Is Jeremy Bowen Anti-Semitic?


Jeremy Bowen has been accused of being anti-Semitic after tweeting that Israel Prime Minister, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he  addressed the US Congress ‘once again plays the Holocaust card ‘.


Bowen is upset that people find his words offensive..

The BBC defends him…

A BBC spokesperson said: “Jeremy was using Twitter and journalism shorthand whilst live-tweeting PM Netanyahu’s speech. The context of his comment is that a major part of PM Netanyahu’s critique of the proposed Iran deal was based on the spectre of another holocaust. Jeremy’s tweet was designed to reflect that context. He absolutely refutes any suggestion of antisemitism.”


‘Journalistic shorthand’?  So the BBC is once again excusing bad or malign journalism by telling us that their professional journalists are unable to produce coherent and intelligent comment when streaming comment ‘live’ just as they excused Tim Wilcox’s suggestion in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings that Jews in Europe should expect to be attacked because of Israel’s actions.

It’s not as if Bowen is sat in the audience with his iPhone…he’s sat in the journalist’s ‘edit room’ with all the equipment necessary to double check what is said in the speech…

Embedded image permalink


Having looked at Bowen’s Twitter stream it is apparent that such failings are not the result of working ‘live’ but a determined attempt to attack Netanyahu.   Bowen’s comments are entirely negative and overly critical, if not just plain wrong, of Netanyahu’s speech.

During a Netanyahu speech at AIPAC a day earlier Bowen Tweets this….


Bowen goes down the ‘Jewish Lobby’ route…not as if every other interest group doesn’t have ‘lobby’s’ but you might think so from BBC comment….



Back to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and you can see Bowen eager to criticise the speech…..



Trouble is that Netanyahu didn’t say that…he said that only if Iran increases the number of centrifuges enormously it could make nuclear weapon fuel in weeks once the agreement expires…as confirmed by Kerry…..with the present number of centrifuges such a scenario would take longer…but even then Israel assesses that would be less than a year…as said in the speech…

Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

Then we get to the bit Bowen Tweeted about….

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.


Bowen then tries to suggest Iran’s brand of Islamic terrorism and expansionism is totally different to the ‘Islamists’….



As Iran’s proxy armies are rampaging across the Middle East and Iran has indicated its desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and works closely with Hamas some might think Netanyahu has a point about the dangers of Iran.


And finally back to the so-called ‘Holocaust card’.  Did Netanyahu ‘play’ that card?

He certainly mentioned it…firstly in the context that Iran poses not a problem just to Israel but to the world…just as the Nazis were not just a problem for the Jews….

Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II.  So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world.


Later in the speech, the bit Bowen thinks is ‘playing the Holocaust card’, he says this……

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.


Israel is all about the Holocaust, it was created as a safe haven for Jews in recognition of the threats that they face as an often persecuted minority, threats that once again Jews are having to face in Europe, threats that the BBC tries to downplay or excuse as ‘acceptable’ because of Israel’s defensive actions.

The BBC itself constantly issues ‘warnings from history’ about the threat of the ‘Far Right’ goose-stepping its way across Europe again, strange that Bowen thinks Israel shouldn’t be allowed to raise the spectre of a similar danger, not just to the Jews, but to the world posed, this time, by Iran.

It does look like Bowen has been caught ‘playing the ‘playing the Holocaust card’ card’ ….a card played by the critics of Israel and Jews….The Jewish Chronicle saying…

Mr Bowen did what only the antisemitic extremists used to do, reduce the invocation of the Holocaust to a common sense indicator of ‘Zionist’ bad faith and something to disdain.

Bowen’s ‘once again’ damns him completely.

Carelessness, bad journalism or bad will?  You decide.





Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Is Jeremy Bowen Anti-Semitic?

  1. TPO says:

    I’ve long since given up on Bowen. The man is not only a liar and purveyor of gross distortions, but he also comes across as an unpleasant person.
    One only has to appreciate the lengths that the BBC have gone to in keeping the Balen report under wraps, resorting to the courts to claim ‘journalistic privilege’, which it was not, to know that the probable outcome was that Bowen was heavily censured.
    In polite circles he would be known as a ‘rotten egg’.
    Anyone bothering with this odious little man’s opinions really needs their heads examining.


    • Neil Andrew says:

      The BBC didn’t ‘resort to the courts’, Mr Sugar brought the case to court and the BBC was compelled to respond. And they won, every single time, in every single court.

