Given the hostility shown towards Israel by Obama in his blustering speech yesterday, it was of course entirely predictable that the BBC would get very excited about it. We had Mark Mardell and Jeremy Bowen praising the wisdom of Obama whilst bemoaning the negativity of the Netanyahu response in equal measure. Then there is the careful and contrived BBC skirting around the genocidal anti-Semitism that drives “Palestinians” in the first place.Anytime I am given the opportunity to discuss this issue on the BBC I am instantly beseiged by the BBC interview expressing incredulity that anyone might question the bona fides of the savages in Hamas and the holocaust denying “moderates” in Fatah. Obama is playing to a general MSM bias against Israel but in the case of the BBC this bias is deep, profound and consistent. Israel is always going to be portrayed by the BBC as in the wrong and so when a shrill Obama dares to lecture it, the BBC can be relied upon to a little echo-chamber.
LOVING OBAMA, HATING ISRAEL
Bookmark the permalink.
“Returning to 1967”
(Bosch Fawstin, cartoon)
You’re so right David; Obama’a speech in manna from heaven to the witless BBC. Wyre Davies writes this morning “the Israeli leader appears increasingly out-manoeuvred and out of step…” as if Obama’s egocentric pronouncements should be etched in gold & set in stone.
Today is going to be a big day in the ME with Israel’s borders under attack again – I am dreading to see how this will be portrayed by our Quisling media.
Correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t the USA have a rather large jewish vote?
You are wrong:
The population of American adherents of Judaism was estimated to be approximately 5,128,000 (1.7%) of the total population in 2007 (301,621,000); including those who identify themselves culturally as Jewish (but not necessarily religiously), this population was estimated at 6,489,000 (2.2%) as of 2008.
Jewish Vote In Presidential Elections
Your point is…?
It’s not the size of the vote people like Number 7 are worried about, but the size of the wallets. The Jooooooish Lobby is all-powerful, of course. Which is why the Joooos not only don’t control their holiest site, but aren’t even allowed to pray there. Er….
Maybe, but Obama must have calculated that the USA has a larger anti-Jewish vote.
After all, he is not burdened by having any principles to guide him other than popularity and votes.
I wonder if Muslim vote might be larger…
The highest rated and lowest rated comments say it all:
I’ve just been through some of them and commented and also rated a few of them. The anti-Israel crew are definitely in the ascendancy there. Reminds me of all the conspiracy theorists who used to insist on the old Have Your Say that there was this huge right-wing, pro-Israel block that manipulated the recommended comments pages to reflect positively on Israel.
LOL, is all I can say to that.
The “Editors’ Picks” are revealing too. So far I count just one of those that could be considered pro-Israel, out of nine “Editors’ Picks”.
One out of nine, that’s fair in the BBC’s mind.
we are witnessing the same broad anti jewish hatred that ushered in the holocaust
the nazis are a broad spectrum of people these days
woe betide them
One Facebook organised event on Middle East TODAY which INBBC will not be supporting:
NYC emergency rally today: protest Obama’s jihad against Israel
Far be it from me to advise the Israeli PM – or the Israelis – as to how to deal with Obama. However, maybe Netanyahu should consider instructing Obama to hand back the lands seized from Mexico in the mid-1840s. Moreover, since Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California are, in effect, being handed back to the rule of Mexicans via (federally tolerated) illegal immigration from that happy land South of the Border, Netanyahu should point out the failings of such a policy. He could warn Americans of the incipient domestic problems the US faces from a recalcitrant fifth column of the unreconciled and, thereby, draw a startling comparison with Israel’s position (and the fatuity of Obama’s policies in the Middle East).
Obama’s problem domestically is not the effect of dumping (traditional) Jewish support for the Democrats, it’s the rage of the Anglos and legally settled immigrants in the South West which should concern him. As biodegradable points out, no matter how active the Jews are in politics in the US there are only 6.5million of them and there is, if not a majority, a plurality of white Americans on the voting rolls and they don’t, it seems to me, like what they’re seeing. As we saw last November, unlike the position here, Americans translate their anger with the political class into votes and from there into political representation. If the Republicans could find a credible candidate I would begin to believe that Obama is heading for a one-term presidency a la Jimmy Carter.
Well he is certainly pushing Carter for the “Worst President in US History” award.
