Author Archives: Sue

Gaffe

By | |
43 Comments

The open mic blunder has been reported variously as:

“I cannot stand him. He’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama. The US president responded by saying: “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.” (Guardian)
****
“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama (Haaretz)
****
“I can’t stand him any more, he’s a liar,” Mr Sarkozy said in French.
“You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,” Mr Obama replied.” (BBC)
( It doesn’t state the language in which Obama’s retort was uttered)
****
Whether it’s ‘can’t stand’, or ‘can’t bear’, or whether the conversation began with:
“Mr Obama was taking Mr Sarkozy to task for voting in favour of the Palestinian bid….” (BBC)
or:
“for not warning the US that France would vote in favour of the Palestinians’” (Guardian)
is fairly immaterial, as is the extraneous “but me,” in the BBC’s report, (they probably stuck it in there just in case readers were too stupid to grasp Obama’s ironic self pity) it’s the exposure of the childish and trivial nature of these gossipy disrespectful playground-level remarks by supposedly two of the most important intellectual pigmies in the world that’s so painful.

Memories of Daniel Bernard, the French Ambassador’s infamous remark made in 2001:“All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel.”

The BBC will be feeling a warm glow of satisfaction that Obama agrees with them about Netanyahu, something that also implicitly confirms their assumption that Obama’s apparent support of Israel can be purely put down to electioneering.
Now they can get on with picking away at the scab of Iran’s nuclear threat, and hoping Israel will act alone so that after heaving a surreptitious sigh of relief (which I hope hope some mics inadvertently catch) the rest of the world can blame Israel for unnecessary aggression and for not waiting patiently for some non-existent diplomatic effort by the West to take effect

Not to mention the uncharacteristic but short-lived restraint by reporters.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Dumb and Dumber

By | |
11 Comments

Tweak a story to suit the presumed intelligence level of your audience, and you risk exposing the agenda. Omit a detail here, embellish another there, ignore chronology, obfuscate and gloss over, simplify and spin as you might do when explaining something nasty to a child. You want to make sure he knows what’s right and what’s wrong, without preaching or telling him in so many words. He must come to the correct conclusion all by himself.

Often, when watching the BBC, you will catch a glimpse of where their slip is showing; or their show is slipping.

The BBC’s web report concerning Israel’s decision to accelerate settlement building and withhold Palestinian funds is one example. If you compare it with other reports, the first thing you’ll notice is that the BBC’s presentation seems intelligence-insultingly dumb. Then you’ll notice that the agenda shows, subtly but surely.
Reuters, the source of many other press reports, and the BBC, both tell us that ‘The new building will be in “areas that in any future arrangement will remain in Israel’s hands.”
Reuters, not notable for pro Israel advocacy, puts it like this:
“A senior Israeli government official said after the cabinet meeting[…] speaking on condition of anonymity. “the new building will be in “areas that in any future arrangement will remain in Israel’s hands.”
The official said 1,650 of the new tenders are for units in eastern parts of Jerusalem, and the rest are for Efrat and Maale Adumim, Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.”

The BBC’s article says:
“The Israeli government said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had called for the accelerated construction of about 2,000 housing units.
It said the construction will be in “areas that in any future arrangement will remain in Israel’s hands”, according to a statement quoted by Reuters news agency.”

The BBC never provide full context when alluding to “settlements” because the BBC wishes to give the impression that all Israel’s construction activity is for the purpose of creating ‘facts on the ground’ in order to steal land. They want us to think all construction work is new encroachment on “Palestinian land” in accordance with what they see as Israel’s malevolent expansionist policies.

The BBC won’t admit that Jewish settlements they refer to as illegal will remain in existence after agreed negotiated land swaps that everyone knows must eventually take place – should a Palestinian state ever come to pass.
Even though the Palestinians have implicitly torn up all previously negotiated and agreed terms by opting out of the peace process with their decision to make unilateral bids, the only circumstance in which these settlements will cease to be is if, heaven forbid, the Palestinians ever achieve their real aim, which is the total elimination of Israel. This aim has frequently been proclaimed quite openly, but nevertheless the international community and the BBC ‘disputes this’. So they insinuate that the Israeli government’s words ‘future arrangement’ and ‘will remain in Israel’s hands’ are somehow dubious, “according to a statement quoted by Reuters news agency,” as though they’re merely blustering excuses or another of Israel’s spurious claims.

