Category Archives: anti-Israel

The Reveal

By | |
10 Comments

It’s time the BBC stopped immortalising the theory that settlement building is the obstacle to peace, or should I say to peace talks.
There’s a lot more to the settlement issue than meets the eye, and we should be given the complete picture. At present, not renewing the moratorium is viewed by most people as merely defiant and provocative on the part of Israel. So it has come to symbolise Israel’s perceived intransigence.

If Israel acquiesced to such demands, say, merely for the sake of occupying the moral high ground in the eyes of the world, the Palestinians would ratchet up the stakes and make more demands. Past experience taught them that.

What the BBC needs to explore are the tremendous obstacles to peace, not merely to peace talks, that are put up by the Palestinians. The insistence on the right of return, which would undermine the fundamental animus of Israel, a ‘right’ that is demanded by Palestinians alone. The hatred for Jews, instilled into the population literally from the cradle to the grave. Then there is the matter of their kamikaze attitude to life and death, which is an insurmountable obstacle.
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to renew the freeze if the Palestinians recognised Israel as a Jewish state, but the Palestinian Authority dismissed the idea.” says the BBC, towards the end of the article.
I would have thought this deserved a little more prominence, and a little more analysis.
One thing the BBC is aware of. There is a disturbing development which might make the whole peace process irrelevant. South American countries are backing a unilateral declaration of independence by the Palestinians which would lead to a permanent state of conflict in the Middle East.

The BBC must start exploring, impartially, the whole story. Do we have to depend on Wiki to leak certain information? Must we be grateful for the revelations that several Arab leaders desire others to sort out Iran for them? With suspicions about such things confirmed, can people still defend Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons, and talk as though it’s merely Israel’s worry? Can people still talk about fighting Israel’s wars?

Let us have the full picture please BBC, then we can decide for ourselves where we want our loyalties to lie.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Don’t Mention the War

By | | ,
10 Comments

“Six months ago nine Turkish activists were killed attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The wave of international condemnation which followed led Israel to announce an easing of the blockade, but this week 22 Aid agencies issued a report saying it had made little difference on the ground. “

That’s from the programme information from the Sunday Programme’s website. It immediately reveals where the writer’s sympathy lies. Why? Because despite all the evidence that has emerged since the Mavi Marmara incident, they still present the nine who died as righteous and wronged, and gratuitously mention ‘international condemnation of Israel’ to endorse their own condemnation, and to remind us of Israel’s universal unpopularity.
Hanan Elmasu from Christian Aid said matters haven’t improved for Palestinians in the five months since the blockade was eased. She said the blockade is not necessary as you can ‘lift the blockade and meet Israel’s security needs’. Somehow or other. She was concerned that Palestinian children see their parents standing in line for food vouchers, adding erroneously, by accident or design, that ‘Gaza remains under occupation’.
Mark Regev was given the opportunity to respond, on a bad line because of the fires raging in Northern Israel. He began by thanking us for sending two helicopters. Understandably he sounded tired and distracted. He explained that Hamas is Israel’s enemy, not the Palestinian people. They are the victims of that extreme regime.
It must be tiresome to have to repeat time after time, to people who aren’t listening, that Israel is under constant threat. The BBC’s starting point is the problem. It hinges on their sentimental attachment to Palestinians, whom they naively picture as gentle folk with donkeys and olive-groves; somehow they are completely unwilling to recognise the Palestinian leaders’ visceral hatred for Jews and their unshakeable determination to eliminate Israel.
That, combined with the deliberate suppression of abundant substantive evidence of Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s genocidal intentions.

The BBC is content to approach the situation in Gaza as though a state of war did not exist. They continually push the idea that the blockade is wrong. Although we encourage the use of sanctions against our own enemies before resorting to the use of force, they have decided that Israel must use neither force nor sanctions.

The Sunday programme ended with two items on its favourite religion. A celebration of the East London Mosque. ‘A cultural centre and an integral part of community life’. We are told that the Mosque educates the community and brings it together. Hosting radical Anwar al-Awlaki who supported the Fort Hood shooting was an ‘administrative oversight,’ a spokesperson assures us. There has been some criticism of the strain of conservative Islam perpetuated by this mosque, but Islam is an ideological matter. They decide whether you should have photos in your home, and whether Muslim children should be protected from ‘UnIslamic’ matters such as music, art and school trips. How sweet.

Immediately after this generous portrayal of the East London Mosque, we hear that a hard-line muslim cleric in Pakistan, during Friday prayers, has offered a reward to anyone who will kill a Christian woman who is already facing death for blasphemy.

