The so-called ‘Palmer report’ has finally been published.
Publication was held back for various reasons. The BBC says because of fears that issuing it sooner would jeopardise reconciliation between former allies Turkey and Israel – “which didn’t happen”. It seems, as well, that both Turkey and Israel had contributed to the delay by intervening with various demands and objections. The likelihood of a reconciliation seems somewhat far-fetched.
The conclusions boiled down to: a) Israel’s blockade was legal, but: b) they used excessive force on the Mavi Marmara.
The BBC’s headlines, needless to say, presented these two the other way round. They said the report stated that Israel used excessive force ‘when they boarded a ship taking “supplies” to Gaza.’
They didn’t say what the supplies were, perhaps because there weren’t any.
The next time round they modified the wording, along with, of all people, Barbara Plett’s more accurate terminology, that the flotilla was intended to ‘break the blockade’.
However the headline has currently reverted to “aid”. They’re saying the flotilla was taking aid! Everybody knows that 1) Gaza may need various kinds of help, but taking ‘aid’ isn’t one of them, and 2) the Mavi Marmara was taking a mob of activists and useful idiots on a publicity stunt devised simply to demonstrate their Israel-hating politics.
Israel takes issue with the “excessive and unreasonable” part of the report. Before saying ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they” it’s worth asking what else they could have done under the circumstances.
Turkey, of course, also takes issue. With everything else in the report.
That raises questions about the usefulness of commissioning these reports in the first place.
So, talking of Israel-hating politics, that brings us to the next headline, the disruption of the Israel Philharmonic orchestra’s performance at the Albert Hall. The triumph of the so-called pro Palestinian activists was that radio 3 had abandoned the live broadcast. Only they could believe that doing so was any help to the poor Palestinians.
The BBC initially reported that the performance was disrupted by pro Palestinian protesters shouting and booing the orchestra. So excited was the BBC scriptwriter that he/she forgot to notice that the booing came from the audience and was directed at the protesters. They’ve been featuring an interview with Deborah Fink, without mentioning the unpredictable, volatile outbursts which show her to be demonstrably unhinged. Many of us will be familiar with Deborah Fink’s other-worldly performance on a similar occasion, courtesy of Youtube.
The BBC is reflecting, creating, reflecting, creating the public’s hostility to Israel in a downward spiral, whose momentum seems unstoppable.
Yes I noticed that same spin from Radio 5 as well this morning. Also the BBC are having a go at Cameron again over Libya, perhaps I’m missing somethying but if the BBC are blaming Cameron shouldn’t they also be having a go at St Barack of Obamastan?
The BBC from my best memory haven’t said ONE negative word about HIS intervention in Libya. Can you imagine if this had been the ‘hated’ neocons? The BBC wouldn’t shut up about it.
‘The BBC initially reported that the performance was disrupted by pro Palestinian protesters shouting and booing the orchestra. So excited was the BBC scriptwriter that he/she forgot to notice that the booing came from the audience and was directed at the protesters.’
If an accurate report of an inaccurate one, surely another nail in the coffin that is the BBC’s already soiled reputation for professional competence and integrity.
Can they hire Comical Ali to ‘report’? Seems perfectly matched.
On the Toady news report at approx 7:25 the orchestra incident was presented primarily in the context of Radio 3 interrupting a broadcast. The news that the BBC had to take a programme off air was the main event, and the 1930’s-Germany Re-enactment Society’s latest disruption of civilized society was a secondary issue.
No agenda there, then.
Wrong. 8:25. Sorry.
We shouldn’t really keep pointing out how stupid the anti-semitic left continuously make themselves look. Each time they pull a stunt like this they turn hundreds of thousands of people against them.
I’d still like to see them sent to Gaza to fight for their ’cause’ though.
The UAF/SWP lot can be sent to one of their communist utopias too. Let’s see how keen they are on communism after living off $10 a month.
Excellent, Sue.
