…but is unlikely to be shamed since it’s doubtful he has any shame.
About 6 months ago I Googled for an old video attack on Israel by Wingfield-Hayes – which struck me as particularly vicious at the time and still does. I put it in ‘Favourites’ for future reference and went back to it today. But lo and behold, the video snapshot faded after a few seconds and I was informed that This content is not available in your location.
I found that rather odd since I’m in Israel, the video was filmed in Israel and Ramallah and plonked on the BBC website under the ‘Middle East’ category. Well, I guess the kindest interpretation is that there is a copyright issue and, just as I cannot access old Question Time programmes on the BBC site, I can now no longer have Wingfield-Hayes’ fossilized old bias inflicted on me.
A less kind interpretation is that the BBC has recently become aware of the foul nature of Wingfield-Hayes’ video and blocked it for Israeli viewers.
Anyway, all I can share for now with the good people on this site in terms of evidence is the link and the blurb:
Tel Aviv is like a new Miami but does it help talks?
Life in Tel Aviv is good with no attacks for years, despite the height of the Middle East conflict going on less than an hour away in the West Bank. But does this help the peace talks?
Israeli and Palestinian leaders are resuming their face to face talks in a bid to prevent the new negotiations from collapsing just days after their launch.
They will be joined by the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh.
Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports.
14 Sep 2010
The analysis will have to be done from memory:
Wingfield-Hayes strolls along a Tel Aviv beach while the cameraman videos Israelis having fun and relaxing. He (or his editor, if such a person exists) must have been particularly happy with the video of two women lolling on deck chairs asleep or half-asleep since that became the snapshot mentioned above and will be the first thing anyone sees when accessing Wingfield-Hayes’ understanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The scene changes to an interview with a jeweller who is unconcerned about the conflict and for whom life is just fine.
Then we see Wingfield-Hayes strolling in relaxed companionship through the streets of Ramallah with a good-looking young Israeli-Arab (or perhaps he is Palestinian) who earnestly objects to the ‘occupation.’
The message? The Palestinians (or Israeli-Arabs or both) would create a wonderful future between the river and the sea if only those intransigent Israelis would allow them to do so. They represent the vigorous, young future.
The Je.., er, Israelis, on the other hand, represent the past. They are lazy, indolent, pleasure-seeking and interested in adorning themselves with fine jewelry (and profiting from it) rather than resolving the conflict. They should not become complacent because of the lull in (terror) attacks.
One can of course read a much more insidious message into that last bit. I leave it up to the BBC to consider the implications of it and to Wingfield-Hayes and his conscience (if he has one).
On the advice of a friend I have deleted ‘Rupert’ and replaced it with ‘Wingfield-Hayes’ in the text above. Use of the first name alone implies familiarity, perhaps friendship, and Wingfield-Hayes is an enemy of me and mine.