Deeply Dipping

Sometimes I wish I didn't have a life because having a life makes blogging so bloody difficult (as John Simpson might put it).

I might, for example, want to watch a month's worth of Newsnights to track Emily Maitlis's interruption stats but, alas, I really don't have the time these days.

So what to do? 

Well, I randomly clicked on a Newsnight episode this evening and landed up on Tuesday's edition, starring Emily Maitlis. 

I knew that Newsnight had rebranded itself and had read complimentary things about it from BBC fans on Twitter, but those crossed Ns look startlingly like a 1940s/2010s Eastern European fascist logo to me.

I'm guessing that wasn't Newsnight's intention (unless they wanted to win over some BBC-hating, Jew-hating Corbynistas). 

Anyhow, I rather enjoyed the programme.

The Brexit discussion was varied in terms of voices. I remember MB's comments about ex-BBC political editor John Sergeant's anti-Boris mouth-frothing (truly something to behold!), but I didn't mind the overall mix of panellists. 

All I'd say on the bias front is that Emily let us, the BBC and, most of all, herself down (and let her bias slip) by asking arch-Boris-basher Lord Charlie Falconer a question about Boris couched in loaded anti-Boris language which, inevitably, resulted in His Lordship happily agreeing with her that Big Bad Boris is a wrong' un:

Emily Maitlis: This man from right inside the Establishment can make him seem like an outsider, when he takes on Parliament, he takes on the judiciary, he takes on anything that sounds lofty and abstract, as James said, [Craig - somewhat twisting the point of what James said] and he wins those fights. Or he loses those fights. He loses against Luxembourg and it's still written up as somehow, you know, two fingers up.

Lord Falconer: Em, I fear you're right about that. It doesn't matter whether he's right or whether he's wrong. It doesn't matter if he pushes it too far or breaks the law or breaks the Constitution or smashes up the institution. The only thing that matters is the point that James is making. [Craig - It wasn't actually the point James was making.] It's the people who have no interest in the detail of the Constitution who will see him taking on the Establishment. 

Ah yes, those stupid Leave-voting oiks, eh, Lord F?

And there was also a piece on Bibi Netanyahu, in the light of the latest Israeli election (cue Brenda from Beersheba saying, "You're joking? Not another one!"), by Newsnight's Everywhere correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse - a man whose carbon footprint must make poor Greta absolutely sob her heart out. 

Now Gabriel is an interesting reporter, but here there were three 'talking heads', all introduced with neutral-sounding taglines featuring posts and dates. 

Not one of them was sympathetic towards Bibi - or Donald (who got strongly tagged into the report). 

Obeying my blogging instincts, I googled and quickly found that Tal Schneider is from the centrist Globes newspaper, Anshel Pfeffer is from the left-leaning Haaretz (though I already knew that), and Hady Amr, the critical US envoy, served under Democrat President Obama.

Not a right-winger in sight.

No wonder, then, that they sang from pretty much the same hymn sheet.

Seriously, wouldn't it have been better for Newsnight to provide their audience with a broader range of voices? And is it simply because they don't like Mr Netanyahu (and everything he represents) that they failed to do so?

*******

Minutiae? Or evidence of BBC bias? You decide!

"That in no way sounds like a villain's monologue"

(h/t Monkey Brains)

And who is Richard Vadon?

*******

In you're wonder, Mr. Netanyahu's remarks in full (and in context) run as follows: 

Shimon (Peres) aspired toward peace but he knew that true peace can be achieved only if our hands strongly grasp defensive weaponry. In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong. This process, of normalization by leading countries in the Arab world with the strong State of Israel, is happening before our eyes on a scale that would have been impossible to imagine a few years ago. This process bears hope within it that, in the end, the cycle of peace will be completed. But it is impossible to deny the fact that there are yet many enemies in this region and beyond. We're working to prevent Iran from establishing military presence in Syria. We won't relent in pursuit of this goal as we did not relent in bringing about the cancellation of the bad nuclear deal w/ Iran, a goal seen impossible when I put it on the intl agenda several years ago. In the diplomatic sphere, we'll continue to apply pressure on the dangerous, extremist regime in Iran. Yesterday we saw the fruit of this pressure in remarks by the Iranian President who said many Iranians lost hope in the future and strength of Iran due to the economic sanctions. In the military sphere, the IDF will continue to take strong and determined action against Iran's attempts to station forces and advanced weapons systems in Syria. No agreement between Syria and Iran will deter us; neither will any threat deter us.

Not the only one thinking that

BBC Newsdesk and Planning editor Neil Henderson is getting it in the neck for mentioning the Corbyn/Netanyahu Twitter-storm in a newspaper roundup. Corbyn's supporters think the Daily Mail should be ignored altogether by the BBC.

MAIL: Munich Massacre Widows Rage At Corbyn #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/iCDTt1O3D9

— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) August 12, 2018

BBC? Did you apply to an institution that then aspired to be Pravda? Or was that why you joined up?

— (((Brian Capaloff))) #FBPE (@cocteau8) August 13, 2018

*****

I’m no fan of ‘no-platforming as a strategy, but how in God’s name did the BBC see fit to wheel in loudmouth Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, notorious ‘asaJew’, agitator, and representative of next to no-one, to speak for comrade Corbyn in the absence of any proper Labour Party spokespersons. One assumes they were all, understandably, stumped for words. 

I have to say that the newly elected president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, sounds like a very nice person but she is a hopeless speaker. 

Does Jeremy Corbyn know anything about Islam, or about history?  His academic credentials are zilch and the reflexive way he resorts to making vague sweeping generalisations when confronted smacks of panic. His response to the latest revelation - you could see the cogs starting to grind into action - was to turn on the familiar eye-bulging outrage and then bluster unconvincingly about “peace”. The history of the Middle East with a visceral loathing of Israel is Seumas Milne's area of expertise. 

Israeli PM @Netanyahu's claims about my actions and words are false.

What deserves unequivocal condemnation is the killing of over 160 Palestinian protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces since March, including dozens of children.https://t.co/H5nXqi3pnU

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) August 13, 2018

Today Programme at just after 6:30 am. I won’t transcribe the whole lot, but Martha Kearney introduces the item, bringing in “Our political correspondent Jonathan Blake………” who uses fistfuls of value-judgment-laden phrases from the get-go.

