You have to hand it to the BBC, if there is ONE subject which brings out their innate bias, it is that of Israel. Did anyone else catch THIS item from earlier today? Not once is the tricky issue of Palestinian terrorism brought up during the entire interview even though it is central to Israel’s need to ensure effective security. I also was interested in the way in which Obama’s one-sided kow-towing to Palestinian interests in treated as the right course of action by the BBC. Couldn’t help but wonder if Humphyrs had his Keffiyeh on when conducting this interview? (Also, can anyone tell me where the “West Bank” is? Could this refer to Judea and Samaria? Just wondering….) The Fatah representative was allowed to get away with murder, plus ca change.
INSTITUTIONAL JEW HATRED
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC loves quoting Amnesty International stuff on Israel.
This survey of AI in 2008 shows how obsessed it is with attacking Israel – and how totally biased it is.
I bet no-one at the BBC reads this critique of AI, of course. To them, NGOs are perfect.
http://tinyurl.com/r8bgtp
To be fair they didn’t quote Israeli bombing raids or Israeli inability to share water supplies either.
To Al Beeb, and pretty much everyone else who hates Israel, the cause of Palestinian terrorism is Israel…hence why there is no mention of it.
Electra,
Perhaps the reason Al Beeb didnt mention raids this time is that they were a direct response to Palestinian terrorism.
Mailman
The way Clinton states that Obama wants all settlements to stop, is as if she is conveying the demands of God himself – HE must be obeyed.
But ofcourse Obama is not God, or even god.
There is something really weird going on in the world these days. We have three leaders who are in complete thrall of themselves.
1. ImadinnerJacket
2. Sarkozy
3. Obama
Each of them have huge egos, but without any real achievement to back it up.
Looked at realistically – one would have to be a total mug to think the “peace process” will work.
But BBC presenters all think its a grand idea, just listen to them slobbering over it.
ergo – BBC presenters are mugs.
If BBC presenters are mugs – why do they get paid huge salaries ?
For the junk they turn out, why do they get paid!
Derek
There is something about BBC reporting on the Middle East (including Israel) that the British license payer seems unaware of. BBC has huge commercial interests in Arab countries, through subscription to BBC World and other enterprises. The Beeb’s Middle East coverage is geared to pleasing this paying market. The home market needs no pleasing, because it’s a captive market via the license fee. It gets the same news, contrived for someone else.
DP111 10:48
Surely 4 including Brown ?
I can’t really agree on this one, DV. Yes, Humphrys did use his grown-up scolding voice when reading The Obamessiah’s pronouncement that the building of Any. Settlements. Must. Stop. NOW. I heard that, yes. But he gave the Fatah rep a really hard time, interrupting him at least four times, directly challenging him.
Saidam was just doing his job, I suppose, saying, “We’ll come together, don’t worry.” Humphrys kept interrupting him, pressing him to get real, and was definitely as hostile to Saidam as he is to his usual targets.
I did love hearing Saidam say that, “at the time of Arafat, there was no leader.” Humphrys definitely closed by telling him that it was now time for the Palestinians to finally deliver. Sure, the Fatah guy was allowed the final word, and he basically said that they didn’t have to deliver anything because the checkpoints were creating a “swiss cheese” territory on which no state could be established. So nothing really accomplished there, but Humphrys was clearly going after him, and there wasn’t any real Israel bashing like we usually hear.
Grant,
This Blogger is really not working as it should.
I left step by step instructions on how to make links clickable on the ‘Same old same old’ thread, if you want to take a look.
I’ve just done the same with John A’s link from the top of this thread
.Here’s a simpler way to access John A’s link:
*Left click on one end of his link and hold down while dragging the cursor to the other end until the link is highlighted in blue.
*Right click on the blue and a menu will appear. Left click on ‘copy’.
*Go to the address bar at the top of your screen – the thingy that contains the http : // www info – put your cursor on the address in it and right click. The same menu will appear.
*Left click on ‘paste’. John A’s link will now appear in the address bar.
