“Just in case you’d been distracted by trivial, parochial concerns like BBC salaries and British soldiers coming home in coffins, it’s our duty to remind you once more about the real scandal. The Israelis.”
“Lest you forget, we must tell you again about the war crimes, human rights violations and abuses that took place in Gaza! What’s more the BBC didn’t even have to uncover the scandal because Israelis blabbed about it all by themselves.”
“The BBC is outraged to hear that Israel protects those spoilt Israeli soldiers at all costs. Even putting their lives above the human rights of the enemy! They use deadly weapons, and even innocents – children, babies and women get killed.
They’d stop at nothing to avoid their precious soldiers coming home in body-bags! How typically selfish!”
“If the Israelis were proper soldiers, They’d make do do with cardboard vehicles and a wonky helicopter. They’d put the enemy’s human rights at the forefront and abide strictly by the rules of engagement and be sure to die in sufficient quantities. Unlike the noble martyrs of Hamas who obviously stick strictly to the rules. ”
“Booby traps, suicide bombers, children playing on rooftops, launching rockets from schoolyards, terrorists hiding in houses, hatred and Islamic Jihad are no excuse for not playing by the rules, the BBC has learned.”
Evan Davis quotes Wilfred Owen: “These men are worth your tears!”
As long as they’re not Israelis.
Whats this all about?
Mailman
Mailman
Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza
For BBC:
"Marching for Hamas"
(by D. MacEoin, 'meforum.org/2056')
"In a bizarre reversal of all their commitment to human rights and the struggle of men and women for independence and self-determination, the European Left has chosen again and again to side with the bullies and to condemn a small nation struggling to survive in a hostile neighborhood. It is all self-contradictory: The Left supports gay rights, yet attacks the only country in the Middle East where gay rights are enshrined in law. Hamas makes death the punishment for being gay, but "we are all Hamas now." Iran hangs gays, but it is praised as an agent of anti-imperialism, and allowed to get on with its job of stoning women and executing dissidents and members of religious minorities. If UK Premier Gordon Brown swore to wipe France from the face of the earth, he would become a pariah among nations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to do that to Israel and is invited to speak to the UN General Assembly
"Israel guarantees civil liberties to all its citizens, Jew or Arab alike, but it is dubbed "an apartheid state"; Hamas, ever the bully, kills its opponents and denies the rest the most basic rights, but we march on behalf of Hamas. The Left prefers the bully because the bully represents a finger in the face of the establishment? Almost no one on the Left has any understanding of militant Islam. Their politics is a politics of gesture, where wearing a keffiyeh is cool but understanding its symbolism is too much effort even for intellectuals."
the news?
Mentioned on Today.
Many many times. I thought the words "Evan Davis" might have been a clue.
I turned over to Sky who didn't even mention this non-story but instead focussed on the heartwarming good news about the British backpacker being found in Australia. Lovely to start the day with a good news story about a 19 year old being restored to his family, even if some of the interviews were rather laboured to put it mildly.
Back to the BBC story, according to a report:
"The IDF Spokesman said in response to the report that it was regretful that a human rights organization such as Breaking the Silence had again issued a report that contained anonymous testimonies without checking their veracity and without allowing the IDF, with minimal decency, the opportunity to review the findings prior to publication.
The army called on the organization to encourage the soldiers who had provided the alleged testimony to submit specific complaints so the matter could be dealt with in depth and properly investigated, as opposed to "hiding" behind anonymous testimony…….According to preliminary findings by the Judge Advocate-General's Office, the army said that similar to the testimonies published by the Rabin Academy several months ago, the allegations raised in the Breaking the Silence report were based on hearsay and anonymous testimonies that lacked identifying details such as rank, the first letter of the name, the name of the unit, the place and the date.
"The organization's decision to collect testimonies this way creates a feeling that the organization is not genuinely interested in a thorough investigation of its claims, like the one the IDF is committed to," the statement said. "To our regret, this is not the first time that this organization has chosen this method."
