Glad to see that Israel has finally responded to the endless rocketing from Hamas but as you can imagine, the BBC is outraged. Israeli F-16 bombers have pounded key targets across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 225 people, “local medics” say.Most of those killed were “policemen” in the Hamas militant (aka terrorist) movement, which controls Gaza, but women and children also died, the Gaza “officials” said. The entire emphasis of the BBC report is aimed at painting Israel as the aggressors, the bad guys, and I note that the predictably pro-Palestinian babble from Ban ki-Moon is also faithfully recorded. The UN, the BBC, all mouthpieces for rampant Palestinian propaganda – and now all outraged when Israel finally moves to crush Hamas killers.
LIFELESS IN GAZA
Bookmark the permalink.
Radicchio | 28.12.08 – 12:05 pm | #
Your entire information comes from the Palis themselves, since there are no independent foreign observers and researchers in Gaza. And all of it stands in stark contradiction to pictures coming from Gaza, see here:
http://www.daylife.com/search/photos/all/4?q=gaza+children
The comparison to African starvation is a particularly despicable one, as none of these children looks anything like the well-known famine pictures from Africa. Also, no African child gets the regular aid Gaza gets, mostly through Israel since the border between Gaza and Egypt is usually closed. The Palestinian propaganda in this way takes international attention away from real sufferers, especially in Africa.
Not to mention the fact that the only place Gaza children get any reasonable medical care is in Israeli hospitals, which they regularly use.
.
‘Jihadwatch’ has this on ‘proportionate response’:
“Question: Was four years of war, followed by eight years of occupation of Japan and the destruction of Japan’s native religion (by compelling the Emperor to go on the radio and tell the Japanese that he wasn’t divine) a proportionate response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Over 3,000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor. Wouldn’t the bombing of a Japanese port, the sinking of some Japanese ships and the destruction of Japanese planes, resulting in the deaths of a few thousand Japanese, have been the only proportionate response? And so wasn’t the Pacific theater of World War II a wildly disproportionate response on the part of the Allies?
“Also, have you ever noticed that the only state in the world that is ever guilty of a disproportionate response to violent attacks from its enemies is Israel?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024096.php
Radicchio | 28.12.08 – 12:05 pm | #
Re my previous comment (Anat (Israel) | 28.12.08 – 12:25 pm | #), I certainly don’t mean that everything is fine with the Palis. They are certainly in dire straits, but this is no fault of Israel. The crime against them has been perpetrated for sixty years by the Arab League and the United Nations.
Around 1950 the UN agreed to register as a refugee from Palestine anybody who applied for aid from UNRWA, in this way doubling the number possible from the records of the British Mandate for Palestine. The UN did this with full knowledge that, contrary to its own rules, this registration was used by the member states of the Arab League (except Jordan) to deprive all those registered for aid of citizenship (including most job options), they and their descendents for ever. This is the only case in the entire world; all other descendents of refugees are, by UN rules, the repsonsibility of the country of their birth.
This is why we now get a fourth generaion of aid-dependents with no hope in hell of doing anything with their lives, but with time on their hands to indulge in terrorism.
All this is the UN doing. Definitely among the worst crimes against human rights throughout the 20th century.
.
Meanwhile, away from the Islamic jihad against Israel, the global Islamic jihad continues at this moment in Pakistan where the Taleban (of the BBC’s Lyse ‘Humanity of the Taleban’ Doucet pleasantness), is bombing against democracy:
“Many dead in Pakistan bomb blast”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7801903.stm
i see sky news is buying the Hamas lie – “one of the most densely populated places on earth”.
no it isnt.
mister ed | 28.12.08 – 11:38 am
Not just Sky News. The BBC’s Katya Adler repeats the falsehood. mister ed beat me to it. Overcrowded Gaza is an urban myth and there is no connection between population density and violence.
Add least 114 urban areas have equal or greater density than Gaza including London and Portsmouth.
I have had the misfortune to visit Gaza three times and the first thing to surprise you is how much land is not used for homes of agriculture. The second thing is how little of the housing is higher than two stories. In Bangkok even the worst slums are higher than that.
i see sky news is buying the Hamas lie – “one of the most densely populated places on earth”.
no it isnt.
mister ed | 28.12.08 – 11:38 am
Your are right. As deegee testifies first hand in the comment at 2:15, it isn’t.
