Backtrack Goes Without Saying

I don’t know. You go away for a week, and all sorts of things happen behind your back. Sensational things such as Judge Goldstone’s OpEd in the Washington Post. “Sorry, I was a bit wrong!” he said. “Silly me. Wonderful thing, hindsight. We can’t all be perfect, can we?

“That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.”

No, it doesn’t go without saying. It shouldn’t. It needs to be said.

“I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence
explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were
targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about
intentionality and war crimes.”

“Oops! Sorry! Oh well, it’s partly Israel’s fault for not co-operating with us.”

“we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants.”

“(So we just believed uncorroborated figures from Hamas.)”

”The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas”

“Oop! Sorry again. Oh well, you live and learn.”

“The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a
foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original
mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel.”

Skewed against Israel, eh? ‘It takes one to know one’ as the saying goes.

“Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

This judge fellow has remarkably high hopes it seems. He must be a jolly little chap, always looking on the bright side.

“…our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations.”

“Get me! So naïve! Silly old absurd little me.”

The BBC of course, so keen to absorb the Goldstone report and flourish it at the merest whiff of pro Israel odour, was unmoved. “Old Goldie must be having a senior moment,” they assume.

“Operation Cast Lead was launched in response to repeated rocket attacks on Israeli territory by militants in Gaza. Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including hundreds of civilians, as well as 13 Israelis.”

“We’re sticking with that, thanks all the same. That’s the one we know and love, and nothing’s gonna change our world.”

Shocking and Callous

Several B-BBC people have commented on the BBC’s bizarre take on the recent horrific murder of an Israeli couple and three of their children. Honest Reporting singles out the BBC’s version of the story as being particularly shocking and callous.
Why would the BBC illustrate Saturday’s article with an IDF soldier?
“Palestinian ‘kills five Israelis’ in West Bank.”
What are the scare quotes for?
“Kills five Israelis?” what, they didn’t “kill” them? There weren’t five? or they weren’t Israelis?
What a pointless and inappropriate use of inverted commas, which are, don’t forget, “to convey irony.”

The headline promises the report is to be about the “killing,” but the article sets off, not with the “killing” but with something Israeli troops have done. They’ve launched a manhunt! So the report is about the manhunt, and the “killing” is relegated to second place, perhaps to provide context for this story about a manhunt.
Of course the victims weren’t just an Israeli family. No, they were a settler family, deemed illegal and subhuman under international law.

The intruders showed generosity because two other children had been spared. Mr Netanyahu on the other hand is less compassionate. He is full of threats of punishments and vigorous actions.

So “Palestinians have refused all direct contact with Israel until construction is frozen.” What about the months when all construction was frozen when the Palestinians still refused all contact with Israel? Where have all the scare quotes gone when you need them? They must have run out. ‘Until construction is frozen’ could do with a pair.

And while they are repeating the tag about settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation, why doesn’t the BBC remind the readers about why Israel needed to occupy any areas in the first place? It was because of a war. A war which the Arabs started, and the Arabs lost.

Next, the article last updated 13th March.
“Israel Approves new Jewish settler homes in West Bank”
An act of pure defiance and obstructionism? Handy for the BBC, though. Just the thing to justify the murder of an Israeli family including a little baby.

So the concept of ‘hundreds of homes for Jews’ excuses this compassionate intruder and his pal for an act they had no choice but to carry out?

“An Israeli government official said the construction is to be in settlements that Israel expects to retain control of in a possible peace agreement with the Palestinians.”

When it suits them, the BBC uses the all-purpose Palileaks revelations to show that, much to their disapproval, certain agreements over the allocation of territory were under consideration by both parties. That’s the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. However the BBC habitually regards whatever an Israeli government official says with deep suspicion. No, for the purpose of this particular case we are to perceive Jews expanding into ‘stolen Palestinian land’.

“An Israeli government spokesman said the construction move had been planned for some time but the BBC’s Jon Donnison in Ramallah says it’s hard not to see the timing of the announcement as linked to the killings.”
It may be hard for Jon Donnison; but surely not as hard as seeing Jewish settlements as justification for slitting the throat of a three month old baby.

Most people think that celebrating violence and terrorism by handing out sweets is newsworthy. Most people, but apparently not Jon Donnison.