The Jews have a significant vote in basically five states: New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Florida. But NY and CA are always going to vote Democrat by a wide majority, and not even losing a portion of the Jewish vote is going to stop that. Probably NJ as well. Illinois is The Obamessiah’s turf, so He doesn’t need the Jews there, either. The only real worry is Florida, as we saw in 2000 and 2004. The old Jewish retirees there might swing things, maybe. I know there’s a growing awareness amongst them that the President is no friend of Israel, and they’re all old enough to remember when the letters from Europe stopped coming.
Having said that, I don’t think the President needs to worry about losing to much of the Jewish vote no matter what He does. Jews in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat reflexively, and it would take a miracle to change that significantly enough to affect a national election. Besides which, He’s stubborn and angry enough to defy US Jews if He feels like it, whether He thinks He’ll lose the votes or not.
I listened to Obama’s speech in full on the World Service. When he came to Israel/Palestine, he mentioned the Israeli man who lost his daughter in a Palestinian attack and then formed an organisation to assist both Palestinians and Israelis who had suffered similar loss. He then mentioned the Palestinian man who lost three daughters in an Israeli attack yet chose not to hate.
Rioght after the speech, World Have your Say had an excerpt from Obama’s speech, beginning at the Palestinian’s experience and thus omitting that of the Israeli. That obviously destroyed the point he was making – that both Palestinians and Israelis have the capacity to forgive and grow even in the face of extraordinary personal loss.
I’ll have a look at the wording of Obama’s statement on the Palestinian attack. Could be he used the dreaded T-word in the same sentence as “Palestinian.” That would enough for the BBC to drop his words like the probverbial hot coal. But of course it’s consistent of the BBC to hide or minimise Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis, whether accompanied by the T-word or not.
The whole speech is here:
Search for “terror”, he used it quite a lot. “Trust” the BBC to omit it, or maybe they substitute it for “militant” as they infamously did when “quoting” a speech by T. Blair.
Maybe Netanyahu should ask Obama about the nice line in double standards he has regarding national security. Maybe he should ask why he thinks its acceptable for Tel Aviv to be placed within 9 miles of an enemy’s border while Obama has troops setting up a defensive wall in Kabul to protect Washington, some 11000 miles away.
Maybe Netanyahu should ask the president to watch the video below and imagine his family in the crowd. Maybe Netanyahu should ask if the President would tolerate the life for his wife and children and if not what gives him the right to sentence more Israelis to it on that basis:
(warning: some may consider it graphic)
It is coming and Bowen, Obama and all of them won’t be able to shrug their shoulders like it means nothing.
BBC corridors must have been littered with empty champagne bottles this morning. Yesterday BBC correspondents were delighted that the borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state were envisaged by Obama as based on the 1967 borders with land swaps – though they left that last bit out, or at least Jeremy Bowen did. Bowen was beside himself with joy, talking about how the Palestinians would be so appreciative of the speech and the Israelis woud be “furious.”
However, if they’d been paying attention, they would have noticed that Obama also spoke of a contiguous Palestinian state – which of course would mean a non-contiguous Israel, when you look at a map. If the idea of Israel shrunk back to the ’67 borders caused joy in BBC studios, then the idea of Israel in two halves would have made them jump up and down in hysterical celebration had they been competent enough to actually absorb what Obama was saying.
To me that was the most interesting bit of what was mostly a speech packed with wishful thinking and elaborate lefty idealism because I hadn’t heard the contiguous word mentioned in a long time in this context. Does Obama really understand that a contiguous Palestinian state would split Israel in two? Or am I missing something here?
He mentioned Jerusalem quite cautiously I thought:
Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Maybe he’s seen this:
Obama also said:
In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.
I don’t know if the BBC mentioned that at all, but meanwhile here’s the Palestinians’ answer:
Hamas: Obama speech total failure
Hamas doesn’t need democracy lessons from American president, terror group says
Terrorists unimpressed with Obama’s words: President Barack Obama’s Mideast policy speech Thursday was a “total failure,” Hamas said Thursday evening.
“The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama,” said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. “Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel’s crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel’s occupation.”
“We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances,” the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: “We object to intervention in our internal affairs.”
Are you listening, Barak Hussein?
And are you listening, BBC ?
