Who is to blame, Nicky Campbell or the BBC?
Is that an “either or” question? No. Neither is: “Is Israel a racist state or a country under threat?”
The latter part of the question was not addressed as who could argue with the statement that Israel is under threat?
All that was left to discuss was: can any kind of discrimination against an enemy that is hell-bent on destroying one, ever be justified?
BBC conjures up a loaded question which automatically and emotively propounds the association of racism, the ultimate taboo, with the state of Israel, the beleaguered Jewish state.
After years of misinformation when so many misconceptions have continually been allowed to go unchallenged, programmes like this devised for entertainment are bound to be completely overwhelmed by prejudice and malice.
As we are on the topic of rather absolutist, loaded questions designed to try and force an issue, I was rather intrigued by this, too:
BBC Trust chairman Michael Lyons promises licence-fee fighthttp://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/bulletin/thefix/article/906408/?DCMP=EMC-18May2009
has insisted that his organisation will commit to an “all or nothing” fight to protect the licence fee.All rather redolent of the BBC hierarchy’s previous ‘main man’ Dubya’s rallying cry of ‘You are either with us or against us’, which worked so well as I recall.
Unlike some here, I am prepared to concede that there is still much to applaud in our national broadcaster’s output, and many (probably a majority) who work for her are decent, hard-working, yadayada…
However, as our Mother of all Parliamentary cock-ups is finding, if you were there and did nothing, you might find that when the barge of ordure hits the windmill, if you were along for the ride something smelly that gets flung around might just stick.
Especially when the guys at the very top seem to be going for a Tamil Tiger, Downfallesque ‘you’re all going down with us… but how’s about you lot popping out the bunker to cover our escape first?’ strategy.
Not sure how that might play in some quarters, being that the greater good seems to get dropped for massive tushie-covering at the first sign of the masses picking up the odd pitchfork and heading towards the Bastille.
Can’t it be both? why are “racist states” (ahem) and “countries under threat” mutually exclusive.
In fact wouldn’t a country legitimately under threat from a “race” tend to be a bit racist. And indeed wouldn’t a “race” mistreated by a country feel justified in chucking a few threats about.
None of which alters the fact that Nicky Campbell is a twat.
The greatest threat to the existence of Israel is the never ending attempts of the liberal left hegemony in the west to deny it’s legitimacy.
Guns you can confront and either win or lose. Against the drip drip of propaganda like Campbell’s the very spirit is weakened.
Cockney, you agree with me then.
BTW, I accept your verdict re Nicky Campbell, but apart from that “Big Question”, and Watchdog, I’ve never seen him or listened to him on the radio. Someone else has asked me, and I would be interested to know too, why do you call him a twat?
This is another illustration of the BBC’s overwhelming obsession with “racism” – and of its own selective racism. As a result of this, it is incapable of thinking or looking at issues in an open manner or in a spirit of enquiry.
When someone on the programme pointed out the tainted nature and utter uselessness of a question framed in such a manner, all that the the BBC automaton could come up with was to bleat that Tutu had said it of Israel. (As if that somehow proved something.) Well, you know, he is a BLACK man, so to the BBC, it must be true.
Not content with that initial sally, he took another run at it later when he asserted that Tutu AND Mandela had said it. Cor! That’s it, then: proof conclusive. QED.
Oh, well, if you inhabit what passes for a B’oid brain, I suppose that is all that is needed. ‘Nuff said. Job done. Over and out.
Yes Millie Tant,
Precisely. It’s overwhelming, all of it. I despair.
Would you like to be a member of one of Israel’s ethnic minorities, or one of the minorities in the neighbouring Arab states or Iran?
The correct answer for most people who listen to this nonsense is “I’m British, and frankly have no idea”, and the correct reponse is “Will you run a feature on the Bahai of Iran or the Copts of Egypt?”
‘Dhimmiwatch’ (25.03.08)
“Fitzgerald: Reversing the roles of Arabs and Israel” (Hugh Fitzgerald)-
[Extract]:
“A Jihad Watch reader asked me: ‘If the Israel/Palestinian conflict were exactly the same as it is, only the roles of the two warring parties were exactly reversed, would you then switch allegiances to the Palestinian side?’