The Other

Several other bloggers are alarmed at the recent tidal wave of films and documentaries we’re being bombarded with, which subtly or overtly misrepresent Israel. Many have been brought to us by the BBC, but the most seductively beguiling of them all is on Channel Four. On last night’s Newsnight, in a wider discussion on the role of the media, I heard Mark Thompson say that BBC is obliged to “confront people with the other.

In the light of that, I feel justified in explaining why I find The Promise so disturbing, and why I feel that under the principle of confronting people with “the other”, it’s high time the BBC made and aired a programme that shows Israel in a truer, fairer light.

After Louis Theroux, Michael Morpurgo, and some upcoming radio plays which have clear anti Israel agendas, I suspect that as far as Israel is concerned, the BBC may not even be aware that there is an “other”.
A state of emergency should be declared.

Peter Kosminsky has spent several years, some say eight, some ten, devising and incubating this drama. He uses his considerable cinematographic skills to produce a slick advertising-savvy film with an agenda that subliminally and openly reconfirms what many think they already know about the Israel Palestine conflict. Namely: ‘Rich European Jews are transplanted into Muslim Lands by the British in a blundering attempt to atone for the holocaust, with the unintended consequence of penalising the innocent indigenous Arab population.’

The filmmaker has so far used two cheap tricks to mimic balance. One. Gratuitously and voyeuristically-inserted ‘real’ footage of emaciated concentration camp corpses. Two. A cafe suicide bombing in which two of the characters we’re following are injured. These two devices represent Israel’s case for the defence, while everything else represents the case for the prosecution.

Rich, heartless Jews versus poor, noble Palestinians; the giant key symbolising the right of return; left wing, European-born Israelis; checkpoints, the wall, stolen land, brutal Israeli soldiers, heroic, wronged Palestinian schoolgirls, Jewish terroism, stony-faced settlers.

Peter Kosminsky has even turned reality completely on its head! The stone-throwing children were not Palestinian, but Israeli! The Israeli hostess calls Palestinians ‘animals’ when Kosminsky really ought to have known that it’s Jews that are the desendants of pigs and apes. Ruthless Zionists tarred and feathered the female spy as a bluff to make our hero trust her. And though terrorism is the current method of resistance of the Muslims, it was brought to you first by Jews; and guess who were ‘put into prison camps’ by the Jews.

All this, and still one episode to go. But these things have all been done before, though perhaps less slickly and perhaps less seductively.

The website indicates that Kosminsky hopes to introduce a wider audience to the Palestinian cause. They are to learn the “truth” Kosminsly-style, through drama.
Comments, tweets, and even a liveblog, which Kosminsky himself has graced with his interactive presence, are all provided on the website. The gullible media addicts have tweeted and texted their appreciation in droves. They were captivated, amazed, thrilled, and ever so grateful that the hitherto mystifying Israel / Palestine conflict has been set out in technicolour for easypeasy digestion, painlessly and enchantingly.
What is alarming is that this advertising propaganda masquerades as enlightenment.
Kosminsky, far from trying to warn people that his partisan film isn’t a substitute for a fully comprehensive education, graciously accepts the plaudits. Lindsey (No I am not an anti-Semite) Hilsum provides a handy Potted Political History. Comments pointing to the omissions and obfuscations therein are dismissed by a Channel Four spokesman – because Lindsey Hilsum is an expert, so there.
I know it’s not part of my remit to comment on Channel Four business, so, if only because of the BBC’s obligation to confront people with “the other”, I rest my case.

Happy Birthday!

Over at CiFWatch they’ve been comparing two reports about Hamas’s 23rd Birthday celebrations and wondering why there was nothing in the Guardian to mark the happy event.

Al-Jazeera, not particularly known for its pro-Israel bias, generously shares the information that “the tight Israeli siege has made Hamas increasingly unpopular.” Yes, unpopular.

The BBC, on the other hand, hasn’t noticed this at all.

CiFWatch has:

“But the BBC? Hamas is unpopular? Perish the thought. Dear old Auntie instead stresses the “tens of thousands”, the “throngs” of supporters who – of their own free will of course – “filled the streets of Gaza” to watch the festive green balloons and listen to the tinny martial music and hear how, “Hamas leader Ismail Haniya says the Islamist movement is committed to Palestinian national reconciliation in order to fight the Israeli occupation”. How noble! But, any thoughts instead of making peace with Israel for the good of all? Thought not.”

