Keeping Watch

I’m forever guarding the BBC’s output, day and night. I watch all channels simultaneously, whilst listening to radios one two three four five six and seven, and the BBC World Service.

Only Joking. I’m bemused if anyone has that impression, and quite flattered.

From the bits I do watch, I recognise many of the biases mentioned on this blog, but I find the anti Israel bias the most painful, and somehow the most insidious, because it leads to things like the incident at the Prom.

Palestinian Solidarity Campaigners committed a profoundly self-defeating affront when they disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra’s prom concert at the Royal Albert Hall.

Music lovers regard Zubin Mehta and Gil Shaham as the crème de la crème. The audience at the Albert Hall eventually got to enjoy the treat they were waiting for. First they had to sit by and watch while a bunch of nobodies who presumed they had the right to caterwaul and chant and drown out the finest musicians in the world, gave an embarrassing display of their insensitivity and ignorance.

The radio 3 audience missed out altogether. The BBC made an unfortunate decision to abandon the live transmission. However, when the fools were finally ejected, the performance went ahead triumphantly, to prolonged, tumultuous, joyous, applause.

The incident has generated thousands of comments on the internet.

There are four hundred and forty four on the BBC News website, and forty nine on the BBC Proms website, several hundred below other articles, such as Brendan O’Neill’s piece in the Telegraph.(689 and counting)

The ignorance displayed by some of the contributors is mind-boggling.

The Palestinian Sympathy Orchestra, let’s call them, is equipped with clichéd, half-understood gossip, myths and distortions. Helpfully, they nearly always set them out in full before launching off into the tirade proper. “Stolen land, illegal settlements, ethnic cleansing, diverted water supplies, bulldozed houses, white phosphorous, apartheid, UN resolutions, illegal this that and the other” they excrete, indignantly. Particularly common is: “Israelis are killing innocent Palestinians everyday.”

They *know* these things, and they use them to justify their largely predetermined hatred of Israel. Where do they get these ideas?

Comments also appear on Norman Lebrecht’s ‘Slipped Disc” webpages. Today there’s a contribution by famous tousle-haired cellist Steven Isserlis. It was submitted to the Guardian, and for some reason they chose not to publish. He begins: “The protesters who disrupted the Prom by the Israel Philharmonic and Zubin Mehta are not only guilty of cultural hooliganism, but are deeply misguided.” and ends: “To wreck their very rare and special concert over here gives a terrible impression of us all – haven’t the rioters done that already?

You may as well read the middle as well.

Palmed Off

I hope they warned Mark Regev that the focus of his interrogation had been altered at the last minute, from the original version on the Today website –



“The “million people march” is due to take place tonight in Tel Aviv, protesting against the high cost of living and shortage of housing in Israel. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev looks at the state of Israel today”

– to this updated item, an interrogation about Israel’s refusal to apologise to Turkey for the deaths of nine activists: Israel ‘had right to board flotilla’

So John Humphrys has read the Palmer Report. Well, parts of it, he assured Mark Regev. The parts of special interest to the BBC. Not the main parts, the ones that confirm the legality of Israel’s blockade against the smuggling of arms into Gaza, but those saying Israel used excessive force when they boarded the Mavi Marmara.

The fact that the BBC brought Mark Regev on at all will have irked a particular type of listener. The type who is instantly up in arms at the sound of his voice, writing letters to the BBC about disproportionate pro Israel favouritism. They’re the ones that enable the BBC to claim impartiality ‘because we get complaints from both sides’.

The Palmer report concludes that the blockade is legal, as was the interception of the boat in international waters. The problem seems to arise with how this was enforced. The Israelis’ reaction to the violent reception they faced was criticised because in the end nine activists were shot at close range, some in the back, and some several times.

The fact that the activists were armed and uncooperative doesn’t seem to have been taken into consideration; it certainly wasn’t by John Humphrys.

I’m wondering what the difference is between being shot dead, or being shot dead several times. They must have been very dead indeed.

