Just a quick alert to all B-BBC readers to have an onion handy when Abu Bowen presents the latest pro-Palestinian lovefest on the BBC. Tune in, if you dare, tomorrow night to Panorama to hear Bowen give a little pre-Israeli election onslaught on the reputation of Israel.
ONION TIME.
Bookmark the permalink.
seen this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1139249/High-ranking-Foreign-Office-diplomat-arrested-anti-Semitic-tirade-gym.html
High-ranking Foreign Office diplomat arrested over anti-Semitic tirade in the gym
“A high-ranking diplomat at the Foreign Office has been arrested after allegations that he launched a foul-mouthed anti-Semitic tirade.
Middle East expert Rowan Laxton, 47, was watching TV reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza as he used an exercise bike in a gym.
Stunned staff and gym members allegedly heard him shout: ‘F**king Israelis, f**king Jews’. It is alleged he also said Israeli soldiers should be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’.”
Doug,
Earlier today, I made a comment about the calibre of some of those who work in the F.O.
I rest my case.
I am surprised he isn’t suspended while the employer at the very least starts an investigation into his conduct. It appears on the face of it to be serious perhaps even gross misconduct that would compromise his ability to do his job properly and bring his employer into disrepute.
The FO is notorious for this – anyone remember the episode of Yes Prime Minister where an FO official is blatantly pro-Arab and anti-Israel? Not much has changed…
The problem is – for much of my life the FO has been labelled (or diagnosed) as being anti-Israel, often bordering on anti-semitic.
Decades go by, and nothing changes.
The bBC and how it allows Abu Bowen(The plastic Muslim) to spread lies as the truth for his Islamic masters.
The Panorama Middle East Archives
Al Beeb breaks the history of the region since the birth of Israel into 6 sectors.
1) The Birth and subsequent invasion of Israel is given the name of ‘Division’
The bBC with its anti-Semitic tone straight away promotes the birth of Israel as a result for Zionists. Then lightly mentions that Israel was invaded by Egypt and Jordan whom Israel defeated. leaving out the Syria, Lebanon and Iraq armed forces yet while the bBC points out Israel expanded her borders they omit that so did Jordan and Egypt.
2) Six day war which the bBC paints as a land grab by Israel by pointing out that Israel said it attacked because it had to. Yup great how the bBC promotes a vision of Israeli belligerence when they kind of leave out every man and his camel were based in Syria, Eygpt and Jordan just waiting for the nod to invade. Oh they also inform the reader that Israel stole Gaza from Egypt and the west bank from Jordan.
3) An uneasy peace . Yup while Al Beeb under Bowen has no problem pointing out when the Jews attack they hide the attacks from Allahs little helpers under a smokescreen of fog and misinformation. So how much info do they impart about the Yom Kippur war. The most pivotal act which saw peace with Egypt and Jordan and the bBC gives it two lines. Instead the bBC promotes this view that with her back with Eygpt secure Israel decided to invade Lebanon.
4) I won’t even bother with the rest of the tripe Al Beeb pushes as the truth. Abu Bowen is the biggest hate monger in the UK. If Carole Thatcher can be sacked for calling somebody a gollywog. Abu Bowen should be put against a wall and shot for promoting racial hatred on a scale not seen since the Nazis.
The bBC and how it allows Abu Bowen(The plastic Muslim) to spread lies as the truth for his Islamic masters.
You can be arrested for a rant at a gym?
“You can be arrested for a rant at a gym?”
So it seems. You can also get sacked for saying “golliwog”
What strange times we live in.
I can tell you that the person in question could be judged a moderate in comparison to some of the jew haters at the FCO, they have some of the most radical antisemites in the world and they would feel right at home in Iran or Gaza, anyone ever wonder why the BBC world news service is so blatantly anti Israel? The BBC-W gets funding and support from the FCO.
I think the FO is still riddled with guilt about the Middle east and the birth of Israel. Like the Irish potato famine and the slave trade its really time we got over it.