Back at the BBC website, Jon Donnison describes the scene.

“But on the whole, the atmosphere was festive – a day out or a big picnic, participants said. Many were bussed in by Hamas organisers from across the Gaza Strip. Occasionally, I saw an Israeli flag being burned.

He probably supplied the matches.

Don’t Mention the War

“Six months ago nine Turkish activists were killed attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The wave of international condemnation which followed led Israel to announce an easing of the blockade, but this week 22 Aid agencies issued a report saying it had made little difference on the ground. “

That’s from the programme information from the Sunday Programme’s website. It immediately reveals where the writer’s sympathy lies. Why? Because despite all the evidence that has emerged since the Mavi Marmara incident, they still present the nine who died as righteous and wronged, and gratuitously mention ‘international condemnation of Israel’ to endorse their own condemnation, and to remind us of Israel’s universal unpopularity.
Hanan Elmasu from Christian Aid said matters haven’t improved for Palestinians in the five months since the blockade was eased. She said the blockade is not necessary as you can ‘lift the blockade and meet Israel’s security needs’. Somehow or other. She was concerned that Palestinian children see their parents standing in line for food vouchers, adding erroneously, by accident or design, that ‘Gaza remains under occupation’.
Mark Regev was given the opportunity to respond, on a bad line because of the fires raging in Northern Israel. He began by thanking us for sending two helicopters. Understandably he sounded tired and distracted. He explained that Hamas is Israel’s enemy, not the Palestinian people. They are the victims of that extreme regime.
It must be tiresome to have to repeat time after time, to people who aren’t listening, that Israel is under constant threat. The BBC’s starting point is the problem. It hinges on their sentimental attachment to Palestinians, whom they naively picture as gentle folk with donkeys and olive-groves; somehow they are completely unwilling to recognise the Palestinian leaders’ visceral hatred for Jews and their unshakeable determination to eliminate Israel.
That, combined with the deliberate suppression of abundant substantive evidence of Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s genocidal intentions.

The BBC is content to approach the situation in Gaza as though a state of war did not exist. They continually push the idea that the blockade is wrong. Although we encourage the use of sanctions against our own enemies before resorting to the use of force, they have decided that Israel must use neither force nor sanctions.

The Sunday programme ended with two items on its favourite religion. A celebration of the East London Mosque. ‘A cultural centre and an integral part of community life’. We are told that the Mosque educates the community and brings it together. Hosting radical Anwar al-Awlaki who supported the Fort Hood shooting was an ‘administrative oversight,’ a spokesperson assures us. There has been some criticism of the strain of conservative Islam perpetuated by this mosque, but Islam is an ideological matter. They decide whether you should have photos in your home, and whether Muslim children should be protected from ‘UnIslamic’ matters such as music, art and school trips. How sweet.

Immediately after this generous portrayal of the East London Mosque, we hear that a hard-line muslim cleric in Pakistan, during Friday prayers, has offered a reward to anyone who will kill a Christian woman who is already facing death for blasphemy.

These three items are, apparently, unconnected.

I caught Yvette Cooper telling Andrew Marr that she had been to the Middle East, as shadow foreign secretaries are wont to do.
Did you learn anything new?” asked Marr.
What is important,” she replied sweetly, “are the personal stories. The Palestinian families separated from their olive trees by The Wall. and the children deprived of their football pitch.
“I don’t know why they must build these beastly walls, “ she seemed to imply, “it’s so spiteful”
“Oh, yes, and I talked to the parents of a Jewish soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas.” she added, remembering balance. A Jewish soldier, kidnapped? Was she implying that as a combatant, he was asking for it? And was she assuming that the audience had not heard of Gilad Shalit’s four year incarceration by evil terrorists Hamas? Perhaps she herself had not.

Fires are raging in Northern Israel, and Israel’s enemies rejoice.

“, owned and operated by Aljazeera Publishing, published a series of posts about the fire raging through Northern Israel which can only be described as a celebration of the death, carnage, and misery caused by the blaze. “
Should the BBC report this?


Jeremy Bowen sets out to hammer home what the BBC has, for the last sixty years, been persuading us to believe. First he demonstrates that Jewish settlers are deluded fanatics who believe that the
occupiedterritoriesillegalunderinternationallaw have been given to them by God.