The myth comes from the official Palestinian population statistics divided by land area. There is an important article published a few years ago (sorry, I shall put the link when I find it again) that shows how these statistics have been compiled. In essence, there has been no census for almost 20 years. The statistics are based on those compiled by Israel in the 1980s, augmented by estimates of birth-rate and expected immigration of Palestinian refugees. Trouble is, the birth-rate is considerably down in relation to the 1980s, immigration is nil, and emmigration is on the other hand rampant. Anybody who is still normal in Gaza is seizing on any opportunity to escape. There will soon be nobody there except for the terror gangs and their UNRWA feeders.
.
The BBC inadvertently backs up the point that much of Gaza is sparsely populated. The map at Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels (also for a change showing Egypt) illustrated areas of higher density as a darker brown compared to the caramel colour for low density.
Most of Gaza is caramel but not sweet.
Tim Marshall is no lefty arse licker. The best reporter Sky had was Emma Hurd who for some reason got packed off to that shithole South Africa/Zimbabwe for some reason.
The AP reports that of the 271 killed in Gaza thus far, approximately 15-20 are civilians. While the death of any civilian is awful, this means that 95% of those killed were Hamas combatants. That’s a pretty astounding example of Israel’s absolute care to avoid civilian casualties, given the intermeshed civilian and combatant populations in Gaza.
Of course, when reporting on the Lebanon war, the BBC took great pains to report the numbers of civilian Lebanese dead, and the number of Israeli soldiers killed, when it worked against Israel. In this case, where the numbers work for her, the BBC avoids reporting them in their proper context.
DB | 28.12.08 – 10:09 am
mister ed | 28.12.08 – 11:29 am
Philip | 28.12.08 – 12:03 pm
Martin | 28.12.08 – 3:25 pm
Yeah, it’s amazing how so much of the media falls into line and follows the left wing bleeding heart orthodoxy. I mentioned Sky because it seems to have gone steadily left over the years. I recall some years ago, during the “Second Intifada” when suicide bombing was at its height Sky was interviewing some swine who was going off about the evil Israelis and the anchor (or whatever you’d call her) said, “What do you expect Israel to do?”
Funny, I don’t remember seeing her on Sky much after that. Any expression of basic human support for the Israelis was probably a bad career move. Wish I could remember her name.
Sky IS dripping left. But at least we can choose whether we fund it. With the BBC, no choice, no balance, no hope.
You just know if the rent boy loving cunts at the BBC today had been running it during WW2 every time the RAF dropped a bomb on Germany they’d have had an interview with Hitler calling the RAF terrorists.
Of the first 18 reader’s top recommended comments on the HYS topic – Are the Israeli strikes on Gaza justified? –
17 says yes, the strikes are justified.
which begs the question. Is the BBC’s vast pro pal propaganda having any effect on its own viewers?
perhaps they are indeed a lot smarter then the Beeb gives them credit for.
C’mon let’s keep this blog focused on the BBC Bias and not so much about the justifications of the actors in th drama that the BBC reports on.
Beamish:You can’t talk about one without the other.
There is no other arena where the BBC’s visceral Marxism, antisemitism and political preference is on display than the Middle East.
David Vance | Homepage | 28.12.08 – 10:37 pm,
I guess the BBC needs to at least try to conceal its bias a bit more. It wouldn’t want to be barred from the public trough.
Though these days it seems more and more that the BBC is past caring whether or not its bias is obvious.
on the contrary. The more obvious the bias, the more its viewers will shy away and it will lose its credibility.
Bryan | 29.12.08 – 8:33 am
these days it seems more and more that the BBC is past caring whether or not its bias is obvious.
Seems so. But how come?
Tom, I dunno. Maybe they just figure they’ve got the licence fee sewn up, so why bother with pretence? Or maybe they are simply obeying an irresistible urge to come out of the closet and wave their left wing credentials around.
Will be reading this blog alot more now.
Agree with everything I’ve read so far – particular about Gaza.