Which senior BBC journalist said this?:

‘We cannot get across the view that Palestinians are a displaced people who are fighting to overthrow, as they see it, a brutal military rule.’

Who are ‘the many’  senior BBC journalists who say that ‘They simply cannot get the Palestinian viewpoint acoss, the perspective they cannot say is that Israel is a brutal apartheid state.’

They cannot say that..because it isn’t true…however interesting to know that they want to say that….even more interesting to know which BBC journalists said such things…not hard to guess though.  Wonder what the Balen Report says.  Cannot be good can it?  BBC News Kills Jews?

There have been protests about BBC coverage being pro-Israeli...the BBC news did not report those protests…however the Today programme, in the shape of Mishal Husain, did. (0839)

Who do they invite in to discuss this?  An ardently pro-Palestinian Greg Philo and the fence sitting Jonathan Freedland who we are told works for the Guardian and the Jewish Chronicle.  We weren’t told he also works for the BBC on a regular basis…which might have coloured and informed your view of his comments as he defends the BBC telling us their coverage is quite fair….which we know to be quite untrue….he is also someone quite critical of Israel’s stance against Hamas….Hardly the ideal balance to the fanatical Philo…but perfect for the BBC.

This was a perfect storm for the BBC…..not only can they have some rabidly  anti-Israeli comments aired and allegations of pro-Palestinian bias countered, but also have someone defend the BBC telling us how good its coverage is.  Win win for the BBC.

Earlier in the programme (07:39) we had Justin Webb ‘advising’ the Israelis that killing and mutilating little children was a pointless exercise and that hadn’t they better talk to Hamas?

Lyse Doucet then came on and blamed Israel for the failure of the ceasefire telling us that of course Hamas won’t stop rocketing Israel until Israel deals with Gaza’s economic and social conditions.

Any coincidence that the new BBC drama, The Honourable Woman, is based upon precisely that premise…that the Israelis should be knocking down their ‘walls’, stopping their violence and instead work hand in hand with Palestinians to develop their economy?

That kind of ignores the root of the problem and flips the blame from Hamas to Israel…but Israel is defending itself against rockets and attacks from Hamas and imposed the closure of its borders because of those attacks…therefore the cause of any economic and social problems in Gaza can be traced directly to Hamas and the Palestinian’s 65 year history of terrorism against Israel and not Israel’s sanctions on Gaza.

Curious how Israeli violence in self-defence is futile and brutal whilst Palestinian terrorism is the result of Israeli aggression, a brutal occupation and a vicious apartheid state.

Doucet has turned history on its head in an attempt to support Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

Stop the terrorism, recognise Israel’s right to exist and tear up the charter that demands the destruction of Israel and death to the Jews and the Palestinians might then see a change in their circumstances.

Perhaps the Palestinians should heed their guru, Muhammed, who said that nothing will change for Muslims unless they change what is within themselves first.

Here you go, a new thread. Off you go…detail the bias.

Hamas bombards Israel and refuses to agree a cease fire

That’s one headline the BBC could have, should have, written…instead they chose this one:

Gaza conflict: Israel restarts air strikes amid rocket fire

Here’s the front page…once again the emphasis is on Israel and Israel is presented as the ‘aggressor’ in the headline:

No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel

The headlines matter because many people don’t read any further and even if they do they can influence how they ‘read’ the report.

In this case the BBC’s headlines will just confirm the opinions of those who think Israel is set on murdering every Palestinian and they won’t read any more…a different headline may encourage them to read further and learn more about the real situation and take a less partisan approach in viewing things… dyed-in-the-wool ‘anti-Zionists’ won’t be persuaded whatever but some less hardcore critics may well think things aren’t quite as black and white as they had previously thought or been led to believe.

Here’s Rod Liddle in the Spectator:

Will the BBC accept that Hamas wants to kill lots of Jews?

