Core Issues

I see Robin Shepherd has commented on Paul Reynolds’s “Core Issues” page on the BBC website. H/T David Jones, previous open thread.
I had a pop at this the other day on DV’s “Build” thread.

Robin Shepherd belies his own utterance, that there’s nothing especially dramatic to complain about, by saying that Paul Reynolds fails to recognise the ultimate core issue which is “the refusal of the Palestinian side to internalise the existence of the state of Israel as a legitimate nation in the world and to accept that Jews have a legitimate claim to their land in the Middle East. “

Seeing as ‘ow the BBC article is entitled “Core Issues” – and the very thing that IS the core issue is omitted, I’d have thought that was fairly dramatic. But not to worry.
What I am focusing on in this post is the slippery nature of the BBC’s bias. Of course its bias is not going to be visible to the naked eye! It’s recognisable only by those who are willing to put on the spectacles that necessary to correct their acute myopia.

Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Core Issues

  1. David Jones says:

    Excellent point in your last paragraph Sue.

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I love the part where Reynolds says that the Palestinians want East Jerusalem, “which was controlled by Jordan” before ’67.  Before 1967, there was no such thing as Palestinians, except in the minds of Arafat and a few of his followers, when they founded the PLO in 1964.  And that was really meant to be inside Israel proper, anyway.  Arafat wasn’t about liberating any Palestinians from under the boot of Jordan.  
     
    Until then, the people living under Jordan’s “control” were called “Jordanians”.  Palestinain propaganda is entrenched at the BBC, and Reynolds is rewriting history here.  
     
    And of course, spot the missing Jewish holy place.  Only the third-holiest place in Islam is in the Old City, BBC?  More sickening censorship.  I guess Tim Franks forget to tell Reynolds about that before he left.

       0 likes

    • deegee says:

      This third-holiest place ranking has always been dubious. Could someone tell me what is the third-holiest place in Christianity?

      While no one can doubt the importance of Mecca and Medina to the Mulims, Jerusalem is far less certain. The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem by Daniel Pipes. Other Muslim cities such as Qom receive far more visitors and pilgrims than Jerusalem.  

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        That’s what makes the BBC’s editorial policy so deranged:  they constantly point out the Mohammedan angle but never, ever mention the Jewish one.

           0 likes

  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    These points don’t even register with Beeboids, its as though their hard drives have been erased with regard to problems on the Palestinian side. Thus we get “illegal settlements” thrust at us on in every BBC piece, but in most cases Palestinian incitement, racism and terrorism don’t exist in BBC land.

    Same with Iraq. In Beeboid world that the war was a disaster is a given for all reasonabl;e people, but the fact that the alternatives also had consequences (e.g. Saddam still in power) is rarely discussed seriously on any BBC programme.

       0 likes

  4. Nick says:

    the refusal of the Palestinian side to internalise the existence of the state of Israel as a legitimate nation in the world and to accept that Jews have a legitimate claim to their land in the Middle East

    ===============

    Do they have a claim?

    You’re confusing two things.

    1. The right of a state for Israelis
    2. The right of a state for Israelis on someone else’s land.

    ie. It’s property rights.

    If you accept that the UN, or some external body can give away land that is part of another country, to form the state of Israel, then you have to accept that the UN can do the same with the state of Israel as it exists now, and redefine its borders without regard ot Israelis.

    Similarly if you think its acceptable for Israel to capture land by force and occupy and settle it, then you have to accept that Palistinians can do likewises.

       0 likes

    • sue says:

      Do you know anything about this subject? The phrase “someone else’s land” makes me think you don’t. I’m not trying to be confrontational, I’m genuinely curious. Ditto your comment below.

         0 likes

      • David Jones says:

        It’ll soon be time for Nekama’s Troll Hammer, although Nick doesn’t seem like a troll; just a dupe of bBC propaganda.

           0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      Do please tell us exactly who that land belonged to prior to the re-establishment of the State of Israel. Not who you think that land belonged to but who actually owned it.

      Please also tell us where were the borders of this non-existent Palestinian state where prior to 1948, what was the name of its capital and who was its leader.

      Israel liberated Jerusalem and the West Bank from illegal Jordanian occupation in 1967 – please tell us when and how Jordan occupied that land, who it belonged to prior to the Jordanian invasion, and while we’re at it try to explain why, in the years between 1948 and 1967 a “Palestinian” state was not even mooted, much less established in those territories.

      Thanks in advance!

         0 likes

    • Cassandra King says:

      Aaah but Nick, that is what the Arabs tried to since 1948.

