The BBC’s bias against Israel is not merely a case of offending a few Zionists. It has serious ramifications.

Who can blame people for being inflamed with outrage if they are fed a continual stream of myths and lies?
Under our system, politicians depend upon votes to keep them in position, so they are obliged to pander to the will of their constituents. An ill-informed, misinformed public exposes a fundamental flaw in democracy. Naturally, if the masses were informed and educated, democracy would still be the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried, as Churchill said. As it is, it might not even be the best of a bad lot. If our government abandons reason, the BBC has a lot to answer for.

Honest Reporting:

“Israeli PM Netanyahu’s address to Congress has provoked a variety of reactions. While Netanyahu delivered one speech, how the media consuming public heard it was entirely dependent on the focus or interpretation and possibly even the bias of the particular media outlet or journalist writing the story. And the story itself becomes dependent on the lens through which it is delivered.

For some media outlets, the focus was on what Netanyahu was prepared to concede in pursuit of peace with the Palestinians and the painful concessions necessary. For others the interpretation was of a hardline address presented in terms of Netanyahu’s apparent “rejectionism” and unwillingness to compromise.”

BBC: Promoting the Palestinian Narrative

“The BBC buried a pitiful 2.5 min video of the speech along with three short paragraphs in its US& Canada news section. Instead, unlike all the other media outlets above, the BBC preferred to focus on Palestinian reaction to the speech rather than the contents of the speech itself, devoting all of its Middle East news section coverage to emphasizing the Palestinian narrative above the points that Netanyahu presented.

In addition, the BBC continues to use a map of Israel’s borders, which falsely shows Gaza as being “occupied”, a situation that has not been the case since Israel’s 2005 disengagement.”

Those revealing Tweets expose the depth of the problem, it’s endemic.

Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Alert

  1. cjhartnett says:

    I was at a meeting of a “Palestinian Peace Group” the other night.
    Turned out that nearly every woolly liberal employed by a church,school or public sector agency was represented…no end of Guardians and keffiyahs etc.
    There was much anger at the bias of the BBC in favour of Israel…it`s as if they`re on a different scale to me!
    Guess that the lefties love the victimhood with their tinge of violence should you not agree with them all. Certainly every shibboleth( biblical concept,but don`t tell them!) of the left is disembowelled by Islam…but all we get is silence on that!
    A truly worrying-if not unexpected-education for me.
    These safe rebellions are self indulgent and dangerous-yet the public sector only has that reflex to excuse evil and condemn the only democrats in the whole region!
    About time they lost their cushy jobs and taught in a girls school in Kabul for a bit…until then they are useful idiots to the Choudhurys and the like!


  2. Phil says:

    Anti-Israel feeling is endemic in the UK, but is at an endemic steady state – it’ll never go away but it’ll never rise above a low level either.

    It is confined to very small sections of our society, notably the BBC foreign news dept, a few nutty, unworldly academic staff and some loony left journalists. Hardly anyone takes any notice of these people.

    It is difficult, or even nearly impossible, for those infected to pass their disease on to the wider population, most of whom have no susceptibility to it, being immune mostly because of their total lack of interest in the matter. 

    My only gripe with those who sanitise their hatred by giving it new names such as anti-Zionism is that I have to pay the wages of some of them via my taxes.

    It’s as unpleasant as being forced to pay a BNP subscription by the government would be.


    • jarwill101 says:

      I hope it does stay at a low level, Phil. As far as the general public goes, I think you’re probably right. Unfortunately, we have a few of Allah’s little helpers in the Foreign Office, a few not so closet Arabists bending naive ears.


  3. Stanley Ukridge says:

    Somehow I have the feeling you all missed the commentary from Jeremy Bowen himself. (They’ve put the stoy in the US section for some reason)
    All I can say is fasten your seatbelts before clicking:


    • ltwf1964 says:

      re Bowen’s rant-

      They seemed to love him. And he certainly loves them.

      The congressmen and women laughed at his jokes. They lapped up his declarations of loyalty and friendship for the US and leapt to their feet when he exclaimed, “You got Bin Laden. Good riddance!”


      he could have been talking about o’barmy there……..but it was Mr Netanyahu,so old bollocks bowen throws the dummy out of the pram


      what an arsehole that “man” is


    • sue says:

      No, but I wish I had.
      Alan Dershowitz is an extremely well known pro Israel advocate. David Frum sets out the reasons why I think Jeremy Bowen puts himself almost at the opposite end of the spectrum. At best it seems inappropriate for the impartial BBC.
      Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the US Congress annoyed Jeremy Bowen. He mocks the congress for the enthusiastic reception for a speech in which Netanyahu “Chose to make matters worse.

