Anti-Semitism Discovered In the Muslim Community: Shocker!

Douglas Murray’s blog post in the Spectator caught my eye yesterday, in which he points out a must-read article in the HuffingtonPost by Mehdi Hasan. No, really:

The Sorry Truth Is That the Virus of Anti-Semitism Has Infected the British Muslim Community

Hasan felt compelled for some reason to speak out against Lord Ahmed’s rant about how a Jewish conspiracy caused his conviction for killing someone while driving and texting at the same time.

To claim that your jail sentence for dangerous driving is the result of a Jewish plot is bigoted and stupid. The peer has since been suspended from the Labour Party and forced to stand down as a trustee of the Joseph Interfaith Foundation. I’m not sure how many “Jewish friends” he has left – if, that is, he had any to begin with.

Full disclosure: I know Lord Ahmed and have defended him in the past. In 2007, he flew out to Sudan to help free the schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons from the clutches of the odious Islamist regime in Khartoum. In 2009, an Appeal Court judge noted how the peer had “risked his life trying to flag down other vehicles to stop them colliding with… his car”. He is not a latter-day Goebbels. But herein lies the problem. There are thousands of Lord Ahmeds out there: mild-mannered and well-integrated British Muslims who nevertheless harbour deeply anti-Semitic views.

No kidding.

The truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected members of the British Muslim community, both young and old. No, the on-going Israel-Palestine conflict hasn’t helped matters. But this goes beyond the Middle East. How else to explain why British Pakistanis are so often the most ardent advocates of anti-Semitic conspiracies, even though there are so few Jews living in Pakistan?

The fact that a visceral hatred of Jews and conspiracy-mongering is rife within the Mohammedan communities around the world is old news to people here, and surely it’s not a stunning revelation to Hasan, either. The real question is, what will the BBC do about this?

To be honest, I’ve always been reluctant to write a column such as this. To accuse my fellow Muslims of being soft on the scourge of anti-Semitism isn’t easy; I feel as if I am ‘dobbing in’ the community, telling tales to the non-Muslim teacher. Nor do I particularly want to assist the English Defence League in its relentless campaign to demonise all Muslims, everywhere, as extremists and bigots.

We aren’t. And we’re not all anti-Semites. But, as a community, we do have a ‘Jewish problem’. There is no point pretending otherwise.

So it’s not news to Hasan after all. He’s been aware of it for a very long time. How about the BBC? We all remember how they leapt to support Baroness Warsi when she lamented that Islamophobia had “passed the dinner table test” in Britain. They made sure to do a Have Your Say on it. The World Service audience got their own Have Your Say, asking who was responsible for Islamophobia. I don’t need to reel out a laundry list of all the news reports, radio shows, and drama programming the BBC has produced in the last few years trying to encourage people to accept Islam, and even welcome it. More recently, in keeping with the BBC’s remit to foster social cohesion, they promoted the national “Wear a Hijab Day”, to encourage girls of all races and religions to spend the day embracing this aspect of Mohammedan culture, to learn how “the other” lives and so bring communities closer together. Some of us joked at the time that we wouldn’t be holding our breath for the BBC to do a “Wear a Yarmulke” day. But now it seems like this would be the perfect opportunity for them to use the special, unique powers and influence of the BBC to take a stand against the anti-Jewish sentiment that has equally passed the dinner table test in Britain. And it’s not just at the dinner parties Mehdi Hasan goes to, either.

Hasan seems to be aware that the Palestinian situation is not necessarily the sole reason for the hatred of Jews amongst his co-religionists. He may not know just how far back it goes (before the creation of Israel, in fact), and one has to equally wonder if anyone at the BBC shares his awareness. Only time will tell. I don’t think Hasan’s purpose here is to delve into the history of anti-Semitism in the Muslim World or anything like that, so there’s no problem with him not going into it. However, the BBC does do history and background, when it suits them, so there’s no excuse for them not to get into it in detail.

If the BBC doesn’t respond to this with even a fraction of the energy with which they’ve attacked the problem of Islamophobia, it will be a clear failure of their Charter-bound duty. Whether or not it’s evidence of a similar epidemic of anti-Jewish sentiment at the BBC remains to be seen.