TooTrue, The Obamessiah has revealed His true opinion of Israel at last. Unfortunately, it’s exactly as I said it was two years ago, before He was annointed…sorry….elected. We’ve all seen the video of Rev. Wright (thrown under the bus when he became inconvenient) spouting venom about Israel, and the Community Organizer in Chief applauded that stuff for 20 years. It’s no surprise to anyone with open eyes that the President said what He did about Jerusalem and the Right of Return.
Even though the Beeboids and certain departed defenders of the indefensible told me I was paranoid and foolish, it’s all as I predicted. Jooooish Lobby not so powerful today, I guess.
Here’s the bit from Obama’s speech that WHYS left out, in bold:
But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, ‘I gradually realised that the only hope for progress was to recognise the face of the conflict.’
And the bit they included:
And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. ‘I have the right to feel angry,’ he said. ‘So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate… Let us hope,’ he said, ‘for tomorrow’.
The bias is set in stone.
That alone makes any claim by the BBC to be unbiased utterly ridiculous.
These scumbags even believe they have the right to edit their hero’s speech to further their own nasty agenda.
Let me say it again, Beeboids are the pits of humanity.
Don’t forget that the BBC has previous on selectively editing the President’s speech to suit their own agenda.
This old article is now resurrected and linked from the front page of BBC News along with stories related to Obummer’s speech:
2 September 2010 Last updated at 09:35 GMT
Obstacles to Middle East peace: Borders and settlements
In 1948, when British rule of Palestine ended, Israeli forces managed to push most of the Arab forces that joined the war to the former Mandate boundaries, which became temporary ceasefire lines.
The exceptions were what we now know as the West Bank, which remained under Jordanian control, and the Gaza Strip, which was controlled by Egypt.
Thus Israel came into being on 78% of the former Palestine, rather than the 55% allocated under the UN partition plan.
Parts of Israel’s central region were just 15km (9 miles) wide, and strategic Jordanian-held territory overlooked the whole coastal region.
Fast forward to 1967, when Israel captured both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.
Gotta laugh at that “Fast forward”!
Sure BBC, let’s forget about the Illegal occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank by the Jordanians, who by the way, in all those years never ever even suggested that that territory was “Palestinian”. Let’s forget about the Jordanians expelling and murdering Jews who had lived in Jerusalem for generations. Let’s forget about the Jordanians desecrating Jewish cemetaries and using Jewish tombstones to build latrines and pave roads (so they would walked upon). Let’s just forget about all that. In fact let’s not mention Jerusalem at all!
I fail to see the logic in the bottom line, which is maybe the recent addition:
Not all Palestinians, however, want a two-state solution.
Hamas, which won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary election and holds sway in Gaza, wants to avoid at all costs a negotiated deal with Israel that involves drawing permanent borders along the Green Line. Its wider aim is to establish a single, Islamic state within the whole of pre-1948 Palestine.
It believes such a state, with the return of 1948 refugees, would have an impregnable and growing Arab, Muslim majority, and would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
In the long term, therefore, Israel’s reluctance to accept the existing Green Line in some ways plays into the hands of militant Islamist groups such as Hamas.
More wilful misinterpretation, or pig-ignorance, from the BBC:
Mr Obama has said a future Palestinian state must be based on the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war.
He said “mutually agreed swaps” would help create “a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel”.
But Mr Netanyahu said the pre-1967 borders were “indefensible”.
What’s this “borders that existed prior to the 1967 war” and “pre-1967 borders”???!
Obama actually said:
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
And the bottom line of that piece?
A senior member of Hamas, Foreign Minister Mohamed Awad, told the BBC that tangible steps were needed from the US president, not mere slogans.
“Obama didn’t say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, who are suffering for more than 63 years,” he said.
“He didn’t say that the peace process had already reached a dead end… He tried to please everyone but he didn’t try to please the Palestinian people.”
Still not a mention of the statements from Hamas (see my previous post) insisting they will never recognise Israel, just more official Hamas propaganda just for the BBC and happily propagated by the BBC about poor suffering “Palestinians”
What I object to most of all about the BBC’s behavior is that they were focused on Israel bashing even before the speech began. The opening posts of their live text were dominated by the topic. Yet, we were told by the White House and the foreign branch of the press office (Mark Mardell) that the speech was going to be about outlining a coherent plan for dealing with the Arab Spring and all the different Mohammdena dictators in the region.