A fairly typically partisan report on the Israel and Palestine crisis last night
on the BBC ten O Clock News. The focus was entirely on the killed or injured
Palestinians, referred to exclusively as ‘civilians’; the point was made, at
the top of the report, that Hamas had killed nobody. Yes, but only because
Hamas is utterly useless: it clearly WANTS to kill lots of people, which is
why, on a daily basis, it bungs over the rockets – indiscriminately – in an
attempt to do so. The rockets which precipitated this crisis. We are enjoined
to have sympathy for the Palestinians and treat the Israelis with odium because
the former are murderous and incompetent and the latter murderous and adept. It
is an infantile sensibility.

And more headlines:

The LA Times:

Hamas keeps up rocket attacks after Israel agrees to ceasefire …

From Yahoo:

Hamas rejects Egypt truce offer, fires rockets

From CNN:

Cease-fire collapses, Israel responds to Hamas attacks ..

Interesting, as always, couple of exchanges with Nicky Campbell this morning on ‘Your Call’.

Campbell emphasised this is about ‘your calls’…just a shame that that isn’t necessarily true…step over the BBC imposed line of what is ‘acceptable’ and you’ll find ‘your call’ gets you a self-righteous and sanctimonious telling off from Campbell.

This morning’s effort was about the conflict in Gaza…though I would object to that narrow term of reference…the BBC has been insisting on limiting its reporting of casualties in Gaza starting only from when the Israeli counter-attacks began….which kind of puts the blame on Israel….ignoring the hundreds of rockets that are launched at Israel every year and neglecting the fact that the attacks began in 1948 when the Muslims first tried to wipe out the Jews…something they are still intent on accomplishing.

Campbell though keeps up the chosen narrative asking ‘What do you think of the slaughter of the innocent people in Gaza?’

Nothing prejudiced and emotive about that at all.

However when a caller comes on (23 mins) and says that a sizeable majority of Arabs are not interested in peace with Israel and that a sizeable proportion of Muslims aren’t interested in living in peace with the rest of mankind Campbell objects to the tone of the language used.

Campbell says ‘With every respect that’s an incendiary thing to say, it’s a highly inflammatory thing to say….em..peace loving…em..some would say that’s extremely islamophobic.’

The caller reels off a list of Muslim atrocities and intentions…Campbell tries to ignore the implications by claiming the caller is conflating entirely unrelated issues…except of course they are all related by one issue…and wraps up with the thought that ‘People will draw their own conclusions about what you said and why you said it.’

Really?  Why he said it?   What did Campbell mean?  Isn’t this the usual BBC brush off of open and honest discussion about a serious issue with the shout of ‘racist’…or rather ‘islamophobe!!’?

All so different though when a pro-Palestinian comes on(33 mins)  and tells us that Israel is a terrorist state inflicting terror upon the Palestinians.

Campbell merely asks the next caller what she thinks of that idea.  No outrage from Campbell, no condescending censure.

Shelagh Fogarty carries on the good work later….she has a couple of quick comments from Israelis then a long interview with a Palestinian, a ‘Gaza mother’….Fogarty asks, amongst other things, ‘What do you say to your 6 year when he says to you ‘When is it my turn to die’.

Any proof at all that the 6 year old boy said that?  Or is that the invention of Hamas’ media unit?

How well briefed Fogarty was on the plight of this woman and her family.  The producer or researcher must have had along discussion with this ‘mother’ before the interview and determined which especially affecting bits they wanted to be emphasised. Pure propaganda from Hamas aided by the BBC.

Fogarty finishes with the thought that this ‘mother of 5’ doesn’t want to talk politics and refuses to talk about Hamas, Fogarty emphasises this and says that she only wants to talk as ‘a mother’ and that this makes her words all the more powerful.

OK…except is there any doubt that every word the woman spoke was approved by a Hamas offical stood nearby?  She didn’t want to talk about Hamas because then she couldn’t be drawn into any discussion about the rights and wrongs of Hamas’ behaviour.