Explaining Briefly Why Some People are Prejudiced Against the BBC

(Radio 4 Today 7:13)

 A religious studies exam question, “Explain why some people are prejudiced against Jews”, has sparked controversy over whether it is a reasonable question to put to young people. Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, discusses the question.

So says the Today website.

“You’re sitting an exam on religious studies. Question: Explain briefly why some people are prejudiced against Jews. Well, is that a reasonable question to ask  young people?”  asks Evan Davis.

The chairman of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education thinks not. He suggests it was appropriate for a classroom discussion, to tease out why “these” prejudices arose, but when put as an exam question “you’ve lost the context” and it implies that the prejudices might be valid.  Jon Benjamin agrees. He says the question doesn’t ask for an analysis of ‘prejudice’, but virtually asks for a list of what’s wrong with Jews.

“If a student came up with such a list,” posits Evan, “they’d get an appalling mark.” (Probably.) Evan tried to illustrate the difference between the words ‘explain’ and ‘justify’ by making an analogy that involved substituting ‘Jews’ with ‘criminals’ and ‘self-harmers’.

It begged the question, could one replace ‘Jew’ with ‘Muslim’ here? Not that that would be helpful, because of course the zeitgeist that culminated in the holocaust is generally known to have been founded on ‘irrational fear ignorance and scapegoating.’ Suffice it to say that so far, dare I say, most prejudice against Muslims appears to be founded on the rational fear of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism and  terrorism.  What’s more, no exam board would imagine for one nano second that they could get away with asking a question like that.

Evan’s snippet of an item was misleading and counterproductive. If it wasn’t for the fact that antisemitism is rearing its ugly head all over again, this whole furore would be a bit of nonsense.  I’ll explain why.

It says in the Telegraph:

“The exam board insisted that the question was part of a paper focusing on Judaism and the “relevant part of the syllabus covers prejudice and discrimination with reference to race, religion and the Jewish experience of persecution”.

“We would expect [students to refer] to the Holocaust to illustrate prejudice based on irrational fear, ignorance and scapegoating,” she said.“Part of the syllabus is that children must study the causes and origins of prejudice against Jews.”

So in that context the same isolated, clumsily-phrased question is arguably a good thing, which we might now see in a completely different light.

If Evan’s poor little snippet of an item had started off with that information, and he hadn’t sensationalised and isolated the question from its context, it might not have looked like an ill-conceived blunder by the exam board at all, but considering the BBC’s long-term barrage of one sided, out of context reports about Israel, it’s become  impossible to ask a question like that without causing offence. In fact the whole caboodle needed to be seen in context, not just the offending question. If it wasn’t for the BBC setting the scene over decades with their ever-present antisemitic innuendos and half-stories, posing such a sensitive question in an exam could have been thought-provoking and perhaps even positive. As it is, everyone concerned made mountain of a touchy, hyper sensitive issue that should have been a molehill.



May I commend this most excellent article concerning how the BBC deals with Jewish people;

“American Presidents have long been criticized for being too in thrall to the Jewish lobby. The American Jews influence US foreign policy and that explains Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.”

Who made this statement this past week?

(a) A disgruntled fringe neo-Nazi
(b) Some poor soul ranting on their Facebook page
(c) The BBC

Sadly, as you can see in the clip above, the answer is C. This ugly assertion is the host’s opening line in an episode of this past week’s BBC HARDtalk program. This vicious garbage isn’t “sort of” or “almost” anti-Semitic; it is the real thing: vivid, unapologetic, odious and wrong.


B-BBC contributor Alan notes;

“Another explanationfor why the ‘right-on’ Lefty liberals in the BBC hate Maggie Thatcher and are proIslam…and it has a nice symmetry…because it also gives them another reasonfor disliking Jewish people even more… Thatcher admired them:

‘Thatcher had no patience for anti-Semitism. “I simply did not understand it,”Thatcher wrote in her memoirs. Indeed, she found “some of [her] closestpolitical friends and associates among Jews.” “In the thirty-three years that Irepresented Finchley [a constituency in London], I never had a Jew come inpoverty and desperation to one of my town meetings… I often wished thatChristians would take closer note of the Jewish emphasis on self-help andacceptance of personal responsibility.” * Aghast that a golf club in her district consistently barred Jews frombecoming members, she publicly attacked her own party members for supportingthe policy. The Jews of Finchley were “her people,” Thatcher remarked –certainly much more so than the wealthy land barons that dominated her party. * In her desire to change and modernize Britain, Thatcher surrounded herselfwith bright Jewish advisors: Keith Joseph, Alfred Sherman, David Young, NigelLawson, Leon Brittan, Victor Rothschild, Malcolm Rifkind, David Wolfson, DavidHart, and others.’