The one thing that all factions of the Palestinian leadership agree on is that they have no intention of living peacefully side by side with a Jewish state. Clearly the majority of the Palestinian people have been educated against this, and the leadership has promised them they’ll never accept it. But the useful aiders and abetters in the West won’t acknowledge that, because to do so would take the shine off some of the halos they’ve created.

“Netanyahu has called to restart peace talks without preconditions, but Abbas says he will return to negotiations only after Israel totally freezes its settlement activity.” Say Reuters. At least that sounds as though Israel is interested in the peace process, and hints at Palestinian intransigence.
The BBC has, instead:
“A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, Yigal Palmor, told the BBC the measures were designed to increase pressure on the Palestinians.
Mr Palmor said they were “a response to unilateral measures aimed at confronting Israel at the UN and elsewhere on the international scene”.
“They [the Palestinians] shouldn’t be wasting time by all these manoeuvres. They should continue to negotiate,” he said.”
They’re making it look as though the Israelis are merely being vindictive, which is of course exactly what they want we infants to absorb when deciding who deserves our support.

“Palestinian Authoirty [sic] President Mahmoud Abbas says the move will speed up the destruction of the peace process” the BBC recounts matter of factly, (not ‘according to a Reuters news agency’ or any other third party) as if Abbas’s antics at the UN and the UNESCO recognition would slow down the destruction of the peace process or bring peace closer in any way whatsoever.
So Kevin Connolly says the announcement will be seen as a “Punishment for the Palestinians”. And here comes the context you can always rely on:
“Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”
Funnily enough, Reuters didn’t bother to include that. Nor did they include the sub heading: ‘Stealing money’ as the BBC did.
The Reuters sub heading was: “Withholding funds”

Reuters is as bad as the next ‘impartial news organisation’ when it comes to misrepresenting Israel and not recognising its point of view, for example their lame attempt at providing some context regarding the background to the peace process, which is full of omissions. But the BBC is in another league. Here’s the BBC:
“Nabil Abu Rudeina, the spokesman for Mr Abbas, said the decision to withhold funds collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority was “stealing money from the Palestinian people.”
This time, not “according to” Reuters or any other news agency, it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. The Palestinians are having some of their import duties withheld, when they thought they were entitled to circumvent the peace process, make preconditions, opt out of negotiations, refuse to recognise Israel, send rockets into Israeli cities, all without suffering any consequences at all. Tough.
But never mind, they’ve got their UNESCO recognition, and they’ve got the BBC batting for them so audiences worldwide are condemning and delegitimising Israel. What more could they want?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

What’s in a Name

By | |
35 Comments

When Melanie Phillips details a specific instance of biased BBC reporting, there’s nothing more to add than to direct B-BBC readers straight there, and to the follow-up piece.

Denis MacEoin is well-known for writing letters defending Israel against defamation, and his letter to the BBC and the reply he received from Tarik Kafala the BBC’s online editor are just worth an extra mention here.
Dr. MacEoin wrote to the BBC to express his alarm and disgust that a ‘Viewpoint’ contribution on the BBC Website gives a platform to someone who regards returning Palestinian ex- prisoners as heroes. Heroes solely because they murdered Israeli civilians. He feels, as many of us do, that this implies tacit approval on the part of the BBC.

Mr Kafala, who “was appointed as Middle East editor of BBC News Online in order to add extra authority to our website” (extra authority to……. Jeremy Bowen?) has form when it comes to answering complaints about the BBC’s coverage of matters M.E, notably relating to Israel. From here, circa 2005

“I emailed the BBC to complain about this outrageous misrepresentation of Judaism. I eventually got an extraordinary reply back, from which this is the key extract, from a Mr Tarik Kafala, the editor of the BBC News website on which I had originally picked up Tim’s report.”

This time Mr. Kafala justifies his editorial decision to publish these quotations because he believes another ‘Viewpoint’ article provides that vital balance. But the article is by someone who disapproves of the prisoner exchange altogether. So on the one hand we have an anti Israel ‘viewpoint’, and on the other hand, or should that be on the same hand, another anti Israel ‘viewpoint’.

I can only assume Mr Kafala thinks balance was achieved because one ‘viewpointee’ was a Palestinian, and the other was an Israeli.

