Breaking the Silence Part 2

What at first seemed like a straightforward controversy over war ethics has turned into one about irresponsible journalism.

The original question asked:
Should soldiers be compelled to risk their own lives by adhering strictly to military rules of engagement even when, in the fog and extreme chaos of war, they are faced with an unpredictable and fanatical enemy which is under no such obligation?
Now, I’m asking:
Is the media ever justified in abandoning journalistic standards of inquiry and investigation by publishing unsubstantiated hearsay?

What if they’re lucky enough to get hold of a sensational scoop that both exposes war crimes and bears out the very things they’ve been telling us all along, that Israelis are as brutal as Nazis – and the icing on the cake is that they’ve admitted it themselves?

Throw caution to the wind? Let the presses roll?

Seeking maximum publicity, Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (to which the British Embassy has donated a generous grant) offered their report to the newspaper they felt would be most sympathetic to their cause, Haaretz.

But once bitten twice shy! Not so long ago Haaretz had their fingers badly burnt by rushing into print far too hastily with another uncannily similar tale. When it transpired that the whole thing was unsubstantiated and based entirely on hearsay, their credibility suffered a blow. So this time Haaretz behaved more cautiously, and before going to press they sought the IDF’s response. By which time the JPost had got hold of the story and published a critical version of it.

The BBC and some of the MSM also snapped it up, and beamed it far and wide tout de suite.

Which brings to mind Charles Enderlin’s impetuous decision to air the notorious Al Durah report on French state T.V. channel France 2, and to distribute it to eager broadcasters everywhere. The footage that shocked the world was later exposed as a fraud, fabricated in order to inflame hatred and provoke violence. But by the time the deception was exposed the desired effect had already been achieved, and the iconic image of 12 year old Mohamed Al Durah’s horrific death at the hands of the Israelis had the disastrous consequences the makers intended.
The fact that it wasn’t quite like that was neither here nor there. The exposé received little publicity.
If the these two episodes have something in common it’s the alacrity with which anything that discredits Israel is grasped, perpetuated and publicised.
A disregard for journalistic rigour and integrity seems to take effect and override other considerations the moment the opportunity presents itself.

The BBC can publish and be damned. No worries. If they are forced to retract something, or apologise at a later date, they can bury it in some godforsaken corner, and we can like it or lump it.
Unless, that is, someone very litigious threatens to take them to court.

Breaking the Silence

“Just in case you’d been distracted by trivial, parochial concerns like BBC salaries and British soldiers coming home in coffins, it’s our duty to remind you once more about the real scandal. The Israelis.”

“Lest you forget, we must tell you again about the war crimes, human rights violations and abuses that took place in Gaza! What’s more the BBC didn’t even have to uncover the scandal because Israelis blabbed about it all by themselves.”

“The BBC is outraged to hear that Israel protects those spoilt Israeli soldiers at all costs. Even putting their lives above the human rights of the enemy! They use deadly weapons, and even innocents – children, babies and women get killed.
They’d stop at nothing to avoid their precious soldiers coming home in body-bags! How typically selfish!”

“If the Israelis were proper soldiers, They’d make do do with cardboard vehicles and a wonky helicopter. They’d put the enemy’s human rights at the forefront and abide strictly by the rules of engagement and be sure to die in sufficient quantities. Unlike the noble martyrs of Hamas who obviously stick strictly to the rules. ”

“Booby traps, suicide bombers, children playing on rooftops, launching rockets from schoolyards, terrorists hiding in houses, hatred and Islamic Jihad are no excuse for not playing by the rules, the BBC has learned.”

Evan Davis quotes Wilfred Owen: “These men are worth your tears!”
As long as they’re not Israelis.

Little White Lies

“I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.”
I’m not sure what the purpose of the ‘also’ is in that little gem, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s the oft-quoted soundbite from a man named Ben White who has written a book entitled “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.”

