BBC Censorship: Holocaust-Denial At UN-Funded Schools Is A Non-Story Edition

The association of UNRWA employees (staff in UN-funded schools for Palestinian “refugees”) in Jordan have voted to ban acknowledging that the Holocaust happened in their school curriculum. Responding to a recent rumor that the subject might get re-introduced to students, the executive committee said this:

“We condemn this decision, which equates the butcher and the victim,” read the teachers’ statement, demanding instead to introduce classes on the Palestinian “right of return” to Israel and the history of the 1948 war with Israel.

This isn’t the domestic education system of a sovereign nation, mind. This is a UN-funded body, paid for by you and me. And as many people here might be aware (but those who rely on the BBC for their news won’t be), this is nothing new.

Last year, the association of UNRWA employees endorsed a decision to ban the introduction of Holocaust studies in UNRWA schools, Jordanian daily Al-Ghad reported Tuesday, a decision the teachers said was still binding.

“We shall monitor the curriculum being taught under the title ‘concepts of human rights’ [which is] aimed at reducing [Palestinian] students’ awareness of the right of return,” read the statement.

The BBC hasn’t touched this topic since 2009. Go ahead, do a search. I’ll wait.

This was during the last time Israel clashed militarily with Hamas in Gaza. At the time, the BBC was discussing – purely impartially, I’m sure – the notion that what the Israelis were doing to Gaza was equivalent to what the Nazis did to the Jews. The math doesn’t add up in my view, but that shouldn’t stop the BBC from considering viewpoints from all sides. On certain issues, anyway. The BBC had no problem discussing Hamas’ desire to ban discussion of the Holocaust at the time, providing a balanced news brief featuring both the fact (at least the BBC seems to be presenting it as such) that 6 million Jews were killed and the opinion that it’s now used as an excuse for Israeli atrocities. Not as an excuse for Israel to exist, but for atrocities committed by Israel.

I guess BBC editors have decided that it is the same, because they’re censoring this news now. The BBC is well aware of this situation. They get the same wire service reports and press releases as everyone else, never mind their close working relationship with the Palestinian media. Please note that I’m not suggesting bias because of that in this case. I’m merely presenting this as evidence that the BBC clearly has good sources of information on these issues, and there’s no way they don’t know about it. They do know, and have decided not to tell you.

Why? This is a UN organization we’re talking about. It’s in all our interests to know what they’re up to. I wonder how many BBC staff agree with the following sentiment:

“Teaching UNRWA students about the so-called ‘Holocaust’ as part of human rights harms the Palestinian cause… and changes the students’ views regarding their main enemy, namely the Israeli occupation.”

As I’m not a professional journalist, it’s possible that I’m simply too ignorant of how it all works to understand why this isn’t being mentioned by the BBC, while they currently have a feature on the Palestinian criminal who was released by Israel in exchange for Gilad Shalit declaring his continued desire to fight Israel, a piece about Israel doing wrong by some Bedouins, and a report on how an Israeli court has “forced” their Government to release a study about how much they deliberately prevent Gaza children from getting the proper nourishment (that’s the impression given by the BBC article).

Perhaps any lurking media professionals can explain it to me. Balance over time? Dog bites man? What?



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.


Glad to see that Israel has finally responded to the endless rocketing from Hamas but as you can imagine, the BBC is outraged. Israeli F-16 bombers have pounded key targets across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 225 people, “local medics” say.Most of those killed were “policemen” in the Hamas militant (aka terrorist) movement, which controls Gaza, but women and children also died, the Gaza “officials” said. The entire emphasis of the BBC report is aimed at painting Israel as the aggressors, the bad guys, and I note that the predictably pro-Palestinian babble from Ban ki-Moon is also faithfully recorded. The UN, the BBC, all mouthpieces for rampant Palestinian propaganda – and now all outraged when Israel finally moves to crush Hamas killers.


