Gormless In Gaza



I read these tweets and then read a report on BBC Watch which relates what the BBC’s Kevin Connolly has been saying on the Jeremy Vine show…..that it is not insignificant that the Israeli elections are nearing…..but there is a distinct mismatch between the outlook from the Israeli tweets and Connolly…..reading the tweets would indicate that if this was a war launched as part of an election campaign then that election is lost for Netanyahu:


Amir Mizroch ?@Amirmizroch
It’s absurd to me to watch @netanyahu @barak_ehud @AvigdorLiberman stand and talk about success when alerts all over the south.
Amir Mizroch ?@Amirmizroch
Once again Israel achieves a military victory and a diplomatic defeat.
Marc Leibowitz ?@Marc_Leibowitz
Hamas is celebrating victory right now. How many Israelis are celebrating? Some pundits on Galatz are trying to sell a “tie”. #Bull
Amir Mizroch ?@Amirmizroch
Dear @netanyahu @barak_ehud @AvigdorLiberman please whatever u do please please don’t say “if they fire just one rocket we’ll hit them hard”
Amir Mizroch ?@Amirmizroch
So who won? #GazaUnderAttack or #IsraelUnderFire ?

Marc Leibowitz ?@Marc_Leibowitz
@Amirmizroch Not Israel. This cease fire was a bad deal for Israel. Not Abbas. Initial thoughts, winners appear to be Morsi & Hamas.

Robert Kraychik@RobertKraychik @Amirmizroch If Netanyahu is sincere about not liquidating terrorists during this ceasefire, then this is a victory for Hamas.


The peace deal:



This is what Connolly had to say on Monday 19th:

“Yeah, I think we should is the simple truth. I mean I think from Binyamin Netanyahu’s point of view, if he were able to show that he had eradicated or really, really substantially degraded the threat of rockets from Gaza then that would be something very useful to take into an election campaign. Israelis are going to vote in about two months’ time and there’s no question that that would be a political advantage to him. I think for that reason he might hesitate to launch a ground operation – an incursion – into Gaza. All the talk here is will Israel send troops in or not. I think…you know…Israel looks at these things very differently than international public opinion looks at them. International public opinion is very focused on civilian casualties. Israel says, though, civilian casualties in Gaza are high because Hamas hides its weapons among the civilian population, so a lot of Israelis feel that if they can just stick to this operation until it’s carried to its logical end, they can really, really damage Hamas’ military potential and if Netanyahu can do that without incurring too many Israeli casualties then …you know…it’s a brutal political calculation, but it’s real, Jeremy,… then that would be, I think, an advantage to him. And of course he is an elected politician – that simply has to be in his mind.”



Guess he called that one wrong….no ground war…which the Israelis want, and Hamas probably claiming the victory as they are still alive and shooting off rockets.

The whole article from BBC Watch illustrates everything that is wrong with the BBC’s coverage of this conflict…The BBC automatically tries to impart that Israel is the instigator of any violence and that the Palestinians are fighting an unequal war against a powerful and ruthless enemy…..er…much like the Brits and Yanks against the Taliban then…. a ragtag army defeating the most powerful and sophisticated forces in the world.

It is self evident that Hamas, just as Hezbollah did in Lebanon, are quite capable of putting up the strongest resistance and that it was Hamas who began this latest conflict…as stated by William Hague….but so soon forgotten by the BBC’s correspondents it would seem.





Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Gormless In Gaza

  1. Joey Manic says:

    I know I give you lot a right old caning on here sometimes, and I think you deserve it, but I’m glad that this website exists. It would be boring if we all liked the same thing wouldn’t it?


  2. jimbob says:

    i agree the bbc narrative is left hanging in mid air like wil e coyote chasing the road runner off a cliff. if netanyahu was the devil incarnate as the bbc believe then why didn;t he send in ground troops.

    but , small mercies – thank God that we will have no more hysterical bullshitting from abu bowen, sheikh donnison or brother danahar 24 hours a day for a few years, until the smiting begins again.

    sadly , i think ( but sincerely hope not ) that the day is coming when israel will really have to fight for it’s existance again.

    when israel is on the back foot and the fajr 5’s are landing on tel aviv, filled with chemical wepons will the bbc still be so pro jihadi ?


  3. Teddy Bear says:

    Melanie Phillips gives her view on why Netanyahu agreed to an ‘unsatisfacory’ ceasefire.

