The Curious Incident of Joe Biden in the Daytime

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.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The Curious Incident of Joe Biden in the Daytime

  1. sue says:

    Heard of Alistair Crooke?
    This man was also one of the BBC’s favourite talking heads, called in regularly to avail us of his special expertise on Middle East affairs.

       0 likes

  2. John Anderson says:

    What the BBC is noticeably FAILING to report is that two-thirds of the US House of Representatives have already signed a letter to Obama asking him to “cool it”.   It is obvious that the whole damn affair has been cooked up in the White House – where Samantha Power is always at hand to give anti-Israel advice to the President – who has been surrounded by anti-semites such as Jeremiah Wright for decades.

    Obama does not have popular support over this contrived “outrage”.   And it is crazy that he should be bashing Israel at every turn,  reneging on past US policies,  while requiring nothing of the Palestinians and doing damn-all about the real threat in the Middle East – Iran and its nuclear capability.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      and it now looks as though Obama will fail to veto an upcoming United Nations resolution attacking Israel over Jerusalem.  This is unprecedented – as is the entire pattern of behaviour by the Obama administration.

      As a new President,  Obama might have been able to bring both Israel and the Palestinians to enter into at least indirect negotiations.  But by the one-sided criticism of Israel,  the Obama crowd has given the Palestinians the perfect excuse to refuse to join in,  unless Israel makes a concession it has never been asked to make in earlier “peace” talks.

      We are probably further away from peace than ever. (That is – if the Palestinians ever genuinely wanted a peace).  Obama’s crass actions have blown any chance of a settlement.

      Is the BBC reporting this angle on it all ?   Of course not – even though it is a common view in the US as well as Israel, hence the House of Representatives letter asking Obama to backtrack. His Chicago-style strong-arm tactics simply will not work.

      At every turn,  the BBC uses every trick in the book,  omission as well as commission, to cast Israel in a bad light.   While neglecting to report on the real nature of Palestinian society – remember, the “insult” to Biden and the US occurred at the same time as the “moderate” West Bank celebrated a notorious terrorist, who murdered a large number of Israelis including children, by naming a square after her.

      How low will the BBC sink ?   I don’t think Bowen and his crew are yet anywhere near the depths they are willing to plumb.

         0 likes

  3. Cassandra King says:

    I am starting to get a very uncomfortable feeling about the new residents of the whitehouse,what their aims are and who is pulling the strings and for just what purpose.
    Obama surrounding himself with rabid leftists and pursuing an agenda of alienating old allies and moving closer to old enemies, as the old champion grows weaker the coardly bullies and enemies become bolder.
    There is something creepy about Obama, something quite unsettling and dificult to place like an itch that will not ease.
    The Nobel peace prize is looking like either one hell of a rose tinted short sighted mistake or our Barry and his unearned prize was a carefully plotted anti democratic coup bringing a false prophet to lead us into the gates of hell with a smile on our faces.
    Look at it this way, he is the perfect NWO face isnt he? That fake smile and charm combined with a hatred of the free world.
    Just what what has Obama done so far to earn that Nobel prize given to him even before he did anything?
    The middle east aint exactly gettin down an holdin hands singing the coke song is it? The koreas dont seem to be tearing down that fence anytime soon and Iran gets closer to the nuclear club everyday, this peace prize is starting to look a little off the mark isnt it?
    All the petty squabbles and bitter hatreds that plague the world are being stoked little by little, old alliances are being betrayed and new ones formed with unlikely allies.
    The USA is being broken and its once closest ally is near broken and helpless before the new proto USSR in the making.
    The free world is slowly dying, authoritarianism is on the rise hidden behind a cloak of fake concern for the planet, corruption is taking hold with self interest encouraged everywhere, the gravytrain is buying off those not already on board.
    Some Americans think Obama is the antichrist, probably not but his actions are certainly becoming rather too dark for my liking.

       0 likes

  4. Charlie says:

    Israel fought and repelled the invading Arab armies in a fight for survival, they acquired land in the process. If the boot was on the other foot and the Arab armies had succeeded in  driving the Israelis into an enclave around, say, Haifa. Would the Arabs under international pressure relinquish all of UN mandated Israel. No they would not. Israel  suffers because it has not the mineral wealth that Saudi Arabia has, it only has the wit and ingenuity of its population. One day Arab oil money will run out, they may wonder why so much treasure was spent on trying to destroy Israel. We will be left wondering why we supported  dictatorial Arab regimes and not the only democratic country in the Middle East.
    Hypocrisy writ large.

       0 likes

  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I guess all those defenders of the indefensible who told us that the Jewish Lobby was still in charge – viz: Rahm Emanuel’s placement in the Administration – have been proven wrong.  They also told us that there was no real evidence of anti-Israel or anti-Jew sentiment at Rev. Wright’s church, and that the fact that The Obamessiah attended that church for 20 years was irrelevant.