The BBC Continues To Lie About History And Censor Calls For Ethnic Cleansing

Apologies for the lengthy title, but there are two issues here which need to be covered, and I’m combining them into one post. First, the BBC’s continued attempts to lie and rewrite history.

Q&A: Palestinian statehood bid at the UN

Most people here will know exactly what’s coming, and I know this has been covered here many times before, but it’s even more important to call the BBC out on it now because of the looming UN fight over creating a State of Palestine. For the benefit of those who don’t know the BBC’s bias about the “West Bank”, here’s the map they use to explain history to the public:

Notice on the left, the BBC is claiming that there was such a thing as the West Bank (i.e. Palestinian) Territory before the 1967 war. They’ve just erased a chunk of Jordan from history. As we all know, that was part of Jordan at the time, a country at war with Israel. Why else would Israel have invaded? This map indoctrinates the public with PLO propaganda, that Israel invaded sovereign Palestinian territory. Your license fee is being used to promote false history and anti-Israel propaganda.

Reality, on the other hand, is not Israeli propaganda. This map of Jordan – from a non-partisan source – and environs showing the borders during part of the 1967 war in question is fact, not fiction:

Notice the clear border lines of Jordan encompass the area about which the BBC is lying. Yes, I am accusing BBC News Online of telling a lie. I don’t care what some Beeboids personally believe about nasty old Israel’s land grab or the plight of the poor Palestinians or anything else. This is historical fact, and the BBC is lying about it. How can there be an honest Q&A about the topic when one of the answers is a lie? Until they remove that first map and replace it with an honest one, my accusation will stand.

Needless to say, this propaganda demonizes Israel in the minds of the public. Most people are seriously uninformed about the facts of Israel and 1967 and the “Palestinian Territories”. When one tries to explain the facts to get past the emotions, one is then accused of spouting Israeli propaganda. This is how the BBC’s editorial policy and style guide is blatantly biased, causing them to demonize Israel at every opportunity, although the BBC disputes this.

It’s impossible to have a civil discussion, national or otherwise, about the situation when the national broadcaster promotes propaganda for one side and demonizes the other. This then promotes anti-Jewish sentiment, but that’s a topic for another time.

Now for the BBC Censorship angle. Last week, Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestinian ambassador to the US, said that there should be no Jews in a State of Palestine:

“Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Actually, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard about their desire for a Judenfrei Palestine. He said the same thing a year ago. Not only that, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said the same thing last year, and went further:

Almost no notice was taken of another pre talks decision that the PA chairman revealed, as he announced clearly that if a Palestinian Authority state is created in Judea and Samaria, no Israeli citizen will be allowed to set foot inside.The PA chairman also stated that he would block any Jewish soldiers from serving with an international force stationed on PA-controlled land.

“I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared.

Judenfrei, Judenrein. And the BBC has steadfastly censored all of this. Justin Webb didn’t bring it up to the feckless Lord Levy on Today, it doesn’t feature in any BBC News Online report about Israel or the Palestinians, and it hasn’t been mentioned anywhere else on the BBC. If someone can show me one single example of it, I’ll post it here, shocked but grateful.

Without the truth and all the facts, it’s impossible to have a rational debate and reasonable understanding of the situation. Yet the BBC actively prevents that, promoting propaganda for one side, rewrites history, and censors the Palestinians’ desire for ethnic cleansing.