*Click on the green arrow or whatever you have on your system and you’ll go to the link.
If you’ve followed these instructions, you have just become an expert on copy and paste.
David Preiser, yes I’ve just listened to the clip and I tend to agree with you. Even though Abbas’ spokesman was one of the less complaining spokesmen I’ve heard, Humphries did give him a challenging interview.
To add to my last comment, the idea that the Palestinians, and not just the Israelis, have to get their act together is an extremely rare line of thought for the BBC to follow.
Since practically all BBC journalists have become Obama devotees, and want him to succeed in his every endeavour, I guess even the Palestinians will be given a bit of a rough ride by the BBC towards that end.
Obama trumps the Palestinians in BBC world. And that takes some doing.
Too true 3:27
That is a slightly different way of copy and paste from what I am used to, but just tried it and it works. Thanks very much !!
Proves I can follow simple clear instructions !
Bravo, Grant – now for your next lesson….
Just kidding, I’m practically illiterate when it comes to computers.
Seriously the way this Blogger is set up here is a real pain.
David Vance, while we are waiting for Haloscan to be reinstated, can somebody please make this comment system a bit more user friendly??? Apparently it works on other blogs.
TooTrue 7:28
I am happy to take free computer lessons from anyone !!!
Jeremy Bowen said at 5pm Radio 4 news – categotically – that the Israeli settlements are illegal in international law.
Is this true ? I thought if you have a war, and win territory, that is your territory unless you choose (eg like Sinai) to relinquish it.
The statement by Clinton and similar stuff from the US do not say the settlements are illegal. Surely they would make that statement, if it was true ?
JohnA,
Under UN Resolution 242 of 1967, Israel is required to hand back “territories” not the territories as part of a settlement of the conflict, i.e. the number of territories to be handed back is subject to negotiation. According to Alan Dershowitz, that terminology was specifically worked into the resolution by the US as a compromise. I see that as a pretty weak compromise since the expectation is that most of the territories will be handed back.
Samuel Katz reckons, in Battleground, that it is immoral to require Israel to hand back the territories since that is tantamount to returning to the aggressor the means of his aggression. Makes sense. And I think it is Dershowitz who says that Israel is the first country required to hand back territory acquired in a defensive war that she neither wanted nor provoked.
This demonstrates the power of the Arab oil states, even back in ’67. It also arguably demonstrates the power of anti-Semitism.
I’m not sure about the status of settlement expansion, but I understand that natural growth is allowed, though the US is currently pushing Israel to stop that. I’d have to research that more. Then again settlements have to be distinguished from outposts, which are illegal under Israeli law and a minority of which are constructed on Palestinian-owned land.
So yes, it’s not correct to say the settlements are “illegal.”
Too True (Bryan as was ?)
Thanks
As I understand it, Israel wants to retain areas that make its main territory more defensible – but is willing to give the rest back as part of a negotiation – and indeed had made that offer last time round. The security border effectively defines this division.
That would look to me to mean that settlements within the security barrier are not illegal. Indeed – until there is an agreed solution, NO settlements are illegal.
But Bowen was crystal clear in stating that settlements are illegal. He must know the real truth – is this another case of him lying ?
The International Law argument usually advanced is that Israeli settlements are in conflict with Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
‘Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers” which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories under its control. The use of “deport” and “transfer” indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don’t like it’.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php
Another argument is that the Geneva Conventions only apply to High Contracting Parties i.e. states that have signed and ratified the convention and the Palestinians don’t fall under that category.
‘Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
A third argument is that if Israel is to be bound by the provisions of the convention then so must the Palestinians, who have breached far more than one ambiguous paragraph.
Jeremy Bowens is a propagandist for Arab claims. He is not an expert on International Law.
BBC World Service discusses Obama’s push to stop the sertlements – as “expert” they call in John Meerscheimer, a Chicago professor. The name sounded familiar (from the estimable Powerline website), so I googled it, finally got the correct spelling – and lo and behold, he is adamantly against most Israeli policy. A book he co-authored with Stephen Walt in 2006/7 was torn to shreds by critics in the US. The paper/book was by 2 “academics” – but most of the criticisms concerned its total lack of academic rigour.
