Losing Battle

In defending Israel I’ve come to realise that preconceived ideas and gut feelings override all reasonable argument. That is to say however well argued, very few are willing to engage, or even listen to any case you may make.

Even those who see themselves as profoundly logical abandon all reason when it comes to this particular topic. The so-called open-minded can’t literally be so, unless they’ve suffered catastrophic memory loss.
It’s a big ask. Why would anyone cast aside a lifetime of negative input the media has subjected them to, and suddenly agree to re-evaluate, reconsider or unlearn material that they’ve digested and misunderstood? It is firmly embedded, and it’s staying that way, thanks all the same.
Defenders of Israel face a fiercely stubborn resistance, impenetrably and formidably fortified and reinforced on a daily basis by the BBC.

Abandoning reason is not the BBC’s exclusive prerogative. We can all do it. Fruitlessly citing individual examples of unfairness, and still, despite past performance, hoping for a breakthrough in some kind of imaginary BBC future, has to involve blind faith. Where is the logic in believing that One Day someone important at the BBC might have that crucial, eureka-damascene-moment?
Silly me. It’s all water off a duck’s back to the Beeb, but here’s one anyway.
Yolande Knell has noticed that an Israeli hacker has retaliated. She noticed, in the best BBC tradition, the retaliation only. The provocation, no.

Here’s another one, and I’m using today’s examples but I could just as easily have picked any other random BBC day.

Israel is banning Palestinians who marry Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship. How awful! Newsworthy because it fits a pattern perhaps. Less newsworthy because it does not, is the way the rest of the Arab World treats Palestinians. And the rest of the Arab World, unlike Israel, hasn’t even been threatened with holy Jihad with the intended goal of annihilation. They can be racist, discriminatory and evil to their hearts’ content, and no-one at the BBC bats an eyelid. But the BBC and their sibling, the Guardian, with hostility in their hearts send forth reporters just to put despised Israel under a microscope. The mission is to seek out whatever might conceivably add to their systematic vilification, egging each other on like a couple of gossips revelling in the character assassination of another.

I wrote the above yesterday, but despondency prevented me from posting then. That, and the fact the article did stick more or less to the facts and didn’t contain the BBC’s usual ‘Palestinians-as-victims’ emoting.
However, last night the BBC world Service spurred me into action by broadcasting a self-piying interview with a married couple who had been inconvenienced by this ruling. No, they were not actually inconvenienced yet, but they might be in the future.

Racist, apartheid, discriminatory, nationalistic and any other evil insinuations can be made by the media about ‘Jewish Israelis’ or ‘Israeli Jews’ for ever and a day, but never can the same be made about the people in the places where such things are a reality. We rarely hear from the BBC the openly-stated Palestinian boast that any future Palestinian state will be “Jew-free”.

The BBC will not engage with this simply because it doesn’t choose to. Sixty years of insidious, slippery, stealthy demonisation can’t be undone overnight, and rational argument will have no impact unless the BBC changes its mind.

Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to Losing Battle

  1. Nick says:

    It’s because its racist. 

    There is no difference between that and South African apartheid. 

    Israel is discriminating on ground of race and religion. 

    That’s not democractic and has no place in the civilised world. 

    Should the BBC be making more of it? They have mentioned it, but kept it quite subdued. Hardly bias in this case.

    Unlike all their other cases of bias which is rampant there.

    But I get your argument. I hear it in playgounds.

    Billy hit me, so I hit Sam.


    • noggin says:

      how many muslim women are allowed to marry non muslim men in the so called palestinian state, no … not only there,  in islamic societies anywhere … by their mandated ideological laws, why haven t we heard bbc news headlines on that.


      • Nick says:

        So your excuse is that because X does Y, Israel can do the same, even to other people. 

        Very nice.


    • RGH says:

      I read your contribution twice, Nick.

      You thinking is a very good example of what Sue examined.

      You are clearly know what racism is. You also clearly know where it is located. You see the Israeli state as a racist construct. You see a direct parallel to racist South Africa.

      You are so certain in your views, in your judgement that you seem to suggest that the BBC is understating the racism. Racism, which to your mind and to many, many others is so obviously apparent. Like Sue observes, it is all a cause for despondency.

      Why do you think that Sue is misguided. Tell us. Don’t just tell us we are wrong. Or are we biased, so biased that we wilfully, or unconciously fail to see what is so patently obvious to you.

      Where do you get the information, the facts, the analyses on which you base your judgement.?

      What is your test of racism?

      I the Near and Middle East, is racism located anywhere else than Israel?

      Or do you expect a beleaugered community to act in a manner that, until there is a full and comprehensive and lasting peace, which all hope and pray for, against its existential interest.

      Look at the neighbourhood. Understand the reality of Arab nationalism. See that Palestinians cannot get another Arab nationality or even security of residence, cannot follow careers in many cases in any Arab country from Algeria to Kuwait Iin order to keep them as Palestinians.

      With peace and normalisation of the Arab world. When the Arab elites reverse the decades long deeply rooted cultural aversion to Jews, then and only then can more humane and generous social concessions be made. When jews can  safely reside in Amman and Cairo,  then is the time to discuss the policy.

      There is no racism in the Israeli court ruling in the interim.


      • RGH says:

        Have a read of this, Nick, if you have the time.


        Or type ‘Racism in the Arab World’ into your search engine.


      • Nick says:

        A good test. Subsitute into the sentence and see if its acceptable. Do the same by reversing the rolls. 

        Some bankers commited fraud so all bankers must be punished. 

        Some blacks are criminals so all blacks must be punished.

        Not acceptable. 

        The same applies to being racisst about what citizens can and can’t do on the basis of race. It’s racist.

        Your also interleaving Jew and Israeli when its suits. There wasn’t a problem with Jews in the middle east for centuries. It was only when 

        A) Land was given away by the western powers.
        B) Land was captured by force. 

        <i>Israel is discriminating on grounds of NATIONAL SURVIVAL</i>

        It’s still racist, no matter how you try and explain the reason.

        Shows a lack of democracy as well. 


        • ltwf1964 says:

          and most of Israel was given away to create Jordan


          • Nick says:

            Let me give another example. 

            Are the Palistinians allowed to go to war to gain territory? If they gain territory, would Israel accept that they no longer have rights or control over that area?

            Now swap the roles and see if you still support the statement.

            Should the UN carve up Israel, and give land by dictate to the Palistinians?

            Now reverse the roles, and ask yourself, do you find that acceptable?


            • ltwf1964 says:

              who exactly ARE these palestinians?

              could they be jordanians perhaps?

              in which case,that’s exactly what they did on previous occasions……so yes,they can and did go to war


            • Cassandra King says:

              “Are the Palistinians allowed to go to war to gain territory?”

              In fact they did and they LOST, not once not twice but three times the ‘Palestinians’ went to war on the Jews, a racist war of extermination and they LOST. You start a series of agressive wars and you must accept the consequences, no ifs or buts.


            • Span Ows says:

              “Are the Palistinians allowed to go to war to gain territory? If they gain territory, would Israel accept that they no longer have rights or control over that area?  
              Now swap the roles and see if you still support the statement.”

              From this, do we deduce that you think Israel has gone to war to gain territory?

              “Should the UN carve up Israel, and give land by dictate to the Palistinians? ” 
              From this, do we deduce that you think the UN has carved up some place called Palestinia?


        • Nota Sheep says:

          Anyone who can write:
          There wasn’t a problem with Jews in the middle east for centuries. It was only when   
          A) Land was given away by the western powers.  
          B) Land was captured by force.   ‘

          clearly doesn’t know much about the history of the Middle East and persecution of Jews.


        • hippiepooter says:

          Gosh, how suprising Nick that you ignored RGH’s point about the Jews being a beleaguered people.

          I’m sure it would break your heart if anti-Israeli Israeli Arabs were able to destroy Israel by obtaining Israeli citizenship for other Arab anti-Semites through marriage and being able to vote Israel out of existence.

          Quite.  How intolerant of the Israeli’s not to permit this.

          I pity you your hate Nick.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I don’t agree with this Israeli policy, but it’s not even close to being the same thing as South African Apartheid. What an insult to reality.


    • Cassandra King says:

      “Israel is discriminating on ground of race and religion.   
      That’s not democractic and has no place in the civilised world.”


      Israel is discriminating on grounds of NATIONAL SURVIVAL, does it seem likely that the massive infux of arranged and forced marriges would dramatically alter the religious balance in Israel? Does it also seem likely that the ‘Palestinians’ would abuse this to effectively implant more ‘Palestinians’ into Israel where they would act as fifth columnists while ‘Palestinian’ territory would be Jew free and the very 1st thing a new ‘Palestinian’ state would do is encourage another intifada within a smaller and more vulnerable Israel?

