The BBC’s Little White Lie For Palestinians

On the heels of Turkish PM Erdogan’s remark that Zionism is a crime against humanity, the BBC felt the need to briefly explain what Zionism is.

Zionism is an ideology or movement that asserts that the Jewish people have a right to a national home or state in what was the Biblical “Land of Israel”. There is no consensus among Zionists where the borders of the state should be. For Palestinians, the success of Zionism has meant the frustration of their national aspirations and life under occupation.

Except for one thing: there was no such thing as Palestinians or their national aspirations until after the Arabs failed twice to destroy Israel. Only then was there any movement to create the concept of Palestinians and a national identity, leading to the founding of the PLO in 1964. Only after Israel occupied territory ceded by Jordan and Egypt after yet another failed war to destroy the Jews was there even a concept of Palestinian territory. Until then, Israel’s enemies saw them as Jewish usurpers in Muslim Arab land, full stop. There was no such thing as Palestinian nationalism. Rather, the identity group was encouraged as a buffer and cannon fodder for the Arabs’ continued war against the Jews. As always, the BBC rewrites history so that 1967 is Year Zero. There was no “occupation” before that, unless one feels that the entire State of Israel has been an occupying force since 1948. That’s the impression given by this BBC article, though.

For other examples of this kind of BBC revisionism, see here, here, and here.

There was no movement for a Palestinian homeland when it was part of Jordan, or under the British Mandate, or under the Ottoman Empire or anything else. It’s a modern concept, created long after the creation of Israel. Of course, by “the success of Zionism”, one assumes that the BBC journalist who wrote this means that Israel hasn’t been destroyed yet. After all, the Palestinians’ true goal is not self-governance in Gaza and the West Bank (which they already have), but the removal of the Zionist Entity entirely. Every once and a while, the BBC admits this, but for some reason fail to mention it here. Nor do they ever mention that a Palestinian State will be Judenrein. If, hypothetically, there was a sort-of contiguous Palestinian State existing side-by-side with the Jewish State, does anyone seriously believe the Palestinians and the Arabs (and Iranians) would accept that the occupation of Arab/Muslim land had ended? Of course not. The very existence of Israel is the “success of Zionism”. That’s what the Beeboid meant here. The only logical conclusion is that, so long as Israel exists, Palestinian national aspirations will remain stunted.

(UPDATE: On further reflection, I’m now wondering if perhaps by “the success of Zionism”, the Beeboid meant not merely maintaining Israel’s existence but the conquest/occupation of Arab land. That’s more Palestinian/anti-Israel propaganda, as if 1967 was all about Israeli conquest and precious little to do with the attempts to destroy it. Can someone else find a better explanation? Or is this code for the evil Settlements?)

Whatever one thinks about the right of people who now call themselves Palestinians to their own self-governed territory, or the Jews’ right for same, the BBC is spreading a false version of history. This goes beyond mere criticism of Israel and strays into demonization territory. It’s impossible to have an honest discussion of the situation when the BBC taints the scene in this way.

Please don’t anyone try to start arguing about whether or not Israel is right or wrong, or give me any BS about how I think Israel can do no wrong or any other nonsense. This is about the BBC distorting reality in way that favors one side and demonizes the other.



Bad Influence

For reasons best known to them (probably), the BBC World service came up with a poll to measure selected countries’ perceptions of certain other countries’ influence.

Israel comes out slightly above Hell on Earth.

Since the BBC and the BBC World Service have been pumping out selected information about the aforementioned countries, and withholding certain other selected information, it throws up an analogy thus:

I run a monopolistic campaign to promote my product for a number of years. I also run a monopolistic negative campaign to discredit my rivals’ products.  I then send out a questionnaire to random consumers and non consumers asking whether they see my product in a positive or negative light.

Since most of the participants in question have been subjected to my campaign but many of them have never tried my somewhat niche product because it isn’t relevant to them, the results cannot show how popular my product is, merely how effective my campaign has been.

The BBC World Service can rest assured. Their campaign has been a great success.


Yes, this one did catch my attention and B-BBC Alan lays out the indictment;

“A squirmingly coy Evan Davis attempts ‘clever’ but finishes looking ‘stupid’. 

