And so the week draws to an end on Today and what better way to conclude things by providing Lord Patten with a soapbox from which he can advance his endless attacks on Israel – this time without any pesky dissenting voices…via technical breakdown, natch.
His Lordship has been off to Gaza again to see his pals there and naturally is back to ensure Israel gets the blame for the self inflicted problems of Hamastan. At one point Patten, to his monumental shame, chooses to equivocate between the credentials of Hamas and Israel. If pushed, I reckon Patten believes Israel to be a terrorist state. He also side steps the issue that Hamas seeks the utter destruction of Israel whilst claiming that Fatah are the good guys when in fact they continues to deny the reality of the existence of Israel.I find Patten absolutely repellent and yet the BBC cannot get enough of him. I wonder why?
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would suspect that the BBC wanted to avoid any instant rebuttable of Lord Patten’s assertions. Rubbish, of course, but, for “technical” reasons the phone connection to the woman lined up to comment on Lord Patten’s remarks was so bad that she couldn’t comment immediately. A hour later – in Today’s “dead zone” (post 08:45) – she was interviewed on a clear line by our Evan who implied heavily that, since she was obviously Jewish, she was (by definition) a spokesman for Israel. (Evan grudgingly apologised after Ms X pointed out that she was British). Conspiracy? Patten allowed to expatiate unchallenged – challenge relagated to the “dead zone” – implication that since commenter was Jewish any of her remarks were hopelessly biased (!!) – “impartiality” preserved since both sides of argument presented in same programme.
It’s a feature (not a bug) of Today that many of those who might comment adversely on a BBC-approved interviewee’s assertions are interviewed on an unclear phone connection (or from the “radio car” which has intermittent “technical” faults). The BBC can (and does) claim that it is impartial in such cases since both sides are “represented” although one side is unable to develop its arguments clearly due to unfortunate “technical” issues.
Do the Beeboids ever say to someone “you are obviously Palestinian ” ?
“I find Patten absolutely repellent and yet the BBC cannot get enough of him. I wonder why?”
It’s the attraction of flies to shit.
It is because Patten is a Beeboid.
I find him equally repulsive, David. His is so pompous and patronising.
This is the person who failed as a government minister, failed in Hong Kong and failed in the EU ( although the latter is difficult to measure ).
Who does he represent now, no-one !
Just remember the saying from my old HK days.
“FILTH ” . Failed in London try Hong Kong.
Mind you , it rather applied to me but at least I don’t go swanning around like Patten !
I hate the man, who in their right mind would think him deserving of a peerage (no capital for obvious reasons). Mind you the same applies to many others, Kinnock, Britten, Mandleson, Martin and Prescot. It is a disgrace that these people are elevated, there should be far more stringent rules in place. I respect the Hereditary Peers and the Monarchy.
I don’t think Martin has been given a peerage , although I would certainly nominate him for one.
I was going to post on this myself . I wasn’t able to listen to the whole Today programme so I wasn’t sure whether they were really going to let Chris Patten get away with his disingenuous outpourings unchallenged. I waited to see if they managed to re-connect Lorna Fitzsimons through the wonders of the new-fangled wireless machinery.
Given the BBC’s technical difficulties in communicating with Rochdale or wherever Lorna Fitzsimons was phoning from, and the impracticality of finding an instant substitute to rebut Chris Patten’s poisonous ramblings, thank goodness Evan was on hand to take up the argument and put Israel’s case so forcefully on Lorna’s behalf.
“Spell out who you think is to blame for the Palestinians’ conditions, particularly in the West Bank?” said Evan, helpfully.
“ It’s the building, house demolitions, confiscations, etc etc “ Patten answered, cherry picking some nice out of context factoids to reinforce the myth that Israel is solely to blame for the plight of the Palestinians, without actually saying so in plain contradictable language.
“Some people”, Evan posited, “would say all this could be resolved if Hamas would recognise Israel and renounce violence”.
I believe I heard Chris Patten quash that in one fell swoop, by saying: “Fatter,” which is how he pronounces Fatah, “say that already. What Hamas will do is to ensure a cease fire.”
So the authority Chris Patten is sure that Fatah, whose leader promises two different things to two different audiences, is a genuine seeker of peace, and that Hamas don’t really mean it, and with that definitive assurance, “we” must act unilaterally to do goodness knows what.
As Umbongo said, by the time Lorna was eventually brought in, it had gone off the boil, and it took the BBC another aeon to get her ‘listen again’ segment on the site. It’s up now.
Why does the BBC seek Chris Patten’s opinion on this? Any anti Israel bandwagoner can get a guided tour of Gaza, subsidised and specially orchestrated by some pro Palestinian organisation, and get themself pumped full of anti Israel propaganda. What’s the point of airing this over the BBC?
Evan must be kicking himself after his gaffe over Lorna Fitzsimons’s ‘nationality’ of course he knew she was British, but all Jews have dual loyalty dontchya know. “Sorry “he said. So sorry. Sorry I was caught out.
Patten is a “trougher” in every sense and there are some nice hotels and restaurants in Gaza, so I hear. Does anyone know who paid for his little jolly ?
I was disappointed to hear Lorna Fitzsimons continuing to use the term “wall” rather than the more accurate “barrier”. Only one in every fourteen miles of the barrier is actual “wall” while for the most part it’s chicken wire fence.