ADDENDUM: Here’s Katty Kay interviewing US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, in which Katty states uncategorically that only Bibi Netanyahu is the problem, and Amb. Rice corrects here. No surprise that this is Katty’s belief as she recently tweeted to her followers that this New York Magazine article – which blames Netanyahu and uncritical, “steadfast” support for Israel in the US Congress as the only obstacles to peace – is All you need to know about the frosty relationship between Barack and Bibi.”

Why, it’s almost as if there’s a groupthink on this issue extending across the spectrum of the BBC.

A Beeboid Wakes Up In Egypt

I lost count of how many times during the Egyptian revolution against the Mubarak regime people here pointed out how anti-Israel sentiment was a key issue in the country, and how this was constantly played down by the BBC. I’m sure any worrying here was summarily dismissed by defenders of the indefensible as being typical nonsense from “Israel Firsters” or the inane mewlings of people who see anti-Semitism everywhere à la Jerry Seinfeld’s Uncle Leo.

I’ve also lost count of how many times the BBC has tolerated the notion that Jews anywhere in the world must suffer for their support – or even assumed association – with Israel. We often try to point out the difference between criticism of Israel and demonizing it, and the latter is a problem with BBC reporting. The BBC even censored news of what’s happened to the Jews in Malmö, Sweden, where even the mayor says that whatever happens to them is deserved if they support Israel. The BBC has still never reported any of that. They’ve censored lots of news of violence against Jews in Europe, another example being the story of how the Dutch police had to start a sting operation where cops posed undercover as orthodox Jews as a way to catch the increasing number of people attacking them.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this “From Our Own Correspondent” piece about anti-Jewish sentiment in Egypt. In fact, I was almost as surprised as the BBC’s Thomas Dinham was to see evidence of the rampant anti-Semitism there.

How I was the subject of anti-Semitic abuse in Cairo

Relations between Israel and Egypt have become increasingly strained in recent weeks, and in the Egyptian capital there is a mounting sense of tension, including incidents of anti-Semitism.

Okay, let’s ignore the nonsense about how it’s only a recent thing. Give the poor Beeboid a chance.

Suspicion is a feature of everyday life in Egypt, and a fondness for conspiracy theories is as much a part of the landscape here as the constant traffic jams and their accompanying symphony of blaring car horns.

With the democratic certainties that greeted the immediate aftermath of January’s revolution having faded, however, the climate of mistrust and unease about the hard-won gains of the revolution is becoming increasingly palpable.

As disquiet sets in, so does the fear of foul play, backroom deals and, increasingly, malign foreign influences.

Back on solid ground here. This is the normal way of things in any Arab/Muslim country, as anyone who has spent more than five minutes anywhere in the region would know. To be fair, this kind of magical thinking – believing the most outrageous, quasi-supernatural causes for anything and everything – exists in many parts of the less developed world, from Africa to Asia. So good for Dinham for using those keen journalistic instincts to notice.

Dinham begins to relate his experience of sitting at a restaurant in Cairo, and beginning to notice the suspicious stares of the Egyptian men around him. A conversation soon starts, and he discovers they think he’s an Israeli. He doesn’t take it very well.

I was shocked. In nearly six months of living in Syria, where orchestrated hysteria about Israel is integral to the very identity of the state, I had never heard the accusation surreptitiously levelled against me.

Neither am I from Israel, nor am I Jewish, but as someone of unmistakably European appearance, I have found myself constantly associated with Israel in Egyptian eyes.

Dinham seems to miss the point here. Anti-Israel sentiment is spread in many ways in Egypt, not just by the government. And here it’s time to clearly separate the notion of legitimate criticsm of Israel from demonization. Most of this is demonization, not criticism. There’s the Muslim Brotherhood for a start. In fact, half the anti-Mubarak noise we heard during the protests was about how wrong he was for making peace with Israel. Assad and the Syrian government have never had to worry about that accusation, so there’s much less reason for people in Syria to be fretting over Israel the way Egyptians do, especially now. If he thinks it’s just the government who spread this stuff, he’s seriously out of touch.

So his story continues. A few days after this, a nearby bridge collapses, making a loud noise, and immediately the locals suspect foul play. Like I said, this is to be expected from people with this magical mindset. Dinham now expects it, too. But then he tries to play it down.

Israel is just one of a panoply of worries that exercise the conspiracy theorists that frequent Egypt’s cafes.

