Anyone catch the BBC in full anti-Israel mode this morning on “Today”? I though Humphyrs was particularly hysterical during his 810am rant with the Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor – at one point denying that knives were weapons. (“You can get them in you kitchen drawer”) Evan Davies did all he could @ 8.47am to confirmt that the blockade of Gaza was illegal, that the boarding of the ships was illegal and that the use of force against the iron-bar wielding knife stabbing Jihadist-enablers was not “proportional.”
The BBC has entirely failed in its duty to examine the other side of this story. It has wilfully sanitised the role of the IHH in this episode of Jihad-enabling, it has canonised the “activists” on the ships, and of course it has demonised Israel. The BBC refuses to provide any balance when it comes to covering Israel and as such is nothing more than a propaganda arm for Palestinians. Shame on all BBC journalists involved, they lie in the gutter,,,,
at one point denying that knives were weapons.
Which is why we had the Labour government boasting about how stringent they had made British law AGAINST carrying knives.
Which is why the government spends millions on anti-knife carrying ad campaigns.
Which is why there’s semi-hysteria every couple of months following a spate of KNIFE ATTACKS.
Which is why the police shot dead a man a few years back carrying a cermonial sword. (You know, a BIG knife.)
Which is why — and so on.
All because getting stabbed to death is no biggie! And if you have a gun, what the hell, it would be “disproportionate” to shoot the bastard trying to kill you with his knife.
pace Sean Connery: I guess the Palestinian entities brought a knife to a gun fight. Dumb psychos, as usual.
There is a photo of the Swiss knives used by the peaceniks on this page:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897136,00.html
(click on middle thumbnail)
I wonder how Mr. Humphries would defend himself against such fearsome weapons?
Yup. I have a butter knife just like that black handled cutlass.
It’s at times like this that I ask myself
WHAT WOULD MOHAMMED DO?
David Vance, I, too, heard the interview with Ron Prossor and found Humphrey’s conduct unconscionable. It didn’t help that Jeremy Bowen was asked for his opinion shortly afterwards. You would think that, after Bowen was formally censured for his anti-Israel bias he’d be left severely out of it, wouldn’t you?
However, it seemed to me that Evan Davies, the poor mutt who interviewed the maritime law expert, was dazed somewhat. I remember, however, that said law expert said that Israel had broken no laws and he seemed equivocal about proportionality. That round went to Israel, I think
Having heard Evan Davis asking yesterday, (as if it were a profound, unfathomable question), why there is a rule against MPs’ claiming “rental” allowances to give to their partners or relatives, I think he is a bit of a dope. So don’t be surprised if he is dazed and confused at the mention of maritime law.
Barbara
Yes, I felt the same – Davies did not get the responses he wanted 🙂
Whalid Shoebat (a repentent former Palestinian entity terrorist) has some interesting commentary and an appeal:
Dear Friends
For all those that wish to help Israel in the PR war we need you to help now. The Muslims are trying to use the Gaza Flotilla incident to exploit in the propagnada war against Israel.
The Gaza Flotilla was a deliberate attempt to provoke Israel and the intention was to “kill Jews” in a martydom operation. We have provided a link that was translated by palwatch.org from Al Jazeera TV just before the operation took place as well as another link of video which shows the beating of soldiers which forced Israel to take forceful action.
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2323
http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk
I’ve yet to hear if there were any off duty beeboids on any of those ships. I really hope so.
Do you mean proportionality? If anything is out of proportion it was the Israeli action yesterday. To complain that the treatments by the media of those who acted disproportionately by killing people in international waters is out of proportion is a tad hypocritical. Having said that two wrongs do not make a right, but I guess its all down to “proportion” and which fault one sees as the bigger transgression. If Israel acted out disproportionality then what right have they or their supporters to demand anyone give them what they refused others, namely fair treatment?
I’d love to see how you would react if three guys armed with knives tried to stab you to death while you had a shotgun.
Maybe you’d die. After all, don’t want to hurt a bastard trying to kill you. “Proportionality”, and all.
