BOYCOTTING HATE FORUM.

I see that the BBC is flagging up that next week’s UN Hate Israel aka “Racism” forum will suffer a boycott. Thankfully, Australia and the Netherlands has joined the US, Israel, Italy and Canada in boycotting the talks. TItaliche gutless Brown administration IS sending a delegation, but at least no senior official will be present. The hard left, including the BBC of course, approves of these UN assaults on the West in general and Israel in particular and so when the BBC finishes this item by stating disapprovingly that “Human rights groups and UN diplomats are dismayed that what should an important event has descended into politics” can we be surprised? It may come as a surprise to the BBC correspondent but the UN is an entirely political organisation and the only importance of this event next week is to laud vermin like Ahmadinejad and bash Israel.




DISSING BIBI.

Clearly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nehanyahu is in for a rough time and we can be certain the BBC will do everything possible to undermine his position. Take this headline today “Netanyahu – No Partner for Peace”. In essence the BBC is shilling for the PA but also helps propagandise on behalf of its dear pal, US Senator George Mitchell. Now I met with Georgie-Boy during the “negotiations” surrounding the Good Friday Agreement and had fairly argumentative sessions with him. He was Clinton’s bag-man back then and he has become a much revered figure within the BBC – so when he says jump the BBC asks how high. Criticism of Mitchell is unheard of here in Northern Ireland in BBC circles. I see Mitchell as a malevolent figure and he will exert maximum pressure on Israel whilst paying lip service to the prospect of any real change from the genocidal Palestinians. Watch the BBC shill for the Senator whilst doing everything possible to isolate Bibi. It’s what they do!




Untenable?


It is big news that the BBC has actually upheld some of the complaints against Jeremy Bowen. The way they’ve wriggled and jiggled out of the remainder is an indication of the wider battle we’re faced with.

Whether or not they sack him remains to be seen; it’s just the tip of the inherent bias iceberg really. The tenacity of the complainant Jonathan Turner is remarkable. Anyone else would have lost the will to live long ago.

So Long, Sheriff


Another poisonous piece from the Man from Laramie. Another immature puerile stream of puke; clumsy, artless, biased and inept. He got so carried away with his description of Palestinian hardship seasoned with lashings of sentimentality that he almost forgot to add the obligatory token reference to eight years of inconvenience from a few irritating home-made rockets. Apart from that brief allusion, he neglected to include any smidgeon of a clue that there could be any reason whatsoever for the aforementioned multiple hardships, other than Israeli beastliness.
A gushing description of tunneling activities brimmed with awe and admiration for such industriousness. Clearly emphasising that their purpose was the importation of essentials and small luxuries, he added, perhaps a tad mockingly, that the Israelis “claim” weapons are also smuggled. He should have checked that out or he would have found it’s a bit more than just a claim.

Cowboy, it’s time to hang up your boots and ride into the sunset. Your resignation would probably be accepted, with or without the token reluctance.

Tiny Glimmer Extinguished

On Wednesday, Aleem Maqbool brought us the violence between Hamas and Fatah. (Murders, knee-cappings and torture.) There was only one brief reference to Israel’s wickednesses; he actually stuck mostly to Pali on Pali atrocities.

This morning John Humphrys let Jerusalem Post’s Gil Hoffman speak positively about Avigdor Lieberman – he was even allowed to be optimistic about the likelihood of peace under Benjamin Netanyahu’s regime.

Announcing on hourly radio news bulletins that a 13-year old Israeli boy has been killed by an axe-wielding Arab seemed almost like another small glimmer of light; somewhat dimmed by the fact that while other news outlets reporting this sign off with a mention of other terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, the BBC reverts to type by adding instead a reminder that “this is the first such incident since the right-leaning government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office.” Later changed, extinguishing the glimmer completely, to ”All Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territory are regarded as illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”
Understandable that militants would want to kill Israeli children, right?

ISRAEL DISPUTES GAZA DEATH RATES



SCARY

 

Total dead: 1,166 (1,434)
Fighters: 710-870 (235)
Non-combatants: 295-460 (960)
Women: 49 (121)
Children under 16: 89 (288)

 

“SUE” COMPARES SCARE QUOTES “RATES”

I divided this “article” about discrepancies in “casualty” figures into two.

A = Putting Israel’s case.

B = Putting Palestinians’ case.