“…………..Which the Mail claims shows Mr Corbyn taking part in the laying of a wreath………”

A claim? The photograph clearly shows Corbyn holding the wretched wreath. He. was. present. holding. a. wreath.

“….but yesterday as you say Benjamin Netanyahu waded in to this row, tweeting that……”

Why use the term ‘waded in?” when the offending incident directly concerned a gross insult to his country, unlike some other foreign interventions we’re always hearing about. 

“………So quite an extraordinary intervention by a foreign leader in what is really a UK political row but Mr Corbyn’s…”

Jonathan Blake’s terminology elevates the status of Netanyahu’s barely controversial remarks to ‘an extraordinary intervention” and immediately diminishes the entire business of politicised antisemitism to “a UK political row”. 

If that’s impartial I’m another Dutchman.

“………Mr McDonnell has ridden to the defence of Jeremy Corbyn saying that he has devoted his life to promoting justice, sometimes that means meeting people who haven’t shared those ideals, and calling Mr Netanyahu’s intervention ‘feeding the media frenzy’ and said that it should be a line in the sand and that  ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to this row and he’s probably not the only one thinking that.

An extraordinary personal observation by a BBC spokesperson.  BBC groupthink. Obnoxious and increasingly obvious. 

Evan Davis, Benjamin Netanyahu and the c-word

Catching up...

[...and, many apologies, I'm miles behind at the moment and Sue is still on holiday. Wonder if she's bumped into the BBC's Jenny Hill down there, doing her thing about those pesky populists?]...

I've not listened yet beyond the introductory minute or so to Thursday night's Newsnight (so this is live but belated blogging!)....

Alongside the taster clips from controversial Newsnight main presenter Evan Davis's interview with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, we got controversial Evan's framing commentary for that interview:

Tonight we hear from Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He may only be the the prime minister of a small country, but on him rest important decisions about war with Iran, and peace in the Middle East, not to mention the lives of Palestinian protestors in Gaza. 

But, in reality, Evan didn't actually confine himself to saying just that. There was an extra word in that Newsnight introduction which I deliberately kept out from the transcript above.

What word? Well, please see for yourself from the full, non-redacted transcript:

Tonight we hear from Israel's controversial Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He may only be the the prime minister of a small country, but on him rest important decisions about war with Iran, and peace in the Middle East, not to mention the lives of Palestinian protestors in Gaza. 

Yes, in the real version (the second version) Evan used the c-word.

Why add it? Was it really necessary? Didn't my 'redacted' version (the fake one without the 'controversial' word) make just as much sense?

By adding the word 'controversial' Newsnight was evidently signalling that the present Israeli PM is someone they feel the need to distance themselves from with a barge pole of no small length.

Maybe they're right to do so, maybe they're wrong to do so, but, still, this was an editorialising stroke by Newsnight. 

Such things matter, even if they're on a programme that reaches only a tiny fraction of the UK population. 

Firm but fair (and rather long)

According to our sidebar there are 145 posts on this blog tagged “Andrew Marr”.  The question is, are we, or have we ever been, unfair to Andrew Marr? (I’m sure Andrew Marr is tormented by such uncertainty)

I began by trying to categorise all 145 under headings like: “positive” “negative” ”value-neutral” -  just as Craig might have done. Then I realised this was too ambitious, too unquantifiable, too time-consuming and a waste of time.

Eventually I deduced that most of this impressive total was authored by Craig. Firm but fair, Craig’s posts brim with stats (can’t argue with stats) and feature several carefully transcribed excerpts from Marr’s most exciting exchanges with ladies and gentlemen from all corners of the political scrotum.

Craig must have a crush on Andy; or maybe it's because Andy tackles lots of potentially bias-laden topics - Brexit, domestic politics, current affairs and other contentious matters. Let’s assume it’s the latter.

Although tagged ‘Andrew Marr,’ many of my Marr-related posts (but a paltry 20-something) contain minimal references to Andy, and are often deeply buried within miscellanies and rambles. However, most of the relevant content fits the “positive’ category. 

I know I’ve made this observation before somewhere - I can’t quite lay my hands on it right now, but the gist of it is that without personal experience one can never truly be sure that reports and articles aren't littered with inaccuracies and omissions, which explains how quickly lies travel round the world before the truth has time to put its clod-hoppers on.

Searching YouTube for something entirely different, I stumbled upon the clip from Question Time in which Owen Jones, looking about twelve, rattled off a litany of wrong information to much applause from his fans in the audience. He got away with it simply because no-one, bar one solitary, but very erudite member of the audience (whom everyone ignored) knew any better.

(I do wonder if little Owen has ever offered an apology, perhaps for asserting that “the siege of Gaza stops basic supplies getting in” or for the melodramatic tale about the child of a “BBC journalist" who was sadly killed buy a misfired Hamas rocket.  How about it, Owen?) 

Owen literally talks out of one side of his mouth.

I suppose that’s why reporters travel all over the world just to say something into a mike, but even being on location is no guarantee of accuracy or impartiality. No siree.

I’ve listened to Andrew Marr on Start The Week, and when chairing discussions about fascinating subjects that I find jolly interesting but know very little about, he’s always on the ball.  Or so it seems to me;  but what do I know?

I certainly didn’t know much about Blood, Guts and swearing Robots, and I found that episode riveting. Andy was all ears (!) asking the right questions and making relevant observations. I didn’t even notice, till just now, that apart from the host, all the contributors were wimmin, so we’re ticking the gender box too. (Written before it was illegal to differentiate by gender)

Anyway, this was a good programme and it had me hooked. That is when Andrew Marr is at his best. So, all good. Well, not quite all. Now for something predictable - Andrew Marr’s lazy, incurious, truly BBC,  pro-Palestinian approach to Jews / Israel. 

I still find it incomprehensible that the BBC has taken this anti-Israel approach so firmly, because it goes against all logic and is contra to all the BBC’s other ideological tendencies. It’s doubly disturbing that someone with Andrew Marr’s obvious ability so blindly goes with the flow.