      Axis war to claim land by force, everything the Arabs did was to prosecute a violent war to grab land and destroy a people.
      Much confusion exists in peoples minds about the conflict and there are people who wish to exploit that confusion for their own gain. The simple fact is that Israel would not exist if the Arabs had won their wars of aggression from 48 on.
      There would have been no problem now if it were not for the determined Arab axis effort to wage aggressive war against a people seen as an inferior race, the persecution of Jews in Arab lands did not start in 48 it started well before.
      For Israel to exist at all in the region it has to interact with and play the games of the region and that is a confused and intertwined muddle that has been playing itself out for thousands of years.

      Who really wants peace and is it a real genuine peace or simply a political positioning to achieve a strategic advantage? Look at it from Israels perspective, their survival is at stake if they make the wrong move in the delicate regional dance that is mid east politics.
      You do not escape the hangman by placing your neck in the noose and hoping the hangman has second thoughts.
      What is the real objective here for the Arab axis? Dont listen to what they flog to the infidel and never take what they say at face value, if you do you have just fallen at the first hurdle of mid east geo politics.
      Try to look beyond the presentation, the sales pitch if you like and try to uncover the real end game.
      The end is not the end as advertised, it is simply another tool to prosecute the extermination of the state of Israel.

         0 likes

  5. Nick says:

    <i>
    Until then, the people living under Jordan’s “control” were called “Jordanians”.  Palestinain propaganda is entrenched at the BBC, and Reynolds is rewriting history here.    </i>

    So if it’s Jordan, give control back to Jordan.

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      Israel offered it to Jordan but Jordan didn’t want it. Just like Israel offered to return Gaza to Egypt and Egyypt didn’t want it either.

      You haven’t answered my questions yet Nick.

      Perhaps you should do some research first?

         0 likes

      • Cassandra King says:

        You are right Bio, real questions are not being asked and real agendas are not being examined.
        If peace is simply just another avenue of conquest then it aint peace its a continuation of war by other means.
        The real bones of the conflict are being hidden and a false and superficial presentation of the facts is taking place, just why do the Arab axis seem so determined to push Israel into a smaller and smaller pocket? Land space aplenty for a redrawing of borders but why is such a tiny amount of land so important? There is enough land in the region to provide the Palestinians with all the land they need and the real question is why the Arab axis so utterly determined not to give any of their vast land space to accomodate both Israel and Palestine?
        There is a reason why the Arab axis is so determined to apply a frankly false regional border narrative when the borders all around Israel could be used to provide all the space needed for both parties.
        It seems that only Israel is required to give up land when a bigger distribution of land by all those regions bordering Israel would solve the problem of land distribution.
        Real questions like this are not being asked and you have to suspect that the motives for this reticence has more to do with protecting the victim status of Palestinians than anything else.

        Lets have land for peace, lets have a genuine land for peace agreement where all the nations that surround Israel are prepared to commit to a real peace process by giving up a tiny fraction of their lands for a just settlement.

           0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      BioD, you beat me to it.

         0 likes

  6. Nick says:

    Property rights goes to the heart of the matter.

    1. The arabs have other places that could accommodate the people who are displaced. Perhaps. The Israelis could also go to the US. The could have a homeland wherever the people living their decide to give up their land for them to have a state.

    2. The arabs are determined to push Israel into a smaller and smaller space.  Factually wrong. Israel has repeatedly expanded beyond its borders. Would Israel be happy with the 1947 borders? I suspect the Palistinians would sign up for that. Israel? Nope

    3. Would Israel give the right of return and the right to get land and property back? It’s certainly right that Jews get their property back post WWII.

    4. Would Israel accept the right of returnees to vote? Would it Gerrymander? Deny people democracy, and you will get revolts.

    5. “Israel offered it to Jordan but Jordan didn’t want it.” Offered what? The area that’s now Israel was part of trans-Jordan. Are you saying they were offering it back to Jordan? I suspect not. Bits might have been.

    6. “Axis war to claim land by force, everything the Arabs did was to prosecute a violent war to grab land and destroy a people.  “

    How do you distiguish between get land back that was taken away from you, with starting a war of agression?

    7. “Israel liberated Jerusalem and the West Bank from illegal Jordanian occupation in 1967 – please tell us when and how Jordan occupied that land, who it belonged to prior to the Jordanian invasion, and while we’re at it try to explain why, in the years between 1948 and 1967 a “Palestinian” state was not even mooted, much less established in those territories.  “

    So who was it? If it wasn’t Jordan, it wasn’t Israel, since ti didn’t exist at the time. ie. There is a hint of its an empty land, and we can occupy an empty land going on.

    8. No mention of the points I made. If the UN can create Israel in a place, it can decreate Israel in the same way. If you can capture land and enlarge a country, other countries by the same logic can do vice versa. A dangerous and risk idea.

