Gentle Persuasion

Anti-Zionists have persuaded the BBC to alter a report about a row at the meeting held at the School of Oriental and African Studies, (SOAS) in which the guest speaker was South African trade unionist Bongani Masuku.

Mr. Masuku has been condemned for hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission. The SOAS audience consisted of pro Palestinian left wingers who wanted to confer chummily amongst themselves and share their outrage at the way Israel treats the Palestinians.

During the audience question time, up pops Jonathan Hoffman, vice chair of the Zionist federation, whose courageous personal appearances at hostile gatherings have earned him a reputation as a ‘hard-line Zionist’ and damned nuisance.

His question was simply “Why has this man, condemned for hate speech, been invited to speak at this place?” Admittedly, he read out the charges against Mr. Masuku first, which the audience found rather unpalatable, and this, combined with the fact that they disliked Mr. Hoffman and his well-known views, caused the whole audience to begin jeering and heckling. The chairman, Mr. Tom Hickey, then took over, warning them not to answer Mr. Hoffman’s question, or listen to anything he might say.

The BBC, uncharacteristically, reported this incident thus:

“Raheem Kassam, of student anti-racism campaigners Student Rights, said: “The overpowering racist jeering as displayed by some audience members at the event is a stark and chilling revelation of what can happen when extremism is allowed to take root in universities.

“This man was first shouted down, then ignored by the event chair and panellists.
“Why? From what we hear shouted when he is speaking, because he is, ‘Jewish’, and ‘not welcome here’.”

However, a few individuals didn’t think much of that, and emailed the BBC to complain, whereupon the BBC cut that out altogether and amended the article so it was more in line with the BBC worldview, along the lines that anti-Semitism is the sole prerogative of the SS., and it died out in 1948.

Funny how impossible it is for some people to get the BBC to alter things, while for others it’s as easy as writing a couple of emails.

Comment is Free But is Ignorance Bliss?

If anybody who shares my interest in the BBC’s bias against Israel is reading this – as they say on Amazon – you might also like ……CifWatch.
CifWatch’s raison d’être is to draw attention to the anti Israel and anti-Semitic flavour of the online Guardian’s, ‘Comment is Free’. (Cif)
CifWatch commenters and posters document, then knowledgably and authoritatively rebut, anti-Semitic slurs that abound on Cif.
Recent CiFWatch posts by commenter AKUS give an outsider’s view of the British media and the ‘Brainwashing of Britain’
CiFWatchers must be aware, and indeed some of them have pointed out, that the BBC has a far broader reach, and necessarily influences a wider spectrum of the public, but the Guardian’s malevolence grates on this pro Israel and mainly Jewish online community more than the BBC’s seems to. If only it weren’t so virulently anti Jew and anti Israel, the Guardian might be their newspaper of choice. They remember with sadness the days when it was known as the Manchester Guardian and was highly respected. Perhaps they see the BBC as a lost cause, with a passive, easily brainwashed audience.
The Guardian isn’t hampered by a charter or any other inconvenient obligation, so it can more or less let rip and pander to an Israel hating audience if it so wishes, whereas the BBC has to restrain itself. The BBC is at least obliged to appear even-handed, but its underlying agenda often seeps through.

This morning for example there was an item on the Sunday Programme R4(0.19.50 in) about the multi faith celebrations in Haifa. A feel-good item one would think. Then just as you begin to feel good, Hugh Sykes chips in at the end with a reminder about the settlers who vandalised a mosque. Report it, okay, but put it in context, and don’t bring it gratuitously into an unrelated report lest the listeners might stop hating the Jews.

I don’t think the BBC’s bias is always deliberate. Ignorance has permitted myth to replace fact. Shoddy research, laziness and incompetence have worn away at the truth over many years, and these imperfections compound themselves as they bed in.
Now – we have what we have. One undoubted result is appalling ignorance from many who should know better; it produces characters like the gentleman outside the Baptist Central Church in the video that I linked to recently. Not the runny nosed John Sullivan, but the other one, the well-spoken John Benyon, who seemed blissfully ignorant about the organisation his church was hosting.
The virulence with which people express their indignation is matched by the ignorance in the endless strings of comments highlighted by CifWatch. What could be a clearer demonstration of the extent of the damage done by the brainwashing of Britain?

Half the Picture

We are often mocked by our critics for drawing attention to bias by omission, but when it amounts to downplaying the implications for Israel of Iran’s nuclear programme, it’s a significant omission, indicative of a significant bias.

Just Journalism points out that while this topic is covered fairly extensively by the serious press, the BBC gives scarcely a mention to background essential for understanding why Israel might feel particularly threatened. Hat tip Deegee.

Pro(sperous) Palestinians

Melanie Phillips links to a report in the Wall Street Journal by Tom Gross. It’s about life in the West Bank and Gaza. No, it’s not the usual tale of hardship and deprivation.
She ends by asking “When we will get to hear about this on the BBC?” Well, probably never. All we’ll get is endless stories about settlers, olive trees and illegally occupied land.
With the BBC for an educator is it surprising that a virulent streak of anti-Semitism prevails?
I see Rowan Laxton is back at his desk at the FCO.
And this clip is all over the web.
If it weren’t so shocking you’d have to laugh. The man bears an uncanny resemblance to Brian Murphy.
“Everybody in Britain can see what a nasty unpleasant type of people Jewish people are in English.”

(Breaks into song.) ”It’s in-dic-ative that the Jews are vin-dic-ative, so if you’re living in English…. You can….. fuck off back to Israel!”” Tap dances off stage, right. Not really.

Free Marwan Mandela!

Is the release of one thousand Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one young Israeli soldier kidnapped in 2006 a good deal?
Under the circumstances, and in the long run, maybe. Superficially though, one would have thought it looked a leedle, – how you say? – disproportionate. Never mind. We’ll soon be hearing the outcry about that from the BBC. Or not.

So the imminent swap – Gilad Shalit for Marwan Barghouti and nine hundred and ninety nine others– is good news. We want Shalit to be safe more than we mind returning one thousand criminals who are hell-bent on harming Israel.

The World This Weekend (hat tip Craig) featured a rather splendid profile of Barghouti, straight out of the school of journalism that regards certain terrorist atrocities as audacious, and euphamises certain terrorists as militants. So, to establish some weird sort of moral equivalence, three of Barghouti’s admirers were brought in to sing his praises; Ghada Karmi from the University of Exeter with its Saudi-funded Islamic studies dept., BBC’s useful Arabist Alistair Crooke, and Richard Burden M.P. Britain-Palestine all-Party group. Oh yes, and for balance, Devorah Chen chief prosecutor in Barghouti’s trial.

I forgot to mention that Barghouti was convicted of murdering several Israelis. –But that’s a mere detail of no consequence; in fact it’s quite an asset.

The man’s a hero, clean, honest and a patriot, some say he’s a bit like Nelson Mandela, and an ideal replacement for Mahmoud Abbas. He might unify quarreling Palestinian factions.
All Hamas wants is a little stake in power, yet it is treated as a pariah says Ms. Karmi. How fair is that? Poor Hamas. A pariah.

Brought to you by Brian Hanrahanrahan of the Britain-Palestine let’s all have a party Broadcasting Corporation.

Craig’s bias coefficient analysis thingy:

Ghada Karmi (pro-Barghouti): 2 minutes 9 seconds

Devorah Chan (anti-Barghouti): 42 seconds

Alistair Crooke (pro-Barghouti): 17 seconds

Richard Burden (pro-Barghouti): 1 minutes 3 seconds


Or


Pro-Barghouti: 3 minutes 29 seconds
Anti-Barghouti: 42 seconds

Our Man in the West Bank

Deegee highlights numerous signs in Jeremy Bowen’s article that indicate he’s not really BBC Middle East editor at all, but a correspondent representing the Palestinians. Like Alan Johnston, Bowen obviously wants to assure his friends that “I’m telling your story.”
The article is riddled with clues as to Bowen’s personal feelings, and is dumbed down by lazy over-simplifications of the sort that invariably get repeated over and over till they become set in stone.
“President Mahmoud Abbas, America’s current Palestinian partner, is so fed up with the lack of progress towards independence that he has threatened to leave his job.

“Is so fed up!” Is that Bowen’s summing up of Abbas’s political strategy?

Deegee says: “Abbas’s period as president has expired. He would be resigning from a position he no longer legally holds.”
The BBC’s own website publishes a variety of interpretations, which show that Abbas’s threat to stand down is a little more complex than Bowen’s misleading brief – that he is “Fed up”

Having established that Jewish settlements are the obstacle to peace, and that they are illegal, Bowen somehow manages to erase the Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel or renounce violence from the equation altogether as though it isn’t an impediment of any significance whatsoever.
Melanie Phillips says, “Let us not forget that it is the ‘moderate’ Abbas and the forces he leads whom America and the west say are ‘entitled’ to a state of their own, to which Israel is unreasonably providing obstacles”

That has now become received wisdom. Bowen ups the ante by calling them “little fortresses.” He then rearranges history by reiterating another myth that has established itself in the narrative. He implies that Rabin’s assassination by a Jewish extremist was responsible for ending the peace process.
In a critique of one of Seth freedman’s Guardian articles, which is similarly economical with the actuality, Israelinurse dispels this myth.

“Freedman descends into the realms of fantasy, stating that “with three bullets, assassin Yigal Amir managed to irreversibly derail the peace process” and claims that the entire region’s political journey abruptly changed course as a result of that tragic event.
In actual fact, the Oslo Accords continued to be implemented. On January 20th 1996 agreements were made regarding the IDF redeployment from areas to be passed over to PA control, the election of the Palestinian Council and the head of the Palestinian Authority. The 23rd October 1998 saw the signing of the Wye River Memorandum and on September 4th 1999 the Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum was agreed.
Just as the peace treaty with Jordan, signed just over a year before Rabin’s murder, did not fall apart, so the agreements with the Palestinians went ahead. But on July 11th 2000, the Camp David negotiations fell through and just over two months later the second Intifada began, shaking Israel to its core.”

Deegee says; “It could easily be said the peace agreement had already failed by the time of Rabin’s death and it was far from certain he would have been re-elected.

So however sad it is that there is as yet no peace agreement, the Jewish extremist’s act of murder was not the reason.
Bowen even refers to the notorious handshake on the lawn as a kind of ‘finest hour’. Anyone who has read about Arafat’s scurrilous behaviour during and after that and the Camp David fiasco would have to laugh.

Bowen makes no attempt to conceal his contempt for Binyamin Netanyahu, who he depicts as an arrogant bully causing poor Bill Clinton to use the F word No mention of what poor Bill thought of evil old Yassir after he effectively scuppered Clinton’s last attempts at peacemaking by instigating another Palestinian intefada.

In “My Life” written by president Clinton, he wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, “You are a great man.” Clinton responded; “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one.”

Throughout the article Bowen continually refers to what “the Palestinians want” for their state. He completely ignores one thing. They do not just want a small amount of territory in Jerusalem, because they do not want Israel to have any territory at all. For the Palestinians, one inch would be too much, because there is an inherent and virulent hatred for Jews at the heart of their religion. Bowen and his ilk will never tackle that, maybe because it’s unpalatable, or perhaps it’s because they feel the same.

Gathering Storm

I am well aware that Peter Oborne’s C4 anti-Jew documentary was not a BBC programme. However, years of biased reporting on the Israeli/Palesinian situation well and truly prepared the ground for Peter Oborne to score his illegitimate goal.
Meanwhile, if anyone was acting as referee, they must have steadfastly withstood the pressure from the mighty Jewish lobby and looked the other way.

The inferior quality of the programme was no secret, and many of the supportive comments that popped up in response seem to be of a similar standard. But the obvious flaws in both provide little reassurance that the groundswell of anti Israel feeling can be disregarded as an aberration of the ignorant; like tattoos.

The insinuations littering the programme were designed to implant the idea that everything ever said in support of Israel was sponsored by wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive, while if any denunciation of Israel remained unsaid, that was only because wealthy Jews with an ulterior motive have suppressed it.

Peter Oborne says anti-Semitism is no longer a racist abomination against Jews, but a weapon used by them to quash protests from victims of the sinister Jewish lobby. The suggestion that Jews cynically use accusations of anti-Semitism as a silencing tool is itself a silencing tool of the first order.

What really is sinister is the media’s suspicion and dislike of Jews and the BBC’s affection for Muslims. Is nobody aware of the gathering storms of 30s Germany? How long before they drop their guard and blurt out that Hitler was right.

See Robin Shepherd’s article in the Wall Street Journal, read his blog. Check out CiFWatch.

Protocols of the Elders of Oborne

I await tonight’s Dispatches programme on C4. with that familiar dread and sinking feeling.
It’s no good saying wait and see before getting upset because there’s plenty there already…

The inevitable baying mob on the C4 website sets the scene. The gist is that the Jewish lobby is a sinister secretive conspiracy influencing political decisions and forcing our trembling government to support the brutal Zionist entity against the interests of the UK. Furthermore, Jews will try silence such accusations with charges of anti-Semitism, so remember to ignore whatever Jews say in their malevolent attempts to shut down this perfectly reasonable and well-intentioned debate.

Peter Oborne has written some explanatory notes, (takes forever to load) which make his position quite clear. He airs his views on Jonathan Dimbleby, Jeremy Bowen and the Balen report, and concludes that the BBC is muzzled by this crippling Zionist stranglehold.

(Take the influential and intimidating words you are reading right now as proof of this. Sense the powerful ominous Jewish threat impliedly lurking behind them and wonder at the unimaginably emasculating effect they are having on the BBC)

So the lobby is uncovered, but wait. There is another disturbing Jewish tactic. People are asking “So what?” “So what if there’s a lobby group? Aren’t there countless other lobby groups?” For example the Muslim, Palestinian, Gay and Lesbian, Hunting/anti hunting lobbies?

Anyone who saw the report Our World by Emily Buchanan on BBC News 24 the other day extolling the benefits of Sharia in the UK, not just for family courts, but for Sharia friendly finance, might have pondered over the government’s keenness to establish London as the World hub of Sharia finance. The film was at pains to point out that the little things we ignorant Islamophobes might fear about this development are mere overreactions to the threatening behaviour of a few unrepresentative radicals and pure racist scaremongering. Surely, if there was anything to worry about, Peter Oborne would be onto it? Fatwa permitting.

A sole dissenting voice came from an Iranian lady whose apostacy had drawn death threats. She explained that, amongst many other unenlightened principles, under Sharia a woman’s word is worth half a man’s .

Now it seems, under the UK’s newly unenlightened principles, a Jew’s word is worth nothing at all.
It’s the lobby, the evil sinister lobby; it’s in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and you’d better believe it.

That Sinking Feeling

If exposure on the telly or the radio wasn’t the most valuable publicity available to mankind there would be no advertising – and authors and publishers wouldn’t spend so much time and effort doing the rounds on the circuit plugging their book.
I’m sure some agents and publicists have to pull all sorts of strings to get a slot on the One Show or Start the Week, but Shlomo Sand wouldn’t have met much resistance.
The BBC doubtless bit his hand off when, as one of their favourite types of people, the Israel hating Israeli, he offered to come and advertise his new book.
I’m not in a position to examine the dodgy science behind it, but others are, and surely for an impartial broadcaster it would have been only fair to mention that his theory was highly contentious, instead of treating the author with the fawning admiration that was bestowed upon him from assorted guests and presenter Andrew Marr, none of whom were in any position to examine or query the content of this book.

A phrase I frequently use myself is cropping up more and more these days.
It’s ‘that sinking feeling.’ That’s the feeling everyone gets when the topic of Israel, the Jews, or Islam comes up in relation to the BBC.

Water Water Everywhere. Except in the West Bank.

There is little doubt that the BBC hierarchy doesn’t like Israel. If they did, they wouldn’t obsess about every report, summary, or pronouncement condemning Israel that can be presented as a war crime, human rights abuse, or other misdeed. Furthermore, if they did report such perfidious findings, they wouldn’t sensationalise them in a way likely to cause maximum outrage amongst their trusting viewers.
Yet another report from Amnesty International condemning Israel, picked up and run with by your BBC.