Author Archives: Alan

. 

The BBC’s programme about Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch – Battle With Britain, you might have thought would be the ultimate hatchet job.

Murdoch, the BBC’s arch enemy, right wing, Thatcher supporting, the BBC’s most dangerous political and commercial rival…but he was also everything the BBC loves….an immigrant bringing innovative, radical, revolutionary ideas to break the Establishment monopoly, a Leninist Labour supporter who gave the People a voice.

In fact the programme was probably a big disappointment for the Guardianistas who must have choked on their own dismay as they watched in shock the BBC undermining myth after myth that have fed and nurtured the Left’s hatred of Murdoch for years…even this morning Toynbee was blaming Murdoch for a conspiracy against Press regulation proposals based on Leveson….ignoring the fact that just about every newspaper and publication are also against them.

The programme exonerated Thatcher for allowing Murdoch to buy the Times…..a meeting that was supposedly a secret stitch up between Thatcher and Murdoch was shown to be nothing of the sort and that even the most vocal critics of the deal said Murdoch was the best candidate.

Steve Hewlett , presenting the programme, let the objectivity slide a bit though….as after having conclusively cleared the deal he then said  that of course there might have been a secret deal…but we’ll never know because that is the nature of a secret deal.

That’s pure speculation that feeds the conspiracy theories…and the facts he had just presented showed otherwise…he had the minutes of the meeting which revealed it was entirely innocuous.

The programme carried on in that vein…the worst that could be said was that it concentrated on the ‘sleaze’ aspect of the Murdoch stable’s output….ignoring the upbeat nature of the Sun, certainly when contrasted with the downbeat, miserable leftwing Mirror.

However the one problem with the programme was one that must raise a few questions about the BBC and it’s relationship with the Labour Party. 

Hewlett told us that there was a crisis so serious that it threatened to destroy everything Murdoch had built….a period of crisis that became the worst days of his life.

That was of course the phone hacking scandal, especially the hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone and Leveson.

But how did Murdoch come to be under such a concerted attack by his numerous and politically motivated enemies?

That we never learned from this programme…once again the sins of the Labour Party have disappeared, hoovered up by the BBC’s clean up squad, 13 years of tragic corruption and incompetence  quietly disposed of.

The programme does tell us that Blair and New Labour joined forces with Murdoch….no Murdoch no Sun, no Sun no New Labour victory.

Strangely however,  no mention of Murdoch’s support for the Iraq War.

Andrew Neal told us that there was no question that Murdoch’s relationship with Blair and Brown was far closer, far more intense than it ever was with Mrs Thatcher…..at least 25 people from each side, government and News International, were deeply involved in an intermeshed, close, deep relationship.

And?….nothing…absolutely no examination of who and when and what resulted from all that intermeshing of personnel….not even a peep about all those weddings, pyjama parties and meetings.

For a start Hewlett could have looked at Tom Baldwin, Times Journalist, who planted stories in the Times for Labour.  Where does he now work?  For Ed Miliband as his chief spinner…or ‘intevention coordinator’

Instead the next we heard from Hewlett, skipping those 13 years, was that…‘the blurring of boundaries continued with David Cameron’…..in fact, he said, the relationship was possibly even deeper.

But what was the most startling omission?  The fact that the Sun had declared that it would not support Labour at the next election and that an enraged Gordon Brown then declared war on Murdoch…once again not a peep….astonishing given the seismic reaction to that declaration by the Sun.

This is from the Mail which reports how upset Brown was about the story of his son’s illness and other ‘criminal’ activities of News Corp…and yet he did nothing….

Gordon Brown today laid bare his family’s anguish after Rebekah Brooks revealed she had seen his baby son’s medical records – and intended to publish a story about his illness.

In an extraordinary interview, the former prime minister described how he and his wife Sarah had been in tears after speaking to the then editor of The Sun in 2006.

Mrs Brooks had told Mrs Brown that she knew four-month-old Fraser had cystic fibrosis – something which was thought to be known only by the family and medical staff – and that the paper intended to run a story.