Here Davis thinks he can work a fast one on Mark Toner from the US State Department asking him if the US would ever veto a UN security council resolution to defend an ‘ally’ in the Middle East.

Davis believes this is a ‘cheeky’ question….implying that Toner would not know that the US does veto such resolutions and that the ‘ally’ is of course Israel. The line of questioning has nothing to do with Syria and Russia….but it tells us that Davis thinks Toner is too stupid to know the US uses vetos and that Davis would happily compare Israel with Syria which has happily gunned down peaceful protesters and tortures many of its own people, and that the US is comparable to Russia.

The payoff was of course that it was the US’s position on Israel that caused the violence in Syria….by being a bad example it led allowed Russia to veto the resolution and Syria to continue its violent strategy…if only the US would stop supporting the nasty little Jewish state we could have peace in the Middle East.

 So in the end it’s all Israel’s fault really. The democratic Israel which has defended itself against 60 years of Muslim attacks is comparable to a Syrian dictatorship which slaughters its own people. Israel being allowed to fight its corner and defend its borders and its very right to exist is in fact the instigator and leading protagonist of violence in the Middle East that gives cover to other regimes that fight viciously against the will of the people.

Israel is the rotting apple that turns all other nations bad. Israel supplies arms to other equally appalling regimes, it supplies nuclear technology to dangerously unstable countries and trains and equips terrorist organisations whilst the corrupt political class ignores the plight of its own massively poor and illiterate population….oh no that would be Pakistan. But Pakistan is Muslim….so that’s OK.”


The BBC sustained hatred towards Israel is one of the most disfiguring facets of the DState Corporation. I am advised by a Biased BBC contributor that Jeremy Bowen is doing his best to discredit Israel as usual….Israelis have no interest in peace, Israelis want the Arab dictators to stay in power and don’t support democracy in the Arab world…..missing out the probability that democracy isn’t the likely outcome of the ‘Arab Spring’…. Arab Spring spells uncertainty for Israel 

‘….back in Jerusalem, surrounded once again by the hatreds that never seem to change. Israeli police with clubs and automatic weapons were still on guard at the gates to the walled old city. Plenty of Israelis believe that Palestinians have no interest in peace. Palestinians feel the same about Israelis and were still simmering with anger and resentment about the expansion of Jewish settlements. The old Middle East suited the Israelis. But it is disappearing. A top Israeli journalist told me a few years ago that every morning the foreign ministry in Jerusalem offered a prayer for the health of President Mubarak. What he meant was that Israel believed the best way to manage the threats it
saw in the old Middle East was to make sure that nothing changed.’

Several points to be made about Bowen’s commentary;

1. I suppose watching several neighbouring states fall under the control of the Jew-hating Muslim Brotherhood is cause for concern, maybe Jeremy could bring his forensic skills to bear on that?
2. Might Israel cynicism about Palestinians interest in peace be influenced by years of vicious bloodthirsty terrorism. Jeremy is too busy equating Palestinian concerns with Israel to let us know.
3. Curious how Jerusalem is instantly associated with “hatreds” in his choice of words, almost like he was trying to create some sort of subliminal association.


Watching the BBC report on the bad and evil Israelis “opening fire” on harmless liberty loving and  defenceless “Pro-Palestinian” demonstrators in Syria i.e Boy Bashar’s unofficial attention diverting stormtroopers. This is a nice little hit and run job on Israel and Syrian State TV is such a reliable soure.

Israel In The Crosshairs Of The BBC

There’s plenty of other stuff on this blog about the BBC’s unbalanced bias against Israel after the President’s speech yesterday, but here’s one glaring example of their entrenched anti-Israel attitude.

This article about Netanyahu’s visit to the US and audience with the President includes an analysis inset from Wyre Davies, in which he sneers at the Israeli PM and at what he perceives to be trained seals in Congress, as well as at the nasty old Jewish Lobby. Surely there is a less snarky – less editorializing and impartial – way to describe the situation? In the middle of the article itself, though, the News Online sub-editor slips in this other bit of Davies’ wisdom:

Israel’s claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the “Arab Spring” anti-government uprisings, our correspondent adds.

