Showing posts with label Alan Dershowitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Dershowitz. Show all posts

Thursday, 26 January 2023

Something's not quite right

There’s nothing currently on the Beeb about the latest Ghislaine Maxwell revelations. The last time we heard about it was on the BBC website this time last year when they reported that “Prince Andrew has settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre.” 

And there’s no trace on the Beeb of one of this blog’s former staples, our ex-Panorama friend, ’roaring’ John Sweeney, either.



I hadn’t been aware that Sweeney has made the Maxwell /Epstein affair into a major project. A number of people have rushed to be seen to condemn the Maxwells - well, they would, wouldn’t they   - but there’s many a slip-twixt cup and Virginia Giuffre.


The Guardian:

Hunting Ghislaine, which reaches its conclusion this Thursday, has been a huge hit, so far notching up 6 million listeners. Its success clearly feels like a redemption. “I’d like to thank Tony Hall,” says Sweeney, “for ruining my life.” He blames the BBC’s former director general for his departure from the corporation after 17 years. “I had a very bad 2019,” Sweeney admits. His investigation of the English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was shelved by the BBC after it was revealed that Lucy Brown, one of Robinson’s followers, had pulled off a sting on Sweeney. “I fell for it. I was fool. I drank too much with a source who was scheming against me.”


Now for Jeremy Kyle.

After a spell of cancellation and subsequent semi-rehabilitation, Jeremy Kyle is back - complete with characteristic obnoxiousness. He attacked lawyer Alan Dershowitz with such venom and rudeness that even the below-the-line commenters on one of its Youtube iterations appeared flabbergasted at the venomous tone of the attack, given that Kyle’s de-cancellation was allegedly based on a promise ‘to be good.’ 


Pity that Dersh was unwise enough to appear on the programme - maybe he wasn’t familiar with Kyle. Oh well. Too late now.

 But guess who was also featured by Kyle!

Our old friend Sweeney!


I have to say that there’s something not quite right about That Photo. It’s Andrew’s position. I feel that if the hand that appears around the young lady’s waist really belongs to his left arm, then his left shoulder would be turned towards the camera much more than it is. Not exactly forensic, I do concede.





I haven’t got a particular axe to grind here - I do admire Dershowitz (because of his other writings) but I don’t have much sympathy for Ghislaine, apart from the fact her punishment seems harsher than absolutely necessary. Perhaps she’s ‘taking the flack for Jeffery’ and I suppose if someone has to do it, it may as well be her.


P.S. 

Forgot to mention :


Monday, 7 February 2022

Accidents will happen

I accidentally listened to Nick Robinson grilling James Cleverly on the Today Programme one morning last week.  

As others have mentioned a few trillion times, surely opposing the government is the role of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition and not the role of the Beeb.

Maybe someone could remind Nick Robinson that the BBC is not yet officially amalgamated with the Labour Party? Or am I missing something?



ll




I was surprised to see this programme at lunchtime the other day, while the TV was accidentally tuned in to the BBC.


I hadn’t come across Jiyar Gol before. He’s a Kurd, I find.   I know it’s a bit of a stretch but this documentary reminded me of Fauda - but real-life!  (I looked at Rachel Shabi’s review of Fauda - in the Guardian, of course. Predictably, Shabi found a way of complaining that (the fictional ) Israeli series (made by Israeli TV) wasn’t anti-Israel enough.) 


I dread to think what the bulk of BBC-educated viewers made of this interesting documentary about the Iranian nuclear programme and Mossad’s efforts to disrupt it. BBC educated viewers will probably see things from a Guardianist point of view, but I found this film surprisingly impartial. Facts. Facts and derring-do. 


On the other hand, it’s possible that viewers more knowledgeable than I will have spotted flaws and biases that went over this viewer’s head. It was well worth watching.


Update:

And lo and behold, Camera has supplied more info. I hadn’t seen the BBC web article accompanying the film when I wrote the above. The flaws and biases may or may not have been more egregious in the written piece, but I’m linking to it. You be the judge.


lll


I meant to say something about this several weeks ago. It’s growing more belated with every day that passes.


Straight after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict, the BBC accidentally aired an interview with eminent lawyer Alan Dershowitz - and, shock horror - without highlighting the fact that he ‘had a dog in the fight’.


We know the BBC believes this was ‘an accident’ because the BBC apologised for doing so. 

The fact that Dershowitz himself drew attention to his own involvement in the Epstein/Maxwell affair - he is one of Virginia Giuffre’s alleged abusers - didn’t seem to materially affect the BBC’s unique display of contrition. The regret was solely that they’d inadvertently given a platform to an undesirable speaker. After the broadcast, the corporation admitted that the US lawyer had not been "a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst" at that time.