Her refusal to talk politics was itself ‘politics’.  Shame the BBC aren’t honest enough to admit that…they must have known the ‘mother’ had a minder as they interviewed her….as do all their journalists in Gaza.

Kill All The Jews

Let’s just remind ourselves what the Palestinians teach their children…from The Commentator:

The anti-Semitic terror group Hamas, which runs the Gaza strip and which has recently moved to reconcile differences with the Palestinian Authority, came under renewed criticism on Monday after revelations reached the West that Hamas TV had just run a broadcast openly telling children to kill all the Jews.
Watchdog organisation Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), reported that, “on the weekly Hamas TV children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers this week. The young Hamas TV host Rawan talks to a young girl in the studio named Tulin, who tells her she wants to be a police officer when she grows up. The child host directs her to the conclusion that as a police officer she would shoot “all the Jews.”

Child host (Rawan): “Tulin, why do you want to be a police officer? Like who?”

Girl (Tulin): “Like my uncle.” …

Child host: “OK, so what does a policeman do?”

Nahul (an adult in a giant bee costume): “He catches thieves, and people who make trouble.”

Child host: “And shoots Jews. Right?”

Girl: “Yes.”

Child host: “You want to be like him?”

[Girl nods]

Child host: “Allah willing, when you grow up.”

Girl: “So that I can shoot Jews.”

[Nahul the bee claps his hands]

Child host: “All the Jews? All of them?”

Girl: “Yes.”

Child host: “Good.”

The ‘Henry Plan’ is working…sort of…the BBC has breached the entrenched racism of some of its programming, challenging the stereotypical presumptions and attitudes that have plagued the BBC and that have resulted in the ‘hideous blackness’ of 1Xtra music station……

Ed Sheeran, the most influential man in black and urban music: BBC faces ridicule after singer tops poll for 1Xtra station

A BBC power list has named white singer Ed Sheeran as the most important act in black and urban music.

The 1XtraPowerList – which has been called the ‘saddest list in history’ by one black artist – put 23-year-old Sheeran in the top spot, while another two white acts were placed in the top four.

The highest-placed black artist in the list – which was billed by the BBC as showcasing ‘the most important UK artists in the black and urban music scene’ – was rapper Tinie Tempah.

Oddly at least one black artist isn’t impressed by this diversity…..

Rapper Wiley, who was placed 16th out of 20 on the list, tweeted afterwards that the list showed black artists in England were getting ‘bumped’.

He said: ‘We have been bumped basically. Not taking anything away from ed… he is sick. But black artist in england we are getting bumped. (sic)’

He added…‘The UK had ‘an issue with racism that we are unwilling to address’.

He said that was reflected in black British culture in general but also in negative attitudes towards black British music.

Hmmm…that’ll be why the BBC has a music station, 1Xtra, the Black music station, based  upon the skin colour of the musicians….never mind the ‘Asian Network’……aren’t people of Asian descent ‘British’ then just because they’ve got brown skin?

The BBC is very confused about race.

Here you go folks, a new Open Thread for your completion! This is where you detail the bias…

Did you see this? “Shopping secrets of the Taliban revealed” By Riaz Sohail. Might this be an attempt to humanise the savages in the Taliban? Why would the BBC think this is “newsworthy”?

If record heat is a sign of global warming…what is record cold a sign of?

Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded

Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Remarkable silence from the BBC as Synagogues and Jews are attacked….no doubt as a result of inflammatory reporting from the likes of the BBC:

Anti-Israel protesters attack Paris synagogue

Clashes in Paris as thousands march against Israel offensive

The BBC weren’t so slow to report any ‘Islamophobic’ attacks in this country after the murder of Lee Rigby.

The BBC’s new drama, The Honourable Woman, is based around events, historic and present day, occurring in Israel and Palestine.

