“I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.”
I’m not sure what the purpose of the ‘also’ is in that little gem, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s the oft-quoted soundbite from a man named Ben White who has written a book entitled “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.”
According to reviews this book really lives up to its title, brimming as it is, with fabricated quotations and half-truths. Critics say the author misunderstands and misrepresents everything about Israel, using quotes selectively and out of context; in fact performing a perfect imitation of the antisemite he doesn’t consider himself to be.
The charity War on Want is helping Mr. White promote this book to show their solidarity with suffering Palestinians and spread the word about their contempt for Israel and Jews.
Organisers of the publicity event that was held in East London’s Toynbee Hall were so afraid of an outbreak of aggression from violent self-detonating Zionist militants that they banned Jonathan Hoffman from attending altogether, and alerted the police, who remained on stand-by just in case he should initiate a disturbance by lurking outside threateningly with leaflets, which he duly did. The sight of him standing there with his leaflets must have been terrifying.
The Guardian gives Ben White a platform to proclaim the evils of the Apartheid Wall, inform the eager reader that Oxfam, Amnesty and likeminded charitable organisations agree with him, and to publicise the meeting so that all Zionist hating Guardianistas will come along to cheer him on, buy a copy of his book and protect him from Jonathan Hoffman.
What has all this got to do with the BBC? In line with their forty year hate campaign against Israel, they are doing something uncannily similar. They tell us all about Oxfam, another charitable organisation demanding the dismantling of the illegal barrier. The barrier which “Israel says is for security.”
Very concerning to them is the fact that Palestinian children have been separated from their playground and have to play in the streets. More concerning obviously than the 200 Israeli lives that were lost in 2002 before the barrier was put there to protect them.
Ben White does not mention such things at all in his “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.” Moreover, he also cannot seem to understand why some people do.
Sue, you are going from strength to strength. This is a great insight, and so succinctly put:
…in fact performing a perfect imitation of the antisemite he doesn’t consider himself to be.
The peculiar thing about Ben White is that he lives on the other side of the world from Israel in Brazil, yet thinks himself a world expert on the conflict after having spent a couple of gap-year summers there at some Bible college in the West Bank.
White represents a particular kind of pseudo-liberal Christian, all too common in the Church that Archdhimmi Rowan Williams has fashioned (White's father is an Anglican priest), obsessed with appeasing Islam and filled with anti-semitic bile.
I wouldn't be surprised if he became a BBC news journalist.
One way to make our views known to Amnesty, Oxfam and other such anti-semetic charities, is to cancel any funds we give them, explicitly stating the reasons for doing so.
In this era of tight money, money will talk even louder then usual.
Great thread Sue.
'What has all this got to do with the BBC?' Good question.
The answer would appear to be nothing at all.
If you consider it to be an example of bias that the BBC covers this story at all, then I'd be interested to hear your suggestions of how such bias would be avoided?
Perhaps a central dictat that no BBC news programme should cover any story which might in any way be percieved to portray Israel in a poor light? Perhaps news stories should not be considered on their newsworthiness but rather they should all be put to you to give the 'Yay' or Neah'?
Do you think any broadcaster in the world, or any broadcasting regulatory body or any qualified and independent panel would agree that the choice of covering this story represented a bias? I can tell you the answer.
If the BBC is guilty of bias by virtue of covering the story I presume the thousands of other news outlets which also covered the story are guilty of same?:
http://news.google.co.uk/news?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=oxfam+israel
You say: "The barrier which 'Israel says is for security'."
This would be the sentence that says "Israel says the barrier for security; Palestinians view it as a land grab."
I don't think that as a sentence you can get much fairer than that.
I hope you don't react defensively to criticism, this post is no more meritless than the great majority of dribble on this site. Of course no doubt some will accuse me of being an anti-semite, such is the mentality of some here.
