The tidal wave of disapproval over Israel’s recent misadventures has taken on a life of its own.
The Joe Biden incident was interpreted as an insult, both to him personally and to the whole United States. People have noticed that the language used by the Obama administration inflates the degree of offence taken, mimicking Arab-style rhetoric where pride and honour take precedence over common sense. The unfortunate timing of what was primarily a formality over an internal matter was blown up out of all proportion so it could be misrepresented as Israel’s deliberately planned symbol of defiance, and exploited to camouflage / justify Obama’s emerging strategy of siding with Israel’s enemies.
If the BBC was interested in reporting the full story they would have explained that Obama has reneged on previous agreements between Israel and the US over Jerusalem and ‘houses for Jews’ and is making new demands for concessions from Israel while letting the Palestinians off the hook altogether. He has not asked them for any concessions at all and it is feared that they are thinking up new preconditions for talks about talks while the going is good.
The BBC’S expansionist attitude to the concept of ‘illegally occupied territory’ means it now encompasses everything captured in Israel’s 1967 defensive war, and they’ve got their beady colonialist eye on Israel as a whole. All’s fair in love and war, and in the BBC’s eyes, in war, the winner loses all. (this concept is exclusive to Israel)
While the press made an almighty fuss about the height of the Turkish Ambassador’s seat, the BBC is less keen to trumpet the snubs that Obama dishes out so rudely to those he regards as unworthy, like our own dear leader, and of course Binyamin Netanyahu, who seems to have been left alone in the White House to mull over a list of new demands from Obama while he went off to dine with Michelle and the girls. And would only come back if Israel’s prime minister said sorry for being a naughty boy.
David Miliband’s speech about the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat received a chorus of approval from MPs of all shades, and though he stressed that the issue in question was the cloning of passports rather than the assassination, the BBC doesn’t make that distinction.
Time after time people have been allowed to assert, unchallenged on the BBC, that the ‘victims’ of the cloning, the ‘British’ citizens who have been so wronged, risked being mistaken for terrorists. The final question on Thursdays QT was phrased strangely. Something like: “Is expulsion the appropriate penalty for an act of terrorism?” Dimbleby seemed happy enough with that.
In the eyes of the BBC and consequently, the public, Israel is a terrorist state, therefore Mossad, the IDF and whoever assassinated a ‘senior Hamas Commander’ are terrorists. Unless it transpires that it wasn’t Israel, in which case they’d be militants or freedom fighters.
David Miliband said the victims of the cloning woke up to find themselves ‘wanted terrorists.’ Denis MacShane on the Today programme bemoaned the fact that they had had their pictures splashed all over the papers.
Well, a) I thought the passport pictures were of the actual assassins, not the genuine passport holders, and, b) when the word terrorist is avoided like the plague by the BBC, why is it suddenly applied with gay abandon to assassins who targeted a scoundrel, doing what many other countries, including Great Britain, allegedly get away with all the time without a ripple. Is it coz they is (possibly) Joos?
See Robin Shepherd on the odious Richard Ingrams who has written more bile on this topic. Famous for:
“I have developed a habit, when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government, to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.”
I have developed a habit, when confronted by articles in the Guardian or the Independent, to look at the signature to see if the writer is Richard Ingrams. If so, I tend not to read them.”