The Annexation Trigger

After being treated to decades of spiteful, passive-aggressive anti-Israel spin from Middle East editor Bowen and his subordinates, anyone with a smattering of political and historical knowledge of ‘Middle East affairs’ could rattle off a pretty good case against the BBC.

Last night Yolande Knell treated us to a mawkish, innuendo-laden report on the BBC World Service impliedly blaming Israel for interruptions to Palestinian children’s cancer treatments during the coronavirus crisis - although most obstacles seemed to stem from the P.A.’s latest strategy of refusing to ‘cooperate’ with Israel in answer to the proposed annexation of parts of the West Bank. I wasn’t certain what message she was trying to send to be honest, but I predict a whole lot more mileage will be extracted from that situation ‘going forward’.  

Although criticism of Israel-related reporting is but one factor in a bias-related bigger picture, many bias-watchers regard the BBC’s left-wing/anti-Conservative bias as their chief bugbear and therefore their main target, but in a way, the BBC’s anti-Zionist bias is the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of bias. 

Regrettably, the BBC’s Palestinian-advocacy reporting style has a wide reach. Compare the BBC’s uncritical regurgitation of the Palestinian narrative with the overtly hostile, ‘arms-length’ or even non-existent representation of the Israeli perspective that is routinely dished up by the BBC’s Middle East correspondents. Bog-standard, superficial and shallow reporting, served with ‘half-a-story’ contemporary and historical analysis.

Given that both Britain and Israel are democracies, this attitudinal imbalance is hard to explain. If ‘Palestinianism’ is rooted in (Islamic) religion-based antisemitism, surely a largely secular - or at least a not very religiously observant country like post 60s Britain would see Israel as a natural ally, while instinctively filing overtly racist,’Yahud-hating Palestinians’ as ’other’.  

As non-racist Brits, shouldn’t we at least find the Palestinians’ intractable refusal to accept Israel’s existence a little problematic? Since the opposite seems to be the case, the obvious conclusion must be that this demonisation of the Jewish state stems from the ‘oldest hatred’.

However, the word ‘Annexation’ has triggered a new wave of anti-Israel angst. 

Mark Regev has been Israel’s UK Ambassador for over four years. Here’s a link to his ‘goodbye interview’ It seems like only yesterday that he was merely Israel’s ‘spokesperson’ and his very appearances on the BBC would send the haters into paroxysms of fury.

Palestinians: Is It Really about 'Annexation'? Khaled Abu Toameh offers another perspective on Trump’s plan for peace. He says that the Palestinians’ opposition to annexation encompasses twin objections; the religious one and the political one. According to Islamic clerics and scholars, Israel has no right to exist anywhere in the region, so with that in mind, any legality (or otherwise) appertaining to ‘annexation’ is but a trivial detail, therefore irrelevant to the ultimate objective - eliminating Israel altogether. 

Mahmoud Abbas, whom the BBC persists in regarding as a ‘potential partner for peace’ claims that annexation would destroy any chance of a ‘two-state’ solution, ending all hopes of peace with Israel. According to officials, the plan would irreversibly deprive the Palestinians of their right to establish an independent and sovereign state on the (unsustainable) pre-1967 armistice lines. 

The BBC, being determined to see such disingenuous role-play as ‘the voice of reason’ takes Abbas’s words at face value. But the P.A. is actually with the clerics. Neither strand really wants ‘a state’, or is capable of forming one. Their idea of peace is simply ‘no Israel’. 

True to form, the BBC’s Tom Bateman puts the customary BBC spin on the matter. I don’t know if that was Bateman’s own headline, but whoever penned it is clearly hostile to Israel and sympathises with the Palestinians. Israel annexation: New border plans leave Palestinians in despair

Getting to grips with the complexity of Netanyahu / Trump proposals or analysing the long-term potential is of little interest to Tom Bateman whose job is to promote the BBC’s agenda, which disregards the welfare of the Palestinians. Stuck with their appalling leadership, encouraged to kill Jews by Abbas’s outrageous ‘pay for slay’ policy, and ensuring that the existing stalemate is prolonged indefinitely.

At the present time, while old allegiances in the region are shifting, the BBC’s current anti-Israel animus has been triggered bigly by the word “annexation’. An emotive concept indeed, but what does it mean? That terrible word alone evokes expansionism; land-grab; occupation. But this isn’t the idea at all. 

I don’t claim to be an expert on the legality or otherwise of Trump’s plan for peace, but one thing I have gathered from my research so far is that the idea of ‘annexing’ parts of the West Bank appears considerably less ominous than Israel’s detractors would have us believe.

