Author Archives: Sue

Left Right and Centre

By | | ,
Comments Off on Left Right and Centre

At odds with the theory that we’re all right wingers, some of us regularly visit “left leaning” Harry’s Place.
Four recent posts there indicate the way we’re heading, frogmarched along to an unknown destination by our trusted state broadcaster.

1.) More Islamic rules being imposed by the ministry of education in Gaza. This doesn’t auger well for a future self-governing state peacefully existing alongside Israel. The BBC could register this, maybe pondering over the wisdom of their persistent urgings to talk to Hamas.

2) “Beti Betak” (My House is Your House) the seldom-heard plight of Jews driven from Egypt, in stark contrast to the much publicised and sympathetically treated Palestinian refugee problem. Then there is the neglect, disregard and denial of access to archives, records, religious artefacts that remain in Egypt following the expulsion of Egypt’s Jews. When will the BBC commission a serious documentary on this subject? Is Jeremy Bowen too busy dreaming of his never to be realised appearance on Strictly Come Dancing. Or Stinkily Come Dancing as Mandrake would have it.

3) Israeli “Organ Harvesting.” This Harry’s Place article explains the fictional origins of both the Aftonbladet blood libel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
There are two brief BBC web articles about the sensationalised Swedish newspaper allegations that stem from Palestinians tales of kidnapped children, murdered by the IDF for their internal organs.

The BBC articles on the subject are brief, but painstakingly ‘impartial.’ The allegations and refutations are given equal weight which gives unmerited credibility to these completely unsubstantiated and libelous allegations. A sudden outbreak of impartiality on a particular issue can be more biased than actual straightforward bias.

A further indication of their less than even-handed attitude is that in the first piece the BBC chose to feature their pet figure of derision Avigdor Lieberman, when of course they could have featured any of the Swedish protagonists, or the Israeli Ambassador to Sweden who are central to the original story.
The second web article focuses a little more on indignant reactions from Israel, dwelling on them just enough to make them look petty, a message reinforced by gratuitous mention of an online call to “boycott Ikea.”

4.) Finally, Kensington Town Hall is being used as the venue for another horrendous Islamic propaganda meeting, and Harry’s Place gives some staggering examples. K.T.H. seems to be a regular haunt for lefty get-togethers including Islamic hate preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and various others. Someone should complain to the MP for Kensington and Chelsea, the Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind ….of Jewish descent! If the BBC cares for Britain they should be telling us all about it.

I offer each of the above items, and the way they are treated or downplayed by the BBC, to explain my reasons for posting on B-BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Human Wrongs

By | | ,
Comments Off on Human Wrongs

Defending Israel is not the same as preaching *Israel right or wrong.*
We have a tough time making our case especially when Israel does things we find hard to defend. But facing what Israel faces, we accept that it generally behaves with considerable restraint. As yet, we in the UK are not up against what Israel is up against, and who knows what we would do if we were.

What we “apologists” can do is point out the unfair way Israel is portrayed by the BBC. The recent hoohah about the ‘ white flag killings’ that are the subject of a report by Human Rights Watch is typical of one-sided reporting by the BBC. One-sided reporting of a one-sided report.

Even though near the end of the BBC article they allow: “an Israeli spokesman said the report lacked credibility because it was based on evidence from an area under Hamas control,” the general impression one gets is that the BBC does give the Human Rights Watch report considerable credibility.

Is this fair, thorough, or impartial, considering that it seems HRW did capitalise on their reputation for anti-Israel bias when currying favour with Saudi Arabia in a funding bid.
Saudi Arabia!
Not to mention the reputation of a certain Joe Stork a virulent Israel hater.

Even if that was not relevant, the evidence used in the report largely consists of eyewitness accounts extracted from interviews with interested parties and comprises little more than emotive tales of individual tragedies. Shocking, yes, but it can hardly be considered definitive data.