    They also told us that He would govern as a centrist, and that we were crazy to think He might have Socialist tendencies.

    The only thing Justin Webb, Matt Frei, any other BBC employee, or any of those who came here to defend them last year got right was that the President would transform the US’s relationship with the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, He’s basically ruined our relationship with the UK, Europe, Israel, and China, while at the same time empowering Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea.  Yes, that’s a significant transformation, and I admit that the defenders of the indefensible were right in predicting that He would transform the relationship between the US and the rest of the world.  His Presidency has so far been a boon for those who harborded anti-American feelings, like all those Beeboids and defenders of the indefensible.  I guess that’s why they wanted so much to see Him elected.

       0 likes

  6. Martin says:

    What is remarkable is that still in America the Jewish community tends to be more supportive of the Democrats than the Republicans, yet it’s the Republicans that have always backed Israel up when the needs requires it.

    What is also not remarkable is the BBC using the word ‘terrorism’ when talking about those evil ‘Joows’

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      We’re idiots.  Jews have a long association with the Left, of course.  At various times, they were blamed for bringing Communism into Germany and the US.  There’s some history and sociology behind it, but that’s a topic for another day.  Anti-Republican sentiment among Jews was further entrenched in the last century when Jews weren’t allowed to join the country clubs, and all those Communist-sympathizing Jews in the film industry got blacklisted during the McCarthy noise.  Those feelings of resentment linger to this day.

      A few Jews noticed that President Clinton was nearly ready to sell Israel down the river, but most of them never thought anything about The Obamessiah other than the fact that He wasn’t George Bush or the kind of Christian they don’t like.

      Having said all that, I should also point out that the idea that all Jews think of Israel first is kind of a myth.  Quite a few realize the importance of Israel’s survival, sure, and are vocal about it.  But many Jews, especially those born more than 20 years after WWII, don’t really think there’s much of a connection between Israel’s fate and their own.

         0 likes

  7. John Anderson says:

    The dispute with Obama concerns Jerusalem.  Obama appears to favour the Palestinian/Muslim claim to East Jerusalem.

    That is – the Jerusalem that is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible – and not even once in the Koran.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      But, as the BBC is so fond of pointing out, the Al Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in all of Islam.  A few Jews also think it’s important, apparently, as the BBC has mentioned at least twice (out of all those reports) that they have their own name for it.  Can’t say for sure based on BBC reporting just what their deal is, though.  Certainly no Beeboid has ever raised the possibility that it’s the holiest place in the world – in fact the only actual holy place – for Jews.

      So based on BBC reportage, one must conclude that Muslims have a greater claim, and Jews have no valid reason.

         0 likes

  8. burbette123 says:

    Al beeb has gone too far yet again.  They reported a couple of days ago that “Israel said rockets were launched into the south by MILITANTS.”   That is simply wrong. The report in Haaretz, and Yedioth, (Hebrew newspapers) clearly used the word TERRORISTS.  It reminds me of the old days when the state purveyor of falsehoods relayed: Israel said its WARPLANES…   Well, that was the same crap.  What was actually stated B.D. (Before Distortion), was” Israel said its fighters,or planes, or jets…”
    Notice in the wake of the Moscow underground suicide attack, al beeb is quite happy for the T word to be used all over the shop!
    Plus ca change!

       0 likes

  9. Umbongo says:

    Ingrams’ anti-Jew and anti-Israel statements are an aspect of “traditional” British antisemitism.  Although just as unpleasant as the same sentiments from the left, at least it’s out in the open and, to his credit (if that’s the right word), Ingrams makes no bones about it.  The best one can say about Ingrams is that he’s no hypocrite.  Compare though the anti-Israel, anti-Jew sentiments of the left transmitted with enthusiasm by the BBC.

    Here, there is constant denial that the BBC’s relaying and creation of anti-Israel bile – and the bile itself – is not anti-Jew.  After all, as the theme is usually played out, there are many Jews in the “we are Hamas” etc movement and several of the BBC reporters based in Israel (not Gaza or Ramallah, apparently) are Jews.  However, although Israel has done some incredibly crass and stupid things, to dump the whole guilt trip on Israel while giving a free pass to Hamas etc a la Bowen is offensive even to those who are not knee-jerk supporters of Israel.  Frankly, building settlements for Jewish crazies on the West Bank is not a sensible policy.  Yes, it “creates facts” but who really benefits?  Not Israel (or, rather, not the secular majority in Israel) which has handed a hostage to fortune by this policy.  The sole beneficaries are religious nutters who happen to be Jews.  About all you can say in favour of the Jewish fanatics is that they are not as careless of innocent lives as their Moslem fellow-crazies.

