The Today programme bring on a ‘ringer’ (Last 5 minutes) in the form of Abd Al Bari Atwan, editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper…from Gaza and who is pretty much an extremist where Israel is concerned….but the BBC don’t mention that when they usher him in to give us his take on the Israeli response to being bombarded by Palestinian rockets…….
He claims there is no military solution….in other words the Israelis must stop their ‘useless’ military measures….very convenient conclusion.
He said that the conclusion is that the only solution is a political settlement. He claims the Israelis are the only barrier to this having ‘derailed’ the peace talks and have besieged a starving population in Gaza.
He finishes by saying that the Palestinians are right to attack Israel as they were kicked out of their land by the Israelis….which, if you read that correctly, means that there can be no peace until the Israelis are ‘gone’, one way or another.
Atwan is famous for saying this…..
Speaking about Iran’s nuclear capability in an interview on Lebanese television in June 2007, Atwan stated:
“If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight.”
He further stated in the case of war, Iran would retaliate against its Arab neighbors, American bases in the Gulf and “Allah willing, it will attack Israel, as well.”
What do others have to say about his trustworthiness…..
‘ Yemenite journalist and columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Munir Al-Mawari, stated: “The Abd Al Bari Atwan [appearing] on CNN is completely different from the Abdel Bari Atwan on the Al Jazeera network or in his Al Quds Al Arabi daily. On CNN, Atwan speaks solemnly and with total composure, presenting rational and balanced views. This is in complete contrast with his fuming appearances on Al Jazeera and in Al Quds Al Arabi, in which he whips up the emotions of multitudes of viewers and readers.”
‘Lior Ben-Dor, a spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in London, said: “The problem is that when addressing the British public, he tends to hide his true opinions and ideology – his support for terror and the murder of civilians. This article reveals Atwan’s real colors, a supporter of fundamentalism and terror, and hence he should be treated accordingly.”
Maybe it is legitimate to have a multitude of voices and opinions in any discussion (save climate change naturally)…but it is only fit and proper that the BBC informs us exactly the nature of those people giving us their ‘honest’ opinion.
Why is it that the BBC do not pay attention to the simple facts of the situation involving Israel, it’s creation and the history since.
They do pay attention. They just can’t emphasize it too much for fear of being called pro-Israel. There’s been a whole lot of fretting over the possibility of the BBC become too timid as a result of the inquiries into Newsnight, but this is one issue where their timidity really does harm the reporting.
who is he? 😀
this latest “go to guy” for al bbc
ie islamist jew hater, with a nose longer than pinnochio.
he s crawled out from under his stone to grace Dateline a few times, oh here with another nose-growing,(and long winded) extravaganza appearance on SML 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01p2wh9/
about as much truth in that as “1001 islamic inventions” ;-D
Looking forward to part 2
Oh right, would this history by any chance involve the Israelis kicking Palestinians off their land and building illegal settlements simply because they believe they are the ‘Chosen’ people and that they alone should inherit Jerusalem? Grow up and read your history – not the one in the Old Testament!
‘Why is it that the BBC do not pay attention to the simple facts of the situation ‘
See what you did there.
Because they have found that if they don’t… nothing really happens.
Well, other than a bunch of mis-informed and re-educated loons get more rabid.
And that’s not just UK-based BBC defenders of the indefensible.
I have a very simple rule: If the BBC doesn’t identify someone’s partisanship, you know which side they’re on. In this case, though, you’re meant to understand which side Atwan is on because Humphrys said that an Israeli paper declined to engage in “discussion”.
But for this guy to be seen as any kind of legitimate opinion is a joke.
Listening to the segment, I smell a complaint coming about Humphrys asking Atwan if this kind of thing wouldn’t happen if Hamas just stopped launching rockets. Also, I could hear Humphrys start to interrupt Atwan at the end when he tried to bring up the whole refugee and “right of return” issue.
For balance, the Today producers got David Horowitz on the phone to insert a little truth into the debate.
The segment does come across as balanced, sort of. But if Today producers and Humphrys wanted to get a real story, he could have simply asked if there was no possibility for peace so long as Israel existed. That’s clearly what Atwan was saying, and the BBC never hold Palestinian voices accountable for it.
