Give a Dog a Bad name

Most websites have a defined flavour, philosophy or political outlook, but categorising and compartmentalising things too readily leads to dismissing them out of hand, and B-BBC is lumbered with, and perhaps hampered by, a right-wing label or some other hackle-raising tag such as Zionist, which serves only to obstruct communication.
I’m sure many B-BBCers scroll past my contributions. That is a pity, but abstention is preferable to ill-informed anti-Israel sniping.

As it happens, I’m not a pro-Israel web-warrier. What motivates me is the injustice of the BBC’s one-sided presentation of matters related to Israel, and the harm this is doing, not only to Jews, but to society as a whole.

Robin Shepherd draws our attention to a comment made by one of ‘British Jewry’s senior leaders’ who criticises Israel in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same perceived misdemeanors that any run of the mill BBC follower might come up with, but with the additional complaint that Israel is giving ‘him’ a bad name. For this unfortunate, but in some ways understandable situation, I blame such people’s inability to look beyond the BBC and the MSM. After all British Jews are the same as any other Brit – almost indistinguishable from the real thing. (That’s a joke) Why would they not be as gullible as the next man, the one permanently stuck on that wretched Clapham omnibus?
The trouble is, anti-Israel campaigners use Jewish critics of Israel as aces in a pack choc-full of left-wing Israeli and Jewish human rights groups who are willing to hand over all the low-hanging fruit the vultures crave, on a plate, peeled, pitted and sliced.

I’m leading to something else, however. The founder of Human Rights Watch is a person one would hope the BBC would sit up and take notice of. He’s even a strong supporter of Obama, and certainly no right-wing mouth frother. Robert L Bernstein. In 2009 he criticised his own organisation:

“Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective” he said.
Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighbourhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.”
H/T Elder of Ziyon (again)
On November 10th 2010, 88 year old Robert L Bernstein gave a lengthy and illuminating speech at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He tackled everything, from his own reasons for founding Human Rights Watch, his resignation from the chair of HRW in 1998 at the age of 75, and the enormous subject of HRW and the Middle East.

Of the UN Human Rights Commission: “so critical of Israel that any fair-minded person would disqualify them from participating in attempts to settle issues involving Israel, got the idea that they could get prominent Jews known for their anti-Israel views to head their investigations.

He covers Richard Goldstone, the flotilla incident, the nature of the enemy Israel is facing, and how the Human Rights Watch board ignores factors that they are well aware of, but which don’t suit their anti-Israel agenda; and all this flying in the face of what HRW is meant to be about.

I was intrigued by the excerpts I read on EOZ blog, so I printed off this speech, seven pages of it, to read properly away from the screen. I recommend it. If only the BBC personnel would have a look at it, and allow it to filter through the communication barrier which precludes pro-Israel sentiment from reaching their hearts and minds.

While researching Robert Bernstein I came across this hate-filled rant from someone who has let his twisted imagination run away with him, named William C Carlotti. So for balance I’m including it in this post.

For your information, if you haven’t scrolled past, I restrict my pro-Israel advocacy to this blog. Because, 1) I hope to catch the eye of the reader who would dismiss a wholly pro-Israel blog out of hand, and, 2) I am interested in the BBC’s role in a creating a climate where anti Israel feeling flourishes, and exists in abundance in an otherwise intelligent public, which includes Mick Davis and his ilk.
If you have been, thanks for listening.

Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Give a Dog a Bad name

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    You raise an excellent point, and one that will never be allowed on air by the BBC:  all Jews worldwide must be tarnished by Israel, yet no Mohammedans anywhere may be tarnished by terrorism perpetrated by Mohammedans in the name of Islam.  This hypocrisy is endemic at the BBC and amongst all those who self-identify as Liberal or Progressive.


    • NotaSheep says:

      This double standard is one that I have commented upon many times and yet one that the BBC I doubt would ever acknowledge.


  2. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    We’re not the only ones noticing it.  Here’s one just in from New York:

    “The BBC’s news services have a long history of hostility to Israel, and this [Spooks] episode can be reasonably cited as evidence of the spread of the corporation’s culture of animus toward the Jewish state into its entertainment programming.”


    • John Anderson says:

      That link led me to another link – a compliation of truly vile preaching by various Muslim clerics,  and other TV excepts.  I could watch only the first few minutes.   Utter filth.

      The BBC knows damn well that this filth is a constant factor i n the Middle East.  Bowen knows,  all his staff know – it is daily fare on Arab TV,  daily indoctrination of young children.

      But NEVER does the BBC tell us this.

      The whole BBC news organisation should be ashamed of themselves.


      • Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

        Just watched the video John Anderson linked to.  Bloody Hell.  Why isn’t the BBC and other broadcasters informing us about these nut-jobs and their crackpot murderous incitements?  Why isn’t the UK government applying sanctions on, or at the very least making representations to, the nations that provide platforms for such seditious broadcasting?  What was it that Edmund Burke said?  Is it any wonder Isreal’s got problems?


        • John Anderson says:

          The BBC just keeps up the narrative that the Palestinians are victims,  all they want is a little bit more land.  Rubish.  They want to EXTINGUISH Israel.  Never ever does the BBC report that the threat Israel really faces, has faced for decades,  is to its very existence.


  3. Phil says:

    ‘I blame such people’s inability to look beyond the BBC and the MSM’

    I don’t think that most people look that far for news about Israel, especially the BBC’s dismal audience of Eastenders watchers.

    The BBC’s obsession with Israel and climate hysteria is just self-indulgence by a small group of public sector journalists who don’t really have any meaningful controls to ensure they deliver a quality product. So they produce junk news, just as most of their colleagues produce junk TV like Flog It and Casualty.