      “Not that you would have known that if your only contact with the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis was watching Mr Netanyahu’s speech…”

      Oh the irony. Not that anyone would have known anything about the I/P conflict if their only contact with it was watching Jeremy Bowen.

      They’re pro-Israeli continues Bowen, so their judgment is suspect, unlike all those left wing Israelis who’d rather err on the side of suicide than be thought nationalistic.(I paraphrase)

      Having disparaged the US congress for the 30 standing ovations they gave the Israeli PM, Bowen continues:
      “Most importantly, they accepted his view of Israel’s security.”
      Why wouldn’t they?  Then he opines:
      “But Mr Netanyahu is a long way from offering what would be necessary for a deal with the Palestinians.” Mass evacuation of jews from Muslim lands is the real necessity, but Bowen is pretending otherwise, so he lists them thus:

      “Jerusalem must never again be divided, it must remain the united capital of Israel,” he said to waves of applause.”
      Bowen disapproves, both of the applause and of Netanyahu’s words, because he says then:
      Palestinians want a capital in East Jerusalem.”
      And what the Palestinians want, the Palestinians must have.

      He sneers at the idea of “a continuing Israeli military presence along what would become an independent Palestine’s border with Jordan.”
      Because, guess what? “the Palestinians want to control their own borders.”

      “Mr Netanyahu ruled out any right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.”
      How unreasonable of him, Bowen assumes we’d think.

      “Some Israeli right wingers have criticised him for saying that some Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank would not end up inside Israel.”

      Why would Bowen need to say this? Why, merely to remind us how hard-line Israeli right wingers are, ignoring Netanyahu’s indications that Israel is prepared to make painful concessions.

      “He does not appear to believe that the new Middle East that is emerging will demand fresh thinking.”

      Oh yes. That is exactly what he does do.


      • D B says:

        I’m surprised how little reaction has been directed at Bowen on Twitter following this latest Palestinian press release. The all-powerful Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy is clearly slacking.


    • Demon1001 says:

      I cannot believe that even Bowen has got away with this!  The BBC’s claim for supposed neutrality has been completely shot out of the water with this.  I hope that Israel refuses to let any BBC staff into their country until they issue a fulsome apology AND Bowen is sacked.


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s BBC editorial policy that all Palestinian Territories are 100% occupied by Israeli forces. One checkpoint equals total occupation, à la Nazi-occupied France.  It’s in their style guide that the West Bank and even Gaza must be described as occupied by Israel, thus the BBC’s use of the term “occupied territories”.

    Even if there’s a two-state solution some day, unless Jerusalem ends up as the capital of a Muslim Palestine, the BBC will refer to the city as “occupied” by Israel.


  5. Umbongo says:

    The Arab “Spring” is turning into “Springtime for Hitler”: spring for Islamists, terrorist-enablers and anti-semites, winter for Christians, Israelis and European/US taxpayers.  I expect this show will only be a “surprise” hit with the BBC, Guardian and any “we are Hamas” loonie you care to mention.  But, there again, unlike in the Mel Brooks original, the backers of this show are not forking out their own money.  In the end it’ll be you and me who underwrite this farce (cf George R on another thread who highlights this BBC report that discussion at the Deauville G8 summit will be “dominated” by Arab uprisings).


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      All the money we’ve been giving to these Arab countries has supposedly been “propping up dictators”, to maintain the status quo, all about oil, and bribing them on behalf of Israel.  So why is this money different now?


    • ltwf1964 says:

      springtime for hitler

      that made me chuckle……how very accurate


      • Grant says:

        David Cameron says the ” Arab Spring”  “had to be a turning point in history”.  I wonder what he means by that ? I wonder if he knows what he means by that ?   


  6. Andrew says:

    This is a long held view of mine.  In a nation now obsessed with celebrity news and meaningless superinjunctions their analysis of news stretches about as far as Jeremy Bowen’s.  They take what they are fed and pass it off as the truth especially if it dresses itself in the facade of serious journalism – the tactic we see from the BBC.

    Combine that with a behaviour set that basically boils down to the level of self interest we see from many in the population and we have quite a problem on our hands. 