Does Human Rights Watch detail human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas in this emotive way? Do they forensically probe Hamas’s ploy of hiding behind the white flag to exploit the IDF’s tendency to obey the rules? If they did, their report might have some credibility. Even if all eleven ‘white flag’ incidents were cavalier war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers, and it could be proved that none were due to accidents, misunderstandings, exaggerations or embellishments in the reporting, does the perfunctory paragraph that pays lip-servivce to Human Rights Watch’s accusation that Hamas committed war crimes as well, constitute “proportionate” counterbalancing information?

If the BBC examined HRW’s reputation and scrutinised their methodology, it might add a little something to its claims of impartiality. What about a little interest in the paper from the Israel Ministry of foreign Affairs “The Operation in Gaza – Factual and Legal Aspects

Maybe even go the whole hog and give it similar prominence to that given to the Human Rights Watch report?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Obstacles

By | |
Comments Off on Obstacles

“ I would urge [……..] those who work in the media as news and comment editors, [……] to read (this despatch) in full.
It concerns the Fatah General Assembly which has been continuing for the past week in Bethlehem, and is central to understanding why Israeli-Palestinian peace remains so elusive.
All this has been woefully underreported in the Western media. Instead, the BBC, for example, has been running yet more distorted reports about Israel last week, deluding themselves and their viewers that Fatah is a moderate party committed to compromise –” Tom Gross
Please read it, then Roger Hardy’s report for the BBC. Mahmoud Abbas came away pleased, at least.

Then for good measure, look at Martin Asser’s patronising GCSE text-book bitesze revisionist history for your history revision.

Jerusalem, Water, Borders, Settlements and Refugees, not forgetting the Nakba, are the obstacles to peace. Get that into your head and regurgitate it, children.

(But don’t tell ’em that Israel’s moderate Palestinian partner for peace has just embraced one of the most brutal terror units in the world.)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

My Sainted Auntie

By | |
Comments Off on My Sainted Auntie

Worldwide opinion is so fond of condemning all Israel’s actions as ‘disproportionate’, you’d think at some point they’d realise that their favourite word far more accurately describes the outrage that follows almost every single thing Israel does, period.
Furthermore, anything offered in Israel’s defence is boomeranged back twisted and rebranded as synonymous with the ridiculous sentiment: ‘Israel can do no wrong.’
I have to say that I’m beginning to be overwhelmed by a feeling of hopelessness.

I only caught the end of (Hat Tip: Davka and Craig) Katya Adler’s slanted piece on last night’s “World Tonight’ – enough to notice that the IDF spokeswoman’s statements were trivialised by being sandwiched in between hostile narrative.

Craig explains “What the BBC neglects to tell its listeners is that Defence for Children International may not be a disinterested party. Its president is Rifat Odeh Kassis, a long-time Palestinian activist from the ‘occupied West Bank’ (as Katya persistently calls it), who has been arrested and imprisoned several times by Israel – a man with a mission and plenty of grudges. The organisation has its own devoted ‘Palestine Section’.”

Another example of a corrupt organisation masquerading as saintly and impartial is our friend UNRWA. From Robin Shepherd:

“Remember all those stories about the evil Israelis preventing medical supplies from reaching Gaza? Remember the BBC and all the other western outlets parading UN officials as objective observers of the conflict? Well, in a story that is not running on the BBC, it now appears that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza has covered up the theft of three of its ambulances by Hamas.”

The BBC is getting worse and worse.
Update.Craig has retracted his comment about Rifat Odeh Kassis on the basis that he got the info from Wiki. I used it mainly to segue Katya and Robin Shepherd, but I apologise for any unfair slur on Mr. Kassis. Tom and Craig politely resolved this like gents, good for them, and I must check sources every time.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Playing Your Cards Right

By | |
Comments Off on Playing Your Cards Right

When someone is passionately arguing the case against Israel they often produce someone Jewish who agrees with them as a sort of trump card.
Well, in my pack Jews aren’t necessarily trumps, but they can be jokers.

Robin Shepherd notes that in Britain these days no foreign country is treated with more disdain than Israel:

“.. not just by the usual suspects on the fringes but by pillars of our country’s political and cultural life: the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, the Financial Times, the Church Of England, celebrated figures from the arts, charities… the list goes on”

My previous post described Robin Shepherd’s astonishment at Vivian Wineman’s ostrich-like attitude over rising antisemitism in the UK. Robin Shepherd is not the only shocked one. Several dissenting Deputies have protested ‘not in my name’ and Jonathan Hoffman has written an excellent article in today’s JPost.
But the truth is that many prominent British Jews will agree with Wineman, and the sad thing, as Robin Shepherd points out, is that these jokers have handed over all the ammunition Israel’s enemies need, on a plate.

