Oh the irony. John Pilger getting a spot on Today to promote his new film about distorted reporting. Justin venturing the suggestion that Pilger himself wasn’t exactly known for impartiality, Pilger retorting “I was waiting for that”, then citing, with a flourish, former £172,800 p.a. (+ £6,907 expenses) BBC news gatherer Fran Unsworth who “admits, for the first time”, the pressure put on the BBC by Israel. That would be the terrifying Israel lobby that controls the media, causing that sinister, abrupt ending to the interview.
The War You Wish You Didn’t Have to See
Bookmark the permalink.
Will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) report this about regular INBBC propagandist guest (on BBC TV News ‘Dateline London’), Abdel Bari Atwan?:
“Police probe into ‘antisemitic’ speech at LSE”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/42342/police-probe-antisemitic-speech-lse
More here:
UJS and LSE Israel Society statement on Abdel Bari Atwan talk at LSE
Meanwhile:
“Government to pay for security guards at Jewish schools”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11960291
Of course, the London School of Economics and Political Science is heavily Islamised in both its funding and in the output of some of its courses.
“Senior member of extreme Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir teaches at LSE”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6988753.ece
‘A Degree of Influence’ by Robin Simcox, LSE pp 89-96:
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1238334247_1.pdf
No where in the “Government to pay for security guards at Jewish schools” article referenced above is any indication about who might be threatening Jewish schools other than generic antisemites. Given that the regular Israel haters declare that they are not antisemites who could the guards be protecting against?
I’m a little surprised that the BBC interviewer was so forthright in what he said to Pilger. One for balance for a change.
I did hear however Pilger quoting a couple of Beebtards to support his extreme position including that one from Fran Unsworth. It shows that the normal BBC position is anti-Israel.
“That would be the terrifying Israel lobby that controls the media, causing that sinister, abrupt ending to the interview.”
Those evil Zionists and their sinisterly placed repeats of Desert Island Discs.
The BBC chooses to highlight this story about Europe’s has-beens, because it and they are anti-Israel, but not antisemitic, of course:
Former EU leaders urge sanctions for Israel settlements
A group of 26 ex-EU leaders has urged the union to impose sanctions on Israel for continuing to build settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.
In a letter sent on Monday, they said Israel “like any other state” should be made to feel “the consequences” and pay a price for breaking international law.
a) “occupied Palestinian territory”
It’s DISPUTED territory, not “occupied”, and that’s according to International Law™, and when has it ever been “Palestinian”?
b) “… pay a price for breaking international law”
Has there ever been any kind of trial in which Israel has had a chance to present its defence against such charges, and has actually been found guilty of the charges?
Does the presumption of innocence not apply to the Jewish State?
When has the BBC ever given air time to any of the many highly qualified law experts who defend these charges that the BBC happily presents as proven?
The BBC: Accuser, judge, prosecution, jury and hangman!
Robin Shepherd has the response:
Israel should ban all 26 former European leaders calling for sanctions against Israel, UN imposition of Palestinian state by April
Read the comments for background on some of the signatories.
Jonathan Hoffman Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Richard von Weizsaecker’s father played a key role in deportation of Jews. After the War the son tried to defend the father who was indicted and sentenced as a war criminal at the Nuremberg trials. Even after the publication of the report of the Historical Commission, Richard von Weizsäcker continued to defend his father and justify his actions.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/nazi-n05.shtml
Jonathan Hoffman Says:
December 12th, 2010 at 5:18 am
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin052002.asp
Robinson was the driving force behind the disgusting UN Durban Conference which vilified Israel.
Talking of international law…
Noam Shalit: Gilad’s confinement conditions – war crime
“Holding Gilad hostage for the purpose of blackmail and negotiation without any basic human rights is an intolerable war crime,” said the father of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, Noam, during a legalists’ demonstration for Gilad in front of Red Cross officials in Tel Aviv on Human Rights Day.
Shalit added that the free world must “condemn the ones responsible for this war crime loud and clear.”
No BBC spokesperson was available to comment.
