My impression was that Hague was subtly supportive of Israel, but was almost bullied into reiterating the word ‘appalling,’ knowing it was his only hope of retaining credibility with the audience.
He was supportive of Israel merely by making two points that went against the grain. a) We don’t know the truth, and, b) that Israel has a mechanism for investigating such things, and for bringing to book those found guilty.
Even mentioning these points at all was daringly radical in the circumstances; because, a) such remarks are the very things that Israel’s enemies always scoff at, and b) the subject was slipped in abruptly at the end and left hanging. There wasn’t time to elaborate, and that was what made his points seem unconvincing and far-fetched.
I saw it as bullying and covert bias. I didn’t post yesterday because the thought of the chanting chorus made me weary.
But today Melanie P has gone much further and is less generous with Hague. Her examination of the issues is well worth looking at, as usual.
Hague repeated it, “appalling”.
He taodied to the anti Israel line that has no evidence for this policy.
“Subtly supportive” – how exactly?
“Almost bullied” – what a joke statement
Your defence of Hague is one of the thinnest and weakest these pages have seen.
Right up there with the BBC’s defence of some of Labour’s unacceptable moments.
Melanie had it summed up right, you are way off with this one Sue.
Do us a favour and read my post properly, please.
Anon, can’t you read?
Hague made perfect sense. Nobody should be condemned on the basis of unproven allegations. Those looking to retain moral authority (i.e. Israel has it) should be willing to punish crimes committed in their name if proven. Don’t think anyone can argue with that.
Melanie P seems to have a slightly strange view of what constitutes “evidence”. FYI Melanie, verbal testimonies to the effect that a crime was committed are evidence. Verbal testimonies to the effect that a crime wasn’t committed are opposing evidence. An investigator will weigh up the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Evidence doesn’t cease to be evidence because you disagree with it and decide to have a paint by numbers hysterical rant along the usual lines.
Cockney: when considering the verbal evidence one has to consider the credibility of that evidence. Palestinian side has a very poor credibility record.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, so I’ll spell it out. I wasn’t defending Hague, only giving him the benefit of the doubt unlike Melanie P. I’m sure she’s right with: “All they’ve picked up and run with is the lazy and malicious boilerplate carefully spun by Ha’aretz”
But in any case, however much he knew or didn’t know about the story, Hague, obviously conscious of public opinion, was forced to repeat the ‘appalling’ word in case viewers should think he approved of Satan Israel, but nevertheless was reluctant to condemn Israel unconditionally in the way Marr had done. That’s how he was ‘subtly supportive’. I expect Marr would have been more satisfied if he had made Hague appear to be a beyond-the-pale Israel defender.
The indecisive answer he gave was neither as hostile to, nor as defensive of Israel as the one Marr, with his leading question, seemed to want him to make, and the timing ‘just before the end’ was a dirty trick, and for me, the final straw.
I have to point out also that while Mel is commenting on both Marr and Hague, I am concerned with BBC bias, and therefore have concentrated on the way that Marr had set up the unfair scenario, rather than the content of the Ha’aretz article itself.
“Palestinian side has a very poor credibility record.”
True but in this case its not the Palestinian side making the accusations. Of course witness credibility needs to be assessed but that’s a task for the investigating authorities, not a reason to dismiss things out of hand before a process has even commenced.
“Hague, obviously conscious of public opinion,”
Obviously not, since it is more supportive of Israel than the Arab/Islamist alliance
Obviously not, since it is more supportive of Israel than the Arab/Islamist alliance
Anonymous | Homepage | 23.03.09 – 11:20 pm
Please provide evidence that the general public is more supportive of the Arab/Islamist alliance. In Britain? My intuition is that the bulk of Britons wish a plague on both houses.
“My intuition is that the bulk of Britons wish a plague on both houses.”
A quick google suggests that that’s pretty much the case, however the Beeb, kings of public opinion polls on iraq, seems curiously reluctant to commission any new surveys so the field is monolopolised by interest groups on both sides despreately struggling to prove how victimised they are.
I think that sympathy towards the palestinian “cause” has definitely decreased though now that the UK has directly experienced the sort of homiciday shit that the israelis have had to put up with. looking at “have your say” it’s also noticeable these days that the top comments are pro-israeli. 5 years ago it was mainly anti-israeli.
Cockney | 24.03.09 – 11:28 am
That’s all very well, but have you taken into account all those Guardian readers?
Pallywood comes to the Guardian. No – The Guardian Goes to Pallywood:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3470006/the-guardian-goes-to-pallywood.thtml
and “Hamas mouthpiece” Seumas Milne:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza
There really are quite a lot of them, and they are amongst the most vociferous and opinionated group in the country.
“That’s all very well, but have you taken into account all those Guardian readers?”
There’s not many Grauniad readers at all – seen their circulation recently 🙂