I see that the BBC is flagging up that next week’s UN Hate Israel aka “Racism” forum will suffer a boycott. Thankfully, Australia and the Netherlands has joined the US, Israel, Italy and Canada in boycotting the talks. T
he gutless Brown administration IS sending a delegation, but at least no senior official will be present. The hard left, including the BBC of course, approves of these UN assaults on the West in general and Israel in particular and so when the BBC finishes this item by stating disapprovingly that “Human rights groups and UN diplomats are dismayed that what should an important event has descended into politics” can we be surprised? It may come as a surprise to the BBC correspondent but the UN is an entirely political organisation and the only importance of this event next week is to laud vermin like Ahmadinejad and bash Israel.
BOYCOTTING HATE FORUM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Why is the BBC not reporting that the UK is virtually alone in attending the conference as a fullmember ? It is being boycotted by lots of “Anglospehere” nations – eg the US, Canada, Australia, even New Zealand. As well as other European nations.
And why in its general reporting is the BBC not reporting on the sick charade of Durban 1991 ? The clear drift has been that the US and Israel are the only bad guys boycotting the current charade ?
This is so bloody typical. Instead of discussing a real – live OTHER racial / national issue, thats threatening to cause a riot on London streets, the “Tamil Tiger” armed insurrection, the benighted at the conference of abortions are trying to have a go at Israel!
The old white Commonwealth have been rock solid in their contempt of this “conference” BTW. Shame the U.K. isnt displaying the same guts.
Grimer:
its not been downloaded on i player yet (12.30am)
I admire Ahmadinejad; I think he’s a good leader. You can be sure that he’s putting his own country’s interests ahead of those of a foreign state.
BBC World has just lead its hourly news broadcast with news of the delegates’ walkout in the face of Ahmadinejad’s mad anti-Semitic rant at the UN Anti-Racist summit in Geneva. It ran the story with the subtitle: “Can you spell I-R-O-N-I-C?”. For an instant, I thought the irony in question was the obvious one and then I realised that they were using Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s veteran Israel hater, to narrate the piece. Now I understood the real irony; especially when Bowen said words to the effect that many people around the world, especially in the Middle East, shared Ahmadinejad’s sentiments. Yes, and Bowen is no doubt one of them.
“I admire Ahmadinejad; I think he’s a good leader. You can be sure that he’s putting his own country’s interests ahead of those of a foreign state.”
Flights to Iran are relatively cheap right now…you’ll probably fit right in over there.
Lots of posturing and boycotting and walking out by the various parties.
Just like with the league of nations in the 1930s.
I watched the Bowen piece on the BBC i-player, after reading earlier comments. Big mistake! It’s made me so mad that, before I go to work, I felt a need to express myself. So here I am with my first ever blog comment (anywhere!).
Bowen said, “French Jewish students told President Ahmenidijad he was a racist. He started with a Muslim prayer”. Watch again, & hear how he says this. He phrases it as if it’s a single sentence, and uses a tone of regret for the second sentence. This shows the viewers that the French Jewish students were “inappropriate” in their timing & implies that they were protesting about a Muslim prayer & not about Ahmenidijad himself.
I bet Bowen smirked when he wrote that sentence, relishing its ambiguity – a smirk as ugly as that of his Iranian hero.
The whole piece was full of slyness. Wish I had time to point them all out!
“Why is the BBC not reporting that the UK is virtually alone in attending the conference as a fullmember”
We’re British.
The way forward is civilised interaction.
We don’t need to get involved in your posturing third world nonsense.
And whether we attend or not will make absolutely no difference where shooting them is concerned if they step out of line. 🙂
God save the Queen.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion about Israel, (for the bbc the centre of all things evil,) if the “Palestinians”, in reality mostly Egyptian Delta immigrants, had not REJECTED UN Resolutions in 1948. Then they cleverly spurned any chance they might have had for a state either by attacking Israel, or making some unrealistic demands as if they were living in a parallel universe, or perhaps they’re walking around in some perpetual condition of phantom pregnancy.