An undeniable clinical case of Mr Bowen’s bias can be found here: http://www.justjournalism.com/gazareport
On an earlier thread yesterday I wrote
Gaza rocket lands in southern Israel
http://uk.reuters.com/article/ wo…E5170AQ20090208
Rocket fired on Israeli City
http://www.newsonair.com/news.as…ional& id=IN6931
Let’s count the hours before the BBC report this. And what’s the betting it be something along the lines of:
“Gazan’s fear Israeli retaliation”
The Omega Man | 08.02.09 – 9:01 am |
24 hours later:
“Israel hits Hamas targets in Gaza”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7863500.stm
With about 20th paragraph from the bottom (out of 25):
“Earlier, a rocket landed between two nursery schools in Eshkol region of southern Israel, media reports said. On Saturday, a rocket fired from Gaza exploded near the Israeli city of Ashkelon, with no casualties reported, and at least two were fired in the days before. “
I, for one, need no onions, no fake tears shall be wept, no false sympathy from me. When I think of the plight of those unfortunate and oppressed rocket makers and their inability to obtain decent navigational targetting software, well, it truly makes my heart break.
If only those valiant terrorists, whoops, freedom fighters could randomly kill more jeeeeews then i’m sure we’d all rest easier (unless in Israel obviously).
I think the big problem with Bowen is that he often presents “victims” of Israeli atrocities without any corroborating evidence.
We have no idea whether these people are Hamas or Hamas supporters or truly innocent victims, but hey BBC, never mind the truth when emotion makes a good story.
The quality of public servants and BBC staff has plummeted to a real new low under Labour.
pounce | 09.02.09 – 3:42 am
Israel expanded her borders they omit that so did Jordan and Egypt
Not Egypt.
Jordan eventually annexed the west bank, but Egypt never made Gaza a part or province of its own territory.
It`s a shame the word `arabist` isn`t used much anymore.
OoM wrote:
“Not Egypt.Jordan eventually annexed the west bank, but Egypt never made Gaza a part or province of its own territory.”
Ok help me here, who ruled and ran Gaza from 1948 to 1967?
I think the problem with the BBC regards the Middle East is a lack of factual evidence. Too often reports are pitched at such a low level that no background to the conflict is included, thus stories concentrate almost entirely on the human/social aspect of any war.
As such the BBC is not so much anti-Israeli or pro-Hamas or whatever, rather like most news organizations the BBC is so focused on providing news at breakneck speed with fancy graphics that the actual event is lost admit tabloid style alliteration and focus on visuals rather than content.
I wish we could believe that, i`m sure laziness,incompetance and the persistant dumbing down of serious content is a factor,but the idea that bbc doesn`t have an agenda was dispelled a long time ago.Look at the sidebar.
Having said that if you have good strong points in the defense of the bbc,and an aversion to trolling i`m sure you`d be welcome.
“Those members of the press who transmute Hamas’s crocodile tears into ink only exacerbate the disease”
Read more…
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
“You can be arrested for a rant at a gym?”
Yes. Swearing is an offence under the Public Order Act. You see it all the time on police TV shows.
The BBC did retain their neutrality after deciding to not show the Charity Appeal for people in Gaza. They can’t be THAT anti-Israel if they came to a decision like that…
http://thealternativetake.blogspot.com/
‘I think the FO is still riddled with guilt about the Middle east and the birth of Israel.‘
Cockney | 09.02.09 – 7:57 am | #
Why Cockney, you don’t really believe the legend that the British created Israel, do you. The British actually trained the Jordanian army that attacked Israel in 1948, precisely for this purpose. The RAF actively participated in the war on the Egyptian side. Previously, the British had closed Palestine to Jewish immigration but opened it to Arab immigration. I could go on.
The British do indeed have something to apologize for, except it is to the Jews rather than the Arabs. The crimes of the British against the Jews are very high indeed, not least for betraying the Mandate given them by the League of Nations and pursuing instead their own ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ policies.
Ed “Other Projects” Stourton and Humphrys discussed the upcoming Israeli elections on Today. It’s very important, seeing as how – according to Ed – the recent Israel actions in Gaza were useless. The possibility of a party change at the top will make a difference.
Instead of focusing on the two real leading candidates, they wring their hands over the recent popularity of the Israeli (sort of) equivalent of the BNP. Yisrael Beiteinu, the recently popular party want to do things like territory swaps with the Palestinians in order to shift demographics. Stourton says that the leader is running on a “racist ticket”.
