The BBC Continues To Lie About History And Censor Calls For Ethnic Cleansing

Apologies for the lengthy title, but there are two issues here which need to be covered, and I’m combining them into one post. First, the BBC’s continued attempts to lie and rewrite history.

Q&A: Palestinian statehood bid at the UN

Most people here will know exactly what’s coming, and I know this has been covered here many times before, but it’s even more important to call the BBC out on it now because of the looming UN fight over creating a State of Palestine. For the benefit of those who don’t know the BBC’s bias about the “West Bank”, here’s the map they use to explain history to the public:


Notice on the left, the BBC is claiming that there was such a thing as the West Bank (i.e. Palestinian) Territory before the 1967 war. They’ve just erased a chunk of Jordan from history. As we all know, that was part of Jordan at the time, a country at war with Israel. Why else would Israel have invaded? This map indoctrinates the public with PLO propaganda, that Israel invaded sovereign Palestinian territory. Your license fee is being used to promote false history and anti-Israel propaganda.

Reality, on the other hand, is not Israeli propaganda. This map of Jordan – from a non-partisan source – and environs showing the borders during part of the 1967 war in question is fact, not fiction:


Notice the clear border lines of Jordan encompass the area about which the BBC is lying. Yes, I am accusing BBC News Online of telling a lie. I don’t care what some Beeboids personally believe about nasty old Israel’s land grab or the plight of the poor Palestinians or anything else. This is historical fact, and the BBC is lying about it. How can there be an honest Q&A about the topic when one of the answers is a lie? Until they remove that first map and replace it with an honest one, my accusation will stand.

Needless to say, this propaganda demonizes Israel in the minds of the public. Most people are seriously uninformed about the facts of Israel and 1967 and the “Palestinian Territories”. When one tries to explain the facts to get past the emotions, one is then accused of spouting Israeli propaganda. This is how the BBC’s editorial policy and style guide is blatantly biased, causing them to demonize Israel at every opportunity, although the BBC disputes this.

It’s impossible to have a civil discussion, national or otherwise, about the situation when the national broadcaster promotes propaganda for one side and demonizes the other. This then promotes anti-Jewish sentiment, but that’s a topic for another time.

Now for the BBC Censorship angle. Last week, Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestinian ambassador to the US, said that there should be no Jews in a State of Palestine:

“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Actually, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard about their desire for a Judenfrei Palestine. He said the same thing a year ago. Not only that, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said the same thing last year, and went further:

Almost no notice was taken of another pre talks decision that the PA chairman revealed, as he announced clearly that if a Palestinian Authority state is created in Judea and Samaria, no Israeli citizen will be allowed to set foot inside.The PA chairman also stated that he would block any Jewish soldiers from serving with an international force stationed on PA-controlled land.

“I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared.

Judenfrei, Judenrein. And the BBC has steadfastly censored all of this. Justin Webb didn’t bring it up to the feckless Lord Levy on Today, it doesn’t feature in any BBC News Online report about Israel or the Palestinians, and it hasn’t been mentioned anywhere else on the BBC. If someone can show me one single example of it, I’ll post it here, shocked but grateful.

Without the truth and all the facts, it’s impossible to have a rational debate and reasonable understanding of the situation. Yet the BBC actively prevents that, promoting propaganda for one side, rewrites history, and censors the Palestinians’ desire for ethnic cleansing.

ADDENDUM: Here’s Katty Kay interviewing US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, in which Katty states uncategorically that only Bibi Netanyahu is the problem, and Amb. Rice corrects here. No surprise that this is Katty’s belief as she recently tweeted to her followers that this New York Magazine article – which blames Netanyahu and uncritical, “steadfast” support for Israel in the US Congress as the only obstacles to peace – is All you need to know about the frosty relationship between Barack and Bibi.”

Why, it’s almost as if there’s a groupthink on this issue extending across the spectrum of the BBC.

Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to The BBC Continues To Lie About History And Censor Calls For Ethnic Cleansing

  1. noggin says:

    The borders are not the only lie

    “Palestinian”(by that meaning those arabs parked in israel) & the  land

    you cannot occupy any territory,  
    whose people never had jurisdiction over it in the first place,  
    Israel had it from 67 from when Jordan tried to invade  
    before that Jordan had it for 19 yrs since 1948 (Egypt – west bank)  
    before that Great Britain had it  
    before that Ottoman Turkey had it  
    before that the Crusades  
    before that Rome  
    before that well probably jewish  
       
    The “Palestinians” already have a state: Jordan. OH WAIT they tried to kill the king and take over the country in September 1970, so the Jordanians kicked them out.  
    No other country would have them….
    and thus DA DA DARR!! that’s WHY they’re in Israel.
    in addition they :-

    ..1)rejected the original partition ie. Resolution 181, and in doing so must – logically – have rejectedany & all borders, and

    ..2)Jordan’s subsequent annexation of WB (and Jerusalem) was not recognised by the international community and there was no call from the newly-defined Palestinian people for a separate homeland, so thus

    ..3)Palestine did not actually come into existence. It has yet to be defined and if

    ..4)All offers subsequent to Res. 181 have been rejected by the Palestinian people then

    ..5) the areas defined as ‘occupied’ are surely legally extraterritorial?

       0 likes

  2. Biodegradable says:

    I’ve pointed out time and time again that Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem was ILLEGAL. It was never recognised by the UN, only one country, Pakistan, ever recognised it as legitimate. During all those years prior to 1967 it was never called or even considered to be “Palestinian land”. It was only after 1967 that Arafat began to talk of a “Palestinian people”.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I know you’ve mentioned this before, BioD.  Like I said, we’ve been over this many times here.  But I wanted to call the BBC out on it again now specifically because of the upcoming UN deal.  I’m hoping that by accusing the BBC of lying right in the headline that someone will pay attention and either attack me or fix it.

         0 likes

      • Biodegradable says:

        Excellent post David.

        I wasn’t complaining, or even kvetching  :-D

           0 likes

        • noggin says:

          excellent post BD, the ignorance of reality & facts,(remember them el beeb!) is astounding.

          The bbc is doing exactly what Abbas is doing now, engaging in baseless, mudslinging & propaganda, doing everything, but what they/he should be doing, facing the hard facts and telling the truth.

          In addition, they like him try to doctor the debate, they abuse there position,as the prime broadcaster, he sneaks around those shills, at the OIC, using the muslim penchant for herd mentality, & aggression, both evading the truthful questions in favour of the obsession with ideology.

          islam-bbc…getting to be like two peas in a pod

             0 likes

          • noggin says:

            how long before we get a lie of obamesque proportions from el beeb, you know along the lines of  ”islam has always been a part of our story”

            titter! hey only problem is if el beeb speaks for itself, its bringing that prophesy to light, but it is supposed to speak for us isn t it

               0 likes

  3. dave s says:

    We have to keep in mind the main Guardian/BBC/left argument. Israel is a result of European guilt and force and should never have existed.From this follows everything.
    It is and always will be illegitimate in their eyes. Details about jurisdictions and borders are just that -details.
    In their eyes the ends justify the means.

       0 likes

  4. Biodegradable says:

    They keep repeating this nonsesical new catchphrase about 20 years of negotiations have not achieved anything for the Palestinians. Maybe they should watch this video that I posted on the previous thread:


       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      NONSENSICAL new catchphrase…

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Katty was singing that exact catchphrase to Amb. Rice in her interview.  Imagine that.

         0 likes

      • Biodegradable says:

        I watched the interview and noted that Katty’s reaction to the ambassador’s correction that it wasn’t all Bibi’s fault was edited out. I can only imagine her face, for the entire interview she looked like she’d been sucking on a bitter lemon.