So as not to waste my abandoned categorising, here’s an example: 

Andrew Marr said: “I don’t believe Jeremy Corbyn has a single antisemitic bone in his body. “

Why? What makes you say that, Andy? Besides continual reiteration of the slogan “I’m against racism in all its forms,” all the evidence points to the contrary. Maybe it’s because Andy knows the old bones well enough to realise that the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is too damned stupid to have such refined opinions.   

It is clear to anyone who is familiar with both sides of the so-called ‘narrative’ that when Andrew Marr tackles this subject he sees things from one particular side. Anyone in the know is aware that Israel’s viewpoint is either misrepresented or in many cases entirely absent from the BBC’s reporting, and, when questioning is framed in a partial, Israel-hostile way, they. Will. Notice. 

I’m afraid I’ve said this before, but Andrew Marr, and his employer must know that another side exists, so why don’t they allow their viewers to (at least) know what it is? Routinely withholding crucial information from the audience is a conscious choice, which amounts to no-platforming by stealth.

Netanyahu’s chat with Andrew Marr is history and I expect you’re bored with it,  but since it has been transcribed for us at considerable effort, please let me explain why it appeared more value-laden to me than it might have to the casual (or the anti-Israel ) viewer.

By the way, you don’t have to read on. I can’t make you. The bulk of my analysis is behind a ‘read more” so that its length and dullness doesn’t inconvenience you.

The BBC finds itself between a rock and a hard place vis-à-vis “Israel Palestine”. Damned if y’do, damned if y’don’t. There is a huge audience out there to placate and just think of the outcry  if the  presenter was openly sympathetic to the Prime Minister of Israel. (And to a certain extent, the opposite applies)

Transcript of Andrew Marr's interview with Benjamin Netanyahu (5 Nov 2017)

ANDREW MARR: In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote a letter announcing his conversion to the idea that the Jewish people should have a national home in Israel. This Balfour Declaration is regarded as one of the founding documents of the modern State of Israel, and to celebrate its centenary, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has come to London, where he's been in talks with Theresa May. To some, he is the arch defender of the Jewish people. To others, he is a bellicose hardliner dedicated to expanding the very settlements seen by the Palestinian Arabs as their obstacle to peace, and he joins me now. Welcome Prime Minister.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The good part was shorter than the bad part. 

ANDREW MARR: Well, let me turn to the bad part, if it's a bad part. The second bit of the Balfour declaration which does say that "Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Can you really say that that has been held to by your Government? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They talk about the civil and religious rights. In fact Israel's Arabs citizens are the only ones, the only Arabs in the Middle East, who enjoy genuine civic and religious right. Religious freedom is protected in Israel as nowhere else, tragically, in the Middle East. And civil rights, of course there's a Supreme Court judge who's an Arab, and ministers, including in my Government, who are Arabs, Druze, and members of the Parliament who are Arabs and so on. I would like to see more involvement of the Arabs in civil life...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] In Israel and in the occupied territories, there are pretty gross human rights breaches. Human Rights Watch. Let me read you this: "Whether it's a child imprisoned by a military court or shot unjustifiably or a house demolished for lack of an elusive permit or a checkpoint where only settlers are allowed to pass, few Palestinians have escaped serious rights abuses during the 50-year occupation". And again, Amnesty International say much the same thing: "Israeli forces unlawfully killed Palestine civilians, including children, in both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and detained thousands of Palestinians who opposed Israel's continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill treatment of detainees remained rife and is committed without impunity". That is not in the spirit of the Balfour declaration. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I completely disagree with the arguments about torture and I completely dispute the whole tendentious statement here because no democracy has been threatened like Israel, with enemies that seek our destruction and have fired thousands of missiles on us. Just imagine thousands and thousands of missiles on London. Actually you don't have to imagine it. You had it. Look at what was done in retribution. We haven't done that. We act, I think, in moral ways. Our army. There's no more moral army in the world. It's maligned. And I think that part of the battle that I'm involved with, is to dispel these lies, and I have no compunction in doing so. Israel stands out as a beacon of democracy, a beacon of self-restraint, in a sea of troubles - in the attacks, the wanton, violent attacks which are meant to destroy us. And that should serve as an example to others around us, because there are others in the region who do not do this. 

ANDREW MARR: Right. If there is one thing that upsets supporters of the Israel, including many Jewish community leaders in this country, is the push of settlements. Now, your own defence minister has said that the rate of settlements in very sensitive areas like East Jerusalem and the West Bank is faster than at any time since 2009. You're pushing ahead. And this is the one thing that makes supporters of Israel despair, including in this Government.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think that the settlements are an issue. I don't think they're the issue. The issue is the 100-year-old persistent refusal of the Palestinian leadership to recognise the Jewish state and any boundary. If that were removed all these issues, including the issue of settlements, would be resolved. I do take issue with one other thing since I can...

ANDREW MARR: Take issue as you like. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, I think the idea that Jews cannot live in Judea is crazy.

ANDREW MARR: But, at the moment, this is Palestinian territory, and you're putting...

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: But it is disputed territory...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] The UN says it is a flagrant violation of international law. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The UN also says that...UNESCO...you know, vaunted organisations...just said that Jewish people have no connection to Jerusalem. Tell that to King Solomon and King David, 3000 years ago. I think the facts are different, but I think the central fact is this: I think settlements are a side issue because the idea...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] Not to the Palestinians, it's not. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, I think it is too, because when we removed all the settlements from Gaza and ostensibly did what they say, Andrew," Go back to the 67 lines, take away the settlements", which we did. Gaza didn't become peaceful. Gaza launched thousands of rockets from Gaza, that we vacated, against Israel...against Tel Aviv, against Jerusalem, against every part of Israel. And when I asked them and I asked, "Why are you doing this?", rhetorically. "Is it to liberate the West Bank?", where the other part of the Palestinian people live. They said, "Yeah, but that too. No, we want to liberate "Palestine" - Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Acre...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] You're in a war with Hamas. They've now done a deal with Fatah. Do you distinguish between Fatah and Hamas in this regard? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Yes, I do because Hamas takes its goal of destroying Israel and translates it into active terror. That is the not case with the Palestinian Authority. One would hope that Hamas would move to that position and not have the Palestinian Authority move to Hamas. So I would say this: Unity for peace is good. Unity for the destruction of Israel is bad. And that's what we're looking at. 

