Category Archives: anti Israel. pro Palestinian

Last night’s BBC World Service broadcast two notable items for insomniacs. From Our Own Correspondent aired an old episode, first heard in 2007, by Martin Bell.
As a BBC correspondent Martin Bell had been “trained to be objective”, but later wondered whether such a thing could really be achieved.
TV news is the most powerful medium that has yet been devised, he said. Politicians and generals take account of it and adapt their policies accordingly. He spoke about impartiality, and warned against ‘false equivalency,’ and after giving what seemed to me a very shaky example concerning Hitler, (he persecuted the Jews, but he rescued the economy) he concluded that reporters should be aware of the moral ground and not stand equally between good and evil. But all the time questions were begged, and answers were not forthcoming. I’d like to have heard his view on another item that disturbed my slumbers. An episode of Hard Talk featuring Michael Morpurgo. I’ve heard most of the content before. He dragged out the incident during his infamous visit to Gaza, where he saw a sight that convinced him that the IDF deliberately target children. He wouldn’t hear any of the multifaceted explanations that might have shed new light on what he saw then, and he obviously hasn’t changed his mind now. Stephen Sackur even had a go, and accused him, gently, of naivety. I see from my earlier article I noted that Paxo also ‘had a go’ at him on Newsnight.
“Children were innocently picking up rubble. They weren’t shooting at anyone, they weren’t throwing stones, yes there was an exclusion zone, but a young man was shot in the leg, and that means the Israelis deliberately target children.”
He felt very very strongly about it, so like a good schoolteacher, he felt it was his privilege, nay, his duty as a famous storyteller, to side with the Palestinians against the Israelis.
I can’t say I warm to indignant smugness, especially when it’s wrong-headed and comes from a sentimental school-teacherish bloke who dresses only in clashing shades of red.

Two of the Today guest editors bucked a familiar BBC trend. Two in a row. Yesterday Tracey Emin courageously admitted that she Voted Tory, (gasp) and our Thursday, Jewish guest editor chose to explore leadership with special reference to the Middle East, whereupon Sarah Montague, the BBC’s premier advocate of the “talk to Hamas strategy’ was dispatched to interview Tony Blair. Tony Blair may not be everyone’s favourite person, but having settled into his post as Middle East Peace Envoy it started to look, to some people, as if he was gradually discovering what was going on.

One wonders whether he felt, like Tracey Emin, that it was difficult to bare his soul openly to the Today audience without obsequiously justifying himself, because some of his answers seemed designed to pre-emptively appease a cynical reception. For example:

“There will always be incidents that go, …it might be acts of terrorism…. it might be raids that go wrong. There will always be reasons why people retreat to their comfort zone and say “I’m not dealing with these people”

Which sounded as though he too was contemplating the inevitability of the Talk to Hamas strategy. Then again, on Israel’s security problem. Because, thanks in no small measure to the BBC, the separation wall has acquired notoriety as a disingenuous excuse for land grab, rather than what it really is, a lifesaving protective barrier against terrorism.

“Look. The Israelis worry hugely about their security.
And their security worry is a genuine worry.
They haven’t just made it up.
They have their genuine security problem.”

Please believe me, he almost pleaded. I do protest! Then he continued with a bizarre and startling example of moral equivalence.

“As a result of that they go into the Palestinian areas. As a result of that many Palestinians feel the weight of the occupation upon them. That makes them more angry; they therefore want to retaliate.
The Palestinians have a genuine worry. particularly with things like settler violence starts [sic] on the increase, they think ‘will these guys ever get out and let us run our state.”

Who is ‘retaliating’ and who is ‘instigating’ here? Let’s leave that aside though, and ask, is Tony Blair really equating ‘settler violence’ with suicide bombings, murderous assaults and rocket attacks on civilians? By jove, it seems he really is.
Sarah moved the discussion on.

“Let’s move on the western leadership because that’s the other big player. I wonder to what extent western leadership has made things more difficult. We encouraged the Palestinian elections. The EU funded them. But when there was an outcome that we didn’t like, which was Hamas being elected, we withdrew aid, and we ignored the result. And I wonder when you look back at what has happened in the past year across the Middle East, and you wonder whether that was a mistake?”

