That terrible scourge of Israel, human rights spokesperson Richard Falk, has decided that Israel’s war crimes are “not a question of whether Israel used disproportionate force in Gaza, but rather whether Israel acted lawfully in entering Gaza at all.” (The next stage is obviously declaring that the existence of Israel is itself a war crime.)
Today reported this, and ended by stating that by condemning Israel for human rights violations so frequently and so much more harshly than other countries who were equally, if not more, guilty of human rights violations, human rights commissioners or whatever they’re called are beginning to look less than even-handed.
Was the speaker Imogen Foulkes? I don’t know because Today iplayer isn’t working.
Yes, the broadcast concerned a report prepared for the UN’s so-called Human Rights Council, which devotes nearly all its time to excoriating Israel. The UNHRC has long been under the control of Arab nations and other vile tyrannies, but, in its role as a vehicle for anti-Semitic and anti-Western crusades, it is treated with respect by the BBC. The “Today” broadcast did end in the moderately sensible way which you have recounted, but it began with the shrillness that characterizes all the BBC’s fulminations against Israel.
Falk is entitled to his predictable, irrelevant comments but why does the BBC report them?
Hardly anyone in the UK gives a monkey’s one way or the other about Israel or Gaza, and the BBC’s coverage is simply self-indulgence and a refusal to recognise how little interest the public has in forrign news. A tax funded public service broadcastrer has a duty to learn how much its audience wants foreign news and to tailor its output accordingly.
Yes they hate the “apartheid wall” the west bank barrier.
But wait, read the small print here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7958724.stm
Yes you read right, the bBC admits
“The West Bank barrier has greatly reduced the ability of Palestinian militants to cross from the West Bank into Israel”
No scare quotes even, its hard to deny what is so clearly a fact.
For more pot-kettle……..
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/new/The_BBC_During_the_Gaza_War_Biased_Coverage_of_the_Conflict.asp
I thought the right to self-defence was enshrined in the U.N charter.
So how exactly has Israel broken International law? Would Britain stand back while the French shelled Dover? Of course not….
You know this is the one area of political discourse, where I genuinely cannot understand the reasoning of the BBC and their supporters on the left… what do they expect Israel to do, sit back and allow its citizens to be killed and maimed?
You wouldn’t treat a dog, they way that the BBC wants the international community to treat Israel.
Because Mr Falk was unable to enter the Palestinian territories, his latest report focuses on the legality of Israel’s January operation in Gaza in general, rather than in specific cases or claims that disproportionate force was used.
Boo!
“If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law,” Mr Falk’s report says.
Hooray! (Even though this is false logic!)
Further, he suggests that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and must be lifted.
Boo!
So he was “unable to enter”, and complains about the “Israeli blockade”. Presumably Mr. Falk is unaware of the existence of Egypt?
And the BBC happily plays along with the lie. Again.
The report is certain to anger Israel, which has long complained of bias by Mr Falk.
…and by the BBC.
Why don’t we get some spin about how Israel is an inclusive society that is the only brilliantly stable democracy in the region? Is that just mad chance or kinda cool?
If they were to admit Israel is a victim of relentless Palestinian agression (courtesy of their elected Hamas’s rockets) and not “victim” Palestine, the BBC would cease to get invitations to all the right parties. And that would never do.
Dick the Prick | 23.03.09 – 3:59 pm |
Why don’t we get some spin about how Israel is an inclusive society that is the only brilliantly stable democracy in the region? Is that just mad chance or kinda cool?
Sadly, most Beeboids will say that Israel is not a true democracy and is not cool because, well, you know…..
To most of these people, and the defenders of the indefensible, the definition of a proper democracy is a country which doesn’t do things they don’t like.
And oh the weeping for this peacenik martyr medhat
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7959290.stm
the attack has been condemned as terrorism by the plo
the front of it not even questioned
when he was just there to attend a memorial for hezbollah terrorists
and of course they have already been busy escalating a dispute amongst their own into deadly shooting
oh barbara the tears we have to shed…
Falk, the various manifestations of arab dominence in the U.N. and their combined propagandist lies/ “reports and allegations” all curiously prove to be increasingly counterproductive to their frankly evil agenda.
All apocalyptic U.N. allegations against Israel in the previous 15 years have proven to be false, and have been adequately (NOT by the Beeboyds) aired over the subsequent period. remember the wild and utterly disproven allegations made against the IDF in 2003?