Okay, fair enough. Now, when was the last time any of you heard a Beeboid discuss the racism of Arabs against Jews in their midst? Arabs are legal citizens of Israel with full rights, living in complete safety. Jews have no such luxury in any Arab country. In the event that there is an actual Palestinian State, with an Arab Muslim government, does anybody imagine that Jews will be allowed to live there? Would Ed or John ever think of that?
Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow Jews at all. Hell, Jews aren’t even safe in parts of Britain, Europe, and now Venezuela. But no, to the BBC, only nasty Israelis are racist.
Nice one, BBC. Make sure you take every opportunity to inform the public just how awful Israelis are, and keep shtum about everyone else.
Cockney,
far from ‘getting over’ the Irish potato famine I think we British need to first come to terms with it and recognise it’s legacy.
I don’t mean beat ourselves up, but for instance I’d rather that it was taught in British schools than the Holocaust as it is part of our country’s history.
I’d rather that it was taught in British schools than the Holocaust as it is part of our country’s history.
John | 09.02.09 – 4:56 pm
Perhaps in addition to the Holocaust? How do you teach the history of WWII, also a major part of British history, without a discussion of Nazi crimes.
I don’t know what is or is not taught in British schools but I can’t think of a greater boost to an Islamic agenda than a deliberate decision to take the Holocaust out.
nick the greek:
The BBC did retain their neutrality after deciding to not show the Charity Appeal for people in Gaza. They can’t be THAT anti-Israel if they came to a decision like that…
nick,
c`mon chap, get up to speed.The bbc did want to run the appeal but had taken so much flack over ross, brand etc,not to mention that the accusations of pro islam bias were starting to fly thick and fast, they really couldn`t afford another media circus,so they had one on their own terms.The beebs faux concern about it`s own impartiality was a total smokescreen,check out any progs this evening about israel, palestine,take a deep breath stand back and look hard for total impartiality.
Apologies if my irony radar has suffered a snow event.
The more shocking point is that you get arrested for speaking – now that is THE point we should all be worried about.
Yet many comment here saying how awful it is about an FO e/ee being anti-Jewish.
Now, if he was actually beating up a Jew, then of course, arrest him.
But, what is the saying, “stick and stones…”
That many here condone the arrest is sympatamatic of the West’s problem with finding a proper reality based morality.
Surely the FO nutcase was arrested not just because he was talking out loud, but because after his rant escalated into causing a scene, he ended up – since he was in a place which was at least as much of a public space as a BBC green room – publicly inciting violence against an ethnic group.
He may not have started out doing something worth calling the cops, but it seems that the situation went out of control.
How do you teach the history of WWII, also a major part of British history, without a discussion of Nazi crimes.
deegee | 09.02.09 – 5:09 pm |
Easy, as the Holocaust had nothing to do with why the UK declared war on Nazi Germany, why we didn’t capitulate in 1940, and had virtually nothing to do with our conduct of the war or it’s conclusion. It wasn’t a major factor for Britain during the war and it’s a distortion to pretend otherwise. That’s why the discovery of the concentration camps was so shocking. It’s a major part of German history, but not British.
Does a typical British school child learn anything about the Irish potato famine? Or about the Bengal famine of 1943?
Anat (Isreal)
We prefer to remember the British soldiers murdered in the King David Hotel terrorist bombing
Geoffrey,
Jews and Arabs were also murdered by the Irgun in the King David Hotel bombing. You probably know that.
John’s got a point here since the Irish potato famine still has political traction: certainly in Boston, Mass and in Kilburn. It is certainly a motivator of anti-British sentiment among many Irish catholics (wherever they are now living). Even so, I’m with Cockney here. Sure the potato famine was horrible and, probably, if not avoidable then open to substantial amelioration which never occurred. However, it happened a long time ago, we can’t do anything about it and, more to the point vis-a-vis the murder within living memory of Europe’s Jews, no-one is proposing that we go out and starve another million or so Irish to death.
Unfortunately, going out and killing Jews is just what Hamas and, by extension, its apologists and supporters propose (and the BBC in its contribution to “impartiality” ignores). Teaching the holocaust in our schools as a part of “history” – not necessarily “our” history – is important as a warning for the future. The Irish famine was an event in our history and, as such, were history actually taught in our schools, should be included in the curriculum. But, with all respect to those who suffered in the famine and their descendants, it’s over and (as with the slave trade) no faux-apologies from the British government and possible cash payments (both of which are what I assume John means by our “coming to terms” with it) are going to change history.