“These two articles were intended to allow and[sic] Israeli and a Palestinian to explain in detail their views and feelings about the prisoner releases. Each article is highly opinionated, personal and partisan. They are both clearly labelled as ‘viewpoints’ ”

But what about the context? Presumably the website is intended to educate and inform people. Who, apart from Israel-bashers, would want to read “how many Palestinians feel about the issue of prisoners in Israeli jails and about the acts of violence carried out by them against Israelis in Israel and the occupied territories.” even though “Such views are widely held by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza,” without reading, in the same article, or by a link, why they were imprisoned or how they were treated in prison, or to consider these things in comparison to Shalit’s ordeal?
Does the absence of context imply tacit approval? And why is it “important to represent them as a means of explaining the importance of the events we are reporting on the news.” without representing the views of someone who understands the situation from all perspectives, or who is sympathetic towards the dilemma Israel faces when dealing with fanatical Islamists such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad?
As for finding out about “the acts of violence carried out by them against Israelis in Israel and the occupied territories.” I see little or no evidence of that in this web article. The opposite is more the case.
An article by Rupert Wingfield-Hayes represents the Israeli perspective in the BBC’s inimicable fashion. He says:

“However, in the case of Gilad Shalit, it has always been clear that he was alive. His Hamas captors had taken him for the very reason of doing a prisoner swap.
Hamas also knew very well just how much Israel would eventually be willing to pay to get him back.
And that is why, despite the price Israel has now paid, 80% of Israelis are solidly behind this deal.”

Firstly, no, it has not always been clear that he was alive. Hamas’s reasons for kidnapping him were no assurances of that whatsoever. The last prisoner swap hostages were returned in coffins.

Shalit was kept in isolation, with no humanitarian aid at all. And if, as Wingfield-Hayes says, 80% of Israelis really were behind this deal, why didn’t we get a page of their “viewpoints” as well? As “a means of explaining the importance of events we are reporting on the news”, as Tarik Kafala is so keen to justify publishing his ‘heroes’ article.

I don’t want to leap to the conclusion that someone with a name like Tarik Kafala would automatically be prejudiced against Israel. That would make me the same as Richard “I have developed a habit, when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it” Ingrams. We mustn’t be hasty. But in my cursory research (Google of course) I couldn’t find anything to justify the BBC’s statement that appointing him as their Middle east editor of BBC news online would bring extra authority to their website. What was his expertise?
It appears that by labelling something ‘viewpoint’ one can get away with publicising any views whatsoever. Any views other than criticising Islam I daresay.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Foreign Affairs

By | |
8 Comments

The English-language news station France 24 with its youthful, well-informed presenters makes BBC News 24 seem parochial.
France 24’s extensive coverage of Gilad Shalit’s homecoming was, from what I’ve heard, broadly similar to the BBC’s. It was the main topic for the best part of two days. The French are conscious that the Shalit family are French-Israeli, but nevertheless their coverage of the released Palestinian prisoners and their families, and the jubilant celebrations by massed Palestinians and their leadership appeared more than even handed. Did I detect that the implication of moral equivalence was more muted chez France 24? I’m not sure.

We saw snippets from Gilad’s notorious interview with Egyptian TV, the off camera Hamas minder was as invisible in France as he was here, and the translation as selective. Shalit was quoted as expressing hopes for peace, whereas the Palestinians were said to be calling for “more Gilads”.
Gilad’s haunted, gaunt appearance spoke volumes, whereas one particular Palestinian returnee hero, his countenance brimming with glee and good health was filmed uttering: “They [the Israelis] treated us like dogs!” (He must’ve meant like the British treat dogs. With his shiny coat and waggy tail he certainly looked full of Pedigree Chum)