The standard fare of political gossip tends to revolve around the trial of [former President Hosni] Mubarak, internal corruption, and the causes behind the dire economic woes Egypt is currently experiencing.

A prosecuting lawyer at Mr Mubarak’s trial even introduced the novel idea that the ex-president had died years ago, and that the man on trial was none other than an impostor.

Again, this is typical of that mindset. The more wild and supernatural the idea, the more it spreads, and the easier it is to use as an explanation for just about anything. So Dinham doesn’t quite get this, and plays down the Israel angle.

I would hazard a guess that Israel struggles to make it into the top-five political issues discussed in Egypt.

“Political issues”. The problem is that the anger towards Israel is anything but simply political. Does he not realize this?

Israel has probably been less of a concern than the rising power of Shia Iran in the region, which apparently worries many in this overwhelmingly Sunni country, partly thanks to a constant stream of stridently sectarian rhetoric broadcast from Saudi Arabia.

Sounds like somebody has spent too much time speaking with the educated elite, and not so much with regular people.

In the Byzantine politics of the region, hearing strident opposition to Israel and its greatest regional foe, from the same person, almost in the same breath, is commonplace.

Again, magical thinking, not rational. This the result not of legitimate criticism of Israel, but of a relentless campaign of demonization, where Israel is the sole instigator, genocidal, always to blame, the root cause of all ills in the region. No surprise to us, but obviously very confusing to Dinham. So he’s been shrugging it off the whole time, staying inside the elite thought bubble. Until now.

Nevertheless, a strong and sometimes violent dislike of Israel is a fact of Egyptian life, something I was unfortunate enough to discover after a cross-border raid by Israel killed several Egyptian security personnel.

The Israelis had been chasing a group of gunmen who had attacked an Israeli bus close to the border between the two countries.

He’s not blaming Israel for starting it, for a change. He’s just saying the event was a catalyst for what was to come, which is probably correct.

While walking in the street someone pushed me from behind with such force that I nearly fell over.

Turning around, I found myself surrounded by five men, one of whom tried to punch me in the face.

Fortunately, Dinham had an intelligent response:

I stopped the attack by pointing out how shameful it was for a Muslim to assault a guest in his country, especially during Ramadan.

I applaud this. It makes a wonderful counterpoint to what I heard on the BBC News Channel back when Muslims in Paksitan Afghanistan started killing people out of anger against the idea that Pastor Jones in Florida was thinking about burning a Koran. At the time, Huw Edwards was speaking with some MCB mouthpiece about the incident, and expressed his concern that the response from the Muslims was less “nuanced” than some would like. The MCB guy said the violence was perfectly understandable because it was the end of Ramadan, and as people had spent the last month deep in prayer and spiritual contemplation that it was only natural that they’d want to kill. I’m not making that up, and we’ve heard that excuse a lot. So it’s nice to see a BBC journalist stating that violence in Ramadan is not acceptable. In any case, Dinham’s enlightenment continues:

Relieved that a seemingly random assault was over, I was appalled by the apology offered by one of my assailants. “Sorry,” he said contritely, offering his hand, “we thought you were a Jew.”

Too bad his colleagues aren’t equally appalled when this happens all over Europe.

Shaking his head in disbelief on hearing the news, an Egyptian friend sympathised: “That’s stupid, you are obviously not a Jew.”

The chilling implication I was left with was that, had I been Jewish, the assault would have apparently been justified.

Congratulations, Thomas Dinham. Welcome to the real world. We’ve only been saying this for years, while the BBC has tolerated it, played it down, and swept it under the rug. Let this be a lesson to all Beeboids. Jews everywhere are expected to suffer because of Israel, and the demonization of Israel is a direct cause of anti-Semitism and violence against Jews worldwide. Not criticism of Israel, mind, but demonization. There’s a difference.

It’s time the BBC was honest about it.


A Biased BBC reader has brought this remarkable story to my attention. The bias may be ancient history but it is still shocking..