    We see every day, politicians not governing out of conviction or any sense of serious consideration but more out of an obsession with how something will play in the media or what the public will “think”.

    In short, the population are easily manipulated on stories such as these and obsessed with their own correctness may well pressure politicians whose only concern is their place at the trough and who will in turn bow to this pressure. Here we have shameful decisions driven by uninformed pressure underpinned by lies.

    I have long held the view that this will have consequences.  It is not just some daft old liberals spouting nonesense of no consequence.  It will have consequences.  I think the best analogy I saw of this kind of thing was someone shouting “fire” in a crowded cinema and when people got killed in the stampede, the perpetrator acting like they weren’t responsible for the deaths.

    There are consequences without question.  We see this in the news we are left to go and look for.  The Israeli boycott is one such thing.  I understand that a district of Glasgow is now banning the Israeli books translated into English.  I also know that useful idiots in Sweden have pressurised G4S to stop selling security equipment for Israeli “settlements”.  People are being manipulated into playig their part in the shame that is grinding Israel down.

    Jeremy Bowen – I have no idea how you sleep at night and are not tormented by nightmares.


    • ltwf1964 says:

      I strongly suspect that Israel is pretty capable of designing and building her own security equipment   😉

      after all,proportionally speaking,jews are responsible for a massive amount of the technology these lunatics now use to power their pc’s and spew anti semitic hate all over the web

      let them boycott away……just make sure they do it right!!!Start by binning their computers and mobile phones…..and that’s just to begin with!



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The only nightmare which torments Bowen is the one where the Israelis accidentally killed his Palestinian companion. He describes it as the most important event in his life.  He suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome and had to undergo counseling because of it.

      Now, surely once – if – he recovered, he should be allowed to return to work.  I wouldn’t want anyone to lose their career because of an event like this.  But surely it’s madness to reassign him to the very place which caused his greatest suffering. 

      The BBC’s Middle East editor has a personal vendetta against Israel because of it, and should have been removed from his post for personal reasons a very long time ago.  The stubborn, arrogant, emotional refusal to admit what’s going on causes the BBC to allow this farce to continue.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        I fully understand how he could react in the way he has.

        But I cannot accept that a supposed professional organisation could indulge such a compromised, flawed individual in the role he has been maintained subsequently, esepecially in light of his clear inability to function in a professional and impartial manner as a consequence.

        Outside the BBC, I can think of no outfit, in any arena, who would risk the damage to their credibility of such a posting.

        Like so… too, much, it is ‘unique’.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Not only did the BBC reassign Bowen to the scene of the war crime =-O , but they promoted him in 2005.


  7. Cassandra King says:

    Feeding the flames of islamofascism?

    The political class seem hell bent on enabling and empowering this sick twisted wholly foreign death cult. Everything the political class is doing, every move they make, every little bit of crawling and cringing before this death cult empowers them and makes them stronger. Its almost as if the political class and the regime are engaged ina deliberate policy of helping islamofascism to prosper and grow.

    Every crazed islamist and hate filled imam they invite in spreads the poison into the hearts and minds of those young muslims, every concession serves to embolden them. They hate us and now they despise our weakness, this cringing weakness before these hostile colonists gives them the will to dream of taking over this land and making it theirs and all the indications are that the political class would be happy living under the black flag of islam.


  8. Charlie says:

    This boycotting Israel all started in our University’s, if Saudi and other Arab countries pour funds into British Universities they want a return.

    At a dinner a couple of weeks ago a friend who is a teacher started on about Israel and how they had kicked out all those Palestinians and caused the huge refugee problem in 1948.  I replied that, Local Arabs did indeed flee – but the violence they were fleeing was that caused buy the invasion of Israel the morning of independence by five mechanized Arab armies. The idea was to go back once the war was over and the Jews had been pushed back into the sea.

    Trouble is  the Arabs, lost and have gone on losing. I also added that the huge embarrassment caused by such a humiliating defeat by the few against the many caused the mass expulsion of Jews from many Arab countries as retaliation. He did seem very surprised and unaware of all this.

    I only hope he doesn’t teach vulnerable children his much warped version of events, but I think he’s the tip of the iceberg. 


    • Grant says:

      I really wonder how much children are fooled by the rubbish they are taught in British schools on Israel and so much else.  And why are these topics being taught in schools anyway when so many of the children can’t read and write or do basic maths ?
      It is child abuse , pure and simple. 


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Charlie, has your friend re-appraised his views on Israel as a result of this or has it been filed mentally under “does not compute, the BBC tells me otherwise”?