Would it have been acceptable to the BBC if the Israelis had waited to see just how far the activists were prepared to go before retaliating?

If they had allowed one or two Israelis to be beaten to death, say, before deciding that shooting back was fair and proportionate?

Or should the Israelis have given in, after polite requests to lay down weapons and comply with international law?

It seems that is what Mr Humphrys would have advised. He must have seen the footage of the reception that greeted the boarding party when it landed on the good ship Mavi Marmara, it was shown on Panorama after all, but given that he is aware of the violence, and who initiated it, he seems to think the Israelis shouldn’t have boarded the ship at all!

“It is hard to see how they could have initiated violence had you not boarded their ship.” he says.

I suppose he would think that Britain had no right to intercept armed shipments from Libya to the IRA in international waters, either.

Were the activists armed and resisting arrest? Yes they were. Were the Israeli soldiers being attacked and beaten with iron bars? Yes they were. Was Israel within its rights to intercept the ship in international waters? Yes it was. Was there a “Complex combative chaotic situation and close hand-to hand combat?” as Mark Regev repeated, and John Humphrys disregarded. Yes, undoubtedly.

The truth is that the BBC thinks the ship should have been allowed to break the blockade, which they still want to believe is illegal, just as they still want to believe the flotilla was carrying aid, which they still want to believe Gaza needs. They still believe that Israel is the most evil place in the world, and they still want to doubt its legitimacy, no matter what any reports or investigations come up with.

Downward Spiral

The so-called ‘Palmer report’ has finally been published.

Publication was held back for various reasons. The BBC says because of fears that issuing it sooner would jeopardise reconciliation between former allies Turkey and Israel – “which didn’t happen”. It seems, as well, that both Turkey and Israel had contributed to the delay by intervening with various demands and objections. The likelihood of a reconciliation seems somewhat far-fetched.

The conclusions boiled down to: a) Israel’s blockade was legal, but: b) they used excessive force on the Mavi Marmara.

The BBC’s headlines, needless to say, presented these two the other way round. They said the report stated that Israel used excessive force ‘when they boarded a ship taking “supplies” to Gaza.’

They didn’t say what the supplies were, perhaps because there weren’t any.

The next time round they modified the wording, along with, of all people, Barbara Plett’s more accurate terminology, that the flotilla was intended to ‘break the blockade’.

However the headline has currently reverted to “aid”. They’re saying the flotilla was taking aid! Everybody knows that 1) Gaza may need various kinds of help, but taking ‘aid’ isn’t one of them, and 2) the Mavi Marmara was taking a mob of activists and useful idiots on a publicity stunt devised simply to demonstrate their Israel-hating politics.

Israel takes issue with the “excessive and unreasonable” part of the report. Before saying ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they” it’s worth asking what else they could have done under the circumstances.

Turkey, of course, also takes issue. With everything else in the report.

That raises questions about the usefulness of commissioning these reports in the first place.

So, talking of Israel-hating politics, that brings us to the next headline, the disruption of the Israel Philharmonic orchestra’s performance at the Albert Hall. The triumph of the so-called pro Palestinian activists was that radio 3 had abandoned the live broadcast. Only they could believe that doing so was any help to the poor Palestinians.

The BBC initially reported that the performance was disrupted by pro Palestinian protesters shouting and booing the orchestra. So excited was the BBC scriptwriter that he/she forgot to notice that the booing came from the audience and was directed at the protesters. They’ve been featuring an interview with Deborah Fink, without mentioning the unpredictable, volatile outbursts which show her to be demonstrably unhinged. Many of us will be familiar with Deborah Fink’s other-worldly performance on a similar occasion, courtesy of Youtube.

The BBC is reflecting, creating, reflecting, creating the public’s hostility to Israel in a downward spiral, whose momentum seems unstoppable.

Questions and Answers

Last night’s Any Questions panel spoke for multiculturalism, women, and the Arab Spring. The solitary male member, if you’ll excuse the expression, was Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director of Islamic Relief, who was roped in to opine on behalf of the Arab World.