“4.3.12 We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.” [emphasis added]


I hope that apology sets a precedent for all forthcoming interviews with agenda-driven and partisan spokespersons and that the BBC is obliged to state the interests and biases therein and provide relevant apologies where appropriate. 


Suggest all interviews with agenda-driven spokespersons be automatically accompanied by a sign-language interpreter signing ‘he (or she) would say that wouldn’t he’ 


Saturday, 15 January 2022

Both sides now

The BBC will illustrate an article with an unflattering photo if they wish to ‘unflatter’ someone in the news. I particularly notice this because we do it ourselves, but when we do it it’s with humorous intent.  

 

Anyway, someone has picked an especially ugly mugshot and used it in two pieces about Alan Dershowitz because they do not like him.  They’re not being funny though. Not in the humorous sense. The BBC has done it with malicious intent. 


Since the BBC has apologised for giving Alan Dershowitz a platform without (what they see as) the requisite disclaimer, should we be holding our breath till further BBC apologies emerge? After all, it’s not the first time the BBC has given ‘interested parties’ a platform without full disclosure of partisanship, affiliation, and agenda. Indeed without any disclosure whatsoever. 


Well, I won’t be holding my breath, obviously. The BBC’s apology comes despite the fact that during the interview Dersh voluntarily self-disclosed his alleged involvement in the Virginia Giuffre mess. I urge you to watch the whole of this video just to get an idea of the other side of the story. I ask for this merely for the sake of editorial standards, and for the sake of balance, you understand.





If this video disappears again, here's the link: https://youtu.be/8QteYBnT-yw



Full disclosure. I believe Alan Dershowitz. I’ve been a Dershowitz admirer ever since I read his book “The Case For Israel’. 


I’m not claiming he’s unbiased and I am well aware that anti-Israel literature exists and is frequently cited by Israel-bashing commentators to ‘prove’ the veracity of their side of the story. 

Since the overt anti-Israel / covert antisemitic narrative is routinely promoted by all BBC Middle East correspondents and is apparent in domestic reporting we must conclude that the BBC’s default position is….. biased.

Thursday, 30 December 2021

It ain't over till the fat lady sings

However cerebral and dispassionate we think we are, I contend that at heart we are all influenced by tribalist instincts. ‘Speak for yourself!' I hear you say -  that is what I am doing.


In the case of good old Alan M. Dershowitz, I take issue with the Times quote  (which I initially mistook for Craig’s own opinion) for reasons that might very well (in the circs quite reasonably) be dismissed as tribal. I contend that the quoted article is susceptible to being unduly weaponised by those of us who are apt to take the reflexively anti-BBC stance that can easily run away with us all.



The Times:

“Despite being personally involved in the case himself and previously being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Professor Dershowitz was merely introduced as a “constitutional lawyer”, and someone who had been brought on to give “more analysis”. Moreover, his BBC interviewer, Ben Boulos, failed to challenge him in any way when he used the platform granted to him by the BBC to try to discredit Virginia Giuffre, the woman accusing both him and Prince Andrew.


Alan Dershowitz

Let me be clear: I never met Virginia Giuffre, who is now 36 years old. There is documented evidence that until she met her lawyers in 2014, Giuffre never accused me.... In one email, a well-known journalist urged her to include my name because of my fame, writing that although there is "no proof " that Dershowitz had sex with you, he is a "good name for your pitch." Giuffre then included me, but as someone who she met and did not have sex with.


Full disclosure. I am tribally predisposed to align with Dersh. His book The case For Israel  (You can now get it online for only £3.99!) influenced and substantiated my own (some might say pathetic) attempts to defend Israel against the BBC’s tribal loyalty to the Palestinian cause. 


Using partisan witnesses without ‘full disclosure” is one of our principal and ongoing accusations re BBC bias, but it is hardly fair to imply that the BBC failed to fully disclose Derchowitz’s partiality as he was “merely introduced as a constitutional lawyer.” 


Well, indeed he was “personally involved in the case himself“ ...... as a constitutional (Jeffrey Epstein’s) lawyer!  


He didn’t pretend otherwise; see Craig’s detailed transcription.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British viewers, is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused, for example, Prince Andrew, accused me, accused many other people, because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse.