……………….
But of course Meersheimer is an “expert” to the BBC. With no mention of how controversial his own views are.
Why is he roped in as an expert ? Because he is anti-Israel. Bound to be in Bowen’s Rolodex.
deegee
Thanks
As you point out, the issue of claimed illegality arises in international law. Anyone knows that international law is a minefield.
Bowen did not say that the settlements are “illegal in international law” – which would have rung alarms. He simply said “illegal”. A very sweeping statement, nil qualification – and certainly no suggestion that the idea is disputed.
In any issue like this – if it is disputed, should not the BBC be required to avoid taking one side in the dispute ?
I have found this useful explanation of ome of the settlement issues. Seems to me it all boils down to reciprocity. The Palestinians want a stop as a pre-requisite to talks – this looks a ridiculous demand by them and Obama.
And the Palis go further – they are actually wanting a withdrawal from all occupied land.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2009/05/arlene-kushner-on-legal-vs-illegal.html
This whole issue is obviously a major controversy now. The least we should expect from the BBC is accuracy – or both sides of the question.
Mailman
The cause of terrorism is Jihad.
He simply said “illegal”.JohnA 4:58 AM, May 29, 2009
The Israelis shoot themselves in the foot here. Some of the settlements are ‘illegal’ under Israeli law because they haven’t received planning permission or in some cases, such permission has been denied or because the title of the land is in dispute and the Israeli court has put an injunction on all development until the issue is settled.
JB wouldn’t want to qualify his statement in this way because that would admit that Israel is a country of law and illegal is an emotive word while has not received planning permission puts the subject on the level of building an extension to one’s Surrey home against local council guidelines.
deegee
I appreciate the distinction. But there was no suggestion by Bowen that settlements without planning permission etc were the illegal ones. They were ALL illegal, the way he put it.
It would be good if the people who challenged Bowen earlier challenged him again on this one – but plainly he does not give a fig about the earlier findings.
JohnA 12:42 AM, May 29, 2009,
Yes, I am the old Bryan.
And Jeremy Bowen is an old… well, whatever.
Deegee, thanks for those interesting observations.
JohnA 4:52 AM, May 29, 2009,
After the controversy erupted around the Mearsheimer and Walt book, the BBC’s Owen Bennett Jones – no friend of Israel – interviewed them on the World Service. In a rare digression from the standard anti-Israel line, Bennett Jones expressed a lack of enthusiasm when M and W were waxing eloquent in their condemnation of the “Israel Lobby,” and in effect asked them what the big deal was.
M and W were flabbergasted. No doubt they’d expected a trouble-free ride from the BBC.
Here’s an interesting take on Mearsheimer and Walt.
TooTrue / Bryan
Exactly – Meersheimer and Walt were accused by many many people – here in Europe as well as in the US – as pushing an overtly anti-semitic “Jewish conspiracy” theory. Verging on Elders of Zion territory.
That should make them toxic as “experts” – and the BBC must know this very dubious background.
But Meersheimer was presented as some kind of disinterested observer.
Ye Gods, the BBC is blatant about this stuff.
having actually read Walt and Mearsheimer’s book, ‘The Israel lobby and US foreign policy’ and not just read some reviews thus thinking i know enough to be able to condemn them. I can assure you they do not come close to a protocols type plot and indeed reveal many an interesting fact about what certain groups get up to in the USA.
I didn’t read the book, but I read a fair amount of comment about it from different sides of the political spectrum. I see Mearsheimer and Walt as typical of the extraordinary decline of Western academic standards now that left has firmly established its stranglehold on “higher” education.
These “professors” decided on their anti-Israel (and probably anti-Semitic) hypothesis and then set out to prove it, ignoring all information that conflicted with it.
