Category Archives: anti-Israel

Just Journalism accuses the BBC of downplaying Hezbollah’s history of violence. They cite two pointedly non committal BBC articles about Hezbollah, save the brief, hastily written afterthoughts.
‘The US and Israel view Hezbollah as a terrorist group.’ and: ‘Hezbollah’s military wing is proscribed in the UK as a terrorist organisation’

In case BBC viewers don’t know, Hezbollah is a genocidal Iran-backed Islamist terrorist organisation hell-bent on finishing off Israel for starters, and the rest of the western world for mains.
The ideology of Hezbollah has been summarised as Shi’i radicalism. Why the BBC wishes to play down such a threatening, terrible thing we can’t be sure, but the matter of intimidation looms in the background menacingly.

A B-BBC reader alerted me to this JPost article about recently declassified information concerning Hezbollah’s alarming rearmament campaign in south Lebanon.

The comments below the article unanimously feel that, in the eyes of the world, Israel is presumed guilty even before any event occurs, let alone a trial or a Goldstone-style report.

Echoing the successful strategy used by Hamas in Gaza, preparations in Lebanon, for the media war at least, take shape.

“Hizbullah has embedded its weapon caches, bunkers, command-and-control centers and missile stockpiles – and stationed its armed personnel – in and alongside hospitals, mosques, schools and homes.”

“Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists place themselves and their weapons in the heart of populated residential areas and launch rocket fire from there against Israel’s civilian population. When Israel is forced to come to the defense of its citizens, noncombatants on the enemy side, cynically placed in the line of fire by Hamas and Hizbullah, are unfortunately killed.”

The BBC knows that something of this sort is happening. Here’s an article from last April, painstakingly non judgmental and liberally sprinkled with quote marks, but it states that Hezbollah is arming with “improved” missiles, with Syrian and Iranian backing.

If the MSM plays this down, it paves the way for a repeat of the condemnation and outrage that cascaded down upon Israel from the BBC and media worldwide during Op. Cast Lead.
If, on the other hand, the BBC were to bring these latest developments to the attention of its audience, the situation would have to be looked at from a Western perspective by the British Broadcasting Corporation this time round.

“With the UN dominated by states that are both hypercritical of Israel and unwilling or unable to make moral distinctions between democracies and dictatorships, it is highly unlikely that any significant public acknowledgement of Hizbullah’s moral abuses will be forthcoming.”

“But the IDF is right to make the effort. Indeed, it needs to broaden its outreach, and ensure that this information is made available as widely as possible – to the media, no matter how unenthusiastic the reception, and in smaller briefings for key politicians and officials.”

If you’re waiting for it to make headlines on the BBC, don’t hold your breath.
The BBC is more interested in stories that cast Israel in the usual, questionable light; such as “Israel admits Gaza flotilla raid ‘mistakes’ “ and another boatload of humanitarian aid that Israel won’t allow to dock in Gaza. From Gaddafi, with love.

For some unknown reason Paddy O’Connell of Radio 4’s B.H. went to Jerusalem and spoke to Saeb Erekat and Gilliad Sher, the chief negotiators ten years ago, at Bill Clinton’s Camp David summit.

Erekat was in negotiating mode: “if I can’t offer the Palestinians the removal of Jewish settlements, Hamas will win” he declared, a tactic which requires Hamas to play bad cop to the PLO’s good cop, adding “I’m being honest” (thus implanting the opposite notion into this listener’s head.)
80,000 – 130,000 Jewish settlers will eventually have to be uprooted said Sher.

The issue of Jewish settlements is the only obstacle to peace that is ever mentioned on the BBC. Nobody brings up the Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel or renounce violence. If settlements are *Israel’s* obstacle to peace, the Palestinians’ obstacle to peace is that they don’t even want peace.

Jewish settlements in ‘Palestinian designated areas’ are universally considered an outrage and provocation while a considerable number of Arabs are citizens of Israel, not to mention the fact that entire Arab countries reject any Jewish presence whatsoever, an anomaly that is almost universally accepted without the raising of half an eyebrow.

Jews have evicted fellow Jews and have stated that they’re prepared to do so again for peace, whereas there’s little indication that Palestinians are prepared to accept Israel’s existence or cease attacking Israelis.
Jews have coexistence as their goal. Many Arabs have the elimination of Israel as theirs.

Just let’s have the BBC discuss that situation realistically for a change.
Another gripe I have with such reports is the continual subliminal imagery they carry. This might seem trivial, but if you know how advertising works you’ll admit it’s not.

At the beginning of the item Paddy paints a sound picture. Up close and personal, a Palestinian market trader, stereotypical variety, speaks sadly of his dwindling hopes for peace, for him and his little son, five years old. (aaahhh) The ceramic tiles he sells are decorated with multiculturally religious symbols, denoting that he’s the good guy.
The Israeli counterpart, on the other hand, is an awkward looking bar mitzvah boy, distant and impersonal, not very aaahhh, and not very sympathetic. A mention of CCTV cameras in the background is thrown in for good measure.

See what they do here? They make Palestinians appear sympathetic, hard-done-by and tolerant, and Jews distant, aloof and surveillant. This happens too often for it to be accidental.

I’m paranoid, you’ll say. But just because I am, it doesn’t mean they aint out to get me.

