The bias lies in the very first sentence.
“UN development projects in Gaza are being stalled by Israel’s blockade of the region.”
As we all know, the BBC has such a loathing of Israel that it always spins in favour of Hamastan and of course when the UN is involved, it’s a double-header of rancid bias. Wonder why the BBC couldn’t run the same item as follows,
“UN development projects in Gaza are being stalled by Hamas terror threats against Israel”
Can’t the BBC get its smear-and-bias act together ? This story was about a blockade of Gaza – but a blockade is something you do from outside.
How can that be, if Israel “occupies” Gaza is the usual BBC description – Tim Franks was telling us yesterday in his latest weep-for-the-Palis piece.
Time and time again the BBC has been pulled up about using the word “occupied” about Gaza, when everyone knows that the Israelis withdrew several years ago. It is a mark of the BBC’s arrogant disrespect of the inteligence of its audience, as well as flagrant bias, that it continues to use the word “occupied”.
Why do buildings have to made from cement? There are other building materials that can be used for dwellings but unsuitable for fortifications.
These people are currently living in tents. Do they have electricity or running water? What percentage of the world’s population don’t have access to electricity, running water or the BBC’s crocodile tears? What percentage of Gazan (before the war) also didn’t have access?
Dishonest and biased from start to finish. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that useful Jew Tim Franks has given such a false representation of facts as to be a lie.
Once again, in a BBC report about the nasty Israeli blockade, there is no mention of Egypt or its border with Gaza – which is controlled by Egypt, not Israel. So when Franks wrings his hands over the UN getting nowhere even after all those heavy negotiations, he’s telling a little white lie by erasing the fact of Egypt in this scenario.
Further, there are certain other facts which Franks conveniently leaves out, once again creating a false impression. The UN has form with setting up something for the Palestinians only to have it taken over by Hamas. For example, Hamas has used a UN-run school from which to launch rockets at Israel. So of course it’s only natural for Israel to be concerned about the UN’s construction in Gaza. Since Franks doesn’t add that key bit of information, and instead plays it as Israel being concerned that Hamas might use the cement for some vague badness, the listener gets a false impression. Which is what the BBC wants.
The larger false impression, bordering on a lie, that Franks tells is that all suspension of UN projects is Israel’s fault. What the BBC doesn’t want you to know is that Hamas keeps screwing the deal. For example, in February of last year, the UN suspended all aid – again – because Hamas kept stealing it. Instead of the truth, Franks wants you all to think that it’s all Israel’s fault.
(Even the biased UN refers to 900,000 “refugees” in Gaza, as if every single person in Gaza is a refugee and nobody lived there before 1967. But that’s a topic for another website.)
And once again we hear about the tunnels for smuggling goods like cement in brave defiance of the nasty Israeli blockade. But conveniently, the BBC hides the truth about them. Where are those tunnels coming from, Timmy? Lebanon? Syria? Have they dug tunnels under the sea all the way from Cyprus? Under which borders do these tunnels run, BBC? The BBC doesn’t want you to think about that, as it would detract from the Narrative.
So there we have the full anti-Israel bias on display at the BBC. Egypt’s border with Gaza is hidden, Hamas’s use of UN-run buildings as weapons bases is hidden, and Hamas’s culpability in the suspension of UN aid is hidden from you. All this from useful Jew Tim Franks and the BBC.
Nobody can accuse the BBC of favoring Israel in this report. BBC editorial policy fulfilled.
Is Tim Franks, or for that matter Katya Adler, Jewish?
I’ve heard it said on many external websites but never from the BBC or from either of the correspondents. If they say they are Jewish in what sense? It may be true that one or both parents were/are Jewish, which means they could become Israeli citizens under the Law of Return. But if they have no connection with any Jewish community and/or no Jewish education what does it matter?
If they’re Jews by birth, then their education or personal connection to any Jewish community is irrelevant. The Nazis didn’t care about that, your average white supremacist doesn’t care about that, your average Mohammedan doesn’t care about that, your average Brit who is suspicious of the Jewish Lobby and quietly thinks that Jews have way too much power and influence doesn’t care about that. All that matters is that Franks is a Jew.
This protects the BBC from charges of anti-Semitism or having an anti-Israel editorial policy. Any criticisms along those lines can be easily dismissed by saying that a Jew can’t possibly be biased against Israel or anti-Semitic, along with a snort of derision should anyone say something about a self-loathing Jew.
