Wonder did you read this piece of biased pro-Hezbollah garbage from the BBC’s Natalia Antelava? Aren’t Hezbollah just wonderful – and as for that guy Nasrallah – I bet he makes YOU feel safe too. Unless you are a Jew, and then, who cares. Right?
WE ARE ALL HEZBOLLAH
Bookmark the permalink.
No surprise there. Last summer, Antelava did a BBC report in which she stated that Israel was currently at war with Lebanon. So it’s perfectly understandable that Hezbollah is still thought of as a legitimate defense force.
David, while I appreciate your point, Israel is formally at war with Lebanon. Shooting in the 1948 war ended with an armistice agreement but no peace treaty. In 1982 Israel engineered the election of Bashir Gemayel but he was assassinated one day before a treaty was due to be signed.
You could argue that Israel is actually at war with Hezbullah but they are part of the Lebanese Government and Lebanese leaders have formally, although maybe tongue-in-cheek, announced that they are part of the ‘Resistance’.
I take your point, but that means that Israel is just as technically at war with Lebanon as the US is with North Korea, or was with Sadaam Hussein after the first Gulf War. The BBC and all their fellow travelers would never, ever agree that the US was legally still at war with Sadaam’a Iraq when Bush and Blair decided to remove him from power. Same goes for North Korea. Of course, the BBC has a history of double standards like this, so perhaps they are capable of denying all of that while accepting a war with Lebanon.
Antelava acted as if there was a current, active war between the country of Lebanon and Israel, which there really isn’t. She played it up as if there is a current, real threat from Israel at any moment. That’s complete crap.
Come on IDF slot a few beeboids please they all look like terrorists anyway, I’ll believe you if you do 🙂
In everything the BBC puts a one sided narrative. So why do they not mention other things that their friends have been doing in Lebanon. The bias is utterly unbelievable.
“A series of on going flagrant atrocities are inflicted by the Lebanese official authorities and the terrorist Hezbollah armed militia against our Lebanese brothers and sisters that have been taking refuge in neighboring Israel since May 2000. In the aftermath of the Israeli army’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000, 6,500 southern Lebanese men, along with members of their families had no option but to leave their towns, villages and abandon all their properties and hastily run for their lives. While Israel was logistically preparing for the withdrawal, Hezbollah waged a merciless and savage media campaign against the southern Lebanese citizens. The campaign was aired publicly on all local and international TV channels and radio stations. The most frightening threats were uttered personally by Hezbollah’s General Secretary, Sheik Nasrallah, who savagely said, “We will enter their bedrooms, pierce their stomachs, slaughter them and slice their throats.””
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3364
And David it is not just Jews that have to fear Hezbollah
Even by the BBC’s standards that is a shocker.
‘Today, it is arguably the most powerful militia in the Middle East and inside Lebanon it also functions as a sophisticated political organisation which has won elections, which has a track record of doing serious social work, and which is clever at marketing itself’
Not sure what you’re talking about, Craig. There’s nothing biased in her article at all.
The BBC takes the line of whoever is against Israel first, and asks questions later – if they ask them at all.
So help me here somebody, Israel and the Lebanese have a mini shooting match and the bBC plays on the angle that the IDF invaded, however on looking at the photos they didn’t invade and by the look of things a dead tree was removed from the fence line. The first photo looking down at the IDF doesn’t reveal just how close (Picture 3) the border is.
The question the bBC isn’t asking is why are such bloody good quality photos available so soon,(Christ I carry a camera everywhere I go and those are bloody good) why the only Israel casualties were a LT Col (Killed) and a Capt shot by snipers from the Lebanese side first. Yet the guy in the cherry picker is the easiest target going. But for some reason the bBC omits to inform the reader than the IDF informed UNFIL of what they were going to do and yet they allowed 2 senior soldiers to be killed from the Lebanese side. Which as usual is allowed to play the victim card.
I also have to laugh at the video the bBC aired of this incident, a picture of an Israeli tank looking like it is firing, no that’s its exhaust. Then the clip of air-burst smoke which surreptitious shouts outs ‘white phosphorus’ in which to demonise the Jews just that little further.
Oh and funny enough here is something i wrote last night on the very subject. A subject the bBC hasn’t bothered airing yet.
The link
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-hezbollah-start-another-war-in.html
Hezbollah will not attack Israel without the consent or more probably instructions from Iran. They ultimately pull the strings. As the US sanctions on Iran begin to bite, expect trouble. Of course it will be Israel’s fault if the shit hits the fan.