The army said it was committed to investigating every complaint based on information that allows a thorough probe. The military said it expected that every soldier or commander who suspected they had witnessed a violation of military code would pass on the information to the relevant authorities. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443810679&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"Breaking the Silence", a tiny, almost unheard of, group whose spokesman Mikhael Mankin has previously helped the self-hating "zochrot" in its reporting of the "nakba".
The BBC report this group's allegations as fact, no scare quotes or qualifiers in the headlines for these 'activists', simply: "Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza".
Anti-semitism writ large.
Strange. The instructions the soldiers claimed to have received were exactly the same as my mother gave me when she saw me in uniform with a weapon.
"If you are in any doubt whether to shoot or not to shoot – shoot. If you choose to shoot and are wrong, you will go to court or even gaol but your father and mother will support you all the way. If you fail to shoot when you should have, you will be dead and there will be nothing we can do for you".
In related, not the BBC, news:
Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia – Seeking Saudi Money to Counterbalance "Pro-Israel Pressure Groups"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html
Is this the same Human Rights Watch lauded by the BBC and continually used to bash Israel? Well, gosh, it sure is.
Anon
On the Open thread I had mentioned that Human Rights Watch used as a sales pitch to Saudi donors "We bash Israel".
That's Saudi Arabia, an example to the whole wide world on human rights. And HRW beholden to Saudis as well as Soros, attacking the only real democracy in the Middle east (apart now from Iraq) – and the BBC shilling for HRW and other biased NGOs at every chance it gets.
………..
BBC World Service had the Israel NON-story as the TOP news story through the night. That is – more important than the South American ex-President calling for insurrection in his country, the Goldman Sachs profits (BAD BAD BAD), the English backtracker found in OZ, the Sottomeyer hearings etc etc etc. The Israel story comes ahead of every top story being carried by all the rest of the world media.
As I mentioned on the other thread – it is hardly surprising that this blog features a lot of posts and comments about the Israel. We are simply reacting to the BBC's anti-Israel obsession.
"Breaking the Silence" has a similar stake in the Israel-Hamas conflict as the BBC: look for some vox-pop (or soldier-pop) mouthing the BtS or BBC view and report it as unalloyed truth. I suspect you could find if you looked hard enough – and I'm sure the BBC is constantly looking hard enough – British soldiers who are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and are prepared to traduce the British Army anonymously. Only this weekend we had the BBC trumpeting its triumph in being able to broadcast a video of a British soldier (not, I think, anonymous) meting out rough treatment to some hapless (we are given to understand) Iraqis.
Oddly though, evidence against Hamas for its atrocities against its own people (let alone against Israeli civilians) rarely gets headline treatment from the BBC. The BBC bias is not that reports by "Breaking the Silence" are broadcast by the BBC, it's the absence of any context: (1) that BtS is a tiny, highly motivated and highly politicised organisation at odds with both the policies of successive Israeli governments and (probably) the views of the vast majority of Israelis and (2) that the atrocities of Hamas (which is also an "army" and a government albeit in only one part of the Palestinian territories and is subject to the "laws of war") are whitewashed out of the BBC's narrative.
An analogous broadcast to the bigging up of the BtS survey by the BBC would be an item reporting, as more or less undisputed fact, the results of a survey on immigration and housing issued by the BNP.
Hamas preach total war, don't wear uniforms and fire rockets from civilian areas.
We seem to want modern armies to fight with one hand behind their back, treat prisoners with kid gloves and be a cut above the scum we are fighting.
We can't fight wars from the comfort of our moral sofas, and must let the military do what they have to to win.
Believe me my uncles fought in WW2 and there were atrocities on both sides.
The BBC is pathologically anti-Israel and pro-Jihad because it uncritically accepts the Marxist concept that Israel is a "settler state" of the type that South Africa and Rhodesia were, and therefore must be destroyed at any cost and no matter what the outcome. In Beebland the Israelis are awful opressors who have stolen the poor Palestinians' land and that overrides any concepts of true democracy, human rights etc. The Palestinians can attach explosives to their children and send them to blow up Israeli civillians, call for Jews to be gassed, murder gays etc but none of it matters to the Left because they have already decided that the Israelis are the 'oppressors' and the Palestinians the 'oppressed' and everything must flow from that.