ANDREW MARR: Now what is also clear, however, is that your policy for Gaza is not working, the policy of having a kind of cordon around Gaza, restricting what can come in and go out, a kind of blockade of Gaza, that has actually increased the power of Hamas in Gaza and mobilised the population behind Gaza because of the appalling human rights situation inside Gaza. This policy is simply not working. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Gaza is occupied. By Hamas. Hamas is 30,000 armed thugs. It's a thugocracy, an armed thugocracy, in which they periodically execute Gazans, Palestinians. They don't cut off their heads but they pretty much do the same - masked executioners who put an AK-47 bullet right in the back of the neck of anyone who tries to relieve the people of Gaza from this. Here's what we've done. Here's what I've done. I have...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] You have shot a lot of people there too.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I have opened up the border crossings to enable 1,000 trucks a day of goods, food, medicine, anything you want, unlimited supplies coming into Gaza, as long as they are not weapons. And, in fact, it is Israel right now, if I had to say, it is one country, Israel, more than any others that is actually taking care of the population of Gaza, because we have no quarrel with the population. We do have a quarrel with those who have hijacked them and use the territory of Gaza to launch a war against Israel. One day I hope we will be rid of Hamas, Hamas will disarm, and then we can have a glorious future. 

ANDREW MARR: Well, let's look at the future, because you've described the issue of the Palestinian state very vividly recently. You said, "Actually, what we can't have is an armed, hostile anti-Israeli state sitting on our borders forever. We just can't have that. And, therefore, you've used the word 'an entity', 'a 'Palestinian entity'. Are you suggesting that what the Palestinians might get is, as it were, the status of a kind of self-governing territory inside a greater Israel?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think they should have all the powers to govern themselves and none of the powers to threaten us, which means that it has to be...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] Falling short of a full state, in other words?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, the reality of the Middle East , which is peppered with failed states, and pre-failed states and collapsing states, means that if we withdraw our security control from an area, what happened invariably is that militant Islam comes in, whether Daesh, Isis, or Hamas backed by Iran. Either one is horrible, horrible not only for us but horrible also for the Palestinians or the Lebanese. You just heard Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon,...

ANDREW MARR: Resigning.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Resigning. He said, basically, that's because Hezbollah took over, which means Iran took over, and I think this is a wake-up call for everyone. It says what the Middle East is really experiencing. It's experiencing the attempt of Iran to conquer the Middle East, to dominate it and subjugate it. And I think when Israelis and Arabs - and it is all the Arabs and the Israelis - agree on one thing, people should pay attention. We should stop this Iranian takeover, for your interests...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting]  I want to come to Iran directly in a moment, but just before I do, it sounds...you see, if you talk to almost any British MP, they say "Two-state solution! Two-state solution!", but the way you are talking it sounds as if two-state solution is more or less over and we are moving to a different solution, a one-state solution. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: No, I don't want a one-state solution. I'll be be clear about that.  But also...and I'm unabashed about saying that...but I want to make sure that what we have next to us is something that won't threaten our lives. It really does make a difference what the other state is. Is it Costa Rica or is it North Korea? Is it another mini-Iran or is it Luxembourg? Nobody says that. When you say "Two states", the other state, if it's not demilitarised, if it doesn't recognise the state of Israel ,which the Palestinians still refuse to do, then it merely becomes a platform for continuing the war against the one Jewish state. And, therefore, I think you have to be more specific and say, no, what we want is the recognition, finally, 100 years after the Balfour Declaration, finally recognise the Jewish state. I want to...expletive deleted...It's about time. Recognise the Jewish state, and let's make sure that Palestinians do not have the weapons to destroy it. 

ANDREW MARR: And you've been talking about all of this with Donald Trump, a man who's got a slightly dodgy rep[utation] in this country, but you've just seen him up close and personal. What do you make of him? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Firstly I think he has leadership qualities, and I think he sees in the Middle East something different. There are some people who saw Iran as the solution to the problems of the Middle East...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] Some people like Barack Obama, you mean?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Some people. I had, by the way, a very good relationship with Barack Obama when we did agree on things, so we signed an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, to give Israel a 10-year security package, and I welcome and respect that, but I disagreed with him on Iran because, yes, I think he saw Iran as a solution in many ways, and Donald Trump sees Iran is the problem. But it's not Donald Trump who sees Iran as the problem. We do. The Arab states do. And Hariri, who's just resigned, does as well. And he's right. 

ANDREW MARR: There is a new and unexpected alliance, if I can say that, between Israel and many of the Sunni states in the region, against Iran. Listening to you talk about Iran, it's almost as if you see them as one of those great empires moving in...the Assyrians or whoever...moving from Asia right the way to the Mediterranean. And you have said very clearly, putting aside even the nuclear issue, "We will stop them doing that. We will not let them get to the Mediterranean. We will not let them have an Iranian Shi'ite empire spreading from Tehran right the way to the shores of the Mediterranean. How are you going to stop them doing that? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Iran openly calls for our destruction, something even in your experience. You may have been under threat of conquest. But not destruction But Iran openly says, "We're out to destroy" what they call us "the small Satan" on route to the Big Satan, the Great Satan, the United States, and in the middle is...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] ...a middle-sized state. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Middle-sized state. No offence. You're a middle-sized state. No offence.

ANDREW MARR: No offence taken. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: But this is what Iran wants to do. It is seeking to colonise Syria for that purpose, and that is to Lebanon-ise Syria. What the did in Lebanon, PM Hariri resigned over, is basically take over the country. They probably killed his father, threatened to kill him. So basically the same thing is doing done...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] The collapse of so-called Isis or the Islamic State...

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: And as Isis collapses...as Isis moves out, Iran moves in. But they want to bring their air force there, right next to Israel. They want to bring Shi'ite and Iranian divisions right next to Israel. They want to bring submarines and military vessels, right into the Mediterranean, right next to Israel. So we will not let that happen. We will resist it, and I think...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] And you would go to war to stop that happening? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The more we are prepared to stop it the less likely it is we will have to resort to much greater things. There's a principle I very much adhere to and that is "Nip bad things at the bud". 