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has been known as the “Camel Corps” since the 1920s. Partly because of it’s strong ex-public school bent towards Arabism.
geoffrey sturdy | 09.02.09 – 8:01 pm
From as early as the 1920s the British were already going against their Mandate to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They whipped up Arab anger against Jews and engineered Arab pogroms in which defenceless Jews were slaughtered. And they turned back ships bearing Jews fleeing the Holocaust. By the time of the King David Hotel bombing, the Jews were not merely struggling to establish their state, they were fighting for their very lives.
Three warning were issued before the bombing – one to the Palestine Post, one to the embassy of a European country and one to the British at the hotel. The British responded by saying, “We don’t take orders from Jews.”
British actions in Palestine were reprehensible. They have a helluvah lot to answer for.
If this Rowan Laxton worked for the BBC, they would suspend him on full pay for a little while and then quietly reinstate him. Ain’t no doubt about that.
But let Thatcher utter the dreaded word “golliwog,” and that guy, whathisname, who called Arabs suicide bombers and hand amputators….
Umbongo,
thanks for your comments, but by ‘coming to terms’ I didn’t mean cash payments. I just meant accepting and recognising what happened as part of the history of the British Isles, and the effect it still has to this day. I really think Britain has a blind spot on this issue. I think it is still relevant, much more so than the legacy of slavery or the Holocaust.
Bryan,
The British responded by saying, “We don’t take orders from Jews.”
Wikipedia, which I know is not infallible, makes it clear that the issue of warnings is contested. Many Jews in Palestine and Britain condemned the bombing in categoric terms.
British actions in Palestine were reprehensible. They have a helluvah lot to answer for.
Are you referring to the Balfour Declaration?
Or maybe the First Crusade?
Could you be more specific. Do you blame Britain for the fighting between Jews and Arabs?
Bryan,
“whathisname, who called Arabs suicide bombers and hand amputators.”
You read of very few hand amputations in the Muslim world nowadays – there was a case in northern Nigeria, mentioned on a BBC documentary recently, in which the thief, as a devout Muslim, had insisted on the correct shariah punishment, despite the reluctance of the authorities to carry it out.
Why is this? – because, besides being cruel and inhuman, it opens up Islam to open contempt and ridicule. Islam never abandoned slavery voluntarily – it was forced to by the imperial powers in the 19th C but the fact that it was flying in the face of opinion in the rest of the civilised world must have played its part. There is some evidence that the comparative disuse of stoning for adultery has the same cause.
I think that despite their religious bombast about the immutability of their divine message, Muslims actually do suffer from the universal human condition of hating to be looked down on with contempt and to be regarded as comically uncivilised. It may be this impulse that is the only one that will lead to reform and the ascendancy of ‘moderate’ Muslims.
So what does the BBC do? It sweepes under the carpet or denies the existence of a whole multitude of abuses and hatreds generated by this religion.
If the BBC produced documentaries about honour killings, middle eastern anti-semitism (1300 years old and stemming from Islamic teaching), about the plight of religious minorities in islamic countries, about the systematic discrimination against women, about the unedifying character of their ‘prophet’ – the list could go on and on – it might actually lead to improvements in the Muslim world.
In stead, by bigging up Islam and treating it as something not to be criticised, the BBC is actually encouraging a host of reactionary, fascistic and barbarous abuses taking place in the world today.
wally | 10.02.09 – 12:31 am,
Good comment. Here’s some interesting info on the issue:
Mr Kilroy-Silk drew comparisons with his treatment and the BBC’s continued use of Tom Paulin, an Oxford don and poet who was still allowed on the BBC Newsnight Review programme even though he had likened Jewish settlers to “Nazis” and called for them to be “shot dead”.
