Author Archives: Sue

People accuse me of cherry picking when I present my arguments against the BBC’s one-sided reporting of matters related to Israel.
It’s my job to put my case. I’m not going to put theirs too. I’m acting for the prosecution so to speak. Do defence lawyers put the case for the prosecution and the prosecutors likewise argue on behalf of the defence? No they don’t, because they’re on opposite sides.
The BBC shouldn’t be on an opposite side. It shouldn’t be on any side, least of all on the particular side it has chosen.

We’re talking flotilla again I’m afraid. Jon Donnison’s report, Today R4 7:17 ( link) was painful. He asked people in Gaza if they think flotillas are good. By now everyone should know that they’re not actually carrying much humanitarian aid, so we can’t pretend that they’re intended to relieve a humanitarian crisis. So instead they have to find another away to defend them. They’re good now, they’re saying, because they show that the people of Gaza are not forgotten. Fat chance of that.

A left-wing Israeli is heard saying the blockade must be lifted. Could the inclusion of an Israeli voice be Donnison’s attempt to provide balance? The reason why there has to be a blockade seems to have escaped both her and Donnison.

Donnison mentioned last year’s violence on the Mavi Marmara “when nine activists were killed by the Israeli Navy” but fails to remind us that they were attacked with iron bars. That’s how he sees it, Panorama or no Panorama. All Jane Corbin’s work, disappeared down the memory hole of inconvenient truths.

Right at the end of the report, as if Donnison had remembered, belatedly and somewhat reluctantly, that we are supposed to regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, he introduced the final Gazan pro-flotilla spokesperson as “no friend of Israel OR Hamas”

My point is that the BBC has no business openly and blatantly putting the case for the flotilla. It is a publicity stunt, cynically and deliberately designed to provoke loss of life, which will be mercilessly exploited by Israel’s enemies. If that happens, it will be regarded as a great success by the organisers. Nothing less will satisfy them.

The BBC is cherry-picking, and that is utterly wrong.

Just like the first cuckoo of spring, the first cuckoo has been heard chirruping its approval of the latest flotilla.
Yes it’s our old friend Ken Loach, proponent of fighting fascism, supporter of those who fought in the Spanish Civil War and gallant opponent of Mosley’s blackshirts, flaunting his and others’ gullibility in supporting the ridiculous publicity-stunt flotilla, aimed at breaking Israel’s blockade on the importation of weapons for the Islamic extremists in Gaza to use against Israeli civilians.

Brace yourselves, because this will probably be the first of many sightings of this brainless creature.

He’s already famous for getting it spectacularly wrong, so the Today producers might have known that Mr. Loach was likely to squeeze in an advert for those ‘brave’ flotilla freedom fighters a nanosecond before the pips went.
Why did they let him?

So the shaggy dog-stoning story turned out to be out of synch with the actuality. The delight with which the BBC wagged its tail over the story contrasts starkly with their low-profile retraction. Their hasty, nay reckless, promotion of it might have been embarrassing if it had concerned any other topic, but being about Israel, well….. give a dog a bad name.

Why, one might ask, would the BBC go to the trouble of announcing it on news bulletins with obvious glee? Why would it become one of the most popular stories on the BBC website? Simples. In their relentless quest to sanitise Islam and demonise Judaism, all the elements were there. Dog. Stoning. Religion. Jews are as mad as the mad mullahs, with cruelty to animals thrown in for good measure. Nice one.

The retractions are a different story. ‘We’re sorry we fell for it, but it was understandable. We may have been barking up the wrong tree, but we still think it’s possibly true. The Jews deny it, but they would, wouldn’t they.’

Other news organs are more explicit. Even Islam Newsroom dot com.
Many single out the BBC’s ‘mistake’ for special mention.
“The story’s only deficiency is that it comes up short in the being-factually-true department.”

The BBC has been caught with its pants down, but now that Israel is permanently in the dog house, who’s bovvered?

Here’s one I prepared earlier. It concerns another broadcasting malfunction that required a retraction and a teensy weensy apology.
I was in Iona recently and saw that their Abbey is a popular tourist attraction. It reminded me that John Bell of the Iona Community is a regular contributor to Thought For The Day, the Today programme’s daily reminder of goodness and Godliness. I understand that the Iona community supports the BDS campaign, and if that is indeed the case, it ties up with this. (From Wikipedia.)

“He [John Bell] is a frequent broadcaster, and often presents programmes on the BBC, majoring on contemporary religious songs from various parts of the world.

In 2005, the BBC apologised for a broadcast by Bell in which he suggested that a Muslim corporal conscripted into the Israeli army had been jailed for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. The broadcast itself was a fairly innocuous plea for understanding between the two sides with conflicting claims in the Middle East, yet was interpreted by those of one allegiance as an attack. Neither the BBC nor the Israeli military were able to find any evidence supporting the story or the existence of a soldier fitting the description. It was further pointed out that Israeli Arabs are not subject to conscription. Bell acknowledged that parts of his story were incorrect and that the broadcast could have been interpreted by some parties as “furtive racism”, though he countered that “such a conjecture would be completely untrue.”.[1] It was also reported that a spokesman at the Israeli embassy said, “We appreciate that the BBC has apologised; however, it is a pity as the damage is irreparable.[…]”
[edit]

Muslim! Jailed! Israeli Army! Shooting! Palestinian! Children.!
Good gracious me. whatever next!
Who could ‘those of one allegiance’ possibly be? Oh, how innocuous, this little plea for understanding. Or was that more of a plea for misunderstanding?
Carry on pleading all you like on the BBC John, and should any furtive racism creep in, the BBC will issue a miniscule apology to make it all better.