A few weeks ago I had a “debate” on a BBC blog with a left wing history “lecturer” who made the typical blinkered leftie statement that the West would not intervene in Darfur since there was “no oil.” When I pointed out that Sudan is swimming in oil and that oil was the basis for much of the conflict there he went through an extraordinary series of contortions rather than admit his ignorance.
And this shmuck is teaching others.
‘I didn’t read the book’
Thanks for that laugh, on one hand you admit not reading the book and then on the other decry the falling academic standards of the west. Typical rightworld ignorance is bliss attitude you have. I suggest you read the book before commenting on it.
RS,
The issue in question is BBC bias and not the merits or otherwise of a book that reveals *what certain groups get up to*
Most reviews of the Israel Lobby book say it is flawed. They agree that though they disguised it as an academic study the authors were firmly aboard the Jew-bashing bandwagon
Having actually heard that World Service report, I can assure you that Professor John Mearscheimer spoke as if there are no obligations whatsoever on the part of the Arabs.
Listeners were led to believe he was an impartial expert. The BBC sees nothing wrong with selecting their authorities from a pool of Israel bashers and presenting them as impartial.
Sue it seems you too have not read the book. And I can easily guess which periodicals and websites you frequent which makes you think ‘most reviews’ say the book is flawed. You seem unaware of the evidence which the book contains which comes from many official US sources such as the records of voting and debates on Capitol Hill. It is not just a hypothesis by the two gentlemen, it is an indepth look at the manner in which support for Israel is detrimental to the interests of the USA and how not being vocal enough in support of Israel can be detrimental to a politicians career in the USA. It makes for interesting reading, i suggest you pick it up, rest assured, there is absolutely no ‘jew-bashing’.
RS
It is not a matter of whether the book is flawed. It is a matter of the BBC presenting the Prof as some kind of impartial expert when even I, non-Jewish and in the UK, know that the book faced severe criticism from many many parties. The Prof is against Israel’s policies – so should not be presented as impartial.
And given the intensity of the criticism, mountains of it which is why I vaguely recalled the name – my original question was why is it the BBC reaches out to this particular commentator ? Why is his name the one that comes up in the Rolodex ?
The BBC plays this trick time and time again. If it wants commentary on the US economic scene it turns so often to Dem economists. If the financial collapse is examined – we NEVER hear from the BBC that its roots lie in Dem housing policies and Dem opposition to tighter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
‘The Prof is against Israel’s policies – so should not be presented as impartial’
Way to miss the point. The Prof is not against Israel, which you would now if you read his book. He is however against the ridiculous unswerving support continuous American admistrations give to Israel, which (as is amply evidenced in the book) against american interests. Christ wept, have any of you even read the book?
RS
You are missing the point.
If the question was posed, “Which US professors’ published views on US policy regarding Israel are regarded as the most contentious ?” one answer would be Meersheimer. Because there was an absolute firestorm of criticism of the book.
Yet the BBC sees fit to bring him on to comment on the current problems as a “impartial expert”.
As regards the book – is it not the case that they argue that US policy of support towards Israel has been essentially dictated by the Jewish lobby in the US ? A lobby whose influence they regard as insidious ?
And that thesis is demolished by the fact that support for Israel is approved by the great majority of Americans favour Israel. Ergo US policy has not NOT simply been a creature of the Jewish lobby. It reflects the sentiments of the American people.
RS,
Are you saying Meerscheimer’s book is impartial?
You contend that it merely takes a dispassionate look at a somewhat mendacious influence the Jewish Lobby has on US politics.
You are convinced it is impartial but critics dispute this on various grounds.
On that basis alone Meerscheimer should not have been chosen by the BBC as the sole authority on the subject. He gave the impression that Obama regards the settlements as the only obstacle to peace and that the Arabs are under no obligation whatsoever.
Perhaps you think that is the case, I don’t know, but at the very least Meerscheimer should have been introduced as the author of a controversial book.
Did you hear the item? I wouldn’t ask, but you set such store by first-hand experience…
‘ has been essentially dictated by the Jewish lobby in the US’
Incorrect, and poor attempt to imply anti-semitism. The Israel lobby is what they refer to, as there are several jewish groups not supportive of certain Israeli policies.
