Here is a little advice for Barbara Plett and all those others at the BBC who casually use Palestinian propaganda language;
“It’s not “Occupied Palestinian land” – but in fact, part of the historic Jewish homeland, Judea from where the very name “Jew” originates (and was recognised as the Jewish homeland internationally under the League of Nations Mandate, Balfour Declaration, San Remo Treaty, etc.). The “West Bank” was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948-67, and that Arab country’s illegal annexation was not recognised internationally by any other countries (except Pakistan & Britain).
During those 19 years when Jordan had occupied the West Bank, neither did Britain, nor the United Nations, nor even the PLO charter of 1965 (which had specifically excluded it until post-1967) call for that land to be made into an Arab “Palestinian” state, perhaps because of the knowledge that Jordan made up 80% of the original Palestine Mandate which Britain, under the Balfour Declaration had promised to return to the Jewish people, then reneged and illegally turned over to the Saudi Hashemite family to rule, made “Juden-rein” and to this day Jordan prohibits Jews from owning any property there.
The Armistice lines of 1948 were never “borders” but ceasefire lines. Israel captured (or more correctly recaptured) the land in a defensive war in 1967.
According to the rules of war, international law and the Jewish historical connection to the land, Israel has every right to own that land. But don’t expect to hear this truth from the BBC, with its pro-Arab / anti-Israel agenda. At the very least, rather than using the term “occupied”, the BBC should use the more correct & neutral term: “disputed” land.
Actually, on this final point, I recall doing an interview with the BBC and I specifically picked up on their use of the pejorative term “occupied”. I told them this was an inappropriate term, and implied bias, that the land was not “occupied” but rather “disputed” and to be fair they backed off. Seems to me that the BBC has to be continually challenged to stop it reverting to their default Pali-talk!
Hat-tip to BBC WATCH!
Excellent post…concise, and so easy to get that even a Beeboid would understand it.
Were they not continually sowing ferment and envy, simply to prove to themselves that their luvvies at the Guardian and in the Labour/Liberal Alliance would be gentle with them, come the next glorious day.
Scum-anti US/Israel reflex scum…
I suspect it is the UN resolutions that they base their ‘illegal under international law’ mantra upon, ultimately, although a superficial reading of the Geneva Convention might come in handy at a scratch. Their argument would probably run along just the same lines as those of people who always talk about the Iraq war as being illegal. Just as the Beeb have a blind spot to arguments in support of the Israelis they have a completely uncritical attitude to the UN. They don’t see it as corrupt, unprincipled and dominated by its largest single voting bloc, the IOC, with China and Russia playing (often quite sinister) power politics and the non-aligned countries always game for a chance to humble former colonial powers. I remember an interview of John Bolton, fierce critic of the UN, by Paxo just after he had been appointed US ambassador to the godforsaken organisation. Our Newsnight primadonna hardly bothered to conceal his loathing of the man and his attitude towards what he clearly considered an august body.
Doesn’t this mean the BBC has to amend all historical maps of the region, going back millenia? Don’t they now have to depict certain areas of Trans-Jordan, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, etc., as “occupied Palestinian land”? The logic would be the same.
I know i should post this on open thread, but can i just wish all those at B-BBC and all readers a Merry Christmas and Merrier new year 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/6044090.stm#occupied
They might try this link for a bit of accurate information:- http://www.adespicabletruce.org.uk
Let’s put this ‘international recognition’ into some perspective.
What is the yardstick used?
If we look at how many of the countries established its borders and territories, we see that they did it by force. The USA forced out the Indians, the UK forced out the Aborigine in Australia, and the Maoris in New Zealand. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, to name but a few, all have a share of taking over territory that was not even on their borders.
So why are any of them ‘internationally recognised’?
Why are they part of the ‘nationals in the ‘international’?
Seems that the ‘rules’ being applied to Israel are very different from those they applies to themselves, yet somehow they want to consider themselves moral and ethical.
Israel fought off successive enemies who wanted to destroy it completely and drive every Jew into the sea. The same enemies never accepted a legal boundary or border to define its own territory, so what ‘recognition’ by any moral standard is possible?
If Israel would have acted as just about every other nation has done throughout history, they would have been ‘justified’ in driving their neighbours into the sea and claiming a lot more territory than is being disputed today.
But they didn’t, and instead of being lauded for their real humanity and morality, the other nations of the world use some exalted sense of sanctimonious piety, which is in reality a cowardly appeasement of foul barbarians, to think they have the right to tell Israel where it should build or not.
I know that it is all akin to RSI, but I still cannot figure out how the hell Islam presumes to have any say whatsoever in Israel…East Jerusalem or what have you.