The Browns were devastated. Speaking to the BBC today, Mr Brown said that he was ‘incredibly upset’ at the thought his son was going to be ‘broadcast across the media.’

He also accused News International of using the ‘criminal underworld’ to obtain information and said that the company’s tactics had been totally ruthless and ‘disgusting’.

Brown said:  ‘I just can’t understand this – if I, with all the protection and all the defences and all the security that a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a prime minister, am so vulnerable to unscrupulous tactics, to unlawful tactics, methods that have been used in the way we have found, what about the ordinary citizen?’

And yet he did nothing….why?

There must be little doubt that if Murdoch had continued to back Labour the phone hacking scandal may never have seen the light of day.  After all even when Brown believed the Sun had obtained his son’s medical records and when his bank account was accessed…he hadn’t pressed for an investigation of Press behaviour.

The Sun’s defection was probably the major turning point in Murdoch’s relationship with Labour, the one that set him on a collision course with a group of rivals intent on destroying him and his News empire…and that included the BBC which actively campaigned against him.

A major turning point that Hewlett completely ignored…after dealing comprehensively with Thatcher’s relationship with Murdoch.

How is it possible to miss 13 years of such a close and intense relationship between Murdoch’s business and the Labour Party and the eventual massive falling out which was so destructive?

A relationship that must have had enormous consequences for the country if tales of the influence of Murdoch are to be believed.

Once again the BBC has buried inconveniently difficult revelations about Labour and its shameful record in government.

It is utterly remarkable how Labour, and especially Gordon Brown, get wiped from history…their economic record barely acknowledged, the effects of their policies ignored or downplayed and Labour’s economic plans continually endorsed.

I think it is fairly well accepted that the Left hates white people, Empire (British), Christians, Western industrial and commercial success and dominance, the USA…and Mrs Thatcher of course.

They have worked relentlessly to undermine everything that has brought that success to Northern Europe, the USA, Australia and other countries that have successfully dragged themselves out of the mire under Western influence….Israel especially.

Mark Mardell has helpfully put into black and white the very mindset of those Left wing wreckers:

Remember, wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in the world until around the 16th Century. The rise of the British and other European empires, with their technological and ultimately military superiority, threw the world out of joint.

The US was heir to that, with the added power and zest of its expansion. In two world wars American intervention was decisive. Without its political commitment much of Europe would have been behind the Iron Curtain, and arguably the Cold War would have been lost. 

Those defenders of America who attack knee-jerk anti-Americanism are rather missing the point. Those all over the world who might say they are anti-American don’t hate Jimi Hendrix and Woodie Guthrie, Levis and denim, Andy Warhol and Jack Kerouac.

They don’t, usually, hate freedom or democracy, but a certain cynical exercise of America power sheltering behind those values.

Is it a melting pot of immigrants from many lands, some unwilling, where Korean and black and Hispanic culture is celebrated every bit as an English or German heritage?

Or should newcomers, bring no more than a few folk songs from their old home, and squeeze into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of what it is to be American?

More importantly will American values, often honoured in the breach nowadays, have transformed the world into a place where democracy and freedom of speech are unquestioned values?

Then America would have been mighty indeed

I’ll leave you to Fisk it if you wish….like shooting fish in a barrel.

The BBC has investigated accusations of bullying within its own precincts.

Looking at the report it seems to be a reasonable attempt to handle the situation fairly.

However as always what the official line is and what the ‘frontline’ says are often different. We know that the BBC is by law required to be balanced and impartial. We also know that that imperative is roundly ignored at ground level. (See Biased BBC!)

Having listened on and off to the radio today I received the distinct impression that the presenters were trying to downplay this.

They reported it in depth but their conclusions were somewhat less than judgemental.

The general secretary of the NUJ was quite sure of what was happening:　

“It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years,” said Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary for the NUJ.

However I heard several times presenters state that ‘This isn’t widespread’…or ‘It’s historic’…suggesting that this wasn’t really an issue…or not a significant one.

I heard someone complain that certain newspapers would be trying to discover who the ‘untouchable stars’ were…‘pursuing the story for their own reasons.’ (No link but I think the comment was made by Lucy Adams, director of BBC Human Resources)

Well yes, that’s their job.