But Jack isn’t that what British householders have to face in many instances if their home or person is threatened for money/possessions, and didn’t we witness the imprisonment of an Indian man for what I would call reasonable defence? Due to public outcry he was freed. This is about proportionality, and the use of reasonable force.
So that’s no answer from you then.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you’re islamist sympathiser), israeli commandos do not feel restricted by the same politically correct agenda against self-defence, that the average british householder is oppressed by.
Killing members of a murderous lynch-mob is totally proportional & reasonable.
Only a spineless bleeding-heart would disagree…. oh sorry, that looks like you, that does.
The British response to the Iranian capture of our RN crews not once but twice and the governments diktat that on no account should the RN defend themselves.
That ended really well didnt it?
The six men captured at the Iraq finance ministry, the SAS could have saved them but were refused permission by a government that didnt want negative publicity, five died.
The recent kidnap of UK couple by isalmist pirates, the marines could have shot dead all the pirates but the government thought that would have been disproportionate, those two Brits may die soon.
John Humphries forgot all that, somehow the connection was never made that when dealing with islamists its far better to respond with overwhelming force.
One of the reasons that the British were forced into a humiliating Iraq retreat was the insistence by the government that they use kid gloves and proportionality, it never works except in the childish minds of the leftist yuman rites peacenik white flag wavers.
The yuman rites newlabour regime poured on the humiliation of our forces, a stain they will carry for years to come. There is one golden rule when dealing with terrorists, shoot them in the head and then ask questions later.
“Due to public outcry he was freed.”
No, it wasn’t. It was the judges decision, not the ‘public’. You might also want to take a look at that report again because I can assure you that he did not use ‘reasonable force’ as you put it.
And you speak with forked tongue Mr. Gosh. There is no such thing as a ‘public outcry’ – unless you mean a lot of journalists reporting said incident in their newspapers.
I’ve looked for the “public outcry” office in my local area time and time again but never found it. As you know where it is, please direct me, there is an awful lot of crying I would like to make public.
Gosh,
Your words sound very righteous. But what would have been an acceptable outcome to you? When you talk about “proportionality”, you seem to be saying that a certain number of Israeli soldiers needed to die before the rest were allowed to take action. Or is that all of the Israeli soldiers should have rolled over and died? If you are going to bring math concepts into the argument, you must deal with the logical conclusions.
Please explain the logic behind your position of “proportionality”.
Gosh is a Beeboid troll. His job is to take the contrary stance and get a rise out of you. Best ignored.
If I may?
The concept of ‘proportionality’ a constructe method of neutering the offensive capability of security forces in excersising their duties.
It has almost ruined the reputation of the Royal Navy, a lawyer now watches over every aspect of the armed forces eager to pick up what is termed potential legal breeches of the human rights convention.
In reality this has meant that our forces cannot opperate at their peak performance, it has been a disaster that has led to the needless deaths of soldiers and humiliating scandals like the retreat from Iraq, the ipod surrender fiasco and others.Our enemies love the concept of proportionality, their domestic supporters are working to see it expanded.
David, is your only problem with my comment that it sounds righteous? I was suggesting no such thing re Israeli soldiers, nor was the concept of proportionality my contribution, its right at the top of the post, and what the post implies. And further I don’t see it as math, I see it as balance in behaviour, and in treatment by media outlets. If a person behaves disporportionately, (out of balance) they can hardly cry out for it, nor indeed can their supporters.
My words righteous or not are my opinion and I stand over them, the suggestion about death of soldiers came entirely from you and a surprise suggestion to me.
regards.
Gosh,
Please define “disproportionately”. My problem with your comment is that it is entirely based on this concept, yet it’s entirely vague. Indeed, you’ve already wiggled away from from defining it in your reply to me by shifting to the equally meaningless “balance in behavior”.
Without defining your terms, your position that Israel is wrong because they acted “disproportionately” is meaningless. Words have meaning, and your argument rests on your use of language. In order for me to understand and possibly be convinced by your argument, important terms must be clearly defined. Your moral stance seems to be based on this concept, so you need to actually explain it before I can understand you.