More on Chris Patten here from blogger Ray Cook:
“Yet in a Guardian article (I don’t give links to the Guardian on principle any more, so you’ll have to believe me or find it yourself) Chris Patten, former Tory MP, former Governor of Hong Kong and now Chancellor of Oxford University and President of Medical Aid for Palestinians, doesn’t seem to have noticed the mall, the food stores filled to the brim, the Israeli white goods filling Gazan shops, instead:
Israel’s policy of blockading Gaza has been a “terrible failure – immoral, illegal and ineffective”, he said, which had “deliberately triggered an economic and social crisis which has many humanitarian consequences”
I thought I heard Patten say that the ‘apartheid’ wall took up 9% of the occupied/disputed/ unallocated west bank. Just keep repeating lies and finally everybody will believe them. Ws he not kicked out of his constituency ages ago?
He also mentioned “traditionally Palestinian East Jerusalem”.
He is of course referring to the parts of Jerusalem that the Jordanians ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948 during their illegal occupation.
Jerusalem has never been “traditionally” anything other than the capital of Israel.
The wall couldn’t possibly take up 9% of Palestinian land. Even the interviewer was puzzled by this. I don’t have the figures in front of me but the only possible interpretation of the claim is that the barrier separates 10% of the land held by Jordan after 1948 from the border of the land held by Israel after 1948. The Palestinian population and land ownership on both sides of the barrier remains the same. Is it possible that Patten is reciting figures without a clue what they could mean?
The bit I object to was his statement that 500,000 people live in settlements. That is also only possible if he takes the suburbs of Jerusalem as settlements. No Israeli does. Is it possible that Patten is reciting figures without a clue what they could mean?
The Palestinians don’t want a two state solution. Hamas has consistently, unambiguously and in all languages rejected it. It has also declared that they will not agree to any agreement that leaves even one square metre in Israeli hands.
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. “
None of this is new.
I don’t think numbers or statistics are Patten’s strong point. Basically he is a pinko, arty-farty which is why the BBC love him so much.
He is so conceited he is totally unaware that many of us have always thought he is a complete prat.
Spain and Israel.
Islam Not British Broadcasting Corporation (INBBC) doesn’t report this, and Spain’s Aznar in London:
“The Friends of Israel Initiative was launched to a rapturous reception at the British Parliament on Monday, July 19”
http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/event.php?c=35
But, of course, INBBC does report this:
“Three Spaniards file charges over Israel flotilla raid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10741416
The BBC didn’t question Patten’s most extraordinary statement that the European Community must take a stronger position even without the Americans.
What does that mean? When the Israelis inevitably say ‘no’ does he suggest Europe goes to war with Israel? Does he suggest they support a Palestinian war to create a ‘one stae solution’? Does he mean a Saddam Hussein style blockade of Israel? Does he think a stern reprimand will do it?
What would the consequences for Europe be if any of these interpretations are exercised? What will be the consequences for the Palestinians?
Surely the BBC interviewer should have been sufficently alert to ask?
Maybe Patten is hoping for a war between the EU and the US. The man is an utter idiot.
Deegee,
Exactly. The way he hastily disowned the figures “These are not my figures, they’re the UN’s” reinforced a suspicion that he didn’t know what he was talking about.
Even if she’d been able to question him directly I wonder whether Lorna Fitzsimons could have dealt with so many dubious statistical allegations and insinuations.
It’s completely unacceptable to let Patten on the Today programme to dismiss the Hamas charter as mere rhetoric and perpetuate uncritical acceptance of “Fatter’s” peace-seeking intentions.
I hope Honest Reporting or Just Journalism take it up and examine every misleading or factually incorrect thing he said. Then get their findings aired prominently on Today. Some hopes.
As for how “we” are supposed to impose “our” moral directives upon Israel, the mind truly boggles.
Very interesting development in a jaw-dropping story Sue posted about 3 weeks ago today (http://biasedbbc.tv/2010/07/anything-goes.html).
The judge who directed the jury to clear five anti-Israeli protesters who caused serious damage at a British factory, comparing the Israelis to the Nazis and describing life in Gaza as ‘Hell on Earth’, is being investigating for anti-Semitism by the Office for Judicial Complaints. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297219/Judge-faces-anti-semitism-probe-speech-attacking-Israel-helps-free-arms-factory-protesters.html)
The BBC enthusiastically reported the news of the acquittals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10489356). Will it report this development with the same enthusiasm? Will it report it at all? I’m not holding my breath.
The comments and recommendations below that article demonstrate the BBC’s influence.
(As Jonathan Hoffman says, he didn’t use the word antisemitism in his remarks about the judge.)
The examples given by the European Union in its Working Definition of of anti-Semitism includes Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
Somehow I don’t think that is current law or sufficient for a conviction.
Will Islam Not British Broadcasting Corporation (INBBC) – and people like J. Bowen – be banned from Israel under future anti-boycott legislation in Israel?:
“Now Israel plans to boycott the boycotters”
(By Nathalie Rothschild)
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9101
As I understand it the proposed Israeli law is to protect against economic sabotage by Israelis, especially those in protected positions. There is something revolting about tenured academics pushing for boycotts against the same institutions that pay their protected salaries.
It is not a boycott on boycotts. It is a boycott on Israelis who promote boycotts.
Boycotting Bowen could well be counter productive. He will simply make his pieces 100% Palestinian narrative compared to the current 85% on the grounds that the Israeli side of things is closed to him.