The BBC’s relentless demonization of Israel gives them plenty of defense against charges that they’re pro-Israel, so it all works out very nicely.
I call Franks (and Adler, when she does this kind of thing) a “useful Jew” after the manner of Lenin’s “useful idiots”. Whatever his personal trip is, he is playing along with the BBC’s editorial policy, and actively presenting a false impression, even hiding certain facts from the audience.
This protects the BBC from charges of anti-Semitism or having an anti-Israel editorial policy.
It only protects the BBC from the charge if they raise the defence they couldn’t possibly be against Israel because they are Jewish. I couldn’t find a single example where the BBC ever said those two were Jewish.
Please post some links if you have documented examples.
I’m not claiming that the BBC has used this defense publicly. I’m saying that this is a pre-emptive defense: having the Jews there eliminates that angle of complaint entirely.
But both Franks and Adler are Jews. Here’s the BBC’s statement on their appointments to the Jerusalem bureau
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=4757
A BBC spokesman told the Jewish News: “Both are extremely experienced and talented correspondents who will continue the excellent work that is synonymous with the bureau.”
Asked whether the recruitment of the pair had been prompted by allegations of anti-Israel bias, the spokesman said: “The appointments were not a response to any criticism of the BBC’s coverage of the region.”
I don’t want to drag this out but it’s a different thing to deny the appointment was prompted by criticism, in response to a direct question, and to use the Jewishness of the two as a shield against criticism.
My question remains unanswered. In what sense are they Jewish?
I have already answered your question above. They are ethnically Jewish, as in descended from Jewish people. That’s all that matters to anyone who has a problem with Jews. Religious observance or cultural connections are irrelevant. In other words, your opinion of whether or not they are proper Jews or whatever is also irrelevant.
The Nazis didn’t stop to ask before they loaded people up in the cattle cars, nor does anyone who holds the suspicions and general anti-Jewish sentiments I’ve been talking about.
“.. your average Brit” Who is this “average Brit”? Although I agree with a lot you say I find this slur a bit much. What about your “avearge Yank” who is fat, and goes around shooting people, who are all racists and imperialists? The language of the left I think you will agree.
I’m sorry, but my personal experience – as well as years of reading British newspapers, blogs, comments from the public, etc. – has shown me that there is a substantial amount of anti-Jewish sentiment amongst the British public in general. Note that I’m not saying it’s full-on anti-Semitism at all, or anything even close.
Rather, I submit that there is fairly wide-spread suspicion of a too-powerful Jewish Lobby, Israel pulls the strings, etc.., Jews have to much power over the banks, the government, and so on. This isn’t anything like race hatred or sinister Nazi-like leanings by any means, but is a soft form of what I call “anti-Jewish sentiment”.
I’m not just pulling this out of my hat, either.
Prejudice against Jews and Muslims on the rise
“But the most worrying discovery of this inquiry is that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, appearing in the everyday conversations of people who consider themselves neither racist nor prejudiced. All forms of anti-semitism are racism and should be treated as such.
“This behaviour is driven by ignorance and complacency and allowing it to continue unchecked is not just a problem for the Jewish community but society as a whole.”
I’d say the same thing about the average Yank, of course.
Maybe you are right – just my sensibilities I suppose.
Radio 4 Today, Thursday.
Tim Franks tells Justin Webb about an interview that Sir Martin Gilbert gave to an internet radio station called Israel National Radio.
Sir Martin was appointed as a member of the panel of 5 on of the Chilcot committee. He spoke about the anti-Semitism that greeted the appointments of himself and the other Jewish member of the committee, Sir Lawrence Freedman.
Notorious antisemites Richard Ingrams (“if I see a Jewish name at the bottom of a letter, I tend to bin it”) and Oliver Miles, former Ambassador to Libya, wrote in two National newspapers questioning whether there should be ’ Jews on the committee.’
Sir Martin said the ‘crude popular anti Israel feeling’ in Britain has become so serious that it’s time some leading figures spoke out against it.
Tim Franks was at pains to tell us that the radio station was “broadcast from a Jewish Settlement on the West Bank” with all the implications that entails. Strange that he didn’t add on the usual Operation Cast Lead death toll, which must have slipped his mind for a second.
Smiley was an accident. But it looks okay there.