I see the BBC has been shilling for the UN following that organisations petulant display that the Unwra will not re-commence its allegedly humanitarian mission in Gaza until Israel guarantess the safety of its workers. Suits me if they never recommence but I wonder why the BBC never asks why the Unwra does not idenify Hamas as a threat to its workers. Maybe they are related? Also, anyone catch Newsnight defining the Red Cross as ” a very conservative organisation” as it launches a verbal onslaught on Israel. Meanwhile Alan Johnston was afforded space to let us know how invincible Hamas is. Loved the way he talked of the Hamas culture of “sacrifice and martyrdom” – that’s homicide bombing to you and me. Nice stuff, Al Beeb – Hamas could not wish for a better PR campaign.

Bookmark the permalink.

253 Responses to UN(REAL)

  1. Grimer says:

    I posted in the other thread, but I might as well reproduce it here:

    History of conflict condensed into 30 seconds and one map.

    At least they mentioned in passing that the Arabs started the fighting. No mention of ’68 war. No mention of peace deal with Egypt and ‘land for peace’. No mention of Camp David summit. No mention of Hamas demands/charter.

    Just getting the whole “Israelis might as well not bother, because it will just increase Hamas support”
    Grimer | 08.01.09 – 11:05 pm | #


  2. Martin says:

    “…Another as yet unreported piece of news. During today’s three hour scheduled lull in the fighting to allow more food and medical aid to get into Gaza the Israeli army found a truck full of military uniforms for Hamas. The truck was sponsored by some N.G.O. Now, uniforms are not weapons. But they’re not food or medicine either. Many N.G.O.s are not to be trusted, and almost everybody around here knows that many of their staffs are less aid workers than propagandists and inciters. And not just U.N.R.W.A….”


    I wonder just what else is being smuggled into Gaza that is not exactly essential aid for children?

    Not that the BBC would ever report it.


  3. Martin says:

    Just how many fucking Palestinians are on the BBC payroll?


  4. Martin says:

    At least Sky News mentioned that Hamas BROKE the cease fire today. Not a word from the BBC.


  5. DP111 says:

    On Radio 4, the Red Cross was defined as ” a fastiduously neutral organisation”.

    Israel must be the first country in the world that supplies food, water and electricity, to an enemy whose declared aim is Israel’s destruction. I just cant imagine Churchill authorising such charity.

    Maybe it is this flagrant show of moral “liberal” superiority that so infuriates the LeftyLibs. If only Israel would behave like China or Russia, or for that matter any state, there wont be such a fuss against Israel.


  6. George R says:


    “BBC, CBS, CNN feature Hamas apologist presenting ‘hard-core propaganda”



    Hugh Fitzgerald:

    “Norwegian Doctors in Gaza: Objective Observers or Partisan Propagandists?”



  7. Martin Adamson says:

    In fact, so fastidiously neutral is the Red Cross that they refused even to admit Israel as a member until 2006, and then only under heavy pressure from the Americans.


  8. Grimer says:

    “I just cant imagine Churchill authorising such charity.”

    Was the declaration of Total War upon Germany a ‘proportional response’ to Britain’s situation in 1940? Was it ‘proportional’ to send Bomber Command to bomb Berlin after a single German bomber accidentally dropped its bombs on the East End of London?

    Who gives a shit?


  9. Stuart says:

    “Meanwhile, Amnesty International accused both sides of using civilians as human shields.”

    The above quote is from the second article (or rather assault) David Vance linked to. As far as I’m aware though, only one side is using civilians as human shields. This is just another case of the BBC pushing something as fact purely because a (very biased) charity organisation has said so. Therefore it must be true!


  10. George R says:

    Melanie Phillips (2007) on the BBC’s ‘Alan Johnston and Hamas’


    “Since Johnston’s release, the BBC seems to have turned itself into a vehicle for Hamas propaganda. Alastair Crooke has been given airtime granted to no other lobbyist, in interviews and one-off programmes giving him unprecedented opportunity to push his views.

    “This is the BBC whose other Gaza reporter Fayed abu Shamala reportedly told a Hamas rally in 2001 that the BBC was

    ‘waging the campaign of resistance/terror against Israel shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people’; and whose Middle East bureau editor, Simon Wilson, has acknowledged that he met Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus to discuss Johnston’s fate — meetings about which the Foreign Office was closely consulted.