    A most uneasy truce


  4. Teddy Bear says:

    BBC Watch also runs a piece on how the BBC ‘misrepresented’ what Netanyahu said in his speech following the agreement.

    BBC translation of Netanyahu ceasefire speech


    • Span Ows says:

      They have history of doing this on various occasions; don’t forget too that they edit English to suit heir agenda too (remember Obama’s speeches)


  5. Sorry jimbob
    “but , small mercies – thank God that we will have no more hysterical bullshitting from abu bowen, sheikh donnison or brother danahar 24 hours a day for a few years, until the smiting begins again”. You are going to have to suffer them sooner. This ceasefire will unravel faster than my bowels react to a glass of prune juice. There is that little matter of discussion of opening up all border crossings within 24 hours of the ceasefire. I can hear the sound of ‘justifiable’ rage, rockets fired at Israel and sirens sounding off in the town of southern Israel. Hope I am wrong, I too would love to be spared the BBC Gaza choir and Cheerleaders twitts.


  6. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC will of course fail to report on the violations of the ceasefire by hamas and its allies in Gaza until the IDF retaliates, the BBC can will then suddenly wake up and start reporting the retaliatory response as the breaking of the ceasefire.

    Perhaps the rockets being launched from Gaza into Israel are just fireworks from a wedding party to celebrate their great victory over the forces of Zionist aggression?
    We all know how hamas love to sing and dance at weddings, Gaza is just one big party.

    In fact hamas can claim a victory of sorts, Obama and Clinton teaming up with Morsi using blackmail to force Israel into a ceasefire, its the new axis in town right now. Now that Obama won the election he can do his best to kick the legs from under Israel and support his new regional ally Morsi of the muslim brotherhood AKA hamas. Its the new world order making its play, Israel is to be pushed under the bus in return for Arab support for the new world order. Clinton heaping praise on Morsi, an islamofascist of the worst sort. Maybe when the muslim brotherhood turns its attentions to the Christian minority in Egypt Clinton and Obama will rush in to protect them with the same urgency as they rushed to hand hamas a propaganda victory? Er, no. The Egyptians Christians are warmongering troublemaking bullies forever making trouble and attacking peaceful islamists. Even as the Egyptian version of the final solution to the Christian problem gets under way Clinton will be having candlelight suppers with her new best friend and regional ally Morsi.


    • Jim Dandy says:

      They reported the violations first thing on the Today programme


      • AngusPangus says:

        The segment that I heard was careful not to accuse the Palestinian side of a “violation”, much as yesterday the BBC was careful not to proffer any view as to whether or not Hamas had intended to kill anyone with the bus bomb. They actually said that the ceasefire was holding, although “a few” rockets had been fired from Gaza. Now that strikes me as tautologous, but there you go.

        Of course, I accept that the BBC may have described this as a “violation” in another piece that I did not hear, in which case, apologies in advance.


      • Jim Dandy says:

        Although interestingly the later bulletins caveated this by saying it was claimed by Israel to be thus. I don’t recall the earlier bulletin carrying this caveat, but might be wrong. I had a flatulant puppy licking my ear at the time.


        • AngusPangus says:



        • Guest Who says:

          ‘I had a flatulant puppy licking my ear at the time’
          Well, it’s a step up from ‘but that’s what a source tweet a follower who told a website we just cut & pasted as £4Bpa really won’t cover checking stuff any more’.
          And this from the trusted broadcaster that brought us ‘enhanced narratives’ and ‘interpreting events’…
          I think we should is the simple truth
          Simple truth… uh-huh.


        • hippiepooter says:

          “I had a flatulant puppy licking my ear at the time. ”

          Yes, I have often had that sensation when listening to John Humphrys or James Naughtie.


    • deegee says:

      It’s like an outclassed boxer. Although outboxed and taking a pounding, he still manages to land the occasional punch and he is still on his feet. At the end of each round he raises his arms to crowd in victory.


  7. deegee says:

    One could (and a professional journalist should) ask why if this was an election stunt did the opposition parties support it? Why so close to an Israeli election did Hamas and partners escalate the violence? Would Netanyahu (who has to answer to Cabinet and Knesset votes unlike Obama) have reacted any differently if elections were further away?

    And finally, will Netanyahu (and Barak and Lieberman) agreeing to a ceasefire without victory actually reduce his parties’ vote in favour of a more ‘aggressive’ political opponent?