These three items are, apparently, unconnected.

I caught Yvette Cooper telling Andrew Marr that she had been to the Middle East, as shadow foreign secretaries are wont to do.
“Did you learn anything new?” asked Marr.
“What is important,” she replied sweetly, “are the personal stories. The Palestinian families separated from their olive trees by The Wall. and the children deprived of their football pitch.”
“I don’t know why they must build these beastly walls, “ she seemed to imply, “it’s so spiteful”
“Oh, yes, and I talked to the parents of a Jewish soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas.” she added, remembering balance. A Jewish soldier, kidnapped? Was she implying that as a combatant, he was asking for it? And was she assuming that the audience had not heard of Gilad Shalit’s four year incarceration by evil terrorists Hamas? Perhaps she herself had not.

Fires are raging in Northern Israel, and Israel’s enemies rejoice.

“Muslim.net, owned and operated by Aljazeera Publishing, published a series of posts about the fire raging through Northern Israel which can only be described as a celebration of the death, carnage, and misery caused by the blaze. “
Should the BBC report this?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

One Small Step

By | |
8 Comments

William Hague’s utterances about enhancing our special relationship with the Arab World which will inevitably mean ditching Israel, together with those images of Her Majesty the Queen decked out in Islam friendly headgear clearly indicate that this government has decided who to befriend and who to dump.

Pro-Israel blogs disagree as to whether George Osborne’s recent speech to a Jewish audience was genuinely friendly to Israel. He was certainly pretending it was, but various cliched references in his speech about settlement freezes and ending the blockade on Gaza suggested otherwise. Either he’s well intentioned but ill-informed, or he’s pulling the wool over our eyes with a superficially friendly gesture to British Jews before his colleagues segue seamlessly into full-on appeasement of Islam.
Relevant news appears on the non-BBC news, but not in the BBC news. If George Osborne must make statements about ‘peace in the Middle East’, he must look beyond the selective morsels BBC sees fit to pass on.

Muslim schools are doing their thing, the Guardian is obsessed with Israel to the point of insanity, the BBC is constrained by its charter, which forces it to express its feelings about Israel mainly in the form of bias by omission. Battling with such a slippery and enormous operation is daunting and challenging.

Robin Shepherd knows that the Palestinians repeatedly and openly declare that they view the two state solution as a stepping-stone. It’s merely stage one in their long-term goal, which is, of course, the elimination of Israel. What they mean by ‘Peace’, is a Middle East, and ultimately a world, without Jews. It is not settlements that are the obstacle, but Israel itself. Appeasing Islam’s inherent hatred of Jews will simply lead to further demands, and the BBC’s egregious omissions are masking this with dangerous, misguided and truly farcical politically motivated meddling.
Robin Shepherd:

”The British public, and the BBC’s tens of millions of viewers, readers and listeners around the world, are just not getting the information they need on this conflict to form a rounded judgement. It is deliberate censorship.
I know I have said all this before. But it consistently bears repeating since the role of the media, and particularly the ubiquitous BBC, in public perceptions about Israel and Palestinians is clearly vital. When it comes to this conflict the prejudices against one party, namely Israel, are so deeply entrenched that what emerges is much less like traditional journalism than the agitprop of political activism.
The BBC needs to be made aware that this is against their own charter and also makes a mockery of a once great institution’s claim to be taken seriously.”

To some of us the BBC looks like a giant self-serving clique of champagne socialists and populist hacks bound tightly together by an incestuous, impenetrable groupthink. They’ve constructed their own blockade on revealing the truth about Islam’s ultimate intentions. But there are chinks. A few items have already been allowed through. This two-part BBC World service programme by Wendy Robbins about antisemitism, for example.
One or two small steps for the BBC, one giant step for mankind. Robin Shepherd concludes:

“In the meantime just pass stories like this around to as many people as you can. If an appeal to basic journalistic standards won’t make them mend their ways, perhaps an appeal to their sense of shame will. It’s always worth a try.”

There is a wonderful article on Daphne Anson’s blog all about Charles Moore. He ‘gets it’. He has a lot to say about the BBC, and I urge you to read it all.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Our Culture

By | | , , ,
18 Comments





The Guardian’s favourite cartoonist.
“Steve Bell – At the centre of our culture”
(David Yelland. Today radio 4.)