Its my distinct impression that the majority of “normal” people are still broadly sympathetic to Israels cause, and have a much more sophisticated view of the arab threat than the Beeboyds would tolerate admitting. The normal public have long memories, and know when the same old shite is being recycled.
If this was anything other than a completely cynical exercise on the part of the UNHRC they would never have appointed someone like Falk in the first place.
Anyone who doesn’t realize what kind of game is being played here is either grossly uninformed or hopelessly biased or both.
Seeing as everybody loves ‘bias by ommission’, I thought I would bring up some ommissions on this site, ignored by many posters no doubt.
1. Suicide bomb in Iraq kills 25. Oh, but I thought Iraq was safe now (cos of Dubya) and the BBC refused to report on the ‘safety’?
2. Daily Telegraph today reports that 70% of insurgents in Iraq (and they think Afghan too) are only doing it for financial reasons. Any guido lovers see him post that? Any of the many Muslim haters here pay attention to that? Turns out they are not all jihad loving terrorists after all. Turns out there is a complexity to the situation after all, and that a terrorist is not simply a terrorist. who’d a thought that? And yet you all hate Obama…who takes a new approach to the situation, recognises the facts (as opposed to what the previous lot WANTED to be true) and is thinking about bribing these 70% of mercenaries. Nope, didnt see you guys talk about these stories.
Omit the extra “m”, Gussy.
News Corp. chairman executive Rupert Murdoch says the free world is making a “terrible mistake” in thinking the clash between Hamas and Israel is not “our fight.”
In a speech to the American Jewish Committee, Murdoch said: “In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States . Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel .”
Murdoch, who received the organization’s National Human Relations Award, said the assault on the “legitimacy and security” of Israel “comes from people who make it clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state, no matter how many concessions Israel might make.
“The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reasons they hate us.”
Murdoch cited the relentless rocket attacks Hamas has launched on Israel from Gaza, and Israel ’s need to respond. But the Jewish state faces two handicaps, he explained.
The first is military. “It’s true that Israel ’s conventional superiority means it could flatten Gaza if it wanted,” he said in his speech, which was adapted for an article in the Jerusalem Post.
“But the Israel Defense Forces — unlike Hamas — are accountable to a democratically chosen government . . . Every Israeli government knows it will be held accountable by its people and by the world for the lives that are lost because of its decisions. That’s true for lives of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire” and the lives of Israeli soldiers.
The second handicap is the “global media war,” with news outlets continually focusing on images of Palestinian suffering, observed Murdoch, whose media empire includes the Fox News Channel, Fox Broadcasting Co., and the Wall Street Journal.
“In this, Israel finds itself in much the same position the United States found itself in Iraq before the surge. There, al-Qaida realized that it was in its interests to provoke sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni — no matter what the cost to innocent Iraqis. That is the nature of terror. And what we are seeing in Gaza is just one front in this much larger war.”
He concluded: “I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.”
It took the BBC a long time to report the huge carbomb outside a Haifa mall which thankfully failed to detonate. Although it was discovered on Saturday evening, the BBC didn’t report it until 24 hours later.
Honest Reporting has done yet another excellent job of analysing the BBC’s biased output on the recent conflict.
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/new/The_BBC_During_the_Gaza_War_Biased_Coverage_of_the_Conflict.asp
Naturally the BBC has refused to comment on facts contained in HR’s previous reports, preferring instead to employ the ‘Galloway defence’ “They’re Israeli, they’re Israeli, they’re Israeli!”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/ajax.p?md5=28ca67be5da633866dc88660cc75926b
so I’m not holding my breath for a communique from HR detailing a BBC response. But as the BBC lost the last round in the Balen Report disclosure saga, we might just have some interesting bed-time reading yet.
Gus Haynes | 23.03.09 – 6:58 pm |
1. Suicide bomb in Iraq kills 25. Oh, but I thought Iraq was safe now (cos of Dubya) and the BBC refused to report on the ‘safety’?
Total strawman. Yawn.
2. Daily Telegraph today reports that 70% of insurgents in Iraq (and they think Afghan too) are only doing it for financial reasons.
