I received this from a B-BBC reader and thought to share it…

“This morning at 5.30 I had the opportunity to compare the difference between Sky and BBC World’s coverage of this story.

Whilst Sky’s strap line and bulletin headlines platform the role of BRITISH diplomats who walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech because of ‘alleged anti-semitic” ‘ comments (quote marks theirs), the BBC said merely that SOME diplomats had walked out because of ‘criticism’ of western policies and Israel (quote mark mine’).

Sky broadcast the speech at the 5.30 am in their bulletin, in the context of the British walkout and anti-semitism., You can view the speec here .

In it, the Iranian president lambasts Israel for actions leading to ‘genocide’ and then says how wrong it is that ‘a few thousand people’ world wide can have such an influence on banking, media and world policy – in fact repeating the whole protocols of the elders of Zion, Nazi conspiracy theory. Open Jewish world domination theory in the hall of the UN!

The difference between the two reports of verifiable fact was jaw-dropping. Do the BBC World editors hate Israel (and, it would seem, Jewish people world-wide) so much that they are no longer shocked by blatant anti-semitism?

The answer, of course, is YES.

Worlds Apart

For many years the BBC has been engaging in a two pronged campaign, on one front familiarising the British public with The Islamic World, and on the other steadily demonising Israel.

This is, after all, the British Broadcasting Corporation, so this flying in the face of Judeo-Christian tradition defies logic. The current BBC has been able to pull off a mass suspension of disbelief by taking liberties with the ‘old’ BBC’s reputation for virtue and impartiality acquired long ago.

It’s true that the instant we get a whiff of an unpalatable viewpoint we’re apt to shut down, so many people will have decided that what I’ve said already is not for them.
If anyone is still here, a spat, perhaps a cyberspat, has arisen which has brought another aspect of this sorry tale to the fore.

Vivian Wineman and Robin Shepherd both have slightly unisex names, so for your information they are both gents. Their disagreement is over the recent Community Service Trust report which concluded that antisemitism in Britain has risen alarmingly. Chris Huhne and several other MPs are aware of this and think it is intolerable.
Mr. Wineman, though, says it’s nothing to worry about, it’s not really happening, while Mr. Shepherd says it certainly is, and it’s very concerning.
Strange to tell, Mr. Wineman is a Jew, and Mr. Shepherd is not.

Mr. Wineman is the newly elected President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and he has expressed his controversial views in the Jerusalem Post in a ‘debut’ article. It was written in response to Robin Shepherd’s earlier article on the topic, also in the JPost, which took a different view, and which I mentioned here.

Mr. Wineman’s ‘nothing to worry about’ article has attracted many responses from a wide range of people who are appalled at his complacency, and who agree with Mr. Shepherd. who has in turn written about it all on his own blog.

The blame for this outbreak of racist hostility which is (or is not) increasing alarmingly, had initially been laid firmly at the door of Operation Cast Lead. However, on further examination all roads lead straight past this red herring and on to the real culprit. The BBC.
What has come to the fore, and something that clearly emerges from all this, is the way Britain and our state broadcaster are currently perceived around the world.

Alongside the increase in racially motivated incidents and covert hostility towards Jews, there is a growing worldwide perception that British Jews should watch their backs. The BBC is seen as antisemitic, Britain is seen as ‘no place for Jews’, and the BBC is seen as having played the most significant role in the fiasco that has led to this disastrous state of affairs.

Flights of fancy

Given that the BBC reflects and inevitably creates public attitudes, and is obliged to be seen to be impartial, could someone at the BBC kindly explain your portrayal of M.E. news.

For example this web article concerning the removal of the word nakba from textbooks for state-educated Arab Israeli nine-year-olds.
Although worded to give a veneer of impartiality, the article conveys an unpleasant underlying message with an innocent smile, the lip-service of balance barely concealing prejudices that turn the truth inside out.

“The passage in question, which occurs in one textbook aimed at Arab children aged eight or nine, describes the 1948 war, which resulted in Israel’s creation,”

What? The war resulted in Israel’s creation? The other way round methinks.
Israel’s creation resulted in the war. The war waged by the Arabs against Israel’s creation. Because of it. See? Upside down.

Your message shines through thus:

Far-right Jews have callously stolen the truth from little children, forcing them to deny their catastrophe and pretend instead that it was a triumph for the Zionist oppressors. Hebrew text books deviously focus on the heroism of Israeli forces in 1948 and gloss over the mass exile of Palestinians.
Israelis are arrogant boasting manipulators who cover up the proof about Israel’s lies over their brutal ethnic cleansing of millions of Arabs in 1948.
More impending oppressive legislation is in the pipeline from the far-right.

Is that what you really think but were constrained from saying outright? You had to make an attempt, through gritted teeth, to sound even-handed?
A little transparency please. Make people who write articles and broadcast over the airwaves learn some history. Please.

Look at the list of KEY STORIES. It’s almost as though you think there is nothing positive to say about Israel. Almost as if you fall into the category of what they call ‘ready made thinking about Jews.’

“Oh no,” you reply. “It’s not Jews we hate, it’s Israel.”

Well in that case why do you publicise Breaking the Silence and not this?
The amnesty International report about war crimes and not this?
And why don’t you mention the equal number of Jews, (not millions as you state in your article but an estimated 750,000) that were displaced from Arab countries in 1948, or reflect on the good fortune of Arab Israelis who enjoy a state education in Israel with text books that don’t perpetuate hostility and deliberately inflame grievances and hatred.

Racists Come Out!

It’s a pity being a racist has such a stigma attached. People go to any lengths to avoid being thought of as one. However, something unpleasant is being said by all these wonderfully innocent non-racist individuals who haven’t a racist bone in their bodies.Zionism equals racism, and Israel = Racist.

Despite the contortions they go through in order to get away with accusing other so-called racial groups of racism without looking a little tarred with the same abomination of a brush, that particular conjuring trick can never truly be pulled off. Even if they stand on their heads and don a burqa, they can’t avoid looking a tad hypocritical.

But, hey, what’s wrong with that? Don’t take that as a criticism. These days admitting to a bit of racism is almost the new honesty. Accepting antisemitism is already the new honesty, as in Dinner Party Antisemitism which I’m told is all the rage.

To be honest – as everyone seems to say so very frequently these days -Israel is, after all, the “Jewish” state; everyone hates Israel; why not just be honest and admit they hate Jews too?
Jews = Zionists and Zionists = racists. And, let’s all be honest, so are they!

Everyone knows that ‘To be honest’ is the new ‘Basically.’ Also popular, “If I’m being honest,” which is weaker as it begs the question, “Are you? Or not?”

Honesty is a virtue after all. Come on out, tell your granny, she’s probably one already.
Who cares what the EUMC has to say about antisemitism? Definition or no definition. Definition shmefinishon. Bring it on. Freedom! Throw off the shackles of P.C.! What a relief!
All together now. “We hate Jews. We’re out and we’re proud. Antisemites R us!”

That’s what the BBC + Jeremy Paxman would say if they were being honest.

But not Martin Jacques. He hasn’t quite come out yet. To him racism is still taboo!!!!

“No people like to admit to their own racism; the response is invariably one of denial. This makes the UN conferences on racism – and there have only been two this decade – important and worthwhile events. “

Time to get it off your chest Mr. Jacques, and come on out! You, the UN, and the BBC. The closet is overcrowded already.

And to pre-empt those waiting to pounce with allegations that this has a tenuous or spurious connection with BBC bias, I contend that it has very much to do with it. You reap what you sow. The BBC sows and we all reap.