Then he spends considerable effort conveying that Palestinians are peace loving victims whose land (Muslim land) has been stolen by religious European and American Jews who habitually spew sewage over it. Olive trees, (lush) are introduced to convey pathos and wrest more sympathy from the listener, who will not be aware that Mahmoud Abbas the so-called moderate partner for peace said recently “I will never allow a single Israeli to live on Palestinian land.”
The BBC sets out to show that the negotiations have been scuppered solely by Israel’s refusal to extend the moratorium on building within Jewish settlements. The BBC deliberately gives the impression that this involves extending Jewish territory and contracting future Palestinian territory, when the truth tells quite a different story.

The anomaly regarding the religious connection to the area, (apparently ridiculous when expressed by Jews, but acceptable and incontrovertible when applied to Muslims) doesn’t seem to have struck the BBC.
Bowen portrays the Palestinians as if they were a genteel team from an English village protest group in a tussle with some fanatical Jewish zealots, armed to the teeth and bristling with aggression, over a bit of stolen property, when the reality is nearly the reverse of that. Their David is really Goliath, and their Goliath is radical Islam.

The BBC doesn’t want us to think of Israel as a liberal westernised democracy whose struggle for survival is seriously threatened by followers of Islam with its attendant duplicity and inherent antisemitism; not to mention being surrounded and outnumbered by the enemy and vilified by the BBC and therefore the rest of the world.

BBC Eases Blockade on Balance

At the beginning of the year Jane Corbin made an appalling Panorama about Jerusalem called “A Walk in the Park” which was full of malicious innuendo.
However this time she must have done something right, because this one about the Mavi Marmara incident has antagonised Ken O’Keefe and at least one other Israel-hating blogger. They are convinced that the ‘pro Israel BBC is at it again’. You’d laugh, if it wasn’t so sad.

It was gratifying that this Panorama took Israeli testimony seriously at last, bearing in mind that as far as the BBC’s concerned we’ve been conditioned to be grateful for small mercies.
Jane Corbin’s whole programme lacked context, so you knew that despite being presented with an exceptionally generous airing of the Israeli perspective, most viewers would still be thinking uneasily about the ‘’humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the ‘illegal blockade’ and ‘the Israeli attack occurring in International Waters’.

Panorama could have been more forthcoming about the IHH, and about Ken O’Keefe’s dubious record. They could have said something about the reason for the blockade, and about Hamas’s genocidal ambitions.
But I realise that one programme can’t tackle everything, and learning that there was a pre-planned strategy of violent resistance from the activists, and that the ‘aid’ was symbolic rather than useful might have set some people thinking.

The programme would have been livelier if they’d taken a little look at the media’s response, notably the BBC’s instant reflexive condemnation of Israel. In view of all the emerging evidence, a hindsight examination of the rush to pass judgement would have made compelling viewing.

There was very little in the programme that wasn’t already in the public domain, should anyone have taken the trouble to find out, despite Jeremy Vine’s hyperbole about revelations.

Honest Reporting has linked to the Panorama message board. I haven’t looked at it since this morning, when many comments said it was outrageously biased in favour of the evil Zionist entity. They know it’s evil because the BBC has told them so.

You’ve Been Framed

Aren’t videos brilliant!
They get all sorts of people into hot water, proving that they’ve told a porky pie.
There’s film of the BNP saying things they wish they hadn’t, and politicians too numerous to mention being incontinent with their agendas. Everyone in the public eye is continually being filmed or caught on camera.
There’ s a big downside too. Take Hezbollywood, or the Pallywood industry, fakers of atrocities by trade, whose purpose is to make Israel look even worse than they made it look previously.
But on the other hand, the videos that showed beatings being carried out with great gusto on the Mavi Marmara might turn out to be quite handy if they’re admissible as evidence.
Awkward too is the video that shows the Arab Israeli Knesset member Hanin Zuabi doing what she swore she didn’t, namely witnessing certain preparations she pretended she hadn’t, and almost willing another martyrdom; someone else’s, not her own.
But the BBC’s favourite spokesperson for righteousness, charitable good works, helping the Palestinians, and making Israel look even worse than he made it look previously has also been caught out being economical with the actuality.

Christopher Gunness always says UNWRA schools and childrens’ camps are non political. But he’s a liar. Hoist by his own self promotion.