‘And that thesis is demolished by the fact that support for Israel is approved by the great majority of Americans favour Israel. ‘
Unfortunately for you it is not. there are many instances in the book in which the authors cite various polls reflecting US public opinion which demonstrates it is at variance with the administration’s line. A majority of American’s support Israel’s right to exist, but if you are attempting to claim they support all of its policies too, you are simply incorrect. I would direct you to chapter 11 for that info, quite revealing stuff.
I bet you guys prob think they should have had Dershowitz, Pipes or perhaps even Joan Peters on as an ‘impartial’ observer !
RS,
What’s wrong with having Pipes or Dershowitz on as well, for balance? But no, the BBC sticks with people like Alistair Crooke.
You didn’t answer our points at all. Your comments on another thread belie your pretence of impartiality.
which comments would they be? the ones comparing a bunch of anti-islamic fanntics to anti-semitic fantatics?
Yes RS, those.
RS 6:39 PM, May 29, 2009
‘I didn’t read the book’
Thanks for that laugh…I’m glad I was able to amuse you. I note that you ignored the point I made in the continuation of the same sentence so I’ll repeat it in case you really didn’t see it:
….but I read a fair amount of comment about it from different sides of the political spectrum.And if you’ve managed to bring yourself to read that, you might want to read my comment at 1:53 PM, May 29 re the BBC journalist – no friend of Israel – being unimpressed with Walt and Mearsheimer during his interview with them.
To further your education, you can then progress to Alan Dershowitz’s comprehensive debunking of Walt and Mearsheimer in his response to their working paper.
No, I don’t think I’ll read the book, thanks. Dershowitz proved that the standard of “research” from these two “professors” in their working paper was way below that required for an undergraduate as they were led by their noses to their biased conclusions.
Which brings me back to my point about the lefty stranglehold on education and the resulting plunge in standards.
The “working paper” claimed that the Israel lobby has a tight grip on, inter alia, academia.
That is just laughable. How come Columbia, if in thrall to the Israel lobby, invites the Iranian President to speak ? How come people like Daniel Pipes can seldom get a fair hearing at US universities ?
Wow tell me you didn’t just cite Dershowitz? the guy still peddles debunked lies a la Joan Peters and was called out on it by Norman Finkelstein and made to look ridiculous. Joan Peters book which Dershowtiz borrowed wholesale from was proven to be a fraud. It is laughable that you cite him as a source.
Daniel Pipes can seldom get a fair hearing? You obviously haven’t heard of the McCarthyesque campuswatch website he has set up.
‘The “working paper” claimed that the Israel lobby has a tight grip on, inter alia, academia.’
Not id did not. It has a section called ‘policing Academia’ which is oh about 10 pages long in abook of about 466 pages. in it are many revealing deatils including the facts surrounding your beloved Dershowtiz’s attempt to interfere in the tenure of Finkelstein. Now if that is not an attempt to ‘police’ the acdemic world what is it? But hey if Finkelstein proved i was a liar and a fraud and published a book proving so I’d suppose I might be as pissed off as Dershowtiz was.
But hey if finding one speaking enagement at one university on one date is enough to rubbish an entire study encompassing the whole spectrum of american politcal life you seem easily swayed. And if you are so easily swayed in favour of Israel, one begins to woinder if there aren’t other forces at work in your mindset.
The “forces at work in my mindset” are my observance of about 50 years of Middle East history. Which leaves me with the clear view that it was correct that Israel was created, that if both Churchill and Truman approved it there was merit in the case, that the Arabs have wished to destroy Israel from Day 1, that Israel is a pretty decent democracy and that the surrounding territory is a cesspit of hatred, corruption and nil political maturity. I would not be surprised if many Americans think that way too. By looking at things on their merits – not through any of the nutty ideas about being blinded by the Israel lobby.
