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.