It's classic Marxism that could have come from an 'anti-colonial' pamphlet by Stalin, dressed up as unbiased reporting.
They missed this important story:
http://theorator2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/hamas-exposes-dastardly-israeli-plot.html
This post was about the irony of this story being given undue prominence immediately before and after the terrible news of the return of the bodies of so many British soldiers.
The irony is underlined because we are in the midst of deep concerns about the inadequacy of the equipment issued to British soldiers. In the offending Today programme there was an item about that very subject.
Irony again, at a time when the purpose and aim of the war in Afghanistan is increasingly unclear and questions over what would actually constitute “victory” are in the news.
More irony still over the choice of several things the BBC left out:
The fact that Israelis have open debates over such controversial matters.
The fact that Israel’s enemies operate with complete disregard for any of the issues in question, namely rules of engagement, the human rights of its own people let alone those of the enemy.
The fact that the Islamic menace faced by Israel is exactly the same one we are supposed to be fighting against.
That our own military inefficiencies and shortcomings are nothing to be proud of, and Israel’s concern for the precious lives of its soldiers is admirable, not something to be ashamed of.
That these allegations have been made anonymously and have not been verified.
That they are being investigated, and, oh yes, that we’ve heard all this before.
But there are many more reasons to talk about the BBC’s pathological campaign to vilify Israel.
Not that I’m defending it for one minute, but we can all hear a variety of opinions on domestic politics despite the BBC’s socialist bias. Our friends, relations, colleagues, newspapers and the internet provide us with a cornucopia of perspectives.
Foreign affairs are quite different. For a start, not many people are all that interested. They get their news and views from snippets, and only if they are particularly interested would they bother to look into any of it in depth. Why would they?
So they rely on the BBC.
Now we have a situation that closely parallels the 1930s. Supporters of Israel, and, unless they specifically denounce Israel, Jews are perceived as subversive and the cause of terrorism. “If only Israel wasn’t there!” they say. “if only Jews would go away, or not be so Jewish.”
People who comment on this site saying “moan, moan it’s nothing to do with me” really should know better.
You don’t like being called a Nazi more than you don’t like Jews? Or the other way round. Which is it to be?
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/latest-bbc-report-on-gaza-marks-new-low-in-anti-israeli-bias/#more-533
12:28 PM, July 15, 2009
Sue, your above comment should be a post. Very lucid.
Not a mention of the story at the timesline site. Just proves what a non-story this is! 🙂
Mailman
The vile BBC continues to disgust me, but its rampant and psychotic antisemitism comes as no surprise.
But why do they regard the Palestinians so negatively. I mean, they doin't even bother to ask them (or their psychotic brothers Hizbolah) why they don't attempt to protect civilians. The questionsimply doesn't even arise? Arabs? Observing Human Rights? Don't be silly, my dear man, that is the asole preserve of those filthy jews."
Personally, If I were Israeli, I would regard the shitty BBC as an enemy… and behave accordingly.
Nu-Lab's policies on Israel are a national disgrace.
Hamas takes credit for Human Shields
In reply to Dr Evan Whitlam 1:52 PM, July 15, 2009 Why are Palestinian civilian casualties higher than Israeli?
1) Despite building a complex tunnel/bunker infrastructure to protect their command personnel Hamas appears to have spent nothing to protect civilians. Nor do they appear to have spent anything in the rebuilding. In other words, Israel builds bomb shelters, sirens and insists every domicile and public building has them.
2) Hamas artillery (Kassams, mortars and Katyushas) are notoriously inaccurate and prone to kill their operators and other Gazans. In addition, Israel near Gaza is relatively unpopulated meaning general fire at larger population concentrations is less likely to be effective. By contrast the IDF tend to hit what they aim at and with greater explosive power.
3) As a matter of tactics and also the limitations of Gaza Hamas has placed military targets where an Israeli response is most likely to lead to civilian casualties and a propaganda benefit. Far from removing civilians from harm Hamas brings them closer as Human Shields.
