Friday 14 August 2015

Why no one is asking

This piece in the Guardian (H/T Peter) by James Bloodworth asks the  question I addressed in my earlier post ‘Annihilation for the nation’.

“Why is no one asking about Jeremy Corbyn’s worrying connections?”

Bloodworth details the disturbing connections and affiliations Corbyn has fostered and which have been cited many times by almost everyone but the BBC, and he simply asks why the BBC and the BBC’s political fellow travellers are so unconcerned. 
"What is most disturbing of all is that the BBC has always shied away from challenging Corbyn over his antisemitic affiliations. Whether they are ideologically pro or anti the prospect of a  Corbyn led Labour Party, they avoid dwelling on it because they regard it as irrelevant. Why stir up an unnecessary hornet’s nest, when no-one but the capitalist moguls of the Zionist lobby gives a toss?" 

Me. T’other day. Not only did I ask the question, I also provided to answer.
"This is why they steer clear. It’s because these days there’s such a climate of Israel-hate in the world, that exposing its existence in a politician is neither here nor there. In fact the opposite is true. If there was no evidence of Israel-hate, it would be a hindrance to that politician’s electability. In terms of voter appeal, absence of antisemitism makes the heart grow fonder." 

James Bloodworth’s article in the Guardian asked the question, and the below the line comments supplied the answer. Right down to the sneer at Harry’s Place  and the accusation that the writer was using underhand scaremongering tactics to smear ‘our man’.

The Guardian commentariat’s typical, near demented demonisation of Israel, which I mistakenly thought had migrated to the Telegraph, is alive and well. 

Here’s one person’s response: 
"This article is very disturbing. The anti-corbyn coalition is clearly prepared to go to any lengths to try and stop Corbyn. It is now "guilt by association." This was the basis of the McCarthy red scare. Jeremy Corbyn, and all genuine socialists, are opposed to antisemitism in all its forms. This does not mean you do not try and negotiate for peace rather than being an advocate for endless war and slaughter. James Bloodworth degrades himself in making such attacks."

They don’t care about Corbyn’s tainted friendships, which, in any case, they insist are motivated by criticism of the Israeli government, and nothing to do with antisemitism. They applaud Corbyn’s thesis that no one should be excluded from the chance to negotiate, even those who have expressly declared their opposition to any form of negotiation as well as their refusal to compromise, ever, in any shape or form.

BBC employees have consistently and openly expressed hostility to Israel on Twitter. They must be confident that public expression of that particular partiality is acceptable amongst friends and colleagues, despite the BBC’s official impartiality obligations. Condemnation of Israel, doubts about its legitimacy and ignorance about its history run all the way through the BBC. No wonder none of their celebrity presenters is interested in exposing stuff that actually, they couldn’t care less about.  


  1. "Who Do You Think You Are", new series, first last night Thursday BBC1 had a brief interjection of Corbynite ideas at one stage in talking about class. As this programme has become increasingly a storyline rather than research etc. it is gone more and more to the left in its interpretations of history.

  2. The fear of being accused of shilling for Zionists is strong right now. Nobody wants to touch it.

    A better question would be: How many of these new Labour members are likely to be carrying 'Free Palestine' placards at rallies? That answer will tell you why there isn't so much focus on Corbyn's affiliations.

  3. I am rather amazed that the Guardian published this article. Maybe there is hope yet ! The facts are simple. Corbyn supports people who want to exterminate all Jews and so do most Beeboids.

  4. I am still surprised that the BBC are not harping on about Corbyn's age, 66 ! Imagine if he were a Tory !

    1. Same with Hillary. McCain and Romney were far too old, yet.....

  5. One has to wonder what level of editorial by omission the BBC thinks it can sustain on stories that don't suit 'the narrative'?

    They literally blank anything now that doesn't suit. Incredible.

    There is significant, newsworthy unease from credible corners, yet they simply pretend it hasn't happened.

    Major advocacy groups, a Labour MP... nothing.

    If it was a topic they wanted to get behind, they'd have an activist spokesperson from a no-name NGO or obscure councilor on to shout the odds before you can intone 'critics are saying'.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.