. There is a great dissection of the BBC’s recent 60th birthday “tribute” “to Israel here over on Honest Reporting. The very fact that the BBC selected Jeremy Al Bowen to present this one hour documentary is surreal given HIS track record. It’s akin to having Hannibal Lecter front up a documentary on Veganism.
“A taste of things to come arrives in the first few seconds of the broadcast, which features images of Islam’s Dome of the Rock and a Christian crucifix against a Jerusalem backdrop. Despite the deep religious connection of Judaism to both Jerusalem and the land of Israel, this image is, incredibly, omitted. And herein lies the major flaw of the entire program – the legitimate roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel going back three millenia are either downplayed, delegitmized or ignored altogether.”
You should give it a read to see just how biased this disgraceful documentary was. I doubt that Hamas could have produced anything worse. There is something about any debate about Israel which brings out the very worst of Al Beeb.
Nearly Oxfordian: ‘Al Beeb is antisemitic to the core’ – I think your mixing up being antisemitic with anti-zionist.
Whipping Boy | 10.05.08 – 2:17 pm
This was the comment to led to my two lengthy posts above.
My ‘tuppence worth’. Nearly Oxfordian is being simplistic. Most of the BBC would be horrified to be thought of as antisemitic.
The BBC is quite happy when it can relegate the Jews to a quaint religion, largely defined by interesting recipes. It can devote about as much time to the Jews as justified by their percentage of the British population.
If it wasn’t for the BBC acting, so often, as the English language propagandists for the Palestinians I wouldn’t really care.
I never said that Palestinian terrorism was caused by Israeli action. I’m trying to suggest that Israeli action may aggravate the situation: i.e. some people are nutters and will do it simply because Hamas tells them to, others may do it because the barrier has made their life unlivable.
Yes, the barrier does work with regards to stopping suicide bombing, but then again, so would throwing every single Palestinian in jail.
I’m not, however, suggesting that Israel shouldn’t defend itself; it should.
Flat Earth News is an excellent book anyway. Have a gander if you haven’t already.
Whipping Boy | 10.05.08 – 6:54 pm,
I wasn’t asking you to identify your actual self. I thought you were another commenter here using a different psuedonym as a disguise. Yes, most of us are more or less anonymous here. That’s fine.
No, I haven’t read Flat Earth News.
The barrier is not indiscriminate. The route has been carefully planned. More relevant to this discussion, it has been stalled and changed a number of times and rerouted because of Palestinian appeals to the Israeli Supreme Court.
It has also been extremely effective in keeping terror at bay.
In a way it is jumping the gun since the final boundary between Israel and those who would destroy her has not been agreed on. But Israel has an obligation to defend her citizens against terror attacks, and is fulfilling it by building the wall/fence. Those who are against the barrier are either very naive or pro-terror.
I never said that Palestinian terrorism was caused by Israeli action. I’m trying to suggest that Israeli action may aggravate the situation
That still implies that there wouldn’t be any terrorism, or there’d be less, if only Israel didn’t do certain things. I don’t agree and Israel’s experience doesn’t back up your theory.
Israel withdrew completely from Gaza leaving the territory completely in the hands of the Palestinian Authority – what happened?
Before you answer see here:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2037&TTL=Is_Israel_Bound_by_International_Law_to_Supply_Utilities,_Goods,_and_Services_to_Gaza?
and here:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel%E2%80%99s_Right_to_Self-Defense
Yes, the barrier does work with regards to stopping suicide bombing, but then again, so would throwing every single Palestinian in jail.
Not just suicide bombers; snipers too.
I would find “throwing every single Palestinian in jail” to be unjustifiable.
What else would you suggest?
‘What else would you suggest’ Tbh, I don’t know. I don’t live in Israel. I don’t know how it must feel to live in fear of suicide bombers and snipers. I don’t know how it must feel to have every nation surrounding you wanting to push you into the sea.