“Let’s see.
“If there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state, and if in those 22 Jewish states every other group was denied anything like equality (see the various groups of Christians all over the Muslim Arab world, or for that matter see the various groups of non-Arab Muslims — such as Kurds, Berbers, and black Africans in Darfur), and if those 22 Jewish states also possessed fantastic oil reserves and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its populace, and if those 22 Jewish states were the size of the 22 members of the Arab League, with 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state had less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles, and if those 22 Jewish states were possessed of an ideology that required them to move heaven and earth in order to eradicate that one tiny Arab state — oh, and did I forget to mention all the other ‘not-quite Jewish states’ that would be the correct analogue to the non-Arab Muslim states that the Arabs (and Islam) have convinced that they, too, have a stake in opposing Israel and wishing to see it destroyed? (See those frenzied mobs in Iran, or Pakistan.)
“And if, furthermore, I knew that if those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, or utterly effacing, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny Arab’ state, because the rewriting of other peoples’ history was what, for 1350 years, those Jews had been doing, and if there were a figure in Judaism akin to Muhammad, who was held up as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, as the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and if that Perfect Man in Judaism was not like any figure known to me in Judaism, or in Christianity, but was remarkably like Muhammad, as described in the Sira as teased out of the words and deeds attributed to him in the Hadith, and if, furthermore, I knew that if those 22 Jewish states, with their 14,000,000 square miles, and their fantastic unmerited oil wealth, and their unbelievable fixation on destroying a sliver of territory that was less than 1/1,000th of the territory they controlled, ever managed to destroy that tiny Arab state in the area bounded to the east by the River Jordan and on the west by the Mediterranean, a place so small one could not find it on the map, were ever to succeed, that would not satisfy them, but make them ever more eager to recover other lands that had once been in their possession, and indeed to work, with a sense of triumph, for the final acceptance, all over the world, of Judaism as the dominant faith, and with Jews assuming the role that Muslims look forward to assuming themselves, then yes, I would of course be on the side of that tiny Arab state.
“Oh, I forgot to mention that to make your little hypothetical complete, one would also have to posit that the Jews had long ago conquered that little area, and many of the Arabs had fled to Europe, or elsewhere in the ‘Jewish lands,’ and in both places had had to endure different kinds of difficulties, and suffering, and recently, in Europe, had endured what the Jews endured under the Nazis…”(continued)(Hugh Fitzgerald).
77% if Israeli Arabs say they wouild rather live there than anywhere else.
Jonathan Hoffman
(I was on this programme yesterday)
No Good Boyo has it right @2:12 PM.
I’m sure the BBC knows about this, too, but I bet they don’t care.
Here’s how Naughtie framed a question to a guest during a discussion about Netanyahu on this morning’s Today:
“Do you think that President Obama believes that President Bush – President George W. Bush – sold the pass on the Middle East, that after his statement on a road map towards peace in 2003 he effectively let it wither on the vine?“
This is a classic Naughtie leading question. Apart from the mixed metaphors (a sold pass on a road map withering on a vine) it’s basically an excuse to get his own point of view across. It’s the Today equivalent of “Do you agree with my opinion that…?” A simple “What will Obama do differently?” would have sufficed but Naughtie can’t possibly leave it at that. He has to get his jabs in at Bush, and isn’t even satisfied with the interviewee’s point of view. It’s not “Do you think that President Bush sold the pass…” but the more long-winded “Do you think that President Obama believes that President Bush…” Naughtie betrays a needy desire to hear that The One also agrees. He loves it when people say Bush was wrong, and he can’t hear it enough times. It’s all a bit pathetic.
David P. 3:10
Or alternatively, they neither know nor care.
I watched that, and agree it’s a badly-worded question. But to Campbell’s credit, he actually challenged people who were pro-Palestinian. I know it’s not his/the BBC’s usual stance, but he did ask “How can you condone suicide bombing?” and other such challenges.
DB
Anyone trying to follow events must know that Israel could well attack the Iranian nuclear installations – after Iran’s elections in early June.
I don’t recall the BBC reporting any such possibility – or, for example, about the extensive Israeli air force training exercises on long-distance operations.