The panellists still spoke elegiacally of the Arab Spring, which, for them still heralds the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. It’s just as if they’d never heard of the disconcerting rise of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or listened to any of the creeping doubts that are beginning to emerge everywhere but in their own consciousness. They seem a bit like the befuddled fugitive who hasn’t discovered that the war he’s been hiding from for the last decade ended years ago.

In this vein, they expressed undiluted optimism over the Arab Spring, and deep joy at the diversity and multiculturalism in the UK.

The thing that was omitted from the discourse was, of course, Islam.

Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial. I myself am diverse. Variety is the spice of life, and variegated skin-colour, racial origin, a multiplicity of traditions and customs are all jolly good ingredients when added to the mix in correct, proportional measure.

But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination. There comes a point where those who ‘flock’ from far and wide to partake, begin to resemble tourists who, by sheer numbers, wreck the beauty and tranquility of the tourist attractions they visit, robbing them of their attractiveness in the process. Before people recognise what is happening, too many are profiting from the status quo, so don’t want to admit there’s a problem.

The Islamic faith may well be beneficial in potentially volatile Islamic regimes which are kept on an even keel by people we consider tyrants and despots. They control populations by fear, as do religious leaders who stunt the imagination by persuading vulnerable people that this life is a mere preparation for the next.

Refusing to get to grips with the fact that a functioning democratic society requires the population to be reasonably free from constraints that interfere with the ability to think, is a huge handicap. That’s what political correctness does to us. It won’t permit open discussion, and explains the puzzling tyranny of the P.C. edict, which proclaims ” to be good, one must be non-judgmental.” That leads to moral equivalence, which in turn might explain the frequent appearance on our screens, courtesy of the BBC, of Abdel al-Bari Atwan. Mr. Atwan has been endorsing last week’s attacks near Eilat in which Israelis were murdered.

‘The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years…’

CiFWatch, the watchdog website that monitors the Guardian’s increasingly overt antisemitism, is concerned about Atwan’s frequent contributions to Comment is Free. The Guardian represents the intelligentsia, many of whom have travelled so far to the left that they’ve gone right round the back and out the other side, having picked up radical Islam along the way, like a burr on your woolly jumper. How did that happen? It’s inexplicable to many of us, and apparently to them. At least, I haven’t heard a convincing explanation so far.

The BBC’s fondness for hiring Abdel al-Bari Atwan is clear. He’s never off our screens. Opining on this and that, his eyes bulging preternaturally, he’s regarded as an authority on all things Arab. Springs, Uprisings, and Resistance? Ask Abdel. His speciality is demonising Israel and fantasising about it being nuked.

Is he impartial? Is he sane? Are his prejudices balanced on the air, in the short term or the long term, by opposing views? Are his views given undue respect and credibility?

Why does the BBC give inflammatory, racist, antisemitic and warmongering individuals the oxygen of publicity on programmes like Dateline or Newsnight? We know the BBC is mischievous and likes a bit of a barney for the ratings. But this is serious. They might want to try and make sparks fly, but sparks have a habit of getting out of control if they’re given free rein.

Any Questions? Here’s one. Does the panel think the BBC is after a conflagration?

A caller has phoned in to Any Answers to self-flagellate over our colonial past, and has invented a new despot named ‘Dugaffi.” I despair.

BBC’s Cutting-Edge Arts Commentator on the Arab Spring

There’s an article on Harry’s Place entitled “BBC and Guardian profile Latuff.

That’s Carlos Latuff the cartoonist.

The cartoonist who has been working on behalf of those involved in the Arab Spring. Cartooning by demand so to speak.

It must be his vivid interpretation of their passions rather than his drawing ability that makes him so popular with his fans.

“The Guardian describes him as the “Voice of Tripoli” because of his cartoons relating to the Libyan uprising.”

I ran the BBC’s Portuguese page through Google translate. It’s easy, and worth a try.