           0 likes

        • noggin says:

          her arrogant look of disbelief is gaulling…..but hey
          the slapped with a wet fish look….it just doesn t suit
          …katty MEEEOOOW!

             0 likes

  5. La Cumparsita says:

    Excellent post David and also the previous one from Sue. The BBC is a cheerleader for Palestinian statehood. Last Friday on Radio 4′s  ”The World Tonight” Robin Lustig introducing an item said “that the Palestinians were “promised a state of their own back in 1947 when the state of Israel was created but after countless wars, thousands of deaths and endless conflict they are still waiting.”

    This was a misleading statement as it ignores Arab rejectionism. The Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN partition plan in 1947. Subsequently during the 19 years 1948-1967  when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the West Bank, there was never any plan by those Arab countries to establish a Palestinian Arab state.
    Throughout the Oslo peace process the Palestinians have consistently rejected all Israeli proposals which would have given them statehood, notably at Camp David in 2000, and again rejecting Barak’s plan in 2008.
    Yet another blatant example of BBC bias. 

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      The (in)famous 3 ‘No’s of Khartoum:

      On July 15, five Arab leaders agreed “on the necessary effective steps to eliminate the consequences of imperialist Israeli aggression on the Arab homeland.” This language echoed Soviet advice to “liquidate the consequences” of the war without conceding anything to Israel. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his colleagues attempted to stand reality on its head and convince themselves, and the world, that they had been victimized, rather than defeated by Israel in self-defense.
      Regaining confidence, Nasser declared on July 23 “that he was preparing his armed forces to continue the battle against Israel. ‘We shall never surrender and shall not accept any peace that means surrender.” In addition, he asserted, “‘we shall preserve the rights of the Palestinians,’” (A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Howard M. Sachar, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996, second edition). These “rights” were to be realized not only by Israeli withdrawal to the 1948 and ’49 armistice lines, but eventually to the truncated boundaries proposed in the 1947 U.N. partition plan (rejected by the Arab representatives at the time).
      Finally, the leaders of thirteen Arab states gathered at a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan from August 29 to September 1. There they pledged to continue their struggle against Israel. Influenced by Nasser, “their conditions were quite specific: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and ‘maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.’ The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent ‘phone call’ from the Arab world might be a pipe dream” (Sachar).
      This “warning” was reinforced on October 21, when an Egyptian missile boat sunk the Israeli destroyer Eilat, killing 47 people. It was confirmed in November and December, when the Arab states repeatedly rebuffed attempts by Sweden’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, Gunnar Jarring — serving as the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy – to induce them to join talks with Israel. In fact, the “three no’s of Khartoum” held for a dozen years, until Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel — at which point the other 20 member states expelled it from the Arab League.

      Plus ça change, plus c’est la même.

      (Excuse my French)

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I, too, would be a cheerleader for a Palestinian State if I knew it wasn’t going to be Judenfrei and the new front for the Arab-Muslim war on the Jewish State.  But that still doesn’t excuse the BBC’s serial dishonesty and censorship.

         0 likes

  6. Biodegradable says:

    This too:


       0 likes

  7. Biodegradable says:

    Netanyahu: It’s important that we tell ‘our truth’ at UN

    [...]

    Netanyahu’s comments come after Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki responded to Israeli calls for an immediate resumption of peace talks, saying that Israel must accept the PA’s list of terms before negotiations can restart.

    “Netanyahu has to accept all terms of reference and stop settlement activity including [in] east Jerusalem, to enter negotiations immediately with [a] timeframe not to exceed six months [and] with international guarantees to make any negotiations serious and credible,” Al Jazeera quoted Malki as saying in New York.

    “Israel must accept the PA’s list of terms before negotiations can restart”

    So what’s to negotiate?

       0 likes

  8. London Calling says:

    Promoting Palestinian propaganda is not impartial reporting.  For all their smug metropolitan elite burble, BBC = Racist. Anti-semitism at one with German National Socialism. Chris Patten Hello? Any one home?