Here is another piece explaining Trump’s “Deal of the Century”   Israel has the right to annex parts of Judea and Samaria   by Eli Vered Hazan:

“So before explaining what annexation is and why it is imperative, it is important to emphasize a few things: France and the United Kingdom are vocal opponents of the agreement. The United Kingdom, which controls 17 territories, spread over thousands of miles across the globe, is criticising a territorial process in which there is a deep connection between a country and its citizens. France maintains control over 13 colonies thousands of miles away and even uses some of them for nuclear experiments, yet opposes our connection to our historical homeland. Not only that, Turkey illegally invaded and took over Northern Cyprus but threatens Israel over the mere potential of Israeli sovereignty. All of them claim that for Israel “it is not the same”. In fact, they are right – it is not the same.

and from Melanie Phillips

“Under international law, annexation has a precise meaning: the forcible incorporation by one state of the territory of another state. This does not apply to the disputed territories, which never belonged in law to any other state. 

Israel has the only legally grounded claim to this land, including the never-abrogated duty given to the British in the 1920s to settle the Jews throughout what is now Israel, the disputed territories and the Gaza Strip. 

Far from being an illegal annexation, extending Israeli law to these areas actually implements international law after some nine decades during which it was flouted and then ignored by Britain and the world community. It is those who oppose the sovereignty proposal who show contempt for the law.”

If it’s too easy to tar her with the “She would say that” brush, legal expert Eugene Kontorovich, lays out the situation fully in this article: Don’t Buy the ‘Annexation’ Hype (WSJ is behind a paywall, but I will post it in full over the fold.)

I didn’t want to display my ignorance by spouting nonsense about something I know very little about, so I did try to digest as much of the document as I could, and I dutifully watched the interesting (to me) video below. In the end, it seems that the specifics of the annexation plan is still a work in progress.  Also, at the end of the day, the legality is never the main and ultimate clincher when it comes to Middle East policy. Emotion is the real game-changer; hearts and minds and so on.

Even if the annexation ploy turns out to be just one strategic move in a long-term game, and the objective is a genuine, just and lasting peace, the BBC is never going to give us a fully-rounded picture because it is ideologically and ‘institutionally’ opposed to it and not entirely convinced of Israel's right to exist.

Legal situation fully explained overleaf.

Abusers of language (and of human rights)

If you’ve been paying attention you’ll know I’ve been ‘out of the office’ for a few days During my awol many troubling issues came and went. Far too many, and now it’s too late to try and catch up. These issues might have remained unaddressed forever - if it weren’t for the fact that others have dealt with them quite satisfactorily thank you very much. I’m redundant. Superfluous. Surplus to requirements, which is great. I didn’t even watch Galloway’s Newsnight, but BBC Watch did.

Actually I do think something is happening. An ever increasing number of people are saying that they’ve more or less given up on the BBC. They seem to have concluded that it’s a lost cause.  They’re resigned to the fact that if you don’t share the BBC’s approach to life, the world, the universe and everything, you’re stuffed. 

We all know that complaining is a waste of time. You get rebuffed. If one complaint does sneak through the barricade, it’s logged on an obscure website and hardly anyone is any the wiser. Nothing changes. No “lessons” are learned.

I’ll just tackle a general theme, which is the effect of the public’s reliance on the BBC for information about things they aren’t deeply familiar with or knowledgeable about, like politics and religion. Despite our relative ignorance, some of us are especially opinionated about these matters. 

There’s also the issue of language, obfuscation, bias and bigotry.  Here’s something that’s just up my street,  about language by A.J. Caschetta.

“The belief that "political chaos is connected with the decay of language" led him (Orwell) to conclude that language had become "ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish [and] the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." Today, the ways we speak and write about the threat of Islamism are often inaccurate and slovenly, making "foolish thoughts" almost inevitable. Everyone involved needs Orwell's prescription.
The post-9/11 era is rife with what Orwell called "the abuse of language" ("war on terror," "overseas contingency operations"), but no abuse more obviously illustrates his complaints than the media cliché describing how a moderate Muslim becomes an Islamist: he becomes radicalized. This euphemism (a passive construction in grammatical terminology) denotes almost nothing. Orwell calls it a "verbal false limb," that is, a device used to "save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns." It has become the default explanation for a phenomenon few want to discuss.”

 Khaled Abu Toameh has written a piece called: Palestinians: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias

“These "parachute journalists," as they are occasionally called, are catapulted into the region without being briefed on the basic facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sadly, correspondents such as these are more the rule than the exception.” 

 Do take a look at the comments below this article (as well as the piece itself.) 

“Mark Twain commented, over 100 years ago, "If you don't read the daily newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed!" “ 

said a commenter.

It’s accepted - taken as read - that in any given incident you’re getting (from the BBC and other media) a combination of half-truths based on someone’s agenda rather than a complete picture, impartial, factual and fair. 

Specially where the issues are contentious, like, say, Trump. I’ve lost count of the times his infamous “Muslims ban” has been repeated without the qualifier.  It’s not only with left wing media. (there’s another example of lazy terminology)  The others are just as bad. Jeremy Corbyn’s infamous ‘friends’ statement, and the ‘tragedy’ one.

“Afterwards, when these comments were widely reported, Corbyn’s supporters said they’d been taken out of context — the standard defence whenever he is criticised for saying something positive about Islamist terrorists, such as describing Hamas and Hezbollah as his ‘friends’ or the death of bin Laden as a ‘tragedy’. 

said Toby Young in the Spectator.  Of course they were taken ‘out of context’, not least because the caveats Corbyn appended were flimsy and unconvincing, as was Trump’s “until we figure out what’s going on” . But nevertheless, seizing on the statements and omitting the qualifiers altogether to make a political point is quite iffy.