Once again you prove your ignorance and inability to tell the truth. Paying off these slobs is old news. It’s old news even to anti-this war silly persons with more awareness and integrity than you. You don’t even realize that you’re supporting not a brilliant new Obamessiah idea, but an old Booooosh chestnut.
Who cares about what Guido posts? His is an anti-Labour blog, nothing to do with BBC bias.
What do you hope to accomplish here with such nonsense?
Gus Haynes | 23.03.09 – 6:58 pm |
Yawn.
Gus, before you click on the publish box you would be wise to use the preview box and read what you have written and consider just how foolish it may seem to other readers.
How does a bomb going off prove that BBC is not reporting the improved situation in Iraq?
Do you expect “muslim haters” to change their views because 70% of the muslim terrorists are financially motivated? From your past posts, I would assume that you would think even less of Muslim murderers who killed for cash than the ones who kill for ideology.
Get a grip.
‘Today reported this, and ended by stating that by condemning Israel for human rights violations so frequently and so much more harshly than other countries who were equally, if not more, guilty of human rights violations, human rights commissioners or whatever they’re called are beginning to look less than even-handed.’
Blimey, Sue, that’s a complicated sentence. Are you a lawyer, perchance?
as this thread is entitled PotKettleBiased, here is a video link about the terrorist fundraiser George Galloway berating the Canadian Government on their decision to refuse him entry.
Listen to the Canadian government spokesman, Alykhan Velshi, son of immigrant Muslims explain that you don’t invite someone into your home to pee on your carpets.
Listen to Galloway bluster about free speech and then goto about 9 minutes in where Galloway decides that in other circumstances free speech is not an absolute and therefore it was right to ban Geert Wilders from the UK:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f24_1237651415&c=1
More on Alykhan Velshi:
http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/alykhan-velshi-named-new-director-of-parliamentary-affairs/
Blimey, Sue, that’s a complicated sentence.
Chuffer | 23.03.09 – 8:31 pm |
I know Chuffer, I thought that too.
Just testing our concentration. (yours and mine.)
I thought I’d strayed into a Jane Austen novel, in which, by overuse of commas, which, it is said, can interrupt, if concentration is lacking, the flow of the sentence, er….
Hang on, the BBC openly accuses one of Israel’s critics of bias and you take this as evidence of anti-Israel bias. How does that work?
more bias tonight…BBCs headline story on news at ten was the McNulty investigation. look at how they tried to bury it away on the headline of the most watched news program! shocking bias.
then they had the audacity to mention that obamas trillion dollar plan was well recieved in the NYSE. how dare they mention that fact?! bias i shout, bias!
Gus Haynes | 23.03.09 – 11:20 pm |
Yawn!
Gus Haynes | 23.03.09 – 11:20 pm |
then they had the audacity to mention that obamas trillion dollar plan was well recieved in the NYSE. how dare they mention that fact?! bias i shout, bias!
That’s right. It is bias, because they have not reported that The Obmessiah’s previous trillion dollar plans have tanked the stock market. The Beeboids give Him credit on the one day bounce which always happens when these things are announced, but do not blame Him when it turns out the plan is crap and the market tanks, or when the Congressional Budget Office says His previous plan was crap, or that even Paul Krugman is dubious, etc., etc.
Gus Haynes says, with regard to the Jihadi-motivated carnage plaguing much of our planet, that it “turns out there is a complexity to the situation after all”; but having said that, he then brings out his rather blunt Occam’s Razor and tries to cut to the core of the matter suggesting that most of the violence is done for the money. Meanwhile Buddhist school teachers are murdered in Southern Thailand, Christian schoolgirls are beheaded in Indonesia, foreign aid workers are seized in the Philippines and threatened with execution, suicide bombers stroll into police stations in Pakistan, and I haven’t mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq yet not to mention the hundreds of terror cells running around Britain planning mayhem and murder in public places. To suggest that financial reasons, rather than Koran-inspired bloodlust and intolerance, as the primary motivation in the global jihad is just asinine in the extreme. I’m surprised you didn’t also include the far-left’s favourite bogey-man, Israel, as another justification for jihadi carnage. The Bali bombers were doubtless short of a bit of a cash and rather peeved with Israel, so they just decided to blow up a few hundred Australians and countless other innocents. Or maybe there just might be something in what the elderly mother of one of the Bali bombers said: “the victims deserved to die because they didn’t pray to Allah”.
