Sunday 1 April 2018

The feigned surprise of the media

“ ‘Great’ March of Return”. For a robust defence of Israel’s side of the story, see here. Of course, as pro-Israel critics of the BBC will often say, “You won’t seen anything like this on the BBC” and for once, that is particularly apt. Well, maybe not just for once.

Here’s another piece, this time by a Harry’s Place regular and former IDF soldier Marc Goldberg. By no means an “Israel firster”, this writer is often harshly critical of the Israeli government.
“It really doesn’t matter whether it’s guerrillas breaking into Israelis homes to murder them, suicide bombers on buses, terrorists popping out of tunnels, rockets being fired on Israel indiscriminately or demonstrators on Israel’s borders. Israel is not going to disappear. Israel is not going to allow the nature of the country to be changed by people who are so racist that they refuse to live in peace if Israel also exists.“ 
This project cannot achieve its 'stated' outcome. The ‘right of return’ is not a right, but even if, in some nightmarish world, such a right were to be brought into being, then it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish majority state. That is what this march is about, so why not say so?  Anyone who fails to recognise the deviousness and dishonesty of the organisers of this life-threatening publicity stunt is a stupid fool or a racist fool.

The best piece I’ve read so far about the antisemitism-in-the-Labour-Party. (H/T commenter Jack on Harry’s Place) is handicapped by the grave disadvantage of being in the OMG Daily Mail.  However, it’s by Dan Hodges, and his article really nails this topic; perhaps the Daily Mail is the paper with the least timidity around publishing this type of no-nonsense commentary. Perhaps, rather like Israel, the notion of courting public opinion is a lost cause. That horse has bolted.

Most articles on the rise of antisemitism have a shared ‘missing element’. No matter how bold or outspoken the platform, the invisible elephant they have in common is perceived as too inflammatory to name. It’s the Islam factor. People are loathe to bring it up, lest they are indelibly tarnished with a phobia that isn’t an actual phobia.  Awkward, ain’t it?

The other invisible elephant is the fact that left-wing press, which has just begun joining in the outrage, is unable to admit its own part in the whole sorry affair.  I’ve just seen “little” Owen Jones being interviewed by a combative Shaun Ley. Owen was insisting that antisemitism must be rooted out, arguing more passionately and more animatedly than I've seen him for ages. He must have forgotten his disgraceful diatribe against Israel for the death of  Omar Jihad al-Mishrawi, which turned out to be the fault of one of Hamas’s more tragic shortfall disasters. I don’t know if he ever apologised. Shaun Ley seemed very cross and gave him a good grilling, which also looks decidedly hypocritical. 

During the season where there’s just about nothing at all worth watching on telly, one turns to the News channels. I hadn’t been particularly aware of how many times the BBC News Channel airs Dateline. Well, now I am. It’s been shown at least three times while I’ve been awake and viewing. 

To recap. When the topic of the recent shenanigans in Gaza was offered to the panel, which is supposed to represent European journalism, predictably all four guests opined, as they would - Dateline being what it is - (Unless they have Janet Daley or Alex Deane on) in the accepted anti-Israel fashion. 

A cursory mention of the ‘other point of view’ was contributed by Ley himself, which indicates that he had at least glanced at some of what “Israel says.” (He queried whether the protesters were all unarmed.) However, the panellists obviously weren’t having any truck with what “Israel says”.  

Did he challenge? Did he murmur? Not a squeak.  Okay, he was outnumbered. Brian O’Connell, “reporter on both sides of the border of the Island of Ireland” unleashed his opinion, which was so one-sided one had to wonder how impartial his Irish reporting must be. “Israel doesn’t care” he spluttered vehemently. “It has no regard for public opinion and it thinks it can do what it likes.”

 So, according to this man, “killing unarmed civilians” is what “Israel likes”. I wonder what that Dateline panel  would say about this. (They'd say "Fake" no doubt.)

Catherine Pepinster began in a more circumspect vein before coming up with the requisite condemnation of Israel. Greg Katz said Americans were tired of the whole Middle East thing and were far more bothered about gun control. I dealt with  Eunice Goes in my previous post. Amongst several other stupid remarks, she stated that Israel has turned Gaza into a prison. However it was actually Shaun Ley who specifically invited her to repeat her anti-Israel accusations in her ‘Easter message’ finale. 
Doing so was completely unnecessary. He was well aware what she would say. He may as well have come straight out with: “ Tell us once again why you despise Israel.”

Considering that certain websites and blogs have been dedicated to the topic of the BBC's bias against Israel for years, not to mention my own ten-year record of blogging about the BBC’s antisemitic and anti-Israel bias, what is most surprising to me, is that within the recent avalanche of media coverage of the issue, most journalists and reporters still feign surprised at what they’ve unearthed.  


  1. Here is a link to the HAMAS charter:

    This makes clear they believe in the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (not something the BBC makes clear), that they are working for a global Islamic victory, and that its members are all considered soldiers.

    In news reports the BBC likes to present them as a Palestinian national resistance movement, albeit an extreme one. I don't think I've heard the BBC give the English translation of their name in regular news reports: Islamic Resistance Movement or made clear they are working for a global Islamic victory.

    In this analysis (see link below) they give quite a lot of accurate detail about Hamas, but take the "new policy document" at face value. Sharia law allows for 10 year truces with the enemy. That's all an agreement in relation to Israel would be: a short truce to enable Hamas to grow stronger, amass more missiles and more WMD.

  2. If there is a bias in the BBC and the MSN over the reporting of Brexit it is as nothing compared to the bias against Israel. The Israeli side of the conflict has been effectively no-platformed. It’s hardly surprising that outright lies such as “Gaza has been turned into a prison” or “Israel is an apartheid state” are allowed to remain unchallenged.

    The feigned surprise over anti-Semitism is indeed feeble, but what else can they do when they have been so obviously found out. The only positive aspect of this is that it has brought out into the open the sheer unpleasantness of Corbyn’s hard core supporters.


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