The BBC report does not reflect the source and adjusts the wording to concentrate on the violence but not the real issue..legality and intention.
The report vindicates Israel and they know it.
It also makes it clear that Turkey, as a state actor, has to examine its own role and shortcomings in the run-up and the subsequent reaction to the affair.
As a state actor, Turkey should know that the blockade is both legal and necessary.
A political election stunt by Erdogan cynically playing the anti-semitic card in his electorate.
The Turkish Foreign Minister , Davatoglu, is currently in Bucharest and clearly this report has caught him out.
Only yesterday (1st September) he stated:
“Turkey doesn’t consider any country an “enemy”, on the contrar, it categorised countries as friends or ‘potential’ friends. However not everything can be tolerated. Countries like Israel, which did not respect international law as could be seen from the Mavi Marmara attack, could not be tolerated’
Ouch!.
(Turkish FM reported in Anadolu Ajansi)
“Turkey to be a victimor leader of change”
http://www.anadoluajansi.de/index.php?yil=2003&ay=8&gun=26
(Reprise.)
Is it a coincidence that the London School of Economics figures prominently in this anti-Israel sabotaging?
“Boycotters threaten Israel prom”
[Extract from ‘Jewish Chronicle of 11 Aug]:
“The Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra is to be targeted by pro-Palestinian pickets when it performs at the BBC Proms at the Royal Albert Hall on September 1.
BRICUP, which promotes academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, called for a boycott of the sold-out concert and sent an open letter to Proms director Roger Wright.
The organisation’s chair, emeritus professor Jonathan Rosenhead…”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/53098/boycotters-threaten-israel-prom
Presumably, it would it be OK for people who disagree with Rosenhead to enter the London School of Economics (LSE) and disrupt his lectures as a protest against him, and against LSE awarding a degree to, and accepting funds off Libya’s Islamic Saif al-Islam Gaddafi at LSE.
I think just such a non-violent protest at the LSE should be called, anybody fancy organising it?
al beeb CANNOT wash their hands of responsibility or complicity in this resurgence of fascism
they are up to their necks in anti semitic bile and propaganda
if there was a new nuremburg trial,I know who would be first to swing
that utter lowlife scum Bowen
A British arts review of the BBC Proms debacle
From Igor Toronyi-Lalic at The Arts Desk
That article was very good, but it left an open goal by cutting straight to the chase and treating the protest as though it had been openly directed at Jews rather than against ‘the Israeli government’. The commenters immediately leapt in, claiming that anti Zionism is different from antisemitism. A bit predictable I thought.
The comments on the BBC Proms website are almost unanimously supportive of the IPO and ashamed at the behaviour of the protesters.
I noticed that several commenters declared that they were pro Palestinian, but ‘anti-demos at concerts’. (This reminds me of the ‘AsaJews’ who believe being Jewish gives them special privileges in the Israel-bashing arena.)
Most people seem to be defending their ‘right’ to hear the music, and praising the orchestra for its quality and fine playing.
However, the almost unanimous assumption behind nearly all of this is that Israel is a rogue state. For that, to a very great extent, I blame the BBC.
BBC-NUJ, in its reports of Hamas supporters’ sabotage against Israel musicians, gave its political emphasis to uncritical presentation of views of perpetrators, even filming against a backdrop of their propaganda banners.
Has BBC -NUJ brought legal charges against theses criminal saboteurs? Or simply encouraged them?
Radio 5 doing their bleeding heart stuff for the pikey scum again. Get the violins out. Or better still the machine guns.
Here’s Richard Millett’s article. He is critical of the BBC’s hasty decision to abandon the live broadcast, amongst other things.
The BBC are going yet again with Gaddafi’s ‘threats’ on their headline. You really get the idea the BBC would love this retard to ramp up the killing. Sky don’t have it as a top story, but no doubt al Bowen (who of course is a BIG fan of Gaddafi and vice versa) will be feeding the BBC this lie that Gaddafi is still in control.