A more or less balanced piece, but a glaring missed opportunity. Why? Because that would make the BBC appear to be pro-Israel, which to them is worse than being called racist or a paedophile.
You know what, this sort of rabble rousing really gets my goat up and It would be nice to see how many attacks on Jews in the Uk can be attributed to Muslims and their ilk brought to the boil by the so called news coming out of the bBC.
Remember when Muslims carry out terrorist attacks in the Uk, the bBC is always first to say that not all Muslims are terrorists, that Islam is a religion of peace (please, my sides are splitting) and that Muslims are at risk of attack in the Uk from nasty racist white people.
But apparently the same doesn’t apply to…Jews, who according to the bBC can only be evil.
Yes, credit to Humphrys who did ask the most salient question of the whole conflict which boiled down to….if you stop attacking Israel they will stop their military responses won’t they (and Palestinians can then get on with building successful lives)?……that’s not just relevant to Gaza now but as a basis for a complete settlement and peace agreement.
Don’t bomb us and we won’t bomb you. Easy really.
Pity that isn’t the actual narrative you get from the BBC overall because ultimately that is the only one that counts and is the only unimpeachable truth….dependent on the acceptance by Muslims of the right of Israel to exist of course.
“Atwan has Flipped”
(‘Harry’s Place’, Sept 2011).
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/20/atwan-has-flipped/
Anybody have an address in the UK for this prick.
His address?
Sure he can be found here:
-BBC Arabic, Broadcasting House, London.
http://www.lyngsat-address.com/ab/BBC-Arabic.html
OR:-
http://www.bing.com/local/details.aspx?lid=YN1109x247366153&qt=yp&what=alquds+alarabi&where=London%2c+Greater+London&s_cid=ansPhBkYp02&mkt=en-gb&qpvt=al-quds+al-arabi%2c+london&FORM=LARE
Quote: He claims there is no military solution….
There is a military solution, and Israel has the force to implement it. What is lacking is the the political will to do so.
Hamas is committed by its founding principle, and stated often enough, to destroy Israel and driving out all Jews. There can be no doubt that if they ever had the power to do so, they would. It thus gives Israel more then enough reason to do the same to the Arabs in Gaza.
Always a bit nervous at anything from this neck ‘o the woods with the word ‘solution’ in it. Especially these days. And military.
There is no doubting that attrition by its very meaning is long, drawn out and painful… to all sides… and can lead to temptations.
Look back to Korea. Or Vietnam. Or more recent and/or ongoing engagements.
It’s no fun ‘fighting’ with one hand behind your back, be it restrictions on ordnance deployment or rules of engagement.
On the latter I tend to agree with you that some imposed ‘rules’ are as a result of niceties more to satisfy sensibilities and in a sane world would get properly outed for the consequences they bring.
However, much as I despise most ‘statespersons’ these days for their ineptitude and cowardice and media-priorities over honour and support for those they send to die, even the numpties we have today are at least aware of Dr. Strangelove territory. At least in democracies.
The problem comes when the balancing principles of MAD are compromised by leaders of theocracies or dictatorships, and don’t seem too concerned about the mutually-assured bit so long as the requisite numbers of virgins and Gales is in theory awaiting.
Trouble is, their delusions are rather stoked by such as the BBC with ‘reporting’ that is no more than propaganda, so I fear there will simply be years more of civilian innocent attrition, possibly with a conclusion hotter than a thousand suns.
Learning from history is not a strong point in many quarters, especially those chasing ratings, a Pulitzer or an empty chair toast at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club.
he’s a little toady bug eyed scumbucket
“Abdel Bari Atwan at Amnesty: ‘I get worse coverage in the Jewish Chronicle than Hitler would!'” (May, 2011).
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/abdel-bari-atwan-at-amnesty-i-get-worse-coverage-than-hitler-would-in-the-jewish-chronicle/#comments
BBC dateline features Atwan on a regular basis, he is a favourite go to guy for the BBC, the fact that he is a two faced hypocrite and a terrorist supporter and a racist bigot means nothing to the BBC.
The BBC prides itself on not providing a platform for racism, nut some racists are excluded if they belong to a preferred victim, no amount of racist hatred is too extreme for the BBC to tolerate and even welcome, thats the modern BBC, a haven for child molesters and a haven for terrorists and racists.