ANDREW MARR: But if you can't? We've have rocket attacks on Riyadh in the last few days. We've had what happened in Lebanon. Things are moving all other the place. Things are moving in the Horn of Africa. You can see this is a big , big situation. Are we drifting or moving at this stage towards a major war in the region between Iran and her allies and proxies on the one hand, and Israel and the Sunni states on the other? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: You're definitely in such a conflict, and you're quite right, there is a realignment in the region, but I think it's a larger battle. It's the battle between medievalism and modernity. The forces that stand for modernity - Israel squarely does - have to fight this...have to resist the onslaught of this militant Islamism that uses rockets, terrorism, suicide bombers and so on, and the sparks of that ferment you see on the streets of London. If medievalism wins there, you lose here. So we are really on the front line of this great battle for the future of the world, not merely the future of the Middle East, but the future of the world... 

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] And you think Donald Trump gets it and is at your back? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think he definitely understands that Iran is the primary problem. It probably accounts for 95% of the problems we experience now in the Middle East, and I think he gets it and that it's a good thing that he gets it. 

ANDREW MARR: Can I ask about the condition of Jews in this country, because there are a lot...I've got a lot of Jewish friends and there are a lot of Jewish community reader who are very worried about your Government, and they say that particularly the settlement issue has made it much, much harder to defend Israel in this country. We have always had antisemitism in Britain but it has been quite quiet for a long time, and it is back on the rise. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, no, I wouldn't blame Jews for antisemitism any more than I would blame blacks for racial hatred towards them or about anti-gay hatred, because of what they are...

ANDREW MARR: [interrupting] But the distinction is between Jews and policies. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, you know what happened. Theresa May gave this extraordinary speech...extraordinary...on the Balfour Centennial, and she said, "You cannot go and attack and say that Britain has no right to exist because you oppose some of the British Government's policies. So Britain has a right to exist, Israel has a right to exist. You may disagree with this or that policy but you would never question any other country's right to exist based on this or that disagreement with a policy." Yet this is what is levelled against Israel and against Israel alone. 

ANDREW MARR: One of the big supporters of Palestinian rights in this country is the new leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn who has said in the past, for instance, that we shouldn't allow free access for who he calls "Israel's criminal politicians" to come into this country. He might very well be Britain's Prime Minister before long. What would that do to relationships? And should you not pick up the telephone and talk to him directly? 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, the British people decide who they want to govern them, but I hope there will be a continuity of British policy with Israel because here's something people don't know: That cooperation has saved many lives - many Israeli lives; many, many British lives - because we have an intense cooperation between our security and intelligence agencies, and it is protecting Britain and it is protecting Israel, and it's something I hope will continue in the future. 

ANDREW MARR: Mr Netanyahu, thanks very much indeed for talking to us. 

Ain't no bud, bruv.

Craig’s take on the Marr / Netanyahu interview will be seen by many as worth twice my own by people who have effectively invalidated my take on such things by dint of the Rice-Davis formulation. 

Therefore I bow to Craig in his conclusion that “No sane person could accuse the BBC of pro-Israel bias after this interview”, a conclusion that has been inadvertently reinforced by the Marr Show’s Twitter timeline. (Scroll right down into the abyss.)

It’s heartbreaking to me to see the depth and reach of the utter hatred of Israel expressed here. I know it’s only Twitter, but the ugliness therein is a searing stab to the heart. 

The bulk of those venomous tweets are utterly moronic. Repetitious chanting rooted in the BBC’s (and other media’s) relentlessly one-side-of-the-story reporting, backed up by random references cherry picked from the UN’s and Amnesty International’s outrageous anti-Israel vendetta. (I see even Twitter’s acerbic wit, the BBC’s Rob Burley, defends one of Marr’s more dubious challenges by citing HRW and AI.)

Many haters argue that Netanyahu and other pro-Israeli spokespersons should be no-platformed by the BBC altogether. I wonder if the BDS advocates would be just as enthusiastic about boycotting the anti-terror intelligence that Israel is gracious enough to  share with Britain.

Now onto something entirely similar. (H/T EoZ)

The Daily Mail (again, anything published therein having been universally emasculated by dint of the Rice-Davies formulation) reported:

“Shocking dossier unveiled by Jewish Labour members reveals scale of anti-semitism claims inside the party amid drive to stamp out online abuse from activists”

A training session, which the Daily Mail calls “a ‘doomed’ attempt to nip the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party in the bud” has been held by the Jewish Labour Movement. 

“Slides from the event obtained by the Mail – which were not leaked by the JLM – show party members have had to be told anti-semitism means ‘making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising or stereotypical allegations against Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective’. 

Members were told this includes commenting on the ‘myth of a world Jewish conspiracy’, ‘Jews controlling the media’ or ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’.

(Emphasis added) Yes, sure; they had to be told. But telling isn’t the same as convincing, and it will take a lot more than a jolly good ‘telling’ to undo what the media has been building for years.

Now, back to the Elder of Ziyon piece because unlike the DM, that website has included the  “corresponding visuals”. They are not a pretty sight. 

“Labour’s Jewish wing is holding the events that use a slide show of hate-filled messages posted on the internet by the party’s own activists.”

The depictions of the ‘universal Jew’ in those cartoons appear to be by the same hand - a prolific ‘one-trick-pony‘ of an artist who provides the perfect visual depiction of the very things that the Labour Party antisemites apparently need to have explained to them. (‘making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising or stereotypical allegations against Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective’. Of a world Jewish conspiracy’, ‘Jews controlling the media’ or ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’.)

As the Daily Mail opines, this attempt to nip the problem in the bud looks decidedly doomed. That ain’t no bud, bruv.

Now, back to Marr. I noticed that none of the anti-Netanyahu Tweeters had anything to say about Lebanon. Too dumb to even know, I assume, let alone opine on such a significant issue.

Maybe the whole interview needs transcribing and analysing. Maybe Melanie Phillips will lament at the gulf between Israel’s understanding, nay lack of comprehension of the sheer scale of the UK’s negativity towards Israel  and the reality of that negativity, nay, hostility towards Israel. 

Maybe the BBC needs to give more of a platform to the pro-Israel point of view to counteract years of relentlessly one-sided reporting, and maybe the BBC should be less tolerant of the intolerant for a change. 