    At its heart, Israel needs to take on board the issue of property. The Palistinians have had their property rights violated, and until Israel realises its at the heart of the problem its just going to carry on. It will carry on until some nutters get nukes. Israel has more to lose from this than vice versa. I’m not talking about Iraq here. That will be a MAD scenario like the cold war. Both sides will lose, but Israel the most. It’s smaller. Nope, the real issue will be terrorists getting the weapons.

    So lets put a quesiton back. What’s the offer? Which border does Israel go back to? Does it want to keep land captured in war?

    Property goes to the heart of it.

       0 likes

    • sue says:

      Nick, your comment demonstrates such a staggering ignorance of the I/P conflict that I don’t even know where to start. But I see that you have commented on other threads, which suggests that you do recognise that the BBC is biased in certain areas.
      Since your grasp of the I/P situation is so inaccurate I assume you’ve been educated, informed and entertained on the topic by the BBC. I don’t blame you, I blame the BBC, but do consider, at least, the possibility that that you have been grossly misled.

         0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      Nick;

      1. The arabs have other places that could accommodate the people who are displaced. Perhaps. The Israelis could also go to the US.

      Fuck off Nick!

      (Sorry Mr Vance)

      But before you do please do some research. A good start might be here:
      http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Don’t forget the Balfour Declaration.  And then we’ll need to remember who “owned” the entire area after WWI, before the UN even existed.  And before WWI, the Ottomans ran the show.  No such thing as Palestinians then, either.

           0 likes

  7. Cassandra King says:

    Nick, lets go through your points.

    1) The Israelis could go to the US? Why would they leave their historical homeland en masse? The Jews were violently pushed out by forces greater and more powerful than them and then they returned to claim their homeland. By your logic there is no time limit on property claims?

    2)Israel expanded its borders after being attacked by agressive forces bent on their destruction, if it were not for the Arab wars of agression the Israel would still be within its pre 48 borders. Syria and the Golan heights for example, Syria launched attacks from there and Syria tried to used that vital crossing as an invasion route and as its so vital to Israels security it cannot be handed over until there is a real peace. You choose to see the  aggressor as the victim, if it were not for the wars of aggression by the Arab axis there would be no problem.

    3) Palestinians left their properties of their own accord after the first war of aggression, they were not forced. Right of return? to all would mean the de facto extinction of the state of Israel with so called refugees and their descendents and all their additional families would mean instant dissolution of the Israel the Jews would become a minority and open to persecution.
    The Jews did not have their own nation pre WW2 so the property issue is moot.

    4) Would Israel give the returnees the vote? If millions of Palestinians were allowed to settle into the state of Israel there would be no state of Israel. However, the Israeli Arabs have full democratic rights in their state, they have full healthcare and state benefits and democratic representation right to the top of government, far better than any Arab regime offers its own minorities BTW.

    5) Offered? rejected? Bargained? rejected? You know the facts as well as we do so why the act?

    6) Poland/the Check republic/Slovakia/France/Poland all had land taken by Germany and when Germany was defeated it lost much land to the surrounding nations and many Germans were evicted. The moral of the story Nick is that you launch a war of aggression at your own risk and if that aggressive war is lost then the result is often painful, so the answer is dont launch wars of aggression!
    Israel is the ancient home of the Jews, that is the law of property rights going back to the dawn of time, remember there are no time limits on claims for property rights.

    7) I am sorry but if you have not researched the basic facts of the British mandate then I can offer no help.

    8) The UN no more created Israel than it created the USA, what it did was recognize the ancient homeland of the Jews, a land they were evicted from and returned to, the Jews returned home, they did not steal any land by war. The UN simply upheld the legal right of Jews to live in their ancient homeland and the Arab axis tried to exterminate them by means of aggressive war.
    Israel won defensive wars and as is a universal rule is such cases they benefited from the losers criminal stupidity, let me repeat there would no need for all this if the Arab axis had not planned to launch a series of wars with the express aim of extermination.

    The property rights issue you push is simply another aspect of the war to casue the extinction of the state of Israel, those Palestinians who left did so of their own accord AFTER wars of annhilation were launched against the Jews. How about the right of return for all Jews who were deprived of their homeland and have prior rights to the Palestinains.
    I see you dismiss the property rights of Jews while concentrating on the property rights of the Palestinians and again you miss the vital point that there would be no problem if the Arab axis including many Palestinians who murdered their way through hundreds of Jews before the first war of aggression.

    You are right about property rights but why the selective exclusion and time limits?