The biggest difference between the BBC and French television’s news coverage, apart from endless analyses of the ‘Euro crisis’ was the amount of time devoted to foreign affairs, and in particular Tunisia. Well, they would be interested, wouldn’t they.
There were televised debates, discussions and speculation by ‘experts’ before, during and after the election, and although there was a palpable undercurrent of disquiet about the so-called moderate Islamist party that eventually won the expected majority, they seemed, as we do, disturbingly ready willing and able to sweep their concerns under the carpet..
One memorable debate was chaired by a youthful attractive well-informed France 24 presenter with smiley dimples.
The all-Tunisian panel consisted of a headscarved member of the Ennahda party, an Islamic scholar, a young female blogger and a secular journalist/political commentator. The gist was that the moderate Islamist party has promised to listen, be inclusive etc., that there would be continuing democracy, and not a once in a lifetime Hamas style election. There appeared to be a willingness to accept this at face value, with reservations, in an ‘only time will tell’ kind of way.
I heard the exact same thing on the Sunday programme this morning, where Jane Little chatted to speed-dial experts Prof. Paul ‘Peace Studies’ Rogers of Bradford University and our old friend Professor Fawaz Gerges from the LSE. They were happy about Tunisia, if a little uneasy about Libya and Egypt, but that’s another story.
Rachid Ghannouchi’s record of making extreme fundamentalist public utterances are being ignored, forgotten and subsumed by a tsunami of wishful thinking.
His pledge not to jeopardise Tunisia’s economic future (tourism) by ‘permitting’ the immodest sunbathing and wine-drinking that we debauched tourists require for our hols seems, for the time being, to have appeased all the pessimistic doubting Thomases out there.
He has provided enough reassurance to allay the misgivings of we sceptics who weren’t wholly seduced by the Disneyland happy ever after of the glorious Arab Spring. We are all free to believe what we want to believe, but if his pragmatic promises turn out to be worth little or nothing don’t say I didn’t warn ye.
Oh for a well-informed, attractive, rounded, unbiased BBC with a healthy interest in foreign affairs and some respect for the audience’s intelligence.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Baffling Alliance 2

By | |
16 Comments

From our own correspondent’s Nick Danziger tells us that the Afghani people are the most wonderful people he knows. It’s women who continue to suffer the worst of the conflict. Outsiders make the same mistakes as most Afghan men, they don’t listen to women. Not a single one wants the Western forces to leave. “As the West rushes to exit the quagmire, they deserve continued support.”

Consider today’s demo in Trafalgar Square. It’s a ‘an Anti-War Mass Assembly’ demanding the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
George Galloway, Lauren Booth, Julian Assange, Seumas Milne, Moazzam Begg, Yvonne Ridley, Salma Yaqoob are some of the names who pledged to attend.
Harry’s Place has posted an article by Terry Glavin who is dismayed that Peter Tatchell has also “lent his good name” to the cause. Peter Tatchell the crazy mixed-up gay activist who stood with the homophobic Muslims in a recent demo against the EDL. He’s a very brave mixed-up activist, and very mixed-up.
However, after a heated exchange of emails, it seems Tatchell was persuaded to modify his anti-war stance. He has issued a revised statement:

”The left and anti-war movement is gambling with the lives of Afghan women, democrats and leftists when it calls for the immediate withdrawal of all UK and NATO troops. This demand is rejected by most Afghans and could result in mass slaughter by the Taliban. It risks capitulation to a clerical fascist movement that threatens the human rights of the Afghan people,”

(Read the rest here.)
He concludes:

“There needs to be a more sophisticated anti-war alternative to the Nato strategy. I haven’t got the answers but I know we should not abandon the Afghan people to a Taliban bloodfest. Anti-imperialism cannot be allowed to trump human rights.”

Of course it would be a lot easier if he didn’t go to such demos at all.
But maybe he didn’t. BBC news 24 reported this demo uncritically, or should we call it ‘with studious impartiality’, in the context-free manner to which we’ve become accustomed. On the website, though, they’re positively enthusiastic.

“The Stop The War Coalition said up to 5,000 people joined musicians, actors, film-makers and MPs at the Anti-war Mass Assembly in Trafalgar Square.”

Yippee. Sounds like a proper knees up. But they did say the organisers would find the attendance disappointing. There were only ‘about a thousand’ there. Too bad.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Baffling Alliance

By | |
11 Comments

There’s a fascinating thread on Harry’s Place about the left wing’s ever increasing association with Israel-bashing and Jew hatred.
Mentioning it here, on what is supposedly a right-wing blog – though some dispute this – could be seen as schadenfreude, where one party delights in another’s misfortune. In this case, the left’s misfortune is allowing their own self-criticism to be snatched, nay, cherry picked, by the so-called right, (me) and used as evidence against them. We all hate it when it happens to us; but this is not intended to be that.