       0 likes

  9. My Site (click to edit) says:

    This is no surprise, they lie about British history every day.
    Didn’t you know that the British had achieved nothing and just sat around wearing Bowler hats and eating spam prior to the docking of The Windrush!

       0 likes

    • Reed says:

      Yes…the old ‘Britain was a dull, boring, colourless and culture free nation until it was enriched by the diversity rainbow of immiration’ canard. Part of the script written by the self-loathers of the left. I get more and more like my Dad with every passing second. Anyone else recognise this in themselves?…….

         0 likes

      • John Horne Tooke says:

        Yes – even though my father was a good old fasioned patriotic socialist. They did exist you know.

           0 likes

        • Barry says:

          I know. A bit misguided or naive in some respects, but honourable and very different from their modern equivalents.

             0 likes

  10. George R says:

    INBBC knows whose side it’s on:

    “Iranian Ambassador: U.N. Vote On Palestinian Statehood Is a ‘Step Towards Wiping Out Israel’”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/iranian-ambassador-u-n-vote-on-palestinian-statehood-is-a-step-towards-wiping-out-israel/

       0 likes

  11. Phil says:

    When the Soviet Empire occupied a vast area of eastern Europe for 45 years I don’t remember such BBC concern or supposed analysis about ‘occupied territory’, at least not from about 1965 onwards when I became old enough to take notice.

    The BBC’s obsession with a tiny bit of ‘occupied territory’ in the middle east is an indication the corporation is a child of its time – the early 20th century.

    It’s like some embarrassing old relative who still has the prejudices of that time and doesn’t mind telling everyone about them.

       0 likes

  12. John Anderson says:

    I hate the way the BBC hides the morbidity of the Palestinians,  the anti-semitic sickness riddling Palestinian society from toddlers onwards – and the way they revere terrorist murderers.

    I would bet any money that Jeremy Bowen and his team know this story – but will smother it  – “Mother of 4 terrorist murderers chosen to launch statehood campaign” :

    http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5656

    How sick can you get ?

       0 likes

  13. Demon1001 says:

    So this is the Beeb’s latest trick, show blatantly dishonest maps to pursue their agenda:  This one and the one showing the (non-existant) retreating ice of Greenland.  That’s two, I expect they will continue to repeat this pattern until they find a new way to lie.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It’s not a new trick, sadly. They’ve done it for ages.  I’m only bringing it up again now because of the UN noise.

      Speaking of which, I was slightly inconvenienced tonight trying to get across town.  Several blocks in NYC are shut down now and probably for the next two days to accomodate all the dictators, autocrats, mandarins, and parasites.  The President and a bunch of others always stay at the Waldorf, so they shut down a few blocks up, down, and on either side, plus a stretch of 1st Ave. where sits the festering sore that is the UN.

      I’m not totally sure where Netanyahu stays, but since he’s mostly likely not sticking around until the Jewish Sabbath, he’s probably staying down there as well and not further uptown within walking distance of the shul on E. 85th.

         0 likes

  14. Barry says:

    The BBC is taking advantage of ignorance, laziness and, in some cases, latent antisemitism.

    I agree that its lies should be exposed as often as possible but, provided 80% of readers or viewers believe the lies for whatever reason, it has succeeded.

    Abolition is the only solution.

       0 likes

  15. Philip says:

    Excellent post David.

       0 likes

  16. Deborah says:

    I know this is the BBC bias site but I have to let of steam somewhere. 

    Because I watched Channel 4 news last night and the snarling and sneering of Israel whilst they promoted the Palestinian cause was sickening.  They referred to Israel’s intransigence, dreadful deeds of inequality to the arab population etc without a mention of the killing of Israeli civilians or indeed the Palestinians’ view of Israel’s right to exist was appalling but in keeping with the British media’s narrative.

       0 likes

    • dave s says:

      it was truly dreadful but to be expected.
      The golden rules of the Western liberal elite.
      Israel has no right to exist and the Jews cause all the trouble in the world. The only good Jew is a self hating Jew who understands these rules.

