Talking of the BBC's Middle East editor, this is interesting from BBC Watch.
They cite a Media Masters interview with Jeremy Bowen where Jeremy says:
“I would say that the conflict, it looms with real weight and damage on the shoulders of many Palestinians, because they are weaker and don’t have the resources and many of them live under occupation. That’s the key thing, if you live under occupation, life becomes way, way more difficult.”
“…plenty of Palestinians feel very threatened by settlers, armed settlers, by soldiers, by raids in the middle of the night, by helicopters, you name it. And many Israelis have been hurt by and continue to be worried about attacks by Palestinians, though there haven’t been all that many in recent years.”BBC Watch says:
What Bowen means by “recent years” is not entirely clear but in 2015 there were 2,398 terror attacks in Israel (of which the BBC reported 3.2%). In 2016 there were 1,415 attacks (of which the BBC covered 2.8%), in 2017 there were 1,516 attacks – less then one percent of which were reported by the BBC – and in 2018 the BBC covered at most 30.2% of the 3,006 attacks launched. During the first nine months of 2019 the BBC reported 23.6% of the 1,709 attacks which took place.
Obviously the BBC’s ongoing failure to adequately report the scale of terror attacks against Israelis serves its Middle East editor just as badly as it does the corporation’s audiences.
It's hard to accuse the BBC of being anti-semitic because the Palestians are semites too! It's definitely anti Israel, and it's hard to understand why since its reporters land in Israel, and travel about a Western country with all the facilities available, and then cross into the West Bank for a fleeting visit to report on some atrocity allegedly Israel's fault, and nip back into the safety of Israel.
ReplyDeleteReporters don't stay close to Gaza to experience the random rocket attacks that happen at a rate of several nearly every month, and then criticise Israel's blockade (which allows a lot of supplies into Gaza) without mentioning Egypt's blockade. The reporters also don't go across the border into Eqypt as Sinai is too dangerous... they might be kidnapped and be held to ransom near the Gaza border and the BBC reporters value their freedom... freedom to denigrate Israel while keeping silent on Gaza and West Bank atrocities and terrorist attacks against Israel.
The same applies to Syria... where are the reporters in Syria reporting on the atrocities there? It's not safe, so they safely criticise from the safe sidelines of Israel of all places!
Maaarten Paayshans is up in bandit country most of the time. And Lyce Doucet made many of her reports from the roof of a 5 star hotel in Lebanon. God knows why.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to also look at the nature of the terrorist attacks. Palestinians and others have often targeted children, even nurseries. The terrorists who carry out these actions receive stipends from the Palestine Authority and such stipends have the full backing of the Palestinian people.
ReplyDeleteThis gives a clear indication that there is something genocidal about the campaign, not just political.
Israel is not perfect by any means, and I
wish they would stop the absurd, entirely unncessary, settlement programme, but compared with the monsters all around it, well it is a monument to virtue in the midst of evil and chaos.
Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — for “thousands of years” and been legitimized by international treaties long before Israel captured the territory in 1967.
Delete“The attempt to portray Jewish communities in the West Bank as a new form of ‘colonial’ settlement in the land of a foreign sovereign is as disingenuous as it is politically motivated. At no point in history were Jerusalem and the West Bank subject to Palestinian Arab sovereignty,” Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — for “thousands of years” and been legitimized by international treaties long before Israel captured the territory in 1967.
“The attempt to portray Jewish communities in the West Bank as a new form of ‘colonial’ settlement in the land of a foreign sovereign is as disingenuous as it is politically motivated. At no point in history were Jerusalem and the West Bank subject to Palestinian Arab sovereignty,”
International consensus says that settlements violate the Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and are illegal under international law. The Foreign Ministry’s new booklet disputes these claims, arguing that the Geneva Conventions, written in the aftermath of World War II, were intended to protect civilians from forced displacement.
Delete“Quite apart from the question of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to territory such as the West Bank, over which there was no previous legitimate sovereign, the case of Jews voluntarily establishing (or re-establishing their pre-1948) homes and communities in their ancient homeland, and alongside Palestinian communities, does not compare to the kind of forced population transfers contemplated by Article 49(6),” the booklet reads.
However, the Foreign Ministry argues, Israelis “voluntary” moving to the the West Bank was not forbidden by international law. “Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership.”