Human Wrongs

Defending Israel is not the same as preaching *Israel right or wrong.*
We have a tough time making our case especially when Israel does things we find hard to defend. But facing what Israel faces, we accept that it generally behaves with considerable restraint. As yet, we in the UK are not up against what Israel is up against, and who knows what we would do if we were.

What we “apologists” can do is point out the unfair way Israel is portrayed by the BBC. The recent hoohah about the ‘ white flag killings’ that are the subject of a report by Human Rights Watch is typical of one-sided reporting by the BBC. One-sided reporting of a one-sided report.

Even though near the end of the BBC article they allow: “an Israeli spokesman said the report lacked credibility because it was based on evidence from an area under Hamas control,” the general impression one gets is that the BBC does give the Human Rights Watch report considerable credibility.

Is this fair, thorough, or impartial, considering that it seems HRW did capitalise on their reputation for anti-Israel bias when currying favour with Saudi Arabia in a funding bid.
Saudi Arabia!
Not to mention the reputation of a certain Joe Stork a virulent Israel hater.

Even if that was not relevant, the evidence used in the report largely consists of eyewitness accounts extracted from interviews with interested parties and comprises little more than emotive tales of individual tragedies. Shocking, yes, but it can hardly be considered definitive data.

Does Human Rights Watch detail human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas in this emotive way? Do they forensically probe Hamas’s ploy of hiding behind the white flag to exploit the IDF’s tendency to obey the rules? If they did, their report might have some credibility. Even if all eleven ‘white flag’ incidents were cavalier war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers, and it could be proved that none were due to accidents, misunderstandings, exaggerations or embellishments in the reporting, does the perfunctory paragraph that pays lip-servivce to Human Rights Watch’s accusation that Hamas committed war crimes as well, constitute “proportionate” counterbalancing information?

If the BBC examined HRW’s reputation and scrutinised their methodology, it might add a little something to its claims of impartiality. What about a little interest in the paper from the Israel Ministry of foreign Affairs “The Operation in Gaza – Factual and Legal Aspects

Maybe even go the whole hog and give it similar prominence to that given to the Human Rights Watch report?


Sometimes the BBC goes beyond just normal bias into surreal bias. I happened to catch a story on Today this morning in which a BBC reporter stated that since coming to power in Gaza, Hamas has “cracked down on extremists.” Phew – aren’t we lucky that Hamas are so responsible and moderate?My god, when you think of just how savage the Hamas organisation is, ONLY through the prism of BBC bias could anybody declare that they have “cracked down on extremists”. They ARE extremists, barbaric Islamic killers of the worst kind and yet…..


I was pleased to read that one bunch of Islamic killers are busy killing another, as the BBC reports. The odd thing is the way in which the BBC report refers to those fighting against Hamas as being “radical”. I wonder if this is a BBC term of endearment? Hamas are about as “radical” as they come in the world of Islam but it seems that they have met some followers of Al Queda who have turned up in Gaza of all places. Who would have guessed that Hamas now represent the forces of conservatism in Gaza????


From first thing this morning until last thing this evening, the BBC has been running the story of how the international community, led by Obama’s regime, has damned Israel for daring to evict “nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem”. The BBC breathlessly informs us that “Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, a move not recognised by the world community. The removal of the 53 people was also condemned by the United Nations, the Palestinians and the UK government.

So, what does the BBC not tell us? Well, Jerusalem has been the capital for the Jewish people for 3000 years. I suppose that is just a mere technical detail to those fine minds at the UN? Just as important is the fact that the Arab families concerned presented documents that appeared to show Arab ownership of the homes dating back to the Ottoman period. However, the court found that the documents had been forged, and that the documents presented by the Jewish plaintiffs were legitimate. The neighborhood in question is located near the 2,000-year-old gravesite of the Jewish sage Shimon HaTzaddik. The neighborhood was founded in the first half of the 20th century by Jewish families, but fell under Jordanian rule following the 1948 War of Independence and was quickly populated by Jordanian Arabs.

How about Jordan takes back its own? Something the BBC will never discuss…


As Obama shows his pro-Arabist credentials by pushing Israel to give up its own territory, the BBC has an interesting take on these matters. This morning BBC correspondent Katja Alder referred to East Jerusalem as “occupied” territory as is “the rest of the West Bank” – under “International law”. Her point was that unless Israel can accept East Jerusalem as a future capital of a Palestinian State there may not be the sort of progress Obama wants. The meme is always the same – Israel is the barrier to achieving “peace”.

Well, for the benefit of Ms Alder, East Jerusalem is NOT “occupied” territory. Nor, for that matter, is there any such place as “the West Bank”. I think she may be referring to Judea and Samaria. In which case she is right, it is indeed “occupied” by Palestinians. Shouldn’t they leave now?

