A day is not a proper day in BBC land unless the reputation of Israel has been further besmirched. And so it is with this excuse of a report which alleges that must end “unfair” detentions.
On the matter of fact, the detainees concerned are terrorist suspects, hence the anguish in BBC circles. Once again, the far-left B’Tselem group (and Hamoked) is behind this agitation. The BBC is careful to designate them simply as a “campaign group” when in fact they are an activist hard left and pro Palestinian. Whilst one can accept that B’Tselem will use loaded language, it’s interesting to note how the BBC itself uses the term “incarceration” to describe how Israel deals with suspected terrorists. No bias? Sorry, when it’s little Israel, the BBC is very careful to use the right language to ensure Israel always looks in the wrong.
Biased BBC at war with the dictionary once again, I see.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
incarcerate tr.v.
1. To put into jail
A brave, but thoroughly pointless, campaign against the acknowledged meaning of words. Congratulations.
It’s not a war with a dictionary. The word incarcerate is technically correct if you take it to mean imprison. But the connotations of imprison and incarcerate differ.
” Incarceration has the additional meaning to keep someone in an enclosed place and prevent them from leaving it. The word imprisonment is never used for such cases.”
I would associate the word incarcerate with a dungeon. Don’t know about you.
However this post was not solely about that as you are well aware.
The point is that the BBC gives undue credibility to B’Tselem-HaMoked which have fairly extreme political agendas, and while the BBC has every right to report what far left groups have to say they should put them in context.
Why, it’s almost as if they wanted to make Israel look like a brutal expansionist aggressive Zionist entity, full of Jews.
Why do you continually take issue with posts about bias against Israel? Is it because you talk from Opinion rather than Education? I doubt if you know much about the subject apart from what the BBC has told you – that’s what it looks like.
I’d like a straightforward answer. I might fall off my chair and you’d like that I expect.
Dunno, sue. Here’s the BBC using the i-word about dear old Blighty, again and again and again. Oh, and the United States, too.
B’Tselem and HaMoked do enjoy enough international credibility to warrant coverage of their report. You don’t like them. That’s nothing to do with the BBC.
Why do you continually take issue with posts about bias against Israel?
Dunno about that, either. I think Israel’s been mentioned – and tangentially at that – in no more than 3 or 4 of the 100-odd pieces on my esteemed blog. Hardly saturation coverage. Perhaps you’d like to try a guest posting….
I don’t recall denying there was such a word as incarcerate.
I don’t recall saying they had no right to cover the report. I said they should give context. (How could you have forgotten when it’s directly above you)
I don’t recall saying anything about your references to Israel on YOUR blog. I was referring to this one. You knew that.
Why would I try a guest posting on your blog? To be lampooned and ridiculed by the sixth-form groupies you’re nurturing?
Or for some other reason? I could easily do one. It would be about opening your mind to the possibility that you had been misinformed.
Stop saying ‘dunno.’ Next it’ll be ‘coz.’
Yes and the BBC seem to have forgotten about Gitmo (still open) oh and that rendition flights (to places like Egypt) are still taking place under Obama.
And whatever happened to the anti war lot? Since Barry took over he’s ramped up the war in Afghanistan and is NOT pulling out ofIraq yet where have all the anti war protests gone?
Can anyone remember the last time they heard the BBC describe any individual or organisation as “left-wing” or “extreme left-wing” ?
Yet, they seem to use “right-wing” with gay abandon, so to speak.
Classic evidence of the BBC’s political bias.
The irony here is while the bBC opines about how Pals are treated by Israel when they are banged up. They kind of leave that out of all the countries in the region only one doesn’t have the death penalty.
I wonder if Abu Bowen would CAIR to mention which one that is?
And, of course, their obsession with Israel is well documented.
Can we expect a fearless documentary on political prisoners incarcerated in, say, Syria , anytime in the near future ?
Or, maybe, an expose of human rights abuses in Lebanon ?
God the One Show is going on and on about the Miners strike and the ugly fat hags and how evil Thatcher was for wanting to close the mines.
I had to laugh when the BBC admitted their female reporter from the time had a sister who was a striking miners wife, you’d have thought the BBC would have used aonther reporter!!
I expect the BBC don’t see the irony – shutting down mines saves the planet from global catastrophe, does it not?
If nothing else, Al Beeb is very selective in the words that it uses. It endlessly uses “occupied” in the context of east Jerusalem and the other lands taken during the Six Day War, when it should properly use the word “disputed”. If Al Beeb really were interested in being impartial as it claims, it would see to it that the words it uses are correct. It isn’t interested in this as we all know, and it’s all in the cause of siding with its Pali friends and delegitimising Israel’s position.
Not only that JW, but if all beeb was TRULY interested in being impartial…it would use “non-charged” language all the time!
As we know though, al beeb is a partial organisation and has taken the side of terrorists in regards to Israel, the West and Christianity.
Mailman
Sue
The Troll concerned has problems dealing with reality so it’s probably unduly optimistic to expect a reasoned response.
That said, ol’ Medicated does like to hang around here, it’s a home from home for him.
Sue – Re Why do you continually take issue with posts about bias against Israel? Is it because you talk from Opinion rather than Education? I doubt if you know much about the subject apart from what the BBC has told you – that’s what it looks like.
Having observed this individual for a while, and seen the kind of comments it makes, where it makes them, and how it avoids further depth when cornered, I’d say it has an agenda. It definitely is not interested in truth or ethics.
Whether it is to try and diminish or counter the anti-BBC view in relation to Israel, or is simply a pimply R-soul looking to stir things up I’m not sure. Either way only other morons would be taken in by it.
With regard to B’Tselem and HaMoked, any journalist attempting to be impartial would do some research on who they are, who funds them and what the purpose of that funding might be. Any group that calls itself ‘Human Rights’ and is willing to sell out Israel will get funding, so small wonder there are plenty willing to do it. And of course the BBC is happy to give these kind of groups credibility.
Interestingly enough, B’Tselem criticised the Goldstone report, strange that the BBC didn’t see fit on this occasion to air their views. =-O
While Googling, stumbled across an entire Haloscan comments thread from this blog back in July/August 2007. Some good comments and a fascinating glimpse of the attempts by the reprehensible ‘John Reith’ to defend the BBC re its anti-Israel obsession and other bias. As always, Reith fights dirty:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5459254835027768233/
Those were the days. It looks as though one could one still add a comment to that thread. And it still looks fresh as a daisy.
Maybe we still can….