When the BBC steadfastly refused to air the Gaza appeal against a wall of outrage,Mark Thompson proclaimed it was a noble act of impartiality.
The uncertainty surrounding the credibility of the fundraising bodies that make up the DEC was played down, and BBC spokespersons brushed aside murky rumours and speculations as to who would ultimately get their hands on the cash.

The BBC must have been aware that an inconvenient truth might emerge in the future exposing exactly who had been ‘aided’. The potential threat to their perceived impartiality and good judgment is the most likely reason for their reluctance to broadcast. That risk must have outweighed the temptation to bow to popular opinion and air the appeal, together with the added bonus that a decision which was, in reality, a matter of expediency could also be exploited as “proof” of the BBC’s irreproachable impartiality.

In other words, we all knew the money would end up with Hamas, and that was not going to look good. So the clever old BBC resists the onslaught of outrage, looks heroic, and launders their grubby reputation in one fell swoop.
Jackpot.! Everyone’s a winner. Flock of birds with one stone.

It seemed a bit suspicious that the BBC hasn’t trumpeted the 2009 Global Peace Index from the rooftops, because it ranks Israel almost at the top of the list of nasty places, or should I say bottom, it was 141st of the 144 countries in the Index.

Oddly, the BBC doesn’t seem very excited about it at all. Comprising a compilation of scores cunningly gleaned from certain data and analysis, and scientifically cobbled together by the usual bunch of Israel-hating bodies such as the UN and Amnesty International, the index also features imaginative surmisings in place of various missing bits. So it does sound a tad lacking in forensic rigour. Which might explain why we aren’t hearing a lot more about it.
Nevertheless it is endorsed by the usual bunch of high profile individuals who are always ready to endorse Israel-bashing findings, however flawed.
Their support lends weight to whatever they care to endorse, as they hold a full hand of trump cards in the form of Nobel prizes. Excellent credentials for effective endorsing of dodgy reports, and surveys that turn the truth on its head.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Worlds Apart

By | | ,
Comments Off on Worlds Apart

For many years the BBC has been engaging in a two pronged campaign, on one front familiarising the British public with The Islamic World, and on the other steadily demonising Israel.

This is, after all, the British Broadcasting Corporation, so this flying in the face of Judeo-Christian tradition defies logic. The current BBC has been able to pull off a mass suspension of disbelief by taking liberties with the ‘old’ BBC’s reputation for virtue and impartiality acquired long ago.

It’s true that the instant we get a whiff of an unpalatable viewpoint we’re apt to shut down, so many people will have decided that what I’ve said already is not for them.
If anyone is still here, a spat, perhaps a cyberspat, has arisen which has brought another aspect of this sorry tale to the fore.

Vivian Wineman and Robin Shepherd both have slightly unisex names, so for your information they are both gents. Their disagreement is over the recent Community Service Trust report which concluded that antisemitism in Britain has risen alarmingly. Chris Huhne and several other MPs are aware of this and think it is intolerable.
Mr. Wineman, though, says it’s nothing to worry about, it’s not really happening, while Mr. Shepherd says it certainly is, and it’s very concerning.
Strange to tell, Mr. Wineman is a Jew, and Mr. Shepherd is not.

Mr. Wineman is the newly elected President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and he has expressed his controversial views in the Jerusalem Post in a ‘debut’ article. It was written in response to Robin Shepherd’s earlier article on the topic, also in the JPost, which took a different view, and which I mentioned here.

Mr. Wineman’s ‘nothing to worry about’ article has attracted many responses from a wide range of people who are appalled at his complacency, and who agree with Mr. Shepherd. who has in turn written about it all on his own blog.