You take issue with my definition of “disproportionality”, so please provide your own.
David (USA) I don’t need to define it. The title of the post is ‘it’s all about proportionately’ (porportionality). It has not been defined by the author of the post so why should anyone else define something that ought to have been done by the author or is it that it must by default be a given? If you wish to engage in semantics ask David Vance what he means by the word and we can all go from there as it is I’ve already given a broad concept of my working analysis.
PR (proportional representation) is seen as a more fair way of representation, and gives a better balance to the representation of a society, hence my bringing in of the word balance.
What Israel did was not proportionate to the threat posed by these groups on the ship. Israel can make life very difficult even for her own supporters sometimes. She has, by this action left herself in a bad way diplomatically and in world public opinion.
Gosh,
“Israel can make life very difficult even for her own supporters sometimes. She has, by this action left herself in a bad way diplomatically and in world public opinion.”
You’re quite right there, but hey, what’s new?
“What Israel did was not proportionate to the threat posed by these groups on the ship. “
Here is where you’re all wrong. “What Israel did.”
Previously you said:
“…..those who acted disproportionately by killing people in international waters is out of proportion.”
First, the issue of international waters is a red herring. That’s been thoroughly dealt with on air, and is, at best, a grey area. Some say it’s perfectly legal to intercept shipping in international or any other waters where there is reason to believe the intention is to breach a blockade. Some, like Gerry Adams who’s on TV right now, just carry on saying it’s illegal. Because he says so.
So what did Israel do? It attempted to enforce the established procedure in order to inspect the cargo of vessels bound for enemy territory. It erroneously believed it would meet unarmed, if enthusiastic, resistance.
The reason for the blockade is to ensure that Hamas is unable to freely equip itself with the wherewithal to attack Israel, as is their wont.
Israel is in a state of war with Hamas, an Islamist terrorist outfit which refuses to renounce its goal, which is to annihilate Israel. The best Hamas has had to offer so far has been a temporary Hudna, or ceasefire.
In comparison with the threat of annihilation and the reality of terror, you say that sending Israeli marines to take control of a ship to enforce the blockade was disproportionate.
On TV yesterday we witnessed, uninterrupted, the testimony from an earnest young lady, who despite all the video evidence that showed precisely the opposite, she swore that the flotilla consisted only of peaceful unarmed civilians who intended nothing more than to bring humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.
If the Israelis were gullible enough to believe the fallacy that their intent was entirely peaceful, which was what she insisted they had constantly tried to assure the Israelis, so be it. They fell into a trap.
The ensuing deaths were regrettable, but as they are regarded as martyrdom by the majority of their co-religionists, should we get into any more of a state of anguish over them than over the many unremarked deaths inflicted by Muslim upon Muslim violence?
I suppose you could say that any death at all is disproportionate unless it is in direct retaliation for another death. Is that what you mean?
Finally, if someone was threatening to kill you and yours, wouldn’t you expect some sort of protection? From the police, say, or the armed forces? I should say so.
Gosh, you say that what Israel did was not proportionate to the danger posed by those on the ship. Either you’re denying the fact that the “activists” physically attacked the Israeli soldiers with the intent to kill them, or you think the soldiers should have died and not responded.
Which is it?
“David (USA) I don’t need to define (proportionately).”
“What Israel did was not proportionate to the threat posed by these groups on the ship…”
So yes, if you want to argue the toss here, you do need to define it as you think it was disproportionate.
But as you won’t I’ll define your response for you.
“Proportionality” means what you decide it means. That’s about it.
Well I don’t accept your definition. And neither do most of the posters here.
Why the fixation with this ‘international waters’ mumbo jumbo red herring?
What does it matter where the search took place? What do you think the RN was doing in the gulf searching out possible Iraq blockade runners? You remember the crybaby ipod fiasco of course.
No, the reason you UI terrorist enablers use that ‘international waters’ nonsense so much is that you are desperate to build up the evidence no matter how dubious, repeating the words ‘international waters’ is simply part of the word fog isnt it?