The meeting with Obama is fateful. Obama’s appeasing policies towards Iran, and the clear sense that Obama and especially his staff and colleagues are hotile to Israel, means that Israel would be acting on its own if it attacks. But what else is Israel expected to do – it faces an existential threat from Iran, openly stated by the Iranians.
I thought Obama would be worse than blowhard Clinton and maybe as bad as Carter. I now feel he is worse than Carter. But any such view – opposing the Naughtie/BBC view, would seldom if ever get a hearing on the BBC.
DB
It is typical of the BBC that Naughtie is obsessed with trying to put Obama in a good light relative to Bush. The issue is not about America – it is about Israel and the Arabs. That is where discussion should start – with Israel stating its case first. It is Israel under perpetual threat, not the US.
The BBC seldom lets the Israel spokesmen state their case in the round – FIRST. They are always turned to after the BBC gets the US/Obama side of things.
“Anon” at 4.10pm above was me
Anonymous.3:58 PM, May 18, 2009
To Campbell’s credit?
he did ask “How can you condone suicide bombing?” and other such challenges.
How could anyone seriously get away with not asking such a thing? Have you forgotten, the BBC is supposed to be impartial?
Your comment amounts to little more than damning with faint praise if you ask me. Which you didn’t, I know.
As I point out on a regular basis, Nicki Campbell (the queen of breakfast radio) is a first class prick. He’s talentless (not a unique feature at the BBC I know) and he sucks up to Muslims BIG TIME.
When he did the breakfast show previously he did the shows after 9/11. His enjoyment of having bushy bearded twats on the radio ranting on about how America deserved it was enough to make you vomit.
He’s scum.
The drip-drip of anti-Israel propaganda continues at Radio 4 on ‘Thinking Aloud’where one Rachel Shabi was promoting her book alleging discrimination against Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries by the ‘European’ elite. All the cleaners and criminals tend to be ‘Mizrahi’, don’t you know, while university lecturers Ashkenazi. No mention of course that intermarriage is sky-high and Israel has had Mizrahi Jews in every senior army and ministerial post except PM, and there was a Mizrahi president. And you could have been forgiven for believing that the Mizrahi Jews arrived in Israel from the planet Zog, rather than as destitute refugees fleeing violence and persecution in Arab and Muslim countries. Nothing to see there, only racism in Israel counts.
The BBC has been institutionally antisemitic for over a decade.
How about this question:
” Is the BBC institutionally racist in it’s discussion or depiction of Jews or is it a broadcaster under threat?”
Answer:
Yes and yes.
It’s quite interesting to compare how they portray the Sri Lankan sacking of their own loathesome terrorists to the Israeli response to Hamas or Hezbollah. Or how they repeatedly depict Jews in dramas and documentaries – reaching for stereotypes that would not have shamed Julius Streicher.
Can one be a Zionist, pro The State of Israel, critical of Zionism, and The State of Israel, at the same time?
Answer.
Very easily. However one might well believe it was impossible as far as the BBC is concerned. Which is very strange indeed, especially given the pedigree of The BBC itself. Read on and I will explain why.
Nothing is perfect, either in its conception, materialization, or practice.
Problems like this have a habit of sorting themselves out reasonably peacefully and quickly, given the will behind the curtains of power, and big money to do so.
There are simply too many reasons ( vested interests ) to be at war, and not enough to be at peace.
If the powers that be wanted peace there would be peace. Especially given the power and extreme wealth of the perceived sides.
If The BBC had the slightest inclination towards truth, justice or peace, it might venture to tell us, who exactly these powers are.
The BBC clearly has no such inclination .
Therefore
Instead, we are BRAINWASHED to believe that the powers that control Israel, are The Israeli Parliament, and its elected ministers.
We are also brainwashed to believe that the powers that control Palestinian terrorists are small disunited groups of dis-functional crooks, and religious fanatics. (The BBC would very much prefer to call them freedom fighters, but can’t quite bring itself to be quite that deliberately provocative.)
Of course, on a superficial level they are run by these types of entities.
