The Cancer of Israel

Politics explained in five simple stages.
1) An ideologically driven movement or individual gains power by charisma or by hook or by crook.
2) In order to enact the ideological vision effectively unity must prevail.
3) Dissenters are curbed or controlled by hook or by crook.
4) Suppressing the dissenters eventually overrides the original vision.
5) The situation boils over into another revolution.
The current chess game of world politics is complex, chaotic and intricate. Iran is governed by religious zealots who have persuaded their humble subjects to focus on the afterlife, thus undermining the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction. At the same time there is a significant pro-western element within the Iranian population, which has so far failed to get itself sufficiently organised to revolt.

As Iran’s specially singled-out hate-object, Israel is being tasked to preemptively deal with Iran. Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, although Israel has not confirmed this. The rest of the world hopes Israel will do the dirty work so that it can distance itself from the ensuing nastiness, while blaming Israel’s aggressive character and secretly sighing with relief.
The UK, the USA and Saudi Arabia will be particularly delighted, as long as they can simultaneously condemn Israel and kill the threats emanating from Iran, with one stone.

The BBC is grooming us for this. Renowned Israel-hater Leon Panetta, US defence secretary, has advertised his notion that Israel is nearly ready to strike, thereby purposely compromising any surprise element, should such a strike be thought feasible. The BBC has announced this several times.

But in any case the surgical strike option sounds like a fantasy. Even if Iran hadn’t managed to secrete its nuclear derring-do deep, deep underground and distributed the bits and pieces far and wide so that it would be impossible to take them out at one fell swoop, if Israel went ahead Israel would take massive hits from all directions through Iran’s proxies, and the rest of the Arab world might well jump on the bandwagon.

This isn’t at all simple. Con Coughlin has been investigating. He has found out what Michael Totten has been telling us for years. Iran’s proxy Hizbollah has been building up an extraordinary cache of weapons in Lebanon, aimed at Israel.

The one thing that all desperate failing governments will grasp with both hands, is a cause that is sure to unite disenchanted voters and squabbling underlings. That cause is the destruction of Israel. The coalition has already made its position quite clear on the Middle East. What with the impossibility of appeasing everyone at once it’s out of its depth and floundering. However much of a threat Islam is to us, it’s not impossible that a nuclear device could one day find its way into London, so perhaps the government thinks it expedient not to be too friendly to Israel. This particular government has never been that way inclined anyway, and never mind Obama’s iron-clad commitment..
The BBC has good reason to understand the threat Iran poses with its extended reach. Will it be influenced by Ayatollah Khamenei’s promise: “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.”
So if the BBC decides to go along with the Ayatollahs and protect its Persian staff by continuing its Israel-bashing agenda, constantly insinuating that Israel is a rogue state so it doesn’t matter much if it is annihilated, think 1930s.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Cancer of Israel

  1. MPC4000 says:

    I just started posting here yesterday after lurking for three years. I posted because I have felt over the last year the blog has turned in to a standard political blog with many articles reflecting the authors political views.  Why has this story got anything to do with the BBC bias.  I have no problem with Israel at all, but I do have an issue when articles like this are disguising themselves as BBC bias.


    • sue says:

      I’m sure many people would prefer me to stick to pointing out individual cases of inaccurate or inordinately propagandistic reporting. But the BBC’s anti-Israel bias is a slippery thing. It’s more of a cumulative amalgamation of subtle hints, insinuations and omissions. I’m very sorry if you don’t agree. But there it is. This piece may well seem tenuous and irrelevant to many B-BBC readers. I do sometimes write in general terms and hope some people understand why I do so.


      • sue says:

        P.S. Somehow your comment tempts me to completely digress from fingering specific examples of BBC bias and stray towards philosophical musings on the meaning of life.
        I can’t explain this.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        Is there a template doing the rounds that has ‘I have lurked for ever, but only now am moved to chip in… to whinge..’ followed by little more than a poor attempt at a substance-lite critique?

        Because there seem a few appearing, if somewhat lazy in source and obvious in style and intent. As a ‘losing the faithful’ attempt it seems… less than credible.

        The BBC has a rather nasty little default nuking option on its blog system; that of ‘off topic’. What that allows is them to remove anything that doesn’t suit when there is basically no good reason not to.

        This blog… does not. Which do you think is freer in speech… fairer?

        If anyone, especially a main contributor, goes off reservation then I reckon they have earned the slack that can be cut without petty nagging.

        Inaccuracy… please do highlight any such to ensure thise site stays in its infinitely more trustworthy position vs. the BBC’s pan-media failed attempts at professional information and education sharing, especially in terms of impartiality.

        And along with this site being free, even of ads, and hence not suffering from one set of of eyeballs less, to coin the perverse delusion of the BBC’s finest when cornered on logic… never their strong suit… you can always claim a full refund and leave.


  2. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    @ MPC4000:

    You seem to have forgotten to include a “A” in your newly made up title.