The blame for this outbreak of racist hostility which is (or is not) increasing alarmingly, had initially been laid firmly at the door of Operation Cast Lead. However, on further examination all roads lead straight past this red herring and on to the real culprit. The BBC.
What has come to the fore, and something that clearly emerges from all this, is the way Britain and our state broadcaster are currently perceived around the world.

Alongside the increase in racially motivated incidents and covert hostility towards Jews, there is a growing worldwide perception that British Jews should watch their backs. The BBC is seen as antisemitic, Britain is seen as ‘no place for Jews’, and the BBC is seen as having played the most significant role in the fiasco that has led to this disastrous state of affairs.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The Right Approach

By | |
Comments Off on The Right Approach

The latest BBC headlines – Britain ‘should approach Hamas.’

Is that a fair representation of the conclusions the Foreign Affairs Committee has come to? Or is it that the BBC has selected the juiciest bit to emphasise?

I can do that too.
If you can download huge PDFs, have a look at the report.

section 2.8

“Hamas is not a member of the PLO, and does not—under the terms of its Charter—accept the existence of Israel on any of its current territory; it is an armed movement engaged in attacks on Israel and proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK, EU and US.

and in a later section, re Gaza:

For his part, Mr Blair told us that for Israel the position was “very simple […]. If it is subject to rocket attacks on its civilians over a prolonged period of time, it will respond at some point.”23 He stressed the role that Israel’s status as a democracy played in its decision to take action: “in circumstances where you have rocket attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, believe me, there is no democratic Government […] that will not act.”24

So, we should approach Hamas?

Do we blame the message or the messenger? Probably a bit of both. But since this is about the BBC I would like your views, preferably after studying the report more thoroughly than I have.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Flights of fancy

By | | ,
Comments Off on Flights of fancy

Given that the BBC reflects and inevitably creates public attitudes, and is obliged to be seen to be impartial, could someone at the BBC kindly explain your portrayal of M.E. news.

For example this web article concerning the removal of the word nakba from textbooks for state-educated Arab Israeli nine-year-olds.
Although worded to give a veneer of impartiality, the article conveys an unpleasant underlying message with an innocent smile, the lip-service of balance barely concealing prejudices that turn the truth inside out.

“The passage in question, which occurs in one textbook aimed at Arab children aged eight or nine, describes the 1948 war, which resulted in Israel’s creation,”

What? The war resulted in Israel’s creation? The other way round methinks.
Israel’s creation resulted in the war. The war waged by the Arabs against Israel’s creation. Because of it. See? Upside down.

Your message shines through thus:

Far-right Jews have callously stolen the truth from little children, forcing them to deny their catastrophe and pretend instead that it was a triumph for the Zionist oppressors. Hebrew text books deviously focus on the heroism of Israeli forces in 1948 and gloss over the mass exile of Palestinians.
Israelis are arrogant boasting manipulators who cover up the proof about Israel’s lies over their brutal ethnic cleansing of millions of Arabs in 1948.
More impending oppressive legislation is in the pipeline from the far-right.

Is that what you really think but were constrained from saying outright? You had to make an attempt, through gritted teeth, to sound even-handed?
A little transparency please. Make people who write articles and broadcast over the airwaves learn some history. Please.

Look at the list of KEY STORIES. It’s almost as though you think there is nothing positive to say about Israel. Almost as if you fall into the category of what they call ‘ready made thinking about Jews.’

“Oh no,” you reply. “It’s not Jews we hate, it’s Israel.”

Well in that case why do you publicise Breaking the Silence and not this?
The amnesty International report about war crimes and not this?
And why don’t you mention the equal number of Jews, (not millions as you state in your article but an estimated 750,000) that were displaced from Arab countries in 1948, or reflect on the good fortune of Arab Israelis who enjoy a state education in Israel with text books that don’t perpetuate hostility and deliberately inflame grievances and hatred.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Sue Sue Sir

By | |
Comments Off on Sue Sue Sir

“the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so”

A memorable phrase nicked from an article in the Jpost by Robin Shepherd entitled “New Era as British Hostility Reaches Crescendo”

“a country (Britain) whose opinion forming classes rank among the most hostile to Israel in the Western world”

is another. Robin Shepherd writes about the recent escalation of anti-Israel press coverage particularly in the Guardian. They have resorted to trawling for any crumb to sustain the momentum they’re whipping up towards some unmentionable goal.

