The latest settlement announcements regarding Gilo have already been widely condemned as a provocation by people with no knowledge of history or geography. But there’s more to this than meets the eye.
“Gilo is a neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which is Israel’s eternal capital. Under many internationally-agreed final-status agreements, including the Clinton Parameters, the neighbourhood would remain a part of Israel.”
The BBC is ramping up its Israel-bashing again. Anything I/P related is being twisted and spun furiously. It’s as though after the unilateral bid the BBC wants to inflame the situation as much as possible, and maybe they’re hoping articles which use words such as ‘anger’, ‘provocation’ and ‘undermining trust’ will incite Israel-haters into such a frenzy that they’ll pressurise the EU or Nato to intervene ‘to protect civilians’.
Best friends Catherine Ashton and Hillary Clinton will probably issue some more pearls of wisdom for the BBC to quote in tomorrow’s episode of the BBC’s anti Israel campaign.
They’ve completely rewritten the ‘obstacle to peace’ scenario. You never hear anything about Palestinian ‘obstacles’, such as their openly expressed aspiration – not to any future peaceful coexistence – but to a future without Israel altogether, symbolised in their logo map, which blatantly depicts the whole of Israel as their future Palestinian state.
If the Israelis took a leaf out of Abbas’s book and produced strings of preconditions before negotiations can resume, the press might respect them more. Obviously being reasonable doesn’t do the trick, and they couldn’t spin against Israel much more than they already do.
The Israelis should demand that to tempt them back to the table the Palestinians must release Gilad Shalit, recognise Israel, renounce violence, hold another election, stop dreaming about the ROR, stop brainwashing their children, rein in stone-throwing adolescents, stop smuggling weapons into Gaza, stop sending rockets into Israel, and stop rewarding families of martyrs and suicide bombers.
Just for a start. Then, perhaps, recognition of gay rights in Gaza and a chorus or two of All You Need is Love at the next UN convention.
One of the most indefensible and blatant examples of the bias exhibited by the BBC in supporting the Palestinian claims, however spurious, and dismissing the concerns of Israel.
Both Netanyahu and Abbas addressed the UN, each voicing their thoughts on the subject. For Abbas they give a full page account plus video of what they call ‘Annotated Extracts’.
These are interspersed with the additions of BBC’s journalist, Jonathan Marcus, to add extra weight to whatever Abbas said, to make sure it would be interpreted by the reader in exactly the right way the BBC want you to understand it. Almost like a fawning echo, in case you didn’t get the drift the first time round.
He ends on this note: JONATHAN MARCUS: This is by far the best turn of phrase in the speech and certainly the best sound-bite: “bridges of dialogue” versus “checkpoints and walls of separation”.
The speech, which was strong on setting out the Palestinians’ historic case and clearly played well among his supporters, included a strongly-worded appeal for dialogue with Israel in skilfully-worded terms
You can read the full article for yourself, but I warn you this content shows a man sticking his head up the backside of another man.
For Netanyahu’s address they give you this – Read it and Weep!
The BBC’s overt hostility to Israel is getting closer to the Guardian’s. More and more open. They’ve whipped up so much vitriol that they don’t see any need to pretend otherwise, because they view it as the norm. To them being anti Israel is a given, and represents impartiality.
Maybe Auntie should take another look at Gilo, or maybe not, because to do so would involve shooting holes in their willingness to buy into all of the anti Israel narratives that they run with. Among them is their willingness to buy into (and sell to the Birtish Public) that Israel is a purely modern invention with no history.
It is at Gilo, that archaeology was carried out during the 1970’s that found evidence of an Israelite settlement dating back to 1200 – 1000 BC or BCE if you wish to use official BBC parlance.
So who exactly is on whose land? Go on Beeb. Answer in your own time.
If you want to see the paucity of intellect being applied to this topic, then that picture above of Ashton and Mrs Clinton says it all.
To have the likes of these “ladies who lunch” (who owe their positions solely to husbands or contacts in the Westminster bubble) anywhere near the Middle East conflict only shows how low we`ve sunk.
What next…Blair getting a cosy sinecure? Jenny Tonge betting a hearing?…imagine if mockeries such as these were let near the tinder box that is Jerusalem etc!
The BBC only totter round in the heels od such as these and pretend that they`re Oprah or Polly….so expect nothing!
cj,
Blair already has many “cosy sinecures” !
And who does the ugly women Ashton represent? Not once has she ever stood for election. She represents no one and so should have no more say in how Israel is run than a down and out in a London gutter.
Just look at the left hand side of her wiki page and notice:
“Assumed Office” everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ashton
If I was an Isreali politician my first question would be “Who voted for you?” I am getting sick and tired of unelected career socialists telling elected politicians how to run their countries.
She was once the treasurer of CND and (allegedly) took money from the ruskies. She is a an embarrasment to the UK and a great advertisement for the EU.
The attacks on Ashton miss the main point.
She’s ugly? Not my problem.
She’s unelected and never has been elected? Bureaucrats everywhere.
She is formally putting European Union support in favour of ethnic cleansing? Big problem and it is clear she isn’t talking about an Izmir/Smyrna population swap.
Obama’s Judenrein policy
Yeah, I think the weakness / wickedness of her position provides more then enough grounds for attack withouth unkind comments about her appearance. When one resorts to that it makes one’s own position appear morally bankrupt, which is a great pity when defending the Jews from a second Holocaust.
“ When one resorts to that it makes one’s own position appear morally bankrupt, which is a great pity when defending the Jews from a second Holocaust.”
I was not defending Jews I was defending democracy. Religion has nothing to do with my views on unelected bureaucrats.
Maybe you should not read Martins posts if you get offended for other people.
As for being “morally bankrupt” – I take great offence at that, but at least I represent no one but myself.
And of course if you think I am insulting try UKIP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8535121.stm
Maybe you should send him a letter to condemn his “morally bankrupt” speech.
Nice little spat on Newsnight between Oborne and Lambert. And the EC apparatchik walked off when Oborne called him an idiot. This is one to watch again.
Guido has it here:-
http://order-order.com/2011/09/29/newsnight-oborne-calls-guilty-men-idiots-eurocrat-storms-off-ex-ft-editor-cbi-director-lambert-livid/
Three times Oborne referred to the Brussels studio guest as an idiot. It was boorish and rude of Oborne in the extreme. I dont blame the Eurocrat for walking out. Not in my name Mr Oborne. Curb the hubris, please.
Losing one’s job through bias.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8795251/Tony-Blairs-job-in-jeopardy-as-Palestinians-accuse-him-of-bias.html
Interesting precedent.
Guess it only operates one way?
That is, of course, ‘accusations’ of bias.
Based, it appears, mainly on not liking things going the way desired.
As opposed to a sensibly artiuclated range of factual criteria.
Not so unique.
Biased against genocidal hatred. We can’t have that now, can we?
Compare and contrast:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/tony-blair-israel-has-a-right-to-defend-itself-1.294986
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=185860
http://israeltheviewfromhere.blogspot.com/2010/07/david-camerons-incredibly-stupid-speech.html
Cameron will never be accused of “bias” by the terrorists
Meanwhile, off the INBBC radar in Britain:
“Eleven foreign terrorists on the streets and not deported.At least eleven foreign-born terrorists who should have been deported from Britain after finishing prison terms are still walking the streets. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8795131/Eleven-foreign-terrorists-on-the-streets-and-not-deported.html
“It’s a nice gift for Rosh Hashanah [Jewish New Year],” Yair Gabay, a member of the Jerusalem planning committee, told Ynet.
Indeed it is a nice gift, and that is the only mention of the Jewish New Year you’ll find from the BBC.
Compared to how many stories around Ramadan?
Shana Tovah to all!
The authorities have now approved the building of almost 3,000 homes in Gilo over the past two years.
How many have actually been built?
Netanyahu: Gilo is Not a Settlement
Gilo IS Jerusalem isn`t ir…the equivalent of ,say Bromley or Edmonton maybe?
I wonder if the EU-the likes of Ashton and other unelected glove puppets-would presume to tell Boris that he was not to try and build on the approach to Epping say?
Basically the world doesn`t want Israel to build anything anywhere. Jerusalem is Jewish and that is that. King David made it so.
The West would rather Israel let IG Farben do its “settlement buildings”…just as was attempted during the Third Reich.
I`m afraid the West and Islam are united only in this notion of a “final settlement”…because Israel is going nowhere, they`ll just have to fight it out for themselves.
If the West won`t back Israel, then Islam will roll it up like a Persian(or Iranian!) rug…no reciprocation of Netenyahus offer to talk peace with Abbas in NYC then I presume?
I don`t know…surely the BBC would have pointed out this unwillingness to talk peace wouldn`t it?…as if!
Here’s something the policy makers and agenda setters at the BBC should read. A profile of the man they portray as a moderate, Israel’s supposed partner for peace, Mahmoud Abbas.
Excellent article by “our Mel “.
I am really surprised that the BBC don’t tell us that Abbas believes the Nazis were in league with Zionists and that he is a holocaust denier who thinks “only” 890,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis.
If I didn’t know better, I would almost think the BBC is biased …..
In contrast, INBBC in politically censoring all this, is soft on the Islamic Republic of Iran
“Pastor Nadarkhani: NO ANNULMENT of the death sentence ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/pastor-nadarkhani-no-annulment-of-death.html