DB has already picked up on the Scarlett Johansson story and I see you have all been commenting on it. There was one additional element to the story that irritated me and it is this bit..from the BBC report…
“Actress Scarlett Johansson has quit as an ambassador for Oxfam amid a row over her support for an Israeli company that operates in the occupied West Bank.”
WHERE? Do they mean Judea/Samaria? How can Israel “occupy” it’s own land, exactly? I can understand Palestinians using such language but for the BBC to parrot it is surely indicative of bias.
The BBC then adds…
The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
It’s not just Israel that “disputes” this “consideration”, BBC.
Unfortunately the biased description of the ‘occupied West Bank’ is not peculiar to the BBC.
Even HMG uses ‘The Occupied Palestinian Territories’ .
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271611/2014013_FCO_GNI_Other_Geographical_Names_v1.csv/preview)
I keep a list of the Friends of Israel, and begin to support their work.
Don`t know this lady, but will back her in whatever she chooses to do.
Oxfam are dead meat.
Other friends of Israel include John Lydon, Leonard Cohen..maybe we need to collate them, and back them,
Can`t be easy in Beeb or LaLa land these days.
I’m surprised you haven’t heard of Scarlett Johansson (Not entirely safe for work) she is a talented and very beautiful young woman. She makes an old fart like me very happy at times!
Knowing that she hasn’t been infected with liberal angst where Israel is concerned places her on a yet higher pedestal AFAIAC.
The article you cite refers to ‘the near-universal view that Israeli settlements anywhere beyond the 1967 lines are illegal under international law’.
It seems to me they aren’t legal because the Australian Foreign Minister thinks otherwise. And reading the article, she doesn’t actually say that any way. She suggess its not a good idea to keep referring to them as such because it isn’t helpful to a peace process.
Just because the anti semitic UN says its illegal is bollocks. The territory is Israel. If the arabs hadn’t tried to wipe Israel out, twice, then there might have been some substance to it. Israel is protecting its citizens including Arabs. The only real reason there is no peace is the Islamists want to wipe out Israel. It has nothing to do with settlements, Palestinians make a lot out building work in the settlements. Left wing retards dont want to research the facts or face the truth. Peace is something the pally overlords do not want!
Is that “peace process” the one in which Israel is to be negotiating with the other side who is bent on its destruction?
Shhhh. BBC editorial policy does not require that little fact to be mentioned as key background context in every report, while the boilerplate “Settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.” is required every time.
Worst. Zionist. Shill. Ever.
There were no settlements in 1948 but it didn’t stop 400m arabs trying to wipe Israel off the map.
Settlements are just the latest distraction to not make peace.
She’s Jewish. The Beeb didn’t mention that.
Makes no odds to me if she’s Jewish but I think the Beeb should have mentioned it given the context of the story. I think they didn’t because doing so would make the link between Oxfam’s and the Beeb’s ‘anti-Israeli anti-Zionism’ stance and its obvious anti-semitic character.
The Beeb hates the Jews and so does Oxfam.
That tag line is written in stone in either the BBC’s Style Guide or the editorial policy. It’s in nearly every single article about the settlements, verbatim. But curiously, the BBC does not have the same rule for the reality of the Hamas Charter, or that Palestinian leadership has been very clear that a Palestinian State would be Judenrein.
For the purposes of White Western Post-Colonial Guilt, Israelis
are classified as White Europeans.
The Racism of Low Expectation states that Palestinians* can do no wrong.
*Hang on, wasn’t the West Bank Jordanian?
This territory was occupied by Jordan ( by force) from 1949 to 1967 after it had been captured by force in 1947 but they had no right to it and had rejected ownership during the 1947 negotiations.
good article here explaining why Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria is better than anyone else’s
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-west-bank-judea-and-samaria-is-not-occupied-and-why-it-matters