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Sad, but correct, dave.  Which is why the BBC also censored the news of the plight of the Jews of Malmö, Sweden.  Even the mayor there said the Jews deserved whatever happens to them because of their support for Israel.  Sickeningly, the BBC censored that but did do a report on the difficulties Muslims face there.

           0 likes

    • matthew rowe says:

      As C4 also receives public funds I think it’s fair  that they shouldn’t be let off the hook totally ! so I’m cool with you calling their bias as well !

         0 likes

      • Scott M says:

        “As C4 also receives public funds”

        It doesn’t. The channel’s self-financing through advertising and their commercial joint ventures.

        It doesn’t have to pay for carriage on terrestrial platforms, though, so to be charitable one could say that was a benefit in kind.

           0 likes

        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          “As C4 also receives public funds”  
          It doesn’t. The channel’s self-financing..

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4

          I know it’s a Wiki, but…

          In 2007 due to severe funding difficulties, the channel sought government help and was granted a payment of £14 million over a six-year period. The money would have come from the television licence fee and would have been the first time that money from the licence fee had been given to any broadcaster other than the BBC.

          Doesn’t that rather suggest the public did provide funds? Where else do governments get ‘their’ monet from?

          Or are we in the area of grammatical semantics next?

             0 likes

          • Millie Tant says:

            They had lobbied for public funding for years, according to an insider:
            Duncan began lobbying for some form of subsidy shortly after his arrival at Channel 4 in late 2004, basing his strategy on an appeal to the government for extra cash to plug a predicted shortfall in programme funding as advertising revenues declined. Channel 4 at one point claimed the funding gap would by £100m a year by the time of digital switchover in 2012.

            This article from The Grauniad (Sept 2010) is also interesting for Puttnam’s comments about pay and the role of Thompson:

            Puttnam also admitted that salaries at Channel 4 had got out of control in what he described as “a moment of madness”.
            Duncan and Channel 4′s former director of television Kevin Lygo, who is now managing director of ITV Studios, were both paid more than £1m a year at one point. “I arrived long after the deals with Kevin Lygo and Andy Duncan,” Puttnam said.
            He added that there had been “extremely robust conversations about salaries”. “There was a moment of madness. The tragedy is it happened on [former Channel 4 chief executive] Mark’s [Thompson]‘s watch … he’s not motivated by money.”  [ :-D :-D ]
            Thompson is now director general of the BBC. In a candid and wide-ranging interview, Puttnam also said Thompson had “lost the plot” on the issue of executive pay at the corporation.
            “I think he made some extraordinary misjudgments,” he added. “The most important one … has been over salaries. I think he completely lost the plot in understanding that actually … the moment a person crosses a bridge – which is the salary earned by the prime minister, you’ve got to start asking a lot of questions.”
            He described the BBC’s claim that it has to pay market rates for executives as “nonsense”. “It was a great pity that Mark Thompson, who is a very, very moral man…[ :-D ] allowed himself to get trapped into something that became very, very embarrassing for him,” Puttnam said. “If someone came along and said ‘Would you like to be controller of BBC1, but I’m afraid we can only pay you £110,423′ not a lot of people would say ‘No thank you’.”

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/22/channel-4-lord-puttnam

               0 likes

  17. John Anderson says:

    I bet the BBC does not call for comments from John Bolton,  former US Ambassador to the UN :

    http://www.therightscoop.com/bolton-us-should-threaten-to-defund-un-over-palestinian-statehood/

    And it sickens me how our own politicians are vacillating.

       0 likes

  18. Biodegradable says:

    As far as the BBC is concerned “Palestine” is already a state and its “President” is equal to the President of the US, while Bibi is only a PM:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14997936

    US President Barack Obama will urge his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas to drop a bid for UN recognition of statehood later on Wednesday.