Can you imagine if this was a story about the Police or the Army?  The BBC would be all over it.

Just look at this story from today in which the police wanted to hide the identity of one of its officers accused of theft:

‘The broad accusation from journalists is that the police are increasingly secretive and it’s becoming harder for reporters to find out what the police are doing and why.’

Slightly different case as this is one of theft but if it had been a case of bullying in the police by a senior officer the BBC would have been demanding to know who he was.

‘So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity.’  [Not Islam?]

Outstanding piece of BBC hypocrisy which shows just how incomplete and favourable the BBC’s coverage of Islam and Islamically inspired violence is as it is prepared to publish an article linking violence and mainstream Buddhism.

Here the BBC are reporting ‘A problem of anti-Islamic feeling in Burma.’  A phrase used by Rachel Burden I believe a couple of weeks ago as she reported on the violence in Burma.

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

 Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?

Aren’t Buddhist monks meant to be the good guys of religion?

However any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.

 If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.

Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of “freedom-loving nations”, all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.

So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity. [or Islam?]

Burmese rulers, known as “kings of righteousness”, justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.

Sri Lanka’s powerful Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was guest of honour at the opening of a Buddhist Brigade training school, and referred to the monks as those who “protect our country, religion and race”.

But the anti-Muslim message seems to have struck a chord with parts of the population.

Many Buddhists share a sense that their nations must be unified and that their religion is under threat…… they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit.

 From the BBC website:

Christians and War

The main Christian view of war ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Just War.

The basic assumption of modern Christians is that war is rarely justified and should be avoided unless the Just War conditions are met.

For many centuries Christians believed that it was right and proper to use violence (and thus war) to spread the faith and deal with its opponents. They did not regard violence as an inherently bad thing: whether it was bad or not depended on what it was being used for.

From Constantine onwards Christian writers and preachers have used warlike and soldierly metaphors in their writing about the faith.

The idea that violence is not inherently bad can also be seen in some versions of the Just War doctrine – violence (war) can be a vital tool in restoring justice and peace.

Islam and war

Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.

In brief, war is permitted:

• in self defence
• when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
• if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell.

Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur’an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it).

The Qur’an emphasises that war should be fought only for noble motives without seeking any earthly reward.

Buddhism and war

Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is “Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.”

Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.

Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

That being so, it makes you wonder why the BBC isn’t claiming that these Buddhists attacking Muslims in Burma are not ‘perverting’ Buddhism as it does for Muslim bombers in the UK?  Are they not the same mere criminals or madmen?

Is Buddhism not the religion of peace that the BBC website says it is?

Interesting little video from Wyre Davies:

As the conflict in Syria drags on, pro-government fighters near the country’s borders are turning for increasing support to their allies in neighbouring territories.

Shia towns well inside Lebanon are being deliberately targeted by anti-Assad groups because of their allegiance to the regime, and many fear the country is being drawn into the fight.

Two issues are raised here:

The first is that Davies says Hezbollah in Lebanon are being ‘drawn into’ the fighting in Syria…by provocative shelling by Sunni’s in Syria of Shia towns in Lebanon.

No mention that Hezbollah are in effect Iran’s proxy army in Lebanon, and he gives the impression that they are reluctant to fight….their ‘resolve to stay out of the conflict is being tested’.

Davies does not seem to have kept up with his colleagues who report Hezbollah as being heavily involved in the fighting:

Hezbollah’s involvement

They say the Iranians are also funding, training and arming recently-formed local Popular Committee militias, separate from the shabiha militia network, seeing them as a structure they could continue to rely on if the regime should collapse and fall back on the Alawite-dominated areas on the north-west coast and its hinterland.

Iran’s Hezbollah allies from Lebanon are also pitching in on the ground, fighting rebels around the important Shia shrine at Sayyida Zeinab on the southern edge of Damascus, and Shia villages in Homs province to the west.

