The fractured relationship between Israel and the US was the second item on news headlines this morning, but by the next bulletin it had been demoted it to the tail end. Because of Hillary’s concessionary language it was downgraded from sensational “rift,” announced with relish,
( Paxman called it a ‘Crisis of Historic Proportions) to a grudging admission that both parties were making conciliatory noises.
Too bad for the Beeb, slightly less ammunition to chuck at Israel.
Today R4 promised an interview with Ron Proser ‘before eight o’clock’ but we had to make do with Jeremy Bowen speculating over the implications of settlement building, snubbing the US, and General Petreaus’s ominous warning that Israel’s provocative act is endangering US soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Not forgetting another insurmountable obstacle, the impossibility of expecting the Palestinians to lose face. The BBC accepts unquestioningly that this immovable impediment to resuming talks trumps all others. So the more demands the Palestinians make, the more impossible it becomes to resume talks.
The actual granting of planning permission for the new house-building is more complex than it appears. It has been made to look as though it violates previous agreements as a defiant and deliberately provocative move by Israel. But my understanding is that this isn’t the case.
“The key point is that there was actually nothing to apologise for, since it was explicitly agreed between America and Israel that, as a concession to kick-start peace negotiations, Israel would stop building in the West Bank although it would continue to build in east Jerusalem. Indeed, Hillary Clinton herself, no less, praised Israel for this agreement.”
“America has thus effectively unilaterally repudiated that agreement. In other words, this whole uproar has been artificially manufactured by America to produce a crisis with Israel – while refusing, astonishingly, to condemn the Palestinians at all for their refusal to enter peace talks, their honouring of one of their worst terrorists by naming a square after her, their violent attacks on the Temple Mount in recent days, and so on.”
Defenders of Israel always view these actions with dismay because on a superficial level they look bad. So it would have been better for ‘apologists’ like myself if this had not happened. Nevertheless, why should we just accept that reporting of everything complicated will be dumbed down by the BBC so that Israel looks utterly evil.
If Paxman knows anything of the subtleties of this topic he’s not letting on. He gave the US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley a Paxman grilling. Rude and ill-tempered. “What’s America gonna do if they build them?” “Why don’t you just say ‘build these houses and we’ll cut off your
aid?’ “ On and on and on. “Occupied lands.” “ Endangering lives of soldiers.”
Newsnight continued with a prurient film about a “child sex abuser,” in which it emerged, at the very end, that the seven year old abuser had been abused herself, yet until that was revealed they implied that she was a kind of freak who had become sexualised through original sin.
Disgraceful sensationalised treatment of both subjects, even more disgusting than usual. The BBC is rotten.
I remember at least 7 years back just before I left Blighty. Paxman was due to interview Netanyahu with a Palestinian representative. I’d no recall of him interviewing on the I/P issue before. Was interested to see if his normal bias surfaced. It did. He was in true biased, bully boy form, only he took Netanyahu’s side against the Palestinian. I wondered if it was because he genuinely has a pro-Israel bias or that when he interviews someone ‘well-hard’ like Netanyahu the coward that is inside every bully comes out. I guess this piece answers my question.
I’ve seen the same with other BBC bully-boy interviewers like Humphrys. I remember Humphrys interviewing the pro-family campaigner Lynette Burrows. A great woman. One of the rare breed of Judeo-Christians who gives short shrift when confronted by bias. Humphrys was puncitiliously even-handed in the debate he conducted. Showing veritable bonhomie towards her.
Conservatives on the media could learn a lot from her and Netanyahu. The first sign of bias, nut ’em one.
Yet this was portrayed as being “humiliating” to Joe Biden. And Bowen plays a different blood libel game by asking how much nasty Israeli behavior endangers the lives of US troops.
Jerusalem’s flickering tinder box There’s just s much Heather Sharp doesn’t understand. It makes her the perfect BBC Middle East correspondent.
Some things are just repetition of earlier complaints. Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, (What is No.4, I wonder?) which sits on the Haram al-Sharif or Temple Mount, next to the Jewish Western Wall, in Jerusalem’s heavily contested walled Old City. Actually, the mosque sits on top of the Western Wall, which in deference to BBC custom is not acknowledged as Judaism’s most holy site.
The Jewish group that attempted to enter the mosque is undoubtedly a fringe group but under what definition is it right wing? Why is it that no Palestinian group is ever described as right or left wing?
A synagogue was re-opened on Monday in the Old City. In deference to BBC custom the destruction of the synagogue by the Arabs, after they had expelled the Jewish population of Jerusalem, is not mentioned. Nor is the tradition of a synagogue on that spot since the 2nd century. Nissim Arzy probably told her that but to repeat the detail might contradict the Palestinian narrative of no Jewish connection to Jerusalem.
And religious students with black boxes containing Torah scrolls strapped to their foreheads carried in furniture. They must have been incredibly strong. A Torah scroll can weigh several kilograms. Actually the black boxes, called tefillin contain a small number of verses. Picture below.