      Here is the reality that the BBC is keeping from us as it seeks to misrepresent the facts and works hard to hide other facts from the public. In a two state solution there will be no Jews in a ‘Palestinian’ state but there will be ‘Palestinians’ within the borders of Israel, these will not be star of David waving patriots and eager citizens of the post agreement Israel, they will be 5th column terrorists and agitators helped and assisted and encouraged to cause trouble by way of an intifada. The ‘Palestinian’ aim is to infiltrate as many future jihadists into Israel before the two state solution takes effect, as many terrorists as they can export into forced and arranged marriges as possible so that when a two state solution begins there will be the largest number of radical agititators and terrorists and trouble makers within the reformed borders of Israel.

      The aim of the ‘Palestinian’ side is to alter the racial and religious balance of a smaller Israel in order to forment an intifada and the demand for more territory to be handed over to the ‘Palestinian’ state. The whole issue has been misrepresented by the BBC who must know full well why these ‘Palestinian’ immigrants into Israel are so determined to live in a Jewish state, and its not because these prospective immigrants just wish to live in a Jewish state. The ultimate aim is not a two state solution, it is a one state solution, the FINAL solution. It is the clear intention to make continous demands until Israel is so small it can be destroyed and altering the religious balance is just one weapon. Its easy for people like you to take some kind of moral high ground andf pontificate about what is right or wrong because it is not your nation that is under threat of extermination. 


      • Nota Sheep says:

        Similarly Pakistan was created as an Islamic state whilst India is a multi-racial state. In India there are Muslim MPs, Christian MPs, Sikh MPs as well as Hindu. But in Pakistan… The parallels between Israel’s relationship with its Islamic neighbours and India’s with Pakistan are real.


    • sue says:

      Strangely enough Nick, you’ll be flattered to hear that you were one of the people I had in mind when I wrote the piece, and your response shows you’re true to form.
      I see from your comment history that you are no defender of the BBC, and you come across as intelligent and rational.

      But as soon as I come along with my pro-Israel stuff, you abandon reason. You won’t engage, you can’t even be bothered to understand what I write, you don’t want to, you stick your fingers in your ears and shout: ”Not listening! Not listening!”
      That’s what people like myself are up against, and we’re used to it, though it can be infuriating, which no doubt will give you some satisfaction. On the other hand, you have so eloquently illustrated my point that I ought to thank you. So thank you.


      • Nick says:

        I’ve raised it as an issue because in this case I think the BBC reporting was fair and correct. 

        You’re conclusions show a huge bias the other way, and that undermines your case in complaining about the BBC on other issues. 

        So because the BBC is biased on many things, do you think its wrong to critise you for your bias?


        • sue says:

          “It’s because its racist.  
          “There is no difference between that and South African apartheid.  
          “Israel is discriminating on ground of race and religion. 
          “That’s not democractic [sic] and has no place in the civilised world.”
          The above remarks don’t appear to be made by someone who is  ‘raising it as an issue because they think the BBC reporting was fair and correct.’  They look more like remarks by someone who is aware of the BBC’s bias in his particular area of interest, but who still refuses to entertain the idea that the BBC has any  bias against Israel.

          I wrote about the reality-defying collusion between the the enemies of Israel and the political left.
          The latter, who are oddly tolerant of the most intolerant religion known to man, and yet are highly suspicious of Jews and hostile to the idea that as a ‘people’ (we’re not supposed to call Jews a race) they should have a homeland at all. They refuse to listen to what is known as the Israeli narrative, and instead wholeheartedly embrace what is known as the “Arab (or the Palestinian) narrative.”
          This enables them to turn everything upside down, attributing malevolent intent to the Jews when it’s their enemies that actually deserve that label.    

          You happily refer to Israeli racism because you know the BBC constantly insinuates this, but the proof that this is completely untrue is there for all to see; anywhere but on the BBC.
          South African apartheid is entirely different to the situation in Israel. Have you ever heard of Simon Deng?

          If you had read my piece properly you would have noticed that I said:
          ” the article did stick more or less to the facts and didn’t contain the BBC’s usual ‘Palestinians-as-victims’ emoting.”
          and that it was the World Service broadcast that particularly offended me.

          “You’re [sic] conclusions show a huge bias the other way, and that undermines your case in complaining about the BBC on other issues.” 

          I can’t quite make head or tail of that, but if you mean you’ve spotted that I am biased in favour of Israel when it comes to the demonisation that I observe in the media, then well done. I’m not a slavish believer that Israel can do no wrong, very few people would believe that of any country, but I defend it against the obvious injustice that is being done to Israel and her supporters by the BBC.
          No, I don’t think you are wrong to criticise me for what you call my bias, but in doing so you should engage with the arguments, not simply say because I’m pro Israel, I’m wrong.

          You really appear to know next to nothing about Israel’s history or it’s present predicament, and that’s why your attitude is disturbing.


        • hippiepooter says:

          Of course BBC reporting on Israel is fair and correct to you Nick.  You’re an anit-Semite.


      • Nick says:

        I’m pretty consistent on it. 

        Swap  Israel and Palistine, Jew or Muslim, in your posts on the matter, and ask the question, would you accept it if the roles were reversed. 

        You wouldn’t. That depending on your view as to who belongs to a particular race, shows racism. 


        • ltwf1964 says:

          let’s remind ourselves what these “palestinians” said about themselves,shall we?

          Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:




          • ltwf1964 says:

            The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.


            For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


        • sue says:

          Nick, racism is not about  “pretending there are no races.”
          Racism is discriminating unfairly, in a generalised way against a whole race, for no other reason than…. you just don’t care for it. You know, like Hitler did.

          It’s the difference between Mahmoud Abbas and his “No Jew will ever set foot in a future Palestinian state” (racist in intent, if not technically) and a Jewish state which encompasses black, white, Arab and Jew and still  refuses to be overwhelmed and made “unJewish” by demographics. That means not accepting unlimited immigration into Israel, or political infiltration, by hostile Palestinian Arabs whose aim is to change it into yet another Islamic state.

          BTW Jews are not technically a race, so wanting to preserve the Jewish character of Israel cannot technically be racist, but that’s not the argument I’m making.

          Is it racist to want Great Britain to remain a Christian country, do you suppose? Or do you think, if it too evolves into another Islamic state, that would merely be a sign of tolerance, multiculturalism and progress?

          Most ‘Western’ people support the separation of state and religion  but they still rely on the maintenance of Christian, or in Israel, Jewish, moral values to underpin the laws of the land.
          Not Sharia.


    • Henry says:

      No. Like the people the OP is talking about you very much want to believe that Israel is racist.

      Youre comment about  “this has no place in the civilized world” really shows your ignorance. 

      Simple lesson in life: if you are starving or under attack, or surrounded by enemies, you can’t always follow Debrett’s rules on etiquete. There are other concerns, like..oh I don’t know..like SURVIVING.

      Understand that yet? If not go back and read again. One problem in this country is that we have had it a bit easy for half a century in terms of people not trying to invade us.

      Second lesson: Israel has been under attack for much of their existence (don’t say the 6-day war was their idea, please). They usually have some idiot political leader not far away trying to build nukes and screaming on the radio that they want to reduce Israel to rubble

      And you have the Palestinians living in Israel (there was never a Palestinian state btw)…I don’t know how to get this into your head, but keeping all sections of a country happy is quite tricky sometimes (ask anyone who’s governed Iraq, or Northern Ireland, or 100 other examples)

      And you sit at your comfy desk and pontificate – without any detailed knowledge – about how Israel should run it’s security situation (while in reality it deals with almost daily terrorist threats)

      You dummy.


  2. James M. Gowland says:

    I’ve snet a complaint to the BBC: An Israeli computer hacker published Saudi Arabian credit card details in retaliation to a similar event when a Saudi Arabian hacker published Israeli card details. 

    The BBC published a news story about the second event that took place in retaliation to the first. In this article it described the first event as ‘It was one of the worst incidents of data theft in Israel.’ If this was the case and it was really that bad an incident, then why didn’t the BBC produce an article about it at the time? I’ve searched the site and there isn’t one!

    The first event was not mentioned at all by the BBC until the second event occurred a week later, so I assume would not have been mentioned at all if the second event hadn’t taken place. If it really was ‘one of the worst incidents of data theft in Israel.’ why was it not covered at the time?


    • Scottie says:

      It was here


      on the 7th January. It was inked to at the side of the story mentioned above.


      • Demon1001 says:

        Well done Scottie.  You have provided a link which corrects an assumption without making a stupid Defend-The-Beeb-At-All-Costs comment.  I feel the assumption made, while obviously wrong, was understandable as the BBC usually miss out the one side completely.  Well done anyway.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Another one-in-a-hundred success for Scott. I wonder if he’d allow us to hold his credibility to the same standard.


      • sue says:

        ‘Scuse me! ‘scuse me!
        Scottie, the article you cite may well refer to the Saudi cyber attack, but it’s not really about that, is it? It’s about Israel.

         “Israel vows to retaliate after credit cards are hacked” Screams the headline.