Likewise, I don’t know how it is to live in fear of helicopter gunships. I don’t know what it’s like to have a 4m barrier cutting you off from your jobs and families. I don’t know what it is like to have to go through checkpoints to get to work.
As an outsider it’s extremely difficult to gauge the situation inside Israel and Palestine.
My point with the ‘lock em all up’ jibe was to draw attention to the indiscriminate nature of the barrier.
Re. Gaza, I’ll have a look tomorrow at your links tomorrow. Thanks for providing them, they look interesting.
Cheers,
Dunc
“Nearly Oxfordian is being simplistic” –
LOL. This, from someone who knows very little about the ME (and I am being generous) and who get his opinions from ‘some book’ – compared with someone who’s lived there and has been studying the conflict for decades.
“Most of the BBC would be horrified to be thought of as antisemitic”
I don’t give a toss about beeboids being ‘horrified’. The fact is that the BBC is institionally antisemitic, and we have been documenting this here for years (and personally, I have been doing so for decades).
Do you present such halfbaked, categorical opinions, backed by nil evidence, as part of your essays?
“As an outsider it’s extremely difficult to gauge the situation inside Israel and Palestine” –
There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’.
Yes, it’s difficult – but you still have no problem posting halfbaked opinions and jibes against people (‘simplistic’) who know a heck of a lot more than you.
“to draw attention to the indiscriminate nature of the barrier”
Utter nonsense. The route has been changed many times.
Inconvenient for the Arabs? Tough shit. They need to renounce terrorism, which is enshrined in their charter, and then they would have at least half a foot to stand on.
The idea that ANY of the terrorism stems from Israel’s actions is ignorant and puerile. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and the terror from there started at once.
Bio, that was excellent.
Most of the BBC would be horrified to be thought of as antisemitic.
deegee | 10.05.08 – 7:32 pm
Could be, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t.
The BBC is quite happy when it can relegate the Jews to a quaint religion, largely defined by interesting recipes. It can devote about as much time to the Jews as justified by their percentage of the British population.
This also could be, but it’s contradicted by your following statement:
If it wasn’t for the BBC acting, so often, as the English language propagandists for the Palestinians I wouldn’t really care.
And the reason they act as propagandists for the Palestinians is, largely, BBC anti-Semitism – though I reckon a good proportion of it could also be simply naive, wrong-headed idealism leading to the idiotic assumption that the Palestinians are essentially angels who will prove their angelic disposition the second that Israel withdraws to whatever border is currently fashionable. All awkward evidence to the contrary, e.g. the disenggement from Gaza followed immediately by terror attacks from Gaza, is ignored since it doesn’t fit the idealistic picture.
I find it quite fascinating, though, that these idealists do not seem to have found their way to the Middle East, and the ones who are reporting therefrom are by and large hard core anti-Semites and Arabists led, of course, by the reprehensible Bowen.
Since we are both ‘language’ people, Bryan, may I urge you to spell it ‘antisemitic’?
This would kill any number of birds with one stone. For example, it would counteract the idiotic contention that there is a ‘Semitic race’, and its corollary – that the Arabs are as much the victims of antisemitism as are the Jews, because they are ‘Semites’.
I never use the expression ‘anti-semitic’, as I think it was a 19th century neologism by people who couldn’t bring themselves to say ‘anti-Jewish’. I think the correct term is Judenhass.
It was a neologism, and it was Judenhass in German – but why speak German? And why not use a neologism that expresses your meaning? We use neologisms all the time.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“Nearly Oxfordian is being simplistic”
LOL. This, from someone who knows very little about the ME (and I am being generous) and who get his opinions from ‘some book’ – compared with someone who’s lived there and has been studying the conflict for decades.
Nearly Oxfordian | 10.05.08 – 8:32 pm
You have an enormously high opinion of yourself and are amazingly thin skinned.
For the record.
I am a citizen of Israel; have lived here for over 25 years; served in the IDF including reserve duty in Hebron, Bethlehem and Gaza; worked in Israeli Hi-Tech, Education and Journalism; am fluent in Hebrew and listen daily to the Israeli news on television and radio (and of course, English language sources such as the Jerusalem Post). I have voted in all Israeli elections from the 10th to the 17th Knesset and have participated in the process as a scrutineer.