Judaism long predated Mohammad…Christianity was 500 years or so ahead of Islam…yet somehow, we`re expected to assume that Mohammad having a dream about Jerusalem means that Islam has some kind of right to get a piece of Israel-and especially Jerusalem.
Islam is a homo-eopathic dilution of Christianity and Judaism…with not an original thought to its name…and only historical illiterates like the BBC would give it any kind of houseroom..as well as craven secularists and half-arsed Christians like Rowan.
Islam has no intellectual claim to anything, other that years of bullying to weasly nomarks that tremble at a whiff of garlic. Time to face these intellectual pigmies down…let them scare the likes of the BBC, but no Christian or Jew needs to worry as long as they stand up and face down these homoerotic weirdos. Not a problem!
Islam has a claim on Jerusalem because Mohammed was trying to prove his magical heritage from Christianity and Judaism. That was the whole point of claiming that dream. His early musings were all about proving a connection, that he was the next great prophet taking over the old legacies. The magical visit to Jerusalem was part of establishing that link.
Mohammed then magically went to Jerusalem to sup with Abraham and Jesus before ascending to Heaven from a certain hilltop where Jews aren’t allowed to pray.
That’s the claim they have on Jerusalem, and is why the BBC always makes sure to inform you that the Temple Mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque stands is Islam’s third-holiest site, but very, very rarely reminds you that it’s Judaism’s number one, and really only, holy site. It’s one of the main pieces of evidence of the anti-Jew, pro-Mohammedan bias in the BBC’s reporting on the region.
To Mohammedans and therefore to the BBC, the magical connection of a dream is more important, more relevant, than centuries of reality.
Not forgetting that the Jews were willing to give up their most holy site to the Muslims in the name of peace. Can’t imagine the same being done in reverse.
and that for me is the litmus test. If the shoe were on the other foot, how long would a synagogue survive there?
We already know the answer to that, and it’s something the BBC refuses to report openly: a Palestinian State would be Judenrein.
Another litmus test is the silence of defenders of the indefensible.
“Another litmus test is the silence of defenders of the indefensible.”
On what?
The tory led FCO refers to the land as occupied territories. So not a partisan term for the BBC to use.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/palestine-national-authority?profile=geography
Missing the point, Jim. The BBC nearly always includes the boilerplate about the Israeli settlements being illegal according to international law, “although Israel disputes this”, but never mentions that a Palestinian State will be Judenrein.
When considering the BBC’s reporting on the issue of settlements and a future Palestinian State (the two are intertwined intentionally by both sides) over the long term, over several years, the editorial policy (or is it the Style Guide?) is as clear as can be. Yet defenders of the indefensible remain silent every time we point it out.
And Jim has also gone silent on that point!
Because that’s hypothetical? Areikat denied he’d meant that and it is not fatah policy. That said I agree any future Palestinian state would not be a good place to live for any Jew (Gilad Atzmon perhaps). But I wouldn’t expect or any news organisation to report this as fact.
“Because that’s hypothetical”? LOL. Pull the other one. At the risk of needlessly violating Godwin’s Law, the Final Solution was hypothetical until it was well underway. Just because the Palestinians haven’t started violently expelling Jews yet doesn’t mean they won’t.
Fatah leader Abbas said the same thing. This is more than a hypothetical thrown out there to appease voters.
Areikat didn’t deny it, full stop, but actually offered the following clarification:
“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Last year, Areikat made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether it would be neccessary to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state, Areikat responded “absolutely.”
“I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he said then. “I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.”…
Now, if you’re as credulous (or as intellectually dishonest) as Jeremy Bowen, and believe him that they’ll magically start letting Jews move in afterwards, I have a nice bridge to sell you in a prime NY real estate location.
Need I remind you that Gaza is already a Jew-free zone? And we don’t need to go into what the BBC doesn’t like to admit is in the Hamas Charter. There’s no earthly reason to believe a full Palestinian State would be any different.
As for news organizations not needing to report it, I disagree. It ought to be an element mentioned in every story about a future Palestinian State, and every story about the Israeli settlements. Of course, you and the BBC will object because it makes them look bad, and might suggest the appearance of pro-Israel bias.
‘Missing the point, Jim’
Not sure the comma is needed.
Or, indeed, the tautology, but OK.
The FCO are anything but Tory led. The Bliar era ensured that the FCO was filled with lefties. This current crop of so called Tories in government are Tories in name only so cut the crap Jim and accept that the BBC and our useless Govt are anti Israel.
‘Tory led’
Lol straight out of F.O.I.exempt
Pamphlet
‘Labour talking points for BBC staffers /stalkers /and the deluded fetishists who feel compelled to defend a multi billion £ corporation [No not a bad corp! for as it is written by us “for low they are all evil “] with huge control of UK TV/Radio/Internet! ‘