    Mr Obama will also meet Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu amid frantic diplomacy aimed at averting a crisis.

    My next door neighbour is President of the Residents’ Association. Does that make him President Obama’s “counterpart”?

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      I’ve just noticed this outright lie in the above report:

      Both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas have said they are prepared to engage in direct talks. But Mr Abbas has so far appeared determined to press ahead with the statehood bid.

      Malki: Talks can’t resume until Israel accepts PA’s terms

      Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki on Tuesday responded to Israeli calls for an immediate resumption of peace talks, saying that Israel must accept the PA’s list of terms before negotiations can restart.

      “[Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu has to accept all terms of reference and stop settlement activity including [in] east Jerusalem, to enter negotiations immediately with [a] timeframe not to exceed six months [and] with international guarantees to make any negotiations serious and credible,” Al Jazeera quoted Malki as saying in New York.

      Al Jazeera: more unbiased than the BBC?

         0 likes

    • Henry says:

      Yeah I was going to point that out. Surely a bit of a contradiction: “Will urge his Palestinian counterpart..to drop a bid for statehood”

      Ummm, if they are making a bid for statehood, then how can he be the counterpart of the President of the United States (who wants him to drop the bid) in any way? Am I missing something?

      Here is a good video on the history, btw

         0 likes

  19. Biodegradable says:

    The speaker of the Knesset hits the nail on the head:

    Rivlin: World Not Interested in Preserving Israel

    Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin says the world community is more concerned with forging a ‘Palestinian state’ than preserving the Jewish state.

    [...]

    Rivlin, who has met individually with more than 20 ambassadors from the European Union, told attendees their position is one-sided and gives the impression Israel is not a party to discussions about its future.

    Adopting the PA narrative carte blanch while ignoring Israel’s views and concerns, Rivlin told them, only serves to deepen the divide between the sides and can only lead to deadlock.

    Rivlin also warned the unilateral creation of a PA state would result in an absurd situation in which decisions about the fate of Israel and its existence are taken without its participation or consent.

    Such a situation, Rivlin said, disturbed him deeply and raised concerns about Israel’s ultimate fate.

       0 likes

  20. John Anderson says:

    A visual description of 100 years of history – as far as I can see it is wholly accurate,  but it seems a world away from the narrative Bowen et al present.

    There is one central fact – the “Palestinians” obdurately refuse to negotiate.  Can’t the BBC tell its audience at least that ?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/20/video-a-brief-history-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      I was just looking at the Wikipedia page on Jordan searching for info to post on another blog that I’m commenting on. There is absolutely nothing on the Israeli war of Independence 1948 – the section on Jordan’s wars with Israel starts at 1967!

      It must be where the BBC gets its “facts” from,

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      No, John.  In fact, like Katty Kay, they say the opposite is true.

         0 likes

  21. TooTrue says:

    BBC can’t even get its lies straight with those maps. They show areas occupied since 1967 on the left and on the right show areas under joint or Palestinian control. One map, of course, contradicts the other.

    Also, Gaza is no longer “occupied.”

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The source for that map is the UN.  What a shock.  Still no excuse for the BBC to promote lies, even if it’s the UN telling them.

         0 likes

  22. Geyza says:

    As someone who is truly neutral on the Israeli/Palestine/Arab conflict I am wholly sick of the bias and bullshit and intrangigence on BOTH sides.

    It is time that the people living there, whatever their race, colour, creed, religion, were told that several thousands of years of conflict must end NOW.  It is up to the people living there NOW to come to agreement.

    The rest of the world should step back, stop taking any side and tell those in charge that they have ONE year.  The rest of the world should not be held to a nuclear ransom by Israel or the supporters of the Palestinians.  The rest of the world will offer and and all assistance necessary for one year to help those living in the region to achieve a real agreement.  IF they cannot agree to live together in peace on that land, then the rest of the world should take that land from them by nuking the whole area disputed and infest it with chemical and biological agents rendering the land utterly lethal to all life there.  So the choice will be Agree to live WITH each other in peace, or ALL of you must leave that land or die upon it!