        “Israel has said it will respond to cyber-attacks in the same way it responds to violent “terrorist” acts after the credit card details of thousands of its citizens were published online.”
        Is it an article about a cyber attack? Or is it an article about Israel’s vow to retaliate?
        Compare it with the ones I cite. The CNN one, for a start is a report about the attack, not Israel’s vows to retaliate, and in the other one, well, Yolande Knell is excited about this incident only when Israel is the hacker. Your article is half the length and is in fact primarily about Israel.
        So although I did miss the story you brought up, it does help my case somewhat.


  3. My Site (click to edit) says:

    I’ve searched the site and there isn’t one!  

    Give it a few weeks. The chreey vultures are on the intranet as we speak. But whatever transpires won’t be ‘stealth’ or backside covering.

    Oh, no. It’s objective, trusted reporting, um, ‘evolving’.


  4. Demon1001 says:

    Nick, that’s exactly Sue’s point:  If it would be racist for Israel to introduce such a measure (under intense provocation) then surely it’s racist when all the Arab countries do it (without provocation assumedly) – so why haven’t the BBC been reporting (or even mentioning) that state of affairs?


    • Nick says:

      And it’s wrong when the other countries do it. 

      However, the justification coming out is

      a) We wouldn’t like it when they exercised their democratic rights as Israeli citizens.

      b) If another country behaves badly, we can behave badly.

      Short and sweet summary?


      • Teddy Bear says:

        Try to get your brain around this Nick.  
        it’s wrong when the other countries do it… when they have NO JUST CAUSE to do it other than their own elitism and fanaticism.  
        Considering how much the Islamic world benefits from the rest of the non-Islamic world with very little contribution in return, it is completely hypocritical for them to act this way. But we see their real evil purpose to act this way, and what they try to achieve with it. NO OTHER REASON, and nothing we can consider as civilised.  
        Jews on the other hand have succeeded in contributing to every society and nation they have inhabited. Yet when it was the political pleasure of a nation to demonize those Jews and slaughter or evict them, they knew their only security was to have a nation that they could be the majority and not the minority. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR SURVIVAL AND SECURITY!  
        Only morons could equate this to If another country behaves badly, we can behave badly and I would hate to think you were a moron.  
        That’s a ‘short and sweet summary’ for you. Hope you understand the difference.


        • Nick says:

          So you’re relying on what I call the playground lawyer defence.

          Sammy is misbehaving, so that means I can misbehave. 

          Or we have the argument, it is racist, and legally we can derogate and implement that. 


          • Teddy Bear says:

            Playground lawyer?? What on earth are you jabbering about? If you’d try using real argument and debate instead of obfuscating it, I’d give you more respect.

            Since you appear to have ENTIRELY MISSED the point I made, and reverted to YOUR initial misguided and erroneous conclusion of ‘Sammy is misbehaving so that means I can misbehave’ you leave me no choice but to consider you a

            You’re not wasting any more of my time – as this can now be your only purpose here that could make you feel successful.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Short and silly.


  5. cjhartnett says:

    It must get very wearing and depressing Sue, so thanks for continuing to bang the drum.
    I came to the Israeli cause very late in life and many years of reflex PLO/Hamas sludge had to be washed off.
    The likes of Sacks and Phillips-and yourself-say it all very well.
    That the Arab side has no match of intellect only makes them more pitiful…which is why the lazy like of the Guardian and the BBC have to hobble Israel and give Islam its expected five-furlong advantage in any and every argument in connection with the Middle East.

    Phillips puts it all down to a coalescing narrative in effect…after Communism and the Berlin wall showed the liberal elite to be useless tools who trumpeted socialism whilst getting Havel, Sharansky and Walesa so wrong: all the soft-heade left could agree on was to adopt a lost and losing cause-violent, grievance ridden, incoherent, perpetual student revolutionaries where no thinking was needed…just anti-Israel(and therfore anti Western, democratic and anti-capitalism by proxy).
    So what coalescing cause could the soft headed left come up with…why, nice Yasser, Nidal and those charming Islamic/Third way socialists like Gadhaffi,Nasser and Hussein…all were socialist with an Islamic excuse.
    So Sue-stay encouraged-you`re on the right side of history-Israel is going nowhere but to safety(one day!)…and the Shia/Sunni mobs (with the liberal elite holding their camels) will be history, much as Ceausescu or Honecker are now.
    The soft left rather likes its dictators somewhere safer than Islington.
    God Bless Israel…as he ever does!


    • sue says:

      “I came to the Israeli cause very late in life and many years of reflex PLO/Hamas sludge had to be washed off.”

      cj, it would be interesting to hear exactly what changed your mind. I might get a few tips. 🙂


      • cjhartnett says:

        In truth Sue, it was Christianity-and not much more!
        I realised that I owed “The Jews” for this Book that now seemed to matter…and that this man I now was convinced was exactly what he said he was was a Jew and nothing less.
        The followed the serious study of the Old Testament and the wonder of the Tanakh-and that Jesus valued it as I now did.
        Then the Palestine/Israel bit. That one was country that Abraham and the like grew inot creating via Moses…and one was a Roman Occupation construct.
        Then I looked at the Churches kowtowing to the PLO cause and its wilful rejection or denigration of its Israeli fundamentals…and the trouble I got into, for mentioning it.
        Then it would be the likes of Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips and Jonathan Sacks…even rabbi Lionel Blue…head and shoulders above their equivalents like Christopher Hitchens and Sachranie.
        I could go on-what works for me these days is the fact that Israel has the right to exist…and where Israel and the USA go-so go we.
        The story of Israels creation would stir any principled person if they could get round the fact that they did not need to appeal to the UN etc…in the end they created their own reality along religious/socialist lines and it still stands.
        Basically the Jews have got the only book that describes us, the man around who history hinges(BC/AD) and the courage of their convictions too…as well as the best writers, musicians and comedy if that helps.
        Keep on posting, stay strong and Israel is going nowhere other than where it will need to! 


  6. ltwf1964 says:

    Arab Apartheid 

    By Khaled Abu Toameh 
    Hudson New York 
    December 23, 2011 

    In recent months, Egyptian authorities have finally began granting Egyptian citizenship to children born to Egyptian mothers and Palestinian fathers. 

    So far, according to Palestinian sources, more than 500 children have been issued Egyptian passports that enable them legally to live and work in Egypt without having to worry about being detained or deported. The Palestinian population in Egypt is estimated at approximately 100,000. 

    Egypt is only one of several Arab countries that have always subjected Palestinians to apartheid systems and discriminatory laws. 

    With the exception of Jordan, the Arab countries have refused to grant their citizenship to Palestinians. Arab governments claimed that this measure was aimed at “protecting the Palestinian identity” of the Palestinians so that one day they would be able to return to their original homes inside Israel. 

    In most Arab countries, Palestinians are banned from purchasing houses or lands. They are also denied many jobs in the private and public sectors. 


    • ltwf1964 says:

      This has been happening at a time when Arab citizens of Israel are free to purchase houses in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Upper Nazareth. 

      It is easier for an Arab to buy an apartment in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of French Hill, Pisgat Ze’ev and Armon Hanatziv than in Kuwait, Doha, Beirut or Bahrain. 

      It is no secret that most, if not all, Arab governments would love to see the Palestinians living in their countries leave, and the sooner the better. 

      The Egyptians, who have long been claiming to defend Palestinians and their cause, were the first to get rid of refugee camps. For years, many Lebanese have been dying to get rid of the 450,000 Palestinian refugees living in their country. Similarly, the Jordanians are not going to shed a tear if the millions of Palestinians living in the kingdom wake up one morning and leave. 

      After the establishment of Israel in 1948, several thousand Palestinians fled to Egypt. But King Farouq was not happy with the presence of Palestinians in his country and the three refugee camps that were established in Egypt for Palestinians were dismantled. 

      The Egyptians expelled many Palestinians to the Gaza Strip, which was still under Egyptian sovereignty. But those who were allowed to stay in Egypt were required to have an Egyptian “guarantor.” 

      Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser further eased restrictions on the Palestinians, allowing them to study in public schools and universities. 

      However, the new policy did not change the Nationality Law denying Egyptian citizenship to children of mixed Palestinian-Egyptian marriages. 

      Now the new government in Egypt has amended the Nationality Law so that children of Egyptian mothers and Palestinian fathers will be able to get Egyptian citizenship. 

      This step should be followed by other measures to fully integrate Palestinian refugees in Egyptian and other Arab societies. There is no reason why Palestinians living and working in the Arab world should be denied basic rights, such as owning a house or sending their children to public schools.


    • Nick says:

      So no difference from them and Israel in that behaviour. 

      Sue raises one argument about living in the land of their ancestors.

      Does that apply to all races?


      • hippiepooter says:

        Nick, not that you’re going to answer the question, but what other race is analogous to the Jews?


  7. ltwf1964 says:

    courtesy http://www.beyondimages.info/

    Israel as an “apartheid state”?

    It is sometimes claimed by Israel’s critics that Israel is an apartheid state: that it discriminates racially against Arabs, and denies them any rights.