4) The Shahid tradition instilled from early childhood leads to greater risk taking by young 'militants' hoping to emulate their elders.
5) Palestinian figures on anything are often fantasies. There is also a deliberate tendency to list personnel who otherwise would be considered military as civilian.
6) Thank God (or whatever you pray to) for the discrepancy.
I would love to know at what stage in its pampered existence the BBC decided, informally but bindingly,
to hate Israel & promote Islam.
Is there a memo explaining the reason for supporting the enemies of the West at every turn ?
Possibly it started with the reckless damage inflicted on national morale by the Suez crisis.
Or was it later when when ex hippies & Trotskyites found such a nice billet funded by the capitalist system.
While we're at it, when did the BBC decide to elevate Man Made Global Warming to an axiom rather than a contrarian theory ?
There is no doubt that the BBC is a highly politicized organization, & I'd love to know when its
agenda was drawn up
Anonymous 12:30
That is a terrific article, thanks for the link.
hippiepooter 12:28
Thanks very much.
I torment myself over the ideal length of posts. I thought short and snappy was the order of the day, but I’m not really sure. If I had written the above article by Robin Shepherd for example, and then had enough confidence to post it on the main page of this site, I would be very pleased with myself.
In his article he says that the anonymous soldiers were reported on the BBC as numbering “more than 25” and that this was later amended to “26.” On the Today programme this morning they said it was “30.”
Why, it’s almost as if the numbers themselves are retreating down a moral slippery slope.
But apart from the fact that this has crossed the line from journalism to propaganda, it is the hypocrisy of the moral outrage that something deemed so terrible is alleged to have happened, when, under the circumstances, such things are not terrible at all.
The BBC implies that it would only be fair if the Israelis had stuck within some self-sacrificial rules and suffered more casualties than Hamas, who are somehow not under any obligations whatsoever. If that ever does happen, would they then be satisfied?
The BBC article, and some of its broadcasts, have mentioned the claim that 1400 Palestinians died. That total figure is disputed by Israel, but the BBC refuses to mention this.
Further, the BBC has never tried to dissect the total casualty figures to show that they included many many Hamas fighters. My sense is that 70 to 80% of the casualtieds were Hamas.
And if the remainder were genuinely civilians, it is entirely the fault of Hamas that they were caught up in the fighting, in spite of the detailed warnings that the IDF were giving hour by hour about specific locations.
The BBC KNOWS all this. In particular, Jeremy Bowen as Middle East editor knows all this – and he constantly fails as editor to ensure that these BBC items are balanced.
The IDF spokesperson has issued a statement. See below. Will this be given equal prominence on the BBC?
Reaction to "Breaking the Silence" human rights report
15 Jul 2009
"The IDF Spokesperson Unit regrets the fact that yet another human rights organization is presenting to Israel and the world a report based on anonymous and general testimonies, without investigating their details or credibility…….
(near end of statement) It is clear to the IDF, and from reading parts of the testimonies that were gathered by "Breaking the Silence", that there were isolated incidences in which unintentional harm was caused to noncombatants as the result of operational errors. These types of error are likely to occur in complex fighting such as that in the Gaza Strip. One can also find within the testimonies statements that illustrate the self-restraint shown by the IDF and its commanders during Operation Cast Lead, as well as the steps taken to limit the harm to non-combatants and civilian property, even where this was done at the expense of the IDF's operational objectives"
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Reaction_to_Breaking_Silence_report_15_Jul_2009.htm
Sue,
I like long and lucid. Brilliant post, and lots of brilliant comments too. I hope 'The Visitor' (who has recently graced this blog) sees the truth of them & reports them back to the BBC.
Sue
Just a little word of praise for your post today in which you give the impression that you are quoting the BBC – at length – being horrible about Israel.
When you made it all up yourself!
I see you are taking a firm lead from David Vance who yesterday confidently stated that the BBC regarded Christian views as no longer tolerable when that isn't so.
I do feel we are moving into an exciting, pre-revolutionary phase when we no longer make any pretence that we are accurately quoting the BBC in order to prove its bias.
The fact that it bears our imprimatur is enough to convince the world the Beeboids are vile, biased bastards.