I don’t want to criticise the left per se, I want to discuss the massive cognitive dissonance between the left’s self-asserted, self-proclaimed self-identification with the moral high ground, and their exponentially growing alliance with overt antisemitism.

We all know Harry’s Place is a left wing blog, and a pro Israel blog, and when an irresistible force meets an immovable object it forces itself into some extremely uncomfortable contortions.

The article by Habibi cites Ed Miliband’s praise for overtly antisemitic MPs and campaigners for organisations such as the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the friends of Al Aqsa. For example Robert Lambert, Andy Slaughter and Martin Linton.
Esteemed Harry’s Place blogger Lucy Lips contrasts this with the treatment of the few Tories who are found to be supporters of the EDL. The nasty party doesn’t praise them at all. Just the opposite, zero tolerance; it dismisses them with no further ado.

As the BBC is known to be of the left, and is similarly becoming ever more openly antisemitic, this trend desperately needs to be examined in public, openly and often. Especially as the current financial situation has been compared by BBC pundits with that of the 1930s. The similarities between the BBC and the left’s current default antisemitism and that of the 1930s should also be borne in mind.

This Harry’s Place article is a sincere criticism of the Labour party’s increasingly open racism, not a criticism of Labour party’s fundamental philosophy. It’s worth reading the comments to see that some Labour supporters are as baffled by it as I am.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Headline Story

By | |
21 Comments

2 Arabs arrested for the double murder of the Palmers.

Israel arrests Palestinian suspects in settler deaths.

Compare these two headlines for a minute. Did you learn English grammar? If so, draw on the clause analysis that you might have come across once upon a time. I never did, so forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but in headline number one, I’d say: “2 Arabs arrested ” is the focus of the sentence, while “the Palmers” are subordinate and “double murder” is the nitty gritty. In other words the story is about an arrest.

In number two, “Israel” is now the subject, “Palestinian suspects” are the object, and “settler deaths” are a mysterious coincidental contemporaneous occurrence. The story has turned into a slightly different one, which has a vaguely critical inference regarding Israel.

Okay, I’m not a language expert, but although they say roughly the same thing, each headline imparts a very different message. I hope you’ll see that the second headline is the BBC’s.
“Israel arrests”, is a somewhat aggressive opening gambit, phrased in the active form. “Palestinian suspects” sheds doubt on their guilt, while “in settler” a dehumanising and intentionally denigrating term for the victims, and “deaths” – passive, downplaying the act of murder.

Headline number one is a straightforward presentation of the facts.
2 Arabs arrested for the double murder of the Palmers is what happened. Elder of Ziyon includes the names of the victims, tells us where and when things happened and puts in enough detail to inform the reader. He tells us the facts and only indulges in one emotive but apposite comment at the end:
“Indeed, no Palestinian Arab official has condemned the murders.”

On the other hand, I’m afraid the BBC continues their agenda-fuelled theme throughout. The act which caused the victims’ deaths is described in a passive form “the car crashed”. They omitted to mention that the stone was hurled from a moving car, or that the police are looking into more possible stone-throwing offences by the same two. Early in the BBC’s report they bring in another story; so predictable, yet so unnecessary. You knew it, it’s the one about the mosque. An arson attack on a building is obviously regarded by the BBC as comparable to the murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer.
Strongly emphasised is: “the words “revenge”, “price tag” and “Palmer”[….]written in Hebrew on the mosque walls”, and where the report is light on the details of the Palmers’ murders, it provides the whys and wherefores of the Mosque attack, and brings in other “price tag” attacks for good measure. Also included, something that has become a permanent attachment to anything connected with Israel, “The settlements are illegal under international law,” So that’s why they must always refer to the victims as settlers, rather than human beings. And, it’s factually unreliable too. “though Israel disputes this.” They would!

“Their presence is a major obstacle to peace talks as the Palestinians insist Israel freeze settlement building before renewing negotiations.”
This dodgy factoid has also crept in for no discernible reason, other than that it has become de rigueur. But hang on. What are they on about? They might as well come right out and admit that the Palestinians’ rejectionism is a major obstacle to peace, the only obstacle in fact, talks or no talks.
If the Palestinians insisted that the world’s a balloon before renewing negotiations, it wouldn’t make one jot of difference.
Negotiations no longer apply. There’s been a unilateral bid for statehood, remember, something which, should it succeed, would override the mythical, let’s-pretend negotiations. The Oslo Discords, the peace process, the talks, the table, the preconditions – all overridden and tossed into the dustbin of a peace process that the Palestinians never wanted in the first place, no matter how much the BBC and the international community disputes this.


Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Turning A Blind Eye

By | |
31 Comments

While the BBC has been promoting Mahmoud Abbas and his bid for statehood, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini have been reiterating theirs, for everlasting permanent rejection of Israel’s presence on eternal Arab land.

This morning I have been watching some speeches on PJTV under the umbrella of ‘Durban Watch’, which delivers unto us the abomination of the UN’s farce, “World Conferences on Racism”: Durban (l, ll, and lll).

Even our own government (finally) pulled out of the latest Durban fiasco. “The UN is a place where lies are told.”
“I was taught that the elimination of Jews would be a service to mankind. A religious obligation.”

But a ‘must watch’ speech for B-BBC, was the one by journalist Khaled Abu Toameh.

Here is a very rough transcript of some of the highlights:
“As a journalist working with the international media, when I tried to alert the foreign correspondents that there was financial corruption in the Palestinian authority, many western journalists asked me, ‘are you on the payroll of the Jewish lobby? Did Jews give you money to say these things against the PLO?’
I asked, ‘what do the Jews have to do with this, and secondly, where is this Jewish lobby, how much do they pay? Maybe it’s much better than working for the media. Why don’t you want to believe what the Palestinians are openly saying, and the PLO is openly admitting?’
They reply “We told our editors back home, they were not interested, Please give us an anti occupation story. Give us a story that reflects negatively only on Israel.

“Maybe these stories are true, but we are afraid, How can we go back to Ramallah? Arafat might kill us.” I say if anyone has reason to be afraid, it’s me, the local Arab Muslim journalist who wakes up in the morning and says these things in Arabic and still goes back to Ramallah and Gaza putting my life at risk. If you guys are really as afraid, what are you doing in the Middle East reporting? Go home and report sport and weather.
The US diplomats said “Just shut up. You should not be saying these things, these stories play into the hands of Jews.” The international media turned a blind eye because of the antisemitism among them. I think I am the only person there who has worked with journalists from all over the world over the past 25 years, and if I were to sum up my experiences with the international media I would say that the overwhelming number come with the perception that there’s a conflict going on over here, there are good guys and bad guys, and please don’t confuse us with the facts.
The good guys are the poor oppressed Palestinians living under occupation, and the bad are the Jews, the ones with the money and the guns, power, tanks and jets, and this is how we want to cover this conflict.

Two months ago A Palestinian university professor was arrested in the Palestinian areas, by the PA. When I called my foreign colleagues to report it they asked me “Who arrested the professor?” I said ‘the PA security forces.’ Only one out of nine journalists I contacted agreed to do the story. The others said “Leave it for now.”
A few days later, to test the same group, I made up a story. A Palestinian professor in Ramallah has applied for permission for himself, his wife and three children to eat in a fish restaurant in Jaffa and the Israeli authorities have not yet given him the permit. Seven of them asked for his number. “Tonight, not tomorrow. That’s an atrocity!” They wanted it as a scoop. It’s a continuing trend.

At an NGO meeting at the UN here in NY someone said: “In Palestine there’s a free media! At an NGO meeting! I laughed. Don’t they know that in Palestine the media is controlled by Fatah or Hamas? Last week Abbas arrested George Canawati, a Palestinian Christian journalist living in Bethlehem. He was arrested by the security forces under Mahmoud Abbas and ‘reformist’ Salam Fayyad. He is going on trial on October 3. His crime was that he had reported that Abbas’s representative had been drinking Israeli-made juice in violation of calls for a boycott. You would never read about these things in the New York Times.

Earlier this week I was in Ramallah with foreign journalists searching for stories on the eve of the Palestinian statehood bid. We received a phone call that there was violence by Jewish settlers, “bring the media”. Here’s a story, let’s go to Hebron to see what’s going on.
40 -45 journalists, 3 settlers and 200 Palestinians.
“These settlers threatened us as they walked past”. These foreign journalists thought this was a big story. These journalists can’t go to Syria, they can’t get visas for the Arab world, so they sit inside Israel. When I read the headlines the following day about settler violence I thought we were on different planets. Why does Israel look so bad in the media? When you are a democracy you pay a heavy price for allowing journalists to come and do what they cannot do elsewhere. They don’t care about anything else, they’re so obsessed with Israel. So what if people are murdered in Syria or Libya? If a Jewish soldier shouts at a Palestinian at a checkpoint that’s breaking news.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Undermining Peace

By | |
24 Comments


The latest settlement announcements regarding Gilo have already been widely condemned as a provocation by people with no knowledge of history or geography. But there’s more to this than meets the eye.