    The BBC narrative is simple: Israel should not exist.  For the BBC, were Israel to disappear (preferably with the world’s Jews – except the kapos, of course, for whom a use can always be found) a Golden Age of Palestinian and Moslem democracy and tolerance will dawn, Islamic terrorism will disappear from the world and Kumbaya will be sung in the Thought for the Day spot on Today.  It’s a cheaper version of the AGW narrative in that it’s only the Jews who will suffer to save the world, not the rest of us.

       0 likes

  10. Martin says:

    Turd sniffing alert on the BBC.

    1. The BBC’s Huw Edwards interviewing The US Ambassador. Edwards seemed very concerned that the UK may not be the USA’s ‘special friend’ anymore. Wow, when Bush was president the BBC hated any relationship with America. So what’s changed I wonder?

    2. The BBC in full attack on the excellent Tory idea to not put up NI next year. Some crappy report from the IFS saying that it’s not a good idea. “This is DAMMING” spouts Huw Edwards. Funny that I don’t remember the BBC using DAMMING when the EU attacked McBust and Darling over their lack of dealing with the UK deficit.

    3. Also note how the BBC hasn’t pointed out that Joanna Lumley has been smeared by the forces of evil from within Nu Liebour just like anyone who says anything against this crap Government

    4. The BBC have been obsessed with ONE STORY all day. The Muslim bombers in Moscow? er no, but Meow Meow. All day Radio 5 in particular (I’m guessing Meow Meow is popular there) has been going on and on about if this stuff should be banned or not. Is this REALLY the top story?

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      1.  This will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers that one of The Obamessiah’s first housekeeping acts as President was to send back the Churchill bust, followed by a major fail when exchanging gifts with Gordon Brown last year.  Mr. Brown gave Him a seriously thoughtful, unique gift of a pen holder carved from the timbers of an anti-slavery ship, and in return the man whom the BBC told us all was so much more sophisticated and wordly and intellectual than Bush and would transform the world’s opinion of the US gave the PM a set of DVDs which can’t be played on UK-region equipment.  The BBC swept that one under the rug.

      2. You’re right.  They played that one down as well.  Britian isn’t part of the Eurozone anyway, etc., the rare occasion when a condemnation from Vince Cable didn’t get much promotion.

      3. Still smarting from last time, I guess.

      4. It was obvious from the moment Today had three segments on it in one show that some Beeboids have been using mephedrone and are concerned it might be banned.

         0 likes

  11. Martin says:

    Toenails on BBC 1 didn’t even try to hide his bias when dissing the Tory plan to scrpa the NI increase next year. It was as if he was simply reading a Liebour press release, which on reflection he probably was.

       0 likes

  12. John Anderson says:

    Useful article in the Sunday Times about the obsession at Human Rights Watch about Israel,  and its ignoring of far more serious areas of loss of life – eg Kashmir,  internal Iran etc.   All the criticism of HRW fits the BBC to a T – which is why the BBC so often trumpets the rubbish HRW comes out with :

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076462.ece

       0 likes

  13. RepublicanStones says:

    Israel fought and repelled the invading Arab armies in a fight for survival, they acquired land in the process.


    Utter nonsense. In 1948 the Arab armies came to the aid and at the request of the indigneous people of Palestine, whose sovereignty and welfare was under threat from zionists who unilaterally declared statehood even though resolution 181 held no enforcement weight. It was merely a recommendation. Those who support what Israel did in 1948 cannot refuse to accept the Palestinians doing the same today with the ir state encompassing all of WB and Gaza. Beucase to refuse to do so merely demonstrates the hypocrisy of some people. And bear in mind the WB and Gaza reprsent about 24% less of the land which 181 envisaged giving the Palestinians. Also if you are referring to the Six Day war of 1967, Israel attacked first, and also was not under any threat. As the archives have shown. Now for Israel to stop settlement building is not a concession. Abstaining from doing something which you should not be doing in the first place is not to concede anything.

       0 likes

  14. RepublicanStones says:

    Certainly no Beeboid has ever raised the possibility that it’s the holiest place in the world – in fact the only actual holy place – for Jews. 

    Really, so what about the likes of the Cave of the Patriarchs, or Rachels Tomb?

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Republican Stones,

      So, are you suggesting that the BBC’s silence is even more serious than I thought?

         0 likes

  15. sue says:

    Republican Stones is a serial poster who trolls many pro Israel sites with bizarre versions of history and a fiercely pro Palestinian agenda. He will never change, so best not to bother to try.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Agreed – best to ignore the bizarro,  he wanders to and fro with his poison

         0 likes

  16. RepublicanStones says:

    David the BBC has mentioned those places.

    Sue, whats the matter, would you prefer me to be one of the yes men this site is littered with?

       0 likes