Welcome to our Brave New World. And not a day too soon!
You mean to say that Al Beeb isnt horrible about them joooos?
Sue…how could you make that kind of thing up? How can you sleep at night?
Mailman
A report by Paul Wood on tonight's 'PM' backs up your position Sue.
It demonstrated several types of Media Bias:
1. Bias by story selection.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is yet another anti-Israeli story. The BBC will pick up on anything – from changes to road signs to the planting of vineyards – just as long as it reflects badly on Israel.
2. Bias by Selection of Sources.
This comes in 2 forms, both of which were demonstrated here:
(i) The BBC regularly bases stories on reports from anti-Israeli organisations, occasionally including left-wing Israeli groups – such as Breaking the Silence. Wood's report did not label Breaking the Silence as any such thing, giving it an air of independence it does not deserve.
(ii) If a reporter uses phrases such as 'experts believe', 'observers say' or 'most people believe', without backing this up, suspect bias. Wood used such a phrase in one of his questions to Michael Manneken of Breaking the Silence: "Many people look at the individual instances that are claimed – use of white phosphorus, unarmed civilians being shot, civilians being used as human shields, destruction of property when there was no military necessity" – and say "all this amounts to war crimes". Would that be a fair judgement?"
Who are these "many people"?
3. Bias by Omission.
Nowhere did Wood mention or ask about illegal actions by Hamas – 'war crimes' or not – such as "civilians being used as human shields".
4. Bias by Labeling.
This involves describing someone of whom the reporter approves (or who he agrees with) with a positive label, such as "expert". This gives the source an air of authority it does not necessarily deserve. Paul Wood used such a phrase in one of his questions to Israeli government spokesman, Mark Regev: "The theme of these testimonies is that the rules of engagement were such that Israeli casualties were to be prevented as whatever the cost in Palestinian life. Now at the time a lot of very well informed military correspondents were saying exactly this. That has the ring of truth, doesn't it?"
Not just "informed military correspondents", nor "well informed military correspondents", nor even "very well informed military correspondents", but "a lot of well informed military correspondents". They MUST be right, mustn't they? How could it NOT have the ring of truth when a vast horde of greats sages has said it too?
Yes Sue, the BBC is indeed biased against Israel.
BBC is a Jew hating mouthpiece for Hamas, Hezbollah, self-hating Jews and the antisemitic fashionistas of the Left.
It's been running this story all day on teletext, the website etc….pounding home their hate message.
Funny how it goes quiet at the BBC when the Chinese lead a mighty assault on the Uighars and when favoured Lefty causes go bad. Or when their piglike snouts are caught at the trough of public fund fiddling.
They have a real problem with Jews and their place of sanctity – Israel. Perhaps they need to be referred to the various international bodies challenging Third Wave antisemitism and organised hate crime. I bet we have enough evidence to start levelling charges…..
Evan Davis quotes Wilfred Owen: “These men are worth your tears!”
Nice try mr Davis but Wilfred Owen knew that war was unavoidable against a implacable enemy,he unlike
Davis/bowen saw and did !.
"In his article he says that the anonymous soldiers were reported on the BBC as numbering “more than 25” and that this was later amended to “26.” On the Today programme this morning they said it was “30".Why, it’s almost as if the numbers themselves are retreating down a moral slippery slope."
Sue, an update – On 'PM' tonight the figure was given as "nearly 30"!
'Strange' that al-Beeb are actually carrying with the story a downloadable attachment of the almost entirely unattributed 'Breaking the Silence' agitprop; yet they are not carrying a copy of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs official rebuttal.
But then again, no. It's really not so strange.
Shilling for terrorists. it's what we do.
Remember Col Kemp?…
Read Col.Richard Kemp latest speech…
"Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.
They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses.
Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules.
It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.
anonymous aka mel simpson
sorry folks, Col Kemp's speech link…
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=65
Good to see that Israelis are defying IDF/Government censorship
I may use some of them as sources to balance my reporting even further
Opinionated 5:58
“Sue – Just a little word of praise for your post today in which you give the impression that you are quoting the BBC – at length – being horrible about Israel.”