“I have just read some astounding information contained in a book review by Frank Keating in the latest issue of the “Oldie” magazine. I was going to post it on the next open thread but I’m wondering if it is deserving of greater prominence. Here is the relevant part of the review: 

“Ryan’s fine piece of work is quite mind-bogglingly revealing of place, time, Britain and the BBC – just take for starters this baldly frank opening memo, written seven months before the Games, which had BBC Programme Controller Cecil Graves warning the Head of Sport, ‘Lobby’ Lotbiniere: 

“The point about this, of course, is that Abrahams is a Jew. He is our best commentator on athletics. But the question arises as to whether we should do this. We all regard the German action against Jews as quite irrational and intolerable and on the score we ought not to hesitate, but should we, as between one broadcaster and another, put aside all views of this kind and take the line that however we regard another country’s attitude to be, it would be discourteous to send over a Jewish commentator to a country where Jews are taboo?” 

It gets much worse. Abrahams did go to the Games – and daily commentated on most of the events. Except, of course, those in which Owens took part. Incredible. [end of review]

Those pesky Jews, right?


On Fridaynight, 11th March, a family of Jews werekilled in the West Bank.  Once more the world saw Jews being killed forbeing Jews.  Three of the victims werechildren, the youngest a baby of 3 months.
This photoof the victims has been readily available since the 12thMarch.   Nowhere has it appeared on BBCOnline.  It is normal that photos ofmurder victims do appear in reports on their murder.   It humanises the victims and helps us toshare in the horror of what they have suffered. For the BBC to deny the victims their humanity is to be complicit in theevil they suffered for being Jews.   Ifthere was one single proof of the anti-Semitic evil that lies at the heart oftoday’s BBC, this is it.
While theBBC continues to pave the way towards the second Holocaust, we will continue toprepare for the next Nuremburg.


An angry Biased BBC readers draw my attention to this nauseating example of how the BBC thinks.

“Please note the disgusting use of the phrase “renegade Germans” to describe German Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, some of whom were able to flee the evil Nazi fascist laws passed from 1933 onwards, which took away their jobs, possessions, savings, homes, careers and ultimately would have taken away their lives if they had not escaped. Renegade indeed!! Is the BBC bonkers? Is the Dalai Lama a renegade, or Nelson Mandela? It’s quite clearly an unpleasant term. Dictionary definitions include:  1. One who rejects a religion, cause, allegiance, or group for another; a deserter. 2. An outlaw; a rebel. Of, relating to, or resembling a renegade; traitorous.  To become a deserter or an outlaw.


A concerned B_BBC reader writes….
“In next week’s Radio Times (16-22 Jan 2010) there is an interview with Dermot O’Leary. A quote from the interview is printed over his photo. The quote says:
I’ve probably got more in common with a liberal Muslim than a conservative Catholic”
In the interview he actually says:

“I don’t like evangelism and I’ve probably got more in common with a liberal Jew or a liberal Muslim than someone who’d consider themselves a conservative Catholic.

I have long noted the BBC’s blatant anti-Israel bias and though many other observers have often claimed this is actually an anti-Jewish bias I never thought so until I read that article. I am not Jewish but do now believe that those claiming the BBC *has* an anti-Jew bias may well be on to something quite serious. Why on earth have they removed the word Jew from the quote, especially as it was his first mention? Is it an automatic Pavlovian response by sub-editors (or whoever does these things) to remove any Jewish reference if at all possible?”
Why indeed? Also, any thoughts on how many liberal Muslims Dermot is likely to find…..?

Racists Come Out!

It’s a pity being a racist has such a stigma attached. People go to any lengths to avoid being thought of as one. However, something unpleasant is being said by all these wonderfully innocent non-racist individuals who haven’t a racist bone in their bodies.Zionism equals racism, and Israel = Racist.

Despite the contortions they go through in order to get away with accusing other so-called racial groups of racism without looking a little tarred with the same abomination of a brush, that particular conjuring trick can never truly be pulled off. Even if they stand on their heads and don a burqa, they can’t avoid looking a tad hypocritical.

But, hey, what’s wrong with that? Don’t take that as a criticism. These days admitting to a bit of racism is almost the new honesty. Accepting antisemitism is already the new honesty, as in Dinner Party Antisemitism which I’m told is all the rage.

