Second-class articles

I’m not the only one who’s keeping an eye on Gregg Carlstrom, the freelancer who writes articles about Israel for the Times. 

I see CiF Watch’s Adam Levick also noticed yesterday’s article in with the alarming headline  “Israel set to make Arabs second-class citizens.” (Page 32 under the section called “World” )  (£) It wasn’t just the font size that made the piece look alarmist and sensational. 

Some time ago this writer’s household had to cancel a subscription to the Telegraph after one too many obnoxious pieces from Peter Oborne. I wrote to the paper to register our dismay.  Not long afterwards the marketing department rang, as they do, to try and lure us back. Why, they wanted to know, had we left? 

“Peter Oborne,” said I. 

“We’ve made some editorial changes,” they said,  temptingly. “New editor and that. We’re more left-wing these days.”

Hmm. I wonder if Gregg Carlstrom is  going to prove to be the Oborne that broke the camel’s back. As Oborne is to the Telegraph, so Carlstrom is to the Times? I hope not.

I don’t expect Carlstrom was responsible for the headline, and I must admit that it did make me read the article more attentively than I otherwise would.  I have to say the actual headline bore little relation to the content (muddled) Neither did the somewhat gratuitous picture of Palestinian farmer Fadel Halawa, deceased, apparently shot by the IDF.

Does the name Carlstrom have the whiff of the jackboot about it or is it just me and the paranoia? Anyway, the piece begins: 

“After an angry debate, the Israeli cabinet endorsed a controversial bill declaring the country a Jewish state, a move that will alienate the Palestinian minority further and push the government closer to early elections.The bill affirms that Jewish law should inspire the Israeli legal system, and reserves other “national rights” for Jews, including the right to immigrate. If passed by the full Knesset, it would become a “basic law,” akin to a constitutional amendment.”

I see the online version has another illustration. 

A Palestinian boy plays inside the wreckage of a car in Gaza city (next to houses that were destroyed)AFP/Getty. 

What is going on here? Blimey. Anyhow the boy, who looks about 6 years old, appears to be delighted. 

Are these pictures trying to convey a message? Oh dear.

Actually, at this stage the debate in the Knesset was just that. A debate. No apartheid law has been brought in. It’s a debate about democracy, equal rights, the nature of the ‘Jewish’ State and discrimination. A debate that would be unthinkable in any Islamic state, at which the world doesn’t seem to bat an eyelid.

    

According to Carlstrom: “The version approved yesterday will not bring immediate changes but experts say  it will make it easier for the Knesset to approve discriminatory laws and for the high court to uphold them.”

Don’t we just love ‘experts?”

The article includes some ‘background’, political. (“It’s the upcoming elections, stupid” ) as well as the customary emotive statistics, hence the illustrations. 

So is this another step towards the “Judaization” of which Yolande Knell and co write so disapprovingly? Is it mere provocation for ongoing Palestinian fury?

The BBC hasn’t reported any of this, so far as I can see (perhaps it has mentioned it on the World service?) but Al Jazeera had a fairly even-handed discussion about it which included a mention (from the anchor) of the elephant in the room, i.e. the Islamic nature of Israel’s neighbours.

Watch out for it on the Beeb.

Update:

There was an interesting thread on Harry’s Place about this issue. Blogger and regular contributor to Harry’s Place Marc Goldberg wrote about this proposed new law in his characteristically angst-ridden style. 

“As a Jewish Israeli this bill doesn’t give me anything I don’t already have and caters to a fear that doesn’t bother me. It does however serve as a slap in the face to Israeli Arabs attempting to integrate into Israeli society. An extra little reminder from the government that they’re not wanted in the modern state of Israel. It’s a shame. Particularly at a time when Israeli Arabs actually seem to be coming more into the fold.”

Fundamentally Goldberg is a staunch  Zionist, but his criticisms of the Israeli government, albeit well-meant,  are beginning to look a bit disloyal. No matter how affectionate and constructive a given criticism might be,  in a particular context it’s often wise to keep them ‘within the family’.

As far as Israel is concerned, all criticism is a potential gift to the enemy.   The argument in the btl comments on that thread seems to be whether or not Harry’s Place is enough of an ‘insider ‘- a family member - to bear what might be considered internal wrangling, by airing its dirty linen in public, without undermining  its delicate fundamentals; whether, as far as pro-Israel site Harry’s Place is concerned, Israel’s reputation can withstand continual bashing from one of its own.