    • George R says:

      Is it that Islam Not BBC (INBBC) regards the boycotting of Israel as part of a new ‘political correctness’ which does not require comment, because there is no INBBC discussion of this:

      “West Dunbartonshire Council bans all books published and printed in Israel”


  9. George R says:

    “Beck: ‘Arab Spring’ Spawns Nazis?”

    (Glenn Beck video clip, Fox News, last night)


    • Demon1001 says:

      Watching that evil, it becomes a struggle not to be racist against the perpetrators.  One really must realise that these poor people are being brain-washed by their evil masters, aided and abetted by neo-nazis like the BBC.  

      I can see, eventually, a major world conflict that will be more severe than anything we have ever seen before.  The longer our governments kow-tow to these evil bastards the worse it will be when it comes.  We (The West aka The Decent World) still have enough power to stop it getting to the point of no return.  But we must defend Israel or a huge conflict becomes inevitable.


  10. George R says:

    While INBBC continues to support Hamas/Fatah, an alternative view:

    Glenn Beck video clip:

    “‘Hate the Jew, Hate the Capitalist:’ Glenn Explains Why Defending Israel Is So Important”


  11. George R says:

    INBBC’s Donnison – spending all his time in Ramallah – is touting for even more of our money to ge given to Hamas and Fatah:

    “Fragile stability of aid-dependent Palestinian economy”

    Still, next week Donnison will no doubt write a similar piece pointing to the need for the West to support Israel… (only kidding.)


  12. John Anderson says:

    Obviously it matters what opinion in Britain is about the Israel/Palestine question,  and the endless bias by the BBC against the Israeli narrative must affect opinion in this country greatly.

    But what really matters is how America treats Israel.  Here are two perceptive pieces by US writers about Obama’s prejudices against Israel :

    (Kurtz describes how Obama has been steeped for decades in supporting the Palestinian narrative and objectives)


    McCarthy traces the roots too – and warns us that even though Obama had to beat a hasty retreat from his statement about reverting to the pre-1967 borders,  that does not mean he will let go.   He has floated the radical change – and he will continue to push for it by hook or by crook.

    It is surely indicative that the US were trying to get a reference to the pre-1967 borders into the G8 communique.  Only Canada blocked this.  So – Obama pretends to his US audience that he has retreated – but then promotes the idea at G8.   As on so many issues,  he speaks with a forked tongue.  

    Bill Whittle’s description of Obama as a “turncoat” seems entirely fitting :

    Whittle gives a video summary of Victor Davis Hansen’s listing of all the “turncoat” actions by the Obama administration – backing the Palestinians against Israel,  backing socialist dictators in South America against democracies,  selling out the Poles and Czecks to the Russians …..  and right-royally screwing Britain,  the most effective ally that the US has had for over a century.

    There are legitimate – or at least stongly arguable grounds – for seeing Obama as a real threat to the fragile peace of the world,  not just in the Middle East but more generally.   There have been a dozen US Presidencies during my adult life – and Obama appears to me to be by far the most dangerous.

    But NONE of this appears anywhere in BBC coverage/adulation of Obama. 


  13. John Anderson says:

    Jeremy Bowen blames Netenyahu for the bust-up with Obama over the issue of pre-1967 borders.   What a bloody liar he is.   He knows damn nwell that before departing for the US,  Netenyahu gave a very conciliatory speech in the Knesset regarding the Palestinians – making it very clear that he is prepared to make major concessions.

    It was Obama who stoked the fires by ditching the policy of all previous Preidents – including even Jimmy Carter – that the pre-1967 borders are an unrealistic starting-point for any feasible peace agreement.

    Netenyahu had no option but to tell the President forcibly but politely that this was a nonsense.   And both sides of Congress obviopusly agreed wit Netenyahu and disagreed with the President. 

    Bowen – we get enough bias from you in your coverage of the Middle East.  We don’t need you to pile on with lies about what happened in the US last week.


  14. George R says:

    Caroline Glick, at ‘Family Security Matters’ has this:-
    “Lessons of Netanyahu’s Triumph”

    Meanwhile, INBBC’s DONNISON, spokesman for HAMAS and FATAH, embedded in Ramallah, continues his propaganda:


  15. George R says:

    A counter to INBBC Donnison’s Ramallah political position:

    “Even Obama’s ineptitude cannot mask his profound hostility”

    (by Melanie Phillips)