The BBC reports that the United Nations, that fine body of..ahem.. recognised global moral authority, is having a bit of a problem getting all of its members to sign a declaration decriminalising homosexual acts. The Sodomists charter, put forward by la belle France and the Netherlands, seeks to stop legal punishment of homosexuals. Given the tendency in Islamic nations such as Iran, for example, to hang gay people, I suppose that is a fair enough aim but the assertion by the BBC that “Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights” seems remarkably close to propagandising on behalf of the militant gay lobby for my liking. Since when did the right to gay sex become an inviolable “human right”, exactly? And how does the BBC quantify this assertion? Does it consult with the transsexual community and compile a data-base of transgressions against trannies? There are certain topics that engage full-on BBC editorial sympathy; Eco-wackery is one, Gay Rights is another. The fact that the UN cannot even agree on a definition of terrorism is ignored by the BBC as it evangelises on behalf of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered community.


I was reviewing the BBC’s coverage of Richard Falk, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on human rights in “the Palestinian territories”. Now I guess Richard is the kinda guy that the BBC just loves. He has already proven his credentials by comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and thus seems uniquely qualified to occupy this key role as UN human rights rapporteur. No hint of bias there at all, right? The thing is that Richard has also stated that he would like to investigate whether “some sort of controlled explosion from within” destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11. Now I know he said this on Fox News in the States but I would have thought that the very fact that such a senior UN figure was a 9/11 Truther might have warranted some coverage by the BBC – but apparently not. The State Broadcaster remains mute on the bizarre ramblings of scum like Falk because he is an advocate of pro-Palestinian anti-Americanism – two sacred cows for the BBC.


Entertaining to read the BBC’s coverage of Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe’s visit to Rome to attend – irony of ironies – a Food Summit! Criticism of Mugabe’s presence on European soil has to be muted by the BBC because he is in Rome care of that vast corrupt organised hypocrisy – the United Nations. Since the BBC likes to portray the UN as the world’s highest moral authority, it has to be careful not to say too much about the fact that this august body invites a man who starves his own people to a summit on Food. I also enjoyed the line the BBC spun that because the UN had invited Mugabe, the EU was therefore unable to prevent him attending this conference. Of course the EU could have insisted that Mugabe be kept out, but just like the UN it too lacks any sense of even vestigial decency.

Playing softball

Say you’re an international organisation with a lot of skeletons in the closet. Say you know that your reputation will be damaged when news of these skeletons gradually filters into the public mind, as it must.

I suppose under such circumstances everything would come down to PR- you’d probably admit that bad news was going to come out and so suggest to a friendly party to conduct an “investigation” which would spread the blame nice and thinly, and then release the news through a friendly organ. It would be a little painless bloodletting, and then… back to work. The organ would probably begin its main article something like this:

“Children as young as six are being sexually abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.”

Sounds like a good idea. A watchdog. Sounds like a job for the UN- they’d be perfectly placed considering their clean hands and incorruptibility.


Good to see the BBC’s Midde-East disinformation service exposed and watching the Beeboids forced into issuing apologies for the poor standard of reporting.

You recall all that hysteria the BBC spouted on March 7, following the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva massacre? The BBC showed a bulldozer demolishing a house, while correspondent Nick Miles told viewers: “Hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his family home” Just one problem. That’s right – the house was not demolished. Other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son’s actions.

Just over a week later in a news item entitled “Israel jets strike northern Gaza” the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in an operation targeting Qassam rocket launch sites in Gaza, and claiming that the United Nations secretary-general had described it as an attack on civilians. Following a complaint the BBC squirmed “We accept we should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the ‘excessive use of force’ by Israel. We have amended the report, also removing the reference to Israeli ‘attacks on civilians.”

Just what is it that makes BBC reporters see the imaginary demolition of houses? Just what is it that makes the BBC fail to report condemnation of Palestinian terrorists? The answer appears to be an endemic desire to want to believe the worst about Israel and simultaneously portray the Palestinians as doe-eyed innocents. This is BIAS incarnate and in these two instances, the BBC has been forced into providing the balance and accuracy that was lamentably lacking.