Sabotaging £180,000 worth of equipment and similar crimes are now quite legal. All you have to do when caught is plead that it was all in a good cause.

Oddly enough the two legal precedents that have set this new standard concern two of the BBC’s favourite causes. Warmism and vilifying Israel.

Melanie Phillips, Robin Shepherd and Jonathan Hoffman have written about this staggering development which was brought about by last week’s judgement at Hove Crown Court, where the jury decided to exonerate all the perpetrators of a demonstrably criminal act merely because the judge’s summing-up directed them that that the end justified the means.

Judge George Bathusrt-Norman acquitted all the accused who had used the defence that “direct action was the only option left”. Never mind the law; now it seems anything goes, with the proviso that the crime involves destroying stuff believed to be aiding and abetting Israel, or causing man-made global warming.

Melanie Phillips reminds us that:
“In September 2008, a jury decided that it was ok to break the law and cause more than £35,000 criminal damage to a coal-fired power station because of the threat of man-made global warming.”

So, by coincidence, two of the BBC ‘s furious campaigns have affected our rational thinking so much that the rule of law can be thrown to the wind. Whole juries and judges have become inflamed with righteousness and indignation till they feel morally obliged to hit out, circumvent the law and chuck the democratic process over the side.

This verdict sanctions any activism as long as it’s in accord with the Judge’s fancy; it opens the floodgates for demos and violent protests.
Why wait for votes on BDS. Just traipse into your local supermarket and stamp on anything you think comes from Israel. Go ahead. The judge will probably think your heart is in the right place.

Notorious “Israel basher and ignoramus” Tony Greenstein was delighted at the verdict, but even he was worried that “Judge George Bathurst-Norman’s summing up was so favourable that some supporters were worried that the jury might react to what they perceived as an attempt to bounce them into a not guilty verdict.”

He continues: “We need not have worried!” adding a revealing comment that hands the judge’s critics a small gift: “Perhaps the fact that His Honour was born in the Arab town of Jaffa opposite Tel Aviv might have something to do with it!”

Another mystery surrounds this judge:
“Judge George Bathurst-Norman was brought out of retirement to hear the case.”
“Why?” one might ask, and “By whom?”

The BBC, obviously sympathetic to the cause, gives a platform to the activists.

Many people think several decades of delegitimisation and biased reporting is responsible for bringing this situation about. If you think this accusation is unjustified consider the alacrity with which the jury complied with the judge’s summing up. If the judge has a Palestinian connection that’s one thing, but how do you think he was able to get away with what he said to the jury?

“In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that ‘you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time’. “
You may well think that; or you may well think that the BBC leaves its fingerprints everywhere.

The world has gone mad today,
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today
And day’s night today…………
Now heaven knows.
Anything Goes.

BBC headline  “Israeli air strike kills Palestinian man” Sounds like the Israelis have once again targeted andkilled an innocent man, who was just minding his own business. Most likely a humanitarian? Nasty Israelis. Only read a bit further- they targetted militants who hadjust fired a rocket into Israel.  Why does the headline not read “Israeli airstrikekills Palestinian terrorist” ? We all know why, don’t we?

Sorry for bringing up this topic again. I don’t care for daytime TV, but a couple of weeks ago I heard that one of the topics on The Big Questions was to be about the morality of Israel, so I switched on. Unfortunately something went wrong with the transmission near the beginning, and the rest of the episode, including the Israel topic, was abandoned.

As today’s B.Q. concerned Islam’s PR campaign, and curiosity led me to the programme’s online messageboard. I was interested to see that several of the comments concerning the missing B.Q. blamed a conspiracy. Zionists, they said, had scuppered it. There was some discussion about whether the debate that did take place could be uploaded onto i-player, but computer said no.

It could be that Israel’s case was heard at last. I gather from Jonathan Hoffman’s comment that it was a good debate. We’ll never know.

Over the last few decades the BBC has managed to turn Israel’s wrongness into a certainty. It’s established as a a given.
Therefore, unless it includes a caveat in acknowledgement of that certainty, every fact containing a whiff or a hint of evidence to the contrary is inadmissible. In the absence of a nod in the direction of Israel’s innate wrongness, every teeny fact-ette will be discounted as Zionist propaganda.

Similarly, in political and journalistic circles, the ‘two state solution’ has turned into a bizarre cliché. ‘Two States’ is now established as a *solution* as though it’s the definitive answer to a mathematical problem. But how is two states the solution? What will it solve?
The idea that giving the Palestinians what they want will solve everything is very nice and tidy in theory. But is that what they really, really want? zigazig-ha?

Hamas and other Islamist organisations say they want the removal of Israel altogether, and the annihilation of Jews everywhere. Would that be a satisfactory solution? Would that constitute full and final settlement?
Many very aggressive and angry people clearly want much more than that. Obviously not the P.R. Muslims on B.Q.; or the nice Muslims, or the real Muslims, or the Muslims that don’t live in the massive ‘Muslim lands’ surrounding Israel.

So let’s call a spade a spade. I suggest that the two state solution is renamed the two state experiment or the two state trial, like a medical trial, where they test the side-effects of a new medicine, and try to find out whether it cures the patient, or kills him.

And further, I suggest that whenever this trial or experiment is mentioned on the BBC, it isn’t always in the context of the certainty of Israel’s innate wrongness.