Another day another BBC spin for “Palestinians”. I caught a “Today” story at 7.20am or so about the way in which Palestinian “collaborators” are badly treated by Israeli state. We got to hear several comments from one of these “collaborators” based in Sderot balanced by ONE SENTENCE from a Jewish inhabitant of that much bombed by Hamas city. Don’t you think the use of the word “collaborator” a bit odd by our ever-so-impartial BBC? It reeks of that much-feared judgementalism that Al-Beeb tries to avoid in most other circumstances and one would almost expect it to be the term of choice used by Hamas for those who betray its nasty little secrets. What’s wrong with the word “informers”? Is the BBC now reduced to using the Hamas terminology, just like it did the IRA terminology? Given that Sderot has suffered such a pounding from Palestinian rocket bombardment, it’s quite amazing to find the BBC nonetheless churning out these stories continually portraying Palestinians as the victims of Israeli ingratitude. Shame on them.


I’m sure you will all have noticed the blazing BBC headline “Israel has 15o nuclear weapons”. Or at least so says Hamas’s best pal and America’s worst ever President Dhimmi Carter. Carter is soooo on-message for Al Beeb, you can just see the Beeboids drooling when Carter gibbers that Israeli treatment of Palestinians is “one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth”. Any chance to bash the Jews, eh? When you consider the sympathetic hearing that the Mad Mullahs in Tehran get, the endless apologising for the Palestinian savages in Hamas, and the propagandising for Hezbollah, it’s no surprise that the anti-Semitic ravings of Carter get blown up to nuclear proportions by the BBC .


. It’s Friday and the BBC as ever is running a series of stories aimed at undermining the image of Israel. First up, at 6.55am on the Today programme we had an item on the “Investment conference” for the West Bank and Gaza. (Judea and Samaria) The key theme here was that these were great places to invest (!!!) but that the fact that those pesky Jews have such strict border restrictions in place does make such financial investment so much more difficult. Not a mention WHY Israel needs to have such strict security arrangements and not a mention of the fact that the savages in Hamas (My apologies to those tender souls who may object to me labelling Hamas as such but there you go, it’s accurate) have given Israel no choice in this matter whatsoever. Throughout it’s coverage of this region, the BBC consistently downplays the atrocious behaviour of the Palestinians who wallow in their own depravity. Then, having shilled for Hamas, the BBC runs a news item entitled “Blair jet faced Israeli warplanes”. My god, isn’t it bad enough that Israel denies Hamas the right to slaughter its citizens without confronting Mr Blair at 35,000 feet? Turns out that the story reduces to the fact that the jet carrying the former great leader failed to identify itself as it crossed Israeli air space. A better headline might have been “Israeli jets confront unidentified aircraft” but then why miss a chance to imply how aggrssive the Israelis are?


In an act of political desperation, besieged by corruption charges, Israeli PM Osloid Olmert has been engaging in “peace talks” with Syria. These reduce to Olmert potentially handing over the Golan Heights to the Syrian fascists even though most Israelis oppose this. However, if you read this BBC report on the issue, what you get is a massively pro-Olmert spin – starting with the palpable nonsense that Syria will have to make “painful concessions” such as severing its ties with Iran! We all know this is about as unlikely as the BBC voluntarily severing its ties with the license fee. It’s ONLY when you get to the very last sentence that you read that “Mr Olmert is currently battling corruption allegations, and the BBC’s Katya Adler in Jerusalem says the prime minister’s critics believe the confirmation of peace talks may be an attempt to divert some attention from that. ” No. Olmert’s critics are clear that this is an ill-judged attempt by a desperate politician to buy off the liberal-controlled Israeli media, judiciary and Prosecutors office and I am surprised that Katya Asler seems unaware of this. I wonder why? Doesn’t she know what goes on in Israel?


Don’t know about you but I find that trying to get any balanced news from the BBC on Israel is pretty much impossible. I see that Hamas terrorists have killed an innocent Israeli man by another indiscriminate mortar attack so favoured by these savages, sorry I meant oppressed militants, right? But just reflect on the way the BBC reports this killing..

Palestinian militants frequently fire rockets and mortars at Israel from the Gaza Strip. The attacks often provoke retaliation by the Israeli military.”