“Gilo is a neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which is Israel’s eternal capital. Under many internationally-agreed final-status agreements, including the Clinton Parameters, the neighbourhood would remain a part of Israel.”

The BBC is ramping up its Israel-bashing again. Anything I/P related is being twisted and spun furiously. It’s as though after the unilateral bid the BBC wants to inflame the situation as much as possible, and maybe they’re hoping articles which use words such as ‘anger’, ‘provocation’ and ‘undermining trust’ will incite Israel-haters into such a frenzy that they’ll pressurise the EU or Nato to intervene ‘to protect civilians’.
Best friends Catherine Ashton and Hillary Clinton will probably issue some more pearls of wisdom for the BBC to quote in tomorrow’s episode of the BBC’s anti Israel campaign.

They’ve completely rewritten the ‘obstacle to peace’ scenario. You never hear anything about Palestinian ‘obstacles’, such as their openly expressed aspiration – not to any future peaceful coexistence – but to a future without Israel altogether, symbolised in their logo map, which blatantly depicts the whole of Israel as their future Palestinian state.

If the Israelis took a leaf out of Abbas’s book and produced strings of preconditions before negotiations can resume, the press might respect them more. Obviously being reasonable doesn’t do the trick, and they couldn’t spin against Israel much more than they already do.
The Israelis should demand that to tempt them back to the table the Palestinians must release Gilad Shalit, recognise Israel, renounce violence, hold another election, stop dreaming about the ROR, stop brainwashing their children, rein in stone-throwing adolescents, stop smuggling weapons into Gaza, stop sending rockets into Israel, and stop rewarding families of martyrs and suicide bombers.
Just for a start. Then, perhaps, recognition of gay rights in Gaza and a chorus or two of All You Need is Love at the next UN convention.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Labouring under an Illusion

By | | ,
32 Comments

This heartfelt comment by Jarwill101 on the Open Thread deserves a main post. I liked it, and I’m taking the liberty of reproducing it here. Hope that’s okay.

“Yvette Cooper’s nauseating admission, ‘We got things wrong over immigration’, has to be challenged. No, Yvette, credit where credit’s due, given New Labour’s avowed policy, as revealed by speech writer, Andrew Neather, you got things right over immigration. You wanted to obliterate the Brtish nation state as rapidly as possible & mass immigration was your weapon of choice. And the beeboids filled the atmosphere with an enveloping, rainbow-tinted iCloud of touchy-feely propaganda to speed the transformation on its way.
Never mind the quality of the incomers, forget their, very often, utter unsuitability, their arrogant refusal to integrate, their immediate reliance on benefits, their propensity for criminality/terrorism. Our towns & cities are now descending into the Second World, a volatile, crowded, violent waiting-room, before the descent into the Third. Places like Tower Hamlets/Haringey should be the jewels in Yvette’s papier-mache crown. You, Yvette, & your cultural Marxist destructors have ensured that there will never be a harmonious society in this country again. Your job is done, don’t be self-effacing about it. Step out into our wonderful, ‘diverse’ streets, especially at night, rejoice in the ‘enrichment’. Perhaps a kindly passerby will help you count the holes in you face, help you into the ambulance.
I’ll wave to you from the river, upon which the indigenous people, & the hard-working, law-abiding immigrants, have been sold down in exchange for the advancement of your own worthless, traitorous little soul.”

Bravo!
I would just add though, that the Labour Party’s immigration mea culpa still avoids confronting their most treasonous ‘mistake’. As far as I’m aware, the type of immigration that they own up to ‘getting wrong’ is the, cheap labour, job-undercutting type, the hardworking Polish builder, and the Eastern European economic migrant. They serve as a scapegoat for the resentment many people feel over the other kind of immigration. The kind that dare not speak its name, the immigration that is fundamentally at odds with British values, the immigration that really undermines our way of life.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.