The photos are intriguing especially the first one captioned There has been a serious clash between Israeli and Lebanese soldiers along the two countries’ border.Why are UN Blue Berets standing with Lebanese Army soldiers pointing weapons at Israel. If we assume, without additional evidence, the UN having been informed of the tree felling informed the Leb Army who maintained a position why isn’t this the caption?
If this, and I am willing to believe it is, a rogue Lebanese sniper and/or officer firing without explicit orders to do so (targeting the officers would suggest so) why didn’t the BBC mention this possibility?
The presence of the TV correspondent on the Lebanon side and the photographers on both sides would suggest that both sides were aware of the potential for accident and wanted evidence to back up their case should it happen.
What is really worrying is the possibility, again ignored by the BBC, that the Lebanese Army, severely embarrassed by their failure to fight in the last war, now signals their intention to take an active role. That means that Israel could logically assume that it was at war with all Lebanon should Hezbullah repeat its actions of 2006.
Lebanese ‘soldiers’ using the UN force as cover so the IDF will not fire back?
They must have learned that lesson from hezbollocks then. So what was UNIFIL doing allowing their soldiers to be used as human shields? Well they UN and hezbollocks have form in that area as we all know.
A set up job on the Lebanese border? An ambush by hezbollah snipers tipped off about a routine clearing of the ceasefire line/no mans land.
The BBC knows the facts before the incident took place because their inside contacts provided them with prime camera material taken by by people who obviously knew their job.
This has hezbollah fingerprints all over it, an ambush with media coverage trying to show the IDF invading the Lebanon, just too juicy for the islamists to miss. Of course the BBC with hezbollah propagandists on speed dial and a BBC which takes the word of the islamists over the IDF.
The IDF command warns UNIFIL that it is going to clear the border fence line of an obstruction, UNIFIL then tell the Lebanese army who then tip off hezbollah and they send a sniper/camera team to attend. The hezbollah snipers then position themselves with camera men to set up a confrontation which leads to deaths. The BBC reports the hezbollah line without question and the report is on air within minutes.
So the real question is when did the BBC know about the engineered ambush, who contacted the BBC and how did they get their pictures and from whom. I have a sinking feeling that the BBC knew BEFOREHAND that an ambush was in the offing just like that islamist slime Macbool was tipped off about a planned kidnap attempt on an IDF patrol and just like the BBC had prior knowledge and imediate pictures of the ‘aid convoy’ violence.
The BBC are just getting their information/reports/pictures just too quickly for it to be anything other than a ‘drop the dead donkey’ setup.
Has anybody listened to this bBC interview over the incident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10860145
(In case the above short link doesn’t work)
You know stuff like this really gets my goat, Its bBC bias like this which makes me feel like kidnapping a few bBC workers and ensuring the last thing they hear is ‘Allah ackba’ the irony here is the bBC would defend my actions.
you missed Nasrallahs first name out.it is Piggy.
Even now the BBC, going over the newspaper headlines, is taking the position that Lebanon’s version of the story – that Israel crossed the border and started it – is the truth! The female newsreader stated that that’s what actually happened, and the dopey guest reminded her of the Israeli side of the story, shrugged his shoulders while the Beeboid made a dismissive gesture, and they both agreed to leave it as, “gosh, who knows, at least they’re both trying to calm things down now.”
A little more information on the story:
Israeli army says UNIFIL forces touring site of Tuesday’s deadly border skirmish determined that Lebanese soldiers had no reason to open fire on troops performing routine activity. ‘Enemy following our every step,’ officer says. UNIFIL forces who toured the site of Tuesday’s deadly exchanges of fire on the northern border said the IDF’s activity did not warrant the attack launched by Lebanese Army soldiers, Israeli army officials who spoke to UNIFIL representatives said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929835,00.html
Notice the subtle (and very common) BBC way of reporting other stories next to the main article, all using the dreaded BBC inverted comma trick.
Viz:
Israel CLAIMS (my capitals) Lebanese ‘ambush’
Translation: Israel claims it (therefore it isn’t fact), and the use of inverted commas suggests it wasn’t really an ambush, either!
and:
Israel ‘provoked Lebanese army’
Note, this was said by a Lebanese minister, yet there is no use of the word claimed here. BBC implication – It’s a fact
They use this trick in their news reporting over and over again.