Problem is, if you criticise the critic, you’re damned as an unreasonable ‘Israel Firster’, and if you don’t the world just grabs the criticism and runs away with it.

Jon Donnison v CiF Watch

Talking of Jon Donnison, he saw fit to re-tweet this attack on a favourite blogs of ours a couple of days ago from one Bekah Wolf:

@HughNaylor @CiFWatch is not a real organization, just a crappy smear campaign run by a couple of dunderheads
— Bekah Wolf (@BekahWolf) July 27, 2014

And who exactly is this Bekah Wolf who doesn't reckon much to CiF Watch?

Bekah Wolf @BekahWolf Founded @PalestinePSP with my husband Mousa Abu Maria. I live in the U.S. and in Beit Ommar, #Palestine. Have worked in Palestine since 2003

Or, to put it another way, a pro-Palestinian activist who sometimes writes for Israel-hating sites like Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss. (That's her in the picture at the top).

Interesting company Jon Donnison keeps on Twitter, eh?

What Jews think

More verbiage about the interview I mentioned below.

I woke up this morning (no, I’m not going to start singin’ de blues) and heard Sarah Montague announcing that we're going to hear later in the programme 'what British Jews think of the situation in Gaza.' 

Oh, I thought to myself, I’ll stick around. Maybe I’ll hear a different perspective from the usual BBC fare, surgically targeted emoting. You know, the precision engineered tearfulness that strikes without any collateral context whatsoever. 

At last, I’m thinking, we might get to hear something to counteract the wall-to-wall one-side-only reporting from a place where the number of innocent civilian males between 18 and 50 killed by ‘the Israelis’ seems to outnumber the entire population of Gaza, for balance. You know, balance, the flagship quality, which is at the heart of the BBC and its charter. Not the heart; the core. 

It was a long wait, somewhat alleviated by the encouraging news about the forthcoming Trojan Horse report. An interview with the headmistress of another Birmingham school who was full of praise for the thorough research and preparation shown by the investigating team. Their findings are anticipated with interest.

Another trail promised the views of “Israeli Jews”, so not British Jews then? 

Never mind, at least we might get a bit of balance as per the BBC’s pledge.

At last, after 8:am and two hours of anticipation, we finally got what we were waiting for.

 If the item had been introduced as “the views of one deranged self-hating Israeli and a Rabbi who is too nice to say anything of substance,” then it would have been fair enough. It would still have been excruciating, but at least it would have been honest.

“Blind support” for Israel or empathy for both sides - how to(sic) British Jews feel about the Gaza conflict?: http://bit.ly/WA9Ew8 

Says the Today Programme's twitter feed. 

So support for Israel is not just any old support. it’s the special  “BLIND” kind of support. ( Blind; ergo wrong) 

The Audio Boo clip doesn’t do justice to the full extent of the offensiveness. It doesn’t catch Sarah Montague’s introduction, for a start. 

She begins by asking why Mira B-H tore up her Israeli passport, or made a bloody great fuss, very loudly, about threatening  to do so. 

“What is it particularly about this latest ‘trouble’ that has particularly got to you?” Sarah inquires.

Actually, Mira B-H has been an Israel-basher for quite a while don’t you know. Thrives on it. Made a career out of it.  

So, she wants nothing to do with the Jewish community’s almost blind support for the Israeli government, and I don’t suppose they’d want anything to do with her either, even with their eyes wide open.

“And you think that hasn’t been said loudly enough by Jewish communities around the world?” says Sarah, bizarrely assuming that Jewish ‘communities’ agree with such a nonsensical allegation.

“It hasn’t been said at all!” Mira exclaims. “I’m still waiting to hear the voices of influential Jewish journalists and writers in this country” she adds, conveniently forgetting her own influential Guardian contributions, amongst others too numerous to list.

“Perhaps it’s because they don’t think that” ventures Sarah, tentatively.

 Now for the bit about intimidation. We’ve had all this ‘Muslims are the new Jews’ palaver, where Islamophobia has become a fashionable topic for the themed dinner party, almost equalling antisemitism in popularity, but now Mira B-H is bringing us “Jews are the new Muslims”. 

According to Mira B-H’s inner voices, dissenting Jews (dissenting from the common and garden “blind Jews”) are  disenfranchised, ex-communicated and their children are friendless and  bullied at the hand of Jewish community leaders. So, a kind of Jewish Trojan Horse scenario. The Trojan Jew affair.  

“And I have a lot of evidence for that” ..... “Which I can’t divulge”

“Rabbi Laura J-K, how do you feel about what’s going on in Gaza?” says Sarah expectantly.