But surely one does not have to be a certifiably paranoid, tin hat wearing, conspiracy fruit cake, to plainly see, that an unseen hand, belonging to the all seeing eye is messing with things Middle-eastern yet again. This because the clear, in your face, objective, well documented, contemporary, historical and agreed facts of the matter, are the clear facts of the matter. Just don’t expect
The BBC to point, or spell them out to you over clearly, if at all.
Peace is a VERY EASY thing to obtain, if the people running the show ON BOTH SIDES, do not have a large enough vested interest in perpetuating war. Japan after WW2 being a good example
Our problem is that our ruling elites, simply LOVE WAR, especially little apparently unsolvable ones that seemingly go on forever. WAR keeps THEM in power, and greatly assists there control over US. While making literally tons of relatively easy profit, and political capital for THEM.
Which is the main reason why wars have always periodically taken place, since the dawn of civilization. The main reason why wars ended in the past, was lack of resources, for example FOOD, or hard cash. In other words, they were no longer thought to be, practical or profitable. Wars do not end because there are not enough people still alive, or because everyone simply decided to like each other for no accountable reason.
( we fought Germans in 2 great wars, yet we don’t hate Germans now, almost as much as we did not hate Germans then. If we hated Germans at all, it was only because The BBC and MSM, made us hate them. )
On the subject of the state of The State of Israel, as far as The BBC is concerned.
IMO “The BBC doth protest far too much.”
For anyone educated in the history of the BBC certain things become VERY apparent. One of these things is that The BBC is a ZIONIST organization, set up by Zionists, and very largely run by Zionists.
It may have escaped the less well educated, but we live in a Zionist country (and continent), run by a Zionist establishment, under a Zionist head of state.
I have no idea how pleased or not these people are with their premature creation, or indeed what exact plans they have for it. Although the omens are not good, while their history on these types of matters is very bad, to say the least.
Be in no doubt that the powers controlling this problem, have a foot firmly on both sides of the fence.
This is SELF-APPARENTLY the case, if for no other reason that if it were not so, the entire situation would have either died away almost completely, or spiraled just as completely out of control, and then died away completely, many years ago.
It has not done so for several reasons.
Which are made up mainly by the actions of The UN.
The UN being a Zionist organization, set up by Zionists, and largely financed and controlled by Zionists.
You cant fight a war with a starving population all around you, and no spare CASH.
The essential supplies and hard cash comes from the Islamic and world ESTABLISHMENT though mainly The UN. The rules of The Game and the umpires, are respectfully enforced and come from The UN. The medics and medical supplies are sponsored and organized by The UN. The arms, training and explosives come from people who work within the UN. The TV coverage comes from among others the BBC who basically works for The UN, when not also working for the EU.
The whole GAME costs the worlds population, part of their freedom and a sizable slice of their wealth and prosperity. Which is a lot more costly then a Chelsea season ticket.
Therefore THE GAME is far too useful for THEM, for it to end any time soon, or indeed well, for US or the innocent ordinary people living or barely existing in the area.
We live in a state of perpetual hope, over expectation. When was it not so?
Atlas shrugged
How will the BBC be reporting Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama?
If Obama abandons Israel as everyone is forecasting, will the BBC throw their pretence of impartiality completely out the window in their eagerness to support the charismatic one?
The Guardian doesn’t pretend to be impartial. But it does pretend to be thoughtful and reasonable. It probably imagines it’s fair to give a platform to Mozzam Begg, ex Guantanamo detainee.
But it won’t allow a comment which corrects Mr. Begg’s mistranslation from the Arabic that appears in his Cif article.
(He quotes “From Allah we come and to Him shall we return” instead of, from the original Arabic “Allah Curse the Jew” Why is the Guardian even printing an article from this individual?
Anon 6:19
Talking of Rachel Shabi, have you read the one about the Israeli entry to the Eurovision song contest, blatantly scathing about Israel in that almost chummy conspiritorial ‘amongst friends’, no holds barred kind of way. Umpteen ‘take it as read’ references to the evilness of Israel are the embodiment of the Guardian’s variety of prejudice.
But I digress.
A glaring example of bias by omission is the BBC’s in-house advocacy of the two state solution without giving air time to this.Read Mel’s piece about it here.Sorry about all the links
Dear Sue (& David)
Considering you folks don't seem to be a fan of swearing could I just say ……………………………………………………………………………. contact your blog administrator.