    “Now that same BBC, along with a shadowy intelligence establishment and panicky politicians, is promoting ‘engagement’ with Hamas. But this is a terrorist outfit committed to the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the West. The Johnston kidnap represents a turning point in the war to defend the free world. It is not a turn in the direction of victory.”



  11. Random says:


    To be more accurate, the “Red Cross and Red Crescent”. Of course there is no “Red Star [of David]” because this “fastiduously neutral organisation” will not allow it. It is, in fact, an anti-semitic organisation, which has actively assisted anti-Israeli terrorists.

    For all arguing Israel’s case this http://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf is a useful document. It points out that the Israelis only break one international law. They should stop all aid to Gaza, as much of it goes to support terrorism.


  12. betyangelo says:


    Does Britain have an equivilent of this remarkable, detestable, treasonous act?

    By God, I’m getting out the reload equipment, and teaching the grandsons.


  13. disillusioned_german says:

    betyangelo | 08.01.09 – 11:47 pm |

    I believe Red (Hamas Green) Ken and Gallow-Way (pun intended) are worse because they’re not even muslims (as far as we know). Ellison is a muslim so you’d expect something like that from him. Fact is: once you’re a part of the ummah everything else is secondary. That’s why islam is so dangerous.


  14. A.Knight says:

    Just how many fucking Palestinians are on the BBC payroll?
    Martin | 08.01.09 – 11:10 pm | #

    Lol. ALOT obviously.


  15. Grimer says:


    Does Britain have an equivilent of this remarkable, detestable, treasonous act?

    By God, I’m getting out the reload equipment, and teaching the grandsons.
    betyangelo | 08.01.09 – 11:47 pm | #

    I live in East London and lots of the shops and Halal takeaways in the area have charity boxes on the counters. I’ve no idea who they are collecting for, as the writing on the tins is in arabic. I’d hazard a guess that they are collecting for ‘the struggle’, but I don’t fancy taking out a pen and paper and noting down the charity numbers.


  16. A.Knight says:

    If you put the keywords ‘islamic charity’ and ‘terrorist’ into google you get about 21 google search pages highlighting countless cases of so-called ‘islamic charities’ (an ironic catch-phrase if ever there was one) exposed for secretly funding jihadist and terrorist networks and their terror plots. And they were just the ones that got caught!


  17. Biodegradable says:

    Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?

    The short answer is no, but do read it all.


  18. disillusioned_german says:

    Grimer | 09.01.09 – 12:21 am |

    I guess that’s where the anti-jihad has to start, mate… someone has to document the whole thing.

    One question being… “who has the guts?” I’ve been walking down Green Street on a few occasions and felt like I were in Karachi.


  19. Jon says:

    Just thought you might like to see a photo of Annie Lennox and her friends

    Same people as ever.


  20. Biodegradable says:

    While the BBC are still reporting that the UN driver was killed by “an Israeli tank shell” here’s what the evil Jooos have to say about it:
    Uncertainty shrouds UN driver’s death


  21. Biodegradable says:

    By the way, at the end of the article I liked to above, “Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?”, there’s this, remember it’s dated 28 February 2008:

    It is noteworthy that Miliband and Alexander, while condemning the recent Palestinian terrorist bombing in Dimona, were not reported as having referred to the illegality of the Palestinian attack under international law or, indeed, to have made any reference whatsoever to the continued illegal Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns like Sderot. This is unfortunate, as the Dimona bombing and rocket attacks are clearly war crimes and illegal acts of terror under customary international law and international treaties such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

    Miliband and Alexander appear to misunderstand the duties of their country and Israel under the relevant treaties on terrorism and relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Under Security Council Resolution 1566, Britain is required to cooperate fully in Israel’s fight against terrorism “in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice…any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.” Even if Miliband and Alexander are correct in assessing the motivation of the terrorist attack in Dimona as an attempt to “undermine the peace process,” British support for the “peace process” does not absolve Britain or other states of their duties to cooperate in Israel’s fight against terrorism.


  22. A.Knight says:

    Lennox is friends with detestable commie cretin George Galloway. Enough said.


  23. Jon says:

    Bio – that’s interesting.

    The resolution also states

    “Calls upon States to cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism,
    especially with those States where or against whose citizens terrorist acts are committed, in accordance with their obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle to extradite
    or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or
    provides safe havens;”

    Seems like the UN do not even respect their own resolutions.