Well-placed diplomats believe Hezbollah is also providing part of the regime’s inner praetorian guard, as some of the big Alawite clans have become so alienated by the level of casualties they have suffered that their members are no longer regarded as fully reliable.’

Davies’ reporting contrasts starkly with the BBC’s reporting on Israel’s reactions to continuous bombardment by Palestinians in which the Israelis are usually portrayed as overreacting or as being the actual aggressors themselves.

The second issue is that the BBC handles religiously inspired violence differently here.

Islam abroad is no longer the ‘Religion of Peace’ that the BBC et al portray it to be in the UK.

In a Sunni Mosque in Lebanon Wyre reports that young men are being radicalized and fired up by calls from senior clerics for Jihad…Holy War.

A cleric states that ‘This is a legitimate fatwa, a ruling from God, from the Koran….the people of Syria need our help….they [the fighters] will be rewarded by God.’

I can’t see the BBC showing a similar statement from an Imam in the UK should he be so disposed to say such a thing….for instance in regard to Muslim bombers claiming to be acting in the name of Allah to save their fellow Muslims in foreign climes from the unwanted military actions of the infidel Westerners….at least not without the usual warning ….”The Muslim community in XXXXXX wishes to make one thing absolutely clear: These acts are not carried out in our name.”‘

And yet what’s the difference?  Sunni Muslims in Lebanon go to the help of their fellow Muslims in Syria…..but the Sunnis also attack Shia towns in Lebanon….Davies says the Sunnis are recruiting to battle Shia Hezbollah as well…in other words a religiously inspired civil war could easily start in Lebanon.

‘As the political classes impose austerity across the developed world, the facts of inequality and human need and the determination to do something about them are gradually becoming weaponized.

Precarity is opportunity. Fuck social mobility. Fuck security. Fuck money. Fuck rising above your class rather than with it. Fuck marriage, mortgage, monogamy, and every other small, ugly ambition we were bullied into pursuing.

We are the new young left: precarious, rootless, ruthless, entitled, digitally enabled, and we are beginning to set the agenda….. a new class of dissident — the social group that economic journalist Paul Mason calls “the graduate with no future.” ‘ 

Paul ‘Occupy’ Mason would be proud to know he is at the forefront, the ‘spearhead’,  of a Redvolution.

Redvolution?  Typo but I like it.   The above of course from Laurie Penny ‘producing dazzling, meaningful prose and finding her audience.’…more like banging a stick in a swill bin to attract the pigs.  And surely not ‘a graduate with no future’…working for the Independent, the Guardian and the New Statesman…the Telegraph naming her ‘the 55th most influential left wingher in Britain, reporting that she is “without doubt the loudest and most controversial female voice on the radical left.’

“Penny is re-inventing the language of dissent, delivering verbal taser-barbs to the left and right, and causing apoplexy among the old men in cardigans who run the British blogosphere.” – Paul Mason, BBC Newsnight   It must be love!

Hope no one is choking on their Werther’s Originals……Enjoy the new open thread…..

Dave Allen:  God’s Own Comedian

In the 60’s and 70’s the BBC were more daring.

Dave Allen told jokes about religion.

‘The sketches were silly but he undermined the authority of the priests’.

He received bomb threats.

He had the Pope doing a striptease.

At a time when the Church ruled Ireland.

Dave Allen thought politicians were dangerous.

He thought the Church was dangerous.

Where is the Muslim ‘Dave Allen’?

And would the BBC let him on air?

Some of you have already noticed the title of the BBC’s piece.

 EDL bomb plot

I thought it was a Muslim bomb plot but there you go, don’t believe what you read in the papers.

Couple of other things of interest:

‘The EDL rally finished early because of a lack of speakers’

Highlighted in this report and mentioned in another report as well….‘However, the men arrived after the EDL rally had broken up because the right-wing group had insufficient speakers to carry on later into the afternoon.’

Why would they highlight that…a less than subliminal attempt to suggest the EDL is an insignificant group with little support?

The ‘other’ report being this one:

Six admit planning to bomb English Defence League rally

‘Six’ being?  What?  Heros of an Enid Blyton story?  I guess our resident troll could be right  in this case….Blame the ‘Muslims’.

