On BBC Radio world service yesterday Jon Donnison reported Ban Ki-moon’s depressing reaction to his Gaza visit. Somewhere along the line someone has used the word ‘medieval’ in connection with Gaza, language modelled on Michael Buerk’s iconic ‘Scene of Biblical Proportions’ speech.
This emotive word must have appealed to the BBC; it appeared again and again in various news bulletins.
Jon Donnison’s report contained the parts of Mr. Ban’s statement that were critical of Israel with particular emphasis on Israel’s denial of permission to import concrete and the continuing state of disrepair of Palestinian houses.
A news bulletin that was broadcast immediately afterwards included the bit in Mr. Ban’s speech about recognising Israel’s need for security.
The juxtaposition of these two reports delivered a perfect example of bias by omission. The exclusion from Jon Donnison’s report of the only bit in Mr. Ban’s statement that was vaguely supportive of Israel was highlighted by its inclusion in the news bulletin that came next.
By ignoring the matter of security for Israel, Jon Donnison’s report exaggerated Mr. Ban’s already biased condemnation of Israel and provided a fairly typical example of the way the BBC’s reporting meddles with public opinion.
Another small but subliminally emotive trick was the ambiguous sentence “Israel only allows in limited humanitarian aid.”
That could either mean Israel cruelly deprives Palestinians of sustenance by only letting in some of the vital humanitarian aid, or, with the addition of a comma or two, it could mean that it lets in vital humanitarian aid but nothing more; nearer to the truth I think.
***
Robin Shepherd invites readers to suggest a way forward.
Most contributors realise that unless Israel is confident of going it entirely alone, without outside support of any description, they need urgently to address ‘getting the message across.’
That would necessitate a massive change of direction from the BBC.
Firstly to allow the public access to full and fair information.
Secondly, to put a stop to interviewers behaving like adversarial inquisitors when they’re trying to bring forth vital and illuminating information from someone like the mayor of Jerusalem. Justin Webb was positively discourteous this morning. Who does he think he is? Jeremy Paxman?
I would have no objection to Justin Webb putting the other side of the argument to Nir Barkat, but first he must fully comprehend the background, get the facts straight and allow the discussion the breathing space it needed.
Robin Shepherd’s newest post links to Charles Krauthammer’s JPost article. If Justin Webb were to read that article before jumping in with his inquisitorial attacks, he might be equipped to conduct an interview with an Israeli spokesperson.
The power of telly is such that Delia Smith only needed to make a passing reference to some ingredient or other to start a stampede at the supermarket. If the BBC were to give more air time to people like Douglas Murray, and commission Robin Shepherd to make a documentary or two it might go some way to undo what has been done.
But people are being kept ignorant, and the puzzle is whether it’s through malevolence or stupidity.
I heard Justin Webb’s interview with the Jerusalem mayor. Once the facts were straightened out, Webb’s only real point was that building these new homes sends a bad message, doesn’t make Israel look too good. I can’t really argue with that, and have no problem with him saying it. The mayor sounded too slippery, and Webb had to nail him down on the issue before he actually said what he should have stated in the first place: that the Palestinian homes had been built in the park illegally. If the park already existed legally, and the houses were built there, then the BBC had the facts wrong and demonized Israel accordingly.
However, something very important came out of this interview, and I’m sure it wasn’t ol’ Justin’s intention: it has finally been stated on air that Jews are not permitted – by law – to worship inside the Temple Mount, which is really the only holy place in all of Judaism. Those words have never passed Beeboid lips, and they never admit that only Jews among all religious groups in the world have this restriction, even when they are supposedly the nasty oppressors in Jerusalem and do whatever they want. Naturally, they ran out of time and the segment had to end there.
I absolutely agree with your summary of the Today interview. But I would add that Justin’s approach to the illegal building in the park was reminiscent of Paxman’s Michael Howard moment. “Yes or no. Are you or are you not…”
And I suppose nobody could help the lack of time. Or could they.
Contrast Justin’s tone with the respectful way he spoke to Sir Hugh Orde. ….(“Sir Hugh was also critical of the Conservative plan for elected police chiefs…”)
I didn’t intend the smiley, but it kind of fits.