Having avoided looking at the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships, what was on Sarah’s mind was the Arab Spring. But Tony Blair wasn’t quite finished. He was referring in some way to the IRA, and apparently warming to the idea of talking to Hamas.

“I think historically the difficulty of the west has always been, and you know, we faced the same difficulties with the IRA, the circumstances where people are not foreswearing the use of terrorism to advance their political objectives, can you interact with them or not? I actually think there is an opportunity now, with what is happening across the region, because after all, frankly we will be dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are associated with them all over the region. Now, I think if Hamas were prepared to at least say ‘look, so far as we’re concerned we’ll pursue our political objectives, but by non violent means, I think that would give you a far greater opportunity of creating circumstances in which you get all of the Palestinian parties in some sort of dialogue.”

Good luck with that. Good luck with Hamas pursuing its political objectives by non violent means. Perhaps a polite notice of eviction will do the trick. Dear Israel, kindly vacate the premises, Yours sincerely, Ismail Hanyieh. Or perhaps not.

Sarah persists.

“We’ve slightly been forced into this because as you say the Muslim Brotherhood now is actually looking like the more moderate of those
Islamist groups rising in Egypt, But back in parliamentary elections as far back as 2005 they did well, and yet we were still supporting and promoting Hosni Mubarak. I wonder whether we have been guilty of thinking that our self interest lies in supporting stability, and making sure that we’ve got intelligence on terrorism and we’ve prioritised that over promoting democracy, over our own values.”

Here the BBC’s real attitude is laid bare. We are, apparently, guilty of supporting despots and tyrants and ignoring peoples’ human right to democracy, and all for a selfish little bit of peace, stability and a tip off or two about potential acts of terrorism. It ignores the nature of Islam, and has done all along. It projects our concept of democracy onto people who haven’t been pressed to be explicit or specific about their aims and aspirations. Sarah criticises our desire for stability as though it was misguided. But isn’t that what the very people who are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood want for themselves, over and above many other things? Could that be part of the reason why they like the Muslim Brotherhood and why they voted for Hamas? Do they prefer order and certainty over chaos and uncertainty. They opt for the certainty of the Islamic conservatism with which they are familiar, over what they see as the decadent and directionless west. But nobody asks these questions.

Tony Blair is unable to say what he might really wish to. What I hope he really wishes to. He is constrained by political correctness and reluctance to risk alienating the audience, or perhaps because he really doesn’t know what he’s been dealing with all along, throughout his Peace Envoyship. He waffles, insinuates and emotes, but he doesn’t and can’t come out with an outright condemnation of Islamism or an explanation as to why our own concept of democracy might differ from that of the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Libyans, the Syrians and the Palestinians.
And as for Sarah and the BBC, they still refuse to see what is in front of their noses.

Excellent post here showing how the BBC manipulates situations to ensure they conform to the narrative and of course the narrative means the Jews are always baaaaad. Do you think Palestinians sign off the BBC script?

You made me write this
I didn’t want to do it, I didn’t want to do it
You made me do this
and all the time you knew it
I guess you always knew it.

I know. I’m no Judy Garland. But I really wish I didn’t have to bother addressing the ridiculously biased reporting of yet another publicity stunt by Palestinian activists.
‘Freedom Riders’
Look at that photo! What do they look like? Not Rosa Parks, that’s for sure.
The BBC ‘s report ends thus: “There are around 500,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Settlements are illegal under international law although Israel disputes this.”
Every BBC article has one of these. Israel disputes this because it’s not true. The allegation of illegality is ‘without foundation’. But we’ve become accustomed to seeing it. Should anyone fail to reach the intended conclusion after wading through the article, it’s hammered home at the end.

I was impressed by a speech that was delivered at the conference “The Perils of Global Intolerance: The UN and Durban lll” by Shelby Steele. It’s called ‘The Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood’
He does compare the victimhood status of the Palestinians with that of the civil rights movement, but concludes that perpetual victimhood and an obsession with the blame game merely displaces facing a harsh reality, namely acknowledging and coming to terms with ones own shortcomings.

