Jeremy Bowen sets out to hammer home what the BBC has, for the last sixty years, been persuading us to believe. First he demonstrates that Jewish settlers are deluded fanatics who believe that the
occupiedterritoriesillegalunderinternationallaw have been given to them by God.
Then he spends considerable effort conveying that Palestinians are peace loving victims whose land (Muslim land) has been stolen by religious European and American Jews who habitually spew sewage over it. Olive trees, (lush) are introduced to convey pathos and wrest more sympathy from the listener, who will not be aware that Mahmoud Abbas the so-called moderate partner for peace said recently “I will never allow a single Israeli to live on Palestinian land.”
The BBC sets out to show that the negotiations have been scuppered solely by Israel’s refusal to extend the moratorium on building within Jewish settlements. The BBC deliberately gives the impression that this involves extending Jewish territory and contracting future Palestinian territory, when the truth tells quite a different story.
The anomaly regarding the religious connection to the area, (apparently ridiculous when expressed by Jews, but acceptable and incontrovertible when applied to Muslims) doesn’t seem to have struck the BBC.
Bowen portrays the Palestinians as if they were a genteel team from an English village protest group in a tussle with some fanatical Jewish zealots, armed to the teeth and bristling with aggression, over a bit of stolen property, when the reality is nearly the reverse of that. Their David is really Goliath, and their Goliath is radical Islam.
The BBC doesn’t want us to think of Israel as a liberal westernised democracy whose struggle for survival is seriously threatened by followers of Islam with its attendant duplicity and inherent antisemitism; not to mention being surrounded and outnumbered by the enemy and vilified by the BBC and therefore the rest of the world.
So why is Israel building settlements in occupied terroritory if it doesn’t intend to keep that land long term?
I’ve never had a good explaination.
It could remove all people from that land. It could just operate as the army and no settlers.
However, the insistance on colonising leads me to believe that it’s no intention of moving out of lands captured in war.
After all, if restitution post WWII is correct, restitution to individuals who’ve lost land in other wars is also correct.
Nick,
You fail to take into account the fact that the Arab axis waged a series of wars of aggression, in fact the land in question was never aquired for or destined for the sole use of any Palestinian state until the IDF won it from the aggressors.
The war of agrression, the agrressive war to exterminate the Jews was pursued by the Arab axis and they lost! When a state chooses to further its goals by aggressive war and they lose that war then the losers must suffer the consequences because if they do not then any state can launch wars of territorial expansion.
The Arab axis lost its wars of extermination and Israel now controls areas of its own country gained by the successful defence of its borders and in fact the so called West Bank was never a state or even marked as a state or even required by the axis until they lost the wars of aggression.
By your logic Germany should be given parts of its greater German homeland back from France/Poland/the Czech republic/slovakia etc, not going to happen and nor should it happen.
Ok Nick, here is a simple explanation of building in the West Bank, it is within the state of Israel as is and where no actual state of Palestine has been decided by negotiation and unless and until a final border drafting of the two state solution is decided then Israel is right to buld on its own land bought with the blood of its war dead and deeper than that the ancient home of the Jews.
There is no state of Palestine until there is a deal to make it so, the state of Israel will give some land it won in a defensive war but still the Arab axis drag their feet and raise objections and refuse to negotiate face to face in good faith.
Its time the Arab axis stopped playing games and started talking seriously, these cynical games played at the UN and in the client islamist useful idiot media are doing nothing to help.
The moral of the story Nick is dont launch wars of aggression against peaceful neighbours, the outcome is never good if you lose and the Arab axis lost. The state of Israel is a fact on the ground and no cynical ploys to steal tactical and strategic advantage will work.
There is plenty of room for both states, the Israel that exists and the Palestinian state to be and its time to make it happen.
Can you think of another ‘conflict’ where the attacked country wins the war but has to cede captured territory?
Nothing more to add to that, Cassie. Post of the week !
Nota,
You don’t understand. Different rules apply to the Israelis than to the rest of the World. I wonder why ? Obviously it couldn’t be anti-semitism , so what is it ? Can anyone help me out here ?
Thanks Grant 😀 .
Its time to call a spade a spade isnt it? Time to cut through the bullshit and cynical ploys and clearly state to all involved, no more bloody games.
Fantastic CK – I normally just “like” but that’s not enough for that fab post.
Thanks for the kind words my friend.
A clever ploy used by the BBC is to have nice, moderate-sounding people to give the BBC’s preferred angle against someone being dogmatic giving the opposite side. This could have just as easily be done with an Israeli talking about sharing things with the Arabs, and an Arab talking about the complete destruction of Israel, and a neutral would be given a totally different impression of the situation. Obviously the BBC chose the first option!