What is proportinate about tryring to beat soldiers to death with iron bars, how do you respond to a strong man in a rage trying to stab you with a bloody great nasty kitchen knife? Gilead Shallit will confirm that being taken hostage by islamist freaks is not going to end well, can you imagine what fate the IDF soldiers would face if they had been captured? There are no rules of war chivalry and Queensbury rules with the islamists, if a IDF soldier gets caught by islamists its going to end in tears.
Proportionality? I would shoot anyone trying to gut me or my friends with a butcher knife but dont let the inconvenient details spoil your fabricated outrage eh?
‘Gosh’, I’ll leave you lost in the labyrinthe of your twisted logic.
Do you mean ‘labyrinth’? I guess your leaving means you can’t keep up.
Gaza-Based Yemeni Professor Abd Al-Fatah Nu’man prays for martyrdom.
What a tosser Humphreys is.
The Mavi Marmara appears to have a pretty sizeable kitchen (galley?) drawer:
John Humphrey’s was aghast with Ron Prosser, saying we in Britain get attacked by terrorists , but we don’t go boarding ships killing people, a rather odd statement, when our soldiers have probably killed more Muslims than the IDF have. Humphrey’s also said to Prosser why did you not wait until the ship was in port to check the cargo, which port was he thinking of, the ship was heading towards Gaza.
Yes, I couldn’t understand why the ambassador didn’t pull Humphrys up on the terrorist analogy, suggesting the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan might care to disagree.
I heard the ridiculous claim too, how could the IDF check the fleet in harbour?
Badly informed OR finding supporting evidence to confirm his own prejudice?
I can see hamas allowing the IDF to set up a customs point at the Gaza port.
Harrumphrys has being getting away with his bias for so long now he is no longer aware of how ridiculous it makes him sound.
I’m not sure what was the more preposterous statement. John Humphrys denying metal bars and knives were weapons or Jeremy Bowen deciding that the Israeli ambassador had said that only Israel was allowed to use violence.
What the ambassador said was that when violence was visited on the Israelis, the Israelis were entitled to use violence back. To take it the way Mr Bowen did is to suggest quite the reverse – namely that the protestors could expect to use violence with no retaliation.
Just as preposterous was Humphries saying (twice) that the IDF used “machine guns” against the “activists”.
Prossor should have pulled him up on that – the IDF were armed with side arms and paint ball guns!
I wonder what they’d say if Israel did respond ‘proportionately’ to every rocket fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza by . . . . firing one back.
You mean Israel never fired any rockets back, or had any incursions or blockaded and kept people in the worlds largest open air prison? The poor dears. Look I’ve no problem with Israel defending herself, but yesterday has left her isolated diplomatically and gave Hamas a huge PR coup.
A PR Coup? What kind of mangled logic do you Jew haters operate on?
Do you honestly believe that a savage little barbaric outfit like Hamas, could care a toss about their Public Relations?
Reading an anti-semitic leftie trying to be clever is one of life’s great amusements 😀
Isn’t planet Earth the largest open air prison?
I only caught the end of the Welsh Windbag’s ranting, which ended with the oh-so-predictable “What do you make of that, Jeremy Bowen?”. Who here needs to be told what Jezza Al-Bowen made of it?
Is that the BBC’s official viewpoint: that knives aren’t weapons.
Mmm, it wasn’t so long ago they believed the opposite judging by the hundreds of knife stories on its website!
News – South Yorkshire – Grieving mother in knife warning . Last updated: 10 Jun 2008
Knives are deadlier than guns, says the mother of a Sheffield man stabbed to death at a nightclub.. Knives are easier to get hold of and many more young people seem to be killed by them than guns.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7444467.stm
CBBC Newsround – Should courts be tougher on people who sell knives to kids?
Shopkeepers are getting away with selling knives to teenagers. The only knives that should be sold in shops should be cutlery.”
news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7520000/newsid…/7521300.stm
News – Health – Doctors’ kitchen knives ban call . Last updated: 26 May 2005
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.. The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
News – Leicester – More Knife detectors for Leicester centre
Leicester does not have a particular problem with knives and we are determined to make sure that it stays that way.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10201290.stm
News – Education – Crackdown on school indiscipline . Last updated: 18 Nov 2004
Powers to search for knives and force schools in England to take expelled pupils are among plans for tackling disruption..