He’s a Twitter enthusiast, the BBC tells us.

“On Twitter, Latuff calculates Arabs have more followers than Brazilians. The friends you make on the Internet to help you translate the messages of his cartoons into Arabic.

Latuff is mobilized from other causes. It is the militant Palestinian cause, the subject of many of his cartoons, and live out for conflicts in other parts of the world – this month, did work on the protests in London and on the famine in Somalia, for example.”

Says Google Translate, helpfully. It’s that “militant Palestinian cause” again. Just another casual, indifferent BBC observation.

Breach of the Peace

The BBC has written a report about the ruling that led to the conviction and subsequent expulsion from St. Andrews University of a young history student who put his hand down his pants and rubbed it on a Jewish student’s Israeli flag. His mate and co-culprit got off more lightly – he was merely suspended for a year.

Was this just a silly prank by two drunken ‘hey Jimmies’, which received a disproportionately harsh punishment? Or was the harshness meant to deter others who might be planning to express rampantly racist sentiments, which are currently bubbling up throughout our university campuses?

But there’s more to this than meets the eye. The Palestinian Solidarity bunch were performing their particular type of solidarity by providing a baying mob to boo and jeer at the verdict and at the Jewish complainant. But that’s not all. When the case first came to court in May, a cunning and exasperating delaying tactic was devised by the accused. What fun.

Who knows whether this irritated the judge enough to influence his decision to take the case seriously, and to come down on the side of the young man from the rogue Zionist entity, an act that defies the prevailing atmosphere (see judge Bathurst-Norman) amongst a section of the judiciary.

However there’s more ramifications to this. The young pubic hair-wielding fellow was not a “hey Jimmy” out for a drunken Sat’day night punch-up. He was a history student. A history student. Any fule kno that history can, and must be interpreted in more than one way, but I recall a lively debate on one of Melanie Phillips’s Spectator threads that was sparked off by a student at Aberystwyth University who felt he would fail his history degree if he dared to consider any other than the Palestinian narrative.

It seems that Scotland is a hotbed of Israel-bashing, what with the rash of BDS campaigns that have sprouted in places like Dunbartonshire, but as Richard Millett knows only too well, where anti Zionism is concerned London is the Daddy.

An aspect of this case that several people have remarked on is that pro Palestinian activists who parade their antisemitic slogans and incite antisemitic acts of violence and abuse see themselves as anti racist. The stupidity is mind boggling. Their minds have obviously been boggled, (and in my humble opinion even more sinister) not by the BNP, not by the EDL, but by our universities and academic institutions.

Oh yes, and our public broadcasting corporation. First they whip it up, then they report the consequences, almost feigning innocent surprise as though it’s not their fault.

Presenting a Better Image



A news Correspondent from BBC’s One Show has been Tweeting. This person. ‘one_uk’ describes him/herself thus: “Research Correspondent from the One Show trying to present a better image of the UK.

The frantic tweeting in question goes something like this:

”PLS RT Israel did to a 5-year-old Palestinian boy.He was killed a last night by Israeli air strikes.”

If this photograph is genuine, and similar pictures have been known to be ‘unreliable’ in the past, it’s very sad.

It’s an image of a young Palestinian victim, tragically killed by an Israeli air strike. Air strikes which the Palestinians themselves provoked by their own murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, including Israeli children aged four and six whose corpses probably won’t be appearing in any posed publicity pictures.

What the hell does a BBC employee think he’s doing letting him/herself blatantly perpetuate Palestinian propaganda without a care in the world while proudly advertising his BBC credentials for all tthe world o see. The BBC’s conduct in the latest outbreak of violence has already been heavily criticised.

War is a nasty business Mr. One Show Researcher, and the motto is, if you don’t like it, don’t start it.

P.S.

I really should have focused on the tweet to CiF Watch.

“You will realise how powerful the Muslims r growing through the use of media. Your Zionist tweets will show the world what u are”

If that isn’t explicit enough for your bosses at the BBC, Mr. One Show correspondent, I don’t know what is.