      Why don’t you tell us why you disagree with their decision?

      It has been suggested, one of the reports recommendations was the creation of Bowens role. Which he then took.


      • Teddy Bear says:

        Not EVERY court!

        A campaigner trying to force the BBC to publish an internal report on alleged bias in its Middle East coverage won the latest round of a legal battle yesterday.

        The Law Lords held by a 3-2 majority that a case brought by London lawyer Steven Sugar under the Freedom of Information Act was wrongly blocked by legal rulings at earlier hearings.

        BBC Spent £332,000 suppressing it.

        Bear in mind that the reason the BBC originally commissioned Balen to make this report was to show the public that accusations of bias in this arena were bogus. Clearly this is not what Balen found, which is why the BBC want to bury it, and don’t care how much of the licence fee they spend in doing so.

        As for ‘suggestions’ in the report that Bowen took his role – you can claim what you like can’t you? Especially somebody who has been shown to be biased against Israel by the BBC themselves.


        • Neil Andrew says:

          Correct, in that decision, one court found in his favour in a proceedural matter against a previous court decision, nothing to do with the BBC or the legal principle.

          Apparently you know the reason the report was commissioned. You can claim anything you want though can’t you?

          BiasedBBC, never letting the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.


          • Teddy Bear says:

            You avoided the other facts I posted because you can’t refute them. As for the one you tried:
            The Balen Report is a document written by the senior broadcasting journalist Malcolm Balen in 2004 examining the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The report was commissioned by former BBC Director of News, Richard Sambrook, following allegations of anti-Israel bias

            That’s it for you – you’re not wasting any more of my time – so find yourself another name now – DIPSHIT.
            I just want to show any intelligent newcomers here just what types support the BBC and the bullshit they resort to trying to discredit our findings.

            Thanks for proving our point.


        • hippiepooter says:

          Great post Teddy. I think ‘Neil Andrew’ should stay on his knees!


  2. The Beebinator says:

    Bowen’s a lefty, and lefties have allied themselves with the arabs/muslims. Like Hitler said, “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?”



  3. Ian Rushlow says:

    The allegations about Jeremy Bowen may or may not be true, but he is certainly a poor journalist in that he seems to allow his personal views, prejudices and feelings to override his professional integrity. One striking observation is that many of those who are clearly Holocaust deniers seem to be rather keen on having a second go at it…


  4. Guest Who says:

    “Jeremy was using Twitter and journalism shorthand”

    I, too, would have used the word ‘journalistic’. Maybe the Graun misquoted the latest spokesbot?

    Surprised at the BBC taking this route, after previous cases when making excuses for compromises on the basis of constraints have just dug deeper holes.

    Because there is no excuse, and once in public you don’t get a pass for shorthand in journalism if it is not accurate, objective or with integrity.

    If you can’t say it or write it on those bases due to constraints… you don’t say it or write it.

    The BBC has made a self-damning admission.

    “And now… here is the ne… journalistic shorthand, read to you by…”


  5. The Old Bloke says:

    Down here in BBC Radio Devon la-la land, a long time serving DJ of senior age got the bullet from Radio Devon, for inadvertently playing a very old record which contained the word “nigger”. There was just ONE complaint. If the BBC are not anti-Semite, based upon Mr Bowen’s tweets, how can the BBC now employ the man?


  6. Simon says:

    don’t know why but he reminds me of Kevin McGuire – seems like a decent enough bloke but then you can see the lefty hate behind the eyes. McGuire does a Sky News week review with a bloke from the Daily Mail (gay bloke who seems like a genuinely nice guy) and McGuire is just angry and spiteful with his comments when he has the usual comfortable upbringing/lifestyle.

    Same with Bowen – wealthy and full of Sixth Form hate. It really is like a disease with them


    • Guest Who says:

      He has a bad habit of standing around a specific side of war zones.

      On one occasion this did not work out well for a colleague.

      This offers reasons, but no excuses.

      That the BBC continues to deploy a clearly conflicted editor in this role given his history, is beyond comprehension.


      • I Can See Clearly Now says:

        That the BBC continues to deploy a clearly conflicted editor in this role given his history, is beyond comprehension.

        There are plenty of replacements available…. for example, Lyse, Orla, maybe Hind Hassan from Sky News. Or what about Sky’s Middle East Correspondent Sherine Tadros? She’s seems to know Gaza as intimately as Jeremy.


