Dark Forces

I consider the BBC’s bias against Israel to be potentially the most dangerous branch of its non-impartiality. Part of the problem is that they start from a wrong premise, confusing moral equivalence with impartiality. That is to say they give equal consideration, painstakingly, to the views and sensitivities of “all”* no matter if doing so entails promoting the views of thugs, criminals, liars and racists, sometimes above those of law-abiding members of society. And they do so with a contrived “who, me?” innocence. A repercussion of all this is the turmoil we are experiencing now.

Another part of the BBC’s problem is their superficial grasp of anti-Semitism. If the BBC sets out to educate, it should first be educated itself. I doubt if anyone at the BBC would be interested in reading the enlightening essay by professor Geoffrey Alderman today on CiFWatch that explains the antisemitism inherent in Islam.
He had to write such a thing because of the ignorance and bias shown by employees of the BBC’s Siamese twin newspaper the Guardian, who chose to withdraw his privileges and prevent him from expressing pro Israel views on their ‘Comment is free’ platform.

Robin Shepherd has written about another speech, immensely supportive of Israel, made by the heroic Col Richard Kemp. He gets it. He refers to the knee-jerk almost Pavlovian response from many, many elements of the international media to anything done by Israel as “utter automatic condemnation.”
Robin Shepherd gives credit to the BBC just for publishing this article on its website. (Surely that should be a given, dark forces or no.)
There are a couple of the usual gratuitous inclusions in there, but on the whole, we should be grateful for small mercies.

*For “all” read “some.”

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Dark Forces

  1. Davieboy says:

    Without Israel the West really has a bleak future – computer tech., mobile tech etc. – Israel leads the way and invents it rather than steals it. Funny how when they talk of boycotts it’s never computer chips that they want to stop using….
    Still, when we’re all all in the Dark Ages we won’t need innovation and technology – our windmills wouldn’t run it anyway.


    • deegee says:

      Boycott is a useful weapon, albeit of limited effect. Because it is expressed in terms of avocardo and artichokes (who eats them?) and cosmetics (plenty of alternatives) and not mobile phones, personal computers and medical equipment the BDS* call promotes the ‘feel-good’ feeling of a Free Tibet bumper sticker without the pain of boycotting something one really needs.

      Boycott also brings to mind the heady days of anti Apartheid, arguably the last victory of the ‘Left’. Unfortunately, even when applied on a Government level, probably the only effective real pressure, it usually is interpeted as, “We are not prepared to go to war, so we will do something symbolic so as not to be accused of doing nothing”. Even arms boycotts have limited effect. The British and French arms boycott of Israel arguably hamstrung the British and French arms industries while forcing the Israelis to develope their homegrown arms. Today the Arabs prefer American arms because Israel uses them to Russian (cheaper but inferior) or British or French (no longer benefitting from Israeli battle testing and improvements).

      *BTW does anyone have a good acronym for BDS? Brainless, Dopey, Stupid comes to mind but I’m sure there must be better.


  2. Millie Tant says:

    Who is Richard Shepherd?


  3. sue says:

    An amalgamation of Robin Shepherd and Richard Kemp?


  4. Millie Tant says:

    :-E  Well, half right… 

    Neither of those two household names, to be fair.


    • sue says:

      More’s the pity.


      • sue says:

        Also, I do have a tendency to assume a great deal on the part of the reader. I take it for granted that they have a certain amount of background knowledge of the subject I’m dealing with.
         Many people have the ability to reiterate the basics succinctly and comprehensively every time they discuss even the tiniest aspect of their subject, in case the reader is new to it. Some can do this without being patronising or repetitive. I probably don’t do that as well or as much as I should, considering there seem to be some new visitors here and perhaps fewer oldies than there used to be.

        But I do hope that people will at least click on some of the links I provide, which usually fill in the bits I leave out.

        I have mentioned Richard Kemp several times, and I link to Robin Shepherd all the time, because he is a beacon of light amongst the small band of non-Jewish supporters of Israel.  They have Added Value, as they can’t be dismissed as just a Jew by the people who are always at pains to deny they’re anti-Semitic when they obviously are.  Sort of like in Islam when a woman’s word is worth half a man’s, one word of Robin Shepherd’s is worth all mine put together.