  24. Robert S. McNamara says:

    I’m glad they helpfully underlined the word ‘end’ on their big sign. When I’ve wrapped my kaffiyeh around my head, adorned my children in fatigues and martyrdom headbands, set my Israeli flag ablaze, vociferously endoursed the completion of Hitler’s good work, and generally worked myself into a genocidal frenzy, then my reading comprehension tends to diminish.


  25. Biodegradable says:

    Seems like the UN do not even respect their own resolutions.
    Jon | 09.01.09 – 1:47 am

    Nor does the UK

    here’s a repost here in reply to a denier on the BBC blog, get to it before somebody complains and it gets deleted:


    and for a laugh:


    Scroll up to see just how many comments have been removed.

    How I love B-BBC!


  26. Biodegradable says:

    http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UND…pdf? OpenElement

    There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
    – Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
    – Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
    – You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
    Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

    Ooooh, scary!


  27. JohnW says:

    Martin, your comment “…many N.G.O.s are not to be trusted…” is not even the half of it. I have among my former acquaintances, a number of guys who worked for the UN Commission for Human Rights (UNCHR) and the World Bank. Every one without exception were of a leftist persuasion and some were viscerally anti-American. The worst America-haters were actually Americans themselves.

    The UNCHR were involved in screening Vietnames boat people in the 80s and 90s – although “screening” would hardly be the right term to use. Basically, they were a processing shop for illegal immigration into the US. The interviews they made with the refugees were a joke, as they admitted themselves, the end result of the “screening” being that almost all applicants were allowed to enter the US.


  28. kersal flyer says:

    Report: Hamas stealing aid supplies to sell to residents

    Grim picture of Gazans’ lives painted by reports emerging from Strip, claiming gunmen hiding in civilian homes, using residents as human shields, and hijacking trucks of humanitarian aid.

    Reports say Hamas takes a cut out of all aid that arrives, including flour and medicine. Supplies intended to be distributed without gain among the population is seized by the group and sold to the residents, at a profit to the Hamas government.

    One such incident was recorded Monday, when a convoy of trucks carrying supplies through the Kerem Shalom crossing was opened fire upon and seized by Hamas gunmen. Similar incidents occurred with trucks carrying fuel.

    In other cases, civilians are simply used as cannon fodder or human shields. Reports out of Gaza say residents who attempted to flee their homes in the northern area of the Strip were forced to go back at gunpoint, by Hamas men.

    The organization is presumably interested in increasing civilian casualties in order to give rise to international pressure against Israel.



  29. moonbat nibbler says:

    Right on cue:
    Forbes — Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas

    The BBC deliberately conflate the UN and Hamas proxy UNRWA. Why else would the BBC do this other than to support the terrorists in their propaganda war?


  30. Jason says:

    Reading some of the comments on that BBC blog, I’m just sickened and appalled at the wanton ignorance displayed. #281 and #282 for instance. Such people are the scum of the Earth. The older I get, the more such stupidity angers me. These people have had every opportunity in their lifetimes to form a sense of reason and an objective sense of values, but they have decided not to of their own free will.


  31. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Further to the comments of DP111 and Martin Adamson above, I’ve met a number of Holocaust survivors, and almost to a man (or woman), they hate the Red Cross because that organization gave their seal of approval to Nazi concentration camps, telling the world that there was no problem. The ICRC willingly went along with the Nazi hoax of Theresienstadt.

    They eventually apologized, and even set up a “war victims tracing center” as a fig leaf. But they haven’t really changed their tune when it comes to Jews.


  32. Ceann P says:

    I’ve tried to avoid BBC’s coverage over the last few days due to fears my TV will get smashed up but I caught a report on News24 by Jeremy Bowen last night that was utterly repulsive.
    It took as ‘fact’ the claim that Israel had shelled the aid convoy killing a driver (how do they know for certain), followed by the most ridiculous three second clip of Mark Regev being asked something like ‘Will you take action against any soldiers who fired on the convoy?’. Regev replies ‘We don’t know for certain they did…’ and the clip ends abruptly.
    Bowen then follows up with a minute or so long conversation with some Palestinian official who handily has a picture of what looks like a dead child in some rubble. Bowen looks at this picture and the cameras focus on it for quite some time as the official bemoans Israel.
    No impartiality, no neutrality, nothing.
    The report highlighted just how much in ‘hock’ the BBC are to Hamas. No matter how many times they shill the BBC are not acting impartially in all of this.
    As for Bowen, words fails me. You know, it always puzzled me why a grizzled field reporter would want to sit around a Breakfast TV studio for a couple of years. I’m now wondering whether the BBC got him to do that so the unsuspecting public would see him relaxed, joking around with Sophie Raworth and others, and think ‘this guy is a cuddly, trusting, fun sort of guy’. Then later on when he is spewing his biased reports about Israel the same deluded public will believe him because he’s still ‘cuddly Jeremy’. Surely the BBC aren’t that cynical?…