Although not mentioned by name, guess who else might have had a hand in creating that state of affairs. Two Marks for a good guess.

“Pumped into the public mind!” “ Opinion-forming classes!” “ Who does that sound a bit like, Mr. Byford?” “I don’t know Mr. Thompson, but it does sound a bit like defamation by implication. Maybe we should get Carter-Ruck onto the case. We’ll sue certain right-wing bigots for defamation. Phone Justice Eady. Mr. Tudor has a ready-made plea, para 4. It just needs slight adaptation:”

“Although the Claimant was not actually mentioned by name, ‘the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind’ impliedly refers to the BBC in their capacity as misleaders and chief spokespersons against the Zionist entity. This is libel by implication thereby damaging to their irreproachable reputation for impartiality. “

“Yes,” the claimant could attest. “Nothing must damage our irreproachable reputation for impartiality.” “we are honestly telling things the way we see them. From a left of centre perspective, naturally; with peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, and stubborn-mindedness thrown in; and some of us were very, very drunk at the time”

The accused may struggle to stump up the ransom. No public funding, you see. Not to worry, the threat of litigation alone might be enough to shut up the likes of Robin Shepherd, Melanie Phillips and others. It would give the BBC free rein to carry on carrying on, till the end of the road.
After all,
“each new assault on Israel’s integrity helps legitimize and validate the next”
(Robin Shepherd again.)

Disclaimer. This stream of invective contains irony, parody and an imaginary scenario and does not represent the views of anyone, directly or impliedly, and any similarity to anything else is a figment of your tiny imagination.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Breaking the Silence Part 2

By | | ,
21 Comments

What at first seemed like a straightforward controversy over war ethics has turned into one about irresponsible journalism.

The original question asked:
Should soldiers be compelled to risk their own lives by adhering strictly to military rules of engagement even when, in the fog and extreme chaos of war, they are faced with an unpredictable and fanatical enemy which is under no such obligation?
Now, I’m asking:
Is the media ever justified in abandoning journalistic standards of inquiry and investigation by publishing unsubstantiated hearsay?

What if they’re lucky enough to get hold of a sensational scoop that both exposes war crimes and bears out the very things they’ve been telling us all along, that Israelis are as brutal as Nazis – and the icing on the cake is that they’ve admitted it themselves?

Throw caution to the wind? Let the presses roll?

Seeking maximum publicity, Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (to which the British Embassy has donated a generous grant) offered their report to the newspaper they felt would be most sympathetic to their cause, Haaretz.

But once bitten twice shy! Not so long ago Haaretz had their fingers badly burnt by rushing into print far too hastily with another uncannily similar tale. When it transpired that the whole thing was unsubstantiated and based entirely on hearsay, their credibility suffered a blow. So this time Haaretz behaved more cautiously, and before going to press they sought the IDF’s response. By which time the JPost had got hold of the story and published a critical version of it.

The BBC and some of the MSM also snapped it up, and beamed it far and wide tout de suite.

Which brings to mind Charles Enderlin’s impetuous decision to air the notorious Al Durah report on French state T.V. channel France 2, and to distribute it to eager broadcasters everywhere. The footage that shocked the world was later exposed as a fraud, fabricated in order to inflame hatred and provoke violence. But by the time the deception was exposed the desired effect had already been achieved, and the iconic image of 12 year old Mohamed Al Durah’s horrific death at the hands of the Israelis had the disastrous consequences the makers intended.
The fact that it wasn’t quite like that was neither here nor there. The exposé received little publicity.
If the these two episodes have something in common it’s the alacrity with which anything that discredits Israel is grasped, perpetuated and publicised.
A disregard for journalistic rigour and integrity seems to take effect and override other considerations the moment the opportunity presents itself.

The BBC can publish and be damned. No worries. If they are forced to retract something, or apologise at a later date, they can bury it in some godforsaken corner, and we can like it or lump it.
Unless, that is, someone very litigious threatens to take them to court.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.