What is the good Rabbi expected to say? I couldn’t give a shit? Well, she doesn’t say that, obviously.

She says ‘we feel empathy with both sides, we’re heartbroken and what Mira says is not true.’ But she would say that wouldn’t she. That is what the audience will think.

“But supportive of what Israel is doing in Gaza? asks Sarah, her voice trembling with incredulity.

“It’s complicated. People are speaking out.”

“People are too frightened to speak out.” Mira B-H assures us before her next, particularly offensive contribution.

“Heartbreaking pictures of children killed and dying, but you mention the number of Israelis  killed, who, apart from two, are all soldiers doing their duty. You might as well count Hamas militants being killed.”

'Soldiers doing their duty?' Like, robots, mechanical and disposable, as opposed to human beings? as opposed to children of loving parents?  Some of them aren’t even 20 years old you stupid person.

Doing their duty? Of course they have to do their horrible, dangerous, life threatening duty. 

“You might as well count Hamas militants being killed” 

Ah. Well that’s another thing altogether. You jolly well might. You jolly well might as well count them because apparently there aren’t many. That’s obvious, because most of the dead are civilians, surely you’ve heard that? It’s been announced enough times on the BBC. In fact, every single time a new death toll is given out, that particular piece of information tops it off. So counting them would indeed be interesting. 

“There is no proportion and there is no balance. If Israel had pictures of dead and dying they’d hand them out, but there is none.”

No they wouldn’t and yes there are.

Rabbi Laura J-K gets irritating now. She’s on the back foot and produces irrelevant and creepy evidence that nice Jews empathise with the Muslims and lots of them fasted on Ramadan to prove it. I think that is quite creepy and pointless, but there you go. I’m not nearly as nice as Rabbi Laura.

Neither is Mira. 

She’s had a lot of trolling. Twitter and that. And an organisation called Cif Watch, which, instead of concentrating on balance, which they purport to do, has 'reported her to the police over some more innocuous stuff' she’d written previously. Sounds pretty balanced to me.

Giles Fraser jumps the shark

Giles Fraser (front), with Alan Rusbridger (back)

CiF Watch has picked up on a quite extraordinary lapse of judgement from former dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, Giles Fraser.

Giles, as you know, is now a Guardian editorial writer. He's also a longstanding BBC Thought for the Day speaker and is a regular panelist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze. 

Given that his latest article gives an insight into the way people like Giles think [including, perhaps, people at the Guardian and the BBC], I thought I'd better share it with you here. 

Giles isn't exactly known for his logic but this is bad even by his standards. Prepare to gasp! 

Michael Gove, the education secretary, is apparently at war with Theresa May, the home secretary, over religious extremism. Gove thinks that May deals only with its consequences – ie, violence – and not with its root cause. For Gove, the May approach is some endless and fruitless game of whack-a-mole, just dealing with the consequences of religious extremism and not its ideological origins. He wants to drain the swamp and tackle the celebration of extremism long before it issues in violence. His target is Birmingham schools. But why not the Royal Opera House?

Opera, like religion, is obsessed with violence, often against women. Poulenc’s Les Dialogues des Carmelites – currently on a short run and broadcast live from the Royal Opera House tonight on Radio 3 – tells the story of a group of nuns during the French Revolution. Their convent is overrun by revolutionaries and desecrated. And the nuns are forced to choose between martyrdom and faith. By the end, all 16 sisters have been guillotined, defiantly singing the Salve Regina on their way to having their heads removed. The whole thing is beautifully presented, with minimal staging and extraordinary musical sensitivity. And the fact that Simon Rattle is wielding the baton will guarantee to pack in the genteel, well-heeled audience.

But I wonder if they would have turned up to an opera about Islamic martyrdom? Or been so enthusiastic in their applause if 16 shahida [suicide bombers] had chosen a violent death over conformity to their new and unsympathetic political/social norm? I bet there would have been walkouts. And I very much doubt that Rolex would have been a sponsor. 

Yet nobody complained that Christian martyrdom propaganda was being staged at one of our elite cultural institutions.

But isn’t this also a version of Gove’s religious extremism, too? 

Well, Adam at CiF Watch gives the bleedingly obvious answer to that question:

No, it is not!  

Obviously an act of self-sacrifice that harms no-one but yourself is completely different to an act of self-sacrifice that deliberately seeks to kill other people at the same time [against their will] - especially when that act targets civilian men, women and children. The first is purely suicide; the second is suicide PLUS intentional murder/terrorism. 

