BBC Censorship: DNC Taken Over By The Israel Lobby Edition – UPDATED

(SEE UPDATE BELOW) With all that website space taken up with Mark Mardell’s encomium to Bill Clinton, a dishonest attack piece on Govs. Jindal and Haley, and Kate Dailey’s furrowed-brow musings over Elizabeth Warren’s mewling about horrors of “income inequality” (making sure not to mention Warren’s fake Cherokee ancestor controversy), the BBC News Online editors had no more room to report that the convention bosses had to force an acknowledgment of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital back into the Party platform. That must be the reason why the BBC seems to have censored the controversy from all news outlets.

Along with putting back the term “God-given” talent, it took three votes from the delegates to get the language restored to the platform. Party bosses who were not under the thumb of the Israel Lobby had removed the acknowledgment of Jerusalem, and what must be either public, media, or Israel Lobby pressure made them want to put it back. All censored by the BBC.

********************

UPDATE: The BBC has now posted an article on it. Jonathan Marcus must have been filing this while I was writing my post.

Democrats’ headache over Jerusalem status

How to describe the city of Jerusalem has caused controversy at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with confusing scenes on the convention floor as a vote was held on the issue. BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus explains why.

“Confusing scenes”, eh? Well, that’s “accurate”, alright. Some people were confused by what happened. But that’s all the BBC will allow you to know. They decided to keep censoring what actually happened: the majority of the crowd voted No, but the Party bosses decided to go ahead anyway. This is what democracy looks like?

Marcus reports claims that the President Himself personally intervened to get Jerusalem put back in. He also admits at last that the President said when running for election in 2008 that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. But then we get doublethink: the President’s personal position is not the same as the US Government’s position. Can He be in two places at once as well?

Who decides the Government’s position on issues, then? Hillary? She’s already said Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, so it’s not her. So who? Valerie Jarrett? Michelle Obama? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? The family dog? Marcus doesn’t explain.

No mention whatsoever, though, that this controversy has been ongoing for months. It’s just a political football, Romney was going to use it as an attack angle, etc.

Having said that, I’m very glad to see the BBC busting the dual loyalty myth about Jews. I applaud them for being brave enough to say that, because I expect they’ll get swamped with complaints about them being controlled by the Zionist Entity. They get complaints from both sides, you know.

********************

As anyone can see from the video, at least half the delegates didn’t want this to happen. There’s no way to know if most of the objection was about the “God-given” bit or about Jerusalem, but only one of the issues has been an ongoing controversy. And there’s no way the BBC doesn’t know about this.

Useful Jew and Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the press that this was done “to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008″.  In other words, there have been enough complaints about the fact that the White House position says the fate of Jerusalem should be left up to the Palestinians and Israelis to fight it out (I paraphrase slightly, of course) which directly contradicts what Candidate Obamessiah said in 2008. White House mouthpiece (and personal friend of Katty Kay) refused to say what the Adminstration’s official position was when pressed on it. Worse, The Obamessiah Administration decided last year to remove “Jerusalem, Israel” from passports of US citizens born in Israel, because that defines the city as the capital. The White House also redacted all references to Jerusalem from photos of a Biden trip there, replacing it with “Israel”. So they had to force it back in there.

CNN’s video, with the text in question visible on the big screen, can be seen here.

So the Israel Lobby got to the Dems, and the BBC is silent. I’m not surprised, really, because reporting this now means they would have to admit there has been a controversy at all about the President and Jerusalem’s status. They’ve been censoring news of that all along, so can’t really start talking about it now. Too messy, and it makes Him look bad.

I find this silence interesting. In May of this year, HardTalk brought in anti-Israel activist Norman Finklestein to declare that most United Statesians were fed up with Presidents being controlled by the Israel Lobby. In October 2009, the BBC discovered a Jewish Lobbying group of which they can approve: J-Street, whose goal is to fight against the influence of the pro-Israel Lobby. This was actually the second time the BBC discovered this “new” group. They made a similar report in April 2008. Sometimes, the BBC does approve of Jews trying to influence US foreign policy. In 2007, the BBC reported on the controversy over a book about how bad the Jewish Lobby is. The article opened with this:

The power of America’s “Jewish lobby” is said to be legendary.

So why the silence now, when this has been in the mainstream news? Because it makes the President look bad, and makes the Democrats look anti-Israel. I’m not sure why the BBC cares about the latter, but they definitely care about the former. So you’re not informed about real controversy and are instead treated to manufactured ones about “income inequality” and fake Christians.

