My post Self-Fulfilling Backlash suggested the press was trying to whip up an artificial storm over a comment by Shimon Peres, which was taken out of context and sensationalised by the Telegraph and Haartetz. Now it seems they have succeeded in doing so. A damp squib, anyway. Who’s surprised?
The Express and the Mail have jumped aboard, with the help of Andrew Rosindell who the Express quotes as saying:
“It is inappropriate for the president of Israel to make a comment like that. Maybe he should spend more time here, get to know the British people and realise we defeated the Nazis in the war. I and many other politicians are fighting groups like the BNP, whose views are not representative of the country as a whole.”
which is odd if there’s any truth in this article about Mr. Rosindell’s “form” in politics, which accuses him of “climbing into the gutter” with the BNP.
Robin Shepherd has written:
“What no reasonable person can deny is that there is a massive problem in Britain, that Israel is singled out like no other country in the world in the British press, that rising Muslim populations are bringing a new anti-Israeli dynamic into the equation, that the foreign office tends to support the Arabs against Israel — it imposes a Royal boycott on Israel, for example, while there have been several Royal visits to Arab countries — and that in some cases there is a problem with anti-Semitism.”
For a detailed examination of the long inglorious record of British anti Israel and anti Jewish behaviour read Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish.
Shimon Peres understands Britain’s historical relationship with Israel and the Arabs far better than David Cameron evidently understands what’s happening in Gaza. Yet Cameron’s ignorance has been given a free pass, while Peres is accused of “getting it wrong.”
For anyone who doubts that the foreign office is pro-Arab, look at who has been appointed big chief. Simon Fraser, formerly sacked (or not, depending on who you listen to) for cohabiting with the PLO official he is now married to.
Britain’s attitude to Israel today, and the press interest stirred up by David Cameron’s nonsense about prison camps is widely attributable to the BBC, which has reported, nurtured, created and re-reported matters concerning Israel in an ever increasing delegitimising exercise. Who knows who and what David Cameron is pandering to with his gaffe-ridden trip, but it certainly isn’t the all powerful media-controlling Jewish lobby.
It’s interesting that the BBC keep on going on about Camerons comments about Pakistan yet they’ve totally ignored what he said about Gaza. Double standards or what? And HOW often is the BBC going to run that clip of some bearded twats burning a dummy of Cameron, how tolerant of them, I guess these bearded shits won’t be wanting any aid money then?
and why is the BBC not highlighting the fact that the Pakistani leader would be better off at home sorting out his ‘Katrina’ than coming over here? Oh hang on the BBC are fully supporting the Pakistani leader
OT , but its now 15:00 hrs and the R2 news is astounding , they simply have a tape loop on, sayng ‘and just to remind you of the top news story, David Cameron has been criticised by Pakistan, yes, we’ll repeat that, David Cameron has been criticised byPakistan. There are no other points of view in this story, which is that David Cameron has been criticised by Pakistan.’
Is this a new lowpoint for the bbc ?
What the BBC are not doing is pointing out that the Pakistan leader is under serious fire for NOT returning home and sorting out his Katrina.
Now Lyse douchbag is smiling because ugly female beeboid just stated that the Taliban are now the humanitarians.
The BBC News Channel has just interviewed Ishtiak Ahmed of the Bradford Council of Mosques. He said that Zardari should have stayed at home because of the floods and because of Cameron’s comments. Why didn’t Beeboid Tim think to ask him why he, a British citizen presumably, wants a foreign prime minister to snub our country’s prime minister?
The biggest problem with the entire area of British attitudes to the Arab/Israeli settlement is that there has been so much propaganda that even those interested in the problem (as I am) sometimes find it impossible to discern truth from fiction. The BBC don’t necessarily help that but they are not the starting point of the problem. There is certainly guilt in the UK over the Arab situation, and a belief that we failed to relieve ourselves of the mandated territories in a proper and orderly fashion. It is arguable that there are good grounds for such a belief.