Update: New Sharon cartoon to replace previous image that wasn’t by the Guardian’s favourite cartoonist Steve Bell. Sorry for any inconvenience, and thanks to Mr Gregory for pointing out my mistake.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Just Another Brick in the Wall

By | |
10 Comments

Anyone who heard BBC radio 4 and BBC World Service news this morning might have been surprised, and perhaps dismayed, to hear the headline, broadcast several times over in ominous tones, that Israel is about to construct a new ‘hi-tech’ wall on its border with Egypt. Someone in the BBC headline department evidently thought it would make an interesting headline.

The listener, probably cross at still being stranded atop the Clapham omnibus, might assume this was a continuation of what he likes to think of as the expansionist separation wall. “Apartheid Israel is at it again.” he may think, irritably.

Obviously there are walls and barriers to prevent illegal immigration all over the world, but these rarely make headlines. As it happens, even this particular one is nothing new. Not even to the BBC, who reported it at the planning stage in February 2008.

At first it seemed that the BBC wasn’t going to flesh out the headline at all, but by mid-morning they did indeed put something on the website, although other, perhaps more impartial, news agencies have been both more forthcoming and more contemporaneous. Al Jazeera for instance, explained in January this year:

“Thousands of African and other migrants have come to Israel through its desert border with Egypt over the last few years, fleeing conflict back home or searching for a better life in Israel. The PM added that while his country would continue to accept refugees from conflict zones, “we cannot let tens of thousands of illegal workers infiltrate into Israel through the southern border and inundate our country with illegal aliens”.

also, here:

”But this new fence is ostensibly different to the others. The Israel-Egypt border has become a major transit route for economic migrants, asylum-seekers and drug smugglers, and some estimates suggest that over 1,000 people are crossing the border into Israel every month.”

When I thought they weren’t going to reveal the story at all, I might have written: “on the off-chance that someone’s curiosity had been aroused by the emotive headline, the BBC could have been more expansive” which is another way of saying that if they are going to make suggestive announcements about Israel’s ‘walls’, they must also explain precisely why they’re erecting the wretched things.
But now that some context has been provided for anyone who cares to search for it, I can still point out that there is one awkward bit of explaining left for them to do
Why, when Israel is such a cruel, racist and brutal state, do people go to such lengths to get there?

P.S. Who, I wonder, was the genius that scheduled the BBC 1 Panorama about Saudi-inspired education in UK faith schools against the C4 Dispatches programme about Islamic terrorism in Islamabad?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Give a Dog a Bad name

By | | ,
22 Comments

Most websites have a defined flavour, philosophy or political outlook, but categorising and compartmentalising things too readily leads to dismissing them out of hand, and B-BBC is lumbered with, and perhaps hampered by, a right-wing label or some other hackle-raising tag such as Zionist, which serves only to obstruct communication.
I’m sure many B-BBCers scroll past my contributions. That is a pity, but abstention is preferable to ill-informed anti-Israel sniping.

As it happens, I’m not a pro-Israel web-warrier. What motivates me is the injustice of the BBC’s one-sided presentation of matters related to Israel, and the harm this is doing, not only to Jews, but to society as a whole.

Robin Shepherd draws our attention to a comment made by one of ‘British Jewry’s senior leaders’ who criticises Israel in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same perceived misdemeanors that any run of the mill BBC follower might come up with, but with the additional complaint that Israel is giving ‘him’ a bad name. For this unfortunate, but in some ways understandable situation, I blame such people’s inability to look beyond the BBC and the MSM. After all British Jews are the same as any other Brit – almost indistinguishable from the real thing. (That’s a joke) Why would they not be as gullible as the next man, the one permanently stuck on that wretched Clapham omnibus?
The trouble is, anti-Israel campaigners use Jewish critics of Israel as aces in a pack choc-full of left-wing Israeli and Jewish human rights groups who are willing to hand over all the low-hanging fruit the vultures crave, on a plate, peeled, pitted and sliced.

I’m leading to something else, however. The founder of Human Rights Watch is a person one would hope the BBC would sit up and take notice of. He’s even a strong supporter of Obama, and certainly no right-wing mouth frother. Robert L Bernstein. In 2009 he criticised his own organisation:

“Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective” he said.
“Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighbourhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.”
H/T Elder of Ziyon (again)
On November 10th 2010, 88 year old Robert L Bernstein gave a lengthy and illuminating speech at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He tackled everything, from his own reasons for founding Human Rights Watch, his resignation from the chair of HRW in 1998 at the age of 75, and the enormous subject of HRW and the Middle East.

Of the UN Human Rights Commission: “so critical of Israel that any fair-minded person would disqualify them from participating in attempts to settle issues involving Israel, got the idea that they could get prominent Jews known for their anti-Israel views to head their investigations.”