Important for the BBC to emphasise this as well;

‘A statement from the Birmingham Coalition of Muslim Organisations and Mosques, which says it represents most of the city’s 230,000 Muslims, said: “The Muslim community in Birmingham wishes to make one thing absolutely clear: These acts are not carried out in our name.”‘

I just wonder how many would have cheered a successful attack….in the BBC corridors I mean, of course.

Another interesting use of language:

‘He was an associate of another group of Islamist terrorists, also based in Birmingham,’

The BBC use the term ‘Islamist’ to denote extremist or fundamentalist, often associated with violent actions…it is not used for ‘moderate’ Muslims, so called…..it is the preferred descriptive to separate extremist,  political ideology from the spiritual ‘Islam’….which is impossible…as Islam is highly political….and not too spiritual….there is no distinction, no separation in reality.

David Cameron for example said:

‘We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.’

That tactic of separating the fundamentalist Muslim from the  Western politician’s, and the BBC’s idealised ‘normal’ Muslim is under attack….by Muslims themselves.

Denying the ‘Islamic’ motivation for political attacks is beginning to be less credible….as ‘Islamist’ is being defined by Muslims themselves to mean every Muslim…that is , every Muslim is ‘political’ because Islam is political.

That well worn escape clause may have to be revisited  in light of this recent development….

CAIR, a high profile group that represents Muslims in the US has persuaded the Associated Press Agency to change its definition of ‘Islamist’ and no longer use it solely in association with any groups that give a negative impression of Islam…in other words an ‘Islamist’ is also a good Muslim now……an Islamist is every Muslim….

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like'” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:

”An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.’

CAIR praised the AP’s update. “We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims,” Hooper said. “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

So any one can be an Islamist not just the ‘bad guys’.

In other words an Islamist is an apt description for any and all Muslims who wish to re-order society so as to live under Allah’s Law….surely the very description of a Muslim.

If you don’t want to live under Allah’s law you’re not a Muslim.

BBC perhaps should take note for future reference.

Ilan Ziv has made a film, Exile: A Myth Unearthed, which purports to rewrite Jewish history and is of a highly political and controversial nature.

The film has been shelved by the BBC. Ziv is not happy.

Film-maker queries BBC reasons for shelving Jewish history documentary 

Ilan Ziv laments ‘sad saga of incompetence and political naiveté’ after BBC drops Jerusalem: an Archaeological Mystery Story

“The BBC have had the film for almost six months…..I discovered only 3 days before the broadcast that the BBC has been using a different name for the film: Jerusalem – An Archeological Mystery Story. It struck me as an odd choice that seems to camouflage the film’s real subject and repackages it as a neutral archeological mystery of sorts – like the hundreds of hours one can see on cable and satellite channels throughout the world.”.

The BBC denied that the film had been dropped because it was controversial and said it ‘did not fit editorially’ with a series of historical archeology films.

However, Israeli-born Mr Ziv claimed a ‘mini political storm was brewing’ at the Corporation in the days before the documentary was due to broadcast.

 Interesting that Ziv thinks the BBC tried to ‘camouflage’ the underlying narrative of the film…and renames it. Why hide the true nature of the film?

So is the film controversial or not? Does it have significance for modern day Israel and Middle Eastern politics?  Ziv himself claimed it wasn’t at all related to modern politics nor was it controversial …it clearly is.

This is what the Radio Times trail for it said: 

Archaeology is politics in the Middle East. The precarious balance of Muslim, Jewish and Christian holy sites in the ancient heart of Jerusalem is informed as much by what’s below ground as what’s above. Which is why evidence revealed here, suggesting that the Jewish exile from Jerusalem in AD 70 may never have actually happened, has such severe ramifications for relations in the region.  

Documentary by Ilan Ziv looking at new evidence which suggests the majority of Jewish people may not have been exiled after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Travelling from Galilee, Israel, to the catacombs of Rome, he discovers whether the event that has played a central role in Christian and Jewish theology for nearly 2000 years really happened, raising ethical questions about its impact on modern Middle Eastern issues.