UPDATE:

I read in the comments that David Vance has been contacted by Heather from the BBC.

My sources have also been contacted by Heather Taylor and have informed me that she stated that the account “is not connected to us or an official account in any way.

They still wished to know if there is someone who works for the BBC who may own that twitter account, and later received this assurance from Ms. Taylor:

“To the best of our ability, we are sure that this is not owned by a BBC employee. Twitter are also investigating this further.”

Balen Report

Today’s Telegraph reports that Steven Sugar’s widow is to take on his battle with the BBC over the Balen report.

In the article a BBC spokesman is quoted as saying:

“If we are not able to pursue our journalism freely and have honest debate and analysis over how we are covering important issues, then how effectively we can serve the public will be diminished.”

I’m not entirely sure whether this argument supports or attacks the BBC for spending £270,000 worth of licence-fee money on keeping the contents of the Balen report a secret.

Half The Story

The other morning, when the BBC was on strike and there was no Today, I watched instead a film about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, on the channel known as ‘Yesterday.’
The film began with the birth of Israel, and didn’t shy away from including Britain’s shameful cruelty and heartlessness in rigidly enforcing a cap on immigration by Jewish refugees to Palestine, even though they were known to have been fleeing Nazi persecution. It showed the ship Exodus with a cargo of 4,000 concentration camp survivors hoping to restart their lives in Palestine, being turned turned away by the British, heedless of the fate of those on board. It described the formation of the Irgun, and explained quite fairly the cause of their resentment against the British.

Fast-forward to the film’s focal point. The filmmakers had decided that Rabin and Arafat were partners for peace, both equally dovish and conciliatory, and on the brink of ending the ‘intractable conflict’ in the Middle East. Aside from a snapshot of the Grand Mufti’s notorious meeting with Hitler, Arafat’s ‘three nos’ and the intifada he engendered as he famously walked away, were conspicuously absent from the narrative, as was Islam’s inherent antisemitism.
Subtlety and nuance were sacrificed for the simplicity of the fallacious message that Rabin and Yasser Arafat were heroic peaceniks, while the peoples they represented were unanimously opposed to peace.

Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin, was portrayed as a rogue representative of the right-wing warmongering Israeli public, though a little more deranged; an extremist, motivated by a commonly held malevolent determination to scupper the peace process just so that Israel could continue sadistically oppressing the Palestinians. In other words, Israel’s own Anders Breivik, acting on behalf of the universal right-wing nutter fraternity.

The myth that Arafat sincerely sought peace thrives to this day, and his modern-day counterpart Mahmoud Abbas has inherited the undeserved mantle of moderate seeker of peace. In the Telegraph Benedict Brogan explains why David Cameron is a dupe, playing dangerous games with his Security Council vote. Netanyahu’s latest concession doesn’t interest the BBC, and neither do the qassam rockets that were fired from Gaza recently . As a Harry’s Place commenter predicted, only Israel’s retaliatory strikes were worthy of a mention by the BBC.
When one of the Fogel family’s murderers was convicted yesterday the author of the BBC web article felt compelled to mention Abbas’s condemnation of those behind the killings, as if to emphasise that he was a man of peace, and included, even in this incongruous context, the obligatory reminder that the world and his dog regards settlements as illegal ‘though Israel disputes this’, which smacks of the accusation that, for having the impertinence to be there, the family was ‘asking for it’.

Much of the British public clings to the sentimental parody systematically projected by the left, in which Palestinians play the part of the universal victim. Images of wailing women brandishing giant keys, mutterings about bulldozed homes, shortages of food and medicine, all because of the Zionist oppressors and nothing to do with their very own ‘democratically elected’ corrupt and venal leadership. The widely-held belief that Israelis are Western interlopers transplanted onto ‘Muslim land’ by interfering outsiders who who should have minded their own business, is alive and well. Pallywood seduced the BBC, and the BBC seduced the liberal left world.