Boothing the Ratings

We may not like it, but we have to accept that the BBC regularly employs controversial characters, the flakier the better, to boost the ratings.
The risk they’ll say or do something outrageous live on air adds a certain frisson. Will Self and Tracey Emin are popular for that, and Frankie Boyle. So is George Galloway. A number of viewers surely tune in to Question Time when he’s on the panel hoping for some excitement. Think how disappointed we all are when Gorgeous temporarily impersonates mister sensible, surreptitiously reverting back to bonkers as the final credits roll.

One person who gets to be on the BBC a lot is Lauren Booth. Being Tony Blair’s bête noire is probably one reason, and sharing the Scouse Git as a parent with half sister Cherie is another.
These credentials have procured for her many an opportunity to be mad as a hatter on air. She’s been on Question Time, Women’s Hour and Today, where she is inexplicably referred to as a journalist.

She has done some notable things in her own right. One of them is inciting people to attack Israel, another is training her children to perform Palestinian propaganda in rap form and uploading the embarrassing production onto YouTube, and the most notable of all is the ruthless exploitation of her family in a series of second rate misery memoir revelations in the Daily Mail.

My terrible childhood; My mother doesn’t like me; I had a row with my husband and now he’s in a coma; I dumped my husband on Facebook; My husband is an alcoholic; and the latest: My French dream is over.

She is also known for being photographed with Ismail Haniyeh, shopping in Gaza, and addressing rallies against Jews.

Don’t forget, we pay.

Now for something completely similar. Moving on from attention-seeking bigots we see too much of on the BBC, to an article expressing the kind of sanity we see far too little of, or not at all, on our state broadcaster.

“A Hamas that cares not to fill the bellies of those starving in Gaza is also the same agency spending millions of dollars on televised indoctrination designed to manipulate young, plastic minds. See for yourself: go to Palestinian Media Watch. Children, in the prime ages of 5-7 are critically vulnerable to developing attachment figure-like relationships to God. At precisely these ages, they are bombarded with “Hamas Box Office” productions: aspirational propaganda extolling the virtues of suicide bombing as vengeance. Through his work at Palestinian Media Watch, Itamar Marcus has revealed just how institutionalized terror has become in the territories. Work by Dr. Pehr Granqvist and colleagues at the University of Stockholm in Sweden has shown it is precisely at this time and stage of child development at which belief systems are most influenced, and concrete immutable beliefs can be established. Useful, therefore to introduce young minds to the concepts of self-destruction which are quickly embedded, and absorbed and nurtured. Who is decrying the morality of this manipulation? Who is the war criminal now?”

From a must-read article by Qanta Ahmed MD
Must-read is addressed to everybody including Ms. Booth and the BBC.
H/T Elder of Ziyon; CiFWatch.


Interesting choice of BBC language here.

Munich 1972..Israelideaths ‘masterminded’ in an “audacious” Palestinian attack…which “killed” 2Israelis….9 others “died” in a botched german police rescueattempt.

Not machine gunned and grenaded to death then?

BBC weekend staff even more appalling than the usual crew. It’s almost as if they admired the Palestinian savagery on display in 1972, and every year since.

They Say We’ll Have Some Fun if …….

A B-BBC reader wonders why we’ve missed an important part of the story about Summer Camps in Gaza.

I quipped about Mr. Naughtie’s unproductive chat with Jon Donnison and his cosy tête-à-tête with John Ging on the subject of Hamas torching the UN kids summer camp in Gaza. But I did note later that others had tackled the issue more broadly.

I’m not an investigative journalist. I’m not a journalist at all, but I have got broadband, and I like to find things out. So the aspect that everyone seems to have overlooked, and the thing that was troubling the aforementioned reader is a kind of elephant that should have been in our room.

It’s the indoctrination that goes on in these camps. We all know that Hamas instils hatred in Palestinian children. The BBC knows it. Jane Corbin, who has a soft spot for Hamas, knows it; she even acknowledges it in writing.

Allegedly, this is the primary purpose of Hamas’s summer camps, and must be one of the reasons they want their camps, and their camps only, to be camp of choice for its young recruits to Shaheed. So, to make certain, they eliminate the competition. Good move.

There are many many articles on the internet detailing this brainwashing programme, so the BBC, with its generously remunerated journalists, whose soon to be revealed salaries will undoubtedly reassure us of their worthiness, must be well aware of the situation. Apart from James Naughtie. Oh, and Jon Donnison.

