I was interested in a report on Today this morning (8.52am) which makes reference to “occupied East Jerusalem.” Has there been an invasion here that has gone unreported in recent days or is this the BBC once more parroting pro-Palestinian propaganda? Just asking…
"OCCUPIED EAST JERUSALEM"?
Bookmark the permalink.
On the same page:
0732
In August Britain took control of the Turks and Caicos islands following allegations of high level corruption. Islanders initially welcomed the move, but are now accusing the territory’s British governor of behaving like a dictator and are calling for independence. Correspondent Mike Thomson reports from the Turks and Caicos Island of Providenciales.
Occupied Turks and Caicos? Never! Although how else can one describe taking over a country and dissolving its elected parliament.
I too heard this piece and winced at the “occupied East Jerusalem” and the “occupied Wesy Bank”. What we all have to realise is that the BBC will not rest until Jerusalem is the capital of a Palestinian state and Jews, just like when Jordan ‘occupied’ Jerusaelm, are not allowed to worship there.
If there are Jews there, it’s “occupiied”. What’s so hard to understand? According to conventional anti-Israel wisdom, Arabs don’t need to allow even a single Jew to live in their midst. Even if there have been Jews living in the Middle East for 4000 years, they are interlopers.
Today’s post on Brussels Journal puts the question of the resurgent anti Semitism now pervading our world as one of the great moral questions facing us. I urge you all to read it.
<!–StartFragment–>
Last night Andrew Marr had this weird Israeli who has written a book that apparently says that in effect the Palestinians are actually the descendents of the Biblical Jews and that the current bunch are converts and other accretions and by implication have not rights there. His book must sell like hot cakes Has anyone else listened to this piece of BBC rubbish
<!–EndFragment–>
Yes, for more information on this subject see this article on CiFWatch by Jonathan Hoffman.
So far as the BBC are concerned Israel is an “occupied territory”.
There is much more to criticize in the Bowen propaganda piece that the reference (not by Bowen) to occupied East Jerusalem. He editorialises about a battle for control but does not even think it important to mention that the families concerned had taken their claim right to the Supreme Court and lost. There is much deliberate omission in this short piece.
Bowen cleverly reads a poster about enforcing international law without ever acknowledging the Israeli position that this is simply a landlord/tenant dispute. I say it is clever because having put the thought into the listeners’ heads he can now sit back and claim to be merely reporting.
In fact in ruling that the properties were owned by the Jewish plaintiffs the court also ruled that those residents paying rent could not be evicted. Those evicted, the one he interviewed refused to pay rent. That they only lived there because they moved into properties owned by Jews until expelled by the Jordanian army is also not mentioned.
He talks about settlers but fails to note that Israel annexed this part of Jerusalem. No Israeli government no matter how much pressure Obama exerts (if indeed he will) will stop Israeli citizens living in Jerusalem. By Israeli law they are not settlers merely citizens.
However the most irritating part is the latitude he gives Raja Shehadeh to twice repeat his prepared speech about settlements and totally ignore the questions about the importance of Abbas’ decision to resign and Palestinian responsibility for their own fate.
Ambassador Oded Eran may be making an important point but it is so divorced from the substance of the report that one must wonder what question Bowen asked him.