I know swearing is neither big nor clever but it dam well gets you out of a room like that faster than letting rip.
It's some kind of bubblegum pseudo intellectual 6th form student inane drivel? A primary school history teacher may ask that of their pupils in an effort to get them to shut the hell up.
I'm getting really poor threatening letters from the Beeb now – Inspectors are in your area – ooooh nooo – to the hills.
Thankfully Scrapheap Challenge is usually on – now that is exactly the programme your telly was made for.
Quite restrained really.
DtP
The Jewish state has no legitimacy as it was forced upon the inhabitants of the area which it occupies.
The vast majority of its original population had no legal or other links, other than very ancient history & myths, with the actual land, coming as they did from almost everywhere BUT Israel.
Following this argument, a case could be made for almost any group of people claiming any piece of land by saying "My forefathers once lived there"!
Attila,
Were there no Jews in the area until 1945? Were the inhabitants of the area in charge until 1948? Were the inhabitants you seem to care about ever in charge of the area? Ever? How far back in history can your condemnation be applied, do you think? 1947? 1923? 1919? The Ottoman Empire? 1645? The Crusades? 132 AD? 70 AD?
At what point did these inhabitants ever rule the area, or want to or try to?
At what point do you believe there were no Jews living there, and for how long?
Attila
Time for you to read “Nekama’s troll hammer” and then answer the questions raised.
1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the “Palestinians” and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel’s border in order to “push the Jews into the sea”. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the [bigoted word]s don’t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn’t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity – making the desert bloom – while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?
2. Did you know that the “Palestinians” could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?
3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn’t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?
4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren’t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?
5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven’t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren’t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?
6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?
7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the “brave” Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy asses kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?
8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world’s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can’t their brother muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature’s riches to the “Palestinians”? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last “Palestinian”?
9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? How about the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of “Palestinians” by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn’t this concern you?
10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?
11. Have you heard “People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery”? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir’s words to the effect of “There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours”? Why do the Arabs hate so much?
Please state your answers to the questions listed above.
Attila’s argument is essentially racist. It assumes no one may migrate from anywhere and settle a land.
The entire history of the world has developed through migration – from earliest man walking out across Africa to Eskimos arriving from central Asia. Based on his absurdist doctrine all non Native American Indians should now be denied citizenship or rights in the USA and all Europeans should now leave Australia. As for the UK………
Many Jews have lived in Israel for centuries and the state was founded by UN mandate in 1948. They have a legitimate right to be there just as Palestinian nationalists believe they too should have their own state. End of.
This is brilliant:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/photojournalism/210747.html
Attila 12:12 am May 19th
“ Following this argument, a case could be made for almost any group of people claiming any piece of land by saying “My forefathers once lived there”! ”
A bit like the poor key-weilding Palestinian man in Anorak’s Pallywood photo then.
Seriously Attila, apart from your illogical argument about ‘claims,’ you state your fact-packed case with such certainty, one has to wonder where you got all that information from, as it almost sounds as though you were there at the time. (insert smiley of choice – the one with the shades maybe)
You must be an avid listener to the BBC.
DtP
9:14 PM, May 18, 2009
Thanks for the message. Not quite sure what you’re on about, but for the record I AM a fan of swearing.
I did comment once on some problems I had with copy’n’paste from Mac to Haloscan – it rejected the whole comment if it detected the word shit, even inadvertently as in “demolish it”
However; if people fear OTT swearing will discredit us, we’d better not then, eh?
Israel’s existence is based on discrimination against non-Jews. Not withstanding substantial native minorities, it is racist. It will be less racist the moment it takes 2 million Turkish immigrants.
It will be no longer racist the moment this number is 5 million.
I doubt Israel’s existence is ultimately tenable whatever you think of it. We’ll be definitely worse off when it’s gone.
Here’s an interesting figure, the only Israeli to have even began to resemble what many people accuse Israel of being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane
3:06 AM, May 20, 2009 Anonymous (No wonder)
Flesh out your “argument.”
I dare you.