“I know that the BBC says that the Paulin issue is different because he is a contributor and I am a presenter. They said as much to me in the meeting on Friday. I can see there is a distinction but I do not think it is a very important one.”
http://www.pekingduck.org/2004/01/bbc-reporter-fired-for-calling-arabs-suicide-bombers-limb-amputators-women-repressors/
John | 09.02.09 – 11:41 pm
The information I have is that the British at first denied such a comment had been made but later admitted it. Of course, issuing warnings does not mean that the bombing was not terrorism, but like everything else there are degrees of terrorism. The hotel bombing had more of the aspects of a guerrilla attack than terrorism since it was primarily aimed at the British military.
And, as I said, the Jews were struggling for their very existence. It was not simply a question of whether or not they would succeed in establishing a state, but whether they would survive Arab genocidal designs against them. The Arabs were backed, encouraged and armed by the British. And as pointed out by Anat at 3:52 pm, the British were actively involved in the Arab war of intended annihilation of the Jews when it came to the crunch in 1948.
nick the greek: wrote:
“The BBC did retain their neutrality after deciding to not show the Charity Appeal for people in Gaza. They can’t be THAT anti-Israel if they came to a decision like that…”
And if they had aired it nick would anybody of complained?
Do you not think that by not airing it they knew that there would be a huge public outcry and that Al Beebs anti Jewish message would get a lot more coverage than if they had simply aired that video.
Do you not think that by not airing it they knew that there would be a huge public outcry and that Al Beebs anti Jewish message would get a lot more coverage than if they had simply aired that video.
pounce | 10.02.09 – 1:02 pm
I see nothing in the BBC to suggest they are that smart. It is also more than possible that we witnessed a minor rebellion by staff against the Governors
Bryan | 10.02.09 – 1:01 pm
The Arabs were backed, encouraged and armed by the British. And as pointed out by Anat at 3:52 pm, the British were actively involved in the Arab war of intended annihilation of the Jews when it came to the crunch in 1948.
What evidence do you have for this?
Tom | 10.02.09 – 1:58 pm,
Have a look at Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine by Samuel Katz. It’s a comprehensive study of the decades leading up to the establishment of Israel with an abundance of detail of British involvement in Palestine, particularly the ways in which the British went against their own Mandate to facilitate the creation of Israel.
The King David Hotel bombing seems to be a seasonal visitation. It doesn’t come up during every discussion about Israel and terrorism, but it seems like about twice a year somebody brings it up (I don’t mean just on this blog, but in my 25+ years of experience debating the topic of Israel).
Often it seems that the people who bring up the King David Hotel incident think that there is some permanent black mark on Jews for this, and it’s generally used as a means to invalidate any argument from Israel supporters condemning Arab and Iranian terrorism.
I understand the argument as follows: Because the Jews engaged in acts that we might consider as terrorism today, then Israel and its supporters have no moral standing when complaining about Arab or Iranian terrorist acts. To put it the other way I often hear, Israel itself is morally bankrupt because it was founded via terrorist activities.
Yet, the same people who hold this line of thinking also seem to be the same people who condemn colonialism and support freedom fighters everywhere else in the world.
Or am I missing something?
David Preiser (USA) | 10.02.09 – 5:25 pm
Exactly right. The usual suspects have supported terrorism for every cause on earth except the establishment of the Jewish state – even though something like the King David bombing was arguably more a guerrilla attack than terrorism and the Jews were fighting for their very existence.
‘We prefer to remember the British soldiers murdered in the King David Hotel terrorist bombing’
geoffrey sturdy | 09.02.09 – 8:01 pm | #
They were not murdered. They were soldiers in war time, siding with the Arab attacks on the Jews. They were legitimate military targets.
And it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Terrorism is attacks against civilians, not against soldiers, and certainly not solders in war time.
Get your definitions right.
Another funny thing from the JPost:
As of 8:00 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, some 59.7 percent of the 5.2 million people eligible to vote had cast their ballots at the 9,263 polling stations available nationwide, the Central Elections Committee (CEC) said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304735433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Sorry, wrong thread.
Anat (Israel) | 10.02.09 – 7:06 pm |
Terrorism is attacks against civilians, not against soldiers, and certainly not solders in war time.
Get your definitions right.
With all respect, I think you need to get your facts right.
“91 people were killed, most of them being staff of the hotel or Secretariat: 21 were first-rank government officials; 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers; 13 were soldiers; 3 policemen; and 5 were members of the public”
“41 Arabs, 28 British citizens, 17 Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian.”