Had you fooled, did it? Glad you liked it anyhow.
“When you made it all up yourself!”
Curses, thought I’d got away with it!
“I see you are taking a firm lead from David Vance who yesterday confidently stated that the BBC regarded Christian views as no longer tolerable when that isn't so.’
Funny you should say that.
“I do feel we are moving into an exciting, pre-revolutionary phase when we no longer make any pretence that we are accurately quoting the BBC in order to prove its bias."
Diddums. Did you really think I was accurately quoting the BBC? Of course not. You knew that all the time. Was your pretence pre-revolutionary too? Up the revolution! Can’t wait.
They were Scare-quotes More Than Speech-quotes as you might put it, yet with a subtle allusion to quotes. Shall we just agree that I proved the bias?
“The fact that it bears our imprimatur is enough to convince the world the Beeboids are vile, biased bastards.”
Had to look it up, but did you mean 1.? or 2.?
1.
an official license to print or publish a book, pamphlet, etc., esp. a license issued by a censor of the Roman Catholic Church. Compare nihil obstat. (can I do that later?)
2.
sanction or approval; support: Our plan has the company president's imprimatur. (good grief)
“Welcome to our Brave New World. And not a day too soon!”
And welcome back to you too! Just like old times.
You focus on a side issue but you can’t fool me. You agree with me about the bias and you know it. Hoorah.
"Opinionated more than Educated" – the very name itself sums up the BBC.
The conclusion reached by the highly respected authority on the laws of war, Yoram Dinstein is that the laws of armed conflict do not require the commander to lay down the lives of his own men to prevent losses to human shields.
“Pursuant to Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of Additional Protocol I [to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1919, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (ProtocolI)], those who plan or decide on an attack must take all feasible precautions (taking into account all circumstances prevailing at the time), if not to avoid altogether,at least to minimize incidental losses to civilians or civilian objects. Yet, the
aspiration to minimize collateral damage cannot trump all other military inputs. Minimizing the costs to civilians, yes; but not at all costs to the attacking force.There is no obligation incumbent on the attacker to sustain military losses only in order to minimize incidental losses to enemy civilians or civilian objects.‘Survival of the military personnel and equipment is an appropriate consideration when assessing the military advantage of an attack in the proportionality context”
Now it turns out that one of those soldiers who "testified" was not even there at the time – does the BBC know?
"Golani Brigade commander Col. Avi Peled resolutely denied on Wednesday that the IDF had used Palestinians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead, and took aim at the soldier whose damning testimony was published as part of a report by the Breaking the Silence group, saying the accusations were strictly hearsay and that the man had not even been in combat at the time. During the operation, Israel "always guarded our values as both a state and army," Peled said during an interview with Israel Radio.
"What is important to say is that this soldier was not in the field at the time," he continued. "He told his commander about a week [during] which he wasn't even in the field. He reported about what he heard happened."
Peled added, "I can say that at no point was there any civilian who was used as a human shield. We never sent anybody in ahead of us to any place."
According to Peled, "there was one incident where a civilian asked if he could go into his house first so that he could guard whoever was in there and keep us from destroying his house. And therefore he asked to go in first to tell those inside to get out of the house so that they wouldn't be hurt. The commander of the unit personally approved his request."
That was the only such incident, Peled said, adding that "nobody pointed a gun at him, and he didn't go in ahead of the soldiers." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443821039&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Yes, both Col. Richard Kemp’s speech and the Israeli Ministry of foreign affairs Reaction to “Breaking the Silence” human rights report deserve to be reported at least as prominently as the testimony of 25, 26 or 30 anonymous soldiers.
Yes JB. carry on the hate propaganda. Antisemites worldwide will praise your work…….you must be so proud……
No poll tax without representation!
How's that for balance…?
How the bBC lies for Hamas.
Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza
According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8149464.stm
and what the UN actually said on the subject;
More than 3,000 homes and hundreds of other properties, including factories, workshops,
animal farms and orchards, as well as government buildings, police stations and prisons,
were destroyed and more than 20,000 were damaged during Operation “Cast Lead”.