I do get it. I get what they are saying here. However, for readers of this blog, don’t let’s fall into the trap of criticising the BBC for any and everything it does and every move it makes. Perhaps, granting ‘the enemy’ a platform is ‘merely’ Tim Davies’s way of redressing the imbalance. (I don’t actually believe that by the way. It’s my flippancy talking)


Ah!  A timely update from the BBC News Press Team in the form of an apology for giving a platform to the guilty-until-proven-innocent Alan Dershowitz -  well, back to square one.


Let us never forget Carl Beech. Could Virginia Giuffre be a fantasist? Could she be a bit on the ‘flakey’ side? Hmm. Carl Beech’s unsubstantiated allegations hung over Leon Brittan’s grave and the Maxwell story isn’t over yet. Plenty of fat ladies still waiting to sing.


Saturday, 4 May 2019

May God Forgive Them

May God Forgive Them and Other Gaffes.

Those who self-identify as fundamentally ‘good’ and ‘right-thinking’ (as opposed to wrong-thinking)  invariably support the Palestinians. It’s a core position of Corbyn’s Labour Party. One of the first ‘actions’  a Corbyn gov’mnt has pledged to take is to formally recognise a Palestinian State. A noble gesture, if useless, futile and stupid.

As it’s so topical, here are some observations about antisemitism. I’m afraid it will be a long read. Too many words, my dear Mozart. Far too long for a blog post. TL;DR, I think is the expression.  I don’t even care though. This is not a test.

Since this blog is supposed to be about the BBC, I might mention the BBC’s longstanding role (as some would say) in enabling the low-level antisemitism that one keeps catching a whiff of.  The antisemitism that has become acceptable according to the dinner-party litmus test that Baroness Warsi complains of wrt Muslims. You can’t keep all the racism to yourself, Baroness, You gotta learn to share.

I don’t really know why ‘pro-Palestinianism’ is one of the default symptoms of (being seen to have) a ‘social conscience’.  Symptoms? Well, it does look like a sort of illness.

What’s so special about the Palestinians I wonder? Oh yes, it’s because everyone knows that the Palestinians are the most ill-treated, long-suffering group of innocents on the planet. Why? Because we keep being told that the Palestinian people have been subjected to the biggest injustice known to mankind. They’ve been driven from their homes, subjected to ethnic cleansing, are incarcerated in the largest open-air prison in the world and their children are being systematically murdered by occupying Jewish Nazis. “Jews, of all the people, should have learned ‘the lesson’ “ people will reflect philosophically, with a faint smirk. 

What is this lesson? 
Oh, not to be so naZsty. Something like that.

Seriously. The BBC has been emoting stuff like this for several decades. As well as presenting facts and figures regurgitated direct from Hamas press releases, in true Jeremy Corbyn fashion, the BBC engages with the peace process by talking to one side only. If represented at all, the BBC shrouds the ‘enemy’ side in distancing “Israel says” caveats, and thus the requisite lip-service to impartiality is duly paid.

Tom Batman’s currently-running report on the “Gaza protests” is jam-packed with examples of this kind of framing. “The security fence, which “Israel says” is necessary to prevent .. what? The very violence that Bateman has just recounted, is what. Yet even as he describes it, he casts doubt on the necessity of the fence.

 “Oh, but, but …the…the plight of the Palestinians.” 

“Yes! I’ve been there and I’ve seen with mine own eyes the way the Palestinians are treated!!”

"?"

“The checkpoints.”

No point trying to reason with such certainty in the post-factual period we inhabit. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but this isn’t even knowledge. It’s - what d’you call it again?  Oh yeah, lies. That’s it. Fake noos, the opposite of knowledge. It’s certainty, Jim, but not as we know it. Black is white, I insist.
(Hark! ! can actually hear people throwing all of the above back-at-me. It’s me that’s got all wrong. I’m the one spouting lies! Fact!!)

It’s no good wondering…..hmm… what if the BBC had been offering us - just a tiny teeny fraction of the pro-Israel ‘hasbara’ it’s accused of peddling?

It hasn’t, so that’s that. 

The BBC - i.e., the staff who decide these things - must be of the opinion that the history of Israel is too complicated for your ordinary viewer to grasp. “So we’ll skip it”. 

BBC consensus has deemed pre1967 Middle East history largely irrelevant.  However, somehow, your average right(wrong)-thinking citizen seems to have got hold of the idea that some time in the distant past the meddlesome British (short pause for appropriate anti-British self-flagellation) arbitrarily transplanted interloping European Jews into the Islamic Middle East, forcibly displacing the indigenous Arabs in the process. Look! They still have their giant keys!