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘One could (and a professional journalist should) ask why if this was an election stunt did the opposition parties support it?’
      See what you did there:)


  8. AngusPangus says:

    In this humble lawyer’s opinion, the ceasefire agreement is likely hopeless from Israel’s point of view.

    Reflecting on my comment to Jim above, I actually think the BBC were correct not to describe rockets fired from Gaza as being in violation of the ceasefire, as long as Hamas maintains an *innocent face*

    The reason is this. Assuming the parties to the agreement are the state of Israel and Hamas, then each party commits to what is agreed upon (2(b)) and commits ITSELF not to perform any acts that would breach the understanding (2(c)) (my emphasis). Under 1(a) Israel commits to ceasing all hostilities. Under 1(b) all Palestinian factions commit to cease all hostilities. Now, d’ya see what it is yet? If say, Islamic Jihad or some other random group lobs a few missiles across the border, then of course Hamas can say, rightly, that it did not itself do anything to breach the agreement. And that whilst it might be true that the act was carried out by a “Palestinian faction”, the party to the agreement – Hamas – is not in breach.

    The “all Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities” becomes merely a desire, or wishful thinking, and in practical terms Hamas can ignore the ceasefire through proxy fire.

    Now, it may be that “All Palestinian factions” are signed up to the agreement, in which case, all well and good. But I would doubt that that’s the case.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Hamas are the government there. Surely any agreement binds them to do something about anyone lobbing rockets at Israel?

      Look at it the other way round. If any faction in Israel decided to lob rockets at Gaza, wouldn’t the Israeli government be duty bound to locate and punish? And be seen to do so?

      And as far as “Israel claims” goes regarding the firing of rockets: don’t tell me satellite technology can’t give the truth or lie to that.


      • AngusPangus says:

        The difference is that direct military fire by Israel is clearly covered by the agreement; Israel would be in violation if it fired on Gaza from the air or sea, for example. Similarly, direct fire claimed by “Hamas”, whoever they are, would be covered, and in violation.

        What about rocket fire by “militants” though? Sure, Hamas should “try” to control that, but the reality is that they can disclaim direct responsibility, say that they’re doing all they can but, hey, look, there are a lot of angry people out there. Fire by settlers (for example) would be in a similar category, but you’re much less likely to see settlers flying sorties over Gaza than you are to see rockets fired by unspecified “militants”.


        • Guest Who says:

          ‘the reality is that they can disclaim direct responsibility, say that they’re doing all they can’
          Let’s see…
          Queen Liz 1 did sort of do that, but it was a different time.
          Those Godwin-fearing guys in 1939 did something not dissimilar at a Polish border post.
          That was a different time too.
          Unique, eh?


  9. George R says:

    More INBBC pro-Hamas phoneyness and propaganda.

    INBBC exists to serve more the interests of Middle East Muslims/Arabs than it does those of British licence payers.

    So, given that a large part of INBBC audience is in Middle East, INBBC/INBBC Arabic can always pander to the political interests of the Islamic majority there by presenting this sort of sham as news:-

    “Gaza conflict: Reaction to the ceasefire”


    “Savages of Hamas pass out candy to celebrate Tel Aviv bus jihad murders” (video)



  10. noggin says:

    will the bbc stop this incessant, “stop all presses – live to the hamas press conference” now, that their openly praising suicide bus bombers, and gloating over possible jew murder?.
    stated on a previous thread – not interested, in listening to insane genocidal terrorists speaking as if there is some kind of parity?, with a genuine democracy?
    or about islamist muslim brotherhood leaders meeting with terrorist islamist hamas leaders? …
    do you imagine (even in the mind of the brain cell singular beebot), you are going to get truth? … realistic attempt at peace?


  11. The Marxist Defence of Murder says:

    Any chance of the BBC declaring a ceasefire against Israel? Or will it be the usual daily barrage of calumny and tendentious reporting from the Hamas-loving team at the BBC?


  12. pounce says:

    The bBC and it’s anti-Semitic stance toward Israel
    Gaza crisis: Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement holds
    A ceasefire between Israel and the Islamist Hamas movement that runs the Gaza Strip appeared to be holding on Thursday. Israel radio said some rockets had been fired from Gaza, but there was no sign of an Israeli response.

    So let me get this straight according to the bBC:
    Rockets are fired from Hamas run Gaza into Israel but because Israel hasn’t retaliated the ceasefire is holding.

    What next from the bBC, that a man found shot in the head and tied to a motorcycle in Gaza was a man who committed suicide.

    <b. The bBC. whom the British tax payer pays to provide them with pro Terrorist propaganda


    • Guest Who says:

      Whatever one gets from the BBC, it is seldom ‘straight’.
      The semanticists are prevailing over reporters.


    • Guest Who says:

      ps: URL seems down


    • Well spotted pounce. I saw a report on BBC 24 yesterday where the exporter stated that the “ceasefire was holding” and the evidence he provided for this was that “only 12 rockets” had been fire from Gaza into Israel.
      Now I wonder if Israel had carried out 12 bombing raids or drone strikes if the BBC would be saying that this was evidence of the ceasefire holding.
      The bias is so blatant and twisted that I cannot believe that an allegedly sophisticated and literate public can tolerate it.


  13. chrisH says:

    I watched Al Jazeera last night as the “peace ceasefire” was being announced live on air, both in Israel and in Gaza.
    Why so?…just to see how the BBC narrative would be spun from watching Rageh, Frost and all manner of folk in the pay of Qutar and Brunei etc.
    And so it came to pass-a triumph of Egyptian diplomacy, all hail the Arab Spring, and Israels role was politically inspired by nasty Netenyahu…oh, and a victory for Hamas.
    No…couldn`t see the links myself, and boy; were they desperate to see it as Hamas joining the “world community…why, even Tunisias Foreign Minister paid `em a visit no less!
    Real straining at gnats, but I just know that this will be the Guardian and BBCs review of the week-and what will be in the “End of Year” stuff next month.
    How many operatives/freedom fighters attained their goal of martyrdom then…what a triumph of the Will?
    If driving round Gaza by night without bodies in tow is a triumph…then well done Hamas!
    No one wins despite the bellicose terrorists yelling and shooting…but if Israel has faced the nutjobs down and not flinched, then it`s far more of a victory for the rest of us than the BBC would ever tell you.
    God Bless Israel…as ever!


    • George R says:

      Yes, given that Islam Not BBC (INBBC) political propaganda of the Middle East is so similar to that of its chums at Islamic Al Jazeera (with which INBBC has a technical agreement), there is a strong case for the immediate CLOSURE of INBBC’s massive Middle East operation, including that of INBBC Arabic TV service.


  14. Tipple says:

    Have you seen this smug BBC interview?


  15. soothsayer says:

    The way we have been wording our paragraph on when the fighting started is causing endless complaints. It’s the specific reference in time which is upsetting people.

    We have been saying:

    The conflict began last Wednesday when Israel killed a Hamas military leader, saying it wanted an end to rocket attacks from Gaza. More than 110 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed.

    To a lot of people, the conflict was already raging, and they interpret that as blaming or putting undue emphasis on Israel.

    Can we please use the following form of words which gets round that:

    Israel launched its offensive, which it says is aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza, with the killing on Wednesday of a Hamas military leader. More than 110 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed since then.


    Raffi Berg
    Middle East desk
    BBC News website
    +44 203 614 xxxx


    • SteveJFGB says:

      Remember that all three Israeli fatalities were civilians including two very young children killed early in the operation. Several Palestinian children were also killed by Hamas rockets that fell short including the child of a BBC journalist and the child that was held by the PMs of Egypt and Gaza. Despite the numbers of their own civilians killed by their own rockets, a high proportion of those killed in Gaza during the campaign were militants.

      The effect of the rockets on the communities in southern Israel before the operation should not be ignored.

      This article in Ynet is about the effects of the Qassam rockets on the children of Sderot

      The Grad (and M75) rockets are much more powerful, kill more people (when not intercepted by the Iron Dome) and traumatise people in many towns and cities in southern Israel. Even when they are intercepted by the Iron Dome they make a huge bang (especially the M75), which really frightens the children.


  16. soothsayer says:

    Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border. Israel maintains a blockade around its borders with Gaza, as well as a naval blockade. It also controls Gaza’s airspace.

    We’ve mistakenly said “around Gaza” in a number of recent stories, which has generated complaints.

    Raffi Berg
    Middle East desk
    BBC News website
    +44 203 614 1824


    • Alex says:

      soothsayer this is not genuine, is it? Surely this is an internal mail. How did you get hold of it? Any more?? There must be more where this came from (if it’s true, but I have my doubts). would love to uncover more editorial decisions about Israel!