As I said, too late to just 'nip'. This problem ain’t no bud, bruv.

Remember, remember, the 5th of November

Andrew Marr is famously a painter. Who knew he was a poet too? Here's how he started his show today:

Remember, remember, the 5th of November,

Backbiting, leaking and plot; 

If this lot gets clear to November next year, it's all down to luck,

Quite a lot.

Eat your heart out Wendy Cope! 

*******

The newspaper front pages were all sleaze, sleaze, sleaze. The first one Andrew held up was the Observer, which is leading today with the shock news that Larry the Cat has been suspended from his Downing Street duties following allegations of sexual harassment after he rubbed his head up against several MPs' legs. 

Following last week's highly controversial edition 'The Problem with Men', Newsnight is said to be considering another special on Monday called 'The Problem with Cats' (N.B. - NOT 'The Problem with Katz' as some scurrilous types are suggesting). Following the same successful format as last week's edition, there'll be a panel consisting of 14 cats and three birds. The cats will be ordinary moggies dragged off the streets and the invited birds are rumoured to be Tweetie Pie from the 'Don't Call Me a Bird' Project, Pretty Polly the Talking Parrot from LBC, and Beth the Token Budgie from the Guardian. 

*******

And now back to reality...

The newspaper review itself (Kate Hoey, Anna Soubry and Sam Coates) was all sleaze, sleaze, sleaze too, with a little bit of Brexit tagged on at the end. Andrew was treading very, very carefully here.

*******

The Dawn Butler interview also concentrated on sleaze. Andrew pursued her doggedly. In response, Ms Butler 'did a Diane', and waffled,  and said 'Andrew' a lot, and to all intents and purposes placed her hands over her ears and began singing 'La-la-la' as loudly as possible.

*******

Introducing the weather, Mr Marr quoted Billy Connolly saying that there's no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing. Matt Taylor in the weather studio advised us to wear a warm jacket, and maybe a waterproof warm jacket, plus warm socks and gloves. The weather map exploded with fireworks. I only wish Matt had brought in some sparklers and waved them throughout (wearing safety goggles of course).

*******

Ha, Benjamin Netanyahu's first words to Andrew Marr today were a crack about BBC bias!: 

Andrew Marr: This Balfour Declaration is regarded as one of the founding documents of the State of Israel, and to celebrate its centenary, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has come to London, where he's been in talks with Theresa May. To some, he is the arch defender of the Jewish people. To others, he is a bellicose hardliner dedicated to expanding the very settlements seen by Palestinian Arabs as the obstacle to peace. And he joins me now. Welcome Prime Minister.

Benjamin Netanyahu: The good part was shorter than the bad part.

It certainly was. And 'the bad part' kept on coming. No sane person could accuse the BBC of pro-Israel bias after this interview. That said, not everyone is sane:

Hm. Didn't this next question teeter perilously on the brink of Tim Willcox territory by seeming to blame Jews in Israel for the rise of antisemitism in the UK (albeit filtered through the safety blanket of his own "Jewish friends" and "a lot of Jewish community leaders")?:

Can I ask about the condition of Jews in this country? Because I have a lot of Jewish friends and there are a lot of Jewish community leaders who are very worried about your Government and they say that particularly the settlement issue has made it much, much harder to defend Israel in this country. We have always had antisemitism in Britain but it has been quite quiet for a long time, and it is back on the rise. 

And as for Andrew's question about Jeremy Corbyn, "Should you not pick up the telephone and talk to him directly?", I refer the honourable gentleman to this tweet:

Is #Marr for real?
Asking Netanyahu why he doesn't speak to Corbyn?
Who boycotted the Balfour Centenary dinner to address MEND Islamists?

*******

The Olivia Colman-Michelle Pfeiffer interview had a nice phrase from Andrew Marr about Kenneth Branagh's Poirot moustache, calling it "a vast grey marmoset". I think it looks more like a tamarin, specifically the emperor tamarin (named in honour of Franz Joseph I of Austria).

*******

Then it was back to sleaze again. Andrew began his interview with Amber Rudd by saying:

Can I make a parallel? I've been around for a long time. This feels a little bit like John Major's Government after the back to basics speech when day after day after day there was yet another story and another and another. And it was drip, drip, drip. And it shredded and exhausted that Government, and the same thing is happening to you. Can I put it to you this is not tittle-tattle, This is politically serious?

I think he has a point. It reminds me of that time too. And the BBC could barely focus on anything but sleaze and party splits at that time. And here we seem to be here again. Happy days!

Andrew pursed Ms Rudd doggedly too, but she's a more accomplished interviewee than Dawn Butler, a much better class of waffler.

Oh, and here's a bit more Rob Burley, for fans of the Marr editor's famous Twitter exchanges:

*******

And that's all I've got to say about that (you'll doubtless be glad to hear).

Press conference

I have to quickly say something about the Trump / Netanyahu press conference.

I happened to watch it on Sky. As soon as it was over, Kay Burley immediately said something about ‘settlements’, which demonstrates the media’s reflexive reaction to anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians, (and no wonder, the way the propaganda machine has been working at it.)

I didn’t even bother to switch to the BBC to see if their response was similar. 

The first to review it (when I Googled straight away) was the Washington Post. They picked one particular stand-out moment, which I must say worried me too. You have to wonder if Trump is ‘all there’ when he behaves so oddly.

However, let’s set aside our worries about President Trump’s idiosyncratic personality for a minute, and concentrate on other interpretations of what was said. Or what wasn’t said. 

The New York Times says Trump “Backs away from Palestinian State” in its headline, but the first clip on its website shows the bit about settlements. “I’d like to see you hold back on settlements for a bit”

When Trump said “I’m looking at two-state and one-state formulations” and ‘I want what they want’ one wonders if the vagueness was there to cover up the fact that he didn’t really know what he was talking about, or because he knew but preferred not to say, or a bit of both.

‘Time’ goes for the Washington Post angle. “Talking about his Electoral College win at inappropriate moments”, but NBC  is headlining “Settlements”. Of course the other bizarre moment was his mini rant about Flynn being badly treated by “Fake Media”, of which there is a clip on their website.