Like I said, the mayor was being too evasive on that one. He made himself and his side look bad, and I have no problem with Webb trying to get an answer out of him. If somebody says the other guy doesn’t have his facts right, he’d better start stating what they actually are rather than skipping right over to the sales pitch.
I just think the mayor was a little slow to directly rebut Webb’s lies; when Webb accused Israel of demolishing Palestinian homes “to make way for a park” the mayor should have instantly informed Webb that the “park” has always been there, he attempted it with the analogy of Hyde Park but was interrupted.
The “park” in question is King David’s Garden where it is believed David wrote many of his poems and psalms – you know, that same King David referred to in the Christmas Carol “Once in Royal David’s city…”!
I admit there came a point where I actually shouted at the computer… talking about the 1,600 homes Webb says, “but don’t you see how it’s sending the wrong message?”
To which I shouted, NO Webb, and the rest of you bastards at the BBC – it’s YOU who are sending “the wrong message”!
The mayor wasn’t just slow: he was obfuscating. Not cool, not helpful. He didn’t perform well at all in my view. Justin had every right to push him to come out with a straight answer. As I replied to sue, if he’s going to say Justin doesn’t have his facts right, he’d better spell them out himself before I’m going to take the rest of his case seriously.
And I do think it sends the wrong message, and I have no problem with ol’ Justin saying as much. Doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong, of course. But Jews need to be aware of appearances. Sucks, yeah. But it’s true.
I didn’t know that was the park in question. Pretty cool, if there’s archaeological evidence to back that up. My point, though, was that if it was a (legally) pre-established park (regardless of any historical relevance), and the Palestinians built on it anyway, then there’s no Israeli nastiness in knocking those houses down, as ol’ Justin suggested. But he didn’t present it that way. He came at the issue from the standard BBC editorial position: Israel is in the wrong. That was my point.
OK, I’ve just heard the interview myself. Every time the Mayor of Jerusalem tried to illustrate his point – 3 times I counted – Justin Webb weighed in ‘not giving him breathing space’. In my view, Webb was intentionally trying to make it look as if the Mayor wasn’t answering his question. On three occasions the Mayor only got about 3 words out before Webb was hectoring him. Its a favourite BBC tactic, stop the guy from answering the question by pretending his not answering it. Its the TODAY programme’s tour de force: Feed prompts to give platforms to people whose views you like; harangue and harry people whose views you dont like. Justin Webb’s example was quite mild compared to others, but pernicious nonetheless.
Israeli Spokesmen should be free to answer questions in exactly the same way as anyone else. Webb was on a mission to – well, not stoke up, because they’re already stoked up – but keep well stoked the embers of anti-Jewish hatred by spreading the lie that the Jews were knocking down Arab homes gratuitously and if they weren’t then they’re still wrong because they’re Jews. Its perfectly reasonable that the Mayor should want to lead with the comparison with what we would do if people illegally built houses on Hyde Park.
When you deliberately treat people unfairly, thats not down to stupidity, that’s malevolence.
Too slippery? How slippery are you allowed to be? Justin was trying to trap him into admitting that Israel was maliciously demolishing Pali houses whilst constructing ‘houses for Jews.’ I don’t think avoiding being trapped was slippery.
Any slipperiness was because he was he was forced to take a defensive position, like Michael Howard in the infamous Paxman incident. Demanding yes or no answers is a bullying tactic.
Anyone attempting to get Israel’s message across is now at an almost insurmountable disadvantage. How can anyone overcome myths that have have become established as facts without looking a bit slippery?
Israel’s most reasonable spokesperson Mark Regev faces cynicism and suspicion when he tries to explain Israel’s behaviour.
This isn’t an argument for or against settlements, house building, snubs, timing, or American relations with Israel. It’s about the BBC’s demonisation of Israel, irreversible unless there’s a fundamental change.
(I wrote the above before I’d seen Bio’s post)
I quite agree that any Israeli spokesperson must now be double double careful because of PR. But what sort of impartiality is that?
Sometimes there really is no point. It is received (especially European libleft ) opinion that Israel has no right to be in Jerusalem. If you mention the wars of 1948 1967 and the complex history of Jerusalem their eyes just glaze over. They are no longer interested in history but in a cause their emotions can feed off.