Your license fee hard at work, supporting the leader of a foreign country.

 

Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to BBC Censorship: DNC Taken Over By The Israel Lobby Edition – UPDATED

  1. Alexander Galt says:

    disgusting omission

       11 likes

  2. John Anderson says:

    You surely can’t expect the BBC to report honestly on this big split among the Democrats on stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ? !

    The floor voice-votes incident was almost unbelievable. Jerusalem had been deliberately left out of the traditional Dem election platform statement. When this omission was spotlighted and criticised, party bosses tried frantically to ram it back in. But in spite of three voice-votes in quick succession it was obvious to any viewer that the floor rejected re-inclusion of Jerusalem. But the Los Angeles mayor pretended that the Ayes had it.

    What will all those retirees in Florida believe – the weaselly stuff from the Dem leadership – including Obama – claiming that of course Jerusalem is the capital, or their “lying eyes” when they see the floor vote for “No” being over-ridden. And when they recall the White House equivocating on the status of Jerusalem.

       14 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      If I may port over a comment from another thread, the ‘split’ was covered, just not as other ‘splits’ have been previously…
      Guest Who says:
      September 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm
      It is there, if tucked away…
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19497567
      ‘In a procedural surprise as Wednesday’s events got under way, the convention reinstated language from the 2008 platform describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

      In confusing scenes a voice vote on the language was called three times. Despite loud boos in the audience, convention chair Antonio Villaraigosa said he had determined that two-thirds of the convention had voted in favour.
      Reports emerged shortly afterwards that Mr Obama had personally intervened to change the platform’s language.

      Guess there was not room for a story about ‘party splits’, ‘anger’ and ‘questions being asked’ on what seems to have been a rather significant bit of ducking and diving. Or confirming such ‘reports’ even, before another ladle of awesomeness.
      Then again, there also seems an odd ability to entirely get on board with the notion of doing one’s best with a damaged economy too… if one t’other side of the pond.
      It’s almost like the objective circumstances don’t matter but only tribal fealty does.
      Possibly good (within reason) in a political ally; not so great in an impartial news medium.

         5 likes

  3. DB says:

    Re Kate Dailey – she was with other like-minded souls at a viewing party for Clinton’s speech last night:

       3 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I hope she had a better time were her fellow travelers than Daniel Nasaw had hanging out with the HuffPosers.

         3 likes

      • DB says:

        I’m guessing the households of the 23 million unemployed weren’t quite so enthusiastic as Kate’s crowd.

           5 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      “Yes, we’re all individuals!”

      “I’m not.”

         3 likes

  4. Earls Court says:

    Jimmy Carter loves Obama because he is no longer the worst ever US president.

       12 likes

  5. DB says:

    From the Romney campaign – timeline of Obama’s refusal to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

       8 likes

  6. fitzfitz says:

    The BBC continues to censor that Harvard woman’s cherokee lie … but its an entertaining tale – full of diversity, gender, malice and all the usual elements …

       6 likes

  7. Number 7 says:

    Some time ago I passed comment on “The Messiah” playing with fire in upsetting the Jewish lobby.

    Seems I was right!

    Perhaps all the “Great & Good” on this site, who promptly shot me down in flames for suggesting the Jewish lobby still had power in the US would like to apologise.

    You who you are!

       3 likes

    • Demon says:

      One of my first thoughts on watching this was “Perhaps the mythological status of the Jewish Lobby” has been a trifle overstated.

         1 likes

  8. hippiepooter says:

    The BBC doesn’t want the Democrats to look anti-Israel because it would lose them votes.

    The amendment needed to be carried by a 2/3 majority and it wasn’t. After 3 votes, the convention was split down the middle. You could see that the Convention Chairman didn’t dare be so brazen in fixing a vote in the publice glare – he seemed to be on the verge of declaring non-acceptance or a ballot to be cast, till some steel haired Dem matron whispered in his ear, and then despite a third vote producing an equally split result, no matter how much he emphasised *VOTE AYE*, I guess he’d been assured nothing would come of such a scandalous farce because the media would cover up.

    My personal view is that Israel will hit Iran’s nuclear facilities before the election because Obama will be forced to support them to get elected.

    But after he’s elected … now that’s a true doomsday scenario.

    If Israel doesn’t attack it will be because it is too scared to and that will guarantee a Muslim attack under the nuclear umbrella of Iran.

    Personally, I think Israel should take advantage of its nuclear last line of defence and hit Iran now.