    BOTH sides are behaving like armed children. BOTH sides should be treat like children. If they cannot play nicely, then the land should be taken off them.

    I do not CARE who was there first, who was promised what in any book of fairy tales by whichever sky fairy.  ONE YEAR or you LOSE IT ALL!

    Arguing about the history of the region and the people and the politics has not, and shows no sign whatsoever of finding an agreement or settlement.  The only thing that might is a deadlined ultimatum to agree or lose it all.

    End of!

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Even so, there’s no excuse for the BBC to promote falsehoods.

         0 likes

      • Geyza says:

        Agreed. The BBC should be reporting accurately and truthfully on the stated positions of both sides and nothing more or less than that.

           0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:

      That’s a very simplistic view of the Israel/Arab conflict, and one based on ignorance if I may say so.

      There is no equivalence between the two parties as your repeated use of “BOTH” suggests.

      If you’re really not that interested that’s fine; just keep quite and don’t show your ignorance. If you want to debate the issues that’s fine too, but learn something about them first, please.

         0 likes

      • noggin says:

        hear hear BD,
        you have a state that wants security, & to continue to prosper,( i think even Geysa could give you that).
        & another wanna be state which by any means, wishes to eradicate its neighbour, by violence mandated by its ideology, or by the despicable
        use of outrageous propaganda, to de-legitimise its very existence.
        there is NO equivalence moral or otherwise.
        They have been offered peace & statehood, & refused it point blank.

        what part of the Hamas charters,” Israel will exist only till we obliterate it” do you find difficult Geeez!

           0 likes

  23. sue says:

    Good post David P.
    I just wanted to make a general observation.
    I suppose there’s no reason why the I/P situation should have the privilege of being the only thing excluded from the BBC’s dumbing down process.
    In its dual role as reflector and creator of public opinion, the BBC has decided we must all know that the Palestinians deserve a state.

    But before that they decided we must all swallow Arafat’s concept of a Palestinian people.
    Anyone who expresses negativity about the ‘Palestinians’ taking their bid for statehood to the UN must be an Islamophobic meanie. “Of course the Palestinians deserve a state”, they plead, “everyone else has one.” A similar argument to the one for Iran having nukes.

    But hang on. Never mind that the Palestinians have refused umpteen extensive offers before, or that they’ve put up more and more outrageous preconditions to excuse their refusal to ‘come to the table’, or that they refuse to recognise Israel or renounce violence. Ignore all that, for the convenience of the ignorant.
    Oh yes, and ignore the rocket attacks, the intended Judenfrei status of the state-in-waiting and  the intifadas and holy jihad and the Hamas bunny.
    And forget that taking the bid to the UN is opting out of the peace process.

    Forget that the Palestinians are stateless because no-one wants them and no-one will share with them.  No-one in the Arab world. In the wonderful world of the glorious Arab Spring.

    Forget that they are a disparate group who fled Palestine in 1948. If everyone who fled from war, famine, or poverty were to set up their own state, maybe the Jews who were absorbed into Israel in 1948 should have stuck together and held out for states in the countries from whence they came?
    What about the gypsies? Do they deserve a state of their own in Essex? If not, why not? There are reasons why the Palestinians don’t deserve a state, but we’re not allowed to know what they are.

    The truth is that all the Palestinians ever needed to do was to recognise Israel and renounce violence. They could have had their state long ago. Simples.
    But since they are more interested in being pawns in the greater Arab endgame, driving the Jews out of the region, then, until they show that a state is what they actually want, then, no, they don’t necessarily deserve a state. 
    There’s the dumbed down other-side-of-the-story to balance the dumbed down BBC version.