And I am glad that the “2-state solution” is now being questioned as a load of wishful thinking until the Palestinians cease their hatred.
Hear, hear JohnA,
RS, I’ve given you links and evidence and all you can do is scoff and act superior with no evidence and no links. Dershowitz is a trained lawyer who presents both sides of the debate in ‘The Case for Israel’ and debunks myth after myth re the conflict.
Take a look at that pdf file. You might learn something.
to repeat – one of the Prof’s is Israel-Lobby domination of US academia.
just “one speaking engagement” – the Iran President, a Holocaust denier who wishes to destroy Israel, gets invited to speak at Columbia University in NYC – the city of 9/11. A city with a large Jewish population.
If the Israel Lobby really dominated US academia, the speaking invitation would have been withdrawn – or would not have been issued in the first place.
Per contra, there are endless obstacles put in the way of Daniel Pipes speaking at US universities. Including violence, and usually spineless reactions by university authorities.
So where is the dominance of the Israel Lobby in US academia ?
Likewise the myth that the Israel Lobby dominates the US media. Rupert Murdoch punctured that one – he has his own clear and objective reasons for supporting Israel. Any suggestion that Murdoch gets pushed around by Jewish journalists – or any journalists – is a stupid idea on its face.
http://tinyurl.com/c95u4u
Guys you don’t seem to be aware of the facts surrounding Israel’s creation and also seem ignorant of the lies Derhsowtiz peddles. I suggest you read ‘Beyond Chutzpah’ and read up on the Joan Peters hoax ‘From Time Immemorial’ which Dershowitz heavily borrowed from in his case for Israel. And please for the love of god, at least read the book before coming out with ridiculous ideas like they suggest the Israel Lobby ‘controls’ academia in the USA. There is a section in the Israel Lobby called ‘policing academia’ and it shows many instances where the lobby has intervened in academia to the detriment of free speech. By no means do they claim the Lobby controls all academia.
RS
I know as much as you do about Israel's creation.
It seems to me that you don't think that Israel should have been created anyway.
Any chance of you answering that basic question ? I ask as a Gentile.
Is that your view ? Is that where you are coming from ?
If you can't give a straight answer to this basic question, you are not worth reading.
………..
Any chance of you answering, also, why Rupert Murdoch is wrong in his belief that Israel is basically right and the surrounding Arabs are wrong ?
……………….
As to academia – if the Israel Lobby as defined by the Mad Prof merely "polices" academia – how come a Holocaust-denying nutter like the Iran President gets to address Columbia Uni in NYC ? Or is that just an isolated incident, something that hardly matters against your stupid concept that the Israeli Lobby "polices" US academia ?
Plus – I read the pdf links provided earlier.
So JohnA, you are happy with the ethnic cleansing and murder which took place and which was inflicted upon the indigenous population by outside colonists during the creation of the Israeli state?
Why ask me as a gentile? I ask you as a fellow human, was that right?
Ggain with the one speaking event. Its pretty sad if your using one date to refute an entire book. have you ever heard of ‘The AIPAC College Guide: Exposing the Anti-Israel Campaign on Campus’? or ever analysed the site ‘Campus-Watch’ run by pipes? Are you aware of certain attempts to silence critics of Israeli pilicies in universities emanating from the likes of the david Project? I suggest you read Robert Gaines ‘The Battle at Columbia University’. Or what about dershowitz attempts to stop finkelstein from getting tenure, or also his attempts to stop publication of Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah? What about in Oct2006 when Tony Judt a university historian who also happens to be jewish was due to give a lecture at the polish consulate in NYC. Why did David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee call the polish consul and get the lecture cancelled? What about in 1998 when the ADL called on the publisher of Finkelstein and and Birn’s ‘A nation on Trial’ and attempted to halt its release?
These are just a few of the many examples contained within the book, which demonstrates quite clearly that certain groups do indeed try and ‘police academia’ where debate about the israeli-palestinian conflict is concerned. Nowhere do they claim they control academia, but the evidence shows there is INDEED an attempt to police it.