        • Demon says:

          All the names I recognise on your list share the same bigotries as Bowen so not much would change even if they did.


    • The General says:

      There were lots of complaints about Bowen during the FIRST Gulf war when on one occasion he stood, with tears in his eyes, on top of (what he claimed to be), the roof of a hospital purposly bombed by the Allies.
      I seem to remember he could not return to UK for quite some time after the war finished due to the anger expressed against him by the British public.
      This of course did not deter al-Beeb in airing Bowen’s anti Semitic rantings. Promoting their left wing views is more important than the consequences or telling the truth.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Bowen is always the shill of anyone who wants to kill Jews.

        “… The context of his comment is that a major part of PM Netanyahu’s critique of the proposed Iran deal was based on the spectre of another holocaust. Jeremy’s tweet was designed to reflect that context. He absolutely refutes any suggestion of antisemitism.””

        So why didn’t Bowen tweet like that, instead of using the (patently calculated) derogatory phrase as ‘Once again Netanyahu playing the holocaust card’.

        Bowen is like many at the BBC, busily paving the way to the second Holocaust. As I’m fond of saying at moments like this, you prepare for the second Holocaust and we’ll prepare for the second Nuremburg.

        Bowen = crime against humanity waiting to happen.


  7. D1004 says:

    Dunno about anti Semite , he’s certainly anti Heath Hospital. Mind both my parents died in there, I can see where he’s coming from, who runs the NHS in Cardiff ? Anyone ?

    Sorry I ought to mention I use the locals name for the place, not the poncy one.


  8. Thoughtful says:

    Funny how when it suits them the Fascists at the BBC and quote the deluded and unworkable McPherson report whenever it suits them that an incident which is regarded by the ‘victim’ is racist if they perceive it to be so.

    Unless it’s someone from the left?


  9. Beez says:

    I’m going to steer a little off topic here, but i needed to vent on a sane minded forum.

    The Manchester Evening News posted an article relating to the proposed marches between the EDL and Anti-Fascists this weekend.

    Prior to making my feelings known, i had a scan through the comments section which always proves to be a blood boiling experience.

    Needless to say, the comments section was saturated with lefties pontificating on matters, airing their grievances about the ‘disgraceful’ EDL.

    One comment boasted, “Great, the EDL bringing my City down once again.” It just so happens that this commentator brought my profession into debate once i had made MY feelings known. A tactic that has become synonymous with hate-filled liberals. Smear the person, not their argument.

    Anyway, i posted the following video to the comments section (Most of you will be aware of it):

    I simply stated that there are thousands of Muslims (as seen in the video) who openly advocate the Charlie Hebdo attacks. A reasonable point, which is supported by statistics.

    However, lefties just don’t do facts, and when the stats completely overhaul their original argument, they resort to character assassination, with the intent of bringing someones name into disrepute.

    This creep took it upon himself to publicise my companies name into the comments section. I’m a sport journalist at a local paper, so i’m fully aware of the importance of balancing an argument and remaining impartial (unlike the BBC).

    Fearing for my credibility (now that the clown had ousted me on a public domain) i removed the video and comment.

    How has it come to this? Why are people so unwilling to confront the truth that is standing right before them? I have to say, i retreated from advancing my argument for safety reasons. What a sad, unjust world we live in at the moment.

    I’m afraid to say, like so many of you have done in recent weeks, that the demise of our country is imminent.


    • Thoughtful says:

      Perhaps you might like to go to the Manchester LGF and ask them why they outright refuse to condemn Islam and Muslims even when they are openly advocating and calling for the execution of gay people?
      Or the Students Union in Manchester which disciplined a witness to a Muslim women’s meeting at which they openly discussed their resolve to murder Gay people.
      This is going on in Manchester now, and it is these same people who will be at tomorrows demo by the United Association of Fascists.

      I post on the MEN site occasionally, but I do so anonymously for the very reason you stated, I have to ask you the question as to how they found out who you are unless you used your real name?


    • Truthdoctor says:


      You have stood up for what you consider right. Be proud of what you have done and hold your head up high.

      You are fighting intolerance and bigotry and those who seek to intimidate you and take away your right to free speech are cowards and bullies.

      Many who tried to speak up about the rise of Hitler in the 1930s were also silenced.

      Have a good weekend.


