Anyone catch the BBC 10 News coverage of UNESCO’s decision to recognise the imaginary state of “Palestine”? The reporter was gushing in her excitement, although warning that the US decision to reduce funding may lead to illiteracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When you look at this video and then you read this BBC story, you wonder if we are living on the same planet. BBC staff should don Keffiyehs when reading out every story on Israel as the visual cue for what is a patently underlying contempt for Israel and a cloying support for whatever trash the Palestinians put out.
When I open the Biased BBC mailbox each morning, there are always really good emails. And then there are the droolings of the moonbats who send me the likes of this;
Elders of Zion
Message*: I realise that British people who are not traitors long ago gave up bothering to read the inane rubbish on your pathetic “Voice of Tel Aviv” website,but is it not time we asked what would have happened if a group of westernised Arabs had “returned” to the ME after a few thousand years and kicked a settled community of Jewish people of their land with the assistance of the sort of Wall Street vermin who have wrecked the global economy twice (1929 and 2008)?
Would the loyal and diminishing band of ignoramic Zionist imbeciles who post on your “Loyalist” (loyal to whom?) grovel to the power of global organised crime be gibbering about their “right to exist”?
I assume that this series of lunatic mails have been prompted by the fact that this site rightly and persistently flags up BBC imbalance of the coverage of Middle East affairs. So, i just wanted to say to the individual concerned that we shall continue to hold the BBC responsible for how it treats stories from the Middle East and we thank you for your interest.
I was reading Al Beeb’s latest bit of propagandising on behalf of the Great Leader and note that it says he is going to the “occupied territories”. I assume this was a typo and what the BBC meant to say was the “disputed territories” since the term they employ would otherwise be seen as little more than pathetic pro-Palestinian bias. And when we’re at it, maybe when dear Gordon is seeking to dispense even more money to the Palestinians, perhaps the BBC could ask why such savages who cheer-lead the release of child-killer Samir Kuntar deserve so much as one penny of our cash?
David Vance posted about how the BBC declined to describe the Palestinian who killed Israeli civilians with a bulldozer as a terrorist. Here are three more posts about BBC coverage of that act of terrorism that speak for themselves:
See also: Active Israelis, Passive Palestinians.
I was sorry to read about the apparent suicide of an Israeli soldier at a ceremony to mark the departure of French President Nicolas Sarkozy from Israel at Ben-Gurion airport. I note the BBC states that “Mr Sarkozy’s visit was intended to improve relations between France and Israel.” Not quite sure how the BBC draws this conclusion given that he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned over to pro-Jihad jew-hating savages that constitute the world’s most oppressed people . He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the West Bank. I suppose the BBC views the serial handover of Israeli sovereignty as a good idea and hence finishes the report with holocaust denier Abbas praising France. Vive la Vichy.
I was reviewing the BBC’s coverage of Richard Falk, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on human rights in “the Palestinian territories”. Now I guess Richard is the kinda guy that the BBC just loves. He has already proven his credentials by comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and thus seems uniquely qualified to occupy this key role as UN human rights rapporteur. No hint of bias there at all, right? The thing is that Richard has also stated that he would like to investigate whether “some sort of controlled explosion from within” destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11. Now I know he said this on Fox News in the States but I would have thought that the very fact that such a senior UN figure was a 9/11 Truther might have warranted some coverage by the BBC – but apparently not. The State Broadcaster remains mute on the bizarre ramblings of scum like Falk because he is an advocate of pro-Palestinian anti-Americanism – two sacred cows for the BBC.
You will recall that BBC reporter Alan Johnston was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists in the Hamas stronghold of Gaza. He was held captive for four months and then released as an act of “goodwill” by the deranged Palestinian killers – a group that the British government had been in “dialogue” with leading up to his release.
The question NOW being asked if the release from prison this week of Abu Qatada – a radical Islamic cleric once described as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe – part of a deal that Britain made with Gaza-based terrorists for the freedom BBC reporter Alan Johnston?
Speaking from jail last summer, Abu Qatada himself offered to help mediate the prisoner exchange. Hamas sources and Israeli diplomatic sources familiar with the Johnston release talks confirmed to WND last summer there were third-party discussions between Gaza’s Hamas rulers, a mediator and the British government for the release of Johnston. A second track of negotiations were opened between Hamas and the Army of Islam kidnappers, the sources said. Also, the BBC was in direct contact with Hamas, said the sources.
Palestinian sources involved in the Johnston negotiations said Hamas passed to the British government the Army of Islam’s demand for the freedom of Abu Qatada. They also warned if Hamas stormed the Gaza compound in which Johnston was known to have been held, the BBC reporter likely would have been killed during any rescue attempt.
Abu Oubaida, a spokesman for Hamas, would not confirm any deal was reached. The British embassy in Tel Aviv did not return calls for comment on the issue. Officials from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ office said they believe a deal was made for the release of Johnston. They also accused Hamas of paying off the Army of Islam.
So, is it possible that the British government and the BBC have colluded to engineer the release of a BBC journalist by doing a shoddy deal that gets an alleged Islamic terrorist mastermind a “get out of jail free” card? I think we should be told, don’t you? Can we trust the BBC to tell us?
. I see that the BBC have been revelling in showing what they allege to be the actions of four Jewish settlers (That’s if you think people on their own land can be settlers!) beating up Palestinians in Judea and Samaria aka “West Bank.” A group of extreme left-wing Israelis – B’Tselem – provided 100 video cameras to Palestinians to help them capture the innate wickedness of the Israelis. Funnily enough the world’s most oppressed people were able to get evidence of Israeli violence very quickly, to the BBC’s evident approval. In fact the BBC were singled out to be given this “exclusive” footage. I wonder why? I also wonder why the BBC cameras NEVER manage to capture the barbarity of the savages that live in Judea and Samaria? Odd, isn’t it?
This glowing report of life in Ramallah in the “occupied” West Bank by BBC reporter Aleem Maqbool is well worth a read for anyone who thinks the BBC is no biased. Is Aleem a BBC employee or does he by chance work for for Fatah? I’m sure the next of kin of all those Israelis murdered by the Palestinian Jihad spawn that infest modern downtown Ramallah will greatly appreciate Aleem’s chilled out report. Maybe they’ll join him for a cool ice-cream at Rukab’s?
. 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.