With all these criticisms, I suppose it is carping to point out that tinder boxes don’t flicker, unless i suppose they are carried on the foreheads of students of religion.
Technically, the little boxes do contain one passage from the Torah. But the description of them being “strapped to their foreheads” isn’t exactly impartial, and there’s no effort to include the actual term for it, an effort they do make for Islam. They’re not actually strapped on either, but rather are held in place by what is essentially a leather headband. That’s language which is not sympathetic to Jewish religious sensibilities.
However, I’m delighted to point out that the BBC has at last actually mentioned that the Temple Mount is considered Jewish holy ground. It was done in the context of (fundamentalist) rabbis who think Jews shouldn’t set foot there, of course, as the BBC must make every effort to denegrate Jews’ desire to worship at their holy sites. In any case, that still doesn’t make up for the photo with caption reminding everyone that it’s Islam’s third holiest site, as if that’s far more important, but it’s a start.
I see McLiar has got to write to the Iraq injuiry to apologise for lying about defence spending. as we all know the one eyed cretin claimed defence spending ROSE when he was chancellor, in fact it didn’t. Remember how the BBC backed up the one eyed tosser and joined in the smear of senior army Generals? Funny that I haven’t heard the BBC mention this story. I wonder why?
I bet we don’t hear Toenails or Marr saying sorry either.
The BBC have NO SHAME.
“…Gordon Brown admits error on defence spending evidence…”
No you BBC scum, he lied and lied and lied. The one eyed moron smeared the Generals and lied to Parliament, Chilcot and the nation. Why can’t you drug taking scumbags at the BBC just report the FACTS for once?
Just watched what Brown had to say on the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/7464554/Gordon-Brown-admits-I-was-wrong-on-defence-spending.html
Looks like even he nearly choked on his last weasel line – couldn’t wait to get back down again even before he’d finished it.
I’d like to know how his breakdown compares to the Commons Library’s.
The idea that at time of war defence spending should greatly increase seems to be of no interest to Brown. His Defence spending as Chancellor was like budgeting for Summer heating bills at the height of Winter. The man is an abject disgrace.
According to the Daily Mail statistics clearly show that it was 4 years not “1 or 2” when there was a fall in real terms in defence spending. Why didn’t the Telegraph pick up on this before publishing? (No point asking that question of the BBC).
Any Government that fails to properly fund Her Majesty’s Armed Forces at time of war should be absolutely crucified, but as the BBC have plainly being batting for the enemy since 9/11 they’ll probably hold a private medal ceremony for Gordon Brown on behalf of Al Qa’eda and the Taliban. As Martin might observe, the Islamic enemy has probably bribed the BBC with the promise of 72 rent boys in the great Caliphate in the sky. That was unseemly of me. I withdraw that comment unreservedly. 😀
Outstanding post deegee.
The irony is that when Iran goes nuclear as it will Europe will be much more at risk than Israel. Iranian delivery systems will put us in range of nuclear blackmail. We will be forced out of the MEand Afghanistan with our tails between our legs and Iran will control all the oil.
Unless the Iranian leadership is deranged which I do not believe it is why would Israel be attacked?
Certain retaliation would follow immediately and Iran would be a wasteland.
Europe is well conditioned to submission and appeasement. Iran seems to be building up Syria to be a fall guy by egging it on to attack Israel. How many days would Syria last against the IDF? 6 or maybe 16 at the most.
We are the target of Iran’s power politics not Israel . That is a classic diversion . The Western media falls for it every time. Iran will sacrifice the Palastinians without any second thoughts.
It may well be safer in Israel than in Vienna or Rome or Paris or even London
I do believe the Iranian leadership to be deranged. Ahmadinajad is a believer in the return of the 12th Iman after the world descends into chaos. So in some ways he would welcome an Israeli nuclear response.
A standard rhetorical question in the HYS columns is, “Why are you pressing on Iran’s nukes when Israel yadda-yadda-yadda”? My reply is, “Why are you not worried by nuclear weapons in the hands of India, Pakistan and North Korea”? The answer is clear of all the countries inside and outside the Non Proliferation Treaty only Iran is considered mad enough to use its nuclear arsenal. They are mad enough not to be worried about M.A.D. :'(
To add to my previous post. If Syria were to attack Israel this would give the excuse for Iran to initiate offensive action against the west in Iraq and elsewhere. Support by Iran for Syria would possibly be token only the main offensive would be directed against the West. I could be wrong but things don’t add up any other way.
The history of the Hurva synagogue:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=170971
Catherine Ashton to visit Gaza
You have to read the first section to see the worst of cut-and-paste journalism. It jumps from Gaza to Russia to Hilary Clinton and indirect talks without ever indicating that Hamas will not be involved in those talk, even if they take place. Then bizarely to the EU is the largest contributor of aid to the Palestinians. As is the BBC’s practise it ignores the border Egypt has with Gaza but blames Israel for refusing admittance to foreign officials. Actually I can’t think of even one instance when this has happened.