  10. Umbongo says:

    The way to approach this is not to ask whether Bowen is antisemitic. Such a question just creates a barren debate with, I guess, most B-BBC commenters saying “yes” and flokkers saying “no”. Rather, the question to ask is how an antisemite would report Middle Eastern news – particularly concerning Israel – and then comparing that with what Bowen comes up with.
    I don’t want to go into the causes of Bowen’s personal angst concerning Israel or what might have caused it (apparently a close colleague/cameraman was killed by Israeli soldiers). However, it seems to me that, pace his and the BBC’s denials concerning Bowen’s political and racial beliefs, the probable Middle East reportage of an unashamed antisemite would be little different from Bowen’s.
    Furthermore, setting aside any claims concerning his possible antisemitism, Bowen is simply a crap reporter. Accordingly, for instance, a competent journalist – antisemite or not – would have come up with something better than Bowen’s early reports on the “Arab Spring”. Bowen’s coverage of the events in Tahrir Square (where Bowen ignored the abuse poured on Western reporters – particularly women – by the demonstrators) and his purblind description of the Moslem Brotherhood as “conservative, moderate and non-violent” speaks of an astonishing lack of journalistic ability.
    As I commented at the time, after viewing Bowen’s reports from Cairo I was no wiser about the events, what was occurring off-screen and what might have been happening behind closed doors among the players in Egyptian politics. If one had been forced to rely completely on Bowen’s “journalism” one would have, at best, been left more or less ignorant of the facts and, at worst, seriously misled. Mind you, since promoting ignorance in its audience and/or seriously misleading them is a staple of BBC output we shouldn’t be surprised that Bowen is the exemplar of a BBC journalist.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘The way to approach this is not to ask whether Bowen is antisemitic’

      Agree. The BBC will be thrilled if this is the tack taken.

      It can be swatted away with ease, as they have, do and will many times.

      ‘Bowen’s personal angst concerning Israel or what might have caused it’

      This still could get swallowed by the BBC’s delusional cries of placing politics aside and citing professional editorial integrity, but clearly that would never wash outside the self-oversight secret society that is the current BBC.

      Imagine any other professional entity, especially in the public sector, deliberately maintaining key personnel on a beat where by any measure they are clearly disturbed by history and/or have personal axes to grind.


      • Neil Andrew says:

        The tack to take surely is to request evidence for such an accusation of racism?

        None is forthcoming.

        I can’t imagine any entity, public or otherwise, removing someone from their job because they were injured and their colleague killed in the course of their duties. Unless unfit.


    • hippiepooter says:

      “his purblind description of the Moslem Brotherhood as “conservative, moderate and non-violent” speaks of an astonishing lack of journalistic ability.”

      No, he was trying to help Jew haters to take power in Egypt. Bowen is always propaganda masquerading as news.


  11. mandelson says:

    The man’s narcissism knows no limits. I recall some years ago he did a documentary about the holy land and sat in a cave imagining what it was like to be Jesus. Beyond parody. I also recall how his white liberal naivety got him beat up in Sarf London by someone from a more “vibrant” community. Very much a modern Beeboid role model, smug out of touch and dumb.


    • Dollarfray says:

      How can anyone take seriously the defense, “journalistic shorthand” when it amounts to cut and paste disinformation.
      I get the same impression as with Brian Williams….the difference being, Bowen’s tweets were his way to inject himself into the event..and clearly biased – that’s why he’s really an activist.
      Netanyahu has every right to play that “card” as Bowen said…since Iran’s supreme leaders have vowed to destroy Israel and have said the Jews are not human. Why not remind the world that what happened before could happen again!
      Bowen was disrespectful to holocaust victims by diminishing the reference to the terrible genocide as the “holocaust card.” Pretty sickening.


  12. Teddy Bear says:

    What we see continually by the BBC is their effort to please and appease all Muslims – regardless of who and how many non-Muslims, or even minority Muslims, will suffer as a result.

    Their motives for this are:
    1. Fear
    2. Hegemony – to be accepted by all Muslim regimes to assist their desire to be the leading world’s media organisation.

    Bowen, and the rest of the BBC puppets are merely following the party line. It doesn’t matter who the victims might be.

    ‘Anti-Semitic’ is not the term for this insidious evil mindset.


  13. deegee says:

    It would be fascinating to hear Bowen’s answer to the question. If what you write is not antisemitic, what would you consider to be antisemitic?

    Come to think of it, what would the BBC’s answer to that question?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      That can be answered right here in this BBC article: What is anti-Semitism?