Currently I am a graduate student studying at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya – Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy.
As a courtesy to members of this blog I always try to provide references to back up any opinion I might express, particularly when quoting someone else. This allows others the opportunity to check my sources and my interpretation and should lead to polite debate. Where possible I go to source and share the results with this group.
I accept that I am not always right and others can express a valid opinion diametrically opposed to my own. Do you ❓
BTW Just for the record. Antisemitism, anti-semitism and anti-Semitism are all acceptable alternative spellings. Judeophobia is becoming popular. At the risk of angering you further by directing you to an outside source, here is a good summary of Dr. Gustavo Perednik’s discussion of the word and the reasoning behind the different spellings. 🙂
“It was a neologism, and it was Judenhass in German – but why speak German?”
Well, I do speak German – but my oblique point was that the homely German term expresses clearly what is intended (better than ‘Antisemitismus’), along with the poignant fact that Germany was the most prominent source of this phenomenon in the 20th century. If we need a classical term for ‘anti-Jewish’, I suppose ‘judeophobic’ would do – although I don’t like ‘phobia’ (= fear) to be used for ‘hatred’.
“And why not use a neologism that expresses your meaning? We use neologisms all the time.”
And not with much clarity either – witness ‘homophobia’. I have oftened heard the mistaken reasoning that ‘antisemiticism’ (with or without a hyphen) must mean ‘anti-Arab’ as well, which it never has. Since ‘Semiticism’ is used only in linguistics, the term should be dropped for ‘anti-Jewish’.
Hey Bryan, we should really meet up one day, perhaps with Anat. Form an Israeli branch of B-BBC.
And the reason they act as propagandists for the Palestinians is, largely, BBC anti-Semitism
Bryan | 10.05.08 – 9:10 pm
I can think of other reasons. Of course I have no empirical way of checking.
1) The various strands of Leftism: trade-unionism, green-left, Soviet Communism, Marxism, post-colonialism and social-democracy really have little in common and on important areas are actually opposed. Opposing Israel is one of the few points of agreement.
2) Much of the BBC is recruited from universities where post-colonialism (noted anti-Israel activist and fraud Edward Said) and anti-Americanism (Chomsky) are the rage.
3) The Foreign Office (with its own axe to grind) is an important sponsor of the World Service.
4) Journalists (as diplomats) tend to be boosters of countries where they have spent a long time. There are many more Arab/Muslim countries than Israel.
5) A vicious circle. Unfortunately, if you get your news uncritically from BBC and have no other balancing source, it is not surprising that anti-Israelism becomes instinctive.
6) I would not be at all surprised if Arab money is a large incentive for an anti-Israel approach.
Deegee, I may have confused your post with someone else’s post (Doug, was it??), and for that I apologise; but I have to say that you are one pompous ass. You list your achievements with a degree of self-congratulatory smugness that may impress your doting aunts, but very few other people.
And you parade these achievements solely because another poster doubted your knowledge – so don’t lecture me about thin skin, because clearly yours is only a few atoms deep.
I can match most of your credentials easily, in degree if not always in exact detail (although in some cases, in remarkable detail); so what?
‘For the record’: I never said that those aren’t acceptable spellings. I made a case for one of them. Perhaps your reading comprehension was clouded by the red mist in front of your eyes.
Thank you for the link. I am familiar with it, and with many other arguments for and against the term and its alternate spellings.
“I have oftened heard the mistaken reasoning that ‘antisemiticism’ (with or without a hyphen) must mean ‘anti-Arab’ as well, which it never has” –
which is why I drop the hyphen.
LOL. This, from someone who knows very little about the ME (and I am being generous) and who get his opinions from ‘some book’ – compared with someone who’s lived there and has been studying the conflict for decades.