    A clear demonstration that this claim is wrong came in January 2003, with the decision of the Israeli High Court in favour of two Israeli Arab politicians who challenged the ruling of Israel’s Central Election Committee (CEC) disqualifying them from running in the Israeli general election. This Briefing describes the episode and lessons learnt.

    Israel’s Law on the Conduct of Members of the Israeli Parliament

    In May 2002, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) passed a new law barring candidates for running for election to the Knesset if “their aims or actions, whether explicitly or by inference, include support for armed struggle by a hostile state or terrorist organisation against the State of Israel”. Other parts of the same law already permitted the disqualification of candidates or parties which support the rejection of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, or “incitement to racism”.


    • ltwf1964 says:


      Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara – two outspoken Arab voices in Israel

      Two radical Arab members of the Knesset were disqualified by the CEC from standing for the 2003 election on the basis of this new law.

      Bishara had made a series of “inflammatory” statements about the Palestinian intifada since September 2000, and delivered a speech in Syria in which he allegedly praised the “victory” of Iranian-backed Hizbullah over Israel in South Lebanon.

      Tibi had a record going back several years of expressing strong sympathy for Palestinian terrorism. He took part in the funeral in Ramallah of a Hamas mastermind and reportedly expressed admiration for the way in which Palestinian terrorists in Jenin had fought against Israeli soldiers.

      The MKs’ Appeal to the Israeli High Court

      Tibi and Bishara both challenged the decision of the CEC through the Israeli Courts (in proceedings which also dealt with the CEC’s disqualification of certain far-right candidates).

      A special 11-member panel of the High Court was convened, headed by Israel’s Supreme Court President and Deputy President, and nine other senior judges.

      The Court unanimously overturned the CEC’s disqualification of Tibi, and by a majority of 7-4 overturned the CEC’s disqualification of Bishara. Each was permitted to rejoin the election campaign.

      The Court rulings were criticised by many politicians in Israel, but greeted as “significant and important” by a leading Arab spokesman. A month later, in February 2003, Tibi and Bishara won Knesset seats in the Israeli general election.


      • ltwf1964 says:


        This episode is a reminder that Israel’s Arabs have access to the highest courts of Israel, which apply the law fairly and without discrimination, regardless of the political climate.

        Whatever opinion you take about the political views and conduct of Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara, their reinstatement by the High Court to Israel’s election campaign teaches a significant lesson.

        Such an episode could never have happened in an apartheid state. Not only does the incident demonstrate that Israel is not an “apartheid state”, but it also shows that Israel maintains the standards of an advanced liberal democracy.


        • cjhartnett says:

          Excellent post as ever Itwf1964.
          How much more evidence do we need about what the BBC/MSM are up to all the time?…incessant, unrelenting-but they`re building their own gallows a la Haman!
          I despise this “apartheid/Nazi” stuff that gets flung about anytime Israel and Palestine crop up.
          You`re in death rattle territory when they use such offensive ,loaded and charged words against a sovereign state that was created by the UN.The words get hollowed out of all meaning-which is presuambly what they`re hoping for(Nazis were socialists after all!)
          I never went to South Africa or Nazi Germany…but deeply resent this provocative use of language to demonise the thin blue line that is saving the West from itself.
          These fools just bandy words about and wonder why Islamofascism creeps forward little by little.


          • ltwf1964 says:

            the bbc are anti semitic rats…..no matter how they try to tart up their hatred as “anti zionism”-for whatever reason,although I strongly suspect that aaprt from lefties always backing anyone who hates the west -like the islamofascists,that financial implications are also involved

            ie they are taking backhanders from islamic sources


        • ian says:

          Maybe multiracialk states just don’t work……..


        • Nick says:

          This episode is a reminder that Israel’s Arabs have access to the highest courts of Israel, which apply the law fairly and without discrimination, regardless of the political climate.  


          Except that the law in this case is discrimatory. 


          • ltwf1964 says:

            name me a country where any given law does not discriminate against someone?

            if you can may i go and live there please?……cos it sounds simply splendid!!


  8. Teddy Bear says:

    Great post, as ever Sue.  

    just to elaborate on this point: ‘…however well argued, very few are willing to engage, or even listen to any case you may make.’ 

    In my experience there are two minds that operate this way.  

    Those that have an agenda to continue it, regardless of the truth – like the BBC, or Islamists.  

    Then there are those who do not want to countenance a world where they might have to think that their ‘fair and impartial’ BBC, the ‘jewel in the crown of civilisation’ could be so evil.    

    THEY ARE AFRAID of what their world would look like if the truth was otherwise. They’s rather have the illusion than the reality.  

    The Allegory of the Cave by Plato illustrated this very well.


  9. Nick says:

    Then there are those who do not want to countenance a world where they might have to think that their ‘fair and impartial’ BBC, the ‘jewel in the crown of civilisation’ could be so evil.  


    I think that is correct, and even Sue has admitted that I share many of her views of the BBC. 

    However you’re probably correct. A lot of posters here have closed their minds off to the matter. 

    That’s why reversing the roles in the sentences points out the inconsistencies. 

    Someone has tried to say, look they really are Jordanians.

    Woudl they tolerate the return of all Jordanian lands to Jordian?

    Woudl they avocate the return of a lot of Isralis to Europe? 


    • ltwf1964 says:

      you won’t even accept that “palestinian” is a conveniently created myth,even when it comes out of their own mouths

      Jordanian”” loands are not in fact Jordanian at all……they were mandated for israel and taken from her to create Jordan


      • Nick says:

        they were mandated for israel and taken from her to create Jordan


        So they were taken by UN mandate.

        Would you accept a UN mandate that took Israeli lands and gave them back? 


        • hippiepooter says:

          There never has been a UN mandate for the Jewish people to take land that isn’t there’s.  Only your hatred of the Jewish people could cause you to make such a dishonest assertion.


    • hippiepooter says:

      “That’s why reversing the roles in the sentences points out the inconsistencies.”

      No it doesn’t, it points out your intellectual laziness and inability to address the points being made here.

      Nevertheless, you seem to have an awful lot of fun playing the game, so I’m going to have some fun with it too.

      Reverse the roles in these statements with Muslim/Arab/Palestine and what do you get?

      Since 1948 the Jewish State has enjoyed unbroken democracy and the rule of law.

      The Jewish State protects the rights of all religions in Jerusalem.

      The Arab population of Israel enjoys the same rights of franchise as the Jews do.

      The objectives of the Jewish State has never been to make Israel ‘Arab free’.

      Elections in the Jewish State have always taken place as scheduled.

      The Jewish State is the least corrupt in the Middle East.

      The Jewish State recognises its neighbours as Arab States.

      Freedom under the rule of law has always existed in the Jewish State.

      The Jewish State is surrounded by people who wish to destroy it.

      Can you see what I’m getting at Nick?  It would be absurd to apply these statements to Israel’s Arab and Muslim enemies.

      I’m afraid that this parlour game of yours to cover-up the anti-Semitic hate that motivates your loathing of Israel isn’t fooling anyone.


  10. Nick says:


    <i>Racism is discriminating unfairly, in a generalised way against a whole race, for no other reason than…. you just don’t care for it. You know, like Hitler did.</i>

    Correct. I expect higher standards of the victims of that racism. They know its wrong and they know its effects.

    <i>It’s the difference between Mahmoud Abbas and his “No Jew will ever set foot in a future Palestinian state”</i>

    Yes it is.

    Just as it is saying that no muslim Israli will be permitted to have their wife or husband live with them in Israel.

    <i>BTW Jews are not technically a race, so wanting to preserve the Jewish character of Israel cannot technically be racist, but that’s not the argument I’m making. </i>

    That’s why I asked the question. However, I’ve come acrross people saying they are when it suits and when it doesn’t they aren’t. 

    Hence I try and be scrupulous about distinguising being Israeli verus Jewish.

    As for Christian, Jewish or Sharia. I don’t particularly care. Other people can do what they want. However, when they start imposing their beliefs on me, or on others who don’t want those beliefs imposed, its wrong. 

    For example, with gets. I’ve no problem with them. Parallel legal systems are OK, so long as the country law has precendence. People can opt in to a Jewish, or Sharia system, or arbitration if they want.  If either party decides not, then the other party can’t insist. 

    However, that system cannot violate the state law. 

    Any legal system should also not descriminate on grounds of race, religion, colour, …


    • sue says:

      “Just as it is saying that no muslim Israli will be permitted to have their wife or husband live with them in Israel.”

      You’ve got it all wrong. It’s automatically granting Israeli citizenship to Palestinian spouses that has been banned.

      There are many Palestinian Arabs living in Israel! There are many Israeli /Palestinian citizens! Some are even MPs. You know nothing.
      The hyper-critical of Israel, left-wing, Israeli newspaper Haaretz promotes the human rights angle on this, but even they explain:

      “Arabs make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population of 7 million. About 3 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many families were divided by cease-fire lines after wars and, over the years, marriage between the two groups has been common.