It’s generally agreed by those with a social conscience that the Palestinians are the most ill-treated group on the planet, so agonising over their plight deserves our utmost dedication. (Palestinians have suffered the biggest injustice ever, been driven from their homes, subjected to ethnic cleansing, are incarcerated in the largest open-air prison in the world, their children are being systematically murdered by occupying Jewish Nazis and are under siege.)

That’s obviously what you’re meant to think. But please think again. If the BBC had presented a full and accurate account of the political history of the Middle East all along, would it have made much difference?  I think so, but it’s too late now. Sadly, promulgating misleading narrative (lies) has far-reaching consequences. It allows Hamas-orchestrated aggression to be gifted undeserved justification. The persistent opposition to normalisation of relations with Israel is thereby enabled, encouraged and prolonged. Yes, prolonged. Exacerbated. It cements the situation and sets the war-footing status quo in stone. 

Apart from the inconvenient fact that the hatred Arabs and Muslims feel for Jews began long before Zionism was but a twinkle in Theodor Herzl's or Arthur Balfour’s eye.  Anti-Jew texts and commandments appear in the Koran. Ask any Islamic “Scholar”. They’re quite open about it, but not quite so frank about the truth, which is of course that the cause and perpetuation of the conflict are not Israel’s doing but their own. 

Perhaps the BBC will make a documentary on that basis. This year, next year, sometime, never.

Another potential inspiration for a TV documentary is the self-inflicted aspect of the Palestinians’ current plight. Here’s a taster: The Palestinians' own Goal by Gatestone’s Khaled Abu Toameh
“On April 24, two Palestinian software development companies came to Bir Zeit University, north of the West Bank city of Ramallah, to offer jobs to Palestinian students. The companies were invited to campus as part of the university's Annual Hiring Day -- an event aimed at helping students find jobs with major Palestinian firms. 
The event, however, turned ugly when students protested against the presence of the representatives of the two companies on campus. The protesters expelled the company representatives from the university premises after accusing them of engaging in "normalization" with Israel. In other words, the students attacked, humiliated and expelled Palestinian companies that came to offer them jobs at a time when the Palestinian economy is facing a crisis and thousands of young Palestinians remain unemployed.”

Hatred. What is it like?

At last, a 'Taboo-Breaking" report on the antisemitism problem ….coming from Germany’s Muslims! 
“Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the country’s domestic security agency, recently published a 40-page report titled “Anti-Semitism in Islamism.”
Who knew? Perhaps the BBC will commission a documentary about it; in a parallel universe.
“The authors state that anti-Semitic opinions in Islamism are even more far-reaching. Religious, territorial and political motives combine into an anti-Semitic worldview. All Islamist groups have as a central pillar the concept of Judaism as the enemy.”

Same thing here:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The German Agency for Domestic Security recently published a report on Muslim antisemitism in the country – a development that is unprecedented not only for Germany but for all of Europe. The report makes clear that Muslim antisemitism is a major problem in Germany. At long last, Muslim antisemitism in Germany has been officially detailed for the public.
Go on. Report that, BBC!

You can always get a feel for a publication’s position on Israel-related issues when you scan the comments below the line. (When comments are enabled, that is.) A limited cluster of articles in the NYT addressing the problem of its own antisemitism appeared recently, perhaps to counteract that embarrassing antisemitic cartoon it had to retract or delete or un-publish.

  • “More on the rise of anti-Semitism.  Opinion | Bret Stephens
  • “A Despicable Cartoon in The TimesApril 28, 2019
  • “Our International Edition Will Stop Publishing Syndicated CartoonsApril 29, 2019
  • ‘There Is Still So Much Evil’: Growing Anti-Semitism Stuns American JewsOct. 29, 2018
  • Anti-Semitism Is Back, From the Left, Right and Islamist Extremes. Why?”

However, the NYT has been pretty antisemitic forever. From burying in the innermost pages of the paper front-page-worthy articles on the fate of Polish Jews in 1942 to a current mea culpa, caught with our pants down type of apologetic editorial  titled: A Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism
“The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap. 
The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation. 
Anti-Semitic imagery is particularly dangerous now. The number of assaults against American Jews more than doubled from 2017 to 2018, rising to 39, according to a report released Tuesday by the Anti-Defamation League. On Saturday, a gunman opened fire during Passover services at a synagogue in San Diego County, killing one person and injuring three, allegedly after he posted in an online manifesto that he wanted to murder Jews. For decades, most American Jews felt safe to practice their religion, but now they pass through metal detectors to enter synagogues and schools. 
Jews face even greater hostility and danger in Europe, where the cartoon was created. In Britain, one of several members of Parliament who resigned from the Labour Party in February said that the party had become “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In France and Belgium, Jews have been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. Across Europe, right-wing parties with long histories of anti-Semitic rhetoric are gaining political strength.”