　So let’s just read that last line again:

‘….raising ethical questions about its impact on modern Middle Eastern issues.’

What the hell does that mean?

That means the delegitimisation of Israel and its right to exist.

Any wonder the BBC got cold feet.　

The BBC quite clearly understands the potential ramifications of such claims but was prepared to broadcast them…until something stopped them….3 days before broadcast.

What that might have been who knows….I haven’t seen the film but presumably it was a one sided diatribe that made these claims without a great deal of contrary evidence or opposing voices.

Ziv himself says: “Part of the editorial debate was that one freelance employee who was hired as part of the re-versioning of the film called it propaganda,” he said. “Another person inside the BBC, claimed (or so I was told) that the film drove some political point of view.

Therefore it was probably right to shelve a film that is clearly very controversial and more than likely not true, about an area of the world that is literally explosive.

Mr Ziv said he hoped to organise alternative screenings in the UK so that the film could be “judged on its own merit”. He rejected the suggestion that it was controversial since it does not deal with contemporary Israeli politics, and said he was not attempting to push the theory of writer Shlomo Sands, who challenges “the whole concept of the Jewish people….Sands did something that I refuse to do,” he said.

Shlomo Sands? Who is he?

He’s an ex communist, radical anti-Zionist who believes that there is no such thing as a ‘Jewish People’…he is also a professor of…European history…not Jewish history.

This is what he says in summary:

‘Most of the Jews in Israel are not the original Jews of the Bible, but people who converted to the Jewish religion.
Most of the Jews in Israel are descended from people in countries such as Germany, Georgia, Ukraine, Yemen, and Morocco who were not originally Jewish.

The Palestinians are most likely the original Jews

In short, the Jewish People, according to Sand, are not really a “people” in the sense of having a common ethnic origin and national heritage. They certainly do not have a political claim over the territory that today constitutes Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.”

He says:

‘A global ethnocracy invokes the myth of the eternal nation, reconstituted on the land of its ancestors, to justify internal discrimination against its own citizens.

He goes on to ‘suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East’

Ziv says that his film does not make the same claim that Sands does…but it obviously does…that the Jews are not the true people of Palestine and don’t have any claim over the land there.

None of that is true…genetic studies show that Jews around the world have definite connections to each other  and stem from the Middle East, and that far from somehow converting en masse whole populations, producing ‘ersatz’ Jews, the reality is that when Jews moved to different regions they inter-married and their spouses converted…a different thing altogether.

Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity

Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives.

 New genetic research, published as a paper titled “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era” in the June issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics, highlights the strong genetic bonds both within and among Jewish communities around the world, their distinctiveness vis-à-vis the populations among which they have dwelled, and their links to the Middle East.’

The genetic studies show that a large scale movement of Jews out of the Middle East has occured at some time, and therefore the Jewish Diaspora does have direct links  to the Middle East….whether the movement was after 70AD or not is irrelevant…Ziv is trying to show that Jews have little connection to the Middle East and thereby attempt to lessen the legitimacy of Israel….the genetics disprove his theory and Sand’s.  If a Jewsih homeland had been based soely upon a common religioun then they could have set up a homeland anywhere in the world….the genetic link justifies their move back to the Middle East.

Has the BBC come to its senses or has the BBC had it suggested to them that this film is potentially highly inflammatory being factually incorrect and of such a highly contentious nature…..it calling into question the legitimacy of a nation with what could be devastating consequences?

If the film had been a genuine scholarly debate arguing both sides that would have been a different matter…if it is purely a one sided diatribe acting as Palestinian propaganda that is something else altogether…and rightly canned.

The BBC after all will not call Palestinian terrorists ‘terrorists’, it calls the security fence a ‘barrier’  so as not to imply Palestinians are the aggressors to be defended against, it doesn’t report the extent of Palestinian radicalisation ot its intentions to erase Israel from the map.

Only right therefore that it balances that with a bit of self censorship that favours Israel…or rather, doesn’t allow anti-Israel propaganda to be broadcast…for once.

New week, new open thread, and hopefully some new weather….