As was pointed out on the last open thread at the time, Jeremy Bowen said that the Israel scolding at the end was the President “saving the best bits for last”. He should be disqualified from his job just for that remark alone. And when it was over, schadenfreude all round at Broadcasting House.
The President Himself said in the speech that it was wrong to use Israel as a distraction from the problems in all the ME dictatorships. Yet here is the BBC doing exactly that, behaving as if Israel is the number one problem in the region and just as bad as any dictatorship. Just like we always accuse of them of doing, in spite of the eye-rolling and snorting we hear from defenders of the indefensible and the occasional drive-by Israel basher.
There can no longer be any doubt about the entrenched anti-Israel bias at the BBC.
“The President Himself said in the speech that it was wrong to use Israel as a distraction from the problems in all the ME dictatorships.”
Indeed David, and not a word about that part in the BBC coverage either…
Kim Ghattas just revealed her pro-Palestinian bias and nearly told a lie on air. She was talking about what Israel and the Palestinians got out of the President’s speech yesterday, and said that the Palestinians didn’t get enough because He “didn’t mention” – but then caught herself – “barely mentioned the refugees….”
Almost a lie, still dishonest, and promoting Palestinian propaganda. The President said very clearly that Israel would have to deal with the “Right of Return”, even uisng the very political term itself. There’s no question where He stands on it, and no way can Ghattas claim that this isn’t enough of a mention.
The Obamessiah has declared that the 1967 borders is the only solution for peace, and since it ties in with long-established BBC editorial policy, it’s now Gospel. A perfect alignment of the stars for the Beeboids do the exact opposite of something else the President said: try to delegitimize Israel by saying things like how Netanyahu is now “out of step”.
Kim Ghattas just parroted, almost word for word, the Hamas line. See my post above at 15:40:
A senior member of Hamas, Foreign Minister Mohamed Awad, told the BBC that…
“Obama didn’t say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, who are suffering for more than 63 years,” he said...”
Aha, you’re right, BioD! Ghattas was clearly influenced by this, and just barely caught herself on air. Proof positive of where the BBC gets their talking points on the region.
or as I call her
i saw her pedigree when the last lebanon war was ongoing-she almost made me put my foot through the tv
Israel really doesn`t need the U.S/ BBC angles on anything!
The liberals can say what they like-Israel is going nowhere,and as the only liberal democracy in the whole region-and the oldest established community (in its genuine sense)-we the real people know that if Israel falls, so will we!
The BBC/Obama types can say what they like(and they do!) ,but we stand or fall with Israel.
Well said, cj !
we don’t need to see the balen report
the beeboid quisling scumsucking tramps live it every day of their sad sorry cocaine snorting existences
Is that you Martin? 😀
Oh, Bio, I wish. I really miss Martin. Always brought a smile to my face !
I miss Martin’s contributions as well. I suspect he sometimes posts on Guido as QWERTY, but I can’t be sure, and I never manage to catch it soon enough to post a reply on which whoever it is might check back.
I’ve been in touch today and yesterday with a BBC guy who is quite fair-minded and has undertaken to look into the reasion for that disgusting editing out of the Israeli experience. I mailed him the following example of BBC bias by omission:
Here’s an excerpt from a speech last year by Obama, my emphasis in bold:
Peace must be made by Israelis and Palestinians, but each of us has a responsibility to do our part as well. Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine – one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity. And those of us who are friends of the Palestinians must understand that the rights of the Palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means – including genuine reconciliation with a secure Israel.
Many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians. But these pledges must now be supported by deeds. Those who have signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative should seize this opportunity to make it real by taking tangible steps toward the normalization that it promises Israel.
Those who speak out for Palestinian self-government should help the Palestinian Authority politically and financially, and – in so doing – help the Palestinians build the institutions of their state. And those who long to see an independent Palestine rise must stop trying to tear Israel down.
After thousands of years, Jews and Arabs are not strangers in a strange land. And after sixty years in the community of nations, Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate. Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people – the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas – who stands up for his people in front of the world – is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children.
And here’s how the BBC reported the speech:
With Israel’s deadline to end its partial moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank looming in a few days time, President Obama inevitably focused on the Middle East as the key diplomatic business of the moment.