It reminds me of an otherwise interesting programme I caught the end of last Christmas, where Kate Humble was following the route of Frankincense. When she got to Israel and the Occupied Territories, she interviewed two middle-aged, smiling Palestinian men who sounded and looked very reasonable and friendly. The one Israeli she interviewed was an overweight, ginger haired, extremist rabbi. He started talking about his demand that the mosques on Temple Mount be pulled down and a new Temple built in their place. He was ranting, and her looks to the camera and shrugs of her eyebrows and shoulders let you know that they’d got what they wanted. I’m sure that there are extremist Israeli Jews who want to destoy the mosques but they are in a tiny minority. If they had been the norm then the mosques would have gone by now. But by making him their only Israeli Jew, they cleverly tried to trick people into thinking he was typical and the Palestinians were the moderates. Despicable organisation.
Demon,
Well spotted. It is a typical BBC trick. Beeboids really are beneath contempt
Nick, Israel dismantled settlements and forcibly removed Jews from Sinai and Gaza when a peace deal was made.
Yes that did happen and peace was promised and the media promised a new dawn of peace if Israel gave up land and look what happened in Gaza!
No land for peace and no peace just an utterly hostile Jew hating gangster led enclave wallowing in their own race hatred and filth and dreaming only of killing Jews and living on the charity handouts of infidels. Instaed of building in Gaza they chose hatred and victimhood and the buring desire for killing, is that the template for the next ‘peace deal’?
Look what happens when Israel tries to make peace with the Arab axis!
I doubt if Nick will comment further, but it would be fun to see how he tries to wriggle out of it. It is typical of lefties to take a position out of prejudice either in ignorance of the facts and histiry or despite them.
“history” !
He’ll come back under another name, as they often do after having been riped to shreds; well done Cassandra!
Anyone hear World Have Your Say the other night? It was about the settlements, you know the ones that are illegalunderinternationallaw. Well the programme was a trifle unbalanced, in other words the BBC may as well have just rung all the organisations linked to at the the Palestine Solidarity Campaign website http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index5b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=6&l2_id=32
and asked them to each ring in with their views. The main clue that it was unbalanced was that even the generic BBC host felt he had to speak up for Israel at one stage.
Nick, Israel dismantled settlements and forcibly removed Jews from Sinai and Gaza when a peace deal was made.
==========
Not the question I asked. I asked why it needs to build any settlements in the West Bank.
Nick,
That IS the question and you fail to answer it, it is THE base question
A deal for Gaza was meant to bring peace and it did not happen as advertised, the land for peace ended with a hate filled enclave of warped killers bent on murder.
Now Nick until you face upto the question then nobody here can take you seriously, why would Israel make massive concessions for peace when Gaza shows them what will result, no peace just more conflict. The question needs an answer so please think about it.
Unless any deal means real peace and not just more and more concessions by Israel then there will be no peace, come on Nick look at the situation from both sides.
Why do the “Palestinians” need to have their capital in Jerusalem?
Let me offer you a simple example of buyer beware Nick.
You go to a car showroom and accept the salesmans lavish sales pitch and buy the car, on the way home the car falls apart and you go to the dealer who simply shrugs and refuses to compensate you, now do you go back to the same dealer in the hope that the next purchase will work out OR do you simply not trust the sales patter and the dealer who sold you a lemon?
Israel has tried the land for peace scam and it has not worked as advertised so why would Israel trust that this time will be somehow different?
A fake peace is like a cut and shut lemon, whats the point in buying a lemon only for it to fall apart down the road?
Nick, Cassandra´s point answered your question perfectly. I guess that’s the problem. You wanted to make out it is axiomatic Israel has no intention of ceding West Bank land when they’re building settlements there but Cassandra made an irrefutable point proving your logic wrong.
Perhaps you’d like to develop your premise further in response to Cassandra’s point or perhaps you’d like to have the grace to accept it is a false premise? No. Didn’t think so.
Hey hippiepooter. OT, but do you have any more info on the complaint to the “Complaints” website on the Sarah Bell propaganda exercise for her Lib Dem friend Susan Kramer in Richmond Park?
Excellent post Sue!
Pity the likes of Nick can’t or won’t understand it.
Repeat a lie for long enough and people believe it’s the truth.
I think it might be something to do with having an expanding population and a successful economy.
Maybe the BBC should employ a shibboleth to identify the nutters on both sides. After interviewing an Israeli, they could ask whether he/she supports a two-state solution. And after interviewing a Palestinian, they could ask whether they support Israel’s right to exist. Let the nutters on both sides identify themselves.
Here’s the answer from the “moderate” Palestinians:
Moderate Fayyad can’t stomach “two states for two peoples”
Good idea, RR.
for the benefit of everyone who is sucked in by the anti Israel rantings of Ahemed Ali Bowen and his ilk,let’s hear what comrade Arafat had to say before he kicked it……thanks to Joseph Farah for the article-
“Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? It’s even more specific than Golda Meir’s statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.