      Since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this manner and some Israelis see this as a security threat.”

      Some Israelis see this as a security threat! And well they might.

      I found the rest of your comment incomprehensible I’m afraid.


  11. dave s says:

    It is futile to engage in argument. The liberal ( that is the word I use to describe the current prevailing orthodoxy of Western thought) has made up it’s mind. And you know very well what that mind has decided.
    What is necessary is to know that “Never Again” means exactly that.
    The responsibility for ensuring this rests on the shoulders of the young men and women of Israel. That they will be equal to the task I am certain. In the end it is always comes down to this reality.
    Against this will for survival all else is meaningless.


    • sue says:

      Dave S,
      I know it’s futile, but as I was bemoaning the lack of engagement I’m duty bound to have a go.


      • Nick says:

        But its still racist, and that is wrong. 

        Just as there is lots of racism on the Arab side too. 


        • dave s says:

          As I originally said it is futile to engage in argument. Throwing out the word “racist’ is absurd. It bears no relation to reality. There is ,in the liberal mind, never any notion of how the world really works or how humans really behave. The liberal mindset is founded on a belief in human perfectability and the possibility of building heaven here on Earth.
          It is a peculiar affliction of the Western mind and is not shared by other cultures.
          Reality is going to teach Western culture the harshest of lessons.
          That Israel is to some extent immune is it’s good fortune.


          • Nota Sheep says:

            That’s why the lazy left love to scream ‘racist’; it shuts down debate and is unarguable against. Once someone has been labelled a racist there is no need for the labeller to pay any attention to the labelee whose opinions are now clearly worthless (as indeed are they).


        • Cassandra King says:

          No it is not racist, it is a case of national survival Nick…let me repeat that in case you progressive liberal mindset cannot accept it…its about national survival, and the balance between ehtical values and equality and national self interest. This is not about some simple ethical judgement, of the kind the left love, this is about reality and survival and how to keep enemies out of Israel, and enemies they most certianly would be.

          National self interest dictates that measures have to be taken to snsure the survival of the state, in war that means curtailing or prohibiting certain activities or actions that would hurt the state and the majority. This is where the liberal left find it impossible to make value judgements, black or white/wrong or right, no greys and no doubts and no compromises. It is obvious that the useful idiots of islamism and the forces of rabid islamofascism are trying to make political capital by simplifying a complex issue in order to portray national survival as racist, normal people would in fact choose racism over national suicide. If only Israel were dealing with human beings instead of rabid hate filled racist savages, the choice would have been very different and whats mpre you know it dont you?

          Now if Israel was dealing with a genuine equality situation that didnt endager the national interest let alone the very survival of the Jewish homeland then as a free democracy Israel would be first to allow such freedoms BUT when freedoms are taken and perverted then those freedoms are no longer freedoms but dangerous weapons. Allowing ‘Palestinians’ to freely and automatically enter Israel en masse via forced and arranged marriages  would endanger the Jewish state and endanger the majority. It is common sense to control the immigration of hostile immigrants.

          You would have to be clinically insane or retarded to invite killers and evil savages into your home because not to invite them in would be rude, no you would lock the door and that is the simple reality that Israel faces, the same savages that butchered an innocent family are desperate to get into Israel in order to kill Jews, Israel is morally and ethically correct to make the choice to keep those blood thirsty racist savages out in the wastelands that border her.


        • Demon1001 says:

          Nick says “Just as there is lots of racism on the Arab side too.”

          Is there?  Well the BBC have never told me that, not even given me an inkling that there can be anything racist in these Arabs who are such paragons of virtue (as far as the BBC are concerned). 

          Do you now see the problem? – It’s not whether Israel’s policy is racist (arguable) but the clear racism of the Arab world is never given a mention.  Considering the amout of air-time Israel’s wrongs (real and imaginary) are sneered at by the BBC – where is the corresponding time given to the Arab wrongs?


    • hippiepooter says:

      Sue (and others) do a great job in exposing the wilful speciousness of a Jew hating bigot like Nick.

      It’s most entertaining.


  12. Anabel says:


    Your observation is spot on.  Sadly no amount of factual evidence will convince those whose worldview is based on their own concept of morality and law, however, once more into the breach…

    Israel’s Citizenship Oath varies little from most other countries.  Loyalty to country, its people and their shared values, and adherence to its laws.   Constraints on citizenship rulings have existed from Rome to the third Reich and is hardly a unique precendent.

    Nor are their any inconsistencies with International Human Rights systems in this law.

    International Human Rights System
    10.2 Human Rights in Times of Emergency
    The enjoyment of some human rights may be restricted during times of war or public emergency. The international instruments on human rights define a state of emergency as a “…public emergency which threatens the life of a nation.”, like article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, war is the greatest public emergency; the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure.
    Three of the most important human rights conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, contain derogation clauses with specific standards on human rights in states of emergencies, e.g. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows States to take measures temporarily derogating from some of their obligations under the Covenant “…in times of public emergency which threatens the life of a nation.” but only to the “…exigencies of the situation.”
    Certain rights have been considered so important that they are non-derogable. In the three conventions there exist four common non-derogable rights. These are the right to life, the right to be free from torture and other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to be free from slavery or servitude and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws. These rights are also known as peremptory norms of international law or jus cogens norms.

    Israel has the right to decide what the “exigencies of the situation” may be  given that people of a declared belligerent, and a non-state actor are seeking entry to her territory.

    Just a little wedding this year; just a little war the next. 


    • Nick says:

      Interesting argument. Rights can be derogated. 

      So you accept that it is racist, but derogation applies? 


    • hippiepooter says:

      The thing is what we’re dealing with here in Nick is a pathology.  However, the otherwise indifferent public gets infected by this pathology in the ‘reporting’ of so many BBC journalists (not all, certainly, there are in my view a number of good ones).

      Nick has availed us of a very useful service on this forum to give us a very good insight into how his pathology plays out in his attempts at ‘look, no hands’ anti-Semitism.

      Thank you Nick.  I hope you get better.


  13. Nick says:

    you won’t even accept that “palestinian” is a conveniently created myth,even when it comes out of their own mouths
    Jordanian”” loands are not in fact Jordanian at all……they were mandated for israel and taken from her to create Jordan


    So if you accept Jordan, will the lands that were Jordan be returned to Jordan?

    You’re complaining about created countries, and yet Israel was created by other countries?

    Which is the created myth?

    That’s why I asked, is it acceptable for the UN to create a Palistinian state irrespective of the views of Israel, including lands occupied and more, without Israel’s consent?

    If not, why is it acceptable for other countries (UN) to create Israel in 1949, without the consent of trans-Jordan?

    It’s back to the basic question, if we take the statements being made about Israel and Palistine, (or the peoples) and swap the roles, would you find it acceptable?

    I doubt you would, and so, subject to your view on race, and it seems to be the Israeli position, its a racist position.

    It’s a fundamental religious position too, even in Judaism. 

    Do unto others as you would be done unto. 

    The reversal of roles in statements exposes that. 


    • ltwf1964 says:

      are all other countries in the region to be expected to vote themsrlves out of existence and revert to an ottoman empire/hegemony/Greater Turkey in the way you presumably expect Israel to hand over land?  
      The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state”  Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamour for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.  

      The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day  

      The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.  

      This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.  

      The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:  
      ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950: in the “question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004: regarding the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”


      • Nick says:

        The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 recommended to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” 


        So the UN can create countries. 

        So Israel has no objection if the UN carves up the West bank, Gaza and Israel, and creates a two state solution. 

        Israel would have to accept it, because that’s the basis on which its founded. 

        Somehow I expect you would object to the creation of that Palistinian state by dictate from the UN, but you use dictate from the UN as justifcation for the existance of Israel. 

        Would Israelis fight against that imposition? Yep.

        Why are you suprised when Palistinians do the same?


    • ltwf1964 says:

      there is no such thing as a palestinian,so it’s impossible to be racist against a non-existent entity


  14. Nick says:

    ou’ve got it all wrong. It’s automatically granting Israeli citizenship to Palestinian spouses that has been banned. 


    Which is on the basis of race.

    It’s racist. 

    Are Jews subject to the same restrictions? 


    Subject to your view on Jews being a race or not. If they aren’t then there is a problem with the law in the UK, where anti-semitism is treated as being racist, and quite rightly in my view. That’s why Israel’s treatment of its own citizens is wrong. 


    • Cassandra King says:

      “That’s why Israel’s treatment of its own citizens is wrong.”

      They are not citizens but prospective citizens who are in fact likely to enemy aliens and hostile combatants. In fact you have consistently failed to accept that value judgements have to be made in the real world, there is no simple right or wrong black or white answer. It is a matter of national survival and it is something you have avoided commenting on.

      All over the world nations are fully within their rights to refuse entry to immigrants that those nations suspect of being hostile, enemies, criminals, and those that are likely to act against the national interest. Yes Nick, every nation has standards and judegements by which the judge whether a prospective immigrant is likely to add to the common good or be a danger to it.