Not a word from the BBC?
Rallies held worldwide for Gilad Shalit
Sad listening to three lefties struggling with concepts none of them understand. But yes, good for Webb that he challenged Pilger. I gritted my teeth and read some of his stuff on Israel – typical cliche-ridden, uninformed, formulaic nonsense.
I was tempted to go onto medialens and challenge this:
Fascinating. The abrupt termination of Pilger’s remarks at the end, when speaking about the pressure on Fran Unsworth and the influence of Israel on the BBC, looks highly suspicious.
With this:
They let what he said about Unsworth stand without challenging him on it, didn’t they?
Then I thought, why bother.
Sorta on topic:
Reporting on some terrorist scum in Indonesia, the World Service had this to say. I paraphrase:
He is accused of recruiting militants for a training camp for what the authorities call terrorist activities.
Then, in Outlook, the WS managed to interview a psychologist on Pakistani child suicide bombers without interviewer or interviewee once mentioning Islamic terrorism. But the discussion was, of course, liberally sprinkled with the words militants and militancy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/12/101209_outlook_pakistan_child_suicide_bombers.shtml
So there you have it. At one stage of the BBC’s mangling of the English language by applying the term militancy to terrorist acts, it still considered the possibility of using the T word when reporting on the behaviour of terror groups, while insisting that they could not be labelled terrorists. But this distinction was eventually abandoned in favour of the bland cop out, as was pointed out on this very site to Nick Reynolds, then (or perhaps still) involved in drawing up BBC guidelines.
Old hands here may remember that Reynolds communicated with us at some length in an attempt to justify the BBC’s stubborn stance re militants. But now it seems that the BBC has lapsed unresisting into the notion that Islamic terrorism only exists in the imagination. That’s what happens when one operates from within the cottonwool folds of a leftie comfort zone.
But it’s also because of the BBC’s sympathy with Islamic terrorist goals.
Female ghetto survivors who escaped to fight with tthe partisans against the Nazis now being hounded by Lithuanian state prosecutors?
That is every bit as evil as the Nazis themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00c74k5
More on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/08/holocaust-baltic-lithuania-latvia
Latvia also “celebrated” the arrival of the Nazis in WW2 recently.
Nazi crimes are not subject to revision
Did they set this segment up the other day when Pilger was standing outside that courthouse holding forth about the righteousness of alleged rapist Julian Assange’s attempts to harm US foreign policy?
You can hear the second episode of Wendy Robbins’s BBC World Service Heart and Soul Programme on European antisemitism here. I’m linking to it via Harry’s Place as there are some references to Pilger in the comments.
Hillary Clinton ‘frustrated’ at Middle East deadlock
Ms Clinton repeated the US commitment to Israel’s security, even as she explained why the US viewed Israel’s construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as illegitimate.
However the BBC does not share Mrs Clinton’s explanation with us.
I would like to know why exactly Jews building in Israel is considered “illegitimate” but other than repeating the mantra of “occupied Palestinian” land the BBC hasn’t explained further.
As I’ve pointed out in my comments above, we’re never actually told on what basis settlements are considered illegal, nor are we ever told why exactly “Israel disputes this”.
The only thing that I can find, that comes close to Clinton’s “explanation” is this:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=198932&R=R4
“Unfortunately, as we have learned, the parties in this conflict have often not been ready to take the necessary steps,” she said. “Going forward, they must take responsibility and make the difficult decisions that peace requires. This begins with a sincere effort to see the world through the other side’s eyes, to try to understand their perspective and positions. Palestinians must appreciate Israel’s legitimate security concerns. And Israelis must accept the legitimate territorial aspirations of the Palestinian people. Ignoring the other side’s needs is in the end self-defeating.”
The BBC sees that as an explanation of “why the US viewed Israel’s construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as illegitimate”?
Sorry, it doesn’t work for me. Its the BBC pushing its own agenda by deliberately misinterpreting the words of others.
Maybe this is the “explanation”?