According to reviews this book really lives up to its title, brimming as it is, with fabricated quotations and half-truths. Critics say the author misunderstands and misrepresents everything about Israel, using quotes selectively and out of context; in fact performing a perfect imitation of the antisemite he doesn’t consider himself to be.

The charity War on Want is helping Mr. White promote this book to show their solidarity with suffering Palestinians and spread the word about their contempt for Israel and Jews.

Organisers of the publicity event that was held in East London’s Toynbee Hall were so afraid of an outbreak of aggression from violent self-detonating Zionist militants that they banned Jonathan Hoffman from attending altogether, and alerted the police, who remained on stand-by just in case he should initiate a disturbance by lurking outside threateningly with leaflets, which he duly did. The sight of him standing there with his leaflets must have been terrifying.

The Guardian gives Ben White a platform to proclaim the evils of the Apartheid Wall, inform the eager reader that Oxfam, Amnesty and likeminded charitable organisations agree with him, and to publicise the meeting so that all Zionist hating Guardianistas will come along to cheer him on, buy a copy of his book and protect him from Jonathan Hoffman.

What has all this got to do with the BBC? In line with their forty year hate campaign against Israel, they are doing something uncannily similar. They tell us all about Oxfam, another charitable organisation demanding the dismantling of the illegal barrier. The barrier which “Israel says is for security.”
Very concerning to them is the fact that Palestinian children have been separated from their playground and have to play in the streets. More concerning obviously than the 200 Israeli lives that were lost in 2002 before the barrier was put there to protect them.

Ben White does not mention such things at all in his “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.” Moreover, he also cannot seem to understand why some people do.

Out of Proportion

Amnesty International, the so-called Independent Human Rights organisation, has released a report about war crimes committed during the Cast Lead episode. To help, the BBC web page shows injured babies.
Israel’s crimes, many, varied and wide-ranging, (as well as wanton, deliberate and unjustified,) largely amount to not being accurate enough with their retaliatory responses. So when Hamas sends rockets from densely populated areas, Israel must restrain itself until it is absolutely certain that the guilty party can be targeted precisely, (provided that he is a militant, and not a civilian or a ‘child’) Then he’s permitted to be neatly zapped like in a computer game.

Well, we knew all this already.

The BBC doesn’t say that Donatella Rovera’s report is emotive and unprofessional, or that it criticises Israel “disproportionately “ and “Indiscriminately.”
On ‘Ask Amnesty’ for example, she seems to think Israel occupies Gaza. However hard she tries, her attempts to appear even-handed fall flat.

Neither Amnesty nor the BBC sees fit to mention that Hamas provoked the war in the first place, and that there could be peace tomorrow if the Palestinians recognised Israel and renounced violence. (I meant peace with Israel, – not peace amongst themselves, a different thing altogether.)

On this occasion I don’t think the BBC is as biased as usual. There are scare quotes around ‘war crimes’ in the headline. Almost as though they weren’t unreservedly supporting Amnesty’s report. Or is that wishful thinking?

Amnesty’s method of ‘evidence gathering’ is merely to question Palestinian eyewitnesses. Even the BBC might think that a little unscrupulous and unprofessional. But then again…

A Tale of two Censures

The BBC reports that Ofcom has censured George Galloway over five shows broadcast on Talksport during the Gaza conflict. Ofcom says he crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate to one “calling listeners to action,” but “did not break the rules on offering opposing views.”

Was that the same kind of ‘not breaking the rules’ as in the ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’ kind of ‘not breaking the rules?’

Or in the sense that fading out counter arguments on a radio debate is somehow within the rules of ’offering opposing views’ (Well, Galloway did offer them, it’s just that he happened to make them inaudible.)

Because that is what happened to Oliver Kamm who appeared on one of his programmes, and he didn’t seem to like it very much.

When Jeremy Bowen was censured for breaching impartiality rules Oliver Kamm supported him, rather bizarrely according to many people.