      You are blaming Israel for a supposed sin that almost every UN nation state makes every day at every airport, they are called value judgements taking into account the common good and the greater good. Here is where your simple value judgement goes wrong and why you cannot answer it.

      Simple question, would you agree that certain immigrants have to be kept of the UK on grounds of national security? Your black and white world of moral simplicity simply fails at the very first real world test doesnt it? I truly hope that you have to make value judgements based on the greater good, it would wake you up from your apparent coma.


  15. Nick says:

    The above remarks don’t appear to be made by someone who is  ‘raising it as an issue because they think the BBC reporting was fair and correct.’  They look more like remarks by someone who is aware of the BBC’s bias in his particular area of interest, but who still refuses to entertain the idea that the BBC has any  bias against Israel.

    <i>I can’t quite make head or tail of that, but if you mean you’ve spotted that I am biased in favour of Israel when it comes to the demonisation that I observe in the media, then well done. I’m not a slavish believer that Israel can do no wrong, very few people would believe that of any country, but I defend it against the obvious injustice that is being done to Israel and her supporters by the BBC.</i>

    OK, so is discrimination against its own citizens on the basis of the genetic background or religion acceptable?

    Would you accept the UK deciding to reimplement medieval laws against Jews acceptable?

    I wouldn’t. 

    Why should I accept Israel doing likewise against one group?


    They have a bias against Israel. They have lots of biases. 

    However, the report in this case wasn’t unbiased. You’re being biased for the sake of being biased in this case. In lots of other cases, its not the case.


    • Teddy Bear says:

      Let me prepare something for you to your way of thinking Nick, and other like you.
      Demographics show that with current birth rates continuing as they are between the low of non-Muslims and the high of Muslims in the UK, there will inevitably be a majority of Muslims. Add to this that any illegal immigrant who enters this country has discovered many loopholes where they can use their ‘human rights’ as an excuse to stay here.

      Tell me you recognise that Islamists have the goal to takover the world and impose Sharia law.

      So keep you worldview the way you got it – you’re screwed.

      Whatever solution you come up with to combat this and save the future for your kids, you will find yourself hypocritically having to do something that Israel is doing.

      But you’ll no doubt make it okay for you to do when it concerns your life and the lives of your children.

      Otherwise you and they had better convert to Islam. Either way you lose democracy, and your human rights tenets the way you apply it to Israel.


      • Dez says:

        Teddy Bear:

        “Let me prepare something for you to your way of thinking Nick, and other like you. Demographics show…”

        Or, in other words:

        “According to this YouTube video… shown to be completely fraudulent here…”


        • Demon1001 says:

          I’ll agree that some of the figures in the video are bonkers, totally alarmist.  A bit like the BBC’s Global Warming alarmism really – i.e. only selecting figures that suit the argument without actually proving the truth of them.

          To be honest they are so far fetched (e.g. Muslim women reproducing at a rate of 8.1) that they are doing their argument no good at all. 

          However, it is patently true that the number of muslims in Western countries has actually increased many times over and the rate of birth to Mulim women is significantly higher than to non-Muslim women as a whole.  There are many schools in London where the percentage of Muslim children is over 50% (and no, I can’t be arsed to find examples – we both know it’s true) – could anyone have imagined that 30 years ago?


        • Teddy Bear says:

          You’re really going to have to try and understand the WHOLE POINT of what somebody writes here Dez, Nick, or whatever alter-ego name you choose to adopt, and address THAT, rather than snipe at MINOR details, and expect to be taken seriously. All you do is show that you CAN’T address the real nitty gritty of what I wrote.

          First I’ll dismiss your ‘eureka’ moment with this.
          Interesting you use Snopes as your source to discredit the you-tube video I linked to and avoided the BBC’s input on it, who Snopes themselves used as a main source for theirs. Can’t imagine why you have done that – heh heh. The BBC were at such pains to discredit it, they even produced a you-tube video of their own to do so. Funny how when it suits their agenda they spare no effort to address ‘myths’, when otherwise they’re busy producing them. Which this site, among others, chronicles so many of them.

          There have been others since, like this one, that examine both.

          I notice though that the BBC article on the subject avoided telling us what they found the projected likelihood of Muslim population growth to be.

          One of the most creditable sources for this is the Pew Research Center which shows that among Muslims living in non-Muslim majority countries, their birth rate is at least double that of non-Muslims. The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030. In Europe as a whole, the Muslim share of the population is expected to grow by nearly one-third over the next 20 years, rising from 6% of the region’s inhabitants in 2010 to 8% in 2030. In the United Kingdom, Muslims are expected to comprise 8.2% of the population in 2030, up from an estimated 4.6% today.

          This is based on CURRENT TRENDS!

          Add to this the political intention of Islamic extremists to take over the world by any and all means possible, and if you deny this then you are either one of them, or an ignorant imbecile.

          Assuming you’re neither for the moment, do you imagine that it wouldn’t have occured to them to send MILLIONS more over to the UK, let’s say from Pakistan claiming political asylum to escape the extremists there, when in fact it the very extremists doing it. Using the existing Human Rights laws to perpetrate their plan, and then bringing in more of their family, under the same Human Rights obligations.

          You and Nick, and the rest of your clan are stuffed now, because you will have to revise your human rights laws, revise democracy, or converting to Islam. Either way you will LOSE your HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY.

          Do try to understand the point – it’s not the when or how – it’s the inevitable future based on existing movements. Address that if you have the intelligence to do so, otherwise slink away back to the ‘safety’ of the world the BBC creates for you until it’s too late for you to need to think about it.


    • sue says:

      Hats off to Nick for taking on a sparring marathon with a whole load of people, a bit like a juggler frantically keeping several flaming torches in the air at once. Who said men can’t multitask.
      However, he has clearly bitten off more than he can chew, and rather than conceding a single point he keeps digging. Now he’s in a very deep hole from which he can’t escape honourably without accepting a fundamental reality.

      Nick, you need to know the history in order to argue with any credibility, and you clearly don’t. You’ve tried to take the argument away from that by applying what you see as morally equivalent scenarios, presumably to get us to see the errors of our logic.
      But you haven’t considered, how could you, the factor that political correctness prevents you and the BBC from addressing. The antisemitism that is inherent in Islam. The fact that from the Islamic holy scriptures to present-day Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders, a visceral hatred of Jews as a whole underlies their philosophy and their aspirations, and a determination to destroy Israel as a Jewish state is high on their agenda. This worrying situation is whitewashed by the BBC in the ways documented on this and other websites and elsewhere by people who are aware and alert.

      All that Zionists/Israelis want is the freedom to live in what they see as their ancestral homeland, and for it to be a place where they can flourish and prosper. Their military and political defence of this is fierce and determined, which most of the rest of the world neither understands nor accepts.
      The Israelis are not racist. The particular law  we are arguing over is seen by their law-makers as a political necessity. There is no moral equivalence between this pragmatic ruling in Israel and the antisemitic laws and religiously inspired antisemitic pronouncements that emanate from all over the Arab World, which, incidentally are accelerating at an alarming rate following the so-called Arab Spring, now that the Islamists are being given free reign.

      Until you grasp this, you’ll have to stay in that hole.


  16. Phil says:

    Sue, anti-semitism is fashionable with certain ‘liberal’ sections of UK society, but most people are not affected.

    Most people aren’t interested one way or another, and whatever the BBC has to say about the matter they couldn’t care less so long as they’re fed their government funded BBC rations of Eastenders and celebrity dancing.


  17. Biodegradable says:

    Nick, your ignorance of the history of Israel, Jordan and indeed the whole Middle East is quite shocking.

    I’ve told you before, on other threads, that if you know nothing about the situation or the history you really shouldn’t be debating with people that do. In fact you’re not even debating, are you?

    Nobody is saying that because A, B, or C does something bad then it’s OK for Israel to do it too. What is being said is why does the BBC only report Israel’s deeds and ignore A, B and C when they behave even worse.

    Israel declared its independence in 1948, not 1949.

    You’ve replied to none of the questions put to you, you never do.

    How about explaining for a start why during Jordan’s illegal occupation of Jerusalem and the west bank from 1949 until 1967 no “Palestinian State” was founded in those territories?

    Why wasn’t a “Palestinian State” founded in Gaza when it was under Egyptian control?


  18. Biodegradable says:

    Another fine example of the world leaving no good deed unpunished when it’s Israel doing something good:

    Latest libel: Israel’s doctors are too careful with their patients’ lives


    • Span Ows says:

      Last line of that piece:

      “Which just goes to prove that hate has no rhyme or reason, and that haters can take any fact and twist it in their minds to fit their pre-determined conclusions.”



  19. Anabel says:

    Is there anything worse than racism?

    You bet.  In May 2010 Egypt stripped citizenship from any Egyptian married to an Israeli (The Egyptian High Court ruled that to be anyone following Zionism or the Law of the Jewish State).