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4021007.stm
All the commenters say on this thread is true but the Israelis do themselves no favours in parking only official spokesmen and the Israeli ambassador in front of the Today microphones. One reason is that, however good their English, it’s usually heavily accented which acts to prevent the clear relay of any nuanced remarks they make. More important though is that the Israeli governmet – as with any government including our own – has a number of balls in the air at any one time so it is constrained by other policy objectives from rounding on some of the other villains in this story.
For instance, the Israelis said little or nothing about the role of the Turkish government in all this. The Turks have, despite the secular nature of their constitution, become increasing Islamist and have been turning away from their policy of friendliness towards Israel. That Turkey connived in the set-up of this trap (which the Israelis fell right into) is fairly obvious. However, the Israelis have other fish to fry with Turkey: a wholesale media attack on Turkey would be counter-productive bearing those in mind. The instant “spontaneous” demonstrations all over the Moslem world – including Londonistan – point to a well-organised “response” mechanism. A pro-Israeli – or preferably, a genuinely impartial – non-governmental figure would be far better at getting across the Israeli version of events than offcial Israelis to whom the understandable response is generally “they would say that wouldn’t they”. In a perfect world, we would look to an authoritative Middle East Editor at the BBC to provide that kind of analysis. Unfortunately we have Bowen.
As an aside, Jews have a reputation for being cleverer than most of us. This belief is, I must say, contradicted by the endless PR battles the Israelis fight and lose. Israeli soldiers were attacked viciously by peaceful Hamas protestors but wasn’t this predictable? I understand the Israeli reaction but, and I know it’s easy for me to say and the Israelis are not as careless with lives as their opponents, a couple of Israeli soldiers battered to death with no Hamas casualties would have been a signal victory in the PR war. A withdrawal by the Israelis when they were attacked – helicopters can get people out as well as drop them in – would have been preferable and the Israelis could still have prevented landfall.
I agree with everything you say. But it doesn’t matter how clever you are if you are ignored.
john smith
True but it would be refreshing if someone gave Humphrys as good as s/he gets. Regev and the Israeli ambassador are never going to tell Humphrys home truths because they are (by profession and inclination, I guess) diplomats. Of course, Today would be reluctant to bring on anybody who might upset the “Palestinian=innocent victim, Israeli=Nazi” narrative but why should the Israelis play the BBC game?
Allow the terrorists to successfully repel an Israeli boarding and reach Gaza (how else could Israel stop them save sinking their boat, which you are clearly against?). I’m not going to second guess Israel on the decision they made to board. They clearly didn’t want loss of life of anyone on board, but the decision was forced upon them to take it. Good job too.
What you are suggesting would have been best to let happen would have been a huge filip to terrorist morale and encourage further terror throughout the world.
The unreality that lies at the root of the liberal elite’s attitude to Israel is an affront to reason.
Hamas, Iran and the rest have declared the destruction of Israel as the objective. Proportionality would presumably be irrelevant as Tel Aviv goes down in flames. What then would our elite say? Oh dear what a shame but they had it coming.
Israel is on it’s own and must trust in it’s army. Our liberal elite, desperate for a cause to give some meaning to their lives, has fastened itself like a parasite to the Palastinian cause and will never change.
Israel was alwys on a PR loser no matter what happened
once you get your head round the fact that the BBC default position is one of viceral hatred for all things Israeli and Jewish,you begin to understand the bile issuing forth from their anti semitic mouths
what I can’t get my head round is why so many people prop up this rotting corpse of left wing crap by paying a licence fee
Israel was alwys on a PR loser no matter what happened
I agree. Though they should try to be a bit cleverer at times.
Unfortunately Jews labour under a malignant anti-Semitism in this country that is always barely suppressed at the best of times, even amongst the so-called “intelligensia”. It’s just indisputable.