Red Lepond | 21.04.09 – 12:42 am | #
“I admire Ahmadinejad; I think he’s a good leader. You can be sure that he’s putting his own country’s interests ahead of those of a foreign state.”
Just change the name of Ahmadinejad to Adolph and we get your full meaning. It’s just what the Mosleyites said in the 1930s. But this one doesn’t make the trains run on time.
Ahmadinejad is not putting his country first. He imprisons his opponents, bans critical media, hangs gays publicy on cranes, stones to death young women for wearing lipstick, persecutes minorities, trumps up charges through a vicious secret police. Whilst he postures on the world stage the Iranian economy is experiencing high inflation, low productivity, very high unemployment and falling oil prices. His embittered bigotry plays very poorly amongst the under 40s in Iran and the professionals that keep his hapless country going. He is loathed across the Arab world – particularly by the Sunnis and is likely to kickstart a nuclear arms race in one of the most trigger happy parts of the world. In an underground bunker “city” beneath Tehran, he funds and trains the very terrorist nutjobs that are coming to a town near you.
Get your facts straight, Pond Life.
OK, I listened again.
Paxman: What exactly is the difference between Zionism and racism?
UK Delegate: Well Zionism is a political movement
Paxman (Interrupting): Well, so are some forms of racism.
_____________
Worth watching on iPlayer.
Relevant article starts at 24:30
Grimer | 21.04.09 – 8:16 am | #
Why am I not surprised?
The BBC has invested heavily in Iran.
It’s a cynical move to win favours. They have no morals and care little for the feelings of anyone else.
Paxman & Bowen should be reported to the Trustees and Ofcom at every opportunity. During the Gaza incursion, a red faced Paxman shouted irrationally at the Israeli he was interviewing but spoke calmly and respectfully to the Hamas representatives. These people need to know there are consequences to their unbridled bigotry.
Worth watching on iPlayer.
Relevant article starts at 24:30
Grimer | 21.04.09 – 8:16 am
Couldn’t find this record. Link please!
The way the BBC is playing this is primarily a debate about free speech and secondly a debate about Israel. What is not mentioned is that if Ahmadinejad had not said one word about Israel, in view of Iran’s dismal record on human rights and ethnic discrimination aka racism, he should have been shunned by the delegates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k3nwx/Newsnight_20_04_2009/
Ricky,
The problem with Iran isnt Ahmawhatshisname, its the mulahs that run the show.
Ahmawhatshisname cant do diddly without the approval of the ruling moolahs.
The reality is, everything he says is closely controlled. I think he is used as a scapegoat by the moolahs, to create a diversion etc.
While he is a vile peice of work, he merely reflects those who actually rule the country.
Mailman
Fat Face,
In deed you are on to something, a beefed up NATO would force the Russians to beef up their armed forces…for which they have neither the money or resources to support.
In effect, this would bankrupt Russia [again/even more] just as Star Wars and Reagan bankrupted Russia in the 80’s.
Mailman
Jews have the right to their own country – and a right to live everywhere else because no other people has the right to an ethno-state.
Sums up the opinion of 99% of Jews, all the bought-off western politicians, AND the BBC as far as I can tell.
You guys are nuts if you think anti-semitic bias is the problem…
Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?
The BBC Trust is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which abused Bowen
The BBC Trust’s report on Jeremy Bowen’s dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest.
But I am mincing my words.
The trust • how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC • has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed • against all the facts • that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.
Let’s go step by step through this pitiful business. Zionism does indeed instinctively “push out” the frontier. The new Israeli wall • longer and taller than the Berlin Wall although the BBC management cowards still insist its reporters call it a “security barrier” (the translation of the East German phrase for the Berlin Wall) • has gobbled up another 10 per cent of the 22 per cent of “Palestine” that Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas were supposed to negotiate. Bowen’s own brilliant book on the 1967 war, Six Days, makes this land-grab perfectly clear.
Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone’s interpretation of international law except its own?
Even when the International Court in The Hague stated that the Israeli wall was illegal • the BBC, at this point, was calling it a “fence”! • Israel simply claimed that the court was wrong.
UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 called upon Israel to withdraw its forces from territories that it occupied in the 1967 war • and it refused to do so. The Americans stated for more than 30 years that Israel’s actions were illegal • until the gutless George Bush accepted Israel had the right to keep these illegally held territories. Thus the BBC Trust • how cruel that word “trust” now becomes • has gone along with the Bush definition of Israel’s new boundaries (inside Arab land, of course).
The BBC’s preposterous committee claims that Bowen’s article “breached the rules [sic] on impartiality” because “readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war”.
Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel’s claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another “sensible” view of the war. The BBC Trust • and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop • says that Bowen didn’t give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook • under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement• said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa • not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim • shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen.
Haaretz gave considerable space to the BBC’s findings yesterday. I’m not surprised. But why is it that Haaretz’s top correspondents • Amira Hass and Gideon Levy • write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do? Whenever I’m asked by lecture audiences around the world if they should trust the BBC, I tell them to trust Amira and Gideon more than they should ever believe in the wretched broadcasting station. I’m afraid it’s the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.
And this, remember, is the same institution which said that to broadcast an appeal for medicines for wounded Palestinians in Gaza might upset its “neutrality”. Legless Palestinian children clearly don’t count as much as the BBC’s pompous executives.
How do we solve this problem? Well I can certainly advise viewers to turn to Sky TV’s infinitely tougher coverage of the Middle East and • I admit I contribute to this particular station • I can recommend the courage with which Al-Jazeera English covers Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian-Israeli war.
I can well see how BBC executives will say that this article of mine today is “over the top”. Jeremy Bowen may indeed think the same. But the First World War metaphor would be correct. For Bowen and his colleagues are truly lions led by BBC management donkeys.
Izzy
Care to respond to this?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027104509836989.html
Care to tell us who you are “Izzy” (a name carefully contrived to arouse just the right amount of contempt)?
Sky, my arse. I think you’re just another Beeboid bigot who doesn’t lke uppity joos.
Tough shit. We fight back now, a-hole.
David Vance;
You may wish to delete the above post “Izzy | 21.04.09 – 10:53 am”
It is a complete copy of the Fisk piece from the Independent and is probably therefore in breach of copyright.
Izzy | 21.04.09 – 10:52 am |
Jews have the right to their own country – and a right to live everywhere else because no other people has the right to an ethno-state.
Um, except for all the other ones.
China, Japan, Saudia Arabia, France, Germany, Ireland, China again, Iran, Iceland, Tibet (in the dreams of the BBC, they’d be a single ethnicity and religion state. How awesome is that?), the First Nations in Canada, and on and on.
Stick with reality, please.
‘Ahmadinejad is not putting his country first. He imprisons his opponents, bans critical media, hangs gays publicy on cranes, stones to death young women for wearing lipstick, persecutes minorities, trumps up charges through a vicious secret police.’
Like I said, he seems to be doing a good job. The majority or Iranians probably agree with what he’s doing, and you can’t get any more democratic than that.
‘Whilst he postures on the world stage the Iranian economy is experiencing high inflation, low productivity, very high unemployment and falling oil prices.’
Well, a lack of posturing won’t help the oil price. The price will continue to recover. And a decent oil price will paper over all the cracks. I mean, nobody expects Iran to compete with China in manufactured goods, now do they?
Red Lepond | 21.04.09 – 5:18 pm |
Like I said, he seems to be doing a good job. The majority or Iranians probably agree with what he’s doing, and you can’t get any more democratic than that.
Are you sure?
A poll recently showed that his reformist rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi would handily beat him in the June 12 vote, and Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and powerful ayatollah, threw his organization’s support behind the challenger.
Ahmadinejad’s supporters have dismissed the poll and point to others showing the president in the lead. They also noted that reformists were split between Mousavi and former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi, but that conservative factions appeared to be coalescing behind Ahmadinejad.
But there are signs of unrest in the Ahmadinejad camp. On Tuesday, Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, one of his closest aides, resigned as senior advisor. He was disliked by powerful members of the clergy for his mystically infused political rhetoric and mistrusted by the public as a Karl Rove-like figure.