The shambles hosted by Nicky Campbell that calls itself ‘The Big Questions’ plumbs new depths each time it graces the airwaves. Particularly when the subject is Israel/Palestine. How can people be so opinionated, so vocal and so sure of themselves yet so ignorant? Frantically launching themselves at subjects about which they know dangerously little, they interrupt hysterically, disrupt and misbehave in front of goodness knows who – why, we’re told that even the Queen sometimes watches what everyone calls, with great reverence and awe, ‘National Television.’

Who are they pandering to? Who do they think will admire these childish antics? Sadly, audiences do accept uncouth behaviour, even if they don’t particularly applaud it.

These bearbaiting programmes are simply ratings-chasers. Nothing, apart from hot air is ever achieved. Ray Cook deals with the idiocy of the question. “Is it Time to Free Palestine?” It’s completely senseless.

Nicky Campbell certainly knows more than he lets on. The genocidal content of the Hamas Charter for example. Nevertheless Hasan Nowarah avoids confirming the murderous intent immutably embedded therein, when Janey Godley, the Rab C Nesbitt-alike Scottish stand-up comedienne wonders if it is true. “Is it true?” she screeches, not listening for an answer. Hasan is setting sail on the forthcoming flotilla, to alleviate the plight of the starving Palestinians in Gaza, the largest prison on earth, by bringing them several boatloads of letters from sympathisers and Israel-bashers. Best of luck with that stupid publicity stunt.

Ms Godley is volatile and indignant. Whatever is or is not in the Hamas charter, she *knows* what she’s talking about. “For somebody who hates ghettos” she barks at Raymond Mann of Scottish Friends of Israel, “why did you create another one?” she shrieks, before smugly settling back into her chins. Denis MacEion advises her to Google the Hamas Charter. But you know – and I know – she won’t; and even if she does, she’d find some way of excusing or denying it.
Through the din Margo MacDonald can be heard announcing that Israel is an artificial state.
Sam Westrop is an impressive character. He’s part of the initiative ‘British Muslims for Israel.’ He wasn’t going to be ruffled by the heckling and jeering.
Peter Hitchens has a booming baritone which commands respect by dint of decibels. An air of expectancy descends whenever he opens his mouth. He knows you can get a good beef stroganoff in Gaza, but when the chunky keffeyeh-shrouded individual who had been yelling throughout because he’s palpably seething with hatred, is finally given the opportunity to tell the world that Gazans are starving, Hitchens barely challenges him. So we, the audience, which possibly includes Her Majesty, don’t forget, are left to ponder this misplaced emotional outburst for the rest of the day.
Because of the BBC’s misrepresentation of the Middle East, we must now expect to be confronted with this kind of outrageous hysteria, both on our screens, and in real life, and we’ll be encountering strangers with woefully prejudiced opinions for some time to come. Thanks BBC.

Here’s a tale about the BBC and its conjoined twin The Guardian being taken in by the same bit of Pali propaganda.
It seems Jacoub Odeh has been entertaining the gullible siblings.

“The fact that one Yacoub Odeh is the former Lifta resident guiding the BBC’s Wyre Davies and the Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood separately would suggest that this “tour” was a well-organized effort offered to the international media and eagerly picked up by those outlets sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative from 1948.”

The vindictive Israelis want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot on his former home. The remains of the Palestinian village of Lifta are the subject of a legal planning battle. To conserve or build? The BBC article portrays this as an example of Israel’s desire to obliterate precious Palestinian memories by their deliberately ruthless policy of expansionism.
The BBC reconfigures the 1948 war of intended annihilation of Israel by the Arabs, by using this peculiar phrase:

“It(Lifta’s) 3,000 residents were forced out or fled in fighting that erupted before the creation of Israel in 1948, which Palestinians view as the “nakba” or catastrophe. They were not allowed to move back.”

Fighting just “erupts,” you know, spontaneously, for no apparent reason. The emotive language leaves no-one in doubt about which side the BBC is on. Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian goes further, but then, they have no obligation to be impartial, although one would expect them to make an effort to be accurate.

For a more realistic overview, see here, and read the comments:

“As for the other question – well it is pretty clear that there are plenty of people intent upon making political capital out of places such as Lifta.
It is surely telling that their concern does not appear to extend equally to other sites such as the Jewish quarter in Hevron or the ancient 8th century synagogue in Gaza, let alone the Jewish burial ground in Tripoli which is now covered in concrete.”
(Israelinurse)

There’s more to this story than meets the eye. The BBC’s eye anyway.