We are assured that it is entirely neutral in its approach and does not take sides.
The Author, and producer/director, Hugo Blick, tells us he has been scrupulously careful in exploring the issues:

The lead character is an Israeli – do you think that might cause some to react to the drama suggesting it could be biased?

It is important that viewers and critics watch the entire series – as intended – before making judgements on the characters or story arc because great care has been taken to explore this complexity. It is also important to note that the character played by Lubna Azabal is a Palestinian and that the series title could equally reflect upon her.

The Guardian applauds his skill in negotiating the political minefield:

Does anyone perceive Blick taking sides? I thought he walked a difficult tightrope with real skill. Calling for equality of opportunity with the statement: “Terror thrives in poverty. It dies in wealth,” felt powerful without being contentious.

The first 15 minutes would disabuse you of any notion that this is not an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian polemic….it is based upon the premise that Israel must be destroyed.

It starts with the brutal murder of the ‘Honourable Woman’s’ father, an apparently Zionist arms dealer, killed by a Palestinian with a pair of tongs…no doubt an ironic comment on the supposed ‘David and Goliath’ power relationship between the two combatants now so fashionable in BBC interpretations of events….otherwise known as ‘The News’.

Blick’s tale is a shallow, naive allegory of the Middle East…the father is the old Israel, or rather the Israel that it still is, ‘armed and dangerous’, whilst the daughter, Nessa Stein, that ‘Honourable Woman’, is the new Israel, or rather the ‘one state’ solution where the walls are taken down and there are no barriers any more between the Jews and the Palestinians and everyone lives happily everafter.

The father, as said, is killed off, just as Israel should be we are led to think… Blick admits the conflict is embodied within the characters…. ‘In The Honourable Woman the conflict is used as a creative device – a reflection of the internal conflict of the central character.’

Nessa tells us that strong walls were needed for Israel to thrive, and that’s what her father offered, strong walls for a fledgling nation….but those walls aren’t needed now.

She goes on….telling us that Israel’s GDP in the previous year exceeded $220bn…a fledgling nation no more….the Palestinians on the other hand had a GDP of only $4bn.

She tells us ‘What a difference a wall makes.’

Which wall would that be Mr Blick?  Could he possibly be making a not so subtle allusion to the Israeli security barrier?

Nessa goes on to reveal that ‘I believe in Israel’  but there needs to be ‘fundamental change….the greatest threat to Israel is Palestinian poverty, terror thrives in poverty, it dies in wealth…..The strongest wall we can help Israel to maintain is one through which equality of opportunity can pass.’

I’m certain Blick has absolutely no intention of making any allusion whatsoever to the ‘infamous’ Israeli ‘wall’, that security barrier that defends it, its people, from Palestinian terror attacks….but which anti-Israeli activists like to characterise as a symbol of apartheid and economic oppression crushing the Palestinian people, unfairly restricting their lives and economy.

Blick is saying that that wall must come down, it must be breached, he is saying Israel must be destroyed as a nation.

And Blick is not above using Jewish stereotypes…the moaning wife of Nessa’s brother being an archetypal ‘Jewess’ whilst the Jewish businessman, Shlomo, wanting the contract for laying communications cables, is the Pub ‘humorists’ idea of a Jewish businessman…brash, rude, loud and obnoxious….add onto that a racist talking of that ‘Palestinian bastard’ and subliminally suggesting that Arabs are ‘fucking camel jockeys’….oye vay!

If Blick gives up writing drama he can get a job writing jokes for Al Murray’s ‘Pub Landlord’….not so very different to good old Shlomo.

It should also be noted that the BBC was happy to screen this programme despite it involving the kidnapping of a Palestinian child.  No cultural sensitivities, no postponing of the broadcast, at a time when a Palestinian teenager has indeed been kidnapped and killed.

Why might that be?  Could it be that later on we find out that the kidnap in the programme was at the instigation of some ‘evil’ Israelis and the BBC is quite happy to reinforce that impression in light of the arrest of some Israelis for the kidnap and murder of the Palestinian?