Israel will never change this mindset. If the Israelis want to survive then they must trust in themselves and their courage.
Mind you throwing out the BBC wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Yes, I agree that David Preiser has nailed this one, except that I wouldn’t say Barkat was “slippery.” More like a bit slow to present the important facts first.
Re malevolence or stupidity it’s generally a mix of the two with the BBC. Webb is such an ignoramus (I saw him interview Obama and it was truly cringeworthy) that his stupidity almost totally eclipses any standard BBC malevolence he might direct against the Je…er, Israelis. He diesn’t have the knowlede or the ability to approach Barkat with anything but the typical lefty PC tunnel vision.
I heard on non-BBC news that Ban Ki Moon praised the Israeli efforts in Haiti. No doubt that little bit of info was the first to be swept aside by the BBC in its indecent hast to demonise Israel.
and I’m sure it wasn’t ol’ Justin’s intention: it has finally been stated on air that Jews are not permitted – by law – to worship inside the Temple Mount, which is really the only holy place in all of Judaism. Those words have never passed Beeboid lips, and they never admit that only Jews among all religious groups in the world have this restriction, even when they are supposedly the nasty oppressors in Jerusalem and do whatever they want.
David why is it you neglected to mention that it is Israel who has barred jews from entering the temple mount. And why also have you chosen to not mention that many Rabbis insist that no jew must visit it, indeed it is halahic obligation to not enter it because it is such a holy site. From your comment, the inference seems to suggest that the prohibition is merely to appease muslims. Clearly not the case if you had bothered to read up on it. Either you did read up on it and neglected to mention the prohibiton from the Rabbinical authorities in order to score a political point, or you were simply ignorant of it. Which is it?
“… the prohibition is merely to appease muslims…”
Is that all? So what do you think would happen if Israel lifted that bar and allowed Jews to go to the Temple Mount freely?
Actually they do, escorted by Israeli police, for their protection.
It’s not really Israel that bars Jews, it’s the “Waqf”, the Islamic body responsible for the mosque.
Jews are barred from praying or even carrying holy books on the Temple Mount esplanade, banned by the Waqf.
Meanwhile Muslims are allowed to pray at Jewish holy sites that the Muslims claim to “revere” too, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, and others that they have desecrated, that were presumably not so revered by the Imans.
Republican Stones,
I take one part of your point – nearly. I’m happy to admit that there’s a contingent of rabbis who claim that Jews are forbidden to worship on the Temple Mount. However, they’re forbidding it for reasons entirely unrelated to the excuses others use to claim that Jews have no historical ties to the region, are merely white European interlopers, etc. I’m pretty sure you know what I mean there. If not, I’d be happy to explain it to you elsewhere. In any case, that point of yours is irrelevant to my position.
As for your statement that Israel is responsible for barring Jews from worshipping there, well, let’s be honest: why is that, do you reckon? Obviously it’s because the whole world would freak out if they knocked down an important mosque like that. The mosque existed long before Jews were able to claim their homeland again, so there’s no possible way the Israelis could have knocked it down and done a third incarnation of the Temple. I won’t go so far as to suggest that Jews might possibly have the tiniest amount of respect for someone else’s religion because I assume you wouldn’t believe it. In any case, there are religious and secular/political reasons for this, but I’m going to bet you already know that, so I won’t spell them out here (also, Echo is a bitch with word count). There’s no dishonesty or anything in my not mentioning it, as you seem to suggest.
As is typical for a defender of the indefensible, you also seriously mischaracterize my statement.
From your comment, the inference seems to suggest that the prohibition is merely to appease muslims
Wrong. My implication is that the BBC neglects to mention that Jews aren’t allowed to worship there because the Beeboids don’t think it’s important, or that they believe that Jews don’t actually deserve the right. You’ve inferred incorrectly there. And it makes the rest of your accusation totally inaccurate.
RS,
Do tell who which group of people would be rioting of jews stepped insite the temple mount?
Bet its not jews!
Mailman
In psychological terms the Arab incitement about Al Aksa is ‘projection’ i.e. accusing others about what they do themselves or would like to do given a chance. There are so many instances of Musims vandalising, destroying or appropriating holy places or places of non Muslim historical value for ther own use it’s hard to know when to stop listing. This is in recent memory, in places Israel relinquished e.g. Jericho but also in other places, as Turkey, Afghanistan and even Saudi Arabia.