But there’s another thing. It’s a widely held assumption that the UN and the UNWRA schools are genuine summer camps. Hello Mudda, Hello Fadda, Here I am at Camp Granada. Guys are swimming, guys are sailing,…..

But it seems not. It is said that the UNWRA camps are pretty bad too. That would explain John Ging’s contortion-like reluctance to criticise Hamas.

Take me home, Oh Mudda Fadda, Take me home…..


I was reading this BBC report on the news that Israel has stopped a Palestinian terrorist attack, this time at sea, as four Palestinian humanitarians wearing diving suits met a watery death. In the first sentence the BBC tell us that Israel has killed four Palestinians. 8 paragraphs later the BBC informs us that “The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a militant group linked to Fatah, has reported that four of its men were killed and a fifth is missing.” So, Israel kills terrorists might be a more accurate heading. Given Al-Aqsa’s long track record of cruel and vicious terrorism, calling them “militants” seems as preposterous as calling the Islamic thugs on the Marmara “peace activists.” Given that the BBC portray Al Fatah as the more benevolent side of Palestinians, and given that this was THEIR terror group in action, I’m surprised the BBC has so few questions to ask about it. We know Hamas are sanitised by the BBC, and now so are Fatah.

Speak no Evil

More and more websites include references to the BBC and its bias.
People not only recognise it, but take it as read. They’re acclimatised to it.

The BBC carries on regardless, and so do the politicians.

All three parties have morphed together to form an ostrich like coalition of the three wise monkeys apropos the Middle East, and together with the BBC they reinforce one another, reporting and influencing each other in turn in an impervious perpetual continuum. Creating an alternative reality; all the better to lull us with, reassure us with, and govern us with, my dear. h/t red-riding hood.

Andrew Marr, for example, whose programme I rarely watch, presented us with two examples, which Melanie Phillips has written about today.

The first example was the newspaper review with David Remnick of the New Yorker. I switched on towards the end, in time to catch him saying that the fundamental problem in Gaza was the blockade. Melanie thought he said it was the occupation, but I think he said the blockade. Never mind. If he did say the occupation, of course he was mistaken, as the occupation of Gaza has been over for some time. If he said the blockade, he was equally wrong, because of course the fundamental problem is not the blockade. The fundamental problem is obviously the refusal of Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence etc. etc…….or even more fundamental, the inherent Jew hatred in Islam that drives the whole shebang.

The second example was David Miliband’s blind and deaf but unfortunately not dumb assessment – ‘Israel’s series of deadly and self-defeating actions’ – of the flotilla disaster in which several Shahid-bent activists achieved martyrdom – – and the exaggeration of the nature of the crisis in Gaza, and the distortion of the root cause of it.

Because we’ve all seen the videos, and we know that they know – they surely must know – they can only be enacting a charade, just for us.

But now I’ve seen this, and read Douglas Murray’s article last week, everything falls into place.

It reminds me of when I joined this blog. There was a heated discussion with the commenter from the BBC who called himself John Reith. When we tried to explain about global jihad and the BBC’s bias against Israel and its sanitising of Islam, he finally blurted out ‘You’re not helping!” So. They know alright. Just that they’re not telling.


It was inevitable that I’d have to return to this story for the third time, now that things have come to the boil in such an unfortunate manner.

It is always difficult for defenders of Israel to make their case in an atmosphere of such overpowering hostility. When Israel’s actions appear disproportionate, unreasonable or excessive, both to the casual listener or viewer and the downright antisemite, everything reaches a horrible crescendo.
In this case Mark Regev has another monumental task. He faces disrespect, discourtesy and ignorance. Indignant, disbelieving hostile questioning and from BBC News 24, a kind of interrogation with underlying insinuation and cynicism.

On Today, an unusual interview with heroic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali preceded the report about the flotilla. Her comments about Islam were apposite. Yet no-one on the Today programme was honest enough to make the connection.

The media is playing its own not insignificant part in whipping up the situation, and the more we hear about Angry Muslims Rising Up, the more they will do so.

I often complain about the BBC’s ignorance. If anyone is interested in how Israel came into being and the legality of its presence in Jerusalem, I suggest they watch this. It’s long, but persevere, because you’re worth it.