The aid that Israel trucks into Gaza on a daily basis, the luxury hotels, the abundant provisions, the shopping malls and restaurants that are springing up, the virulent antisemitic passion that fuels the Islamic world, and the findings that a majority of Palestinians are opposed to the peace process and are of the opinion that Israel should not exist, are all absent from the BBC’s impartial reporting.

Anyone who wishes can easily track down Arabic television programmes, translated by Memri. They can see interviews with Nonie Darwish or Wafa Sultan on Arabic T.V. stations, Imams and preachers waving their arms histrionically, screeching infantile rhetoric that would be laughable if it weren’t as incendiary and hate-filled as anything that ever emanated from Nazi Germany.
If you care to look, you can watch clips from Palestinian children’s TV, and observe men in animal costumes implanting aspirations in the next generation of Palestinian children. Not, Mr. Michael Morpurgo, of peaceful coexistence with Jewish children, but of murdering Jews for Allah, and promoting the glory of martyrdom with all the gusto and advertising acumen of T.V.’s Mad Men in every sense of the phrase.

Yet the BBC has never shown any interest in that. Viewers, mildly interested in world affairs, but not enough to look beyond the BBC, are treated to half a story. Most people are baffled by the left’s ‘cognitive dissonance.’ Nick Cohen says, ‘of ‘the “liberal” press where I make my living:’

“you see them deploy two tactics. The first is a determined refusal to admit the nature of radical Islam. They never discuss the misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism, let alone stir themselves to confront it. Second, they pretend that anyone who does describe and condemn it is a part of the supernaturally powerful “Israel Lobby” – or the “International Jewish Conspiracy,” as previous generations called it.”

I have never forgotten the deference with which the production team of Any Questions treated Baroness Tonge. They had invited me on to the programme with her, perhaps because they thought it a bit of laugh to sit someone called ‘Cohen’ next to someone who had updated the medieval blood libel and suggested that an inquiry was needed to ascertain whether Jews were stealing the vital organs of Christian earthquake victims.”

In Britain today we have people expressing openly antisemitic opinions while enjoying respectability and a fully functioning public life, regularly given a platform on the BBC. We have anti Israel meetings, which purport to be pro Palestinian, where people are shouted down disgracefully; we have rabbles behaving appallingly in supermarkets and outside Israeli businesses and overt antisemitic bullying in our universities, yet the BBC, paragon of virtue and righteousness looks the other way.

On The Wrong Track

Jeremy Paxman’s behaviour on last night’s Newsnight was staggering. Perhaps his astonishingly aggressive demeanour was his way of bluffing the audience into thinking that social media gossip was a credible substitute for concrete evidence against the EDL.

With continual interruptions, hectoring and and exaggerated facial expressions of disgust, he completely departed from interviewing and veered off unsteadily in the direction of attempted verbal assassination. I’m glad to announce that he failed to reach his destination.

Stephen Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson – he has two names, so people usually call him the bloke from the EDL – had another grilling on BBC News 24 from £92,000 per annum worth of BBC anchorwoman, Carrie Gracie. However hard she tried, she just couldn’t trip him up, and she didn’t bother to conceal her frustration.
Breivik’s insane killing spree has unleashed some unedifying spectacles of no-holds-barred lashing out at the ‘far right’ from the media and the BBC, and their favourite target is the EDL, which they see as the epitome of illiberalism and intolerance. The more Ms. Gracie insisted that the EDL had ‘the same objectives’ as Breivik and tried to connect him and his atrocity with the EDL as an organisation, the weaker her case became. She failed to ridicule him, trip him up, counter-argue or bully him on any level at all, but instead got herself more and more worked up, so that the whole of the following item was conducted with a rictus grin.

By merely admiring the way Stephen Lennon stood up to the BBC I foresee the prospect of being inextricably associated with the EDL for ever more. But I support Israel, which already places me as a right-wing nutter, so what the hell.