Typical BBC spinning history to make Israel look like the villain in this Q&A article about the recent Israeli airstrike on Hezbollah weapons and a related facility in Syria. The only real background context to the conflict you get is this:
Syria and Israel have been technically in a state of war since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The main grievance is over Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights in 1967. Syria has been demanding the area back as part of any peace deal. But the border area has been quiet and Damascus has never retaliated to Israeli attacks.
Let’s just break this propaganda down line by line.
Syria and Israel have been technically in a state of war since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Well, that’s “accurate”, anyway. Any reason why Syria would be at war with Israel since then, BBC?
The main grievance is over Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights in 1967.
Oh. So let’s just forget about why Syria would be at war with Israel since 1948. As always, the BBC rewrites history so that 1967 is Year Zero. And Israel now becomes the villain of the piece over its “occupation”. Why is Israel there, BBC? Why did it happen, BBC? Without this important bit of background info, Israel is made to look like the aggressor. It’s a main grievance now, sure. But it’s “a” main grievance, not “the” main grievance, which is key. I’m pretty sure an astute News Online editor carefully chose the indefinite article there, which is nice. But it doesn’t make up for the lack of context.
Syria has been demanding the area back as part of any peace deal.
Has it now? That’s nice, but pretty pointless in the face of Syria’s real goal of eliminating Israel, which has been censored here. Since you aren’t told why Israel is “occupying” the Golan, this line lends support to making Israel appear as the villain, full stop. Oh, if only those vile Jews would hand back land they stole, all would be well, eh? That sounds familiar, somehow. Yes, the article itself makes no bones about Syria arming Hezbollah, but at no point are we told why or given any other context in which to view this. Of course, even that bit of honesty is watered down a bit by it all being qualified as “Israel believes”, etc. No other authority we can appeal to has an opinion, BBC? I guess we can’t go to the US for confirmation because, as Katty Kay told us, they’re under pressure from the Jewish Lobby.
But the border area has been quiet and Damascus has never retaliated to Israeli attacks.
Other than arming Hezbollah in a couple of different wars against Israel – and obviously continuing to arm them now – and trying to control Lebanon and doing everything it possibly can to aid violence against Israel, yeah, Syria has never retaliated. Sure, the Syrian military has never officially done anything overtly, but please, let’s not pretend that Syria is always doing the good Christian thing of turning the other cheek. Even something as simple as “Damascus has never officially retaliated” would have helped immensely. Plus, anyone already sympathetic to Syria – or just already anti-Israel – will read the bits about Syria being unable to deal with Israel directly due to their own internal problems will see only Israeli aggression, adding fuel to what any observer of comments on BBC output will know is an already raging fire of anti-Jewish sentiment in their readers.
We’re also told further down that Hezbollah and Israel both expect another war between them, only adding to the long-term BBC Narrative that Hezbollah is a legitimate defense force against Israeli aggression. The takeaway impression is that Israel is the villain, full stop. This goes beyond criticizing Israel and strays into demonization.
Even their own dates contradict themselves. If the main grievance is Israel occupying the Golan since 1967, why have they been at war since 1948? As 1948 was 19 years before the Golan was taken, why was Syria at war with Israel then? I’m sure some of the Beeboids on here will come up with some “reason” why we must all blame Israel for the state of war, but their self-contradictory statements are really laughable.
It’s like saying “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, only the reason for the war happened more recently.”
I blame Emmanuel Goldstein 😉
‘I’m sure some of the Beeboids on here will come up with some “reason”’
The lack of any so far suggests that here, again, reason is beyond them.
Luckily £4Bpa of what they do manage can make up for a lot if spewed out enough.
I’m not sure that this is a sign of bias but of the poor standard of writing that is all so common in the BBC. They probably mean that the ‘main grievance’ at present.
The fact of the matter is that the reason that Israel occupied the Golan Heights is that during the war with Syria because civilian towns and villages in Israel were at the mercy of Syrian artillery which was bombarding them day and night.
The Arab, Muslim, Druze and Christian residents of those areas, which would otherwise be targets if the Heights were ever returned to Syria, are much happier to be under Israeli protection and administration. Specially given the bloodbath now taking place within Syria.