He covers Richard Goldstone, the flotilla incident, the nature of the enemy Israel is facing, and how the Human Rights Watch board ignores factors that they are well aware of, but which don’t suit their anti-Israel agenda; and all this flying in the face of what HRW is meant to be about.

I was intrigued by the excerpts I read on EOZ blog, so I printed off this speech, seven pages of it, to read properly away from the screen. I recommend it. If only the BBC personnel would have a look at it, and allow it to filter through the communication barrier which precludes pro-Israel sentiment from reaching their hearts and minds.

While researching Robert Bernstein I came across this hate-filled rant from someone who has let his twisted imagination run away with him, named William C Carlotti. So for balance I’m including it in this post.

For your information, if you haven’t scrolled past, I restrict my pro-Israel advocacy to this blog. Because, 1) I hope to catch the eye of the reader who would dismiss a wholly pro-Israel blog out of hand, and, 2) I am interested in the BBC’s role in a creating a climate where anti Israel feeling flourishes, and exists in abundance in an otherwise intelligent public, which includes Mick Davis and his ilk.
If you have been, thanks for listening.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Turkish Delight

By | |
9 Comments

Prolific blogger Elder of Ziyon provides invaluable information about the Middle East. If you miss a day, you’re lost. His article on Saturday 13th, now several scrolling miles away, linked to this, for me, heart-sinking news about a new film in a popular but notoriously propagandist series of Turkish films entitled “Valley of the Wolves.” It is based on the Mavi Marmara incident, Turkish version. Elder’s and Michael Tottens’s articles both explain that the Turkish public is pretty much in the dark about the I/P conflict in general, and the flotilla incident in particular.

“The Turkish media reported a grossly distorted version of the events, describing the attackers as “activists” and the Israelis who fought back as murderers. ”

(Not unlike the BBC. ) The film itself is based on a lie. Pity they didn’t consult Turkish journalist SefiK Dinc for advice on the plot but that would have spoiled the fun.
Imagine my surprise when I turned on BBC4 yesterday World News Today. 20:42There was Zeinab Badawi (who has history,) introducing a report from Kathy Harcombe about this horrendous film.

Z.B.)”The Israeli raid on the Turkish-led aid flotilla bound for Gaza last May caused international outrage and sparked protests around the world. Well now a film is being made in Turkey based on the incident in which nine activists were killed. The movie is an action thriller in which the hero is on a quest for justice. Kathy Harcombe reports on the impact of the film on diplomatic relations.”

Over excerpts from the film Ms Harcombe begins:

“This is the moment the Israelis boarded the Mavi Marmara as it was heading towards Gaza with aid supplies. The troops are attacked with sticks and poles as they attempt to stop the ship breaking the Israeli blockade. In the ensuing violence nine Turkish activists were killed. The real events were controversial enough, now there’s the film!”

(The film we are seeing has ludicrous subtitles.)

“The film spin-off from the hugely popular TV series Valley of the Wolves about an undercover agent who takes on Turkey’s enemies. This time the hero sets out to hunt down the Israeli commander who ordered the raid on the flotilla and to avenge the killings. It’s abundantly clear whose side the film-makers are on. The Valley of the Wolves series has already been criticised for promoting nationalism and racial hatred. An episode earlier this year showed Israeli security forces kidnapping children. It caused a huge diplomatic row between the two countries.”

Kathy H seems to have noticed that the film is a tad one-sided; Zeinab, however, appears undaunted. She carries on regardless, bringing in a London-based Turkish analysts named Ziya Meral to point out the increasing divide between Turkey and Israel. When he strays onto the broader picture she reins him in – back to the flotilla:

Z.B. “ Just sticking with the Gaza flotilla and the nine Turkish activists who were killed of course that created a huge stir in the country – to what extent has that exacerbated tensions between Turkey and Israel?”

Zeinab is extremely interested in Turkey’s new-found championing of the Palestinian cause, and Turkey’s willingness to ‘speak out more openly against Israel.’

“There’s been a great deal of international criticism of course of the blockade on the Palestinian people of GGAAZZAA so has that enabled the ruling party in Turkey to become more outspoken…..?”

Why the BBC would wish to publicise such a film at all, when they ignore so many other more important stories concerning Israel, is a mystery, but as Kathy Harcombe has noticed that this Turkish film is one-sided, I have noticed that whatever is in Zeinab Badawi’s genes, it sure aint impartiality.
I used to think BBC4 was the least evil of the BBC’s channels. Silly me.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Curb Your Tonge

By | | , ,
4 Comments

Nick Clegg seemed television-friendly and attractive before the general election, but after gaining all that popularity during the first election debate he threw most of it away, almost snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Neither the Lib Dems’ underwhelming performance in the election nor Nick’s astonishing indecision when the balance of power lay in his hands have curtailed the public’s enthusiasm for the deputy PM. Well, maybe a tiny bit.

The current Lib Dems are not known for their support of Israel. Nick Clegg was all for disarming them, which the BBC probably found rather endearing. Then he tried to distance himself from Jenny Tonge’s unfortunate remarks about organ harvesting, but he wouldn’t ditch her; no doubt the BBC felt not ditching her was the right thing not to do.

Fancy making a rash promise in your election mani-fiasco, then having to admit that you didn’t realise what you were saying at the time? Nick got away with it though, credibility intacto. Didn’t realise how bad the deficit was then, but we do now? Sorry.

Robin Shepherd has pointed out a strange thing. Nick Clegg has spoken at a Liberal Democrats Friends of Israel lunch. (lol) ‘We got it wrong on Israel.’ Whaddya think of that, BBC?
He said he recognised there had “not always been an equal voice for Israel within his party”. That’s certainly one way of putting it.
He didn’t mention Jenny Tonge, nor Lib Dem Peer Lord Phillips who spoke at a PSC meeting about America being in the grip of the Israel Lobby.

But Jenny Tonge is at it again. She has spoken in a debate on the strategic defence review in the House of Lords. 3:33 pm.
In her muddled view the Israel lobby is forcing us to be nice to Israel. Then we can use Israel as a launching pad to attack Iran, and dispense with the Ark Royal etc. Cuts, you see. Moving on from this illogical supposition, she says Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has alienated the Muslim world, which she thinks is at the root of terrorism worldwide. If Israel stopped persecuting the Palestinians there would be world order and peace. Just like that. She does look a bit like Tommy Cooper, without the fun.

Didn’t realise how badly he got things wrong then, but he does now? Is that it? Or does he endorse all this nonsense? Plenty of otherwise sensible people apparently do, thanks to the BBC’s relentlessly partial reporting of the Israel/Palestine conflict, despite the best efforts of Jewish tentacles, the Israel lobby, the holocaust industry and Zionist control of the universe.

Thanks to Jonathan Hoffman for the H/T.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

No Change at the BBC.

By | |
9 Comments

Jon Donnison has a scoop. “Stop Press! No Change!”
He’s bursting to tell us that the UN says there has been ‘no material change for people in Gaza since Israel was “easing” its economic blockade of the Palestinian territory’.

As if that wasn’t enough of a sensation, John Ging, head of UN operations in Gaza has more astounding revelations.
“There’s been no material change for the people on the ground here in terms of their status, the aid dependency, the absence of any recovery or reconstruction, no economy,”

Jon Donnison must have been keen to get that off his chest. Not quite so keen to tell us about John Ging’s little problem with his personal protection, however, which is slightly more interesting than the ‘no change’ story, by anybody’s standards.
There are quite a few things that Jon Donnison finds too dull to pass on. For example the revelation that Hamas had admitted that 600-700 of its men were killed during Operation Cast Lead.

No change at the BBC, though. At every opportunity since Operation Cast Lead the BBC website has given fluctuating figures (ranging from 1409 to 1166) for what they call ‘Palestinian deaths’ but are always careful to mention that three of the 13 Israelis who died were civilians.
Here, they’ve got three sets of figures, the highest is from the Pali Human Rights Centre.
(total=1409)
Of those, 326 are supposedly children under 17, and 916 are “civilians”. An NB says 250 “Hamas Police Officers” are excluded from the figure.

This doesn’t appear to add up, but never mind, because now Hamas admit that they lied about the civilians; so Israel’s claims about that were correct after all, despite what the UN and Richard Goldstone would have us believe.

Anyone who cites the UN as a worthy judge of Israel’s conduct, take a peak at the countries whose reps spoke at a meeting this month.
“Egypt, Qatar, Tunisia, Malaysia, Morocco, Sudan, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Libya, UAE, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, Nigeria, Tanzania, the PA – and Israel.”

Impartiality in their genes? I think not. And to the BBC none of this is news. So no change.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Next Act. Supreme Court.

By | |
19 Comments

Another episode in the everyday story of the Balen Report.
Last time they decided that “the information sought was held by the corporation for the purposes of journalism, it was effectively exempt from production under the Act, even if it was also being held for other purposes.”
When applied to the BBC, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t mean ‘Freedom’ or ‘Information’ – it just means ‘Act’.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.