Really, it's too obvious to need explaining. 

Adam says the Guardian "jumped the shark" there. Well, Giles Fraser certainly jumped it. [He's now reputed to be praying to Orson in a spin-off newspaper].

"Giles calling Alan. Come in Alan."

Reassuringly, his article is being rounded trashed by the Guardian' online readers. There is hope for them at least, if not for Giles.

******

And talking of Poulenc and sacrifice, and while we are remembering D-Day, here's a touching 1943 song from the Frenchman.

The Loire carries off my thoughts

Along with the overturned cars

And the defused weapons

And the tears not rubbed away

Oh my France, oh my abandoned one

I have crossed the bridges of Cé.

Fisking and Pilgering

In the ...and other matters section of this blog, please let me steer you towards a fine fisking of the Independent's Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk from CiF Watch's Adam Levick. It outlines Mr Fisk's latest "distortions, half-truths and fabrications". 

No one is more deserving of a fisking than Robert Fisk (even Jeremy Bowen).

According to the Collins English Dictionary 'to fisk' means 'to refute or criticize (a journalistic article or blog) point by point'. Many of us have fisked things over the years. 

The verb 'to fisk' and the noun 'fisking' have caught on to such an extent that they are becoming commonplace.

Sadly the same hasn't happened to the verb 'to pilger' and its associated noun 'Pilgerism'. Both of those were coined by Auberon Waugh in honour of John Pilger. 

'Pilgerism' would be a very helpful term though in describing some aspects of the work of, say, the BBC's Hugh Sykes. It would mean "to earnestly fasten on to some element in a situation which has a half-grain of truth, to ignore the rest of the package and to present the half-grain in isolation as the true essence."

If only my fellow bloggers could help to popularise 'pilger'! 

Unfortunately, according to the Urban Dictionary, 'to pilger' already has another, very different meaning: "The act, undertaken by a lesbian, of causing a predominantly straight girl to question her heterosexuality. Usually involves excessive charm and schmoozing", which is something John Pilger certainly can't be accused of in any way, shape or form.

Best of a bad bunch

This seems to be a case of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias being the least of the worst. In the spirit of "The BBC’s is the worst form of bias, except for all those other forms that can be observed" it seems that the BBC, although far from perfect, hasn’t stooped so low as the Guardian, or fallen so deeply into the abyss as - of all things - the Times.

There was a terror attack in Israel on the evening of April 14th by a terrorist / gunman/ hero, which killed an Israeli father of five / off-duty policeman / settler, depending on whose side you’re on.

This incident was the subject of two BBC Watch articles that dealt with various amended versions of the BBC report.

On 16th April the BBC made a brief mention of the incident, albeit buried in an article about the peace talks.

“Israel is also angry at the killing of an off-duty Israeli policeman by a gunman in the West Bank on Monday, on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover. His wife and child were wounded in the attack outside Hebron.”

The BBC’s original article was illustrated by a photograph of Israeli solders, one aiming his weapon, with the caption:  ”Tensions are high in Hebron after an Israeli policeman was killed in the West Bank” A lone gunman shooting at cars is clearly a terror attack, yet he military style picture implied that the policeman was killed in the line of duty. The details of the attack were freely available, had one of the BBC’s intrepid reporters taken the trouble to seek them out.

Later, an improved BBC version states:

“Tensions were raised on Monday when an off-duty Israeli policeman was killed by a gunman in the West Bank, on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover. His wife and child were wounded in the attack outside Hebron.”

As BBCWatch points out, the BBC did not fully report the terrorist nature of the attack, nor that it was praised by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Nor did the BBC spot that no-one from the PA had condemned it.

All articles in which the BBC refer to this incident primarily concern the postponement of peace talks; references to the attack appear in ‘non-consecutive paragraphs” 

This reporting contrasts sharply with the screaming headlines habitually employed whenever a Palestinian is shot by an Israeli soldier. Whole stories are frequently devoted to news of the death or injury of every Palestinian unwise enough to attempt to breach the security measures Israel is forced to take in order to protect its citizens from just such occurrences.

However, the Guardian was worse than the BBC. In a piece entitled “The Guardian has absolutely no idea why a Jewish man was murdered near Hebron” Cif Watch points out several examples of biased writing from the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont, their new Jerusalem correspondent.  

“One Israeli was killed three others injured after their car was hit by gunfire as they travelled through the West Bank on the eve of the Jewish Passover holiday.”

Our old friend passive language, which alludes to the pesky “gunfire” that’s apt to snuff out anyone unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Like lightening. But for good measure, the Guardian introduces an element that the BBC, for once, does not.  The settler thing.

“The family in the car that was hit was understood to be en route from their home in Modi’in – an Israeli town split across occupied Palestinian and Israeli territory – to visit the mother’s family for the traditional meal that commences the Passover religious festival. The shooting was the second incident in the past two days on the West Bank.”

Cif Watch says:

“This paragraph represents the first attempt to impute ‘settler’ status upon the victim.  However, Beaumont gets it wrong. Modi’in does not extend into “Palestinian territory”. (The Maccabim section of the greater Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut municipality – encompassing a few zip codes – are in what’s known as No Man’s Land, which refers to land between Israel and the West Bank whose sovereignty was never fully clarified after the War of Independence in 1948.)”

The article, like the BBC’s, all but attempts to justify this attack by stating:

 ” The shooting comes amid increasing tensions following a stalemate in peace talks.”

before again returning to the theme of settlements.

“It also comes hard on the heels of permission by the Israeli army on Sunday for three settler families to move into a building in nearby Hebron, after a long legal battle and culminating on Sunday with the authorisation by Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, of the first new settlement in Hebron since the 1980s."

Then Cif Watch has: 

“Beaumont descends to the absurd, feigning ignorance as to the likely motive: ”However, with no immediate claim of responsibility the precise motives for the shooting remained unclear.”

...and finishes by highlighting another passage with selective use of passive language “five Israelis have been killed” (by evil spirits?) neatly juxtaposed with “82 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces”.

But wait. Here’s the Times. “Israeli policeman is shot dead amid fury over settlers’ return.”

There we have it. All the elements of bias rolled into one. This report is tagged ‘Catherine Philp. Hebron.’

“An Israeli policeman was shot dead near Hebron on the eve of the Passover festival as Jewish settlers celebrated their return to a disputed house in a Palestinian area of the West Bank city.Three families moved into the building on Sunday evening, protected by Israeli soldiers, hours after Moshe Yaalon, the Israeli defence minister, granted permission for their return — six years after their initial eviction.” 

says Catherine. The rest is behind the paywall, but I’ve got the paper version.

“The first apparent retaliation for the return of settlers came on Monday night when a man opened fire on a car outside Hebron” she states confidently. So it wasn’t just any old terrorist attack. it was a perfectly formed retaliation.

There follows several paragraphs about the Supreme court ruling that found in favour of ‘the settlers’ , the long-running ownership dispute over the building, the final decision being in the hands of the defence minister Moshe Yaalon and the claims that this was  a provocation aimed at sabotaging US-backed negotiations.

She quotes a Palestinian human rights activist, as you do, who voiced predictable opinions about exposing, exploiting and expanding, and a settler who voiced predictable opinions about torpedoing negotiations.

She gives statistics about the number of settlers, residents of Hebron, Palestinians, soldiers and border police, how many restriction have been imposed, how many acts of violence have been perpetrated by both sides, and how many Muslim worshippers Baruch Goldstein killed. 

In fact the rest of the article is devoted to the Supreme Court ruling about the disputed house, the evictions and reinstatement of the settlers, the legality or otherwise of the purchase of the property and the fact that at one stage the eviction prompted “violent retaliation against their Palestinian neighbours”. 

By the end of the piece Catherine Philp has all but forgotten about the late Baruch Mizrachi and his wife and children. Nevertheless she’s hell bent on implying  moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, despite the first five words of the headline. Someone was shot dead, remember?  So at best the BBC was the least bad and at worst the BBC was the least worst.

Cat got his tongue, maybe

Friends of Israel will probably be aware of Adam and Hadar's excellent CiF Watch, which keeps a careful eye on the Guardian's (mis)reporting of Israel.

Hadar is busy these days with the just-as-excellent BBC Watch so I'm intrigued to see how Adam will report the Graun's latest CiF offering from terrorist Samer Issawi of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, in which the hunger-striking Mr Issawi presents himself as a noble fighter for freedom against Israeli 'occupation' . 

Google - well CAMERA actually - reveals that he is being very coy in that article about the crimes that led to his 30 year sentence - including firing on Israeli civilians in a number of separate terrorist attacks. 

The Guardian is being just as coy in giving him a platform without informing its readers of these facts.

It's reading things like that which make you thankful for CiF Watch.