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=198938&R=R1
While Clinton listed Jerusalem as a final status issue that would need to be addressed by the sides, she was more circumspect in possible prescriptions. But on another significant issue – settlements – she stressed American opposition.
“We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity,” she said. “We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and the two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself.”
That still doesn’t explain why (or if) “the US viewed Israel’s construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as illegitimate.“
Its not a legal judgment – its just the opinion of a politician!
Bio,
there was an unusually informative interview on Today, I’ll put the link in as soon as it’s up,(7:32)
”The US is launching a frantic bid to salvage the Middle East peace process after abandoning its primary strategy for drawing Israel and the Palestinians back into direct talks. Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk discusses how he would use this moment of relative calm in the region to restart the negotiations.”
My impression was that Martin Indyk said something like ‘70% of the settlements are within areas that it had already been agreed, in former negotiations, (Camp David) by both parties, would form part of Israel in a future two state solution.’ (In other words they are not land grabs by Israel as the media always implies.) He explained that it was also accepted that comparable areas would be exchanged (from land in Israel) to form part of a future Palestinian state.
The most interesting point that emerged was that now it’s public knowledge that surrounding Arab regions regard Iran as the crucial issue in the M/E, we can no longer accept the argument that Israel is the threat to stability in the region, and the world.
(Thank you Wikileaks.) Evan Davis seemed to be listening, too, though I have no idea what he made of it. I think I could hear a tiny bit of sniggering in the background, but not as much as usual.
.
Ahh. It’s up now. I hope you can access it. Perhaps you’ll interpret it differently. There was much more in it, recognition, borders, etc., etc.
I just listened to it Sue. Indyk did well to talk about borders and refer back to 1947, but the whole introduction from the studio bot and Kim Ghattas was outrageously biased in which they pushed the whole “settlements are the problem” argument. I also noticed that “occupied” has now replaced the more correct and less judgemental “disputed” territories. The BBC has made its collective mind up about that one while still refusing to call terrorism by its proper name.
Abbas’s outright refusal to recognise Israel as the Jewish state was brushed aside as not really a problem.
Abbas’s recent threats to reneg on past agreements, withdrawing security cooperation and everything else contained in the Oslo accords has had no coverage.
No mention ever of Palestinian declarations that Jews will not be allowed to live in any future Palestinian state, while at the same time they still refuse to give up on their “right of return” to Israel.
Not enough emphasis was placed on the fact that no new settlements are in fact being built, the only construction which the Palestinians and the BBC wish to see frozen is to accommodate natural growth within existing settlements, which as Indyk pointed out, are settlements which everybody agrees will be in Israel under any agreement.
Oh, and what about Gaza?
Isn’t that an obstacle to reaching an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians?
Absolutely right, but it was the first time I’ve ever heard on the Beeb any acknowledgement that settlements might not be the real (or the only) obstacle to peace. If Obama genuinely did believe that, he looks more incompetent than ever.
The other factors are much more of a problem of course, but at the very least, if it could be established in media world that the settlement situation has been misrepresented, it would be a step in the right direction. Of course, it’s probably a one-off. We’ll revert back to the BBC default, no doubt.
Now that the US has decided to announce that the settlement issue is only an obstacle to direct talks, but needn’t be an obstacle to peace, the BBC can’t keep alleging that settlements are the obstacle to peace? Can they?
Yes they probably can, because they will say that Obama is only face-saving, having realised his powers of persuasion are not quite so compelling as he’d hoped. Sorry, I’m rambling.
The Wiki leaks are certainly forcing some interesting ideas out into the open though.
Sue: “… it was the first time I’ve ever heard on the Beeb any acknowledgement that settlements might not be the real (or the only) obstacle to peace.”
Maybe I should listen to it again.
Sure they allowed the Israeli guest to have his say without too much interruption, eventually, but, the whole intro and lead in, specially the loaded questions put to Ghattas from London, were designed to reaffirm the BBC’s world view (ie: The Settlements™) in the listener’s mind a priori.