       0 likes

  8. Biodegradable says:
  9. Biodegradable says:

    I’m not a big fan of Avigdor Lieberman, but he makes some interesting points, that the likes of Nick should listen to and take onboard:

    Israel’s Foreign Minister Addresses UN General Assembly

    [snip]

    Despite all of the efforts of all the good people with the best of intentions, including Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, despite the summit meetings at Camp David between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat with the presence of former President Bill Clinton, and despite the Annapolis Summit between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, we are today still in deadlock.
    In fact, contrary to the prevalent view that the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability in the Middle East or is the main reason for the region’s numerous conflicts, the reality is entirely different. More than ninety percent of the wars and war victims of the Middle East since the Second World War did not result from the Israeli Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel, stemming rather, from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts between Arab States. The Iran‐Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars between North and South Yemen, the Hamma atrocities in Syria, and the wars in Algeria and Lebanon, are just a few examples of a list that goes on and on.
    The second flawed explanation for the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians which has gained popularity is hat the root of the problem is the so‐called “occupation”, the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the settlers themselves. Only the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so the argument goes, will ensure peace in the region.
    It is sufficient to state a number of well‐known facts in order to refute this claim: firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During these 19 years, no‐one tried to create a Palestinian state.
    Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and Jordan despite the presence of settlements. And the opposite is also true: we evacuated twenty‐one flourishing settlements in Gush Katif, and we transferred more than 10,000 Jews and in return, we have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on Sderot and southern Israel.
    The other misguided argument is the claim that the Palestinian issue prevents a determined international front against Iran. This argument is not only flawed, it is completely irresponsible: the same argument could be made that the Palestinian issue prevents action on North Korea, piracy in Somalia, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan or the challenge of Afghanistan.
    Just as the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to do with the Palestinian issue, so too is the Iranian decision to develop nuclear weapons unrelated.
    In truth, the connection between Iran and the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict is precisely reversed. Iran can exist without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but the terrorist organizations cannot exist without Iran. Relying on these proxies, Iran can at any given time foil any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians or with Lebanon. Thus, in searching for a durable agreement with the Palestinians, one which will deal with the true roots of the conflict and which will endure for many years, one must understand that first, the Iranian issue must be resolved.

       0 likes

    • TrueToo says:

      I’m not a big fan of Avigdor Lieberman, but he makes some interesting points, that the likes of Nick should listen to and take onboard.

      LOL, Bio, it’s too late. You were the bouncer at the door who bounced him outta here.

      But I fully understand why you did it.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Nick seems to be free of BBC influence on other issues, so I would ask that we give him a break here.  B-BBC is a big tent.

           0 likes

        • Biodegradable says:

          I agree David. But when I hear somebody say the Jews should leave Israel and go to the US, or “back to where they came from” I lose my patience.

          Israel is where the Jews came from! >:o

             0 likes

  10. TrueToo says:

    Nick doesn’t know about all the land that was bought by the Jews before the establishment of Israel?

    He’s never heard of the Arab leaders urging the Arabs to get out of the way while they “drove the Jews into the sea,” after which they could return and “claim all the land” in 1948?

    He doesn’t know that the Jews urged the Arabs to stay in their villages? 

    He doesn’t know that what was known as Transjordan was east of the River Jordan and not west of it?

    Nick must have got his info on this conflict from a mix of the BBC and Palestinian school textbooks.

       0 likes

    • Cassandra King says:

      You have hit the nail there TrueToo!

      Misinformation is the key to a propaganda war which in itself is a continuation of aggressive war by other means, it is a known plain fact that the Arab axis failed to exterminate the state of Israel by conventional war so they created a false and fabricated narrative and springboard to achieve what tanks and missiles could not.

      Historical revisionism and deconstruction where facts are changed and historical facts are altered. The simple truth is that the kind of ‘peace’ the Palestinians seek is merely another advance of the war of extermination by other means.
      Nick exposed this unwittingly in hos post, its obvious that even if Israel retreated into its pre 48 borders or even retreated into a one square mile fortified town on the coast it would no be enough for the ‘Palestinian’ cause.
      The end game, the one which they teach at their UN funded schools is a Jew free Arab land and achieved by wither pushing the Jews into the sea or pushing them into mass graves.
      The Jews have had all the experience in the world at being a hated minority in foreign lands where their fate rested in the hands of a majority, six million died as a result.
      There is no appeasing the killer who wants you dead, no negotiation will  result in you ending up slightly less dead with slightly less pain on the way.
      Nick is a prime example of the success of the historical revisionism in creating a fabricated false supposed end of road aspirations. If Israel retreated into pre 48 borders then within a few months more demands would emerge, more mad mullahs and more jihadi killers, the cycle of demand and threat and international intrigue would start again with Israel at a dangerous disadavantage.
      Until the end game is known fully and until the players come clean about their intentions there can be no meaningful peace.

         0 likes

  11. TrueToo says:

    They wouldn’t be satisfied if Israel withdrew to the Tel Aviv beachfront.

       0 likes