The Independent is more interested in the fact that Trump only took questions from ‘right-wing’ news outlets. 

As for the BBC,  Nothing particularly surprising or enlightening there.

No-one seemed interested in the Israeli PM’s remarks about the Palestinian education system or the e Palestinians' refusal to recognise Israel as the Jewish state, not to mention their aspiration to eradicate it altogether.

For more  thoughtful debate, look at Harry’s Place, catch the btl comments while you can.

Headline matters

The most outrageous example of a bad BBC headline so far.:

Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two.

al-Jazeera’s headline was bad too, but in a way, slightly less bad, and like the BBC, they did amend it after complaints. 

Palestinian shot dead after fatal stabbing in Jerusalem. 2 Israeli victims also killed.

Although al-Jazeera, (like the BBC) prioritised the shooting of the Palestinian, at least they didn’t blame ‘Jerusalem’ for  attacking and killing ‘two’, and they did mention that there were ‘victims’, and that they were ‘Israeli’. (Someone said the headline was misleading as it might look as though these were two separate incidents)

“Following the outcry, the network apologized and revised the headline to read, “Two Israelis killed in stabbing attack; Palestinian suspect shot dead.”An al-Jazeera editor on Sunday wrote that the network “regretted” the wording of its headline and tweet of the attack, saying it appeared “to minimize the killings of the Israeli victims and leaves out the context that the Palestinian man was their attacker.”

The editor said al-Jazeera was alerted to the post after “many people in our audience pointed out” its problematic nature. It said the post was written “under the pressure of breaking news.”

I shouldn’t need to remind you that al-Jazeera is not under the same obligations as the BBC, and being a Qatari station, is pro-Palestinian. 

The BBC, on the other hand is British, and is supposed to be impartial. That is to say, even if the BBC sympathises with the Palestinians it is supposed to report events unspun.

The BBC’s headline did undergo a number of changes, from the aforementioned 

Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two

to: 

Jerusalem attack: Israelis killed in Old City ‘by Palestinian’ 

after which they updated it by removing the quotation marks (why were they there in the first place?)

and eventually settled for: 

Jerusalem: Palestinian kills two Israelis in Old City 

which does, at last, do what it says on the tin.

I won’t go into the content of the report now because Hadar does that at BBC Watch.

“The network, which has a long history of alleged anti-Israel bias, claimed in its defense that the headline in question was written by a junior editor and was not the result of an anti-Israel agenda.
The BBC issued an official response Sunday saying the network “identified that the headline didn’t accurately reflect the events, nor the details reported in our online story, so changed it of our own accord.”

 It is obvious to me that people at the BBC - editors, reporters, juniors, seniors Uncle Tom Cobley and all  - identify with the Palestinians to such an extent that the particular thing they find most concerning about this incident is that a Palestinian has been shot. Especially if the Palestinian has been shot by an Israeli. The fact that, in this instance, said Palestinian had been on a killing spree and his victims were Israelis was secondary, because both the BBC hierarchy and the rank and file are of the same mind. They see present-day Israelis as European and American interlopers and colonizers of what is officially ‘Palestinian / Arab / Muslim land’. They assume their audience sees it that way too, and sadly, a good many of the the audience does so simply because that is what the BBC has led them to believe.

If the BBC was truly impartial and willing to give their reporting the unique balance of which they constantly boast, they would have informed viewers that Mahmoud Abbas openly incited the latest escalation of Palestinian terrorism, both  before and during  his UN speech. 

"We bless you, we bless the Murabitin (i.e., those carrying out Ribat, religious conflict/war to protect land claimed to be Islamic), we bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every Martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is ours, and they have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."
[Official PA TV Sept. 16, 2015] 

He is so confident of the media’s compliance that he doesn’t even bother to make much of a secret of it.    

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an important speech at the UN, which the BBC could have reported or broadcast live, but no. They reported it under another great headline: 

Netanyahu’s UN speech fails to win over the media.

Instead, they brought us sympathetic reports of the raising of the Palestinian flag, an empty, symbolic gesture that, at best might have made everyone on the left ‘feelgood’.  Virtue signaling, I think they call it.

Baling out

The BBC showed a notable lack of interest in the Israeli PM’s whistle-stop visit to the UK. Blink and you missed it. Apparently he pulled out of the Andrew Marr show, and Marr quipped that baling out of the show was the one thing Corbyn and Netanyahu had in common. 

I thought I’d tear myself away from wall-to-wall Corbyn for a minute to mention a discussion on Thursday’s Daily Politics inspired by Netanyahu’s visit

Jo Coburn in the chair.

Participating: James Sorene of the British Israel Communications and Research Centre, MP Richard Burden of Labour Friends of Palestine and Toby Young, in situ following the preceding discussion.

Media people seem to find the Israeli PM’s name difficult to pronounce. They lunge at it awkwardly and splutter: “Bin...yamin Net..un.... ha ..ya..hu”. This visibly irritates them and makes them more hostile to Israel (than is strictly necessary.)

An ominous presence that looms silently over this kind of discussion, let’s call it the elephant in the discussion, is the lack of acknowledgement - explicit or implicit -  of Islam’s malignant effect upon the politics of the whole of the Middle East.

As usual both the spokesperson for the Palestinian cause and the supposedly neutral chairperson completely ignored this factor and spoke as if the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a straightforward squabble between two parties of similar moral integrity and rationality.

All debates and discussions between people who refuse to acknowledge that Israel’s enemies are driven by religious fervour are destined to be futile; this one was pretty typical. It illustrated the pro-Palestinian politicians' wilful blindness to the antisemitism that motivates Israel’s enemies. I’d like to call the illogical blindness of the covert antisemite racist-driven ignorance. “What, me? How very dare you!” they cry indignantly.

Jo Coburn began by citing the Iran deal. She said: 

“The Iranian supreme leader is reported to have said just yesterday: ”You will not see Israel within twenty five years. God willing there will be nothing of the Zionist regime in the next twenty five years.” 

As Obama’s deal only commits Iran to interrupt its bomb-making activities for about ten years, the supreme leader’s  statement is tantamount to a boast that as soon as they’ve benefited from sanctions-lifting they’ll resume making the bomb to obliterate Israel.

