It’s funny the little differences that can occur between the BBC’s web based version of a story and their radio coverage. On the web, the BBC proclaims that the House of Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls is questioning the validity of arms export licences to to countries with “questionable” human rights. These include China, Iran and Saudi. But on the TODAY Programme, they managed to also thrown on ISRAEL. Seems to me that those working on Today have an issue with Israel, since on no basis can it be said to have “questionable” human rights issues.
WEB AND WAVES
Bookmark the permalink.
Can only get worse with their new appointment. She’s got form on her reporting of the middle east.
is that the one they keep blathering about in the paper reviews? Talk about self-praise…
is it this one youre talking about?
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/not-enough-israelis.html
Human Rights and Democracy 2012
The 2012 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report
Israel and the OPTs
http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/israel-and-the-opts/
James, I was just about to post the same quote – and the following sentences, which go on to criticise “a number of human rights issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and under the de facto Hamas rule in Gaza”, lest anyone think those areas of the region are being ignored.
While I think David’s noticing of a different highlighted list of the 27 countries under scrutiny – which can all be found at http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk – isn’t completely irrelevant, I think he puts rather more emphasis on the difference than it warrants. Plus, his suggestion that concerns over Israel’s human rights issues “have no basis” is quite simply wrong.
Take this paragraph from the end of the latest quarterly update about Israel and the OPTs (which, it must be said, is “broadly positive” about human rights in the region):
On 20 March the IDF arrested 27 children in Hebron, following reports of stone-throwing. 20 of the children were under 12 years old and below the age of criminal responsibility. Their parents were not informed of their arrest, in contravention of Israeli Military Law. The British Embassy in Tel Aviv raised UK concerns at the arrests with the Ministry of Justice and National Security Council.
Are other of the 27 countries on the FCO list of far greater concern? Undoubtedly. But do concerns about Israel have “no basis”? Of course not.
Hmm you do have a point that there should be scrutiny of Israel however arresting people and defending your borders is normal for any country and should be monitored but not used as a tool for the bleating liberal to attack that state as that is wrong in the same way ignoring abuses by Israel neighbours is wrong !
I’d reply to you but it would likely land up as a wandering waif at the bottom of the thread.
Yes – it is very, very frustrating.
Here is what the Guardian has to say from the mosque pulpit:
“The approval of nearly 400 arms export licences for “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories”, for equipment valued at nearly £8bn, includes components for body armour, parts for “all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection”, assault rifles, pistols, military support vehicles, and small arms ammunition.”
So not really arms exports as such then, but actually odds and sods which could come under the banner dual use. But hang on didn’t the same people protesting now complain about how sanctions against Saddam (where dual use components were banned) were ineffective and killed only children . I suppose to the luvies at the bBC, when Israel is in the spotlight, then it can only right to pull the trigger. meanwhile the bBC reports from Panama about the expose of a North Korean ship found to be carrying 250 tonnes of weapons as:
obsolete Soviet-era arms from Cuba for repair in North Korea.
Err question bBC political experts, if the weapons are obsolete, why are they being repaired?
Most of it was very, very expensive cryptographic equipment; the Guardian is trying to make out it is mainly ‘killing related’.
As for those assault rifles and pistols. Seeing as Israel doesn’t use any British small arms weapons, I wonder if like the incident of sniper rifles in Libya is is more about supplying licences to ship weapons out of the country in which to show case them at an arms fair. (In Libya, the rifles could only be shown without their working parts and taken away from the arms fair every day.)
I was going to question your definition of ‘dual use’ for small arms and ammunition but you are probably right here. There was a time when Israel used British tanks but those days are gone unless they have been converted to other uses. As to small arms I wasn’t aware of British arms been used much in the ME these days except by our chaps so …
You’ve got to give it to the BBC. Any opportunity to hide a half truth is taken with glee.
Hmm the only actual combat system I can see we have any part in is the conversion to other uses on the old Centurion tanks but that is because we built it in the fist place so may not have any day to day dealings on that anyway ! but we supply no home grown small arms so maybe we refurbish ex UK army pistol and GPMG’s but I cannot find anything other !
But what have “human rights” got to do with arms exports? The BBC is always obsessed with so-called human rights whereas almost nobody else is. It’s China internal problem and nothing to do with us.
Irrespective of any human rights situation, we are happy to buy all kinds of stuff from China (as I am sure the BBC is), yet our state broadcaster wants to stop our exports.
The BBC is always obsessed with so-called human rights whereas almost nobody else is.
Except (among many others) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which generated the report that created the list of 27 nations of concern, and the MPs who comprise the committees that have produced this new report, of course.
“Except (among many others) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office”
Like he said
” whereas almost nobody else is”
The BBC’s top man in the US, Mark Mardell, has been in China for some time making a documentary about how the wonderful Chinese economy is going to boost the US back into prosperity. Our economies are so intertwined now, and it’s inevitable because of course there are no economic worries about China, yeah. He gave us a preview of his angle before he left.
Who cares about human rights? China will save us all with their unique and praiseworthy combination of Communism and Capitalism, eh? After all, as Mardell says, China is about to lift a billion people into middle class. That’s even better than the miracle Hugo Chavez performed for his own people.
Many ‘muslim’ leaders have killed far more muslims than Israel has. Assad alone has probably killed more muslims in a single day than Israel has these past 20 years, and his opponents are the same.
Yes, but you’re forgetting that the BBC values human lives according to who kills them.
the perfect antidote to the isreali bias on the bbc is simple,employ melanie philips as a presenter and that would rattle a few cages.
No, that’s just bias the other way. The BBC should not present any bias at all. Just report the facts as they stand, to the best of your ability, regardless of who it makes look bad or good. No selective inclusion of background in order to frame a given story for some larger picture. No tweeting heartbreaking photos which have only emotional value and zero news value. No ghoulish Body Count Narrative. No dishonest maps. No presenting everything as if 1967 is Year Zero. No manufacturing a story just to make a larger point.
It seems as if there are precious few Beeboids capable of it these days.`
Activism is not journalism. Anyone who wants to change the world or educate the public or any of that kind of thing should be an activist or opinion-monger. There should be no place for emotional activism in news journalism.
Not being funny Vance, but it says this in the article:
Sir John Stanley: “Are elements of [Israel’s] licence for equipment which could be used for internal repression?”
Sir John also menions Sri Lanka in the clip. No mention of Sri Lanka in the article. What is it with the BBC and Sri Lanka?
Oh yeah, nothing.