‘Jihadwatch’:
Ridiculous media bias against Israel: Israeli soldiers did not enter Lebanon, as was widely reported
[Opening extract]:
“Yet another example of why mainstream media journalists are just a notch above child molester. Or maybe a notch below. ‘Today’s Example of Ridiculous Media Bias Against Israel,’ by Barry Rubin,”
For Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
“UNIFIL confirms IDF claims”
[Opening extract]:
“A UNIFIL official in soutnern Lebanon confirmed Wednesday that the IDF informed the organization of its intention to conduct routine maintenance work Tuesday in the area between Israel’s border fence and the international border where Lebanese Army forces opened fire on IDF soldiers, killing Lt.-Col. (res) Dov Harari, Army Radio reported.
“‘I can confirm that we received notification from the IDF about the work and we passed the information on to the Lebanese Army,’ said the Hungarian diplomat who is part of the UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon.”
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=183597
Just for the record. As far as I know the border fence is not the border. The tree felling took place in what is essentially no-mains-land, albeit a few metres from the fence.
Utterly shameless propaganda, not even a pretence of impartiality. Just when you think the BBC can’t sink any lower, they prove you wrong.
My natural inclination is love. I love my wife, my mother, my country, even my next door neighbours’ budgie by the improbable name of “Norman”, but, my God I hate the BBC !
Ok, again I can see the bias – but read between the lines here and what really falls out?
The impresion I get is that a certain number of Lebanese villagers, who live close to the Israeli border, are not concerned about Hezbollah <I> so long as they just sit there in barracks and largely do absolutely nothing <I/>.
I am not surprised particularly by that, and if you filter out the bias in the language and the false pretence that this a universally held view (which is intimated but never quite stated), then the rest is rather unrevealing and inevitable in those areas.
Headline should have been: ‘Hamas is prefereable to the IDF say Lebanese vilagers’
this just arrived from Honest reporting.
From the Today website:
“Three Lebanese soldiers, a senior Israeli officer and a Lebanese journalist have been killed in an exchange of fire in the border areal (sic) between the two countries. Middle East analyst Nadim Shehadi comments on the practical, and symbolic, impact of the incident.”
Today 8:46
Sarah Montague says the Lebanese were “unnerved” by the IDF coming too close with the pruning shears.
“Should we be reassured that it was only the cute Lebanese army and not the audacious Hezbollah?” (I paraphrase)
Nadim Shehadi says there’s a dichotomy between advocates of ‘holiday resort’ Lebanon, and ‘resistance-fighting’ Lebanon, and this is a “shift of the whole state” to the latter. !!!
That’s all we have time for, David Mellor’s on the line.
Pruning shears, the IDF’s secret weapon !
This BBC interviewer seems to set great store by the location of The Tree. If it was in Lebanon, he seems to be saying, then pruning it was a provocation, He has no understanding of the circumstances or the background. In his mind it’s simply a matter of whose tree it is.
Lt Col Avital Liebovich rises above this argument, unaware of how childish the BBC interviewer is. At the end of the interview she casually throws away that The Tree was not inside Lebanese territory, but she has managed to appear evasive.
It would have been better for the BBC’s dumbed down presentation if she’d just said The Tree was in Israeli territory. He’s definitely not interested in any of the rest.
The BBC sees this in terms of ‘Neighbours From Hell’ (cut down my tree) and so do many of the viewers.
For balance, they give this sinister false and inflammatory statement from Lebanese State Minister Michel Faroun equal prominence.
Oh! Guess what! The BBC has just admitted The Tree was inside Israeli territory. Of course Wyre says Israel’s response was still disproportionate or something like that, so we can keep blaming them.
I wonder if they’ll leave Mr. Faroun’s lying words online.
It is perfectly obvious that the IDF account is correct. Any other explanation beggars belief. That will not stop the BBC twisting and turning to suggest otherwise. It really is a disgrace to journalism and a menace to truth. Is there any point in complaining? Not any more I fear so ingrained is the sickness at the heart of this corrupt body.