Although there were about 55 more words reporting Israel’s case, the article still seemed biased against it.
How, I thought, could this be? Having separated them, (by “scientifically scrupulous” method of scrutiny by “agenda-driven bigot” ) I noticed that A was sprinkled generously with scare quotes while B had only one set which related to directly reported speech.
I counted twelve sets of inverted commas altogether, a ratio of 11-1. 

My survey.
Total words in article 630Representing Isr (Pali) = 304(249)

 
Total sets quotation marks = 12

Isr /Pali quote marks = 11 (1)

 
Direct speech = 0 (1)

 
Reported / Indirect speech = 4 (0)*

Gratuitous scare quotes = 7 (0)**



*”It is generally considered incorrect to use quotation marks for paraphrased speech where they may give the impression that the paraphrasing represents the actual words used.”

**”to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words.

Feeding the Wolves

In my Hague Left Hanging post below I alluded to the Haaretz report consisting, it turns out, mainly of hearsay about unethical behaviour by IDF soldiers fighting in Gaza.
Eagerly awaited fodder for the pack of wolves, hungry for just such tales of war crimes perpetrated by the IDF.

Melanie P addressed the evidence, dismantling it point by point, but it had already been swallowed by the MSM, the hungriest of which is the BBC’s siamese twin, the Guardian.

Not content with editorials and numerous articles, the most poisonous of which is by ‘Hamas mouthpiece’ Seamas Milne, the Guardian has been calling for support for its “work” by sending out an appeal to blog and website owners. It came from the delightfully named Mustafa Khalili who sent one by mistake to a pro Israel blog.

“The Guardian has regrettably thrown all professional journalistic ethics and pretensions to balance and objectivity to the four winds, and has gleefully annexed itself to the cause of Hamas,” said Ami Isseroff, chief editor of ZioNation. (Jpost quoting web site ZioNation)

The BBC has got in on the act of course. In a dumbed down article, they’ve got hold of a report, this time by UN investigators, who have come up with yet more ammo about unethical behaviour by Israeli soldiers. It doesn’t tell us much, but who cares, as long as it’s got this “The UN team responsible for protection of children in war zones says it found “hundreds” of similar violations.”
This is primarily concerned with the Guardian and to a lesser extent the BBC, but when Andrew Marr, Paxman and Esler get properly stuck in no doubt there’s much more in store.

PotKettleBiased

That terrible scourge of Israel, human rights spokesperson Richard Falk, has decided that Israel’s war crimes are “not a question of whether Israel used disproportionate force in Gaza, but rather whether Israel acted lawfully in entering Gaza at all.” (The next stage is obviously declaring that the existence of Israel is itself a war crime.)

Today reported this, and ended by stating that by condemning Israel for human rights violations so frequently and so much more harshly than other countries who were equally, if not more, guilty of human rights violations, human rights commissioners or whatever they’re called are beginning to look less than even-handed.

Was the speaker Imogen Foulkes? I don’t know because Today iplayer isn’t working.

Hague Left Hanging

I considered posting about Andrew Marr’s interview with William Hague yesterday, where in the final stages he suddenly threw in a question about the “pretty appalling-looking” reports by the IDF.

My impression was that Hague was subtly supportive of Israel, but was almost bullied into reiterating the word ‘appalling,’ knowing it was his only hope of retaining credibility with the audience.

He was supportive of Israel merely by making two points that went against the grain. a) We don’t know the truth, and, b) that Israel has a mechanism for investigating such things, and for bringing to book those found guilty.
Even mentioning these points at all was daringly radical in the circumstances; because, a) such remarks are the very things that Israel’s enemies always scoff at, and b) the subject was slipped in abruptly at the end and left hanging. There wasn’t time to elaborate, and that was what made his points seem unconvincing and far-fetched.

I saw it as bullying and covert bias. I didn’t post yesterday because the thought of the chanting chorus made me weary.

But today Melanie P has gone much further and is less generous with Hague. Her examination of the issues is well worth looking at, as usual.

BURYING ISRAEL.

Well, it’s just too good an opportunity to miss, isn’t it? Israeli troops brutally murdering innocent Palestinians – hold the front page. The thing is that until an IDF investigation has concluded, this is mere anonymous speculation. If it is proven true, the IDF will deal with those found guilty. If it turns out to be as specious as much other media driven hostility towards Israel, then can we expect the BBC to report that with as much enthusiasm as they drool over this? Further, the BBC headline implies this abuse of peace-loving Gazans as a fact, it is nothing of the sort, it is an allegation.