  33. deegee says:

    Unwra’s Christopher Gunness said the agency was “99.9% certain” that there were no militants or militant activity in the (UNWRA) school compound, and called for an independent investigation into the incident.

    One thing that shouldn’t be forgotten is that more than 99% of UNWRA employees are locally-recruited Palestinians, almost all of them Palestine refugees. Right now I think we can safely assume 100%.

    Even if we accept UNWRA’s claims that they ensure that Hamas doesn’t misuse UNWRA (I don’t BTW) all UN employees in Gaza are quite aware what would happen if they don’t toe the Hamas line. Any UMWRA claims are meaningless.


  34. bill says:

    Don’t know if this has been posted here yet?

    Hamas in their own voices



  35. Roland Deschain says:


    Linking to your posts on the BBC blog, I note you have used a slightly different name. Can I assume that when you registered, you found someone had already used your name?

    The reason I ask is that my moniker too had been taken, as had several close variants. Are there any posters who have been able to register using the same name they use here? I suspect someone at the BBC who monitors this site quickly registered all who post to this site regularly.


  36. Mailman says:

    Lead story this morning on Al Beeb, stinky jooos herding 100 people (note people, not civilians) in to a building and then deliberately shelling it.

    Nothing to back the claim up but the damage is now done (no matter that when Al Beeb eventually gets around to retracting the story that it will be too late by then).



  37. Sue says:

    I see the BBC is to spend £15million a year a TV channel for Iranians.


    This is an outrageous use of use of taxpayers money.


  38. lemar says:

    8.30 BBC news this morning on tv leaves all the blame on Israel for continuing attacks without mentioning the 20 rocket barrage by Hamas into Israel this morning (YNET). This is incitmentand and must be a crime. How can the BBC be permitted to bias the news like this and get away with it.


  39. Peter says:


    I am on a simple search for information.

    I realise this site is not exactly pro-BBC and those it allows to grace its screens (from flak-jacket clad emoting moppets to ‘spokepersons’ from celebs on a cause jolly to serious-looking doctors who might not just be caring medics), but it comes to something when I believe I may get more links to the facts here than the national broadcaster I am forced to pay for to be told what to think.

    I just watched the 8pm BBC Breakfast News round-up.

    Of course Gaza was high on the list, as it deserves to be.

    Thing is the wording of the main piece made my ears prick up… ”A cease fire has been brokered, while 30 more civilians die’. I am not really doing it justice, but I really thought there was a cease-fire in place which the Isrealis had broken to kill these innocents.

    As this event itself, as far as I could gather from the…reporting… Israeli soldiers ushered a bunch of kids into a building and then shelled it… the UN says.

    Is this true? It seems unlikely, from the military/PR value of such a deliberate act (no hint that it was anything else) to the IDF, to the provenance of anything that is trotted out by the BBC as an UN-impeachable source.

    Sadly, until I learn the actual facts from some sources that I can trust, as far as anything the BBC and those it chooses to selectively report from, and especialy without any hint of their real provenance, I have to file as UN-believable.

    Not too good for the, in it’s own mind, ‘world’s premier news gathering organisation’.


  40. Mailman says:

    I mean its not like stuff like this happens every day;




  41. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Just how many fucking Palestinians are on the BBC payroll?

    None. There is no such thing as ‘Palestinians’.


  42. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    the Red Cross was defined as ” a fastiduously neutral organisation”.

    I am not surprised it is described as ‘neutral’, given how antisemitic it is.


  43. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    don’t fancy taking out a pen and paper and noting down the charity numbers

    Can you manage to take a quick photograph?


  44. Ricky Martin says:

    Sue | 09.01.09 – 8:37 am | #

    The BBC is already an Iranian TV channel.