But the BBC hasn’t mentioned that, instead, they continue to cast Israel in the role of evil usurper of other peoples’ territories and oppressor of non-Jews living in “occupied territories”.
By the way, I have no idea which “Israeli attacks” that Damascus “has never retaliated to” they are referring to. Has there ever been any Israeli military actions that were not in retaliation to Syrian attacks?
David, keep up the opposition to the bbc misinformation. It’s a thankless task but it is necessary to ensure that the truth is told for those who want to hear and read it. I wish I had the tenacity of yourselves on this and other blogs that I read. We have to believe that one day our enemies will be destroyed. I believe that to be true; I just hope I live to see the day.
If you find a post or comment you think is helpful, just let others know about it. Send an email to an MP or someone in the media. If there are points made here or elsewhere you think are important, spread it around. Let friends know. I’m a firm believer in the effects of ripples in the pond.
Of course, essentially INBBC is politically against both Syrian government, and Israel.
INBBC’s political preference in Syria, as is Obama’s, is not for the violence and killing of the Assad regime, but for the violence and killing of the Sunni Muslim opposition in Syria and beyond.
“Syria: Christians fleeing country as crisis reaches ‘unprecedented levels of horror'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/02/syria-christians-fleeing-country-as-crisis-reaches-unprecedented-levels-of-horror.html
I thought it was Shia, not Sunni, but yeah, the BBC seems to have backed off on the love for, um, certain factions of the opposition.
Interestingly while the bBC paint Assad as the modern day Saladin who instead of naughty naughty crusaders is taking on the even naughtier Jews. They left out this very little snippet about the Sstrike, which a days later the bBC is non the wiser about.
F-16s ‘Fired 8 Missiles, Bunker-Buster at Syria Chemical Site’
The site allegedly attacked by Israel in Syria manufactured chemical and biological weapons, according to a report in Iraqi newspaper Azzaman that appears in London.The newspaper quoted Western diplomats who are close to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. It says that the classified installation, which is located just 12 kilometers (7 miles) from the presidential palace, was guarded by a large contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, many of whom died in the attack.A diplomatic source interviewed by the newspaper said that the attack took place 48 hours before it was first reported. He said that initial reports regarding a convoy that was attacked were meant to disguise the true target of the attack. However, the newspaper reported, some trucks were also destroyed in the attack.
The diplomatic source said that Israeli F-16 jets carried out two sorties over the installation, firing at least eight guided missiles at it as well as at least one bunker busting bomb. The installation was badly damaged and there were numerous casualties. He said that about 3,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were stationed at the installation, as well as several Russian experts.
But hey why should the bBC mention that, when they promote a joke of a model aircraft (Made out of fibreglass and plywood as a stealth aircraft)
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/iran-shows-off-so-called-stealth-figher.html
bBC defence experts, what a joke.
Well plywood is pretty transparent to radar isn’t it? It was also tried and tested – about 100 years ago during the early days of powered flight.
So what do you do about the huge lump of metal in the middle aka the engine. The fuel tank. As for my mention of a model have another look at that fly past…..it’s a model aircraft.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21307208
‘The Qaher F313 looks like a cheap copy of the American F22 and its capabilities are unknown. ‘
The BBC looking more and more like an expensive copy of all other #prasnews media, only with added, ideology, and its capabilities are, sadly, well known.
As the Spartans found, you can fight the strongest foe until you are hit from behind by your own.
I think Paul C was being somewhat ironic?
Oh that’s a model all right, for a start why’s it flying about with it’s landing gear down? and it looks a lot like a polystyrene F-22 I’ve got on a shelf in my room
Total fake indeed. Even the BBC editors know it’s a model. They pointed out that, while the footage shows the plane in flight, it does not show its take-off or landing. Dead giveaway. Amusing serious-face analysis from Cyrus the Persian as well. “Its capabilities are unknown.”
I bet.
It’s one of the hardest woods known
The new Iranian plane is a considerable technical achievement regardless of whether it can compete with similar American, French or other aircraft. Iran has a major problem conducting an air war. It can’t acquire parts for its essentially outdated American equipped airforce and although it has acquired aircraft from different sources including defecting Iraqis it is difficult to see how the different systems are integrated.
The answer is producing their own. This is essential if they are to conduct a successful war with Israel with whom they have no common border. This incidentally was the way Israel countered arms boycotts against itself.
The irony is that the engineers who produced this aircraft and others were probably trained in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force
More like trained at Halfords . the cockpit looks like its been fitted out with 3 cheap radio cassettes. Have a look at the sides, fibreglass with no internal support. Why even the edge of the cockpit. Where the glass fits is as smooth as a baby’s bottom. So how do they stop air from rushing into the cockpit. There is no HUD
No radar and no weapon bays. Have another look at that cockpit dome. It’s not even clear. It’s a student project which is been passed of as cutting edge.
Spot the difference time.
Royal Holloway student attack ‘not linked to muggings’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-21246652
Royal Holloway student attack: Extra police patrols
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-21306443
Here’s another isolated incident in exactly the same place but a few days earlier… No not really it’s the same one.
http://www.thevillager.co.uk/news/egham/articles/2013/01/29/86226-egham-hooded-raid-on-student-at-home-by-knifewielding-burglars/
The BBC reported ‘three men’, The Villager provides a bit more detail, ‘three black men’. Good ole beeb, covering for the efnics.
SYRIA.
INBBC’s political line is same as that of Qatar’s AL JAZEERA.
INBBC and Al Jazeera not only have interchange of staff, and a technical agreement, but both oppose Israel, and support Muslim Brotherhood.
“Al Jazeera Dedicated to the Service of the Muslim Brotherhood, says Arab Newspaper.”
By Daniel Greenfield .
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/qatar-has-dedicated-al-jazeera-to-the-service-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-says-arab-newspaper/
the bbc and far left will always give out this mantra that anti ziionism is not anti semtism,,,,really.,,the american civil rights leader martin luther king once said in one of his speeches that anti zionism is just anti semtism in disguise …i tend to agree with the sentiments of martin luther king than the devious bbc and the left bigots and anti semites of the far left.
Assad’s jets keep bombing and murdering their own but where were they when a couple of IAF F16’s appeared in their airspace ?
Did the Syrians let the Israelis know where to strike Hezbollah? They may regard Israel as an enemy but the Syrian government have more existential threats from Hezbollah than from Israel.
That wouldn’t make much sense, I don’t think. Syria needs Hezbollah as a proxy. Assad might have been hoping they could soon provide a nice distraction to the public with a renewed conflict with Israel.
Fair enough, but I wondered if Assad is a bit frightened of Hezbollah increasing power and allying with the Brotherhood to topple him. Secretly letting Israel know where to find them and giving assurances of non-intervention by the Syrian Air Force would be a way of keeping Hezbollah’s power down and get Israel a slap from “World opinion”.
The pilots aren’t that stupid. Why commit suicide at this point?
Saudi cleric who raped and killed daughter receives small fine.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2636/saudi_cleric_who_raped_and_killed_daughter_receives_small_fine
Where is our national broadcaster with this news about this religion’s evil ways?
Will they ever tell the truth about those who walk among us?
When will my army come home to defend our daughters from these local men?
Why do our political masters appease these wicked people in my country?
Are we so helpless, so weak, so utterly devoid of courage that there is nothing we can do?
This is dog bites man to the BBC. Their soft racism of lowered expectations makes them see this as a non-story. Plus, as defenders of the indefensible will tell you, the BBC shouldn’t report this kind of thing because it only encourages what they see as Islamophobia.
INBBC: ‘Start the Week for Islam’. (With Islam-‘left’tendency, Ms Kendall.)
INBBC: Radio 4 ‘Start the Week’ this morning: more propaganda for Islam by INBBC resident Islam propagandist, William Dalrymple ;also obligatory INBBC repeat plug for his book of propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qdsmj
‘Biased BBC’ had this appropriate thread less than a week ago:-
“Any Excuse”