I have been reading Robert Fisk’s memoir, ‘the war for civilisation’ recently. It starts with what seems like quite balanced historical essays on 1970’s Afghanistan and the Albanian Massacres. However, when it begins to address the settlement of Isreal it comes across as anything but impartial. This is how the BBC, the Independent and the Guardian (amongst others) tend to sound. But is there more than a grain of truth in much of what is said, lost in the howling tones of indignation and self righteousness?
Neither side is blameless – but is either side truly seeking a solution, or just a holding position waiting for the next opportunity to strike?
As a balance I intend to finish ‘Israel:A history’ by Martin Gilbert, which I recently read a few chapters of and which seems to be a a highly factual and educational read.
The BBC are not interested in facts they just push opinion as facts. As I posted elsewhere really good news that Fox News have now got a front row seat at the White House press room, that will really piss the BBC off.
Oh for a Fox News Channel UK!
Hope you realise that Martin Gilbert is the one to trust. Robert Fisk’s very name has been turned into a verb. 🙁
I had no idea who he was Sue (or that he was the origin of the verb) before I picked up the book. I don’t read the indy so the name wasn’t familiar. But as I read on it soon became clear that he has a particular world view which somewhat opposes my own.
The Martin Gilbert book was a hotel book at a place I stayed in York and I got through the first 100 pages or so that weekend. It was so good that I expected that it would have been out of print by now, but not so and I will purchase my own copy soon.
Martin Gilbert was of course the official biographer of Churchill – an epic series of many volumes. With the sort of depth of detail – and balance – so lacking in the BBC’s chosen historians like Simon Schama.
Tony,
Robert Fisk has a lot of form. He is a very nasty piece of work and a mere journalist, not a historian. Martin Gilbert is a professional historian and Jewish to boot !
Sorry – you lost me when you wrote “Robert Fisk” and “balanced” in close proximity.
“For a detailed examination of the long inglorious record of British anti Israel and anti Jewish behaviour”
Let’s not forget the positives in that record. Also, a lot of it was less anti-Jewish/anti-Israel than having to appease the Arabs due to the threat from Germany/Italy/Japan. You can point to refugee Jews being denied entry to Israel but they weren’t exactly eager to come until Hitler gained power
The British were concerned with retaining the Empire. In many places they were not unhappy with domestic disputes such as Muslim against Hindu in the Raj. That being said there is a great deal of evidence that the British officer class and administrators generally preferred the Arabs over the Jews. Partly this was antisemitism and partly a sort of ‘noble savage’ view of the Arabs.
A good point at the end, sue. If anyone at the BBC still thinks a nefarious Jewish Lobby still controls the government after Cameron’s statement of the Palestinian Narrative, then they must have a real problem with anti-Jewish sentiment.
The BBC loves to remind everyone that the US and UK will always be there for Israel, no matter what, (even in the face of Nazi-like atrocities, is the uspoken belief) and it’s all down to the powerful Jewish Lobby. If there is a Jewish Lobby controlling Call Me Dave (as opposed to Labour, where the new leader will either be a Communist Jew or a Marxist Jew), they’re doing a pretty crap job of it, and I want my money back.
“anon” wrote:
You can point to refugee Jews being denied entry to Israel but they weren’t exactly eager to come until Hitler gained power
You ignore the fact that there has always been a continuous Jewish presence, no matter how small, in the land of Israel since ancient times. Ancient times meaning the several thousand years before the births of Jesus or Mohammed.
“Zionist” return to Israel was taking part from the 1800s onward. A distant member of my family went to Israel in 1810 from Glasgow.
The “eagerness” of Jews in the diaspora to make aliyah (return to Israel) has always been directly proportional to being allowed to live their lives peacefully in their adopted countries. It’s true that German, and many European Jews, were not “exactly eager” to uproot themselves from lives and business that they’d enjoyed for generations until, for most, it was too late.
At the moment unprecedented numbers of Swedish Jews are fleeing their homes for Israel. In recent years record numbers of French Jews have left for Israel too.
As far as I know no Hitler-like figure has taken power in Europe, and I’m equally certain those Swedish and French Jews are not exactly eager to leave the places where they were born in order to avoid persecution. Would you be?