In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here’s what he said: “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”
No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.
Why now has it become such a critical priority?
The answer is because of a massive deception campaign and relentless terrorism over 40 years.
Golda Meir was right. Her statement is validated by the truth of history and by the candid, but not widely circulated, pronouncements of Arafat and his lieutenants.
Israel and the West must not surrender to terrorism by granting the killers just what they want – a public relations triumph and a strategic victory. It’s not too late to say no to terrorism. It’s not too late to say no to another Arab terror state. It’s not too late to tell the truth about Palestine.”
I think that closes the argument ladies and gentlemen of the jury
itwf,
Can’t wait for Nick’s comments, but I suspect he may be too busy today 😀
“It could remove all people from that land. It could just operate as the army and no settlers.”
Nick, you may not have any doubts about the moraity of evicting Jews to appease the Palestinians, but when it was thought that this was the logical way forward, (Gaza) it merely emboldened the Palestinians who became more violent, and took the opportunity to attack Israel from a superior vantage point.
“However, the insistance on colonising leads me to believe that it’s no intention of moving out of lands captured in war.”
Why should anyone just return ‘lands captured’ in wars of aggression where the war was started by the loser? That would give any country the freedom to attack another without taking responsibility for the consequences of defeat.. If you instigate a war, you stand to lose a war.
Restitution means giving back something that has been stolen. Israel hasn’t stolen the Palestinians’ land. Even if the BBC says it has.
The history of the creation of Israel as a Jewish state has many narratives. There’s the Arab one, the Zionist one, the revisionist historians’ one and many in between.
The BBC has chosen to espouse the Arab narrative only, and despite being on the receiving end of a taste of what Israel is up against in the form of the terrorism and lawlessness of the Islamic world, the majority of the British and European public have chosen to swallow it whole too. That is what we are up against..
<b>Islam with its attendant duplicity and inherent antisemitism</b>
Not just attendent antisemitism but inherent anti-Infidel. Islam has the imperative to conquer Infidel lands and compel Infidels to convert or become dhimmis.
How come no one asks about the million Jews who were expelled from Arab countries. They were never compensated for the lands they were expelled from. No one gave a hoot about them for two reasons
1. They are not Muslims
2. Israel re-settled them, and they are not living on charity as Palestinians have been for the last 60 years.
A good source for Nick and others who may not know about the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/
Bio,
They don’t want to know about anything which contradicts their prejudiced, narrow-minded “opinions”. They have already decided which side they are on and nothing, even a nuclear attack by Iran will make any difference.
Of course if Nick and his fellow brainwashed stooges have their wish for Israel to be destroyed and all the Jews in Israel killed or evicted, what then? What does he really think will happen then?
After a few days, maybe weeks of celebrations in former-Israel from the Arabs and their BBC, CNN etc. chums, the Jewish Holy sites, including the Waling Wall will be set to be destroyed (as were the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan). Then they will turn on their BBC allies, before attacking the Christian churches in the country and committing sacriligeous acts in them.
Then once their immediate bloodlust has been assuaged, with their confidence riding high they will start to attack Western states, with large Muslim minorities, to try to turn them into Muslim ones. They will prey on the democracy and freedom within those countries, the same features that they regard as the West’s weaknesses. Be assured that the body count will rise as the Muslim extremists are in it for the long game and will keep attacking us until we’re all under Sharia Law.
Yes Jeremy Bowen is a truly disgusting example of BBC bias, pickled in his loathing for Israel. I listened to that clip and I’m pretty sure he’d coached the Palestinian in his responses. I paraphrase:
Bowen: That tree looks like a good place to take the family.
Palestinian: Yes but we can’t take the family there now.
And of course he knew he would antagonise the Israeli woman with his “occupied territories” line.
Bowen is despicable.
TooTrue,
Bowen knew the woman wouldn’t say ” yes, it is we love having family holidays there “. You are right, even by the appallingly low standards of the BBC , Bowen is one of the lowest of the low. Pure, unadulterated filth.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) is politically predisposed to approve the Islamic jihadists who threaten Israel, such is INBBC enmity towards Israel.
These Islamic jihadists:
“The Chessboard is Now Set In the Middle East”
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7512/pub_detail.asp
There is no such thing as a “narrative.” “Narratives”= wishful thinking or out-and-out lies. There are only the facts, and the facts are truth. It is possible, sometimes, for different interpretations of facts, particularly as one goes back in history.
However, in the case of Israel, there is no question about the facts, and thus the truth. The Arabs are liars, period.
The Arab axis will tell lies to the West and the appeasers/useful idiots believe everything they are told.
