Category Archives: anti-Israel

The New Belle Époque.

By | | ,
3 Comments

I’ve been very busy not watching telly, but I did accidentally stumble upon MEPs in Strasbourg discussing the Flotilla on the BBC Parliament channel last night, between the repeats of QT and Andrew Marr.

Needless to say it was an Israel-bashing jamboree, with left wing and green MEPs making their rabidly anti Israel / pro Turkey speeches.

They kept demanding Baroness Ashton ‘does something’ to lift the blockade of Gaza. Immediately! The conservative and centre-right MEPs were similarly receptive to the peace activists’ tale, but they sprinkled their speeches with “but there must be security for Israelis as well”.
It was almost as though they’d been informed, educated and entertained solely by the BBC.

There were some notable exceptions. A German Green MEP spoke up for Israel, and most supportive of all, and under the circumstances rather heroic, was Charles Tannock MEP, Conservative Foreign Affairs Spokesman.
But that’s nothing. What about the debate on the subject in our own parliament?
Louise ‘we can ignore her because she would say that, wouldn’t she,’ Ellman, Ivan Lewis and Denis McShane were more or less the only voices of sanity. Take a look at this gorgeous website, which has a tag entitled Anti-Racism. Are they quite mad?

What I’m leading up to is this. On Start The Week two ‘Jewish’ books were being plugged. One by Ruth Harris was about a scandal that shook France to its core – the Dreyfus affair.
The other, The Hare With Amber Eyes by Edmund De Waal concerns a Jewish art historian, aesthete and collector Charles Ephrussi.
Antisemitism.
How rife it was in Paris during the Belle Époque. Jews being accused of killing children, for blood to make Matzos.

Tom Hollander’s family had a brush with antisemitism too. All the guests had a contribution to make on the topic . Even Andrew Marr. “Mmmm, Mmmm,” he goes. “What it means to be French” he analyses, sagely.

“Modern France too. All this argument about the burqua.”

So is Andrew Marr talking about “Racism?” “Islamophobia?” Is he saying that Muslims are the new Jews, or what?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

None So Blind

By | |
17 Comments

No matter what evidence is released about the “peace mission” on the Mavi Marmara, the BBC still calls the incident “Israel’s attack”, “Israel’s raid,” or whatever aggressive title they see fit to tag it. They see the incident as Israel’s, as if it belongs exclusively to Israel, though it was clearly instigated by Turkey or Islam.

No matter how many Jihadi videos remain uncensored on YouTube while a humourous Israeli parody gets banned, albeit briefly; no matter how many “go backs to Auschwitz” we’re shown; no matter how many “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas” we hear chanted, we still condemn Israel for doing what it feels it has to do in retaliation and self defence. Be it misguided and unpalatable or effective and rational, we reflexively condemn Israel with a nonchalant disregard for the imperative necessity to fight for its survival.

People are given air time to assert indignantly that Israel must make more and more concessions, lift the blockade, return to pre 1967 borders, stop building homes for Jews and grant the right of return to Palestinians and all their descendants.

The blockade is described as a collective punishment, which we abhor because of our confused and ambivalent perception of Gazans as innocent victims, while at the same time, oxymoronically, we insist they voted, responsibly, for ‘democratically elected’ Hamas. Some of us then advocate, as a protest against the blockade, the implementation of BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) against Israel, which looks uncannily like collective punishment itself. The victims would be equally ‘innocent voters,’ but applied to Israelis and their democratically elected government, it’s the right thing to do, and the anomaly can languish unchallenged.

Now the Israelis have agreed to let more stuff in, we complain that it’s not enough, the BBC gives air time to various critics of Israel to assert that nothing less than free unfettered access will do. We still think that ‘for peace’ Israel must give the Palestinians what they want, whenever they want, forever and ever till the religion of peace is sated, and goes quiet.

The BBC encourages unparalleled hostility to Israel. It defies reason.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A Leader Who Cannot Be Ignored

By | |
25 Comments

FOOC featured Jeremy Bowen’s cosy chat with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Although we were told that Syria was a bit of a police state, the impression given was that Bowen’s sympathy lay with
‘friendly and charming’ al-Assad, whose country had suffered the “trauma of creating Israel.”
“The Turks never attacked Israel, never smuggled weapons, never did anything harmful to Israel. They only worked for peace,” he said.”

In the web article there’s a bullet-pointed ‘time line’ relating to Syria. It starts “1967 Israel seizes Golan Heights from Syria.”