Richard Burden MP said: 

“What Iran does is put in place a number of steps that will ensure that Iran does not have..military.. nuclear weapons... Interestingly Israel has already got those weapons, and that’s - I wouldn’t say - a nuclear free Middle East... they’ve not admitted it but it’s an open secret (giggling) that they have got those weapons and I think it would be a real step forward for peace in the Middle East and beyond if Israel itself started leading by example and said it was going to get rid of its nuclear weapons” 

This whataboutery might have some relevance if it weren’t for the Islam factor. As it is, it’s nonsense. Richard “interestingly” Burden wants us to believe that he actually trusts Iran and has faith in the deal’s longevity. Despite the breast-beating Ayatollahs, he’d like us to think he sincerely believes in the Iranians’ noble intentions. Why would someone genuinely believe something that contradicts all the evidence to the contrary?  I very much doubt he actually does. He feigns belief in Iran’s charade because it suits his prejudice against Israel.

He suggests that Israel should ‘set an example‘ by ridding itself of nuclear weapons. This is as insane as a farmer removing the fences protecting the chickens to set an example to Mr. Fox whose sense of decency and fair play, he’s sure, will prevail.

  

Richard Burden MP and his ilk find themselves making illogical demands of Israel just because they can get away with it. The media lets them get away with glossing over the most obvious signs that the people they’re championing are not the reasonable, conscience-burdened souls that they pretend they are, because that’s what the media do themselves. They must know that Israel’s enemies are not going to be shamed into laying down their arms the minute Israel decides to ‘set an example’ by laying down theirs. The opposite is the case; they know it but they don’t care..

“Israel needs to understand” 

opines Burden with breathtaking arrogance and presumptuousness

 “that if it wants to be part of the family of the Middle East it needs to be able to learn to live in peace with its neighbours, and that’s why, if we’re looking at the Gaza conflict last year, I mean we must remember fifteen hundred Palestinian civilians killed, five hundred of them children, the United Nations has come out with an inquiry there that’s required everybody with human rights abuses, both Israel and yes and indeed the Palestinian militant groups as well should cooperate in holding those responsible to account, and cooperating with the international criminal court in their enquiries. i think that Benjamin Netan ya ha hu would do Israel a lot of credit if he said clearly he was going to cooperate with that. Sadly the messages that have been coming out of his office have been going in the other direction.”

Can you imagine how he’d react if any foreign politician said “Britain needs to understand” etc?  

Then James Sorene explained that no sooner had Israel withdrawn from Gaza in 2005 (as if Burden didn’t know this) than Hamas started firing rockets indiscriminately at Israel from populated areas and digging tunnels beneath Israel. 

“There’s a very important point about Gaza that we need to look at. If we look back in 2005  is that Israel was in Gaza and it left Gaza as a concession for peace. Israel was not occupying Gaza any more. It handed it over to the Palestinian authorities and said, right, you’re in charge - let’s have peace and coexistence. What happened? Two years later Hamas took over in a coup and they started firing rockets into Israel. No rockets? - there wouldn’t have been a blockade. You’ve got to be careful about inverting this. There is only a blockade because there were rockets.

“Actually, the historical narrative doesn’t actually bear that out” 

interjects Burden.

“Hang on. You said the facts don’t add up, but which bit doesn’t it bear out?” 

asks Jo.

 “Which bit of James’s recounting of what happened doesn’t add up? Rockets were being fired, weren’t they, and Hamas does want the destruction of Israel. That is true, isn’t it?

“That, that’s absolutely true, but..

“How would you deal with Hamas in that situation?”

“Where I would disagree with what James has said is that I don’t think it’s as sequential as that. You can’t say that it all started with Hamas firing rockets, then Israel responded. It’s much much more complicated than that, but ultimately we need to have a peace deal. What that means is a parity of the rights of both sides absolutely that involves Israel’s right to live in peace and security, but it also means the Palestinians should have no fewer rights on that. That means the people of Gaza should be able to live, to be able to trade to be able to have the blockade lifted and it also means the Palestinians’ government should be recognised. It means that Palestine should be recognised as a state, not as a matter of privilege but as a matter of right, as Israel claims that right for itself.”

That nonsensical proposal further illustrates that Burden is pretending he believes that Hamas is an honourable player. 

Firstly, it is as “sequential as that”. In fact if you go back to the very beginning, the rejectionist policy of the Arabs is at the heart of the problem. They hate Jews. Please admit that. 

How are you going to achieve this fantasy of Israel’s ‘right’ to live in peace and security while Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the entire ‘Ummah” is openly opposed to the existence of the ‘Zionist entity’? Even when Israel’s presence is obviously to their material advantage, they still pray to Allah for its destruction.  The Palestinians have forfeited their moral rights by their constant aggression and the inhuman acts they perpetrate upon Israeli civilians whenever the opportunity arises, and upon each other on the slightest whim.

 What is the Palestinian government? Where are the essentials of a state? What would happen if the blockade was lifted? What happens already? Why hasn’t the reconstruction of Gaza been completed? Why hasn’t it even started? Why isn’t the media explaining the real reason to us and to each other? 

Here’s the point. The reason the public is so hostile to Israel and so willing to swallow the senseless spiel by organisations like the Labour Friends of Palestine is because they aren’t given the truth. They’re kept in the dark. I think Jo Coburn made an effort, but the verdict is: please try harder.

The BBC has a duty to present the the viewers with facts and let the viewers interpret them. The case for the prosecution, the case for the defence and ideally a scrupulous summing up. Not one-sided, partial and biased. Not judged while half the evidence is withheld from the jury.

Sanitising Islam is dishonest, deceptive and cruel. It’s not even productive in terms of social cohesion. 

As BBC Watch, UK MediaWatch, Daphne Anson, Harry’s Place,  NotaSheepMaybeaGoat, Elder of Ziyon and many other pro Israel blogs detail, day in, day out, the BBC determinedly under-reports the malevolence and deviousness of Israel’s enemies and gives too many platforms, unchallenged, to their activists and propagandists. 

As news of the activities of ISIS feature more and more prominently in the news, and the similarities between the beliefs of all radical Islamists become more apparent, the tide has to turn. 

No wonder Binyamin Nitunyahahahhu baled out.