The elephant in the room is the left-wing anti-Semitism going back to Marx himself. This was aggravated by decades-long Soviet anti-Semitism who invented the technique of hiding it behind anti-Zionism. Their beeboid friends carried on this tradition helped by the growing internal and external Muslim presence
When the BBC first reported the Israeli-Lebanese clash it simply reported the facts and said that Lebanon said that Israeli soldiers crossed the border and that Israel said that the Israeli soldiers were fired at while on Israeli soil (probably because they were copying it from a news agency without having much time to think about it.)
Now the anti-Israeli spin is fully underway:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10851692
Here the Lebanese version of events is presented first and at greater length than the Israeli version of events, which comes second.
The caption beneath the accompanying photo reads “Lebanon says Israeli troops crossed the border, but Israel denies this”, which again gives primacy to the Lebanese point of view, putting the Israelis in a defensive light (having to ‘deny’ the Lebanese charge).
This is the usual pattern for the BBC.
Elder of Ziyon has two posts about this. Much more informative than the BBC’s, it goes without saying.:
“Earlier today Israeli soldiers were fired upon by the Lebanese Army-please note our soldiers were on the Israeli side of the border. There is a gap between the “fence” and the actual border. Our soldiers had coordinated with UNIFIL the ongoing the maintenance work on the fence. We were simply clearing some brush and shrubs from the fence area. “
His earlier post here throws up more interesting information.
It’s not until you read these things that you realise how biased the BBC is, even if you disagree with what they say, you need to know that there’s another side to the story.
The BBC have just updated the article again. Given what Elder of Ziyon wrote about Hezbollah, it’s suspicious that Hezbollah had a ready quote for the BBC to use in the last article, backing the Lebanese account, but even more suspicious that the BBC have now removed that quote.
They’ve updated it yet again. A new, less incriminating statement of bellicosity by Hezbollah has appeared.
Oh, and they’ve added a comment from someone we were all surely agog to hear from – Baroness Ashton.
Israel’s retaliation must have been “proportional”. I don’t see any ghoulish body count in evidence, so the BBC must be satisfied with the Lt. Col’s death.
At least the BBC is now admitting that it was a sniper attack, total set-up, unprovoked. Not sure why the Beeboid says that this cold-blooded murder…sorry…clash…would be a bigger deal if it had been done by Hezbollah, but never mind.
Of course, it will be Israel’s fault if anything comes of this.
Even the ‘New York Times’ prints this:
“The Palestinians, alone”
(by Efraim Karsh)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02karsh.html?_r=2
Ah, so this was to celebrate the 4th anniversary of Hezbollah’s triumphant victory over Israel. The BBC just mentioned that today is the day. No mention whatsoever on the News Channel that it was started by a Lebanese sniper. Only those who bother to read the website will be properly informed. All the Beeboid said was it was a terrific gun battle, in which a Lebanese journalist was killed, as well as military casualties on both sides.
Now, why would a Lebanese journalist be on the spot just then? Since when does the Lebanese media cover tree removal?
As Cassandra said on the other thread, this was a set-up. But the BBC wants to place the blame largely with Israel, or at most that both Lebanon and Israel are equally responsible for this incident.
No irony here from INBBC’s World News editor, Jon Williams:
“Three years ago this month, my colleague Alan Johnston was finally freed, after 114 days in captivity having been kidnapped in Gaza. Earlier this year, he returned to the Middle East for the first time since his release, to live again among the Palestinian People to report for a BBC documentary. He is of the BBC’s ‘foreign legion’; a band of brothers – and sisters – committed to telling stories they believe the world needs to know about, passionate and impartial.”
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=45801&c=1
“…to live again among the Palestinian People to report for a BBC documentary…”
…thus ensuring the BBC’s enduring anti-Israeli bias. The irony is truly lost on the BBC.
How about he does a long stint of living amongst the Israelis and sufferring the rocket attacks as they do?
Go on Hamas, kidnap him again. Dare ya. ! (Can one be passionate AND impartial?)
I have just thrown up my breakfast having read that.
Sue,
You make a good point about the appalling Simon Fraser being made head of the FCO. That tells us all we need to know.