        • Millie Tant says:

          No, I thought what you put across in your post was perfectly clear – apart from not mentioning who the Robin and the Richard were!

          People may or may not read any or all of the links someone posts. The advantage, as I see it, of briefly explaining who someone is (or briefly elucidating something or other ), is that the one person who knows – the poster – can write it once and a hundred or a thousand readers will know it too. However, if they don’t know it and the poster doesn’t tell, it will require a hundred or a thousand actions: click, click, click, clickety clicks… for them all to find out.

          It takes balance and judgement to get it right, no doubt. But I really don’t think you need fret. Seems fine, to me anyway.


  5. David Lee says:

    You are being too kind to the BBC.

    Even in an article which seems to be pro Israel they manage to remind us that they considr them to be the Bif Bad Wolf:

    “None of the speakers referred to the investigation in Dubai into the murder of Mr al-Mabhouh, or the allegation that Mossad had misused British passports”

    Where oh where does that story come in?????????????

    Sure does if you hate Israel.


    • sue says:

      I did mention the gratuitous inclusions. It was Robin Shepherd who was being too kind, by giving the BBC credit for reporting it at all.

      I was hoping someone else would point them out though. So thanks.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Hi, there were actually two mentions in the one piece about the Dubai hit.

      Did you notice also how the BBC reported very differently Col Kemp’s comments on “dark forces” to Robin Shepherd?

      I’d like to see text of the speech.


  6. Philip says:

    Watch Col. Kemp laying pearls before swine at the UN last October.


  7. Teddy Bear says:

    While Robin Shepherd credits the BBC for running the story, he apparently missed the fact that Col. Kemp accused the BBC of being ONE OF THE DARK FORCES, but that in the BBC article it states that it was ‘being exploited by dark forces’.

    In typical DARK FORCE style, the BBC decided to twist that part of the story.


  8. Umbongo says:

    I really think that the BBC considers itself on the side of the angels here.  As with AGW, the BBC has taken the view that, although pro-Israeli views must be given some airing (after all, in its own fevered imaginings the BBC considers itself “impartial”), the “science is settled” and Israel is the source of most of the evil in the world (and of all the evil in the Middle East), and therefore must be demonised incessantly.  The treatment of Israel parallels the way climate sceptics are either ignored or, when not ignored, patronised despite the increasingly obvious holes in the whole AGW construct.

    The manifest thuggery and brutishness of the Hamas/Hezbollah gangs is, in the BBC’s eyes, confirmation of what the evil of Israel – and its supporters (which includes all Jews unless they have signed a pro-Palestinian loyalty oath) – have caused.  Citing evidence that Hamas – in its constitution – seeks to replicate the nazi policy towards the Jews has as little effect on the BBC mindset as does evidence that the practice of “science” has been corrupted in what is called “climate science”.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Umbungo, while idiocy may be a contributing factor to the BBC’s unbalanced coverage of AGW, it’s bias against Israel is as wilful and calculated as it is malign.


  9. Cassandra King says:

    Every BBC report, every ill thought out slander and accusation peddled and touted by the BBC has an effect on Jews worldwide, the BBC is responsible for attacks on Jews by those just itching for any excuse to unleash their race hatred.
    Ordinary people suffer and ordinary people lives are destroyed because the BBC cannot distinguish between what is news and what is political slander/hearsay/poisonous rumour.


  10. hippiepooter says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, in a democracy a broadcaster with a duty to impartiality has a duty to be biased against people who would bring down democracy. 

    This means benefit of the doubt being given to the democratic State of Israel instead of acting as Prosecutor for genocidal terrorists.

    It means giving the benefit of the doubt to HMG and our allies defending democracy against Islamic terrorists instead of trying to put them in the dock over anything the Taliban or Al Qa’eda might come out with.

    We’re at war, the subversives who run the BBC are a national security threat, yank ’em out.


  11. Bert Rodinsky says:

    This whole Mossad business is getting silly