      The EU has a “working definition” of anti-Semitism to help authorities in member states, though it does not have legal force. It says anti-Semitism is a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. It can be verbal or physical, or both, and targets Jewish individuals, or their property, or community institutions or religious facilities.

      Most Jews surveyed by the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) regarded the following attitudes as anti-Semitic: “The Holocaust is a myth or has been exaggerated”; “Jews are responsible for the current economic crisis”; “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes”; “Jews have too much power”; “Israelis behave like Nazis towards the Palestinians”; “Jews are not capable of integrating into society”.

      Anti-Semitism is also covered by the EU’s 2008 framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. That is a legal document.

      It lists as a crime “publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons, or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”. Also punishable is: “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”.

      It shows that Bowen knows his statements will offend Jews – but he simply doesn’t care.


      • Just Sayin' says:

        the 2008 document was an attempt to implement holocaust denial laws in the EU. It was rejected by the UK and Nordic countries as incompatible with free speech. But the document is used by those countries that dont allow free speech, as a guide, ie, you get 3 years for “denying” the holocaust

        prior to 1991, if you “denied” 4.1 million died in Aushwitz, you were a holocaust denier, and went to jail. When they quietly changed the figure to 1.1 million in 1991, and you say hold on, does that mean 3 million jews died in the “holocaust”, that EU document is used to jail you for 3 years for holocaust denial.

        something seriously wrong when they have to use laws to stop you asking questions


        • deegee says:

          The countries, such as Austria, which introduced Holocaust denial laws did not do it to stop asking questions. They did it to stop the revival of the Nazi party, which after the war was a real threat.

          BTW Just Sayin’ are you seriously recycling the Spotlight without even the benefit of quotes? (The Spotlight was a weekly newspaper in the United States, published in Washington, D.C. from September 1975 to July 2001 by the now-defunct antisemitic Liberty Lobby. The Spotlight ran articles and editorials professing a “populist and nationalist” political orientation. Some observers have described the publication as promoting a right-wing, or conservative, politics)

          The Nizkor Project in How many people died at Auschwitz? calls BS on Foner’s claim that you have recycled as your own.

          According to Nizkor: According to figures provided by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the overall number of victims of Auschwitz in the years 1940-1945 is estimated at between 1,100,000 and 1,500,000 people. The majority of them, and above all the mass transports of Jews who arrived beginning in 1942, died in the gas chambers. (Waclaw Dlugoborski and Franciszek Piper, Eds. Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 2000, 5 vols., 1799 pp., ISBN 83-85047-87-5)

          Jews were not the only victims of this Nazi German killing machine – historians estimate that among the people sent to Auschwitz there were at least 1,100,000 Jews from all the countries of occupied Europe, over 140,000 Poles (mostly political prisoners), approximately 20,000 Gypsies from several European countries, over 10,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and over 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities.


          • Just Sayin' says:

            degge, i wasnt recycling anyones claims as my own, i was just saying whats obvious. But you cant call BS on me or anyone else. We can call BS on you with actual evidence. See the pics below

            Regarding how many died at aushwitz, this monument was there until 1991 that stated 4 million died at that camp, most of them jews. in 1991 it was changed to the second picture saying 1.5 million (1.1 million jews)

            now theres a difference of about 3 million dead. How does that play out to the between 5 and 6 million jews died in the holocaust. Is the real figure between 2 and 3 million? what happened to these 3 million dead that have disappeared?

            Im only asking questions. This according to EU law, makes me a holocaust denier. Am i?



            • flexdream says:

              The number of those murdered by the Nazis is a legitimate subject for debate. Denying that the Holocaust occurred is absurd. States which suppress discussion simply stifle knowledge and feed suspicion.


      • Dollarfray says:

        Yes and he’s employed by the BBC so it doesn’t care either.


  14. stuart says:

    it is all about intent,yes intent,what was going through bowens mind when he made that comment about the holocaust on his twitter feed,did he not relise he would be upsetting the jewish community by these comments he made,or did he intend to ?,why did he have to use this word holocaust,why,what was his real intent,see the thing is mr bowen i think you have crossed the line here with your bias,do the right thing mate and resign from the bbc.i am sure channel 4 will have a nice job there waiting for you.


  15. deegee says:

    The BBC have a no tolerance policy to Golliwogs. Antisemitism — not so much.


  16. Dollarfray says:

    His tweets are like shorthand for a political activist who masquerades as a journalist.


  17. George R says:

    “Dutch Muslims Students Refuse Holocaust Lessons”

    – See more at: