HAVE HAMAS LEFT HAMASTAN?

I am puzzled that the world media has not reported the startling news that Hamas have left Gaza. That is certainly the impression the BBC conveys because in its latest reports on the cleansing of Gaza, it reports that 391 “Palestinians” have been killed so far. Yes, but apparently not one of these has been a Hamas terrorist. So, as in Lebanon in 2006, the BBC refuses to number how many of the dead are Islamic Jihadi militia and instead lumps them all into one big convenient number which is then used to portray Israel as the cruel oppressor of poor innocent Arabs. I also note the continued pro-Hamas testimony of Jeremy Bowen, a man who makes Orla Guerin seem objective on Middle Eastern affairs! It would a lot more honest if the BBC just came clean, admitted they loath Israel and are license payer funded shills for the so-called Palestinians. The pretence of neutrality is so risible as to beyond parody.

THE DIARY OF A MADMAN.

When it comes to finding instances of unambiguous BBC bias, you do not have to look very far. I was studying the main BBC news portal covering the conflict between Israel and Hamas and was being royally entertained by the..ahem... absolute neutrality of side-bar items such as “Grieving Palestinians struggle on” and “Grief and fear in Gaza” not forgetting “Israel’s mixed motives” when I spotted another item entitled “Aid worker diary -part three.” You should read it.

It is a diary of Hatem Shurrab who is an aid worker in Gaza with the British-based “charity” Islamic Relief Worldwide. Yes, you heard that right. In this third tear-jerking instalment of his diary, Hatem writes about the psychological impact of Israel’s air strikes on Gaza’s children. In fact all Hatem does is spout pro-Palestinian propaganda even sharing with us the shocking news that the brother of one of his work colleagues has been killed in an Israeli attack. Then again, quite a few Hamas terrorists have been killed in Israeli attacks, haven’t they, Hatem? Interesting that Islamic Relief manages to get its views embedded into the main BBC site – I can’t seem to find a balancing series of opinions from an Israeli point of view. Can you? The bias in the BBC output at the moment is shocking – every bit as as bad as it was when Hezbollah fought Israel back in 2006. It seems that the hatred of Israel runs deep in the BBC and such profound endemic anti-Semitism is reason enough to pull the license tax.

BBC ATROCITIES

Another day and the continued BBC onslaught against Israel shows no sign of abating. During this morning’s Cormac Murphy O’Connor produced programme (Featuring Thought for the day by Jerome Murphy O’Connor – keep it in the family, eh?) there was a truly wretched item just after the 8am news which started with the UN special rapporteur, and noted anti-Israeli activist Richard Falk whinging on about the “daily atrocities” that Israel is committing. This set up things for Jeremy Al Bowen who rose to the challenge once again asserting that he believed Israel’s military strategy could not succeed as well as being politically non-sustainable. Next we segued into Richard Haas, the current president of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Haas gave a modest defence of Israel, though he is a keen advocate of the “Two State Solution” and shills for the PA. Since when did holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas come to represent moderation? He also suggested that the current Middle East situation could take a few lessons from Northern Ireland where the IRA were told they could not bomb and shoot their way into government. (This somewhat surprised me since I have lived through three decades of IRA bombing and shooting and now they are in government! Go figure.) The BBC has moved into full-on support for Hamas and I will be damned if this is not documented here on a daily basis. Israel fights to defend it’s people from Hamas Islamic savagery, the BBC seeks to undermine this at every junction.What is it that drives such vicious anti-Israel feeling at the BBC?

THE SUFFERING IS ONLY ON ONE SIDE

Well folks, I looked forward to getting the latest analysis of the cleansing of Gaza from the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Al Bowen and I was not disappointed. According to Jeremy, the suffering is all on side (Hint – and it’s not that of Israel) Jeremy also was quick to pour scorn on Israel’s current military and political assumptions for good measure. A Gazan “doctor” was then wheeled on to inform us that wicked Israel is now targeting families and kids. This isn’t news, folks, it is rank Pali-propaganda and we are witnessing the BBC in full-on anti-Israel mode.

ROCKET-MAN.

Visceral BBC prejudice against Israel will constitute a full chapter to itself in the forthcoming book on BBC bias. As Israel continues to righteously take out Hamas terror infrastructure, the BBC is naturally giving Pallywood every opportunity to portray itself, and its rocketeers of course, as victims. Their only crime is to be, erm, Jihadists. So I thought I might open up this thread for you to detail some of the worst excesses you are bound to come across as the BBC rallies around Hamastan. Just as well Harold Pinter is dead, he would be so upset to discover Israel is still capable of defending itself.

EYELESS IN GAZA

Been away for a few days folks so just trying to catch up on the news! I see that Hamas, those nice people for whom the BBC carries such a candle, have decided to declare open season on Israel just in time for Christmas. As the BBC puts it, “The Egyptian-brokered deal began on 19 June but has been tested regularly by Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli operations in Gaza. ” Just wondering why the BBC equates Hamas terror attacks with Israeli efforts to, erm, prevent rocket attacks. Testing indeed.

Roundup

  • Bishop Hill on the close yet unclear relationship between the Cambridge Environment and Media Programme and the BBC.
  • Tom Gross of the WSJ writes, “If this isn’t terrorism, what is?”

    For much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one point viewers were told that “an office building” had been targeted (referring to the Jewish center as such).

    Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world. Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center — even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?

  • You mean those scary statistics in the letters from TV Licensing weren’t true?
  • Following on from Laban’s post, I was listening to Radio 4 the day before yesterday at about 6.15pm. There was quite a lengthy discussion of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption without, yet again, any mention of what party he represented. I expect this tactic works quite well. Anyone listening properly would have gathered Mr Blagojevich was of the same party as Mr Obama, but the many, many people who listen with half an ear while they get on with something else would never hear “blah blah corruption blah blah Democrat blah” whereas you can be sure that in a similar scandal involving a Republican they would get “blah corruption Republican blah THAT’S RIGHT, REPUBLICAN blah”.

LOVING THE SUICIDE BOMBER

I caught the 8.45am item on the Today programme run by Paul Woods which involved an interview with an 18 year old Gazan homicide bomber. She was allowed to claim that her pending self-explosion was a response to those bad Jews bombing Mosques whilst the faithful are at prayer. No rebuttal of this outrageous Palestinian slur was permitted but then again since the BBC cannot bring itself to even accept that Hamas are bloodthirsty terrorists, who’s surprised?

ISRAEL ATTACKS ISRAELIS – ALL WELL WITH WORLD

.

I see the BBC delights in telling us that Israel is concerned about the number of violent attacks happening in Judea/Samaria (or “West Bank” in BBC talk). The attacks flagged up are being carried out by Jewish settlers. The BBC helpfully shows an accompanying still from the alleged video taken by a pro-Palestinian group Yesh Din to demonstrate just how vicious the Jews living in this area can be. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Palestinians are innocent little lambs. There is never any mention of the barbarity that Palestinians show towards these “settlers. Then again, presenting these people as the aggressors is all part of the ongoing Palestinian propaganda campaign- lapped up and regurgitated by the BBC.

WHEN THE CLANS RISE AGAIN

It’s interesting to observe that when one bunch of Palestinian thugs (Hamas) attack another bunch of Palestinian thugs (Fatah) leading the latter to leg it and beg sanctuary from the hated Jews, the BBC naturally portrays Israel as the villain of the piece when it propose to “send back” these vermin. Did I say vermin? Sorry, I meant to say partners in peace and of course world’s most oppressed people. Also isn’t it curious the way in which the BBC uses term “Clan” to describe these Fatah gangsters? Is there a long lost Scottish connection to the Middle East conflict we have not know of before now? Has Alex Salmond been told, could be SNP votes in it for him ? Even when Palestinians show their innate barbarism by butchering each other, the BBC still can’t resist blaming the Jews.

They are like ravening beasts. What shall I feed them?

Blimey. 409 comments. Looks like it’s time for a roundup, below, and a new “open thread” post coming up in a minute.

  • An article in the New York Sun by Daniel Johnson says

    The BBC now has a huge audience in America as well as in the rest of the world for its endless reiteration of the implied thesis that the Jewish state is the root of all evil — not only of war in the East but of terrorism in the West too — and that the ” Israel lobby” rules in Washington. Gloating over the supposed triumph of Realpolitik since the midterm elections, the BBC can hardly contain its Schadenfreude at the departure not merely of Donald Rumsfeld but also of John Bolton.

(Hat tip: Alan)

Oliver writes:

“Hi BBBC – I thought this report interesting especially the line:

“The barrier goes up, and you drive in through a gap in the 30-foot high concrete wall that Israel says it has built to keep out suicide bombers.”

Love that ‘says it has’…

Yours

Oliver

  • Neil Craig of A Place to Stand wrote to the BBC, copying us in. An extract:

    Dear BBCThis morning David Attenborough was interviewed on the Andrew Marr programme on the subject of putative global warming & made the somewhat improbable statement that “in 20 years much of Norfolk will be under water”. Since sea level has been rising at about 0.6 mm a year since the last ice age & does not appear to have significantly changed recently this would require much of Norfolk to be less than half an inch above sea level now which I do not believe is the case. Indeed historically Norfolk has, for geological reasons, been rising faster than the sea. Even the alarmist BBC have heretofore claimed only 30 cm* a century which amounts to 2 inches in 20 years.

    I was therefore somewhat surprised when the interviewer never even questioned the remark & finished the interview calling Mr Attenborough, whose basic claim to fame is as a BBC spokesman an “icon”, which clearly put a BBC seal of approval on it.

    If it really is the case that the BBC are officially promising us that Norfolk will largely be underwater by 2026 I will have to accept that as the sort of ridiculous propaganda which represents the very highest standards to which the BBC aspire.

    *Taken from the BBC article. A typo in Mr Craig’s email meant that the link url had been typed over the next few characters. Read the rest of his post here.

  • On a similar subject, another correspondent writes:

    Hi,

  • First, we know how these signed “petitions” by THOUSANDS of scientists go as reported by the BBC et al. Did deep and you’ll find a overwhelming list of left wing partisan advocates and non-“scientists”. This BBC article is no different. You get your usual suspects in this article. The BBC just carries the water whenever they put out a PR.

    US scientists reject interference

    The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy…..[and the Bush bashing begins]

    One of the main article sources, the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security is a San Francisco area left wing “green” advocacy group represented by the BBC as a “Non Partisan” organization. Well, as usual, the reporter simply didn’t look at the board of directors or it’s advisory board. Look for yourself

    http://www.pacinst.org

    The other source The Union of Concerned Scientists, again, is a green advocacy organization. Check it out. http://www.ucsusa.org.

    I don’t see this blog as having any particular collective opinion on whether and whither climate change. But we are getting quite a few emails saying, as these do, that the BBC is very much of one opinion when presenting the issue.

    UPDATE: Ian Hart, the communications director of the Pacific Institute, comments

    First, the Pacific Institute is a think tank or a research institute, not a “‘green’ advocacy group.” While we may advocate certain policies, it is not our primary goal or tool. If you look at our staff you will not find lawyers or lobbyists, but mostly scientists.

    Second, the Pacific Institute is a non partisan organization and Jonathan Amos was correct in noting that in his article. When we work with governments, we’ve worked with Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. We’ve also worked in numerous countries where those parties mean nothing. So we are indeed non partisan.

    Looking at its website, it is true that the Pacific Institute is non-partisan in the sense that it is not connected to any political party. The Advisory Board contains both Nancy Ramsey, the Legislative Director for Senator John Kerry (D) and the Hon. Claudine Schneider, a former Republican Representative for Rhode Island.