“The next stage is obviously declaring that the existence of Israel is itself a war crime.”
Only obvious to someone who’s more concerned with their own opinion than factual reporting. I realise you want to fit in at Biased BBC, Sue, but it would be nice if some of its writers stuck to some basic reporting standards.
As it is, you guys are constantly giving yourself a shotgun, loading it and then aiming directly for your own foot.
Scott,
Care to enlighten us about these ‘basic reporting standards’ you seem to care so much about?
How about giving some direct examples, how about giving us your point of view on specific examples of bias?
You mention that we constantly shoot ourselves in the foot, Constantly? hmmmm, how about sticking to individual cases instead of painting us all with the same brush of your prejudiced and closed mind narrative?
You mention facual reporting as if it were important to you, is the BBC exempt in your mind from this high aim? Does it state on this website that it is bound by any set of ‘journalistic standards’ are you now the sole arbiter of what this site can and cannot do?
Do I need to remind you that this site doesnt receive billions in funding, this site is a grassroots group of ordinary people trying to expose examples of bias, many here have no training as journalists yet you seem to demand ‘journalistic standards’?
If you are so keen on issuing directives on what constitutes your personal opinion of what this site should or shouldnt do then perhaps you could actually SPELL OUT these rules of yours plainly so we may all learn valuable lessons in your wonderful ‘journalistic standards’, come on Scott why not post these standards of yours so we may all bask in the glow of your intellect?
Alex | Homepage | 23.03.09 – 10:23 pm
Hang on, the BBC openly accuses one of Israel’s critics of bias and you take this as evidence of anti-Israel bias. How does that work?
Having just recounted Falk’s allegations about Israel, (war crimes and human rights violations) not, I might add, without a certain amount of relish, she added that Falk’s bias has become so noticeable that his proclamations were beginning to lack credibility. And that, Alex, with reference to the BBC in general as well as to her in particular, is what I meant by Pot-Kettle etc.
Scott | Homepage | 24.03.09 – 7:45 am
“The next stage is obviously declaring that the existence of Israel is itself a war crime.”
Yes, I said that. There was a little bit of humour in there Scott, obviously lost on you.
That’s what I try to do, inject a bit of opinion and a bit of irony.
I appreciate your understanding words about my attempts to fit in at B-BBC, and I return the compliment by wishing the same to you.
As for ‘our own opinions,’ yours and mine, long may they reign.
Ive just had a look on the Beebs middle east page and if you only ever got your news from Al Beeb you would be left with the impression that israel is the single biggest threat to the world.
Mailman
I note that the BBC’s almost daily demonisation of Israel has found a new angle today. The BBC are reporting today that: “Israeli officials have described as “tasteless” and inconsistent with army values a popular military pastime of printing violent cartoons on T-shirts.
An investigation in Haaretz daily says the customised shirts are often ordered when troops finish training courses.
One example shows a pregnant Arab women in the cross-hairs of a sniper’s sight with the legend “1 shot 2 kills”.
Another design shows a child being similarly targeted with the slogan “the smaller they are, the harder it is”.
In both images the people being targeted appear to be carrying weapons. A third T-shirt design shows a dead Palestinian baby and the words “Better use Durex” (condoms). ”
Of course I have not seen any mention of the continual anti-Jewish bile spewed out by the Palestinian television stations especially their children’s TV programmes. Nor have the BBC reported on the video of Hamas terrorists carrying children as human shields. Nor have the BBC reported the brainwashing of Palestinian children into hating “Zionists” and denying the existence of Israel.
The BBC seem to hold Israel to account for everything and anything, but excuse the Palestinians. If the BBC is so sure that it is unbiased then they could release Malcolm Balen’s report.
NotaSheep,
The righeous outrage caused by the t0-shirts, whipped up by Al Beeb and co, is a joke.
As you have mentioned above…where was this righteous outrage during brain washing of palestinian children?
BTW, which do you think is a bigger problem. Some tasteless t-shirts, or Palestinian children being brainwashed to hate Jews (and continue to arab war against Israel)?
Mailman
Big news everyone
The bloggers on this site are really paid reporters like BBC paid reporting staff, must be true ‘Scott’ aged 7 and three quarters thinks so that’s good enough for me.
‘Alex’ will no doubt agree with him.
Its surreal.