In 2004 the BBC’s former middle east editor, Tim Llewellyn, called Israel’s P.R. “Zionist propaganda,” because he said it was ‘too efficient. ’
If Palestinian P.R. was lagging behind in 2004, it certainly isn’t now. P.R. seems to be about the most flourishing industry Palestinians have.
Despite the spectacular efficacy of Pallywood and the like, the BBC’s present middle east editor happily takes it at face value. He doesn’t dismiss it as propaganda.
Whenever Israel is provoked into retaliatory action the BBC bombards us with emotive images, embellished, manufactured or genuine. It is hardly surprising that it has united the audience in a kinship of hostility towards Israel. They hear only that Israel is the cause of all the death and destruction they’ve been shown.
Suitably impassioned, well meaning people are galvanised into half-hearted action. Firstly, ridicule all pro-Israel sentiment and deem anyone who expresses it mad. Keep saying ‘hasbara,’ ‘cabal” and “lobby,” terms which automatically dismiss all pro-Israel sentiment without requiring too much depth of knowledge.
Next, the flip-side, joining or sympathising with the ‘we are all Hezbolla now’ brigade, an allegiance that requires suspension of disbelief on an Alice in Wonderland scale. It begs the question – exactly which side is mad as a hatter.
The BBC is very keen to tell us that the UNHRC passed the resolution against Israel
UN backs Gaza ‘war crimes’ report. “Ah! War Crimes!” it seems to say, eternally hungry in a Homer kind of way, for more ammunition against Israel.
“Twenty-five countries voted for the resolution, while six were against.”
It tells us.
In the sidebar Jeremy Bowen implies that the UK’s ‘non vote’ was as a result of Israeli pressure. He thinks that the Zionist Lobby has stopped us from joining in the condemnation.
The BBC is much less keen to discuss the Goldstone report, or to explain what it is, how it came about, what is wrong with it, and about the countries that voted for, against – or not at all.
What is the difference between abstaining from a vote or simply not turning up?
J.B. might be right. Could it be that the UK Government really did want to vote ‘for’ and was persuaded and/or chickened out?
It is thought that it was attempting to extort a concession out of Israel in return for the abstention, but was too late.
Times omline.
“British officials said that Mr Brown and President Sarkozy of France decided to back Mr Netanyahu if he would move on three concessions that they believed could help to rescue the peace process: a freeze on all settlement activity, an independent Israeli investigation and an immediate lifting of the blockade on Gaza.
Those last-minute efforts, however, were thwarted by Egypt, a co-sponsor of the resolution, which refused two French appeals for a two-hour delay, forcing a vote before any concessions could be wrung from Israel. Britain and France therefore failed either to cast a vote or abstain.”
Good article, Sue. The BBC also practices its own version of Kitman every time the UNHRC and Israel comes into the frame.
They consistently omit to inform their audience about thecomplete absence of credibility of this band of OIC/Non-Aligned Movement-sponsored tyrants.
Think about it – the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, the Burmese miitary – running the Human Rights show at the UN – it couldn’t be any funnier if it weren’t for the fact that it was so gravely serious.
Recent non-Israel UNHRC highlights:
– Voted in 2007 to remove its own human rights investigators from Cuba and Belarus – and now relies on official state evidence in these particular beacons of human development excellence
– Rejected a proposal by Canada last year the war crimes charges be applied to the genocidal régime in Darfur (but naturally, delighted to have them slapped on Israel)
Yet, to read any al-Beeb article they seem an august, authoritative band of fair-play statesmen – a diligent, thoughtful human rights version of the International Maritime Organisation, if you will.
Nothing could be further from the truth – even Ban Ki bloody Moon(arch dhimmi-in-chief) has put them under fire for their anti Israel bile.
It’s sometimes what they don’t say that gives the lie to the BBC’s claim of impartiality.
Thank you Philip.
I see the’re trying to discredit Col. Richard Kemp over at Mel’s blog.
He’s biased. Paid by Israel, y’know.
🙁
Yup… I’m on it @ the Spectator too 😉 You’ll notice the Pali-huggers there are adopting their normal modus operandi of lobbing grenades into the conversation (which they don’t/can’t substantiate); then running away.
I often wonder how Abu Bowen would report any peaceful militant attack on the bBC in the Uk which resulted in lots of deaths.
I’m sure that even if the death toll was in the hundreds Abu Bowen would somehow blame the Jew.
Britains attempt at getting a concession out of Israel for a no vote is particularly disgusting!
Imagine a friend saying we will only support you if only you just accept that you did carry out some war crimes and by golly, the only way to atone for that is to allow investigations to take place (completely ignoring the fact investigations HAVE already taken place).
Yep, with friends like the UK…who needs enemies?
Mailman
This comment on Goldstone Report seems to pass by the BBC:
“A Moral Atrocity: Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/israel-goldstone-palestine-gaza-un
As unusual as it is for the Guardian to publish a report from the pro-Israeli/anti-terrorist side this comment on Goldstone Report has not passed by the BBC.
The Guardian is compulsory reading at the BBC.