  45. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    I mean its not like stuff like this happens every day;


    Mailman | 09.01.09 – 8:56 am | #

    Interesting parallel between this piece of CNN sponsored Pallywood and the documentary “The Gaza Fixer” fronted by ex-beeboid Rageh Omar on Al Jazeera last year – which I posted recently.

    In both cases the western journalist’s trusted, paid but “impartial” local fixer/cameraman/best buddy leads the journo to a series of Israeli “atrocity” scenes before tragically revealing that his own family has just become a victim of an even worse tragedy – thus providing an even more tear jerking story.

    Could this be a standard module from Hamas University Media Manipulation Studies Course 101?


  46. George R says:

    Sue points out (8:37 am):

    ‘Daily Mail’

    “£15m a year to give Iran a BBC channel it doesn’t even want”


    This venture is UK taxpayer financed, but as we know, the BBC and BBC World Service are politically interlocked, organisationally, in personnel and in politics. There is no question but that the Ahmadinejad regime will censor such a channel, but the BBC seems happy to accept this, perhaps because of BBC sympathies with the Iran-supported Hamas and Hezbollah, and hostility to Israel.

    Meanwhile the British government allows the Iran regime’s financed PRESS TV channel to put out its 24 hour a day political propaganda on the Sky TV network, broadcasting all sorts of Islamic jihad material live from people like Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader in Beirut. To reciprocate Iran’s censorship, this too should be censored in the UK.

    A comment (2008) at ‘Harry’s Place’:

    “PRESS TV: Britain’s Neo-Nazi Broadcaster”

    “The more I look at PressTV, the more it becomes clear that the secondary function – beyond promoting the interests of the regime behind Ahmadinejad – is to promulgate neo-Nazi material.”



    “Hostile reception for BBC’s TV channel for Iran”

    “The BBC can also point to the British bases of Press TV, the Iranian-backed 24-hour English news channel, which employs about 50 in a bureau in Ealing, and the Iranian state news agency, with five journalists based in Wembley. ‘I think we can say that Britain has been very hospitable,’ says Mr Chapman, hoping for reciprocity.”

    [ In this context, another word for Mr. Chapman’s ‘hospitable’ above, is ‘dhimmi’.]


    Of course, the British people get the worst of all world from this BBC venture:

    1.)we pay for BBC censored broadcasts to Iran;

    2.) we do not reciprocate and censor Islamic jihad material and any anti-British material on the Iran-financed propaganda broadcasting round the clock on the Sky network, as PRESS TV, which operates from London.


  47. Richard Lancaster says:

    There is no question but that the Ahmadinejad regime will censor such a channel, but the BBC seems happy to accept this, perhaps because of BBC sympathies with the Iran-supported Hamas and Hezbollah, and hostility to Israel.
    George R | 09.01.09 – 9:59 am | #

    That doesn’t make any sense, could you expand on this? Please explain your thinking.

    Surely if the BBC were as subserviant and sympathetic as you try to make out, they wouldn’t launch something the Iranian authorities deem “illegal”.

    And you miss out this -‘Nevertheless, with 40 per cent of Iran’s 70 million people estimated to have access to a satellite connection, it will certainly be possible to watch BBC Persian.’

    Press TV has nothing at all to do with the BBC so this link is tenuous if not non-existant.


  48. red pepper says:

    Suggest you read the article; ‘No Way Forward while the Hamas Hydra lives’, in today’s, (09/01) Times by Amir Teheri.
    There is nothing in this article you are likely to hear about from the BBC.


  49. Grant says:

    Richard 10:21

    Do you really think BBC “Persian TV” will broadcast anything hostile to Iran ?
    Let’s imagine it was already broadcasting and showed all its coverage of the Hamas-Israel conflict. Do you think the Iranians would have anything to complain about?
    If so, please specify exactly what !


  50. Qaz M says:

    As a British Muslim I find some of the remarks on this board, and some of the other topic boards, a little offensive and concerning. I would like to point out that not all Muslims support Hamas, nor do they excuse them for their role in this conflict. I do not feel that it is fair though for some people on these pages to refer to there being ‘no such thing as Palestinians’.
    I am not trying to start an argument here, one of things I like about this country is the free speech compared to Middle East states where it is much harder, I just do not feel there is any place for offensive remarks or insults.