To be honest – as everyone seems to say so very frequently these days -Israel is, after all, the “Jewish” state; everyone hates Israel; why not just be honest and admit they hate Jews too?
Jews = Zionists and Zionists = racists. And, let’s all be honest, so are they!

Everyone knows that ‘To be honest’ is the new ‘Basically.’ Also popular, “If I’m being honest,” which is weaker as it begs the question, “Are you? Or not?”

Honesty is a virtue after all. Come on out, tell your granny, she’s probably one already.
Who cares what the EUMC has to say about antisemitism? Definition or no definition. Definition shmefinishon. Bring it on. Freedom! Throw off the shackles of P.C.! What a relief!
All together now. “We hate Jews. We’re out and we’re proud. Antisemites R us!”

That’s what the BBC + Jeremy Paxman would say if they were being honest.

But not Martin Jacques. He hasn’t quite come out yet. To him racism is still taboo!!!!

“No people like to admit to their own racism; the response is invariably one of denial. This makes the UN conferences on racism – and there have only been two this decade – important and worthwhile events. “

Time to get it off your chest Mr. Jacques, and come on out! You, the UN, and the BBC. The closet is overcrowded already.

And to pre-empt those waiting to pounce with allegations that this has a tenuous or spurious connection with BBC bias, I contend that it has very much to do with it. You reap what you sow. The BBC sows and we all reap.

Go With the Flow

Anyone who is conscious of BBC bias should read Howard Jacobson’smoving piece in the Independent. Then read the vitriolic comments it has attracted.

Over many years the BBC has influenced swathes of people, who quite rightly and naturally, feel a strong sense of injustice at what they have been shown. All the BBC has done is to report what is happening, is it not? They have seen something happening and said “Hey, look at that!”

A friend was travelling back from some far-flung trouble spot. Sitting next to him on the plane was a journalist-in-chief. “We’re covering this newly emerging trouble” he confided. “Why then, are you travelling home?” asked my curious friend. “Well, I’ve set them up and told them what shots I need, why would I stay?” was the reply.

BBC denies antisemitism and bias against Israel. Its case might look credible if it did something to redress the balance. The recent Panorama programme raised the question of Islam’s incompatibility with the west. It was a small start. Memorable images are affecting and bound to influence opinion, and perhaps a number of viewers began asking themselves some questions.
Awareness that this kind of exposure doesn’t help Islam’s public face explains why images of extremism in the film ‘Fitna’ were the focus of such strenuous efforts to suppress and condemn them.

Most of the virulent loathing expressed by Israel-haters demonstrates huge factual ignorance and misunderstanding by the public. The underdog theory falls apart when you know the geography, the stolen land theory falls apart when you know the history, and the deliberate baby-killing theory falls apart when you know the facts.
I believe there smoulders an undeniable suspicion and dislike of Jews in Britain, always ready to reignite at the smallest spark. But I wait for the day when the BBC commissions a programme, informative, educational and entertaining, that sets the record straight. I fear I’ll be waiting a very long time.
MPs need to be very determined and steadfast to get where they are, and no doubt high ranking BBC executives and commissioning editors do too, but they still need other people’s approval to keep them in power. They have deliberately or accidentally ‘set up the shots’ over many many years. Now the current is so strong, who is going to risk swimming against it?


I was intrigued by this item the BBC ran on Today this morning concerning what it alleges is the “raised tensions” between the Jewish and Muslim communities in France. As far as I am aware, the “raised tension” seems to manifest itself in only one direction, as the Molotov cocktails hurled at a synagogue north of Paris by “youths” demonstrates. I know that the French Interior Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, in a wonderful example of dhimmitude, has been suggesting that there has been anti-Jewish AND anti-Muslim violence in France but the thing is that there is no evidence anywhere of any violence by the French Jewish community against Fench Muslims. Thing is, there is plenty of evidence when it comes to Muslim attacks on Jews but a total absence of attacks on those Banlieue “youths” that so enjoy a good riot. It would do the BBC better to report facts, not engage in wishful thinking, and that includes those occasions when the facts do not suit their moral relativist narrative.

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’…



  • 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:


  • 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

    The other source The Union of Concerned Scientists, again, is a green advocacy organization. Check it out.

    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.