Great Britain has always had a high tolerance for dead Jews.
Always seems more bloodthirsty beating someones brains out with a metal bar than with a bullet.
The BBC is finally showing some of the video clips that show absolutely that there were murderous attacks by “peace activists” on individual Israeli soldiers as they landed on the vessel :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10199862.stm
(but it that clip they repeat the nonsense that the soldiers launched unprovoked attacks, citing the Palestinians. For goodness sake, in a very short article where the video tells the whole story, why add that nonsense in when it is obviously contradicted by the on-the-spot video. The BBC pushes the Palestinian narrative at every turn – but in the case of this short report it is ridiculous to anyone with eyes to see.
At least this report does not try to contradict the clear video evidence :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10200351.stm
but it contains the usual nonsense by Bowen and presents as unchallenged “fact” the UN claim that Gaza is only receiving one-quarter of what it needs.
…………….
I am glad the Islamist mob attacked the BBC offices in Manchester, it shows their true colours, their abhorrence of freedom of speech – although I have heard nothing about it on Radio 4, maybe because they do not want to give the impression that resorting to instant violence is the raison d’etre of so many of these people.
There’s a much better than average report from the BBC here.
That repoprt is by Paul Reynolds, who used to visit this site and seemed a fairly balanced guy most of the time. Luckily he does not appear to come under editorial control by Jeremy Bowen – so he can tell the truth.
John, I think you’ll find that was Nick Reynolds.
Sue
Yes, Nick Reynolds posted here. But so did Paul Reynolds, who I believe is more senior
I didn’t see that. Perhaps it was before my time. Was he reasonable? I wish some of these people would come back. I’m curious to find out why they say what they say.
How come the BBC failed to show the on-the-spot videos of the Israeli soldiers being bludgeoned until today ? We could all access those same video clips yesterday. Suppressio veri ?
And had Humphrys and the Today staff seen them ? If they had seen them – why did they not report that video evidence clearly showed that the soldiers were murderously attacked.
The videos proved instantly the Israeli case that the soldiers acted in self-defence. The BBC should have posted those videos as soon as they became available – we should be allowed to make up our own minds, not have people like Humphrys and Bowen standing between us and the truth.
Meanwhile – still not a jot of background info from the BBC on the rabidly Islamist anti-Israel nature of IHH which organised the flotilla. This has been the biggest BBC story for 2 days, they KNOW all about the IHH. But under Bowen’s editorial control, the nature of the IHH is being hidden.
Again – a clear instance of suppressio veri (hide the truth)
I see that the parent body of the IHH has been classified as a terrorist organisation not only by Israel but also by the US :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla
Of course the BBC are not telling us that. Because they are not telling us anything about the IHH. And that can only be deliberate bias by omission of key facts.
WHY DON’T THE TURKS LOOK AFTER TURKISH HUMAN RIGHTS BEFORE TAKING CARE OF OTHERS?
Just a passing thought, Turkey seems to have quite a big human rights problem of its own. Do these peaceniks think nothing of their own people?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/04/girl-buried-alive-turkey
According to that article there are 200 cases of “honour” killing a year in the country. Imagine the court of world opinion if Israel were slaughtering 200 Muslim girls from Gaza *every* year.
Badgers with TB, Palestinian provocateurs, millionair socialists, they’re all plucky underdogs, to the nonces at the bbc !
Anyone paying a licence fee should be ashamed of themselves !!!
The BBC has provided space on its website for readers to complain that the Israeli naval raid off Gaza was “piracy” because it took place in international waters. A rather better use of the page would have been a piece informing its readers of the position in international law.
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3110
Last week the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a very full account of the volumes of food, medical and other supplies that flow each week into Gaza.
Bowen and his team will have seen that report. It puts the lie to any idea that the supplies on the flotilla were desperately needed, it puts the lie to all the UN propaganda, all the Hamas propaganda (is there a difference?).