    • John Anderson says:

      That is far too mild.  It is not just “junk news”.  It is distorted, much of it they know is lies.  That is – it is vile propaganda.

      Just like in Germany in the 1930s.


  4. Charlie says:

    I don’t understand the BBC’s attitude towards Israel, it’s shocking. But then I don’t understand Saudi Arabia being on the UN’s committee for “Women’s Rights”. Unless they are pushing for universal stoning of adulterous women. Surely not.


  5. Pounce says:

    Here’s something the bBC isn’t telling you. Remember the stink it made over how when it rebranded smoke shells as Pure white Phosphorus ones and then (As it still does) uses the picture of a smoke shell in which to vilify the IDF . Well it transpires that not only have Hamas being lobbing over willy pete but the made in Iran rockets which they used over the weekend contained White phosphorus. (For the do called bBC defence experts that means a warhead containing WP and not 122 felt pieces soaked in WP so as to generate smoke. Why felt? because it doesn’t burn but smokes hence its use)
    Here is an how the Muslims of the middle-east read up on the above subject.   Shame isn’t it how the discerning British reader can find better written and more factual articles on the Middle-east from 3 world countries.


    • Craig says:

      Though not a long article, even Al Jazeera mentions the Palestinians’ use of phosphorus last week. The BBC’s decision to ignore this, compared to its relentless coverage of the allegations against Israel, is yet more evidence for the overwhelming case Sue has been building here over the last couple of years or so – that the BBC’s reporting of Israel is obsessive, unjust and harmful.


  6. The Aurelian says:

    Sue, I particularly value your contributions to B-BBC.

    In promoting the Palestinian fantasy, the BBC exploits the English love of fair play.

    The rot set in when News and Current Affairs were merged. Inevitably, opinion infected news. The infection came to permeate the corporation’s entertainment offerings, as Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s post concerning “Spooks” demonstrates. In effect, the programme makers propagandised themselves.

    Consequently, viewers and listeners need to maintain a sceptical attitude at all times lest they unconsciously absorb inimical views from their amusements.


    • Biodegradable says:

      More propagandising here:

      BBC drama offensive to British troops, says Army head

      Note the BBC’s lack of transparency:

      The Ministry of Defence said Sir Peter, the Chief of the General Staff, believed the episode was offensive to both troops and their families.

      A spokesman said: “There are fears that those watching it will believe this is what is really happening to their loved ones.

      “We have asked the BBC to make it clear that this is a fictitious programme, is not accurate and that the Army has nothing to do with making it.”

      A BBC spokeswoman confirmed that Mr Thompson had received a critical letter from Sir Peter and had responded, but would not release the director general’s reply.

      Why not?


  7. David Jones says:

    Good post, Sue. Anyone who scrolls past is the loser.


  8. JohnW says:

    Hear, hear – keep up the vigilance, Sue. Your dedication to the cause of restoring the balance is appreciated here too.


  9. sue says:

    Thank you very much for the appreciative comments. I probably was asking for a vote of confidence, but don’t forget your comments are the only feedback we get.
    If, from time to time some of us get despondent, please forgive.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I always assume that silence is tacit approval. 😀


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        I think its easier for the “detractors” to claim that we are biased in this site and offer no voice for a balanced view from the BBC.

        the thing is, that isnt the purpose of this site. By its very nature this site HAS to be biased because its dealing with the constant and never ending bias of the BBC.

        This site is a counter to the bias shown by BBC, therefore, i feel there is no need to allow the BBC to air its defence simply because we are responding to their constant and deliberate daily provocations.

        Having said that, of course if the BBC ever wished to officially challenge anything ever posted here then Im sure we would all welcome that.

        Chances of the BBC ever actually engaging on a blog that is to their right…virtually NIL! 🙂



    • Biodegradable says:

      You get my vote Sue!

      if I ever should scroll past one of your posts may my internet connection be cut off.  😉


  10. Biodegradable says:

    Today’s anti-Israel bias from the BBC’s Jon Donnison in Ramallah:
    Abbas rules out talks without full settlement freeze

    Bottom line:

    For weeks, the United States has been trying to persuade and pressure Israel to renew its freeze on building Jewish homes on occupied land in the West Bank.

    This week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to ask his cabinet, which contains right-wing pro-settler members, to approve a 90-day freeze on the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem.

    President Obama seems to be bending over backwards to get Israelis and Palestinians talking again, but the torturously slow pace at which things are moving reflects that both sides seem to be dragging their heels, our correspondent adds.

    “Bending over backwards”, says “our correspondent”?

    Oh really?

    Not what those really in the know say:

    Former envoy: Haggling over freeze harms Israel

    Former US Ambassador Dan Kurtzer calls American offer of perks such as 20 warplanes in exchange for halting settlement construction ‘unprofessional’. Such haggling casts doubt on Israel’s security issues, he says.


    Kurtzer explained in an interview with Ynet Sunday why he had referred to Israel and US attempts at striking a freeze deal “bribery”.


    The former ambassador also criticized the lack of US strategy regarding the Middle East peace process, saying that the freeze deal was causing settlements to appear divorced from the rest of the issues with which peace negotiations are concerned.

    “The US needs a strategy, something wider than the demand to freeze settlements,” he said, adding that it was necessary to sit down with both sides in order to devise a plan on how to proceed before haggling over conditions.

    Kurtzer would not say who was to blame for the stalled peace talks, Israel or the US, but accused both sides of approaching negotiations incorrectly. In answer to whether a plan was needed, he said, “A plan sounds like dictation. I don’t believe in dictation. I want an American strategy on how to bring both sides to negotiations.”