Kamm said he believed that scrupulous impartiality was not necessary from Bowen, citing other notable journalistic precedents.

Though he disagreed with some of Bowen’s views, he concluded:

“Objective reporting means that, while being aware of your partial information, you describe the world as you see it. This is the responsibility that Bowen has, and it’s one that he has discharged.”

Furthermore he doesn’t seem to think Bowen is the sharpest knife in the box.

“I watched the BBC programme this evening, and I have to acknowledge that its presenter, Jeremy Bowen, whose greatest admirers would be hard put to identify in him the sharpest of inquiring minds, didn’t do a bad job.”

But he’s the BBC Middle East Editor! Of course he has more of a responsibility than just describing the world as he, the Palestinians and Hamas, see it.

So Bowen is Biased AND thick, but Galloway is beyond the pale. The fact that the BBC lets him get away with so much speaks volumes; it’s time he was faded out altogether.

Linguistic Limitations

Apart from Jeremy Bowen’s pro Palestinian position, his grievance against Israelis, his reliance on Palestinian stringers because of his inability to speak either Hebrew or Arabic, and his lisp, one thing that annoys me about the BBC’s M.E. editor is the difficulty he has with his own language. This morning he chats with Sarah Montague about Obama’s forthcoming speech aimed at embracing the Muslim world. Struggling for a while with “ much looked-forward-to” he eventually found the word that had eluded him – “anticipated.” His vocabulary-light rhetoric is always peppered with “quite franklys” and “if you see what I means,” although I’m not sure he’s ever ventured a “to be Honest”
Anyway, he says that Netanyahu has his hands tied by the religious right, who have got it into their silly little heads that the land belongs to the chosen ones. Obama has the difficult task of convincing these religiously fanatical Jews to accede to Arab demands while overlooking entirely the intransigence, violence and genocidal intentions of his religiously fanatical Islamic brethren.
With next week’s ME visit by the One, ‘going forward’, Jeremy Bowen’s reports on the BBC are being eagerly – “much looked forward to.”

I’ll leave Justin Webb to everyone out there. Over to you.
(Too early for the Today link. Please, someone add it later)

Passive Killing

Thanks to Pounce for drawing my attention to this example of BBC bias.

Six killed in gun battle! Home-owner killed! Politically motivated arrests!
Police raid! Allegations of torture! Zionist Agents!

All of this and more, but wait – Who has done these evil things?

Israel is not in the headline. Why not? Because this time Israel is not the culprit.

There doesn’t seem to be culprit at all.
In fact no-one in particular seems to have murdered anyone. Just Fighting. Fighting is what has killed six Palestinians.

That explains why the headline is not:
Palestinians murder Palestinians in West Bank Gun Battle.”

BBC headline writers have a habit of taking all responsibility away from Palestinians, who just die from ‘fighting’ whereas Israelis “kill militants” and “strike children,” and if any Israelis should die, it’s from Fighting, Rockets, or Explosions. You know, the ones that just happen.

Caving In. Part 2.

On the subject of caving in to pro-Palestinian pressure, something unusual appeared in the Independent yesterday. A letter from film director Gary Sinyor, recipient of the award for Best British Film from the EIFF 1992 for his film “Leon the Pig Farmer” (Do read it all)

He explains eloquently why Ken Loach was wrong to threaten the Edinburgh International Film Festival, forcing them to hand back the £300 sponsorship money from Israel…… or else.

“To repress the freedom of a film festival, to blackmail it, because it has accepted £300 from a government body to fly over a film-maker is petty and outrageous.[…..] “to acquiesce to this blackmail is more outrageous still. [……..] “To be seen to give in to extremists is simply not an option.”

Amen to that.
Meanwhile, back at the BBC, they’re still promoting Loach’s latest film.

Caving in to this sort of pressure seems to be the order of the day, and sad to say, the BBC’s twin habits of doing that and vilifying Israel epitomise the downward spiral we’re in.