    There is an estimated 30,000 Israeli spouses in Egypt.

    It is totally illegal under International Law to deliberately make a person stateless.

    Where was the outrage.


  20. The Omega Man says:

    Slightly off topic, Mark Humphrys has a blog on the mind of the left.


    There’s good sections on 


    The left hates the West above all other parts of the world. They tend not to be interested in human rights abuses by non-whites and non-westerners.

    Well worth a read, IMHO.


  21. cjhartnett says:

    Sarah Montague did her “and finally” bit on the ludicrous Toady Show this morning.
    Those poor Iranian scientists-mere objective seekers of impartial truths, and so in need of protection-are getting negative entropy in terminational situations…and poor Sarah is worrised for their career prospects.
    So in comes our equivalent scientist…Colin Blakemore.
    Yes-he feels their pain, for the animal rights lot did parallel things to him, you know.
    Welcome to BeebWorld.
    Sarah however couldn`t help herself-it`s the Israelis doing this..and she said so, before qualifying ever so slightly.
    No mention of Iranian oppostion, Saudi or any number of Al Queda variations on a theme…it had to be Israel.
    Hope Mark Regev gets wind of this and sues her for defamation without corroborating evidence.
    This needs to get personal to shut the likes of Bloostokking Sarah up for good…ignoramus+privelege=an obstacle to peace.


    • George R says:

      INBBC hates Israel.

      Islamic Republic of Iran hates Israel.

      INBBC supports Islamic jihadists, Hezbollah.

      Islamic Republic of Iran supports/finances Hezbollah.

      INBBC supports development of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons programmes designed to threaten Israel and beyond.


    • hippiepooter says:

      It’s obviously Israelis killing the scientists making Amadinejad’s genocide bomb.  Scum like Montague are upset because the Israelis are having such success in stalling Amadinejad’s objectives.

      I’m almost suprised they dont have President Amadinejad doing ‘Thought for the Day’ on TODAY.


    • Cassandra King says:

      No mention that Saudi Arabia hosts a large population of Persian opposition activists and refugees who fled the revolution, no mention that the gulf states have been engaged in a constant secret war between post revolution Iran and the gulf states.

      The BBC miss out lots of facts.


  22. hippiepooter says:

    “Sixty years of insidious, slippery, stealthy demonisation can’t be undone overnight”

    60 years?  Certainly since the first intifada, but I’m not sure much before?


  23. Nick says:

    I think comparing me to a Racist like Nick Britton particularly offensive. 

    I’m complaining about racism, so you’re argument is that makes me a racist. 

    Personal attacks are a sure sign that you’ve lost the argument. 


    • Span Ows says:

      Earlier you were complaining about religion too: 

      “Israel is discriminating on ground of race and religion.” 

      I’d suggest there is no proof of this. They are certainly being ‘racist’ because this ‘temporary’ emergency legislation has been extended and expanded to include other citizens (independent of their religion) from Iran, Iraq lebanon and Syria. 

      So, no doubt about it; however I would fight for their right to be racist in this case; can’t say I blame them, do you?


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      I’m complaining about racism’


      As far as I can gather, you are complaining long, loud and without paying any attention to anything else, about a very narrow national ‘ism that has exercised you, on a blog about BBC bias. Which with the national treasure does manifest, too often, complaining long, loud and without paying any attention to anything else, about very narrow ‘isms that has exercised them, to the exclusion of balance or reason.


      Two wrongs do not make a right. But banging on, and on, and on… to try and make one small point in a sea of other, bigger, more egegious ones, seems… dedicated.


      Sure signs of losing the argument also tend to include claiming to have the inside scoop on what constitutes losing the argument.


      The argument gets won when the argument is both sound, and seen to be.


      Not getting that vibe, in fact the exact opposite, from the ‘I’m right because I say so’ mindset, which is not unfamiliar. If a little insulting to the calbre of well-sourced and supported argument I am seeing (mostly) applied to help you appreciate points other than only those you feel should be held. 


      And getting offended by a comparison that is another’s to make is, truly, precious.


      Unless I am wrong, there is not, as yet, a quango extablished to hunt down and punish ‘comparisonism’, though from your high horse location, maybe you can see one coming.


    • Span Ows says:

      this is what they’re trying to avoid, Europe needs to heed the example:


    • hippiepooter says:

      I’m ever so sorry Nick.  I didn’t realise until you just pointed it out that Nick Griffin complaining about anti-white racism means he isn’t a racist.

      The more clever you try to sound Nick the more stupid you sound.  You’re great entertainment value 🙂


    • Cassandra King says:

      “I’m complaining about racism, so you’re argument is that makes me a racist.”

      Oh yes Nick you are using race as a means to attack and villify a race regardless of the reality in which that race finds itself, you are appying an unfair level of judgement against a race in the certain knowledge that no other race has ever or will ever attain that moral perfection.

      In fact you are a racist, you are using the weapon of the racist, you are applying what amounts to a supremely unattainable judgement on one race while positively ignoring that no other race has attained that perfection. there is no nation that allows enemies to enter as immigrants as a matter of right, every nation applies value judgements.

      You are trying to hold one race to a greater standard than any other race, you are trying to insinuate that a nation is racist because it seeks to protect its own citizens. You deny that Israels actions are not just duplicated all over the world but actually legal and ethical in the face of an imperfect world. In a perfect world there would be no value judgements, until we live in a perfect world we will all make value judegements based on personal or mutual good.

      Yes Nick you are a racist, you are the very worst sort of racist, you use race as a means to attack another race by applying selective principles that cannot be attained without the probable self destruction of that race. That you cannot see your racism is a tragedy, that you will grow out of your ridiculous childish black and white prejudices can only be hoped. 


      • hippiepooter says:

        “there is no nation that allows enemies to enter as immigrants as a matter of right”

        Every nation in the Western World in the world including Israel.  They allow the Palestinian spouses to live in Israel, they just dont give them citizenship.


  24. RGH says:


    What do you make of this?

    Is Jordan ‘racist’?

    Or is Jordan conducting a policy on behalf of Arab Nationalism to reinforce and create a ‘Palestinian identity’ aiming at the ultimate removal of a Jewish presence in the region.

    ” Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said.”

    Why are the Jordanian Aithorities doing this?

    Your answer, beyond mere fashionable generalisations about the ap ‘racism’ and similar stereotypical descriptors would interest me.


  25. RGH says:

    And Nick, when you have a few spare moments and with as open a mind as you can muster, have a look at this.

    Listen to the words. Decide whether this is merely bluster or deadly serious. Listen to the invocation of religion , in this case Islam.

    When you done that, and I hope you do, and still think that Israel (and the West) don’t have a problem, then we shall have to agree to differ.



  26. Meggoman says:

    Did anyone hear Danny Baker’s show on Radio5 this morning. Not sure who the guests were but here’s th joke I heard.

    “How do you get 11 Jews into a room? Tell them there’s a sale on.” Hilarious guffaws and laughter with no objections from anyone on there. Isn’t that racist. Please tell me how how complain.


  27. sue says:

    Just a last word. I’ve just come across this article by Barry Rubin (H/T CiFWatch)
    Coincidentally it touches on some of the issues in my piece above.

    “What these people were saying is that they don’t have to argue with you or pay attention to what you are saying. They can just close their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and scream: “Liar! Evil person! You have no right to disagree with us or else we will destroy you.”

    “…………..she said that Israel had done nothing to further peace. I responded that Israel had made lots of concessions, compromises, and taken risks. I continued by saying that I would provide a list and began to go through a large number of specific points. As I spoke, she was looking away, scowling, and muttering, obviously very angry and simply not paying attention.

    So I stopped and said: “Obviously, you aren’t interested in my answer.” One of the others came to her defense accusing me of being “patronizing” or something like that. No, I responded, I’m merely saying what I see.

    We are facing something truly remarkable. A system in which those on one side — and obviously this applies to far more than just the Israel issue — can simply wave aside any logical argument and ignore any evidence. All that’s needed is a category of denunciation: racism, hate speech, Islamophobia, etc., along with other catchwords like “fair share,” “one percent,” “global warming deniers,” and down the list.


    • Barry says:

      I think Nick has misjudged the situation. He believed that by invoking the denunciation “Racist!”, we would all cower in fear and agree with him like heretics facing the Spanish Inquisition. This might, or might not, have happened a few years ago and almost certainly happens now in the corridors of the BBC. However, the word has lost most of its potency through overuse and present day inquisitors should expect to be questioned a little more closely.  
      Israel is making the best of an appalling situation which is not of its making and, as this excellent debate has revealed, a simplistic accusation of “racist” doesn’t shed any light on it whatsoever.


  28. Buggy says:

    It’s my first time on site today, and I wondered just how a topic had garnered 100+ posts in less than eight hours.

    Welcome Nick, the fresh ubertroll de nos jours. 🙁


  29. London Calling says:

    Uber-troll Nick has purity of spirit. We are all wrong and he is right, he is  alone in the Lions Den, he wants an argument.