Let’s consider the twisted logic here. Davies – approved by the BBC – is saying that protests against Arab dictators have (Davies uses the past tense, and so will I) already undermined Israel’s claim to being the only democracy in the village. In other words, according to the BBC protesting against dictators diminishes the democratic position of the only non-dictatorship.

And this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this Narrative from a Beeboid. Kevin Connolly, having departed his former post as US correspondent where he insulted thousands of people on air with a sexual innuendo to become a newly-minted Middle East correspondent, said the exact same thing two weeks ago.

Now if, in a few months’ time or so, an Arab/Muslim country actually achieved a state of democracy as a result of all these Arab Spring protests (which would be great and fine with me, regardless of the resulting government’s attitude towards Israel or the US), then there would be some validity to the BBC’s position. At this time, though, there is no such thing. In fact, the protests highlight the very fact the BBC says is undermined by them. But since BBC groupthink is that Israel is the worst of the bunch and the root cause of all strife in the Middle East (even as the President tells them to cut the crap), they see it exactly backwards.

The anti-Israel sentiment entrenched at the BBC twists their vision into seeing black as white. Protests against dictators undermine the idea that Israel is the only non-dictatorship in the region? Only in the minds of Beeboids. Sadly, it’s a set Narrative, clearly prepared in advance, with the latest opportunity seized with gusto. They want Israel to be undermined, to be diminished, to be delegitimized, and see it happening even where it’s the exact opposite.

BBC Hypocrisy: Context Edition

The BBC has figured out their Narrative on these leaked documents from the Israel/Palestinian peace process. Naturally, Israel gets the worst of it. But there is a moment of glaring hypocrisy.

Jerusalem’s troubled geography

Right from the start, we see the direction it’s headed.

The release of thousands of leaked documents apparently showing Palestinian willingness to compromise over Israeli settlements once again highlights Jerusalem’s troubled geography – and damages the credibility of both sides, writes the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Both sides look bad? I suppose that’s why so many Palestinians have been complaining that Fatah is undermining their hopes and dreams, because the documents are equally damaging to Israel’s credibility? Color me skeptical. But first, we get the usual BBC agenda-driven historical moment in a vacuum.

As a main topic of the leaked documents concerns East Jerusalem, it’s only right that the BBC sets the scene. We’re told that Israel “captured” East Jerusalem in the Six Day War, but are provided zero context (remember that word for later) as to why they were in a position to do so. All we’re told is: “For the Palestinians and many in the Arab world this was a disaster.” Yes, it’s Arabist Gospel that Israel was an unprovoked aggressor in that war, but the BBC needs to be dealing in facts, not fiction. Israel’s move into East Jerusalem is presented in a vacuum, and the reader is left to assume whatever they like.

Of course, in 1967, there was no such thing as Palestinians, outside of Arafat’s little activist group. The people of East Jerusalem were Jordanians then. So the BBC creates a little alternate history. The propaganda is so deeply entrenched in their minds – and, most likely, in BBC editorial policy on the subject – that they write it as fact. But after being educated by the BBC, the average BBC audience member must find it very distasteful to learn that many Israelis viewed this “disaster” as a “miracle”. I think we can see the Narrative taking shape.

Now for the bit where Jonathan Marcus explains how these documents make Israel look bad. First, he carefully explains the Palestinian position on East Jerusalem, the Settlements, and some of the larger picture. There is no mention of any Israeli concerns, as if it’s unimportant, although there’s a lone subheading about ‘holy places’. We’ll get to that shortly. Then Marcus writes this:

While the main thrust of these documents is to show a Palestinian Authority far more willing to offer compromises than the Israelis have ever been willing to admit, the story is not entirely one of sharp divisions and unbridgeable gulfs.

Now we see how Israel is made to look the villain even here. Nasty old Israel has been dishonest and lying about Palestinian negotiations, right? Who’s really not the valid partner in the peace process, eh, BBC? Forget about all those people complaining that ceding a little territory is proof that Fatah is failing their people, etc. It’s really Israel who doesn’t want peace.

The leaked documents show that in August 2008 Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to break with his hardliners, accepting that Jerusalem would in some way be partitioned, allowing both Israelis and the Palestinians to use it as their capital.

Yep, those nasty old hardliners, the real obstacle to peace, eh, BBC? A joint capital was always the only way, don’t you know. And what about those holy places?

This offer, made just a few months before US President Barack Obama took office, included provisions for the token return of some Palestinian refugees and on potentially the most contentious issue of all – access to the holy places at the heart of the city – interim arrangements involving Israel, the Palestinians, the Saudis and the Jordanians.

Indeed, the Palestinian side too seems to have been willing to envisage imaginative solutions to resolve the problems of access and control over the holy basin.

So you see, it’s….wait…the holy what now? Who has access to which holy places now, BBC? No context whatsoever. In fact, as those who look to the BBC for their information wouldn’t know, Jews are not allowed to pray at the only actual holy site in the entire religion: the Temple Mount. They are permitted to worship only at the base of a retaining wall around the perimeter of the compound. Jews are not permitted to worship or even dress too orthodox on the actual premises. Only Muslims are permitted. The fact is, this is tolerated by the Israeli government because all hell would break loose if they did anything about it. The BBC never honestly addresses this issue. No special segments on any religion programmes about how Judaism is the only major religion in the world not in control of its own holy site. (This always begs the question of how this situation could exist if Jews really had so much power over world affairs. They control everything except that? But that’s for another time.) But they are more concerned about Palestinian rights.

To which holy sites do Palestinians not currently have access, BBC? Which sites would be blocked if Israel controlled East Jerusalem? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Israel would prevent Muslims from worshiping at the site? Based on what evidence? Again, the reader is left in a vacuum, with details supporting only one side of the argument.

Now here it comes, the moment we all expected:

This of course was all more than two years ago. Since then a more right-wing Israeli government has come to power. It has set itself firmly against any division of Jerusalem. A US effort to freeze settlement building and to get substantive talks under way has also failed.

This is the context in which these leaked documents must be read.

BBC hypocrisy on display. After providing zero context about the key issues involved, the BBC’s middle east correspondent has the temerity to lecture you about context: the context which fits the Narrative, of course.

Israel = bad. It’s the fault of those nasty right-wingers. The Obamessiah’s efforts failed – oh, wait, sorry, He can’t fail, it’s the “US effort” which failed – due to nasty right-winger Israeli racists. Nothing to do with Palestinian intransigence or anything. The only correct solution is a partition of Jerusalem, with the Jews ceding the most important areas. Fatah is clearly a willing partner in peace. Only Israel is at fault.

The peace process is damaged now, frets Marcus. Fatah leadership looks weak now because – this must come as a shock as it’s contrary to what the BBC often tries to tell us – the Palestinians actually don’t want any compromise at all. Israel looks bad because, well, the only thing one can draw from this article is that we’re supposed to come in with the perspective that they’ve always been bad, except for that brief moment of unicorns and rainbows under Olmert. There really isn’t any evidence provided as to how much from the leaked documents make Israel look bad, which is why Marcus needs to actually come right out and tell you how to interpret the story. The change in government isn’t new information, Israel’s various offers haven’t been kept secret, so what’s so damaging here? Instead, the revelations are spun to make Israel appear to be dishonest. There’s nothing of substance.

It seems that, in the alternate history in which the BBC lives, Israel is already the bad guy before we even begin. And don’t bother looking to them for any context worth trusting.


Quite a few instances of deranged BBC bias today. Consider this dross from BBC correspondent Wyre Davies. You see it seems that the Israeli government has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of bringing peace. It’s all the fault of the Russians, apparently. Yes, the BBC have finally found some Russians that they don’t like – and they’re Jewish, of course. Quite a few mentions of the word fascism thrown around in this report – the BBC has no shame in trying to label the people who suffered the most grievous loss of life in the 20th century to fascism as fascists. There is a clear editorialising towards the end of this item that Israel is growing increasingly intolerant  and extreme. If ONLY it would move left, dismantle itself, and just jump in the sea. A spiteful item even by BBC base standards.