       0 likes

  24. sue says:

    Con Coughlin has written a piece in the Telegraph.
    It has attracted 553 comments.
    It’s as though he’s been educated informed and entertained by the BBC.
    He opens by extolling the virtues of Ramallah, one of which is that there’s a branch of KFC there.
    Another is that Mr. Fayyad has been building institutions, in a nation-building exercise comparable to the early Zionist settlers, back in the days when they were the good guys, before their name was blackened.

    After the obligatory references to occupation and the illegal activities of Jewish settlers, he presents facts about various failed peace talks without mentioning the intifadas. The passage ends with: “In Israel, meanwhile, some hard-line politicians have said they will never accept the creation of a Palestinian state.” Ha very ha. What about some hard-line “politicians” who have promised they will never accept the Jewish state? Forgot that, didn’t you Con?

    Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has even warned that a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of the Palestinians would lead to renewed violence, as Israel would be unwilling to ease its restrictions on the Palestinian territories until the Israelis had received convincing guarantees of their own security.”

    Even warned? What else would anyone expect the unilateral declaration to lead to without a guarantees of security for Israel? And violence by whom? 
    But here’s the revealing bit, as we lurch towards the end:  “At a time when their fellow Arabs are experiencing the heady delights of political freedom,…” What’s that?
    “The confrontational approach Mr Netanyahu’s government takes to any challenge to Israeli sovereignty has also resulted in Israel being more isolated diplomatically and politically than at any time in its recent history. Israel’s ill-advised military interception of a Turkish “peace” flotilla last year, in which nine people died, has led to a serious breach in relations with Ankara.
    So he thinks the “peace” flotilla should have been allowed to break the blockade.

    “Meanwhile, Israel’s equally heavy-handed response to attacks by Islamic militants in the Egypt-controlled Sinai peninsula provoked anti-Israeli riots in Cairo, which resulted in the evacuation of the Israeli ambassador and his staff.”
    So he thinks chasing terrorists is heavy handed, and he thinks that alone provoked the riots? What a fool he must be, obviously glued to the BBC.
    “Even the United States, long a stalwart supporter of the Israeli cause, has voiced its dissatisfaction with Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to engage properly in negotiations with the Palestinians. “

    I rest my case. He thinks Obama is the United States. He’s been
    Beeboed.

       0 likes

  25. sue says:


       0 likes

  26. Andrew says:

    Strange isn’t it…

    Back in August 1984 Ronald Reagan uttered his famous warmup about signing legislation outlawing Russia with bombing due to commence in 5 minutes.

    It got dragged up again in 2010:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8650170.stm

    Odd really that they keep coming back to this one whilst wilfully ignoring a similar Palestinian policy that action and behaviour has demonstrated is anything but.

       0 likes

  27. Andrew says:

    If there is a silver lining on this one it will be watching Mardell twist himself in knots trying to write a piece on Obama’s UN speech whilst maintaining BBC anti Israel vitriol.

       0 likes

  28. DP111 says:

    Judea and Samaria, the so called West Bank, was seized by Jordan in 1948, the war that was meant to destroy Israel at the moment of its birth. All Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem, the holiest site of Judaism. Jewish graves were destroyed, and their stones lined the public tiolets.

    Danoil Greenfield has a concise history of the PLO 

    http://sultanknish.​blogspot.com/2011/09/end-of-palestine.html

       0 likes

  29. DP111 says:

    The Daily Star Lebanon:

    From behind a desk topped by a miniature model of Palestine’s hoped-for blue United Nations chair, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah spoke to The Daily Star Wednesday about Palestine’s upcoming bid for U.N. statehood.

    The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

    This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1YcjJUBhI

    The so-called refugees will continue to be what the original intention was – to use as a weapon against Israel. Once Israel is destroyed, the reason for the PLO’s existence would vanish, and the territory will be divided by Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

       0 likes

  30. TooTrue says:

    Quite a good WHYS show on the UN vote etc, with journalist Ben waving the Israeli flag really emphatically and the BBC bearing with him, amazingly:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/whys

    Click on the one for the 21st – available to download for a week

       0 likes