A Biased BBC reader draws this nugget to my attention…
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34346621
I was particularly incensed by the following paragraph:
“You may be familiar with the history of the 1967 Middle East War – a short, sharp conflict in which, Israel captured land from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a series of lightning operations.”
No mention of why Israel went to war or the threats of annihilation that the state was facing. Also, the implication that the war was Israel’s fault. In particular, it was Jordan that attacked Israel in 1967 after they were warned to not to.
I heard the story on Radio 4 – giving the clear impression that Israel was to blame for the 1967 war.
The World sat on their hands and watched as the Arab states surrounded the tiny state of Israel intent on wiping it off the face of the earth. What happened surprised everyone. Israel’s resulting advance into Arab territories is now the subject of controversy but had it been the other way around no doubt it would have been a case of “move on nothing to see here” and the highly developed land of Israel would now be an uncivilized third world Arab hell hole.
And this
There was the grim drumbeat of history to emphasise the difficulty of it all – the war of 1973, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the start of the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising in 1987.
Israel forever attacking Arabs, and invading Arab nations for no reason whatever.
And now it is Zionist Amerika, England, France – allCrusader nations, attacking poor ISIS, al Qaeda and other Jihadi groups, practising the tenets of Islam as peacefully as they can manage.
When will the Islamophobia cease.
There is nothing new under the sun, Daniel 8 {the interpretation by Gabriel} The goat {Alexander the Great} smote the ram {Media/Persia} at the Battle of Granicus in the year 334BC add the 2300 {+1 to account for 0 crossing BC to AD} makes 1967 and the cleansing of the remaining edifice of the 2nd Temple i.e. the Western Wall . Nasser was to die shortly after “without hand” {heart attack}
David Vance wrote:
“No mention of why Israel went to war or the threats of annihilation that the state was facing. Also, the implication that the war was Israel’s fault. In particular, it was Jordan that attacked Israel in 1967 after they were warned to not to.”
As I have lived around the world, I ensure that where ever I land I read up the history of the place. So on a posting to Cyprus I not only read up on the issues there, I also read up on the history of the Jewish state across the water. (This I reinforced when I read up in greater detail the issues there when faced with I wanted to understand the hatred expressed by the ethical latte drinkers out there towards the Jew)
Anyway what I learnt that after Nasser kicked out the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) on May 16th 1967, he prepared to launch a pre-emptive attack on Israel called ‘Operation Dawn’ this was cancelled hours before H hour when the Russian Ambassador Dmitri Pojidaev woke up Nasser on Sat May 27th 1967 and informed him that the Americans had found out about their planned attack on Israel and that if the US knew so would the Israeli. This was further compounded by the fact that a group of five Egyptian high ranking officers privy to the attack had been captured by the Israeli after they got caught on the the Israeli side of the border and which was followed up by a chance movement of Israeli armour towards the Egyptian stronghold of Kuntilla (Where the IDF had broken through in 1956). This scared Nasser into cancelling ‘Operation Dawn’. Put it this way, Egyptian pilots were in their aircraft ready to go when they received the ‘No Go’
Israel could not allow the huge amount of troops and weapons from Egypt,Jordan,Syria,Iraq,Lebanon, Algeria, Kuwait,Libya, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia,and Sudan to simply sit on their border and so 9 days after Nasser cancelled his attack, Israel launched its own. My info from this book:
Six Days of War
The book is well worth reading and it is available on Kindle much cheaper.
Thanks Pounce, this is the truth about the 6 Day War. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such falsehood. Shame on them.
The BBC has no shame when it comes to lying about Israel. I seriously question whether some of their “journalists” even know the history.
So, is it a myth that “Israel captured land from Egypt, Syria and Jordan”?
Or did Israel give that land back after the conflict?
Well yes, actually it did give back most of the land that was captured. Mostly it was Egyptian territory in the Sinai region, all returned folowing the resumption of diplomatic relations. Legally speaking, the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem area was disputed territory, following its annexation by Jordan in 1948. Parts of the Golan Heights were captured from Syria and have since been retained.
Israel actually captured Sinai twice. In 1956 and 1967. In the first case Israel (then allied with France and UK) withdrew under American pressure. In the second case Israel withdrew when Sadat and Begin signed a peace treaty. There was a long-established, recognised border so despite some argument over where exactly it went, ultimately solved by independent arbitration, return wasn’t much of a problem.
Syria is much more complicated. In the 1948 armistice agreement areas of disputed sovereignty were turned into Demilitarised Zones (DMZ) The Golan only became Syrian in 1946 when Syria became independent so Israel has held the Golan for twice as long as Syria ever did. Syria frequently used their elevated positions to shell Israeli communities below between 1949 and 1967.
Negotiations to return the Golan to Syria fell with Syria’s insistence on returning not to the 1924 International Border but to 1967 i.e. land Syria had captured in 1948. A return to this would have given Syria access and arguably control of Lake Kinneret, Israel’s only freshwater lake and a major water resource.
Knowing what we know about Syria and the current war in whose interests would it be to return the Golan and to whom?
