Partial Reporting

Who wouldn’t vote for the bid for Palestinian statehood? Why, I’d vote for it myself after reading Wyre Davies!
Anyone who relied on this article couldn’t really help feeling that the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for recognition at the UN is anything other than the right thing to do.
After all, Wyre writes, Israel was less than euphoric about the glorious Arab Spring. In fact they were lukewarm! The right-wing Israeli government ‘they say’, opposes the bid because it would not lead to peace, he continues, and they give warnings and make threats without offering constructive alternatives.
Israel even refuses to countenance perfectly reasonable suggestions that it should stop building in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land! If the Israelis won’t accede to the Palestinians’ demands and accept their “pre-conditions”, he appears to be saying, what else is there left for a poor Palestinian to do but press ahead with a unilateral bid for statehood? The US is the only friend Israel has, and that’s only because Obama wants to take the credit for bringing about ‘Peace’. No, Wyre concludes, all the EU countries will get together and do the right thing, make life very uncomfortable for Israel. Israel has been busy cooking up a case against the bid. Wyre doesn’t quite don’t know what that is, but he suspects they haven’t got a leg to stand on.

Pity Wyre Davies listens to Jeremy Bowen and not Robin Shepherd.
If he did he might have added a few suggestions as to why Israel’s case is worthy of being explained to the mob. As it is, the comments below Wyre’s article display an astonishing degree of ignorance and hate. One in particular merely reiterates two discredited media stories which were manipulated to exhibit Israel’s malevolence, the notorious Al Durah incident and the Gaza beach explosion. Despite the fact that they are off topic, inflammatory and untrue, the comment remains.
So, for the mob, here are a couple of points that Wyre hasn’t mentioned, which Robin Shepherd does.
The bid is a blatant attempt to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, thereby avoiding making concessions themselves.
The 1967 borders, (ceasefire lines) upon which the bid for statehood is based are indefensible for Israel. The American veto will mean the bid goes the General Assembly where it’s success will be a symbolic gift to Israel’s enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood. Robin Shepherd writes:

If you watch the BBC or read the Guardian you obviously won’t be aware of this, but opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say).

As I noted in an article in May, a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”.

Two thirds supported the proposition that: “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state”. And 71 percent said Yasser Arafat was right to reject Bill Clinton’s two-state peace proposals in 2000 and 2001.

In other words, the Israelis have always been in the near impossible situation of being asked to negotiate with people who plainly don’t want any long term peace involving the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate state with a secure future, whatever their leaders say about recognising Israel to gullible Western media.”

Meanwhile, Catherine Ashton hasn’t achieved consensus at the EU, and the UK government wavers, and is being put under pressure by members of the US Congress.
“There are no circumstances where Britain should be voting ‘yes’ unless you want to give support to the continuation of terrorist activities,” said Allen West, A Florida Republican.

So Wyre, dust off your impartiality manual, and start delivering the full picture. Otherwise you should be on half pay. Half a story, half the salary.

Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Partial Reporting

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Davis forgot to mention that the Palestinians want their state to be Judenrein. The censorship to protect Narratives never ends at the BBC.


    • Biodegradable says:

      Indeed David, and no mention either of the declarations that so-called “refugees” will not be allowed to return to any future Palestinian state.

      No mention either of Hamas’s opposition to the move at the UN, and if the move succeeds will the new state of Palestine include Gaza?


      • TooTrue says:

        That’s the BBC -sticking to the narrowest possible interpretation of events and naturally the one they like. Had a guy named Carne Ross on the WS the other day. Made it seem that Israel was the one blocking peace, of course.


        • james1070 says:

          Typical BBC they are against the so called illegal Jewish settlements.  But when it comes to the Pike’ys illegal settlements they are all for them.


  2. jarwill101 says:

    Republican Allen West, a politician that can see straight through the pretty Palestinian smokescreen & the walls of the beeboid dream factory, no messing. If only we had a few hundred of his kind in our corridors of power.


  3. Anonymous says:

    Barbara Plett called the Palestinian preconditions “guidelines” on air yesterday – sounds so inoffensive, doesn’t it?


  4. Henry Wood says:

    If only the sheeples who rely on al-BBC for their “news” realised just how corrupt the UN General Assembly is, they would not place the importance on the foregone decision that Messrs. Bowen, Davies, Humphries, Webb and the rest of the bigots in Broadcasting House will. I can already hear the enraptured reporting on that vote, no doubt along the lines of Israel is now truly a pariah state – the UN General Assembly says so!

    Here’s a quote from a man who had the UN General Assembly properly weighed up:
    “If the Arab bloc introduced a resolution in the U.N. General Assembly declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, the resolution would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” – Abba Eban


  5. Margo Ryor says:

    Lucky the UN is worthless without US troops to back it up…. Surely the UK wouldn’t pick up the slack? You’re pretty much the only country in Europe with a military worth anything.


  6. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Thing about being considered (if only by self-delusion) objective is, some folk either believe it, or use it to convince.

    Which is why I tend to view anything that cites a BBC source in support with some suspicion.

    Which, bearing in mind I’m also compelled to fund and support it, seems odd.


  7. john in cheshire says:

    I hope that Israel gives a robust defence of its position. Nothing, absolutely nothing more should be conceded to the muslims. If they want to live in peace then let them demonstrate that. But, as we all know, muslims won’t be content until Israel is obliterated and of course then they will turn to the next non-muslim country and do the same to it. Even if they were to turn the whole world into an islamic one, they would not be satisfied because they are incapable of peaceful existence with anyone; not even themselves. As usual the bbc is looking at the situation through their own lenses and not those of normal, real-world viewers. I really hate the bbc; and that’s about as much as i hate islam.


  8. Pete Hayes says:

    O/T but here we go again wth the BBC. Turkey this time! Northern Cyprus has been termed an Illegal occupation by the Turks since 1973/4?

    The wonderfull U.N. have done nothing after being on the Island since 1960!  (They do like to drive round in brand new trucks and frequesnt the bars and beaces thougt!)

    Now Noble drilling has found gas/oil offshore Israel  and has followed the finds towards Cyprus.

    The result is this BBC report…

    Keep your eyes open on this one, the Turks are threatening to stop talks about joining the E.U.. over it! An you wonder why Turkey has suddenly got a hard on over Israel!


    • Biodegradable says:

      You have to read almost to the very end of that piece to learn that Turkey illegally occupies Northern Cyprus, and even then the BBC try to obfuscate the fact as much as possible. It’s clear that the BBC supports Turkey, much as it supports Hezbollah and Hamas.

      “The island has been split since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded the north of Cyprus in response to a Greek-engineered coup.

      See, the Turks responded to a Greek coup!

      The internationally recognised government in Nicosia in fact only exercises control over the Greek south of Cyprus.

      The issue has been a stumbling block to Turkey’s bid to join the EU.

      Turkey is alone in supporting the Turkish-Cypriot administration in the northern part of Cyprus.”

      Isn’t that another way of saying the Turkish-Cypriot administration in the northern part of Cyprus is not recognised by the international community?


  9. Biodegradable says:

    Just reading the second paragraph of the Wyre Davies report almost tempted me to close the window!

    “The domino-like fall of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, not forgetting the violent turmoil in Syria, caught almost everyone by surprise and, arguably, left Israeli politicians floundering for a coherent policy response.”


    I suppose it didn’t cross Davies’s closed mind that Israeli politicians may have been simply tactful and patiently awaiting the outcome of the “Arab Spring”?

    It’s interesting to compare the highest and lowest rated comments; the highest are full of lies and antisemitism while the lowest are historically factual.


    • john in cheshire says:

      I suspect that politics in Israel is too important for them to be ‘floundering’ about anything.


      • noggin says:

        yep! look like Ben er “floundered” quite badly when he took Obama to school, on national tv.
        Or Ben /Regev, when they give the “cut the crap” routine on el beebs
        pallywood pipedreams, telling it straight & like it is, yep! all over the place 😀
        simple fact is abbas, will get his pallywood ass kicked, in any negotiations
        there is nothing else to give….line in the sand time.


    • Craig says:

      Yes, the highest rated comment (from Saurabh) asserts of Israel that “no one challenges its right to exist”.

      How ignorant of the world do you have to be to write something so naive/stupid/dishonest?

      And those who gave it a ‘like’ are just as bad. 


  10. Andrew says:

    Where to begin with this journey in to weapons grade pillockery by the BBC?  
    I’m fascinated by the definitive tone in their interpretation of events that they have got so spectacularly wrong within the last year either through incompetence or what can only be described as evil twisting of facts.  I marvelled at Davies’ charcterisation that the situation had left Israel floundering for a policy response and had stupidly put regional stability over political puralism.  Seriously how he could raise either of those observations is beyond me.  
    The BBC have mischaracterised the so called Arab Spring from start to finish and have swept their failures under the carpet when the emergence of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood have shown the real direction events are taking.  If anyone is struggling for a policy response it has been western governments and the BBC who have been cock a hoop at the revolutionary antics that the leftists hoped to be part of back in their heyday.    
    Also, how bloody inconsiderate of Israel to consider regional stability above political pluralism.  Of course that idea of a void in political pluralism if you wilfully ignore the only open democracy in the region that is Israel and the democratic process that has led to turnover in the ruling parties.  
    Israel’s problem is that they have been able to see the nightmare for what it is including the likely future and like the rest of us cannot fathom the insane conclusions that the MSM and the self regarding political elite in the west have drawn in their interpretation.  
    And then we have this in which Davies shines a light on the true nature of the problem:  
    The goal of Tony Blair, Catherine Ashton, Dennis Ross and David Hale to extract some genuine concession or initiative from the Israelis that would persuade the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to drop his bid for statehood at the UN and to return to peace talks  
    Here we have the constant requirement of concessions from the Israelis to get the Palestinians to stop.  As ever the requirement is on Israel to give something up once again as they have throughout history.  As we all know, one only has to look back at the history of modern Israel to see repeated concessions by Israel that have been accepted by them only to see their enemies ask for more and more either in peace talks or at the end of a brigade of tanks and guns from the likes of Egypt, Jordan or Syria.  
    We could all go on with this, but my eye is cast to the future.  Having spent so long harping on about 1967 borders, one has to wonder what the BBC are going to make of the emerging idea that the next step for the Palestinians is to start pushing the narrative of the 1947 borders as the next step of the sausage slicing that is the destruction of Israel


  11. DP111 says:

    A very good look back at the history of the PLO or as it calls itself now PA.


  12. ian says:

    I thought there was a Palestinian state already, called Jordan.


  13. noggin says:

    Exactly…the establishment of such a state–which it seems the US/Euro so strongly promote, are so keen to bring to fruition.
    Will it adhere  to the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members?
    “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?
    So “wake up & smell the coffee” clearly a Palestinian Authority state will not even remotely meet such criteria. What moral justification is there, for forcing a vulnerable Israel, threatened by an irredentist Palestinian state, there is none, for its own safety there is nothing else to give.
    The EU refuses to take much smaller risks,(compared to its size) in the case of Turkey? well up to pres anyway.

    I suppose we ll here all the deceitful “hogwash” over again historic and legal claims for a Palestinian Arab state, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” (sheer fabrication).
    The area of the former British mandate of Palestine (which to refer to your excelleny observation…included Jordan) was for centuries under the Ottomans an empty, deserted land


    • noggin says:

      As an adage 

      Now, you cannot occupy any territory,

      whose people never had jurisdiction over it in the first place,

      Israel had it from 67 from when Jordan tried to invade

      before that Jordan had it for 19 yrs since 1948 (Egypt – west bank)

      before that Great Britain had it

      before that Ottoman Turkey had it

      before that the Crusades

      before that Rome

      before that well probably jewish


      The “Palestinians” already have a state: Jordan. OH WAIT they tried to kill the king and take over the country in September 1970, so the Jordanians kicked them out.

      No other country would have them…. and thus DA DA DARR!! that’s WHY they’re in Israel.


  14. Umbongo says:

    Tangentially I’m not convinced that Turkey’s “occupation” of North Cyprus is unjustified.  OK, it’s not “legal” (whatever that means in the context of international politics) but the justification for the original invasion was pretty robust.

    The Greek colonels (remember them!) and the remnants of Greek Cypriot terrorists EOKA (think IRA with broken crockery) launched a coup against the legitimate administration of Cyprus headed by Makarios.  The Turks – quite rightly – saw this as an existential threat to Turkish Cypriots and invaded Cyprus ostensibly to protect them.  In reality, a threat to ethnic Turks  was good news for Turkey which was always on the lookout to flex its military might in the Eastern Med.  Couple that with the flabby non-response of the UK (which could have stopped said invasion on day 1 with the forces sitting in the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus) and Turkey hit the territorial jackpot.

    As I’ve commented before, if the Turks had resorted to “international law” the massacre of Turkish Cypriots (always under threat from their Greek fellow-citizens in Cyprus) would have resulted in what exactly?  At best,  after a 10 year enquiry, condemnation of the new Cypriot administration and a rap over the knuckles for Greece with life going on as usual (minus tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots either dead or as refugees to Turkey).  An analogy is the situation pre the 6-day war.  If Israel had sat there and done nothing or, more misguidedly, “negotiated” with Nasser and Assad, the resulting massacre would have been (sort of) condemned at the UN and . . that’s it!

    International “law” in these circumstances is a crock.  Sure, given its present occupation of N Cyprus) Turkey is hypocritical in its present attitude to Israel but what do you expect from an increasingly non-secular and Islamic republic?  What you won’t get from the BBC (which is not to say that somewhere in its vast catacombs there might be an even-handed analysis of the position) is a disinterested survey of Middle Eastern politics: not on its day-to-day radio/TV broadcasts certainly.  The BBC view: it’s all Israel’s fault: the Palestinians are spotless innocents and Turkey gets a free pass.


    • Biodegradable says:

      In one aspect at least the Turkish occpation of Northern Cyprus IS illegal. The Turks transported many Turkish citizens from depressed areas of Turkey to Cyprus in order to colonise the area, the also forcibly evicted, and killed many Greek Cypriots who had lived there for generations.

      That’s something that Israel has never done with respect “settlements” in Judea and Samaria. While various Israeli governments have turned a blind eye to some “settlements” no Israel government has ever transported Jews en masse into those territories or expelled Arabs already living there.


  15. Richard says:

    The BBC Known as Ayatollah BBC. in Iran. I didn’t know that.


  16. George R says:

    Not an INBBC report:

    “Head of Hizb ut-Tahrir cell in Tajikistan witnesses against BBC journalist”


  17. George R says:

    INBBC gives political plug to its chums at Amnesty International, whose joint aims include:

    1.)giving non-British people political priority over British people;

    2.) giving non-British people British people’s money;

    3.) giving non-British people British citizenship.

    E.g. Libya

    “Libya conflict: Europe failing Libya’s refugees – Amnesty”

    We know the anti-British, pro-jihad politics

    Amnesty, Liberty: Still in Bed with CagePrisoners