The Guardian certainly liked what it saw and applauded its ‘relevance’…check the link they provide:

‘This new eight-parter is among the most exciting TV events of the year (pace the World Cup). The opener didn’t disappoint, weaving not one but two whodunnits – the suicide/murder of Samir Meshal and kidnap of Kasim – around the most intractable political issue of the day (it could hardly feel more timely) and the life of the woman in the middle.’

But never mind the politics just how good was the programme as entertainment?

Other left leaning publications also love it, which might indicate something of the politics:

From the New Statesman:
The momentum, richness and complexity are maintained. The Honourable Woman will win every award going and when it ends in the final days of summer, its fans, who will be legion and messianic in its cause, will have to take up needlepoint or mah-jong. Nothing on telly is going to be this good for some time to come.

From the Huffington Post:

When the BBC do it right, they do it superbly, as with ‘The Honourable Woman’ – an engrossing political thriller AND family drama that looks like it could become the UK’s answer to ‘Homeland’.

Unfortunately their political persuasions get the better of their critical faculties…the programme is clunky, clumsy, simplistic and obvious.  It is a student project that incorporates every device known to ‘media man’ to laboriously make its points.

A highly political and very old fashioned production…it’s like something dragged out of the 70’s  lacking style, sophistication and real, believable excitement.   Has Blick not seen anything by Tarantino, or even the BBC’s, still lefty but stylish, Sherlock?

The Huffington Post and others say ‘it could become the UK’s answer to ‘Homeland’. ‘

No, it couldn’t, have they not actually seen Homeland?  The first series was brilliant, the second maintained the standard, the third was pretty dire.  The BBC has gone straight for ‘dire’ with ‘The Honourable Woman’.

The acting was wooden and lifeless…when the Zionist arms dealing father was killed off in front of his children they just sat there staring….the Mail explains:

The victim’s daughter was an eight-year-old Nessa Stein. She sat frozen with her father’s blood spattered across her face, in a green velvet chair far too big for her.
That Alice-in-Wonderland image of stillness amid chaos is a trick borrowed from European cinema, light years removed from the  all-action blur of Hollywood.

Blick borrowing from ‘European cinema’…that could explain why it is crap.

Maggie Gyllenhaal as Nessa Stein, a supposedly powerful business woman, is unbelievable, not unbelievably good, just unbelievable…with an incredibly annoying ‘breathy’ voice over.

Her brother might as well be replaced by a bag of sand, the nanny seems a few drinks short of a good time and the other supporting actors are highly mannered stereotypes…I do though like the MI6 fellow, Sir Hugh Hayden-Hoyle,….though how Rod Liddle got the time to play the part is beyond me….however, again likeable but still too stagey.

The supposedly dramatic and exciting finale where the the boy is kidnapped was laughable nonsense…..Nessa’s bodyguard appearing out of nowhere, completely unnoticed by the kidnappers despite the open nature of the area, managing to shoot a kidnapper with a pistol at long range in the dark…never mind the whole tortured invention of the kidnap itself…a ridiculously complex concoction once again more probably the result of a drunken brainstorming session by those students of film check-boxing all the required ingredients for a thriller resulting in a cliched and uninventive ‘spectacular’.

Still, that’s purely my view…others beg to differ:

Blick patiently and methodically lays out the building blocks of this drama like a grandmaster positioning his pieces.

The Honourable Woman is a marathon, not a sprint: a drama with more layers than Rachel Green’s traditional English trifle and Dante’s circles of Hell combined – and twice as darkly fascinating.

Though thinking of it…that could just be damning by faint praise….‘a grandmaster positioning his pieces’?  Are we to be dragged through 7 epsiodes of mind-numbing pawn play only to be rewarded finally with a rising crescendo of eyepopping action and the tying up of all loose ends in an intellectually gratifying masterpiece that satisfies the most jaded of critics?