When Jordan invaded in 1948 they took the area of Judea and Samaria, annexed it and renamed it the West Bank. Virtually no other country (except Britain, Iraq and Pakistan) accepted Jordanian sovereignty. Most importantly the Arab League did not. In 1988 Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank.
The Israeli Jordanian Peace treaty settled the border. It established an ‘administrative boundary’ between Jordan and the West Bank, occupied by Israel in 1967, without prejudice to the status of that territory. Israel recognises Jordan’s sovereignty over the Naharayim/Baqura area (including Peace Island) and the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area.
Thank you.
I always thought it odd that Jordan did not want to regain the “West Bank” although I think I can understand it.
Hopefully our BBC spies can read your message and update their internal “research” sources to assist in future impartial coverage of the area.
With that level of humour I’m wondering whether I should apply for a role as a joke writer for the BBC.
With that level of humour I’m wondering whether I should apply for a role as a joke writer for the BBC.
Only if you can you build a clock, using just the inner guts of a 1970’s commercially available clock and claim it as a genuine invention.?
What? Its been done already? Never mind, get an 1970’s car tyre and claim you have invented the wheel.
No one has made that claim.
The lying by omission is making that statement in isolation without any reference to the multi-faceted and complex history of the region. I thought that was clear in the leading article.
On reflection, lying by omission is a BBC speciality.
Read a piece on the “cereal bar” junior kristellnacht event while eating my cereal this morning.
Apparently one of the targets of “Class War” are “Israeli” property speculators.
What a carefully chosen word!
Class War, famous for its former broadsheet, ‘Hospitalised Copper’, boasting over injured policemen. Nowadays a bunch of Israeli hating, Palestinian supporting left fascist street thugs who call themselves anarchists, demand state handouts, and use class war rhetoric along with support for Islamic extremists, on the grounds that any enemy of the state must be their friend. Photo here of the Class War Women’s Death Brigade, loony feminists demonstrating against the Jack the Ripper Museum in Brick Lane, whilst denouncing as racist any criticism of Muslim grooming gangs.
But isn’t that Mickey Rourke?
No, even he looks better than that sour faced hag.
That Julian Assange has let himself go to pot
What is that woman actually protesting about?
If it is a Jack the Ripper museum, then by definition it will be about sexual violence against women. Surely that is something she believes ought to be known about?
Just as a ‘Holocaust Museum’ will be about violence against Jews.
If she believes it is glorifying, trivialising or otherwise misrepresenting such violence, then she should make that clear in her banner.
Otherwise, people like me are likely to think she is just making a protest for the sake of it.
Thousands? More like tens of thousands stretching right across England and not just Rotherjham.
There is no parallel in history in any nation, where a bunch of immigrants have been allowed into a country, and then raped little girls over decades, with the authorities turning a blind eye.
Why is their no parallel in history for such an occurrence?
The answer is that no government has been so weak, so immoral and so far down the road to cowardice, as to allow immigrants to rape thousands of little girls.
If Labour had been re-elected, this most shameful episode in any nation’s history, would never have come to light.
Not looking good for precedent or survival if the latest wheeze I just read about bears fruit.
Seems that those rapin’ Lybians have now appealed for asylum here, from jail.
So all you have to do is get here, commit a nasty crime, and the U.K. will keep you and offer safe haven. Not too sure what happens to the families left behind.
Probably they have a right to come over too, Dad having played the system.
I am waiting for the BBC history of World War II when they examine America’s aggression against Japan, but forget to mention Pearl Harbor.
The BBC and near history seem problematic too.
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/09/29/bbc-does-damage-control-after-bowens-assad-advocacy/
Having been an Assad supporter throughout, I can assure you that, far from being pro-Assad, the BBC have been virulently anti-Assad, pro Islamist from the beginning. I’m as critical of the BBC and Bowen as any sensible person but those articles you’ve linked to are as bad as the bias we are arguing against. The main thrust being that Bowen failed to mention Iran’s support for Assad. Quite frankly, if anybody is still unaware of that, it’s unlikely they’ll be reading articles about Syria.
The simple truth is that, realising Egypt were intent on attacking them, something they made little secret of, in the imminent future Israel made a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian Air Force virtually eliminating it. Egypt then put their invasion into operation by sending their already mobilised army into Sinai.
Syria, who Israel had not attacked, doubtless because they didn’t wish to split their forces, tiny by comparison, to fight on two fronts, then saw an opportunity for an easy victory and immediately declared was on Israel.
Jordan, who had made no moves against Israel, was then bullied and blackmailed by both Egypt and Syria to join in the attacks despite having no real wish to do so.
The end result was that what Egypt and Syria thought would be a quick and final solution to the existence of Israel turned out to be far more than they could chew let alone swallow whole and ended up being choked by what they took to be a tiny, easily digested morsel.
The result was Israel took control of the virtually empty desert area of the Sinai. Took control of the small area of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and took up a border with Jordan which was more easily defended.
