and often antisemitic) BBC.
The children’s so-called “poet laureate” and BBC favourite Michael Rosen is a leading anti Zionist and purveyor of boycott’s galore. He is a self confessed communist who planned to stand as a candidate for the Respect Party despite his Jewish origins. Much loved by the BBC – he is everywhere on their channels and stations despite being ugly enough to scare most normal kids.
On another matter – it’s interesting how the BBC appears to admire those who claim to fight fascism but is less sympathetic towards those who do not wish to support the communist alternative. I wonder how many active members/supporters of the Socialist Workers Party/Palestinian Solidarity Group/International Socialists/jihadists are actually employed by the State Broadcaster? i.e those who support media censorship, wish to overthrow the state and encourage armed insurrection?
Well, here it is. A lay-it-on-the-table, overt rationale for the selective use of the term “terrorist”, clear and unambiguous, from a representative of the BBC, in a response to my complaint. The first one I’ve seen this clear.
Note how Mr. Jolly continues to ignore my point that I am not asking to label a “group” as terrorist, simply to refer to the methodology in appropriate cases as such.
“Simon,
Let me clarify – in a situation where there is an ongoing conflict, it is not for us to use loaded language. While Israel and others may well regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, there are others who would argue that the label could equally be applied to the Israeli government. So we could call both sides terrorists or, as we choose to do, neither. In Bahrain – as in New York, London or Bali – there isn’t such a conflict, so the word carries less of the baggage that it does in other situations. Having said that, sometimes other words are better at explaining exactly what has happened. So not double standards, but impartiality and sensitivity.
Ian”
This was in response to the following follow-up I sent.
”
Dear Mr. Jolly,
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, it seems to only re-inforce my point that
the BBC applies a double standard when it comes to Israel. You state that the use of the
the term “terrorist” is acceptable in the case of Bahrain but not in the case of Israel. This makes
no sense. How does this reflect impartiality?
If I break down your meaning further, you seem to be saying that the term should not be applied
to “specific groups.” I’m not suggesting it should either. I’m simply pointing out that in identical
situations in Israel, in which security forces thwarted “terrorist” attacks hundreds of times in the
last 8 years, the BBC never once reported them as “terrorist attacks”, unattributed, as it does in this
case, the case of Bahrain. The BBC writes: “”No major terrorist attacks have ever been carried out on
its soil.”
If you can find a single example of the BBC writing “many major terrorist attacks have been carried out in
Israel,” in the last 8 years, (a direct parallel to the line about Bahrain) I’ll grant your point about use of the term
“terrorist” in a “generic sense.” Otherwise there is no balance here whatsoever.
Moreover, as I pointed out, Israeli security officials have repeatedly referred to “terrorist attacks” that have been thwarted, and the BBC has changed their words to “militant attacks” in many cases. This can be confirmed at the website of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has castigated the BBC for this very practice. Again, this is not a reference to “groups”, only to the nature of the attacks. Why would the BBC quote Bahraini officials faithfully, in their headline, as having foiled a “terrorist attack”, but not faithfully quote Israeli officials? Is this not a very clear example of a double standard?
I eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Simon “
Simon,
Well, when a typical BBC apologist is forced into a corner and required explain himself his true colours start to show. Like most of the subversive bunch working for the place, he has no moral compass. If he did, he would not equate the Israelis with the terrorists.
I would tell Mr. Jolly that if he cannot differentiate between Israelis, who go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and Palestinians, who go out of their way to inflict them, then he has no business being in journalism.
Simon & Bryan:
that response is a cut-out-and-keep classic of BBC moral equivalism(?). He really has stated that the belief that the Israeli government is a terrorist organisation is acceptable at the BBC! And who’s to say that the BBC’s friends (we know who they are) don’t also see the governments in London, New York and Bali as “terrorists”? So why doesn’t the curiously-named Mr. Jolly come out and say that, too?
simon | 19.12.08 – 7:09 pm |
Nice one. As if the Bali bombers considered themselves terrorists, not freedom fighters or whatever.
Keep at them.
Robert | 19.12.08 – 7:45 pm,
I sometimes picture the BBC’s motley Middle East crew reporting for state-controlled media in an Islamic dictatorship. They wouldn’t have to change a word of their output.
Could be this is what they are aiming for.
Bryan: that’s actually a very good acid test – imagine what would change if you were listening to the Syrian State Broadcaster’s reports. Not much, I imagine…
Robert | 19.12.08 – 9:31 pm,
A station like Al Jazeera, though biased to the hilt against Israel and the West, is actually more balanced than the BBC because they are not that paranoid about what news they do or don’t report. They have a keener instinct about what is newsworthy and run with it while the BBC’s instinct is to look first at what news it should suppress.
While Israel and others may well regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, there are others who would argue that the label could equally be applied to the Israeli government.
simon | 19.12.08 – 7:09 pm
It must be noted that the ‘others’ who regard Hamas as a terrorist organization include the Governments of Great Britain and all 25 countries of the European Union.
Did anyone catch the propagandist tit Jeremy Bowen describe Hamas as having an “ideology of resistance” on the 6pm “news”?
“Ideology of resistance”, eh?! What, like using the Protocols to justify the extermination of Israel.
Beeboid twat. I hope a few Israeli soldiers caught that report, and remember it next time they see Bowen fellating their neo-Nazi enemies when the bullets and bombs are flying…
simon | 19.12.08 – 7:09 pm
Who the hell is Ian Jolly?
Someone who thinks it’s only safe to use the term terrorist when the act of terror is not based on any ongoing conflict? Say, sudden inexplicable spontaneous combustion? Or violence in the name of a cause that no-one else has ever heard of? In other words when there’s no ‘baggage’ in the shape of ‘conflict?’
One man’s terrorist organisation is another man’s inability to be judgmental because he’s too busy being fair.
Who gave him the authority to present his flawed argument on behalf of the BBC on a subject in which he is clearly out of his depth in the patronising tone one might use if talking to someone with learning difficulties to explain something about which he’s got the wrong end of the stick to someone he has mistaken for an idiot who is even more stupid than he is himself.
Go to http://www.debka.com
“Crowded Sderot shopping center takes direct Qassam hit from Gaza, 12 injured”.
Sue–
That made me laugh.
Anyway, he’s the guy who wrote the response to me that came via the BBC’s “newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk” email address.
There is no title for him given–the only thing written under his name is “News website.”