The problems in the middle east will not be solved by pandering to men like Atwan, it empowers and enables islamofascism, it provides a legitimacy to them they do not deserve and it prolongs conflict. But then again the BBC is not interested in talking to reasonable Arabs at all, they are hard to find and fail to support the BBC narrative.
Same goes for reasonable Ulster catholics.
Radio has the benefit of not being able to show pictures, which helps explain why R4’s coverage is good. What really naffs me off ( and it is by no means just the BBC) is the use of emotive images. War is grim and innocents die horribly and unjustly. But the only way of thinking through the morass in this godforsaken place is to put aside emotion and history and hatred and think through how a solution based on negotiation and land and mutual security can be put together. Everything else is noise.
David will blow a gasket, but look at what has been achieved in Northern Ireland. Not perfect but remarkable for those of us who witnessesed the ‘troubles’ at their height.
“But the only way of reporting impartially through the morass in this godforsaken place is to put aside emotion”
There, fixed that for you.
I know it’s more or less impossible to show any image of war without there being some emotional content or provoking emotions in someone, somewhere, but R4 and other audio outlets can be quite biased without pictures. The angle from which questions are asked, the terminology used, can be just as emotion-based as a photo or video.
And interviews on radio are no less problematic than video interviews where it’s just talking heads without any other images at all.
There was a classic example on the News Channel yesterday with the armored Beeboid in Gaza and Regev in a nice warm Tel Aviv TV studio, but it was just their heads on screen, nothing else, so may as well be radio. The Beeboid asked Regev to respond to concerns about Israel’s “disproportionate” response. That word is as loaded as it gets, and is the language of one side of the argument only. We’ve heard the word used on radio as well. Back in March, Evan Davis, while not using that exact word, played the exact same Narrative when he asked another Israeli mouthpiece ” Do you recognise how many Palestinians have been killed? You do recognise that Palestinians are dying on a much larger scale than Israelis?”
Same emotional imagery as any photo, really. Because the BBC’s coverage on the entire issue is based on emotion.
There a subtle difference between an Islamic jihad and the irredentist aims of Northern Irish nationalists.
For the long run this is more or less the story:
““There is a theory, which I believe, that Hamas doesn’t want a peaceful solution and only wants to keep the conflict going forever until somehow in their dream they will have all of Israel,” Eitan Ben Eliyahu, a former leader of the Israeli Air Force, said in a telephone briefing. “There is a good chance we will go into Gaza on the ground again.” [there is “a theory”? Has Eitan Ben Eliyahu remained unaware of the ideology of Islam? Has he had no time to reflect on what is to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, Sira? Even the former head of the Israeli Air Force has only a glimmer of recognition that there is no end to this war, this Jihad, and no “solution” save that of Deterrence, and the invoking, by Arab governments, of Darura (Necessity), to justify their reluctance to engage in all-out war? Why doesn’t he know this? Why don’t all Israelis know it? What’s wrong with this picture?]”
Hugh Fitzgerald
http://www.newenglishreview.org/bloga.cfm/blog_id/44907/Israelis-Will-Do-What-They-Must-To–Defend-Themselves-Whatever-The-Muslim-Arabs-Think
In the short term the situation appears to be:
“…..Iranian sources also disclose that the Jihad Islami leader Ramadan Abdullah Shelah was sharply remanded by Tehran for meeting Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in Cairo Sunday to discuss terms for halting Israel’s counter-missile operation in Gaza now in its sixth day.
Iran bankrolls these Palestinian extremists and has no intention of letting Shelah bow to Cairo’s wishes which run counter to Tehran’s plans and interests.
While Egypt’s new Islamist leaders are intent on carving out for themselves a responsible role in the region by restoring order, solving crises and restraining radicals, radical Iran has its own fish to fry and is bent on escalating war tensions in the Middle East.”
http://www.debka.com/article/22541/Iranian-arms-ship-carries-fresh-improved-Fajar-supplies-for-Gaza
I’d go with your fix. It’s what I was getting at. Embedded reporting suffers from this at its worst.
I don’t agree the questions are biased. They’re the questions I’d expect to be asked; certainly of Regev who gets a lot of airspace. ‘Have you got a message for the British people’ wouldn’t cut it in the circumstances.