When it comes to Syria the Israelis advanced so far that they were virtually knocking on the door of Damascus. Deciding they had no wish to take control of large areas of Syria they withdrew to retain a small areas of Syria as far as the top of the Golan Heights. their doing that was what really upset the Syrians as previously they were in control of the western slopes of the Golan, which meant they overlooked a large area of Israel, from where they were in the habit on a fairly regular basis of lobbing shells into the Israeli villages near that border. Losing that ability really, really upset Syria because they were no longer able to easily make an nuisance of themselves in order to create problems for Israel by killing villagers in order to make Israel look impotent and unable to protect it’s citizens.
Apart from the West Bank most of the huge areas of Egypt and Syria which Israel had advanced into was left in the hands of the two countries concerned as soon as the war ended. Israel had more sense than to behave like a conqueror because they accepted, because of their small population, trying to control millions of disgruntled Arabs was simply a nonstarter. Eventually, as part of a peace agreement with Egypt the parts of Sinai taken by Israel in the Six Day War were handed back to Egyptian control.
To try to give the impression, as the BBC Propaganda Machine seems set on doing, that Israel had made a huge land grab in the area is a complete nonsense. For a country the size of Israel the large scale conquest of neighbours is not wan option even if the had the inclination to do so as it would increase the threats they are under and certainly do nothing to lessen them.
The areas retained were, in comparison with the size of the three countries concerned, tiny to say the least and the only reason for retaining the areas Israel did keep was to give themselves borders which could be more easily defended and also to prevent such problems as Syria had been creating when it could shell Israel with virtual impunity throughout the long periods when there was no war in progress.
The BBC has been pickled in its foul prejudice against Israel all along. Back in June 1967 that prejudice expressed itself in the refusal to believe that Israel was actually winning the war:
the British Broadcasting Corporation served as a main instrument of the Arab information services, publicly repeating even the most improbable of their reports and severely censoring the only version of events – from its reporter in Jerusalem – that corresponded to the truth. Many hours after the officer commanding the Israeli Air Force had announced the destruction of the Egyptian Air force, British newspapers were still debating whether Britain could stand aside and see Israel destroyed.
(Battleground: Fact and fantasy in Palestine by Samuel Katz p. 137)
Nothing’s changed.
The problem is that the anti-Israel propaganda machine has been so successful that almost an entire generation has grown up in complete ignorance of the history. There is no doubt that the BBC has played a large part in this.
The BBC played a huge part in broadcasting the Palestinian Arab propaganda (for which the PLO diverted large sums of money which should have gone to look after their people) – not only on its news service but in plays, dramas , history, documentries etc See this report from Understanding the Media 2000 by David Bedein “The PLO established the Palestinian Press Service (PPS) to provide assistance to visiting journalists and conduct training seminars in media relations. The Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC) joined it, to change the image of the PLO to an organization fighting to protect the victims of Israeli human rights abuses. PHRIC seminars instructed their “students” to steer every media interview to the same themes — Israeli occupation, illegal settlements, human rights abuses, and the right of the Palestinian refugees to go home”.
The 3 ‘No’s of Khartoum should not be forgotten… that leaders of thirteen Arab states gathered at a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan from August 29 to September 1. There they pledged to continue their struggle against Israel. Influenced by Nasser, “their conditions were quite specific: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and ‘maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.’ The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent ‘phone call’ from the Arab world might be a pipe dream”
This “warning” was reinforced on October 21, when an Egyptian missile boat sunk the Israeli destroyer Eilat, killing 47 people. It was confirmed in November and December, when the Arab states repeatedly rebuffed attempts by Sweden’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, Gunnar Jarring — serving as the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy – to induce them to join talks with Israel. In fact, the “three no’s of Khartoum” held for a dozen years, until Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel — at which point the other 20 member states expelled it from the Arab League.
One must wonder if the ‘still sharp’ Ruth Dayan hasn’t gone a little blunt. The claim that she divorced Moshe Dayan because of the harshness of the war is contradicted by her own words, just two years ago.
Moshe Dayan was a serial adulterer and a harsh, often absent father who disinherited his children when he married another woman.
Ruth Dayan was married to him from 1935 to 1971 i.e. until four years after the Six Day War. When asked, “Does your antipathy toward feminism explain why you decided to remain married for years to a man who was unfaithful to you”? she answered, “No. I preferred to preserve my family and I had my considerations. When it was no longer suitable for me, I asked for a divorce. I have always been responsible to myself. No one decided for me; I did not allow anyone to decide for me. But that does not make me a feminist. Taking responsibility for one’s life is not just a woman’s thing.”
When asked, “Do you consider the late Moshe Dayan, your ex-husband, responsible for this” [sic. the lack of agreement after 46 years and Israel still being in control of the territories] to a certain extent? she answered, “No, Moshe was an excellent defense minister. He was excellent in every position he held.” At least then, Ruth Dayan was quite aware that the Six Day War was defensive and collateral damage while unfortunate was unavoidable.
Quotes from The Queen Mother: At 96, Ruth Dayan Is Still Not Ready to Rest on Her Laurels