Slightly OT Spot the difference
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8145616.stm
And
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/europe/11france.html?hp
Hint: the BBC writ-up does not contain a certain word beginning with "M"
The NY Times article says "Mr. Fofana, 28, who was born in France to nominally Muslim immigrants from Ivory Coast'
If you click on 'Inside France's Barbarian's trial' under the victim's picture on the right hand coloumn you will find mentioned in the BBC article the same line (You'll probably find this line is Associaed Press') but with the 'Muslim' part left out.
The article does go on to say "In court he tried repeatedly to justify his actions by citing "the suffering of the Palestinians and Africa".
But lawyers claimed Mr Fofana has a fuzzy knowledge of the Muslim faith. He was unable to explain the difference between a Sunni and Shia Muslim and could not recite verses from the Koran."
The motives for the crime suggest ransom, mental instability, gang violence, and anti-semiticism. I see no reason why the article should linger on the fact he was born a Muslim over any of these other factors. I can see why some might be sensitive about it though.
"Toynbee Hall". Just about sums it up.
I love the first comment on the Guardian link in your post:
"Oh for the good old days when terrorists could stroll into Israel and blow up buses full of schoolchildren and Passover seders attended by elderly Holocaust survivors. The wall has stopped these attacks. As you say, "The wall urgently needs dismantling"."
Israel has no choice.
To survive it must be an apartheid regime, otherwise it will cease to exist.
The barrier is a good idea, it keeps those exploding muppets out.
It's a pity that most of it is not actually built in israel though, lol.
At some point around 80% of it will need to be dismantled and moved to Israel.
'What has all this got to do with the BBC?'
Again you fail to notice we are forced to fund them by rule of law!
So they have to be better than the rest with fair reporting,not spend hundreds of thousands hiding a report on the very fairness you are being defensive about!.
P.s if you don't work for them why do you think they need you to defend them ?ah Unrequited love is it ? :{
Dear Anonymous, the one @ 4:27 am
I don’t react defensively to substantive criticism. I would like to explain something to you, since you have no idea what could possibly be the link between my post and BBC bias.
This time It has nothing to do with bias by omission, although strangely we have yet to see this shoddy book plugged on the circuit. No doubt it will be soon.
My post is a ‘bigger picture’ one. You may think that is self indulgent but I would argue that it is justified. You may prefer it if we stick to highlighting individual symptoms of the disease so that you could zap them one by one, like putting ointment on the spots but not getting to grips with the underlying pox.
The example you give "Israel says the barrier is for security; Palestinians view it as a land grab." Is a typical example of what seems perfectly fair to you. Taken literally and out of context, well, it would do, wouldn’t it.
The barrier has reduced the suicide bombings to almost zero. So it looks like it’s doing a pretty good job on the security front. One might ask how important is the “Israel says” in that sentence? It’s literally true, Israel DOES say that. Because it provides security, and that is why they still need it. The inclusion of “Israel says” implies that Israel is not being truthful, and implies that the real reason for the wall is that expressed by the Palestinians, the people the BBC sympathise with, ie the land grab.
If they had said “The Palestinians view Israel’s security barrier as a land grab” that would also be true. Why shouldn’t I insist that they say that? I believe Israel’s motives. The BBC does not. So no, I don’t expect them to consult me over every report that mentions Israel. Just to understand and acknowledge their bias, and rectify it.
end of part one.
I have read Mr White's book and found it to be a very good and truthful account
next part.
We have a dear friend from Eire who spent his childhood in the most notorious of the childrens' homes that were run by the Christian Brothers. He witnessed and experienced extreme cruelty. It was their practice to remove the brightest older pupils from further and higher education and use them as teachers of the younger ones, ensuring their futures were further blighted.
Our friend partially overcame his terrible start in life by having an admirably philosophical attitude. But that his life has been damaged there can be no doubt, and the monetary compensation he was later awarded was no substitute for wasted opportunities.
We all ask ourselves how this situation could have gone on for so long? How could these physical and sexual abuses, so widespread and so severe, have been swept under the carpet and been allowed to continue for decades? Simply because it was so incredible, so unpleasant, so incongruous, so hard to take, that people who had learned to trust the piety and righteousness of the church found it incredible. They didn’t want to know, so they didn’t.
I’m telling you this for one reason. The parallels between pious outfits like the Christian brothers and the do-gooding charities such as Amnesty and Oxfam are clear. Bodies which set out to do an enormous amount of good are cloaked in an almost untouchable air of respectability which will mask all sorts of corruption and exploitation, especially when highly politicised.
This situation is sustained because they are perceived to be beyond reproach. They are impervious to criticism until too many people blow the gaff, spill the beans, tell the truth. I’m talking about corruption, abuse, distortion misrepresentation and propaganda spreading .
The BBC has waged a continual campaign against Israel, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, but it has managed to instill a nationwide hostility to Israel, Zionism and to Jewish people, and embed it firmly into its enormous listenership. This endures, despite all evidence that demonstrates the nature of Israel’s enemies, and it defies all logic. People inevitably believe what they want to, including me. By endorsing and promoting the views of Amnesty International, Oxfam, and by reverential reporting of the views of the hugely pro-Arab UN, the BBC is waging its assault on Israel by stealth.
If you’ve half a brain you can’t remain in denial when the gaff is blown. And I hope that people like you, Anonymous will one day be forced to open their eyes before it’s too late for everyone.
Sorry – I cannot see why the report from Oxfam warrants any BBC coverage whatsoever – let alone a long screed. Did ITN publicise this report, or Channel 4, or Sky ?
I do not see the BBC writing long puff pieces on reports or documents that make the case FOR the security barrier/wall.
Also – what makes Oxfam any sort of expert on international law ? Why are they wasting money on this report when the donations were given in the expectation that hungry mouths would be fed ?
As of today I will now stop visiting my local Oxfam bookshop.
Or big black lies??
I have long stopped giving donations to any of the charities named, as well as a number of others on the basis that a significant part of their funds are not being used for their stated aims, but for political purposes, a matter which I personally believe should be investigated by the Charities Commission. All the BBC is doing is confirming that my judgement is correct.
Can we please ban ALL anonymous postings.
I just can't follow a lot of the threads any more.
"I have long stopped giving donations to any of the charities named"
Same here , i suggest anyone donates to their local hospice etc at least the money gets to where intended and not used for political means.
They say … Who said?
One of the advantages of a 'media studies' education, apart from inside running for BBC jobs, is the ability to analyze text to discover which side is taken by the author. Or in the case of the BBC to learn the tools to write in a biased manner while plausibly pretending balance.
The 'Law must thwart' Israeli barrier is a stereotypical example.
The 'they say …'example occurs too frequently in the BBC to be anything but deliberate and always to display a fig leaf of balance in articles designed to propagandize for the side opposed to 'they'. in this case the 'they' is Israel but could be any group the BBC opposes but is legally forbidden to openly promote.
Who 'they' are is never defined. In this example they could be Israel's spokesman (official statement), Israeli public opinion (as measured by polls), the Israeli on the Jerusalem Omnibus (the average person, representatives from the police and security services (the professionals), someone the author has met (hearsay) or even figments of the author's imagination based on half remembered arguments. In every case 'Israel' is anonymous (not simply because they were too lazy to pick a username) therefore suspicious group. Written text does not have the communicative tools of inflexion or body language to convey meaning position, graphics and familiarity need take their place.
The opposition by contrast is quite specifically defined: International aid and advocacy group Oxfam (the good guys), Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International (executive director = impressive and credible) or Salah Ajarma, of Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem (victim). Individuals with identities and histories, therefore automatically more credible.
Almost at the end of the report by which time most readers have stopped reading, a typically anonymous Israeli military spokesman said. "Since the completion of the security fence in the northern and central regions of the country, the number of successful terror attacks inside Israel has dropped almost to zero,"
The pictures add to the bias. Clearly Israel is caging up the Palestinians and the Volkwagen Beetle (discontinued for twenty years) speaks to their poverty.
Parking a BMW next to the barrier defeats the narrative, a little although I have seen enough Palestinians driving expensive cars to know rich Palestinians are around.
BTW Salah Ajarmi is media-savvy Palestinian activist a little bit more than a concerned parent as implied in the article.
The BBC should drop news coverage and stick to what it does best – the mass production of trashy TV programmes.
A barrage of pointless posts by the Anonymous bros.
Too True,
Thank you for your comments. Your appreciation makes it worthwhile.
Ady,
You have made a funny comment. Strange use of the word ‘apartheid’. Yes, if Jews are subsumed by hostile Palestinians of course Israel will cease to be the Jewish state.
What has that got to do with apartheid?
The location of the barrier and the exact positioning of Israel’s borders is under dispute. Some say that the whole of Israel is on stolen Palestinian land, is that your view?
At some point the Palestinians ought to renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist wouldn’t you say? Oh yes, and would ‘apartheid’ apply to ‘Judenriden’ Arab states? Or not?
I know it’s all fuzzy wuzzies to you, so treat these questions as rhetorical.
J.B.
Devil’s Advocate, or just……..devil?
Deegee,
A handbook entitled “Reading between the lines” should be issued with every telly licence.
Baggy J,
Anons; why do they DO that? It’s so annoying. Oh, that’s probably why.
Piggy,
Thanks for 12:32 am. and Anons do seem pointless.
Just came across this TV interview with Abba Eban, touching on Palestinian whining about land they lost in a war they started.
The interview was 51 years ago ! and related to land lost in 1948. The current arguments are about land on the West Bank lost after the Arab aggression of 1967.
Same old, same old, really.
But whining for 50 years really does take stamina ! If all that energy had been put into something constructive – what would be the result now ?
The Abba Eban interview :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024024.php
I've never understood why the Israeli occupation of the west bank is always described as "illegal".
I know my memory is not what it was, but if it serves me correctly, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab countries and fought back, winning and capturing some of their territory.
Historically, if a country captures land in a war, it becomes their territory, unless they agree to hand it back as part of a final peace settlement. As the Arab countries still consider themselves at war with Israel, surely they are fully justified in holding onto this land.
Israel can never make peace by giing up occupied territory, most of Israels water comes from occupied land.
Somewhere up there, Mr God is smirking to himself.
Ady so you admit the injustice done to the Jews in thw 1948 carve up?
Joos not even allowed water in their game reserve!
Interesting your indiscriminate and bizarre use of the O word.
West Jordan is Israeli land, currently occupied by arabs. I assume thats what you mean by occupied land?
Heck, blame God as well if you like.
You guys blame everyone else except yourselves anyway, so God can stand in line with the rest of us.
God is really nothing more than an anti-semite masquerading as a immortal entity.
Bastard.
bbc supporters, please let me know when i can expect the bbc to give sympathetic or uncritical voice to anyone saying:
"i do not consider myself to be anti-black, yet i can also understand why some are"
"i do not consider myself to be racist, yet i can also understand why some are"
"i do not consider myself to be anti-muslim, yet i can also understand why some are"
or: when you recover from your involuntary and overwhelming sense of indignation at the very thought of anyone making such remarks, please explain to me why you do not experience the same reaction when the operative word is 'anti-semite'
thank you
Whos the bastard Ady? Me or God?
Seriously, go and lie down in a cool dark room. Undo all restrictive clothing. Breath.
Try to relax.
I can't help wondering if an addition pointer to BBC bias is the existence of a link to the original document when the BBC approves and no link when it doesn't.
Not only does the BBC provide a massive plug for the Oxfam document but links to a PDF.
Does anyone remember a similar link to a BNP produced or similar document?
I enjoy these little spats.
In their entire history Joos have never had more power, more money and more influence.
Free unregulated Nukes, free F-16s to bomb people with, free munney handouts from uncle sam, a free country handed out by the UN, the freedom to turn any neighbour you don't like into a pile of rubble any time you want, a global financial influence, ownership of most of the western media outlets around the globe…etc etc etc
And yet you guys still whine and bitch like third world welfare cases about how baaaad things are for ya and basically why you should be allowed to fill out yet ANOTHER welfare form and get more free stuff like east Jerusalem etc.
The time has come for you guys to be responsible members of the international community.
No more welfare, you guys are back on your feet now and this means you have moral responsibilities and this include no more stealing other peoples stuff for free or international community welfare handouts.
Ady, you sound like some 'third world welfare case' to me. With all the attendant antisemitism.
Who pays you, Ady? David Duke? Iran? The BBC?
Ady really is just a troll. And sounding distinctly anti-Semitic on this thread.
"Ownership of most of the western media outlets" ??? Just look at the UK As far as I know the significant UK media are NOT owned by Jews eg BBC, ITV, Channel 4,the entire Murdoch press, Guardian, Indy etc etc ?
You guys just need to change the record, that's all.
That golden oldie:
"..anyone who doesn't want to give me more free stuff must be a racist.."
is getting a bit tired and crackly now.
Gotta fess up, stop bleating like old women and stand tall.
You want something?
Work for it.
If you want to invade other peoples countries and steal their stuff then by all means go for it, there's nothing new in that approach but in most cases this tends to be a poor longer term strategy.
Ady: Antisemitic, misogynist and dislikes old people.
Tells you all you need to know about this 'third world welfare case' (his/her own words).
And what's with the 'gotta fess up' lingo, DUDE? Do you feel 'cool' and 'troofer' when you use such language?
Ady
Go learn some history
The Arab world tried to invade – no, obliterate – Israel in 1967. They lost the war, Israel pushed them back. International law and the whole weight of history is that if you start a war and lose it, you lose land.
Israel has given back the great bulk of that land – eg the Sinai, returned to Egypt after Egypt dropped its aim to destroy Israel and reached a proper peace. Israel has no requirement to relinquich further land until there is a proper peace accord. The "Palestinians" – who never had any state – have been determined to frustrate peace attempts for the past 40 years. They prefer to wallow in their self-crerated squalor, violence and corruption, and to keep attacking Israelis at every chance they get.
Yes there are faults on the Israeli side. But after watchingall this for 50 years – as a non-Jew – I would say that 90% of the blame lies with the Palestinians and with Arab states and Iran that use them like pawns. As Palestinian leaders themselves have said – they love death more than they love life.
But you, Ady, sound like a callow youth with damn-all historical perspective and a whole load of anti-Israel bile. And on this thread, it has come across as straight anti-Semitism.
Actually, what was interesting about that Al Beeb story was the language used to describe what the Israeli High Court said; "is a just and necessary answer to the threat of militant attacks on its territory, such as suicide bombings."
No I severely doubt the Israeli High Court said any such thing. I would hazard a guess that what the court REALLY said was; "is a just and necessary answer to the threat of TERRRORIST attacks on its territory, such as suicide bombings".
Mailman
Mailman,
amimissingsomething
2:06 AM, July 12, 2009
Excellent points.
Oh I love it when someone harps on about them stinky jooos owning all the media outlets.
Clearly the irony is lost on them, given the level of open hatred pushed by the MSM that if the stinky joooos really did own all the media outlets then this would most likely constitute the WORST purchase in the history of the world! 🙂
Mailman
Natch
War on Want, Christian Aid & Oxfam have all become political lobbyists like Greenpeace and Barnados. Barnados no longer runs any orphanages but promote a leftish agitprop agenda on "childrens rights".
War on Want published some very offensive anti Jewish Christmas cards depicting Jewish soldiers in an offensive, racist manner. They were investigated by the Charities Commission for their one-sided politicisation of care – charities are not legally allowed to act as political groups or promote a politicised agenda demonising a race of people.
All right minded people offended by their activities should write or email the Charities Commission with any evidence of such NGOs breaking the terms of the consitution and objects.