Probably sure?
Potatoes have not been Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s only problem. His critics have been blaming his appearance at sports events for Iranian defeats. In a rare move, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad joined 100,000 football fans at Tehran’s Azadi stadium late last month for the World Cup qualification match against Saudi Arabia, also watched by millions of television viewers. While the president might have been hoping to exploit a highly expected victory, Iran lost 2-1 and text messages circulated blaming Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s presence for the outcome.
A few weeks earlier, he attended a wrestling world championship final. As soon as he arrived, Iran lost to Azerbaijan. Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s critics used to accuse his government of spreading superstition among the uneducated by portraying him as a holy man with links to the infallible imams of the Shia faith. Now the tables have turned.
Or is it just pure speculation on your part because you’re just winding everybody up now?
I love the squirmings of Fisk, Al Bone on, the Garbage, the Irrelevant and posters like Ady when their little take on history is shown up to be the wilfully inaccurate, agit prop BS that it is.
More and more people all over the civilised world, and coming to see the truth, and the strange and incongruous alliance between Islamic anti semites and their Western, lefty, Jew hating, self loathing fellow travellers.
Pass the sick bag Ady!
BBC is also entirely a political organisation.
I’m not sure (hence the word ‘seems’) because I don’t follow Iranian society or politics closely. I’m more interested in what white people are doing.
It’s a rare politician, of course, who can sport a beard which enhances his political appeal, but Ahmadinejad more than qualifies on that count.
The Pakistani and Persian, and Afghani peoples are closely related, I understand.
Are they called Indo – European?
They seem the most diligent of Jihadists.
Jews need an ethno-state because there isn’t another ethno state on the planet that is Jewish except Israel.
All the other religions have their ethno REGIONS.
America was founded on those ethno religions that had to do a runner from the CofE, the Anglicans and the Catholics.
So now the Methodists and the Baptists etc etc run America.
It’s just a bit of a bummer that they happen to be smack bang in the middle of 500 million muzzie wuzzies.
From Roger Simon (Hollywood Jew and lifelong Democrat, now CEO of libertarian-ish Pajamas Media) at Durban II:
At 4PM Geneva time, the United Nations and its High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay announced that the responsible committee (hard to know exactly who that is) had approved the final outcome statement of the Durban Review Conference.
The odd thing is – it’s Tuesday and the conference is not supposed to end until Friday. Whazzup?
Ahmadinejad, of course. This was damage control at its most obvious – and totally predictable to many people here, myself included. The UN wants everyone to go away and forget this conference as quickly as possible. The institution has received a horrible dose of publicity that led even the usually idolatrous BBC to raise a skeptical eye.
These guys never mention the BBC. It must be that bad.
What’s being avoided is the extent to which zionism is racism.
All the squawking is really smokescreening.
It’s a conundrum, so it is.
Here we are living in librul la la land and racism is a dragon to be slain but hang on a minit…
…nope, let’s just boycott anything that mentions the joos.
Nothing to see here folks.
move along move along.
Just to make things clear.
There are those who, on grounds of their self-defined enthnicity, single out the Jews as different. They are called antisemites. It is precisely the same people who suddently object to self-definition of ethnicity when it comes to the Jews.
The problem for Israel is it’s so tiny, and it HAS to survive just like any nation, and to survive intact it has to have predominantly jewish dudes.
This is no different from any other country on the planet.
America might have a trendy black president, but whitey is still firmly in charge where it matters.
Actually the BBC had a dilemma.
It wanted to full on AMadJihad and have a go at the Jooos and their American lackeys (not Obama of course).
But even the McBroon Brits walked out of AMadJihad’s despicable ‘speech’.
The horns of a dilemma.
Still they managed to report that those that stayed were applauding AMadJihad.
Care to say who that actually was BBC?
And obviously you stayed to get such news, no problems for you then.
Too busy telling us of the UNs General Secretary’s dismay at the boycott.
Typical BBC.
The UN is a joke, its about time people woke up to the fact.