    Instead of MPC, Shouldn’t it read –


  3. Demon1001 says:

    I don’t understand MPC’s point.  I re-read Sue’s blog and found many references to the BBC and its intended role in the destruction of Israel and the backing of any actions by the Iranian regime.


    • Span Ows says:

      I have to agree, after defending MPC yestreday I find his effort here very tenuous in itself, I mean look at the thrid paragraph:

      “The BBC is grooming us for this. Renowned Israel-hater Leon Panetta, US defence secretary, has advertised his notion that Israel is nearly ready to strike, thereby purposely compromising any surprise element, should such a strike be thought feasible. The BBC has announced this several times.”

      Hardly hidden or difficult to notice…


  4. cjhartnett says:

    In response to MPC4000.
    I`ve not been aware of this site as long as you have-but my limited knowledge tells me that if Scott likes what you`re saying then you`ll be in error, I`m afraid on this one!

    We live amidst continual undermining of the culture, and the BBC is the left Liberal elites battering ram,but turns out only to be a cocktail stick: so the likes of me treat it with all due contempt.
    I find the truth to be at 180 degrees to what the BBC says. Sue, to me is my resident expert on anti-Israel stuff, and-like the other “correspondents” on this site re USA/Global Warming etc…they`re MY experts,and not publicly-funded mockingbirds shitting on the drabs below them. The BBCs trusties and trillers, in other words.
    Last weeks “social work” documentary was a disgrace-as was yesterdays Womans Hour Omnibus( I`d rather Damilola Taylors murderers hanged themselves in secure units, and not get family MBEs…sorry Jenni!), as is the wind-turbine tripe I just heard(they`ll not be any use in the snow today will they?)…need I go on?
    Even got a clip of Tamla Motown getting criticised for not being black and radical enough last night(Soul Deep)…aren`t you aware of all this soggy narrative MPC?
    The world needs more from the Impressions and the Last Poets?…and less of Stevie, Levi and Diana?…such is the view from the hideously white-and never wrong-BBC!
    In conclusion MPC-it`s joined up thinking and out of the silo stuff really…the BBCs bias bleeds from one topic to another-and therefore it`s no surprise that I have to conflate Jenni Murray with Berry Gordy!
    It`s a pandemic of prejudices there in Beebworld.
    They see the Crescent alright…but some of us see…


  5. Span Ows says:

    Yet here MPC – it seems – has served his purpose as far as he is concerned: we are all addressing him, he is the subject and NOT Sue’s post and links etc. 


  6. Wayne Xenocrates says:

    I think we all have to understand that we all have agendas.  Sue has one and it is very clear that she thinks the BBC is biased against Israel.  I have no particular axe to grind on Israel but from my own observations I would agree with Sue, the BBC is always on the side of what it sees as the oppressed, even if they are terrorist individuals or states and the BBC will never see Israel as a victim, it just doesn’t fit the BBC profile.  Israel fights back and with a vengeance so how can it be a victim?  The fact is that the only act of war that Israel commits first is that it exists and that is enough for Iran and the BBC.


    Now MCP400’s agenda is a little harder to see but it is there and it is the BBC disguised as; “I don’t come here often” and “I have seen you in the distance and I think you are sweet” but “you are just not being fair”.  It’s about as subtle as a 100 ft. tsunami rolling up the Thames, we can all see it and it is the BBC at its beastly best.  Anyway, see you in the Green room before the show MCP darling.  X X.


  7. Umbongo says:

    It seems to me that the posters and the more thoughtful commenters on this site generally do a better job of separating fact and opinion than the broadcasting organisation funded annually by the taxpayer to the tune of £3.5 billion.  Moreover, I don’t believe the posters here make any claims (nor are they legally obliged) that, in respect of the items they highlight, they are entirely disinterested.

    We know, for instance, that David Preiser is a fan of the Tea Party – he makes no secret of it.  Nevertheless, he regularly discloses salient (generally referenced) facts concerning US politics which are consistently ignored by the BBC’s correspondents and DP makes his case accordingly bringing in those facts.  Consequently you know exactly where you stand with him.  OTOH, the BBC and its staff pretend to impartiality while the demonstrable skewed editing of its output, its convenient omissions and, more to the point, the tweets and journalistic-cum-political-cum-commercial connections of its reporters point to a woefully partial and biased background to BBC reportage.

    BBC bias, as we see daily here and elsewhere, is not confined to its US coverage but covers all sections of the Narrative.  Through skewed reportage and one-eyed analysis, the BBC conveys a highly controlled and predictable line on CAGW, Israel, immigration, Islam, the “cuts”, the Occupy “movement”, education, social work,  child “poverty”, tax “justice”, the wickedness of capitalism (particularly bankers) and so on.

    Bashing this site for occasionally going off-topic in one or more of its comment threads is like criticising the BBC for the colour of its logo: distracting and unhelpful.  Moreover, as Span Ows implies, we shouldn’t ape the BBC in thinking that the B-BBC site itself – rather than what it has been established to do – is all-important.  That way our ammunition, such as it is, will be entirely wasted.