We all know that when it comes to portraying the Palestinians as poor oppressed unfortunates, the BBC truly excels. As Obama brings US political power to bear on Israel, I trust that Netanyahu shows some steel and does not accept the outrageous demands being thrust upon Israel this week.


BBC start the new week shilling for Gaza. (I guess they are recovering from the loss of MJ) Just after 6.30am on Today there was an item about the terrible plight of those poor innocent Gazans who have had their property destroyed by those bad Israelis – for no good reason, apparently. We were treated to what was essentially a five minute pro Gaza lament – full of those usual anti-Israel clap-trap that has become the BBC default mode on this issue. They interviewed one Gazan who disliked the Israelis but also who blamed Hamas for bringing the violence on butthen balanced this with an interview with another who had become even more supportive of Hamas since the “invasion.” Either way, Israel loses. The BBC specialises in producing this one-sided pro-Pali guff. Their bias is visceral.

A Tale of two Censures

The BBC reports that Ofcom has censured George Galloway over five shows broadcast on Talksport during the Gaza conflict. Ofcom says he crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate to one “calling listeners to action,” but “did not break the rules on offering opposing views.”

Was that the same kind of ‘not breaking the rules’ as in the ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’ kind of ‘not breaking the rules?’

Or in the sense that fading out counter arguments on a radio debate is somehow within the rules of ’offering opposing views’ (Well, Galloway did offer them, it’s just that he happened to make them inaudible.)

Because that is what happened to Oliver Kamm who appeared on one of his programmes, and he didn’t seem to like it very much.

When Jeremy Bowen was censured for breaching impartiality rules Oliver Kamm supported him, rather bizarrely according to many people.

Kamm said he believed that scrupulous impartiality was not necessary from Bowen, citing other notable journalistic precedents.

Though he disagreed with some of Bowen’s views, he concluded:

“Objective reporting means that, while being aware of your partial information, you describe the world as you see it. This is the responsibility that Bowen has, and it’s one that he has discharged.”

Furthermore he doesn’t seem to think Bowen is the sharpest knife in the box.

“I watched the BBC programme this evening, and I have to acknowledge that its presenter, Jeremy Bowen, whose greatest admirers would be hard put to identify in him the sharpest of inquiring minds, didn’t do a bad job.”

But he’s the BBC Middle East Editor! Of course he has more of a responsibility than just describing the world as he, the Palestinians and Hamas, see it.

So Bowen is Biased AND thick, but Galloway is beyond the pale. The fact that the BBC lets him get away with so much speaks volumes; it’s time he was faded out altogether.


Been away all day so quick catch up! Wonder what you make of the BBC’s coverage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to Obama re “The Two State” solution? I don’t think much of Jeremy Al Bowen’s commentary here, written from the usual pro-Palestinian perspective. Seems to me that the very idea that Palestinians might have to recognise the right of Israel to exist and stop trying to kill them is a step too far for Bowen and the usual culprits to take on board. Your take?

Passive Killing

Thanks to Pounce for drawing my attention to this example of BBC bias.

Six killed in gun battle! Home-owner killed! Politically motivated arrests!
Police raid! Allegations of torture! Zionist Agents!

All of this and more, but wait – Who has done these evil things?

Israel is not in the headline. Why not? Because this time Israel is not the culprit.

There doesn’t seem to be culprit at all.
In fact no-one in particular seems to have murdered anyone. Just Fighting. Fighting is what has killed six Palestinians.

That explains why the headline is not:
Palestinians murder Palestinians in West Bank Gun Battle.”

BBC headline writers have a habit of taking all responsibility away from Palestinians, who just die from ‘fighting’ whereas Israelis “kill militants” and “strike children,” and if any Israelis should die, it’s from Fighting, Rockets, or Explosions. You know, the ones that just happen.

Caving In. Part 2.

On the subject of caving in to pro-Palestinian pressure, something unusual appeared in the Independent yesterday. A letter from film director Gary Sinyor, recipient of the award for Best British Film from the EIFF 1992 for his film “Leon the Pig Farmer” (Do read it all)

He explains eloquently why Ken Loach was wrong to threaten the Edinburgh International Film Festival, forcing them to hand back the £300 sponsorship money from Israel…… or else.

“To repress the freedom of a film festival, to blackmail it, because it has accepted £300 from a government body to fly over a film-maker is petty and outrageous.[…..] “to acquiesce to this blackmail is more outrageous still. [……..] “To be seen to give in to extremists is simply not an option.”

Amen to that.
Meanwhile, back at the BBC, they’re still promoting Loach’s latest film.

Caving in to this sort of pressure seems to be the order of the day, and sad to say, the BBC’s twin habits of doing that and vilifying Israel epitomise the downward spiral we’re in.