Nearly Oxfordian | 10.05.08 – 8:32 pm
You started. I merely replied in kind.
John Reith “Been over to B-BBC recently?”
Nick Reynolds “Just a peep from behind the sofa”
John Reith “Me too.”
Chip thingy “Yeah, I used to dip in; quite saucy.”
Sarah Jane “Unrelentingly mouthy, however sarky you get.”
Ben “All righties are argumentative alrighty”
Joel “They’re still at it, look”
Sarah Jane “They keep going, even when they’re on the same side.”
John Reith “Yes, we’ll leave them alone to self destruct all by themselves.”
Nick Reynolds “And we’ll have the last laugh. HaHaHoHo.”
Alex “HaHaHoHo”
Hillhunt “ditto”
Tutti ditto
meanwhile, back at the ranch
Bryan “in, on, the, oo. oy veh.”
N.O. “In, To, El, Al..”
DG “Is your Hyphen intact?”
N.O. “I’m having a neologism”
etc etc etc
For those of us outside the UK, or anybody who missed it, the Bowen crockcumentary is now available on YouTube:
Hey Bryan, we should really meet up one day, perhaps with Anat. Form an Israeli branch of B-BBC.
deegee | 10.05.08 – 11:30 pm
Good idea, though I’m currently in serious hermit mode. What about a name? Or should it just be called the Israeli branch of B-BBC.
Sue | 11.05.08 – 11:38 am,
Seriously, if a BBC hack soon comes up with a major piece of bias to broadcast, that’ll probably account for the current absence of John Reith. We should take note of the names involved in the production.
Bryan. I had this on the end of my long post on Bowen’s film. But haloscan said the post was too long so I deleted it. But here it is now.
I looked at the credits and noticed ‘Middle East Production = Hilight Films’
Which I Googled. Since the BBC features prominently in their client list, I wonder if this Israeli company, supplier of stringers and fixers etc., is aware of the damage that is being done, with their help, to their country’s image abroad.
Reporter = Jeremy Bowen
Camera = Jonathan Young
Sound = John Gilbert
Middle East Production = Hilight Films
Online Editor = Dominic McMahon
Audio Post Production = The Sound Store
Film Researcher = Gerry Healy
Production Coordinator = Sinead Garland
Production manager = Peter Morrow
Assistant Producer = Jennie Bateson
Film Editor = Dolores Shields
Executive Producer = Jeremy Adams
Producer/Director = Toby Sculthorpe
BBC Northern Ireland MMVlll
—————————————————-
Peace be upon them.
______________________________
Sue,
Since the BBC features prominently in their client list, I wonder if this Israeli company, supplier of stringers and fixers etc., is aware of the damage that is being done, with their help, to their country’s image abroad.
I have a shrinking feeling that they are aware of it.
In the case of the dead “Palestinian” woman touted by the BBC as having been murdered in cold blood by the IDF as they withdrew from Gaza, which I commented on here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/838933411045121772/#397748
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/838933411045121772/#397897
It now seems that the version closer to the truth comes from the “Palestinian Human Rights Center”, a pro-Palestine organisation. (see last link above)
UN asks Israel to probe killing of Gaza teacher
Gunness said inquiries by UNRWA suggested Daghma was killed when troops blasted open the door of her home in order to take the building as an observation post.
Daghma’s 13-year-old daughter Samira told reporters last week that her mother had ordered her and a sister and brother aged under 5, into another room. The children then heard an explosion, she said. Soldiers then entered the house.
Only some hours later, when the soldiers left, were the children able to leave the room where they had been held and neighbors and relatives were able to retrieve Daghma’s body.
That’s very different to the BBC version:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7389761.stm
The woman, a mother of seven, was shot dead by Israeli troops on Wednesday as they withdrew from the area in Abassan, southern Gaza, Palestinian reports say.
The BBC: Publishing what our terrorist handlers tell us to publish, it’s what we do!
deegee – about those blind men inspecting and feeling the elephant.
Jeremy Bowen was the one who was touching the elephant’s shit.