But Bowen et al have studiously refused to publish the Israeli case. Again – bias by deliberate omission, suppression veri.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Israeli_humanitarian_lifeline_Gaza_25-May-2010.htm
If the BBC audience were properly informed about the true nature of the flotilla – namely a deliberate exercise in provocation organised by terrorist-supporters, rather than “urgently needed humanitarian relief” – there would be less chance of Humphrys, Bowen, Franks and others getting away with the blatant lies.
Simply by posting the video of the Khyabar, Khyabar chanting by the “peace activists” – kill the kews, kill the Jews – or the photo of the knife-waving bearded maniac – the BBC could have given proper flavour and background as to the nature of the flotilla. But no – everyone here has seen that stuff, but NOT from the BBC.
People are calling the BBC “Useful Idiots”. I think that is being far too kind to the BBC. People there are not total suckers, bemused by it all and thereby led astray. The are DELIBERATELY bending the truth, deliberately broadcasting and publishing utter lies, deliberately suppressing the truth.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/01/world-regrets-deaths-of-jihadists-vilifies-israel/
Excellent read here. But please note, that he is talkng about American conservatives.
Comparison: Liberal Reaction Vs. Conservative Reaction To The Israel/Flotilla Story
Honestly, I don’t find the Palestinian people to be the least bit sympathetic. They’re backwards, genocidal, hyper-violent, sad sack Nazi wannabes led by terrorists who would happily murder every Jew on the planet if they could get away with it.
Then there are the Israelis. They’re a tiny Western democracy surrounded by backwards savages who want to murder them down to the last child because they’re Jews. Moreover, despite all the claims to the contrary, they’re the most restrained people on earth. If you don’t believe that, consider the fact that they could simply drive the Palestinians off their land and take it at any point, but instead, they’ve chosen to permanently live beside of millions of people who make the Manson family look sane. If the Israelis were somehow replaced by Americans, we’d drive the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint in six months tops — and we’d be perfectly justified in doing so.
So, that brings us to the relief flotillas. Note that I say flotillas. This is the 9th time that they’ve tried to send a flotilla through Israel’s blockade. Incidentally, Israel has that blockade in place for a very good reason: to keep weapons that will be used to murder Israelis from being shipped through to the Palestinians. So, since aid can be sent through the UN — where it’ll be checked for weapons — what’s the real point of these floatillas? It’s an attempt to embarass the Israelis into giving up the blockade, so that weapons can be shipped to the Palestinians, so that more Jews can be killed.
In any case, this time around, the Jew haters on the flotilla made a critical Darwin Award worthy error: they assaulted an Israeli commando team with knives, sticks, and guns. The Israeli commandos responded, quite correctly in my opinion, by killing AT LEAST 10 of them… READ THE REST
That chap Hawkins reads a bit like our own Martin. Language that lets it all hang out.
Unfortunately our own right wing (haha) government has decided to call for “lifting the blockade.”
The wisest observation I’ve ever heard from Jeremy Bowen – this morning on Today: “If international pressure forces Israel to lift its blockade, Hamas will see it as a victory.”
I can’t thinking I might feel a bit safer for my family and myself if the British Government were to use a bit of Israeli disproportionality in our defence instead of proportionately rolling over to have its tummy tickled by any passing terrorist.
The pathetic Bowen eventually had to throw in the towel and resort to criticising the Israeli commandos for being ill-prepared to cope with a gang of men bent on violence towards and including killing them.
The Israelis got into their stride nice and quickly though, Jeremy, didn’t they.
PS POROPORTIONALITY is the word the original poster was looking for.
Thank me later.
Bupendra Bhakta: PS POROPORTIONALITY is the word the original poster was looking for.
========================
Hm…I doubt that. 😉
Magic phrase which gives the BBC free reign to condemn Israel’s actions from the start: “international waters”.
Lots of hand-wringing over the increasing diplomatic distance between former “allies” Turkey and Israel over the last 18 months.
Question for astute BBC analysts: What significant change in international diplomacy and political direction occurred approximately 18 months ago?
Hint: It’s the change the Beeboids had been hoping for.
But William Hague is spouting the same nonsense about things changing in the past 18 months with Turkey.