       3 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It sounded more to me like 60-40 against. Nobody’s buying the Dems’ claim that it passed by the required two-thirds. It’s a sham.

      Next the BBC will be telling us that The Obamessiah had no idea this wasn’t in the platform until this week.

         4 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘The amendment needed to be carried by a 2/3 majority and it wasn’t.’
      Hence making it an exercise in democratic ‘process management’ that reflects poorly on the politicians and worse on all complicit media.
      What’s the point of establishing policy points if they need to be massaged to suit by fudging what you say to cover what will really be done.
      I know that is just politics as usual, but that’s what a professional, impartial media is there to… in theory… hold to account.
      Not cover up.
      This was a sequence of events that demanded serious challenge… not mealy-mouthed paras tucked away in pieces that are seldom more than ticker-tape rallies for so called ‘reporters’/corporate monopolies BFFs.
      The BBC is no more and no less than a PR agency for those whose views it supports and seeks to see prevail.
      Why I am compelled to fund this defeats me.
      Thanks to reading around and outside the bubble I have come to learn of some flies in the ointment, and in merely sharing factual URLs have been surprised at how some fellow posters appear to have been blissfully unaware of such a thing from their cherished ideological comfort zones.
      Sadly most have then retreated into passive/aggressive denial.

         5 likes

  9. John Anderson says:

    Clinton’s speech 2 nights ago was pretty effective – too long, a bit rambling, quite a few untruths, but full of detail. But much of it was praising the Clinton years – the years of bipartisan reform and budget-cutting, especially after he had an electoral battering at mid-term. Total contrast to the Obama years, Obama’s biggest mistake has been his inability or refusal to move towards the centre after the bashing his policies received in 2010.

    Obama’s speech last night was awful. Lots of histrionics, But no real detail about how he intends to pull the US out of deep recession. And a lot of deviousness – claiming he had saved the auto-industry when he damaged it in a law-breaking fashion, and his ridiculous praise of his debt-reduction commission when he jettisoned their proposals as soon as they were published.

    Michael Tomasky is a seasoned Democrat journalist. He reckons Obama’s speech was awful, ineffective. Obama’s main claim to fame was his oratory – before he had to deal with economic reality. And today’s unemployment figures remain dire.

    But the BBC still sees Obama as a great politician, not a failure. Their reports on Obama’s speech have been upbeat. Blind hero-worship, I suppose.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/07/obama-a-pedestrian-and-overconfident-speech.html

       3 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It’s revealing that the BBC did a special fact-checking job on Ryan, but for the Dems only a summary of other fact-checking sites for Clinton, and mostly those which showed that he didn’t make the President look good enough. Ryan is on the ticket, Clinton is a memory of a favored ticket of the past. Granted, there was a “controversy” over Ryan’s speech and not Clinton’s, but that was manufactured by the White House machine and a compliant media.

      No fact-check on Biden (although Daniel Nasaw and a couple other Beeboids noticed the bizarre “literally” uses), and certainly not a single raised eyebrow at anything the President said. We’re not getting a “What the US media say” roundup, either. Maybe later today when they’ve managed to find enough positive sources.

         0 likes

  10. Ian Hills says:

    “Mark Mardell reveals that Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not a forgery after all, following new research by old southern Democrat think tank”.

       1 likes

  11. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC reported that Clint Eastwood has made some public comments on his soon-to-be-legendary (which the BBC labeled “bizarre”) performance with that empty chair.

    But for some strange reason which may or may not have to do with genetic impartiality and journalistic integrity, they censored the best quote:

    “President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

    The source I’m quoting, by the way, is the exact same source the BBC is using. I know that because Eastwood was speaking to his local paper in Carmel, CA.

    Now, why would the stalwart, impartial professional journalists at the BBC leave that out? Perhaps our resident defenders of the indefensible who are news and media professionals can explain it to me.

       3 likes

  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Anyone seen a mention on the BBC about how the Dems moving the convention to the much smaller indoor venue actually had precious little to do with “bad weather” or “safety”? The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, a supporter of the President and someone who some BBC staff read regularly and will know personally, reports that the forecast didn’t actually call for severe storms last night, and the weather was fine. Milbank suggests that there were real fears they couldn’t fill the stadium, so moved it under false pretenses. Not a single cynical sniff at this by any BBC employee as far as I’ve been able to find.

    Even if somebody manages to find a questioning tweet, this is something that the BBC should be reporting along with their moist-eyed tributes to the First Lady and Bill Clinton.

       0 likes