You’re spot on in drawing attention to the difference between an obstacle to talks and an obstacle to peace. The US is obviously aware of the importance of choosing the right word, and the BBC are obviously aware that misreporting those words is important in getting its biased message across.
The BBC will continue to go from “disputed” to “occupied”, they already seem to have stopped adding “although Israel disputes this” and now simply go with “illegal under international law”.
Remember that when reporting criminal proceedings in the UK the BBC is careful to use qualifiers such as “alleged” – all that goes out of the window as far as Israel is concerned.
BBC opinion is stated as fact and facts aren’t even offered any more in the name of balance.
“International Law”, innit. No questions asked.
It’s the standard unthinking mantra of the left and of politicians who have been indoctrinated that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace and mindlessly repeat that doctrine.
If the simplistic formula
Israel – settlements = peace
is valid, then why was
Israel – settlements = war
the result when Israel withdrew from every square inch of Gaza settlements?
The brain-dead ideologues of the left and politicians who think they can solve the Israeli-Arab conflict by putting most of the pressure on Israel have no answer to that question.
Excuse me if I’m being pedantic, but words have very precise meanings and illegitimacy does not necessarily imply illegality.
‘“We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity,” she said.’
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/legitimate%5B1%5D
—le·git·i·ma·cy <img src=”http://www.learnersdictionary.com/images/audio.gif” title=”Listen to audio” alt=”Listen to audio”/> /lɪˈʤɪtəməsi/ noun [noncount] ▪ Many question the legitimacy of the law.
Indeed!
I think many of us read the same blogs, but I thought it was worth linking to this piece on Elder of Ziyon as it’s on the same theme, and he does a nice masterclass on Fisking.
Even the left-wing Ha’aretz reports more honestly about this story:
Palestinians: Clinton should have blamed Israel for failure of Mideast talks In speech on Friday, U.S. secretary of state said both Israel and the Palestinians bear responsibility for the collapse of the recent direct peace negotiations.
Nice to see the BBC following the Palestinian line more faithfully than America!
Clinton was on the news just now talking about a line being drawn with agreed boundaries between a Palestinian and Israeli state.
She makes it sound so simple. Maybe she should look at a map.
Of course, a contiguous Palestinian state would cut Israel in two. Unless there could be a tunnel linking Gaza and Ramallah under Israel.
Er…on second thoughts, no, that’s a lousy idea..
The legal argument against settlement is usually ignored when making the general claim that settlements. When specifics are raised one paragraph in the 4th Geneva Convention seems to be the only basis for an argument about illegality.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.”
This section is designed to protect against a reoccurence of the Nazi deportations during WWII. Israel can argue that it hasn’t transferred anyone into the territories it occupies (if indeed it does occupy). Without exception they came and stay of their own free will. China which has over 50 yrs allowed the transfer of something like 7.5 million non-Tibetans (mainly Han Chinese) to Tibet has never been attacked under section 49 nor had the former Soviet Union which actively encouraged 25 million of Ethnic Russians to move to states such as the Baltics and the Asian republics. As with so many accusations against Israel others doing the same thing or greater escape BBC censure.
The BBC in it’s analysis skips over Part I. General Provisions. This in line with the general BBC policy of referring to Israel’s case as Israel says and never why it says it.
Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. The Palestinians are not a state, have never been one and may never be one and are incapable of being a signatory.
This situation is covered by Article 3 that states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
It is not difficult to argue that settlement policy is not part of this list of minimum requirements for treatment of civilians. If the drafters of the Geneva convention had wanted it to be they would have included it.
Parts of the BBC analysis are eerily similar to their analysis of Global Warming in that they claim universal acceptance of their interpretation as justification.
Almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel, have referred to the situation in these territories as occupation.
The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice.
This post is already too long to go into details but I’m sure B-BBCers are already filling in the blanks.
This in line with the general BBC policy of referring to Israel’s case as Israel says and never why it says it.
Yes, that’s the continual chant. I imagine it’s said with a curl of the lip. Can’t trust those bloody J… er Israelis.