I bet those Foreign Office Arabists have briefed him thoroughly about the Islamist tendencies in Turkey. Not.
Hague said that the relationship has changed over the last 18 months, yes. But he didn’t really say why, did he?
Melanie Phillips:
“Why the double standards, Sir Jeremy?”
(with reference also to BBC’s Humphrys):-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6046259/why-the-double-standard-sir-jeremy.thtml
Also notice how the BBC always uses phrases like “Israel claims so and so” in order to cast doubt on Israel when it would otherwise be seen in a good light.
For example it is always “Israel claims it delivers X thousand tonnes of aid to Gaza every month”. A reporter only legitimately uses such a phrase when there is real uncertainty about events, but I am unaware of any credible source that disputes the Gaza aid figures. By insering this one word a biased reportage is able to slant the whole meaning of a piece.
For example, compare: “The Conservative Party won the most votes in the general election” with “The Conservative Party claims it won the most votes in the general election”.
On the other hand, when Israel might be seen in a bad light, we never see such scepticism from the BBC.
True. Sopel had on some UN hack a few minutes ago, and allowed him to say that Israel has never disclosed what it allows through, so nobody really knows. Sopel allowed the claim to stand, unchallenged, even though the BBC itself has reported the Israeli list of what they let through.
Granted, Israel released the information after a court order, but it’s a lie to say that “nobody knows” what Israel allows into Gaza.
“Turkey’s prime minister criticized Israel Tuesday for a “bloody massacre” that killed at least nine people on a Gaza-bound aid ship”.
We should listen to this chap, he knows all about bloody massacre’s and the suppression of minorities.
The BBC has hidden away on its North page the story about the attack on its Manchester offices :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/10202105.stm
I listened again to the Humphrys piece on the Today programme.
In his opening remarks he states quite clearly that video footage showed that the Israeli soldiers were attacked.
But the video footage he refers to had NOT been published by the BBC until today – it was all available yesterday.
And having referred to video clips that the BBC had prevented its audience seeing – Humphrys proceeded to make light of the murderous behaviour of the Islamists shown so clearly in the video clips, and to lie by claiming that the Israelis were armed with machine guns rather than paint guns.
Either Humphrys is very, very stupid, or he is very, very biased.
Or both.
To a long and growing list (last was Richard Black’s ‘watertight oversight’ for ‘things not going the way we fancy or can cope with, so let’s shut it all down’), I have to now add:
‘Knives are not weapons’
and
‘paintball guns are machine guns’
Messrs Bowen and Humphrys are showing competence that could get them posted as Defence or Home Affairs analysts in a heartbeat.
Interesting item on “the World Tonight” last evening. The “boy” presenter was in full BBC Israel mode when an interview with an “International Law” expert arrived. The expert thoroughly demolished the presenter’s questioning of international waters and legality of stopping the ship leaving the poor boy quite downcast. One expert who will probably not be asked again.
As to the Today programme I only listened until 7.00 but it was a disgrace. Humphrys saying “attack” on the ships more than once – no mention of paint ball guns.
Never seems to be any mention of how many tons of aid there are crossing the Egyptian border (not through tunnels) or interviews with “opposition” politicians from Hamastan. Strange that!
Agreed. Just once I’d like to hear a Beeboid ask one of the flotilla participants or organizers or supporters why they didn’t just ask their Muslim brethren in Egypt first.
The whole “proportionality” issue is a a red herring in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
In a war, each side does what is necessary to win. It isn’t some game in which the combatants have to carefully match each and every action.
Further, and more significantly, in a war between Islamist terrorists and a democratic state, the issue is even more distorted as the terrorists place a far, far lower value on the lives of their fighters and civilian population than the Israelis do on theirs. As the infamous saying goes “they love death more than we love life”. Hamas wouldn’t even blink if Israel was to respond exactly proportionately, because it doesn’t value life in the way Israel does.
Therefore any Israeli operation against Hamas necessarily has to inflict much larger losses on the terrorists than vice versa in order to be an Israeli victory. A one-to-one match would be a Hamas victory clear and simple.