Before the six day war Syria’s gun emplacements loomed above the kibbutzim located below the Golan Heights, causing the inhabitants to be on constant alert. Unprovoked, Syria did open fire, causing damage and fear. The Golan Heights are a strategic defensive necessity to Israel while Syria is a hostile neighbour.
The time-line should have read: “1967: Syria attacks Israel, starts a war and loses Golan Heights.”
So put that in your time-line BBC, and smoke it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Three in a Row

By | |
1 Comment

Three new items have just come through from Honest Reporting. I’m proud to boast that I have commented on these three topics myself in the last few days.
1.) The one about the Al-Dura hoax which passed yet another stage in the legal battle between Phillipe Karsenty and France 2. This case establishes that once again the world rushed to condemn Israel prematurely. The big lie that spread around the world before the truth had time to put its boots on.
“The biggest con of all, the Al Dura hoax – Phillipe Karsenty has won another stage of his legal battle with France 2.
Yesterday, 17:04:56″

2.) It’s the one about Israel Bashers Bash the BBC. Not exactly the same incident, but similar.
“Slightly OT, but here’s one from Media Lens. These posters think the BBC is biased in favour of Israel. I know they might not have seen the videos at the time of posting, but this attitude goes to show what damage the BBC has been doing for the last 6 decades.
The subject. Sarah Montague’s interview with ‘peace activist’ Sarah Colborne, Yesterday, 20:46:39″

3.) Last but not least, the one about Jeremy Bowen.

I’m only bringing these up to say you heard it first here on B-BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Conning the World

By | |
35 Comments

After blanket one-sided coverage of the flotilla fiasco, Tim Franks hangs on to his job long enough to criticise Israel’s drop-in-the ocean attempt at redressing the balance. The song ‘We Con the World’ has already been banned by Youtube, so he needn’t have gone to the trouble of reporting it, and anything else said in Israel’s defence, as though it came from ‘Israel’s massive P.R. machine’ or some such.

In the light of the worldwide condemnation of Israel and international calls to lift the blockade, I’d have thought making a fuss about the only voice of protest against Israel’s delegitimisation, done with humour, was, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh Yes, disproportionate.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

It’s Not About You; it’s about me!

By | |
12 Comments

Before launching into his valedictory piece on FOOC, Tim Franks confided that he disapproves of solipsistic journalism, which he helpfully defined for us as the narcissistic ramblings of the ‘me me me’ variety, but he asked us to excuse his indulgence, just this once.

Announcing his resignation as BBC Jerusalem correspondent, he blamed his difficulties on being both a Jew and a journalist. He said he gets accusations of bias from all directions, which he interprets as a testament to his impartiality and objectivity.

When opining negatively about Israel it’s de rigueur to make a declaration of special interest by announcing you’re speaking ‘AsaJew.” This trump card is slapped onto the table as though it bestows special powers of credibility upon the blistering criticism of Israel you’re about to deliver.

It’s ‘AsaJews’ that get the mention and the attention. They’re saying “my background qualifies me to criticise Jews and Israel; by virtue of being a Jew myself I can speak against Israel” It has overtones of: “I’m guilty.” ‘I represent wrongdoers.’ This unearned trump card is useful only to Israel’s detractors.

The truth is AsaJews don’t always know more than others. They might even know far less. Obviously, being ‘a Jew’ covers a vast spectrum of ideological ground. It could imply an allegiance to Israel, or exactly the opposite. A number of Jews dissociate themselves from Israel and Judaism altogether, but whatever type of AsaJew you are, you are neither automatically knowledgeable, nor necessarily incapable of objectivity.

In other words, this declaration of special interest really shouldn’t be of any special interest whatsoever.

But it’s not only that. How often do you hear someone declare, ‘speaking as an antisemite?’ Never. How often do you hear a reporter add a qualifying, ‘AsaMuslim?’ Rarely. Yet the BBC uses Palestinian journalists, stringers and fixers all the time; how often is their partisanship noted or brought in as a disclaimer? It doesn’t need to be really, because ‘we are all Hamas now.’ That is to say, reporting negatively about Israel is the mean standard, the consensus. It’s the position from where we all start. In these turbulent times the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself is being called into question.

Jeremy Bowen has taken advantage of his Charles Wheeler award to indulge in some solipsism of his own.

He told guests at the award ceremony in London last night:
“The BBC Trust accused me, wrongly in my view, of some inaccuracies in my reporting,”

he declaimed, adding:

“They did that because of a rather nasty campaign group in the United States and some highly politically-motivated individuals in this country who were in fact the enemies of impartiality, but they got their thoughts through.”

It’s the Jewish Lobby, don’t you know.

“I think we need to realise that proper news coverage is as important as ever,”he said.

“Charles Wheeler knew that telling the truth, which journalism is supposed to be about, that can put a few people’s noses out of joint…

“If that means that at the BBC we offend a few people and we receive a few nasty letter and some rude articles in some of the newspapers, then I think that is absolutely fine. I think it’s good, why not?”

He could have said “I speak AsanAntisemite.” But he didn’t need to. He just said “I’m impartial; trust me.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Making Israel Toast

By | | , ,
35 Comments

Melanie Phillips presents two inspiring pieces today. William Shawcross’s JPost article, and a statement made last year by Spanish politician and journalist Pilar Rahola.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don’t inform, they propagandize. When reporting about Israel the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren’t any accusations left to level against her. At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

A comment under Mr. Shawcross’s article in the JPost links to an online article from the US that adds an even more sinister dimension to Israel’s predicament. The US government’s abandonment of Israel and the implications thereof.

I intended to insert a video of a discussion between Jonathan Sacerdoti and Dr. Ghada Fahmi that was aired on Al-Jazeera, but my link wouldn’t upload:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mrjonsac#p/u/4/RT8ZtjNheMk
Do see what you can do with it. Or go through this and click on the link “speaking” in the 3rd paragraph.

Dr. Fahmi holds an important position in the Islamic Studies department at Exeter University, the university where Ilan Pappe is Professor of (revisionist) History. I’m told that the Arabic and Islamic Studies department is generously funded by Saudi Arabia.

This wasn’t on the BBC, but Dr. Fahmi does appear on the BBC, and is regarded as a credible spokesperson. I wonder how many people she speaks for, and if her attitude to the flotilla fiasco actually represents BBC thinking, or that of the British intelligentsia. Her theory is that the media unfairly favours Israel. The reason? Because they have the audacity to air, occasionally, Israeli spokespersons. In Dr. Fahmi’s view, this alone constitutes egregious media bias towards Israel.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Speak no Evil

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Speak no Evil

More and more websites include references to the BBC and its bias.
People not only recognise it, but take it as read. They’re acclimatised to it.

The BBC carries on regardless, and so do the politicians.

All three parties have morphed together to form an ostrich like coalition of the three wise monkeys apropos the Middle East, and together with the BBC they reinforce one another, reporting and influencing each other in turn in an impervious perpetual continuum. Creating an alternative reality; all the better to lull us with, reassure us with, and govern us with, my dear. h/t red-riding hood.

Andrew Marr, for example, whose programme I rarely watch, presented us with two examples, which Melanie Phillips has written about today.

The first example was the newspaper review with David Remnick of the New Yorker. I switched on towards the end, in time to catch him saying that the fundamental problem in Gaza was the blockade. Melanie thought he said it was the occupation, but I think he said the blockade. Never mind. If he did say the occupation, of course he was mistaken, as the occupation of Gaza has been over for some time. If he said the blockade, he was equally wrong, because of course the fundamental problem is not the blockade. The fundamental problem is obviously the refusal of Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence etc. etc…….or even more fundamental, the inherent Jew hatred in Islam that drives the whole shebang.

The second example was David Miliband’s blind and deaf but unfortunately not dumb assessment – ‘Israel’s series of deadly and self-defeating actions’ – of the flotilla disaster in which several Shahid-bent activists achieved martyrdom – – and the exaggeration of the nature of the crisis in Gaza, and the distortion of the root cause of it.

Because we’ve all seen the videos, and we know that they know – they surely must know – they can only be enacting a charade, just for us.

But now I’ve seen this, and read Douglas Murray’s article last week, everything falls into place.

It reminds me of when I joined this blog. There was a heated discussion with the commenter from the BBC who called himself John Reith. When we tried to explain about global jihad and the BBC’s bias against Israel and its sanitising of Islam, he finally blurted out ‘You’re not helping!” So. They know alright. Just that they’re not telling.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC FOR THE HAMAS ENABLERS

By | |
62 Comments

I know we expect little in terms of balance from the BBC and hence we are rarely disappointed, This morning, in fine anti-Israeli form, the BBC runs an item entitled “Israel threatens to board Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie”. Note the use of the word “threaten” when used next to Israel. Also note how the Hate Flotilla farce is given neutral nomenclature…subtext, they only want to bring aid. To Hamas, By sea. Breaching the blockade.