That’s nice. But some of the comments weren’t having any of it. Many protested that the actual cartoon wasn’t really antisemitic at all.

Alan Dershowitz writes about this for the Gatestone Institute:
“What is it, then, about Jews that allowed such a degrading cartoon about one of their leaders? One would think that in light of the history of the Holocaust, which is being commemorated this week, the last group that a mainstream newspaper would demonize by employing a caricature right out of the Nazi playbook, would be the Jews. But no. Only three-quarters of a century after Der Stürmer incentivized the mass murder of Jews by dehumanizing them, we see a revival of such bigoted caricatures. 
The New York Times should be especially sensitive to this issue, because they were on the wrong side of history when it came to reporting the Holocaust. They deliberately buried the story because their Jewish owners wanted to distance themselves from Jewish concerns. They were also on the wrong side of history when it came to the establishment of the nation-state of the Jewish people, following the Holocaust. When it comes to Jews and Israel, the New York Times is still on the wrong side of history.”

And Phyllis Chesler, who always writes movingly.
and here:

“On my watch, almost every single day, year after year, for almost nineteen years now, a single issue of the Gray Lady might feature anywhere from two to eight articles damning Israel. False maps, interviews with biased “experts” in so-called new stories, Op-Ed’s, Editorials by the staff, all appeared in the same issue. 
Every so often, a one-off piece might appear by Israel’s Ambassador, or Matti Friedman or Yossi Klein Halevi or Ruth Wisse. But such pieces did not appear every day or every week year after year as the poisoned propaganda did. 
Look: If the Times is truly repentant, they will have to start by naming and firing the editors responsible for this “appalling cartoon”—and those who are in charge both of them and the process; start hiring new journalists who are ready to brave Hamas’s wrath by telling the truth about Gaza—just for starters; and commit to publishing as many pro-Israel op-ed pieces every week as they have published op-ed pieces against Israel. And after they’ve done so for nineteen years or more, I will begin to trust their coverage of the Middle East.”

Finally - I’ve run out of steam, as I assume you have - the recent gaffe by Labour MP Grahame Morris who did an embarrassing “Jon Donnison” i.e., retweeted an image depicting the IDF’s intolerable cruelty (which actually took place in Guatemala so who cares?) 
"Marvellous, absolutely marvellous the Israeli Army, the best financed, best trained, best equipped army in the world caught on camera beating up Palestinian children for the fun of it. May God forgive them," 
was the accompanying text.

The most chilling aspect of the whole affair was the appalling antisemitic tweets that were attracted by it. The familiar theme was: “Never mind that it wasn’t actually the IDF because we know that sort of thing goes on in Israel all the time.”  We know!! Antisemites are cloth-earedly undeterred by reality in the progressive post-factual era.

Add all this together with numerous examples of Jeremy Corbyn’s historic anti-Jewish and anti-Israel proselytising and the Labour Party’s apathetic response to dealing appropriately with their racist members and followers, not to mention the ever-increasing antisemitism that’s currently happening in the US and the EU, and what have you got? deja vu all over again, again.

Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel. 


The BBC doesn’t think that’s newsworthy (unless it’s buried somewhere in the mire and I've missed it. Easily done,) but BBC World Service does have Yolande Knell’s report about a progressive, modern, Instagram, on-trend version on the theme of Holocaust remembrance. You never know, it might be rather good.

And last but not least, I read a Guardian article about the Bishop of Truro’s (Rt Rev Philip Mounstephen) report into the persecution of Christians. No publication, other than the Guardian implies, as far as I can tell, that the dwindling Christian population has anything to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. 
“The Arab-Israeli conflict has caused the majority of Palestinian Christians to leave their homeland. The population of Palestinian Christians has dropped from 15% to 2%.”
says the Guardian’s Patrick Wintour in Addis Ababa. I can't imagine what he's getting at.



The Metro says political correctness has been blamed for governments turning a blind eye while generations of people are killed, and even the BBC has nothing about Israel in their account of the report. Christian persecution 'at near genocide levels'

No political correctness has forced the BBC to turn a blind eye to the trials and tribulations of the Muslims, though. A prominent story on the BBC News channel today concerns security being ramped up around Mosques during Ramadan. No specific threats are being mentioned; just “Muslims are afraid.” 

Also just now, I watched Razia Iqbal presenting a heartwarming story about a female Palestinian runner who can’t compete internationally because of “the siege". “Don’t give up your dream” was her good advice.

Well, that all depends on what your dream is, I’d say