One woul like to think cynical newsmen would not be so willing to broadcast the projection, but one would be wrong.
For these ‘cynical newsmen’ its their projection as well.
From a post about Baroness Ashton’s comments on Gaza. “Silent Correction” Elder of Ziyon
“The problem […] is with the vast majority of EU and other officials who believe the lies they have been fed by the Arabs and their supporters over the years. They believe that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace. They believe that the Palestinians’ demand to make Jerusalem Judenrein is an expression of nationalism, not bigotry.
They believe that another Arab state will solve the problems and that terror will cease as long as Israel gives up everything being demanded from them. They believe that most of the victims in Gaza were women and children and that Israel is more reckless with civilian lives than other democracies have been in other wars.
They believe that people are dying in Iraq because of Palestine. They believe that the Old City of Jerusalem is an historic Arab capital and that it wasn’t all but ignored by the Muslim between the Crusades and Zionism. They believe that “historic Palestine” adhered to the borders of the British Mandate. They believe that there has been a unique “Palestinian” people and culture that are much more than a mere hundred years old. (emphasis added.)
Israel has failed, miserably, for allowing such lies to become accepted truths among these intelligentsia. Ashton is just a symptom of a much greater illness.”
Radical radiotherapy treatment for the BBC. Urgent.
***
Misinformation and Distortion.
A Shocking Example of How NY Times Coverage Buries Middle East Reality; Find the Four Gigantic Errors.
A fascinating article by Barry Rubin that explores the way the media misrepresents the middle east, leaving out half the story to sanitise some unpalatable truths.
In this case it’s the New York Times, but I.M.H.O. the M.O. fits the B.B.C. to a T.
Mr. J. Bowen, who attempts to lead the BBC’s pro-Hamas, anti-Israel campaign (from inside Israel, and from the best hotels, paid for by British BBC licencepayers- why does Israel put up with his insulting presence?), has his usual propaganda line today on British expulsion of Israeli diplomat, but unfortunately for Labour and the BBC:
“A Brighter Side of Britain shows itself as scandal over Mossad fails to materialise”
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/a-brighter-side-of-britain-shows-itself-as-scandal-over-mossad-use-of-uk-passports-curiously-fails-to-materialise/
Perhaps Israel should expel BBC’s Mr. Bowen in a tit-for-tat exchange?
“An Israeli diplomat expelled? But look who the British government won’t get rid of”
(by Douglas Murray)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100031077/an-israeli-diplomat-expelled-but-look-who-the-british-government-wont-get-rid-of/
No doubt the BBC will be keen to pass on this information to its Labour chums.
An antidote to BBC’s pro-Hamas, anti-Israel propaganda:
“Israel as Czechoslovakia”
(by Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5861291/israel-as-czechoslovakia.thtml
The mosque existed long before Jews were able to claim their homeland again,
David, you are aware are you not that judaism has a history of conversion and proselyzation far beyond the levant. So for you to claim world Jewry are just reclaiming their homeland is both erroneous and quite naive.
I won’t go so far as to suggest that Jews might possibly have the tiniest amount of respect for someone else’s religion because I assume you wouldn’t believe it.
Indeed I would, but I have also seen the effects of jews who do not have respect for others religions. And I take it you infer that all muslims are disrespectful of others religions.
s is typical for a defender of the indefensible, you also seriously mischaracterize my statement.
Andpray tell what is indefensible?
My implication is that the BBC neglects to mention that Jews aren’t allowed to worship there because the Beeboids don’t think it’s important, or that they believe that Jews don’t actually deserve the right. You’ve inferred incorrectly there. And it makes the rest of your accusation totally inaccurate.
You want the BBC to report that Jews are not permitted inside th Temple Mount, and left at that the inference is because the Muslims won’t let them. You didn’t say that you think the BBC should mention the Rabbinical authorities prohibition. So therefore the politcal games you seek to play are thus laid bare. And why should the BBc have a belief as reagard why anyone should have a right to worship somewhere? Surely this site is about the bias of the BBC, well it seems you think the BBC should indeed show bias and give an opinion instead of simply reporting. Bit of a foopah there David !