I was on the BBC yesterday morning and tried to discuss the nature of IHH,  the Turkish organisation behind the Hate Flotilla; I tried to discuss Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigans links to Khalid Meshaal, Hamas leader; Not interested in discussing these key facts. The ONLY issue they wanted to talk about was my comment that Israel MUST ensure the MV Rachel Corrie be stopped and “no messing about”. Of course I was asked to withdraw that comment, I didn’t. The BBC is 100% behind the pro-Hamas Hate Flotillists and it oozes through their every slimy report. In my view.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC v Israel. Judge Paxman Presiding.

By | | ,
58 Comments

BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, flagship presenter amongst a flotilla of BBC presenters, sets off on a mission to aid Hamas and uphold the embargo on reason, logic and truth.

(Note: The BBC seems to have issued a special edict. A permanent sneer must be attached to matters concerning Israel. The qualifying prefix “Israel says” must be added to anything speculative, factual, or plain as a pikestaff, if it alludes to Israel in any favourable or mitigating kinda way, to remind the gullible viewer that “Israel” may be lying.)

Newsnight. The Trial.
“Now; Israel has started deporting some of the survivors of the convoy which set out to bring aid to Gaza and ended up being attacked by the Israeli military-who-killed-9-people. They’re being deported from a country they hadn’t want to go to anyway. The UN Human Rights panel, a body usually roundly ignored by Israel, meanwhile has condemned the attack. It’s striking that the US hasn’t questioned Israel’s right to blockade Gaza which they say is an attempt to protect their citizens.
But what’s it like inside Gaaarhza? Tim Whewell has spent a day there.”

Oh what the hell. I might as well add emphasis to the whole lot.

NB. Tim W’s report was almost reasonable yesterday. Will he be psychologically spooked into colluding with Paxman the bully?

Not really, till he consults the repulsive, ex-BBC, Christopher Gunness of the UN relief and Works Agency, whose primary role is spewing propaganda against Israel. “Poverty rates have gone up by threefold in the last year” he says with a triumphant smirk.

“There’s not many people here with not enough to eat,” says Tim, casually. Wait a minute, we thought people were starving but no time for splitting hairs. We’ve a mission to complete.

Back to Pax.
“We’re joined now from from Washington by US Assistant Secretary of State P J Crowley. Mr Crowley why hasn’t the United States condemned this Israeli attack on the flotilla?”

“Well, the US supported the UN Security Council President’s statement which does use the word condemn, we obviously deeply regret the loss of life, we’ll continue to work with the international community to see how we can expand the amount of assistance to the people of Gaza.”

“So the United States does condemn this attack by the Israelis?”

“Well, the US regrets that this confrontation led to a civilian loss of li……..”

“ That’s a different word. Its a different word of course. Regretting and condemning are different things.”

“But we absolutely understand that Israel has legitimate security needs, its people have suffered through rocket attacks over months and years from Gaza, the Israelis had indicated in advance to this flotilla that there was a mechanism by which this material could be inspected and then brought into Gaza, [……….]”

“You don’t use the word condemn let me put to you the remark of the secretary of state…”

No punctuation needed because the beginning was uttered under Paxman’s breath with the comically exasperated yet sarky tone typical of Rowan Atkinson’s Blackadder and straight into the next line of attack.
Now Paxman is emoting about the settlements, “Are we entitled to wonder” [….settlements. Joe Biden. deliberate. blah blah….. ] “and now launching this attack on the flotilla. Is there anything Mr. Netanyahu could do which would incur condemnation from the US?”

“You use a very loaded term there by saying this was the launch of an attack…. this was a military operation by Israel, which Israel believes is perfectly legal to be able to make sure that it can prevent the flow of dangerous materials including weapons….”

“Could you give me another word apart from that”

“This is a very legitimate concern that Israel has…”

Enough.

Paxman’s unimaginative, worn out tactic is to attempt to trap the accused into saying a particular word, which Paxman hopes will reveal what he has deemed to be the truth, so he can conclude with a dramatic, “gotcha!” flourish. He wants to expose Mr. Crowley’s refusal to use the word ‘condemn,’ which is what professor Paxman deems righteous. He imagines he’s Rumplole of the Bailey. Or, who was that barrister who won cases for the defence against all the odds, for defendants guilty or not? Oh yes, it was George Carman. Paxman is suffering from delusions of grandeur. Some loonies think they’re Napoleon, or Jesus. Paxman thinks he’s George Carman. He’s descended into a fantasy in which he is judge, jury and probably executioner.

Excuse lack of brevity.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.