  17. Teddy Bear says:

    Now I wonder why the BBC omit to mention any hint of this piece of news reported by AP

    Egypt Brotherhood leader blasts peace with Israel
    CAIRO (AP) — The top leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood denounced peace efforts with Israel and urged holy war to liberate Palestinian territories on Thursday — one day after the country’s president, who hails from the movement, mediated a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians to end eight days of fierce fighting.

    He goes on to say
    Badei declared that “jihad is obligatory” for Muslims. But he also said that taking up arms would be the “last stage,” only after Muslims achieved unity. “The use of force and arms while the group is fragmented and disconnected, unorganized, weak in conviction, with faint faith — this will be destined for death.”
    In the meantime, he called on Muslims to “back your brothers in Palestine. Supply them with what they need, seek victory for them in all international arenas.”

    Not just that the BBC can know what lies ahead, despite their appeasement of this vile scum, but also know what they are concealing.


  18. Sue says:

    Hello Raffi Berg,
    “Can we please use the following form of words which gets round that:”
    Whose permission are you seeking?
    If you’re serious, the paragraph you have been using:
    “The conflict began last Wednesday when Israel killed a Hamas military leader, saying it wanted an end to rocket attacks from Gaza. More than 110 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed.”
    can hardly be described as ‘putting blame on Israel’, but it does ignore the build-up to the killing of Jabari, which, as you will know, was undertaken because a considerable number of rocket had been aimed at Israeli civilians from Gaza over a period of time. Therefore, the conflict certainly did not just begin on Wednesday, merely the retaliation.
    Why must you use the unnecessary and superfluous “saying”? This insinuates that the BBC doubts Israel’s explanation, meaning that the BBC believes Israel is untruthful, and they suspect that the real reason for the killing of the Hamas military leader and the retaliatory Operation Pillar of Defence was not defensive at all, but unprovoked aggression.
    So, why include “saying?”
    What is wrong with believing what Israel says, and writing instead, “because” as in: “Israel killed a Hamas military leader BECAUSE it wanted an end to rocket attacks from Gaza.”
    After all, the BBC normally takes the words of Hamas at face value, particularly numbers of dead, and they are notoriously unreliable.
    Then you said: “To a lot of people, the conflict was already raging, and they interpret that as blaming or putting undue emphasis on Israel.”
    To a lot of people? Why not simply say “the conflict was already raging” ?
    – Which it was.
    The rocket attacks were really rocket attacks! Not just to a lot of people. The rocket attacks Were. Rocket. Attacks. To everybody.
    You want permission to use the following words:
    “Israel launched its offensive, which it says is aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza, with the killing on Wednesday of a Hamas military leader. More than 110 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed since then.”
    But the dead were not just “Palestinians and Israelis” 120 of the Palestinians were Hamas fighters, or terrorists. I believe four of the Israelis were civilians, and one was a soldier.
    In any case the death toll is a cheap and simplistic way of allocating blame, as is issuing countless photographs of dead and injured children. Why does it need to be included at the end of every article about Israel and Gaza? Is it a reminder of which side the BBC wants the reader to blame? It certainly looks like it. So if the BBC was of a mind to, you could include a small excerpt from the Hamas charter, for example, to remind the reader that Iran’s proxy Hamas is intent on eliminating Israel.
    According to the IDF spokesman last evening, 177 Palestinians were killed in Operation Pillar of Defence, of whom 120 were ‘engaged in terrorist activity’.

    So you could try saying:

    “Israel launched its offensive on Wednesday with the killing of a Hamas military leader, which was aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza. The current information is that 177 Palestinians were killed, including 22 children; 120 of the dead were Hamas fighters. Four Israeli civilians and one Israeli solder have also been killed.


    • Teddy Bear says:

      Sue – great to see you – it’s been a while 🙂


    • deegee says:

      Who is Raffi Berg?

      Can anyone say with certainty if he is Jewish, Israeli or lived for any significant period in Israel?

      A web search is unhelpful. One hate site describes him as one of Israel’s agents of influence in Britain. Who’d have guessed?


      • deegee says:

        BTW The name Rafi or Raffi is a common diminuitive of Raphael, a name more popular in Israel than in the UK. Berg (often spelled Burg) is a name often found among German Jews.

        Neither name is a conclusive but they do point to a Jewish/Israeli connection.


      • deegee says:

        What did Berg actually say? Are we talking about actual correspondence between Berg and whom?