He noted that the Israel-Palestinian peace process “had travelled a winding road over the last twelve months with”, as he put it, “few peaks and many valleys”.
But to the pessimists and the cynics who doubt that conditions are ripe for peace, he reaffirmed why he believes that there was simply no alternative to talks.
“If an agreement is not reached the hard realities of demography will take hold, and more blood will be shed,” he said.
That reference to the “hard realities of demography” represents a clear warning to Israel to acknowledge that trends in the region are not in their favour and to act on the consequences.
He called for the moratorium on settlement construction to be extended.
There was advice too for those Arab states who back a comprehensive peace in the region. Mr Obama urged them to take tangible steps towards normalisation with Israel and to provide additional political and financial help for the Palestinian Authority.
“Those who want to see an independent Palestine rise,” he said, “must stop trying to tear Israel down.”
Note that not one of the Palestinian obligations is mentioned, even though Obama spent some time on them. There is only mention of the bit about not tearing Israel down, but it’s clear from the context that that applies to those outside of the conflict, at least geographically. The remarks in bold were evidently aimed at Hamas, regarded as at that stage an impediment to peace. Why did the BBC not mention them?
It’s practically an unwritten rule at the BBC to emphasise Israeli obligations while minimising or ignoring those of the Palestinians. For as long as I’ve accessed the BBC (the best part of a decade) it has slanted and distorted its reporting to follow that agenda – to the extent, as we see here, that it cannot even bring itself to accurately represent the part of Obama’s speech that dealt with Israel-Palestine.
That’s not how a reputable news organisation operates. And it’s high time the BBC’s political journalists grasped the simple fact that it’s not their function to manipulate the public’s impression of the news but just to bring the public the news. People can make their own minds up about the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Arab conflict and anything else without having their arms twisted by the BBC. There’s little doubt that he will come up against a brick wall if he tries to dig into the circumstances of that edit. But there is a good chance he will come to understand something about who he’s working for.
The last two sentences should be a separate paragraph.
Just gone back to that BBC article – the one where commenters were positively recommending the Palestinian side and negatively recommending the Israeli side. It’s changed now – perhaps because America has woken up and Muslims are all rioting and slaughtering, having emerged from Friday prayers.
Rep. Allan West (R-FL) has suggested that the President’s speech could represent “the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”
Well, since he’s in Florida, he does have to worry about a Jewish vote, and he knows which way the wind blows. But he won election last November with Tea Party backing, not Jewish money. I think that tells you more about the mood of the country than the Jewish Lobby angle. Just one more reason for the BBC to ingore him.
TooTrue mentioned this above on this thread from the President’s speech, but the BBC has now done a special online article highlighting the two “inspriations” for peace.
The fact that the President chose to use a man who lost innocent daughters to collateral damage during Israel’s battle with Hamas in Gaza as an example but the Israeli version is someone who’s family loss to war was an Israeli soldier shows just how twisted He and His Administration are. So that part isn’t BBC bias.
But it is BBC bias for a Beeboid to fail to point out how this is certainly not comparing like with like. The Palestinian vicitms were innocent girls, while the Israeli casualty was a nasty old Israeli soldier. That’s the best example of an Israeli wanting peace the Presdient could find? Not to mention the celebrated Body Count disparity. Disproportionate, yada yada.
Why doesn’t the BBC point out that this is hardly fair to Israel? That’s a rhetorical question, I know, because the Beeboids already think the worst of Israel so this is completely normal to them. I bet they don’t even notice how messed up this is.
Good catch, David Preiser. To add to your remarks, isn’t it just typical that the Israeli is included as an inset, incidental to the main thrust of the story – which is of course the Palestinian’s experience. And the Israeli was not asked how he felt about Obama’s mention of him.
These BBC fools are so stuck in the Palestinian narrative that they would probably be amazed that anyone saw bias in the arrangement of that story.
It also strikes me that the Beeboid I’m in touch with could well have pushed someone to include the Israeli since the BBC neatly excised him from their exerpt broadcast on yesterday’s WHYS. Could be that the story was ready for the website and that’s why the Israel was included as an inset.
The fact of the inset Jew highlights the disparity of the Body Count Narrative. The Beeboids know one is morally superior to the other, and the BBC style guide dictates layout accordingly. Simple as that.