Of course Israel will seek to prevent Hamas killers from murdering its citizens, which decent government would not? But that sentence is, in my view, carefully calibrated to subtly suggest a moral equivalence between the two sides, between the terrorist and terrorised. It’s the whole “cycle of violence” drivel that Al-Beeb propagates continually. The fact of this story is that Palestinian terrorists indiscriminately murdered an Israeli civilian. End of. But we would not want to see Palestinians getting a bad press, eh


. There is a great dissection of the BBC’s recent 60th birthday “tribute” “to Israel here over on Honest Reporting. The very fact that the BBC selected Jeremy Al Bowen to present this one hour documentary is surreal given HIS track record. It’s akin to having Hannibal Lecter front up a documentary on Veganism.

A taste of things to come arrives in the first few seconds of the broadcast, which features images of Islam’s Dome of the Rock and a Christian crucifix against a Jerusalem backdrop. Despite the deep religious connection of Judaism to both Jerusalem and the land of Israel, this image is, incredibly, omitted. And herein lies the major flaw of the entire program – the legitimate roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel going back three millenia are either downplayed, delegitmized or ignored altogether.”
You should give it a read to see just how biased this disgraceful documentary was. I doubt that Hamas could have produced anything worse. There is something about any debate about Israel which brings out the very worst of Al Beeb.


Wonder did anybody catch John Humphrys interviewing the spokesman for the Israeli government on the Today programme early this morning? Talk about a visceral dislike! In essence Humphrys interview was sheer shilling for the Hamas hudna, and he seemed determined to try and get the Israeli government spokesman to say that if Hamas stopped firing rockets – for even a few days – then Israel would respond by lifting the current blockade of Gaza. Not a mention of the overnight murder of two Israelis by “militants” from Humphrys. No, Hamas were being given the kid gloves treatment whilst Israel was being roughed up. I thought his interview was shallow, biased, and had an atmosphere about it that was downright unpleasant. As it happens, I think John Humphrys is a very good interviewer but when he is talking to someone representing Israel, his standards appear to fall – as they most certainly did this morning. What IS IT about Israel that so offends the Beeboids?


One of the greatest moral obscenities of these times is the way in which those who despise Israel try to compare it to the Nazi regime. The BBC reports that a UN Security Council Meeting to discuss the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza was halted when the Libyan ambassador likened Gaza to a Nazi death camp. So far, no surprises – and the irony of having a Libyan seated on the UN Security Council goes without comment. But if you wade through this BBC report which plays up for all it is worth the dire state facing Gazans, you will go a long way before the obligatory sentence is stuck in explaining WHY fuel supplies are restricted. In BBC-speak it’s because Israel is seeking to “force” the “Islamic movement” Hamas to stop rocket fire into Israel. In the language of any normal person, it is to stop Islamic terrorists trying to murder innocent Israelis. The UN, the EU and its propagandist mouthpieces like the BBC all try to obsfucate this fundamental truth, and do their best to portray Israel as the aggressor when in fact it is only defending the lives of its own citizens. The folly of Gazans in voting in a terror regime is never raised by the BBC and the savages in Hamas are presented as if they were some sort of model democratic government. Maybe the BBC thinks it is?


. We all know just how oppressed those poor Palestinians that inhabit Gaza are. Why the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool bemoans that “Peace talks fail to hearten Gazans.” Funny how the BBC seems to have missed reporting what DOES hearten Gazans. Can you guess what it is? Yes, that’s right – suicide bombing missions against those pesky Jews. It seems the majority of Gazans both support and relish that – but Aleem has nothing to say about that. Who’s surprised?


The BBC likes to refer to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, as a moderate. He is frequently positioned to us as the “good guy” on the Palestinian side compared to Hamas who are the more “militant” bad guys. What I found interesting from BBC coverage of this region is the complete absence of the news that holocaust-denying Abbas has decided is to award “The Al Kuds Mark of Honor”, the PLO’s highest medal, to two female terrorists who helped kill Israelis.

Ahlam Tamimi is a Hamas affiliate serving a life sentence for driving the suicide bomber who exploded himself in the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, killing at least half a dozen people, including a whole family. Amra Muna, seduced Ophir Rahum over the Internet and then lured him to Ramallah where he was murdered. Both terrorists will be given this great honour by the moderate Abbas.