Still it is the picture choice that first caught my eye. It shows a man in orange overalls waving two flags. There is no logical connection between the caption: Israel’s blockade of Gaza has left thousands in poverty or the headline: EU foreign chief Catherine Ashton to visit Gaza stripand the AFP photograph. Who chooses what caption to be used or do the BBC subeditors write the caption and later put any picture close-at-hand into placeholders?
Re-BBC’s campaign to get Turkey into E.U.: No mention of this by BBC online:
“Turkey threatens to expel 100,000 Amenians over genocide row”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/7465701/Turkey-threatens-to-expel-100000-Armenians-over-genocide-row.html
Of course, Labour’s Gordon Brown and David Miliband, who are undertaking their mass immigration plan for the Islamization of Britain, have the full support of the BBC in campaigning to get 75 million Turks into the E.U.
Check before you post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8572934.stm
I saw that Sky News are reporting a lethal rocket attack on Israel but not seen it on the BBC. It is however mentioned as a mere detail in this piece of Ashton spin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8573715.stm
“Israel targeted by Gaza rockets as Ashton visits”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/7472253/Israel-targeted-by-Gaza-rockets-as-Ashton-visits.html
Yet again, check before you post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8574138.stm
Yet again, check before you censor, BBC.
You’re right: the BBC did mention it, both in the report to which you’ve linked as well as the other story. As I pointed out on the open thread, that report has a trifecta of bias. This one has only the usual ghoulish body count bias.
The BBC reports how many “Palestinians” have been killed, yet there is no demarcation between “militants” or Hamas fighters and civilians. As far as the reader knows, all Palestinians killed are innocent civilians. Lumping them all together like this is dishonest, yet it’s standard BBC editorial policy to do so. This is bias, and further unfairly demonizes Israel.
Goes to show you must never assume based on past performance. Thank you for this invaluable service to the site Paulo. I’ll check out the report later when I’ve time and do a comparison.
The sharp contrast between the BBC Report and the Telegraph one was this from the BBC:
“The man, who is in his 30s, is the first person to be killed by rocket fire in southern Israel since the Israeli campaign in Gaza last year. Over the same period, 88 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in a mixture of Israeli military operations and border clashes, according to the United Nations.”
As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the BBC dont give a breakdown of terrorist and collateral casualties, it would ruin their clear intention to make the reader think that for every Israeli civilian the Palestinians intentionally kill the Israelis intentionally kill 88 Palestinian civilians. The most patent and obscene anti-semitism for anyone with eyes to read and a brain to think.
This was also pretty cute:-
“Rocket fire into Israel has continued since the end of Operation Cast Lead, but there has been less than before the incursion.”
Trying to make the reader think that the ‘Gaza incursion’ was just wanton bloodletting that had neglible effect. As memory serves, as many rockets were fired into Israel the year before the incursion (8,000) than in the preceding 7-8 years. Clearly, the Israeli action to stop this has been spectacularly succesful, with only sporadic attacks now launched. The BBC are very fond of figures, they dont like quoting this one. It’s not part of the propaganda game they’re playing. Israel has threatened to hit back hard for this and I hope they do. Israel is not going to go back to living in air raid shelters again and suffering the panic and terror of constant air raid warnings. I’m sure the BBC would love that to happen. Bet they’d dump some Zyklon B in the air raid shelters if they could.
Paolo, I was referring to the BBC’s tv news ‘service’ which failed to cover the story this afternoon (I watched for 1 hour) despite being prominently featured on SkyNews at the same time.
Rocket firing at Israel is clearly not grounds for a crisis in E.U./Hamas relations.
Two more articles that set out the situation from the pro Israel viewpoint, the one that the BBC does not permit the viewer to hear.
Without having a chance to consider the other side of the argument, how can balance possibly be achieved?
The first is from Honest Reporting, which is aimed at media reporting of the I/P conflict. There is much more to this latest incident than the media would have us think.
The second is an article by Melanie Phillips, who, by defending Israel with eloquence and clarity, gets the disparaging nickname “mad Mel” so that it’s easier for by all and sundry to dismiss everything that she says.
Melanie is meticulous; the BBC is biased.
BBC and the Middle East: ignoring the Muslim victimisation of Christians in Egypt –
“Egyptian cops arrest 13 Copts — the victims of attack by Islamic supremacists“
What does the BBC correspondent in Cairo, Christan Fraser, do all day? He is very reluctant to criticise the activities of Muslim groups, and the Egyptian government, against Christians and Jews.
For a British version of this mind your own business cartoon, there’s always the British Overseas territories. The fourteen British territories are Anguilla, the British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), the Turks and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus.
Of course if we were willing to go little further back, in the spirit of this cartoon there’s always Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.