What just as Saddam was? (another mass killer loved by al Bowen)
What is it about these mad dictators that makes Bowen love them so much, could it be their blind hatred of Jews perhaps?
No, it is just that he likes tough, ugly tyrants who treat their people like s**t. Just wish fulfillment I suppose.
From the Telegraph, describing the Prime Minister’s criticism of the BBC on the Today programme this morning:
“But a BBC spokesman dismissed the criticism, saying the corporation’s coverage had been “impartial and balanced”. ”
It was if your worldview centre of gravity lies somewhere between Polly Toynbee and Seumas Milne.
In BBC-NUJ newspeak, ‘Impartiality’ = ‘bias’.
‘But a BBC spokesman dismissed the criticism, saying the corporation’s coverage had been “impartial and balanced”
Interesting precedent.
So, in future, when the BBC manufactures a ‘critics are saying..’ piece, the solution it to simply to trot out a blithe dismissal and blanket ‘all was sweetness and light this end of the deal’, and no more will be mentioned?
Eh, Mr. Paxman, Mr. Humphrys? That how it will work now?
Or… is there some ‘unique’, ‘we don’t do FOI requests way that the BBC is different when it suits?
“There is something very ugly about this attempt to ghettoise Israeli musicians”
(by Brendan O’Neill)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100102895/there-is-something-very-ugly-about-this-attempt-to-ghettoise-israeli-musicians/
George,
Brendan O’Neill does the same thing as Igor Toronyi-Lalic in the article Bio linked to. He makes a convincing case against the protest, but then uses his pro Palestinian views as a kind of trump card.
The comments below these two articles and on the BBC proms website indicate that most supporters of the pro Palestinian activist movement / virulent haters of Israel, are hugely ill-informed. They must have been, at least in part, influenced and misinformed by the BBC’s reporting.
Yes; O’Neill’s comment against the intolerant is hedged.
‘Jewish Chronicle’:”Anti-Israel protesters disrupt BBC Proms”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/54010/anti-israel-protesters-disrupt-bbc-proms
If the BBC had continued to broadcast from the Albert Hall , it would have shown the world what sort of people Palestinians are – and that is not acceptable to the BBC, as palestinians are their favourite people.
BBC News 24 spinning this report like crazy. Ticker tape newsfeed reads “Israel refuses to apologise for the attack”. Newsreader talking about the “Israeli raid on the Mavi Mara”.
A naive viewer would think the IDF had just picked on a pleasure cruise – rather than a boatload of armed Jihadi’s attempting to breach a blockade designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorists.
Who has the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra attacked now?
Al Beeb really stuck with the Palmer report because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
They, like the NY Times have focussed on two key points of the report, namely the force used in boarding the Mavi Marmara and the legality of the blockade. There is however a key point that they have left out and had they included it puts a somewhat different slant on things.
The other key point within the report is the motivation and the actions of the flotilla team. The Palmer report draws the conclusion that getting the aid to gaza was not the main objective, especially as the Mavi Marmara wouldn’t have been able to dock in Gaza because it was simply too big for the port’s physical geography. The intent was to attempt to breach the blockade for publicity . This is further backed up by the committees view that there the amount of people on the boat were simply not needed to offload any humanitarian aid. Their view was that their intent amounted to a dangerous and reckless attempt to breach a military blockade. Their view was that if this was humanitarian aid to relieve the plight of the people of Gaza, how odd that they would put its delivery at risk when there were offers to land it elsewhere and complete its transition by land.
Not only that the report also acknowledged malign intent with the boarding of a group in Istanbul who passed without security checks, who once on baord seemed to change the nature of things on the boat.
Having read the report this for me is where is falls short with their finding of Israel’s excessive force. The Palmer report is quite clear that the intent of the flotilla was to provoke some sort of incident to create publicity of one kind or another. The contents of the boats were secondary to the propoganda aim.