Any thoughts on why the BBC seems unable to report this? Maybe because it’s just too busy providing space for Jeremy Al-Bowen to urge direct talks with Hamas?


Even Islamic killers are clear that they engage in premeditated acts of terrorism. “This was a martyrdom-seeking [suicide] operation aimed at kidnapping Zionist soldiers,” the Islamic Jihad spokesman said. But to the BBC it was an “attack” by “militants.” I am sick of the witless BBC equivocation on this subject. These Palestinians are JIHADISTS, they even call themselves this. They enjoy taking the life of innocent Israelis. They are, by any standard, engaging in act of terrorism, so why will the BBC not call it like it is?

I also hate the way in which the BBC buries away another little lie in this same report. It innocuously states ” Fighting had subsided since early March, when the Israeli army launched an offensive that killed around 120 Palestinians. ” It conveniently leaves out the fact that a/ This Israeli strike followed the terror attack on Israel that resulted in the death of young teenage Jewish students in Jerusalem and b/ The 120 figure quoted includes a significant number of Hamas terrorists with others dying because they either voluntarily or involuntarily provided sanctuary to Hamas terrorists. What justification have the BBC for calling Islamic killers “militants” when even the Islamic killers boast of their terrorist ambitions?


I was listening to the BBC “Today” programme early this morning cover the news that the worlds “highest moral authority” – the United Nations – has appointed a law professor in the shape of Richard A. Falk – who has compared Israel to the Nazis – as special investigator on Israeli actions for a six-year term. Nothing odd so far – after all comparing Israel to the Nazis is a favoured rhetorical device for the morally bankrupt. But I then noticed that the BBC interviewer referred to the “Occupied Territories” as the location for these imagined genocidal crimes that the UN will investigate and I wondered WHY it is that the BBC gets away with this routine parroting of Palestinian propaganda? The territories concerned are “disputed”, they are not occupied. In fact last time I checked the only people “occupying” Gaza were the Jew-hating barbarians Hamas. The use of language is of fundamental importance in all news reporting and the BBC should not parrot terms which can clearly be seen to favour one side and not another. The neutral term to use in this situation is to define the given territories as “disputed.” Why won’t the BBC use it?


Good to see the BBC’s Midde-East disinformation service exposed and watching the Beeboids forced into issuing apologies for the poor standard of reporting.

You recall all that hysteria the BBC spouted on March 7, following the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva massacre? The BBC showed a bulldozer demolishing a house, while correspondent Nick Miles told viewers: “Hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his family home” Just one problem. That’s right – the house was not demolished. Other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home intact and the family commemorating their son’s actions.

Just over a week later in a news item entitled “Israel jets strike northern Gaza” the BBC reported that Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in an operation targeting Qassam rocket launch sites in Gaza, and claiming that the United Nations secretary-general had described it as an attack on civilians. Following a complaint the BBC squirmed “We accept we should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the ‘excessive use of force’ by Israel. We have amended the report, also removing the reference to Israeli ‘attacks on civilians.”

Just what is it that makes BBC reporters see the imaginary demolition of houses? Just what is it that makes the BBC fail to report condemnation of Palestinian terrorists? The answer appears to be an endemic desire to want to believe the worst about Israel and simultaneously portray the Palestinians as doe-eyed innocents. This is BIAS incarnate and in these two instances, the BBC has been forced into providing the balance and accuracy that was lamentably lacking.


We all know that BBC journalists are the very model of professional impartiality, right? So, have a look at the attached image. Dozens of Palestinian journalists demonstrated on Wednesday morning at Bethlehem’s Church of Nativity in protest of the Israeli arrest of journalist Hassan Abdel Jawad. They called not only for the release of the journalist, but for “political prisoners”. (Terrorists to you and me!) Head of the Palestinian Journalists Union, Naim Toubassi, said that the arrest of Abdel Jawad is the latest proof of the Israeli “policy of repression and harassment, not only against political activists, but also against journalists who transmit the truth and exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression.” Can you guess which State broadcaster was part of the fun? Mmmm..maybe they just provided the taxi service, what do you think? The bias is endemic folks, and only the voluntarily blind can’t see it.


I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem. However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder. Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students. You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed. No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists. I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal. I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.