Clueless in Gaza

Yesterday BBC Watch described Mishal Husain as ‘clueless’ because of her limited grasp of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, meaning that she completely fails (refuses) to see the ‘bigger picture’.

One could speculate that this is because of Husain’s innate, tribal ‘AsaMuslim” hostility to Israel. However, as various insiders frequently attest, the Today Programme is routinely preceded by an editorial briefing, therefore one assumes that Husain isn't given totally free rein on the angle through which interviews are framed. So the aforementioned cluelessness probably isn’t solely down to Husain. 

Ever since the recent reports of the killing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, or ‘commander’ if you like, it seems increasingly clear that the BBC is presenting this as an ‘extra-judicial’ assassination, an isolated incident, solely responsible for ‘kicking the whole thing off’. (‘The whole thing’ being the escalation of violence in which several (allegedly) innocent Palestinians have lost their lives. )

Once upon a time I would have weighed in and taken on the argument (that this was by no means an isolated or random incident) all by myself. But not now. I’m weary and disillusioned. Then, lo and behold, along comes this article in Commentary Magazine and does the job for me.  

Gaza's Cycle of Self-Destruction - Terrorists in isolation

Before I go into any more detail, let me just remind myself of Mishal Husain’s (and the BBC’s) starting point. They regard PIJ (Iran’ s proxy) as a legitimate and properly kosher fighting force. This takes impartiality to its logical conclusion, where the devil and the angel get equal billing.  Some might even say the devil is pitched as the protagonist and therefore captures the audience’s sympathy.

Let me quote from Commentary Magazine: (bold added by me)

“First things first. According to the New York Times’s Isabel Kershner and others, the latest round of violence between Israel and the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization in Gaza was “set off by Israel’s assassination of a senior Islamic Jihad commander on Tuesday.” This is not strictly true.”

(The NY Times is as left-leaning as the Beeb)

“That senior Islamic Jihad commander, Baha Abu al-Ata, was behind a series of rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Sderot less than two weeks ago. That, and other recent attacks against Israel, is what got him killed; the confrontation, therefore, predates his assassination. It’s just that the earlier rocket attacks didn’t make much news outside of Israel.

(Particularly on the Beeb.)

“But since Tuesday morning, the Iranian supported Islamic Jihad has fired 350 rockets from Gaza into Israel, some reaching as far as Tel Aviv. And Israel has been pounding Islamic Jihad targets inside Gaza. The casualty numbers change quickly, but last I saw, Gaza’s Health Ministry claimed that 24 Palestinians have been killed, and 69 others have been wounded—20 of the 24 were Islamic Jihad fighters. In Israel, 48 people were wounded, and none killed.

And so on. Mishal Husain was keen to point out that “Islamic Jihad is not the main militant group in Gaza.” Why say that? Could it be to suggest that Israel’s actions are unnecessarily provocative because “Hamas will be further drawn in” But of course it's PIJ that's doing the 'drawing in', not Israel.

“During this week’s conflict, Israel has not yet targeted Hamas, Gaza’s governing terrorist organization. But there’s now much speculation about what Hamas will do in response to the flare-up. Islamic Jihad has no governing control of Gaza, but, as the current violence demonstrates, it can easily draw the Strip into conflict. And it is Hamas’s failure to curb Islamic Jihad’s continued provocations against Israel that has led to the present crisis.  

As Abu al-Ata ramped up his campaign against the Jewish state, Israel warned Hamas that it wasn’t going to take it forever. “Via publications in various media outlets; messages conveyed by Egyptian intelligence; and warnings via international mediators,” writes Avi Issacharoff at the Times of Israel, “Israel repeatedly urged Hamas to take action.” Hamas didn’t act. Israel did.

Please take a few moments to read the whole thing. Don't be daunted - do read; it's not too long.

It’s a shame that the BBC takes such a superficial, half-a-story approach to all its reporting on this topic. It’s largely because the general public is being misinformed and deliberately kept in a state of ignorance through the BBC's biased, one-sided and Philo-Islamic reporting that the Labour Party is able to get away with its rampantly sanctimonious antisemitism.  

Escalating bias

I think I’ve heard just about the most biased edition of the Today Programme in a long time. First, the news headlines, which I described in my earlier post. 

Next, we heard Yolande (pronounced Roland but with a Y) Knell’s breathless account of the affair. Then we were treated to the bizarre opinion of Professor Marandi, whom I assume is the author of a piece explaining why ”US President Donald Trump has a problem with 'Death to America' slogans” if such a thing requires an explanation. The professor signed off with a reminder of the so-called ‘open mic” incident which caught “Pres. Obama and his French counterpart complaining about Israel's leader."

Sarkozy was heard to say “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar”  to which Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him but I have to deal with him even more often than you!” So, there you have it! The killer blow!

Following this, we were treated to another beauty. Tom Bateman visiting a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon to commemorate the Palestinian Nakba. (Their catastrophe.) I haven't got time this morning to go into detail about the omissions and emoting that poured out of poor Tom Bateman's mouth. Maybe someone will transcribe it somewhere. I'm sure many listeners were reduced to tears. Not to mention the increasing hostility to Jews and Israel, which this report undoubtedly exacerbated.

The real catastrophe, of course, was the Arabs’ refusal to accept a tiny Jewish majority state in their midst and their disastrous decision to try to eradicate it, motivated purely by their virulently antisemitic religious beliefs. Bateman’s report amounted to unadulterated, one-sided antisemitic propaganda with zero counterbalancing content. Therefore I am forced to supply it myself. 

A history lesson. People will argue that this is a one-sided account. That’s as may be. I include it here because it’s the side that you’ll never hear on the BBC. 

"Israel at 70. Time to Retire the False Palestinian Narrative"  by Aviv Ezra.  

I shouldn't reproduce this piece here in full without obtaining prior permission, so I have abridged it slightly.  Please follow the link and read it all. 

“In  November 1947 the United Nations voted to approve a partition plan that would have created a Jewish-majority state and an Arab-majority state in historic Palestine, and shared Jerusalem between the two parties. The Jews accepted the partition plan, and the results of the UN vote, though it provided insecure borders in a fragmented new state.  [...] The Arabs had never accepted the idea of a Jewish-majority state in any part of historic Palestine, and began a campaign of violence against the Zionists the very night the resolution was passed.