A day later with a lot more information from yesterdays incident between Lebanon and Israel the bBC continues to paint a surreptitious picture of Israel is to blame; Here is their current hate fest which they try to pass off as news;
UN urges restraint after Israel-Lebanon border clash
Israel and Lebanon must show “utmost restraint”, the UN Security Council says, after a clash between troops on the border left five people dead.The UN urged both sides to abide by the deal that ended the last cross-border conflict in 2006.Both sides blamed each other after three Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and an Israeli officer died in the fighting….Although the most recent skirmish involved soldiers from the regular army, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said his militants would not “stand idle”.The Lebanese army said Israeli soldiers crossed the border to uproot a tree which was blocking their view.Troops then fired warning shots and Israel responded with fire from artillery positions and helicopters.Israel denied the crossing the border and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would respond “aggressively” to any attack.UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon say they have seen no evidence that Israeli soldiers had crossed into Lebanon, reports the BBC’s Wyre Davies, from the border between the two counties.
So if you read the bBC version of events you get the impression that Israel by dint of more people complaining about it and the higher Lebanese death toll is the guilty party. This is given credence by how the bBC ‘says’ the UN have seen no evidence that Israeli soldiers had crossed into Lebanon, The strange thing here is the bBC which can bring you a negative story from Afghanistan, Israel or Iraq within minutes of it happening cannot seem able to pass on the news as reported by everybody else that the UN has given a statement that Israeli troops never crossed the border, and that the Lebanese have admitted to firing first. I wonder how long it takes the bBC to report the facts as they stand on the ground and not how they stand with their political and religious bias.
As of now (12:31 pm) the “World” page on BBC website here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10861866 shows that the BBC story was last updated at 4:50 this morning. I suspect that the editor concerned is awaiting a decision by the BBC politburo as to how to spin the UN/UNIFIL statement.
See my post below about the BBC 1 news
Under Lebanese Law the penalty for “stealing” a tree , even if it is not on Lebanese soil is death without trial.
The BBC are an effing disgrace. On Sky New Tim Marshall just did apiece pointing out what was posting here yesterday that not only were the Israelis on THEIR side of the border but that the Lebanese media had been tipped off that something was going to happen, this has now been confirmed by the useless UN.
But that Welsh wanker on BBC 1 Wyra Davies (or whatever mong boy calls himself) just repeated yesterdays one sided anti Jewish claim then added in that the UN ‘initial report’ had said the Israelis were on their side. Not a single mention of all the Lebanese media being present.
So Wyra mong boy why WOULD a load of Lebanese media turn up for some tree pruning?
Get you act together you sheep shagging mong.
The BBC has entered urgent negotiation with Hezbullah. That’s the peaceful, democratic member of the Lebanese Government not the forbidden by the Terrorism Act Hezbullah. Next time they ambush an Israeli a BBC representative or suitably vetted by Hezbullah stringer will be present.
Radio 5 biased again. Story about some Iraqi mong boy who is older than he really is (that’s the statement from social services) so he’s to be deported (just how her got to the UK from Iraq is of course a question Scabby Logan didn’t bother to ask the Communist scumbag twat teacher)
Logan of course instead of being impartial as she should have been was totally in support of the scumbag commie teacher twat. “Twenty people are protesting” stated commie teacher, “Wow so you have the whole community with you” spout Scabby. 20 people is NOT the whole community Scabby, only in the mind of a brain dead talentless Welsh windbag.
Expect the BBC to give this the FULL BBC treatment, the commie teacher even admitted that the BBC had done some great TV footage of him playing football with the other kids.
So no bias there from the BBC then. Shouldn’t HE be sent to live with people from his own culture or extended Kurdish family? Oh hang on the commie teacher probably wants them all over here.
Al-Beeb on form with ‘Clash on Israel’s Side’, as opposed to ‘Deliberate Act of Aggression by Lebanese Army Against Israel’
More accurate, but I can’t see me getting a subbing job with them anytime soon..
Here is Tim Marshall of Sky News telling the truth about the incident :
http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmatters/Post:45ea01de-aed7-42cf-b67f-0aa1dcdab883
He obviously has a nose for the facts – that is what makes a good journalist.
The BBC people seem to prefer to use their snouts for other purposes – brown-nosing one terrorist outfit after another.
That reports puts the BBC to shame.
Craig, two 5 year olds doing playground reporting would put the drugged up scum at the BBC to shame.
<b>Religion of Peace</b>
Where most people define peace as the absence of war, Islam sees war as the means of creating peace. The Pax Islamica covering the globe is the aim of the Jihad. And so the Pre-Orwellian doubletalk of Islam turns war into peace, and violence into mercy– so long as they are practiced by Muslims, and against non-Muslims. Muslims may kill, but they cannot be killers. Muslims may terrorize, but they cannot be terrorists. They may commit genocide, but they are only the better for doing it. Because their object is always “peace”.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/religion-of-peace.html