“you are humiliated and you say,”Well you know the real truth is I am not free. Racism still exists. Zionism is my problem. The State of Israel is my problem. That is why I am so far behind and that is why I cannot get ahead.”

His main point concerns what he calls ‘poetic truths’. That is, the Palestinian narrative that has caught the imagination of the media and the ‘liberal left’. No amount of facts can dislodge poetic truths. Once poetic truths have taken hold, real truths count for nothing.

“Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does.”

The tone and content of the BBC report is a typical example of the romanticised narrative that is the basis of the BBC’s poetic truth. For the facts, read the JPost report. From the Israeli perspective, certainly. But all the better for that.
So 50 reporters and photographers were there, chasing the poetic truth. The BBC must know that flocks of cameramen regularly hang around Palestinian stone throwers and activists hoping to catch some poetry in motion. If there’s no action they’ve even been known to set some up. But the BBC doesn’t quite tell us that. “The West Bank Freedom Riders punched above their weight, drawing a lot of publicity for what was a relatively small event,” says Jon Donnison, “and I’m helping by spreading the word,” he implied, though no doubt he disputes this.

“Palestinians from the West Bank are not allowed to cross into Jerusalem without Israeli permission.” says the BBC, simplifying the truth so that the restrictions appear discriminatory and unreasonable, adding:
“Israel says such restrictions are for security reasons”
The ‘Freedom Riders’ demand unrestricted freedom of movement. They can surely have it when Israelis have the freedom from fear of being blown up on a bus.
The BBC quotes the freedom activists, so why not also include some Israeli quotes, for balance? I suppose certain people would consider that too “pro Israel”.

JPost:

“It is Israelis who have issues with transportation because of fear of terror attacks,” an Israeli passenger said. “These are buses that are protected against stones and bullets in case of Palestinian violence.”
“It’s not racism, it is security,” she said.
“When I can walk freely in Ramallah with my children, they can ride on my bus.”

“Another passenger, Haggai Segal, who wore a skullcap, said he had asked the Palestinian activists, “‘Can I go on a bus in Ramallah as a Jew?’ They answered: ‘I could not.’” He shook his head at the comparison to the civil rights movement.“This is not a Martin Luther King bus”.

What’s wrong with mentioning these points? I know my words will have no impact on your poetic truth BBC, but if YOU, purporting to be an impartial news organ, make a start by allowing the real truth to reach the public, it might filter through. But in the meantime I have to keep doing what you’re making me do.

You make me angry sometimes, you make me sad
But there are times, Beeb, you make me feel so bad.
You made me sigh for, I didn’t want to tell you
I didn’t want to tell you
I need some news that’s true, yes I do, deed I do, you know I do

Give me, give me, give me what I cry for
You know you ought to tell the public what you lie for
You know you made me loathe you.

Doobedo.

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.

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.

A 25 year old Palestinian Dad is driving home with his baby son in the car when both are cruelly murdered by Jews throwing a large rock into their car. Can you imagine the publicity the BBC would afford such a story? It never happened, of course, but THIS did. Was this savagery, to borrow a term used by Galloway towards me the other day, another example of Palestinian outreach? Why the lack of any BBC coverage? Don’t the lives of these human beings count? Don’t they merit our attention – or would doing so spoil the Palestinians as most oppressed people ever narrative. You tell me.
Hat-tip to Martin.

Radio 4 Today has taken pro Palestinian advocacy to new heights. Their loathing for Israel trumped their love for for Obama, because having dismissed his speech as pandering to the Jewish lobby, they’ve ignored it altogether.
Jeremy Bowen spoke on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, protesting his innocent self righteousness, which he expects us to take at face value, as he does himself.

We heard an emotive item about a Palestinian student debate, (“Did they pick the most unpopular kid to represent Israel?”) topped off with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, notorious Arabist, making ludicrous statements about Israel provoking surrounding Arab states, including Iran. Which I suppose is true, as Iran does find Israel’s existence an unacceptable provocation.
Wyre Davies found some understanding Israelis to put the case for the Palestinians.