The Arab axis are telling their own people a very very different narrative and it does NOT include living side by side in peace with a Jewish state.
So there you have a tale of two narratives, one for the gullible foolish appeasers/Jew haters/useful idiots and another for islamist/jihadist jew haters.
There are always appeasers eager and ready to believe anyting they are told, the cowardly appeaser will do anything to avoid confrontation and in the West the Jew haters have controlled the media message so completely that the real truth about the real intentions of the Arab axis are just not known by many people in the West.
The axis claims are portrayed as reasonable, just give us everything we demand and there will be peace they say, sound familiar? Yes you have heard this kind of noose negotiation tactic and they wore black uniforms with funny symbols and marched in a silly way.
The Arab axis are choosing the path of the Nazis in that they are preying on the cowardly weakness and gullibilty of the appeaser class, in fact there will be no peace if Israel is stupid enough to trade yet more of its tiny landspace for peace, the noose will tighten and more demands will come forth and more violence will commence.
Peace is just a stage on the road to the extermination of the state of Israel, the end game has no room for the state of Israel and even one square yard of jewish land is too much.
The West is doing the wrong thing in appeasing and believing the Arab axis, the only thing the Arab axis understands and respects is strength of will and purpose backed by overwhelming force and only then will real peace take hold.
What a superb thread. Some of the best posts I’ve seen on this subject. This is what B-BBC is all about. Well done everyone !
( Apart from Nick, of course, but I doubt if he will be back ).
Grant,
Thanks for your compliment about the thread, which was indeed lively. I’ve seen many complaints about that particular broadcast on the blogosphere.
But I have to say that without Nick, this thread would have been duller. We mustn’t just be an echo chamber, and it takes a dissenting voice to bring the discussion to life.
I miss the BBC’s participation. Their dissenting voice would have been more fruitful than Nick’s, who came to the battle ‘brave but unarmed’. At least the BBC used to scuttle off to find some ammo, and return to the battlefield.
….and then shoot themselves in the foot.
If Nick’s opinions and point of view can be countered by argument, knowledge and persuasive power, let that be done. There is no need for him to be set upon.
When is INBBC happiest? – Apparently, when uncritically transmitting the latest message from Bin Laden on INBBC ‘Middle East’/jihad page, like today.
1) the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is absolutely ideological, not territorial
2) the settlement issue could have been resolved many years ago (2000, or 2008, for instance) but the Palestinians rejected Israeli offers of viable statehood. It is a fiction that the settlements are the reason there is no peace, and the obsessive focus on them means that the underlying cause of the conflict – ongoing Arab rejection of Israel’s sovereign and legitimate rights in the land of Israel – are conveniently ignored
3) settlements should be part of a face-to-face diplomatic negotiation – the Palestinians do many things which the Israelis consider to be irreconcilable with long-term peace (education of the youth being just one example), but the Israelis do not walk away from the talks (for instance, the Palestinians still refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state with democratic rights for all its citizens)
4) Israel, whether you agree or disagree, implemented the settlement freeze for 9 months (ie from November 2009), and throughout that time the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table. The Palestinians eventually entered talks precisely as the Israeli freeze ends in order to bring maximum international pressure on Israel, without the Palestinians having to concede anything.
5) lastly, the major ‘settlement blocs’ are not going to go away, and instead of vilifying the settlements totally and collectively, the Palestinians and their supporters internationally need to start embracing practical solutions under which the settlement blocs remain (eg carefully planned land swaps). Depending on how they are calculated, these blocs occupy perhaps 4%- 6% of the West Bank.
Most international commentators support the simple position that Palestinian desire for peace has been greeted with Israeli intransigence, but the reality is not so straightforward.
Despite the settlement freeze, the underlying reality is of Israeli desire to build Palestinian statehood being misrepresented as intransigence.
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Yigal Palmor has stated categorically that existing settlements have not expanded their municipal boundaries and new settlements have not been founded since the nineteen-nineties.
The impression created by some media correspondents, in particular the BBC, was that the end of the moratorium would mean that settlements could expand their current borders or indeed that new settlements could be founded. This is not the case. Settlers are prohibited from building on land beyond the boundaries of their settlements or from starting new settlements.
I am very glad Nick posted on this thread, he came fully armed with all the misconceptions, malevolent propaganda and cynical media manipulations. He was an ideal candidate for us to to educate, in fact he is a classic example of the result of years of black propaganda and misinformation.
He offered up his views and the counter views were spot on and could not be countered and I think we are all better off for this wonderful thread that brought out the very best in all of us. I hope Nick returns after considering his position.
Well done to Sue, one of the most intellectually satisfying posts I have taken part in. Cheers all round to the contributers and lets pat ourselves on the back eh?