    Nonetheless, the Pacific institute is not apolitical. Sample quotes: “Social justice has long been the missing element from the debate over environmental pollution and economic development.” “Globalization and privatisation of the world’s resources are leading to controversy, dispute and even violence.” It favours mildly statist solutions.

    I am more sympathetic to Ian Hart’s defence of his own organisation than I am to the BBC’s description of it. The phrase “non-partisan” will be taken to mean “non-political” by most readers of the website, and I rather think the BBC knows this and exploits it – in many cases, not just this one. In particular I think that the BBC gently exploits the fact that in the US, because of campaign finance restrictions and the fact that political donations from individuals are made public there, the fact that an organisation can be non-partisan and yet have a political agenda is widely understood, whereas over here the two terms “non political” and “non partisan” are practically interchangeable. A think tank as right wing as the Pacific Institute is left wing would almost always be described as “right wing” on the BBC.

 

David Duke, Neturei Karta and Holocaust Denial.

I do not have a means of checking the quotation from the Newsnight e-mail preview quoted in the following comment by “will” but have no reason to disbelieve it. In fact, in light of the post from Adloyada that follows, I have good reason to believe it. The comment from Will first:

Newsnight on Iran’s Holocaust Conference (from their e-mail preview)

In the face of international condemnation, President Ahmedenijad has hosted a conference in Tehran entitled “Review of the Holocaust”.

We’ve been speaking to some of the delegates who include the former Republican congressman and one time Grand Master of the KKK David Duke.

In Washington? No, he was a congressman in the Louisiana state government.

(Willful misrepresentation by Newsnight?)

& all Republican’s are closet KKK men? Well see who Duke overcame to win his state seat

In 1989, he ran as a Republican for a seat representing Metairie in the Louisiana State House of Representatives. He defeated fellow Republican John Treen, the brother of David C. Treen, the first Republican to be elected governor of Louisiana since Reconstruction, by a narrow margin of 51-49 percent. Duke’s victory came despite visits to the district in support of John Treen’s candidacy by President George H.W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other GOP notables.

Wikipedia entry on David Duke

Now follows the post from Adloyada, who writes:

The BBC Radio 4 PM programme broke new ground this evening in offering David Duke airtime to justify his participation in the Iranian Holocaust conference on the grounds of “free speech” without alerting listeners to his Ku Klux Klan background, his convictions for fraud and his publication of virulently anti-semitic propaganda. It also gave an even more extended airtime opportunity to a leader of the Iran and Hamas supporting Neturei Karta, without letting its listeners know that the man was anything more than the rabbi of “an anti-zionist orthodox congregation in Vienna”.

Read the rest of the post to learn just how unrepresentative of Jewish Orthodox opinion Neturei Karta are.

I also note that the 2003 BBC article about David Duke that Adloyada links to seems to get his history wrong in just the same way as the email “will” quotes. The article says:

David Duke – who once held a seat for Louisiana in the House of Representatives

– I freely admit that the political system of Louisiana, which involves a “jungle primary” unlike any other in the United States, confuses me. But so far as I can see David Duke has never won office in the US House of Representatives. He has held office in the Louisiana State House of Representatives. There is a difference, you know. Oddly, a later sentence in the same article gets that aspect of things right:

Duke hit the Louisiana political scene in 1988, winning a seat as a Republican in the Louisiana House of Representatives after running on a “white rights” ticket.

But, wouldn’t you know it, that same sentence describes his party affiliation in such a way as to make the Republicans look as bad as possible. First off, Duke didn’t hit the Louisiana political scene in 1988 as a Republican – he first hit the Louisiana political scene in 1975 when he ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat. He later ran for President, again as a Democrat. (And again unsuccessfully, in case anyone’s wondering.) Of course the BBC does not mention the official “reproval” from the Republican party nor the fact, quoted by “will” earlier, that the elder Bush and Ronald Reagan campaigned against Duke.

I would not bother quoting this old article at length were it not for the fact that the BBC seem to be making similar inaccurate statements now, possibly having got their “facts” from their earlier article.