Later James Naughtie did talk to Daniel Taub, Israel’s new ambassador, putting a barrage of loaded accusations about illegal settlements, and smothering the life out of what might have been an illuminating interview for both Israel-bashers and Israel admirers.

Here are some of the things Sir Jeremy said:

“It’s not the only option, but what they’re pointing to is the unreasonableness of the sham that negotiations under Oslo Madrid, in 1993… it’s brought them absolutely nothing, and the settlements have gone on stealing their land. […] You’re right. It is a sign of desperation. […] they just want to continue negotiations in a court that will listen to them and not ignore them”.

Naughtie emotes about Obama’s ‘electoral difficulties’.

[…] Israel and America are missing the point. Palestine is not a threat to Israel […] What is much more of a threat to Israel is setting fire to their relationships in the region. With Turkey, with Egypt. Already terribly bad with Iran, with the rest of the world. With the Arab street, opinion coming out of the new Arab awakening, is much more threatening for Israel than anything that Palestine can say[…]the Palestinians are desperate, they don’t like the sham of the quartet and the Oslo Madrid process, they’re asking to be heard in a different court.”

I won’t go into the outrageous nightmarish bias that oozed from that interview. Feel free to ask, if there any doubts.

Who wouldn’t vote for the bid for Palestinian statehood? Why, I’d vote for it myself after reading Wyre Davies!
Anyone who relied on this article couldn’t really help feeling that the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for recognition at the UN is anything other than the right thing to do.
After all, Wyre writes, Israel was less than euphoric about the glorious Arab Spring. In fact they were lukewarm! The right-wing Israeli government ‘they say’, opposes the bid because it would not lead to peace, he continues, and they give warnings and make threats without offering constructive alternatives.
Israel even refuses to countenance perfectly reasonable suggestions that it should stop building in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land! If the Israelis won’t accede to the Palestinians’ demands and accept their “pre-conditions”, he appears to be saying, what else is there left for a poor Palestinian to do but press ahead with a unilateral bid for statehood? The US is the only friend Israel has, and that’s only because Obama wants to take the credit for bringing about ‘Peace’. No, Wyre concludes, all the EU countries will get together and do the right thing, make life very uncomfortable for Israel. Israel has been busy cooking up a case against the bid. Wyre doesn’t quite don’t know what that is, but he suspects they haven’t got a leg to stand on.

Pity Wyre Davies listens to Jeremy Bowen and not Robin Shepherd.
If he did he might have added a few suggestions as to why Israel’s case is worthy of being explained to the mob. As it is, the comments below Wyre’s article display an astonishing degree of ignorance and hate. One in particular merely reiterates two discredited media stories which were manipulated to exhibit Israel’s malevolence, the notorious Al Durah incident and the Gaza beach explosion. Despite the fact that they are off topic, inflammatory and untrue, the comment remains.
So, for the mob, here are a couple of points that Wyre hasn’t mentioned, which Robin Shepherd does.
The bid is a blatant attempt to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, thereby avoiding making concessions themselves.
The 1967 borders, (ceasefire lines) upon which the bid for statehood is based are indefensible for Israel. The American veto will mean the bid goes the General Assembly where it’s success will be a symbolic gift to Israel’s enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood. Robin Shepherd writes:

“If you watch the BBC or read the Guardian you obviously won’t be aware of this, but opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say).

As I noted in an article in May, a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”.

Two thirds supported the proposition that: “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state”. And 71 percent said Yasser Arafat was right to reject Bill Clinton’s two-state peace proposals in 2000 and 2001.

In other words, the Israelis have always been in the near impossible situation of being asked to negotiate with people who plainly don’t want any long term peace involving the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate state with a secure future, whatever their leaders say about recognising Israel to gullible Western media.”

Meanwhile, Catherine Ashton hasn’t achieved consensus at the EU, and the UK government wavers, and is being put under pressure by members of the US Congress.
“There are no circumstances where Britain should be voting ‘yes’ unless you want to give support to the continuation of terrorist activities,” said Allen West, A Florida Republican.

So Wyre, dust off your impartiality manual, and start delivering the full picture. Otherwise you should be on half pay. Half a story, half the salary.