Somehow, the report committee fail to make the link between the intent and Israel’s response to it. The criticism of Israel in the report is that they boarded without a final warning of their intention to board, preferring to launch a surprise boarding of the Mavi Marmara. the report suggests the Israeli’s should have considered other options first such as warning shots etc and warned them if they intended to board.
This is a strange finding as the report also acknowledges that there is evidence of planning to repel any boarding by the Israelis. In other words, nothing short of the Israeli’s taking control of the ship was going to stop it. The two are linked and it is a surprise ommission by the Palmer report, although I suspect that this has more to do with the committees remit to attempt to bring reconcililation from the incident. Had they made the connection in the report it would have been something of a slam dunk in favour of Israel.
One thing the BBC haven’t done is acknowledge (especially as the story has developed on the website) how the Israeli’s have fulfilled an aspect of the report findings. The report recommends that the Israelis issue an “appropriate statement of regret”. As the BBC have report in their analysis sidebar, the Israelis have “expressed only regret”.
And now we see what this is all about. Hamas aren’t happy and the Turks have sent the Israeli ambassador home. In other words, the idea of a balanced outcome to these is that the Palmer report should have lumped all of the blame on Israel. That they met the requirement to express regret is neither here nor there.
The BBC have helped trot this narrative out. They explain that the intention of the report was to reconcile the two nations but further suggest how it seems to have done anything but, without interpreting why Turkey have thrown their rattle out of their pram. They don’t report that Israel has already carried out one request from the report and as such the only outcome Turkey was willing to accept was one in which Israel was once again left to shoulder all of the blame.
In fact the provocation was planned all along by the IHH ‘passengers’ on the Mavi Marmara.
“Using previously unseen video footage from the IDF and confiscated passenger tapes, mostly recorded by members of a group called Cultures of Resistance, the program concluded that the main aim of the activists had not been to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, but rather to orchestrate a political act designed to put pressure on Israel and the international community.
The program also concluded that the Israeli commandos encountered a violent, premeditated attack by a hardcore group of activists organized by IHH members.”
That was the Jane Corbin ‘Death in the Med’ programme.
http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/death-in-the-med-video_30a34eb14.html
I could practically hear Barbara Plett grinding her teeth on the World Service today as she delivered a reasonable summary of the Mavi Marmara report. But how was her summary introduced? By only mentioning the finding that Israel used excessive force, of course.
That’s the bit the propagandists liked and so that’s the bit they emphasised.
The BBC needs to come up with a catchy new slogan on its service to the British public and beyond. Something along these lines, perhaps:
“The BBC: bringing you the news we approve of.”
Gul, President of Turkey:
‘Palmer report does not exist’
Perhaps it’s the translation, but they are are all talking about it in very emotional terms, with lots of huffing and puffing.
Clearly, not what the narrative would have wanted.
Turkey has now provided the BBC with the hook it needs on which to hang its anti-Israel version of the report:
Turkey expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza flotilla row
By the way, here’s what the Israeli Prime Minister’s statement says about Turkey “expelling” the Israeli ambassador:
http://www.israelpolitik.org/2011/09/02/prime-ministers-statement-on-adoption-of-the-palmer-report/
“In regard to the Israeli ambassador to Turkey, he concluded his term earlier this week, and has already bid farewell to his Turkish colleagues. He had previously made his plans to return to Israel in the coming few days.”
In other words, he was going anyway!
Something else missing from the BBC’s reporting of the Palmer Report:
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/09/01/palmer-commission/
* “Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”
[…]
* “Where a State becomes aware that its citizens or flag vessels intend to breach a naval blockade, it has a responsibility to take proactive steps compatible with democratic rights and freedoms to warn them of the risks involved and to endeavour to dissuade them from doing so.”
excelt when it involves israel
natch
*except
one for dez to jump on there 😉