    Question: How many Nicks does it take to change a light bulb?
    Answer: No idea, I  couldn’t care less. Do we have bulbs? Nick who?


    • Teddy Bear says:

      I’m seeing that Nick’s answer would be – “It mustn’t be changed, it was good when it was put in so there’s no reason to change it”.


  30. Craig says:

    Trevor Barnes, roving reporter for Radio 4’s ‘Sunday’ went with a delegation of Catholic bishops to Nablus to check on the Christian minority. His initial report had the obligatory dig at Israel (“Welcome to Nablus, just over an hour’s drive from Jerusalem, Israeli checkpoints and travel restrictions permitting..”) and gave the views of the bishops and some Palestinian Christians but also found space for a Muslim Palestinian official who attacked Israel over the ‘suffering’ of the Palestinians. 


  31. Craig says:

    Trevor Barnes returned later in the programme for a discussion with a Catholic bishop, an Israeli academic and a Palestinian professor. I think the questions he asked provide evidence of BBC groupthink in action. There was a dig at the Pope, a question equating Jewish extremism with islamist extremism that went into detail only about the Jewish extremism and a question expressing ‘fear’ about nasty right-wing, conservative Christian types. My favourite though was Question 2 which, as anyone who read this blog in the early months of last year will know, is staggeringly ill-informed. There certainly were slogans against Israel in Tahrir Square, it’s just that the BBC failed to report them at the time.


  32. Craig says:

    These are the questions Trevor Barnes asked:

    1. Bishop, to what degree do you think certain unfortunate statements recently by Pope Benedict and possibly perceived Vatican attitudes towards Muslims are likely to influence the treatment Christians are likely to receive?

    2. Well, let’s move to Israel. Jonathan Spyer, one of the things the Tunisian and the Egyptian uprisings was that there were no slogans against Israel. It was a homegrown thing. Do you think that’s likely to change when revolution settles into government?”
    3. Professor Agazarian, is that how you would read things?

    4. Jonathan Spyer, do you think that increasing religious extremism in the region – from extremist Jewish settlers here burning cars and defacing mosques to islamist violence elsewhere is likely to make the mosaic of religions more monochrome?

    5. Bishop, do you fear that in the long run the Arab Spring might result in a less diverse religious landscape, you know, mono-religions with Christianity on the margins?

    6. But there is an irony here, perhaps an uncomfortable one, in that many Christians did comparatively rather well under some of the more repressive governments, Syria perhaps being the obvious example?

    7. I mean against the backdrop of an exodus of indigenous Christians from this area, do you think that what we’re likely to see in the future is one particular kind of Christianity – namely the rather right-wing, conservative, American, born-again, fundamentalist Christianity? Professor?

    8. Nobody would have expected this. How are the religions, the religious minorities and Christianity in particular likely to adapt to it?


    • sue says:

      You and I have been sitting in our respective homes at each end of the British Isles at our respective keyboards, getting upset about the very same things  and transcribing them with awe and disbelief!
      I mean, where has Trevor Barnes been during the blatant, open, virulent expressions of Jew-hate in Tunisia and Egypt? Was he incarcerated in the bowels of the BBC where such things must just melt away in a kind of Disneyesque fade-out? 
      Of course Barnes’s worst misspeak was : “One of the things that characterised the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings was that There Were no Slogans Against Israel. It was a home-grown thing.

      I assume he hasn’t heard about the persecution of Christians either. He probably thinks the dwindling thingy is down to some serendipitous coincidence.

      And  there were more.
      “[…………]for example from extremist religious settlers here, burning cars and defacing mosques, to Islamist violence elsewhere …”

      Yes, those terrifying Jewish religious extremists! They burn cars and deface mosques like there was no tomorrow, that’s Israel for you! Each religious extremist as extreme as the other!

      Did you hear one of the Liverpool priests, he must have been quite an intellectual, piping up with: ”……. there’s virtually nothink for young people in Palestine, so if they didn’t have an excellent resource as this youth centre, they would either stay at home, or just hang around the street corners.”

      In Palestine? I dislike people who say ‘nothink’  nearly as much as I loathe righteousness  from those who pontificate over stuff about which they know nothinggg. G.

      Here’s the intro: ”Trevor Barnes has been to the  holy land with a delegation of European and American bishops to support the shrinking church there.” (shrinking? How that happen?)

      “Trevor, what was the purpose of the trip?”

      “To say it was a fact-finding mission sounds a bit dry and rather formal, I mean it was that, it was that, but part of the annual trip you’ve just mentioned. The fact is it was very much a pastoral visit, albeit a high level pastoral visit, I mean not many pastoral visits include four Catholic Archbishops and five bishops and an ignoramus from the BBC just dropping in on you not quite unannounced. But it was to show I suppose solidarity with their Christian flock and to ask them what they want the bishops and priests that were travelling to say both to their congregations and  the world, and to remind the audience how nasty the Israelis are. “

      I did deviate from the actual script, but that was the purpose of the broadcast, if not of the trip. Come to think of it, it was the purpose of both.


  33. cjhartnett says:

    Am grateful to you both for sitting through “Sunday”.
    Have given up on it alongside “Thinking Allowed”(it isn`t !) and Desert Island Discs…and feel fine for it.
    I just listen to Radio3s Choral Evensong on Sunday afternoons nowadays-let the BBC keep their own toxic cults to themselves…will chip away at the funding for “religious programming” in a “High Hopes” kinda way!


  34. Umbongo says:

    I’m a great believer in debate and discussion because they are infinitely superior to the alternative.  However, there is no point in debating the nature of Israel with somebody who – at the outset – describes Israel as an “apartheid” state or climate science with someone who castigates a CAGW sceptic as a “climate change denier”.  Debate, to reach any conclusion – even a civil agreement to disagree – must start out from a basis of agreed premises.  The point of sue’s post was (I assume) to provoke a debate concerning the existence (or otherwise) of the demonisation of Israel through biased BBC reporting.  It’s perfectly acceptable (to me anyway) if one or both of the protagonists have entrenched positions about Israel.  However, the debate here (and the purpose of this site) is the highlighting of BBC bias in reportage of Israel.  Israel (or pre-ANC South Africa) may indeed be “apartheid” states but – on this site – the discussion is whether or not the BBC reports matters concerning Israel fairly and impartially.

    IMHO anyone describing Israel as an “apartheid state” is an ignoramus and anti-semite and not worth bothering with in respect of that opinion.  However, even an ignoramus and anti-semite might have something to say concerning BBC bias.  For instance, I have cited before Chomsky’s view (verified endlessly by the conduct of the BBC) about the stifling of genuine debate in Western democracies by the deliberate framing of debate to exclude matters of genuine controversy.  I am not a fan of Chomsky generally but on this one he was right on the money.

    Similarly, an ignoramus and anti-semite should be afforded the courtesy of a hearing on matters outside his ignorance and anti-semitism.  It’s when that ignorance and anti-semitism become the centre-piece of  the discussion that AFIIAC the debate is at an end.  You will rarely be able to change a closed mind by argument or evidence (cf Huhne on CAGW and Heseltine on the euro).  Rather you should seek out and try to convince the open-minded by force of argument: the close-minded are not worth the effort.


    • hippiepooter says:

      In one on one’s you may very well have a point, but as this is a public forum the value of engaging Nick is not to change his mind – therapy is the only thing that can overcome a pathology, although truth is very therapeutic – it’s to use Nick’s display of pathology to highlight how much BBC coverage of Israel is determined by the same form of psychosis.  I think there’s value in this, and in this regard Nick’s willingness to share his pathology with us is an asset to this site.


      • Umbongo says:


        That’s a good point or, rather, several good points.  Indeed, I ignored the fact that exchanges of views on comment threads do not have a unique effect.  The exposure of a pathology is, as you imply, as enlightening to the disinterested observer (and everybody else) as following the arguments and weighing the evidence presented.


  35. Biodegradable says:

    Jewish folk wisdom says, “when it hurts, laugh”. So here’s some Jewish humour from Jackie Mason:

    Easily offended? You really should be


  36. cjhartnett says:

    Went to a really depressing public lecture at a top school tonight.
    The speaker was an internationally renowned journalist who could easily namedrop the people he`s inteviewed, the books he`s written and the places he has reported from.
    Yet the audience seemed to be all Quaker handwringers from Guardian central casting-and the journalist seems to have been to lots of places and met lots of people.
    I felt that he might as well have been reading the New York Times editorials to me…this liberal mindset pervades even those who see what they do…and the audience just provide mutual reinforcement.
    Islam provoked by the USA, Obama good, Bush bad; and the religion of peace may yet be kinder to us if the UN speak slowly to them…that they don`t is because the USA have undermined it by not stumping up all the time.
    Sue-I`m depressed myself now!
    Going to be a long haul to din in any sense into these reflex fools. Seems to suit both sides of the liberal-Muslim equation to pretend it`s all balanced and dandy,,,scary!