It’s not the content of the questions but the angle from which they’re asked and the constant use of loaded language. There are better ways to ask Regev about the difference in military strength and body count. Regev gets a lot of airtime because Israel is the object of BBC coverage a lot, and he’s the mouthpiece who most often responds to their requests. There’s only one Israel as opposed to a number of pro-Palestinian factions they can have on.
Where the heck are the Islamic theologians then?
I only ask this because, for the life of me: I see absolutely no Arab claim for Muslims in regard for Jerusalem.
Because Muhammad had a dream involving Jerusalem-this seems to be all that Islam needs to reckon on having the right to get Jerusalem…despite it being the Judaic capital since Davids day…and the Christian site of veneration because of Jesus Christ. Islam came 600 years later or so-and was a pale copy of pidgin bits of Judaism and Christianity, as far as I can tell.
As if Islam does not have enough holy sites to bulldoze, loot or turn to Marriotts-yet that claim on Muhammads dream allows the media-and , of course the Dhimmiwits at the BBC-to think that Islam has a three way split option on Jerusalem.
As if that could ever be enough for Islam…
I find the BBC’s continual reference to Egypt’s ‘democratically’ elected Muslim Brotherhood as some type of peaceful and moderate government, utterly laughable; I had to endure a BBC News 24 interview today with a Brotherhood spokesperson who was basically a raving fanatical lunatic – the inane interviewer had the nerve to say ‘thank you for your views… thanks very much’!
The majority of the Muslim world wants Israel wiped of the face of the planet and the BBC know this. I find it offensive that they should use extremists in interviews without any heckling or interruptions. However, when an Israeli is interviewed they are patronized, interrupted and basically abused. The BBC and the Left really are disgusting.
Thank God we don’t have to pay for Sky as well, because their anti-Israeli propaganda has been utterly appalling.
To repeat, from below…
’news media who really should know better.’
I think they do, which means they are applying other criteria, and the basis of those is a worry.
Absolutely nothing surprises me about this loathsome latrine of Marxism anymore:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234830/BBC-staff-played-Jimll-Fix-It-theme-tune-drunken-party-Television-Centre.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Yes – I wish I could play ‘God save the Queen’ or ‘land of Hope and Glory’ at one of their parties – that would really annoy them.
As a matter of course – when did the BBC – that bastion of British culture, last put on a Gilbert and Sullivan Comic Opera – I can just imagine Tony Blair as Poo Bah or Ed Milliband as Sir Joseph Porter. Perhaps we could have Farrage as Rathe Rackstraw.
The Beeb put on a concert performance of the Yeomen of the Guard during this year’s Proms ( they seem to have taken to doing one every second or third year): Sky Arts put on five of the operettas in a week (most, significantly, filmed in Australia) along with a documentary about the duo in October 2010, a session they’ve repeated since.
Despite the fact that people like George Solti and Charles Mackerras were fans most Beeboids probably share Jonathan Miller’s opinion of them as ‘UKIP set to music.’
2 articles in The Telegraph today focus on the unambiguous bias emanating from the BBC on a continual basis.
The first is from the Rev. Dr. Peter Mullen, and the second from Dan Hodges, who as an acknowledged Blairite, shows that being left wing doesn’t have to mean losing the moral and ethical compass.
Finally, the BBC’s pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has swung into action
For once, there is no ambiguity: the Today programme’s report on Gaza this morning was totally and utterly biased
Regarding the questions the BBC like to keep posing about Israel’s ‘disproportionate response’, I’d like to hear somebody ask the BBC interviewer making this point whether they’d prefer it if Israel simply took hundreds of similar type of rockets and mortars and fired them indiscriminately towards Gaza.
Sure would be a lot cheaper for Israel to do it this way.
The real question is, how many Israelis must be allowed to die before Israel would be permitted to retaliate? Let’s end this “disproportionate” Narrative once and for all.
David,
I think the point is that any response from the Israelis would be disproportionate.
The entire thrust of the narrative that media outlets such as the Guardian (and to a certain extent the BBC) are pushing is that it is to be expected that Hamas will resort to illegal and barbaric measures to inflict casualties on the Israeli population however as Israel is judged by the most exacting standards, it then follows that any military response from their side is clearly disproportionate as they should resolve all their issues across the negotiating table irrespective of the provocation.
I understand that. I just think that turning the argument on its head would expose it for what it is more than trying to parse the intentions of and standards held for each side.
I think we here all pretty much understand the agenda of the BBC in using ‘disproportionate response’ in their reportage. Those that appear ‘not to’, have their own agenda.
Making the comparison as I noted above would at least make the number of rockets and mortars fired by Hamas on Israel more public than the BBC clearly want to.
Might I also add that I would find it inconceivable that any other country with the military capabilities of Israel would have reacted in such a low key way if their country was constantly being attacked by terrorists.
I also find it inconceivable that so many media outlets are prepared to accept the allegations of Hamas without first checking their facts (e.g. the disputed and utterly tragic death of the 4 year old).
It really takes the biscuit when it falls to the Palestinian Human Rights organisation to be the first to cast doubt on the claims being bandied by Hamas and the Egyptian Prime Minister ( that Israel was responsible rather than the self inflicted death caused by a misfiring rocket) and repeated by news media who really should know better.
‘news media who really should know better.’
See what you did there.
Melanie Phillips makes some very good points in her latest blog. Here’s an extract:
The civilian: combatant ratio
Despite the increasing number of Palestinian casualties in Gaza, the apocalyptic statements made in the UK media that the numbers are now ‘spiralling’ upwards are deeply misleading. At time of writing, Israel has carried out 1350 or so bombing raids, and there have been 100 Palestinian deaths. This is a very small number of deaths after so many raids.
In Afghanistan, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is 3:1 – three civilians killed for every one combatant. In Iraq and Kosovo, it was 4:1 – four civilians killed for every one combatant. In Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2006, despite the screams of ‘Israeli war crimes’ it was an astounding 1:1 – only one civilian killed for every one combatant. Current figures for Operation Pillar of Defence are obviously highly provisional; but according to Ha’aretz, of the earlier total of 95 Palestinians killed about half were civilians, and according to the Israel Defence Forces, about one third were civilians. So the civilian: combatant death ratio is currently either one civilian killed for every one combatant, or – even more astoundingly — two combatants killed for every one civilian.
Either way, in other words, the proportion of civilians being killed is astonishingly small. Of course every civilian death, especially that of a child, is deeply regrettable and tragic. But Israel is clearly going to lengths unknown to any other army in the world to avoid killing civilians; and when the Israel Defence Forces do cause such deaths, it is almost certainly because the unfortunate people of Gaza are being placed in harm’s way and used as human shields in order to maximise the numbers who are killed.
Furthermore, according to the Israelis some 100 rockets fired at Israel have fallen short into Gaza itself. We don’t know how many of the 100 dead Palestinians were therefore actually killed by their own rockets, but it’s a fair bet that the weapons deployed in Gaza to murder Israeli innocents have killed more Palestinians than merely this child (reported on this blog yesterday).
Dead child porn
Hamas have also been trying to pass off as victims of the Israelis children who were tragically killed instead in the violence in Syria. Hamas persist in such malevolent lies because they know that pictures of dead children turn the west against Israel dramatically and instantaneously. Nothing has greater capacity than such pictures to cause western leaders to pressurise Israel to halt its attacks on the Hamas terror infrastructure. The purpose of the Hamas in pushing to the fore such pictures – both of true child casualties as well as the ‘fauxtography’ lies — is therefore very clear.
But what is far more disturbing is the role the UK media is playing in doing exactly the same thing. Broadcasters are dwelling on horrific footage of child casualties in Gaza as if the only casualties were children. They are thus giving the impression that the Israelis are either setting out to kill children or at the very least are indifferent to their fate – the very opposite of the truth.
They are also muffling the real purpose of Pillar of Defence, which is to destroy the weapons that are intended to kill children and other civilians – in Israel. Why don’t the broadcasters dwell on the Israelis taking out the men whose intention was to murder more innocents in Israel, and who have also used their own civilians as human shields — a double war crime? Did these broadcasters ever highlight the children killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo as the defining characteristic of those wars? Of course not – any child casualties there were scarcely mentioned.
Yet in Gaza, UK broadcasters are using pictures of dead children in order to present the Israelis not as defenders of the innocent against terrorist mass murderers but instead as aggressive child-killers. I’d say that what they are doing therefore is nothing less than transmitting child snuff movies in the service of genocidal fanatics.