……………………………………………
Which can be broken down to;
According to the UN Flash Appeal for Gaza (2 February 2009), 3,914 housing units were destroyed,
4,831 severely damaged, 6,104 partially damaged, and 18,918 had broken windows; and 164 schools,
16 hospitals and 38 primary health care clinics were damaged:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf
How the bBC lies for Hamas.
Sue
Shall we just agree that I proved the bias?
No need. Like most of this site's enthusiasts I wholeheartedly endorse every single thing said by our leaders against the BBC.
You and David are showing us that making stuff up is the perfect weapon when complaining about al-Beeb's failure to tell the truth.
The BBC's moral failings are so vile that they no longer deserve the protection of fair criticism.
Fabricate away!
ref idiot above
I think this one will suffocate if we don't give him the oxygen of retorting to his pointless remarks.
Wouldn't mind if there was a point to him as I enjoy a good debate, but he refuses to produce evidence or treat us fairly.
Bit of an irritating ponce to boot!!
Opinionated,
Would you deny the use of sarcasm and irony to your adversary when it is your one and only weapon?
No, you can’t be that mean.
What weapon would you then allow us to use when complaining about al-beeb’s failure to tell the truth?
You’re in a siding. Going nowhere. On the wrong track.
Tackle the issue of the BBC’s campaign of propaganda against Israel if you must join this debate.
sue
The guy is a waste of space. Please ignore him
John A 11:12 AM, July 15, 2009
I didn't listen on Tuesday night but on Wednesday afternoon the World Service was still going on about this story, on the news and on World Briefing. I believe Peter Horrocks is in charge there now. I might send him a relatively polite e-mail. The complaints process, of course, is a joke.
Sue 2:59 PM, July 15, 2009
"The BBC implies that it would only be fair if the Israelis had stuck within some self-sacrificial rules and suffered more casualties than Hamas, who are somehow not under any obligations whatsoever. If that ever does happen, would they then be satisfied?"
I followed the BBC during the Second Intifada. I recall the cool indifference of the BBC and the rest of the motley left wing media crew to the horrific deaths of Israeli men, women and children at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers.
On one occasion, reporting on the aftermath of a bus bombing, the BBC hack said, "The Israeli officials at the scene were QUICK TO BLAME the absence of a wall in the area for the bombing."
The callousness of concentrating on lefty point-scoring against people who had just been desperately trying to save their injured and ferry them to hospital was beyond belief.
On another occasion, when Palestinian terrorists murdered three young Israelis in a drive by shooting, the BBC website headline blared:
ISRAELI SETTLERS KILLED
One of those "settlers" was a boy of fourteen. The other two were young women, one a twenty-year-old engaged to be married.
So to answer your question, Sue, the BBC would only be satisfied by the destruction of Israel and reduction of any remaining Jews to dhimmi-status under an Islamic Palestine. That may seem like a bit of a stretch, but I really believe that many at the BBC follow the Hamas line.
Whenever the BBC, or any journalists for that matter, report "anonymous sources", I assume they are lying or fabricating.
The BBC's institutional anti-semitism is one of the most vile aspects of this revolting organisation. This latest is just yet another example.
Am I the only one around here who doesn’t want to ban Opinionated?
He can be hilarious. If we must have a troll, let’s keep him and ingnore JB.
Having followed the banter and sparring on this blog for some time, may I make a comment?
Surely some of the issues, as with the recent topic of this thread, should be addressed to the Director General, the Trustees, the BBC Board, M.P.s and people of significance, for one very good reason.
The BBC’s bias against Israel is obviously abhorrent to those people who are aware of it. But it goes further than that.
Israel is at the cutting edge of so much modern technology, computer and stem cell research etc. In the past it has shared this knowledge with its friends and allies in the West, USA and Britain.
It is not surprising to hear that people in Israel are conscious of, and are wounded by what the BBC is doing. There are plenty of other places that are hungry for cutting-edge technology. Russia, India, China.
What the BBC and its clear bias is doing will in the long run be deeply damaging, not just to Israel, but to Britain and our long-term interests.