Author Archives: Sue

Melanie P addressed the evidence, dismantling it point by point, but it had already been swallowed by the MSM, the hungriest of which is the BBC’s siamese twin, the Guardian.

Not content with editorials and numerous articles, the most poisonous of which is by ‘Hamas mouthpiece’ Seamas Milne, the Guardian has been calling for support for its “work” by sending out an appeal to blog and website owners. It came from the delightfully named Mustafa Khalili who sent one by mistake to a pro Israel blog.

“The Guardian has regrettably thrown all professional journalistic ethics and pretensions to balance and objectivity to the four winds, and has gleefully annexed itself to the cause of Hamas,” said Ami Isseroff, chief editor of ZioNation. (Jpost quoting web site ZioNation)

The BBC has got in on the act of course. In a dumbed down article, they’ve got hold of a report, this time by UN investigators, who have come up with yet more ammo about unethical behaviour by Israeli soldiers. It doesn’t tell us much, but who cares, as long as it’s got this “The UN team responsible for protection of children in war zones says it found “hundreds” of similar violations.”
This is primarily concerned with the Guardian and to a lesser extent the BBC, but when Andrew Marr, Paxman and Esler get properly stuck in no doubt there’s much more in store.

Today reported this, and ended by stating that by condemning Israel for human rights violations so frequently and so much more harshly than other countries who were equally, if not more, guilty of human rights violations, human rights commissioners or whatever they’re called are beginning to look less than even-handed.

Was the speaker Imogen Foulkes? I don’t know because Today iplayer isn’t working.

My impression was that Hague was subtly supportive of Israel, but was almost bullied into reiterating the word ‘appalling,’ knowing it was his only hope of retaining credibility with the audience.

He was supportive of Israel merely by making two points that went against the grain. a) We don’t know the truth, and, b) that Israel has a mechanism for investigating such things, and for bringing to book those found guilty.
Even mentioning these points at all was daringly radical in the circumstances; because, a) such remarks are the very things that Israel’s enemies always scoff at, and b) the subject was slipped in abruptly at the end and left hanging. There wasn’t time to elaborate, and that was what made his points seem unconvincing and far-fetched.

I saw it as bullying and covert bias. I didn’t post yesterday because the thought of the chanting chorus made me weary.

But today Melanie P has gone much further and is less generous with Hague. Her examination of the issues is well worth looking at, as usual.