The staggering ignorance shown over the public’s perception of Israel is one I’d lay at the foot of the BBC. Is that an expression? Lay at the foot of? - I mean hold it responsible. I would hold the BBC responsible for the findings of this random survey. Out of a possible choice - Israel; ISIS; N Korea; Saudi Arabia; Iran, “who's the worst human rights abuser?”

Sorry, who?

Don’t bother to tell me. I knew which it would be before the film properly got going. 

Such a shame.

Gossip costs lives

This article illustrates the BBC’s habit of promoting gossip and tittle-tattle and presenting it as news (or comment)

 BBC Watch’s Hadar Sela has detailed what’s wrong with it.

Donnison omits relevant factors concerning the deceased prisoner:

“Abu Hamdiyeh was connected to both the PA security forces and the terrorist organization Hamas or to note that he was known to be involved in recruitment for paramilitary activities, weapons training, providing weapons and finance for terror and bomb-making in addition to his role in the attempted suicide bombing of Café Caffit in Jerusalem in 2002, in which the awareness of a security guard and a waiter saved the lives of some 60 customers and 12 staff in the café at the time.”

BBC Watch also criticises an erroneous reference to ‘the occupied West Bank.’ “T(t)he majority of Hebron is in Area A and controlled by the Palestinian Authority rather than “occupied:”

Unpleasant  ‘between the lines’ insinuations run through the whole piece, barely concealing Donnison’s sympathetic attitude to the Palestinians. As Sela says, the BBC should steer clear of the propagation of deliberately engineered rumours. Donnison really should take heed.

Khaled Abu Toameh writes about the PA leadership’s orchestrated campaign against Israel on the issue of prisoners. A ministry for prisoners’ affairs has been set up to accuse Israel of mistreating prisoners, conducting experiments on them, torturing them and stealing their organs. (has Jenny Tonge been recruited?) 

“But these attacks are also intensifying tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and paving the way for violence. By making serious allegations against Israel, the PA is further radicalizing Palestinians and even driving some of them into the open arms of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”

That’s roughly what Jon Donnison is doing. Making matters worse by clumsy shit-stirring.

In the noble tradition of of long-windedness I annotate:

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails protest death

Weird unpunctuated heading.

Israeli prison guards have fired tear gas to stop disturbances among Palestinian prisoners after a Palestinian inmate died from cancer.

Attention-grabbing opening gambit involving tear gas.

Palestinian officials claim that Israel did not provide adequate medical care for Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, who was 64.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The Israeli Prisons Service (IPS) says he was well looked after and died in a public hospital in Beersheba.

“an Israel says”

The parole board was asked to consider his release but had not processed the case by the time of his death.

Implies Israel is deliberately procrastinating.

Following the announcement of Abu Hamdiyeh's death, Palestinian prisoners in several Israeli jails began banging on their cell doors and throwing objects around.

Implies prisoners are helpless and frustrated.

In Ramon Prison, tear gas was used to stop the protests although the situation is now under control. The IPS says that six prison guards and three Palestinian inmates were treated in the jail's clinic.

Implies Israel is heavy-handed with Palestinian prisoners.

The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is said to have tried to intervene personally to have Abu Hamdiyeh released after it became clear that his illness was terminal.

Implies a thwarted humanitarian gesture, flatters Abbas.

"The Israeli government is responsible for the martyrdom of prisoner, Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh," said a statement by Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Mr Abbas.

Gratuitous emoting.

"The continued detention of the prisoners and medical neglect leads to dangerous implications."

Gratuitous emotive gossip 

Tensions running high

Other Palestinian officials accused Israel of denying proper, timely medical care to Abu Hamdiyeh, claiming that his cancer had been left to spread.

More claims (unsubstantiated and outrageous)

"The prisoner was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus in February of this year and was under the medical supervision of experts at the hospital," read a statement by the Israeli prison authority.

More “Israel says”

"About a week ago, following the determination that it was a terminal illness, the IPS turned to the release committee to apply for early release, a procedure which started and didn't finish."

Implies Israel procrastinating over Abdelbaset al-Megrahi-type compassionate leave.

Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, from Hebron in the occupied West Bank, was serving a life sentence for attempted murder for his role in a foiled attempt to bomb a cafe in Jerusalem in 2002.

Implies a foiled attempt is only a ‘thought crime’.

The issue of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails is an emotive one for Palestinians. Inmates are generally highly regarded despite the reasons for their detention.

euphemism for prisoners being generously pensioned / families rewarded.

Tensions have recently been running high as several Palestinian prisoners have been on intermittent hunger strike.

Intermittent hunger strike: like being a bit dead?

As of December 2012, Israel held 4,517 Palestinians in its jails.

Statistical implication that this is unfair?

Of these 1,031 were being held until the conclusion of legal proceedings, 178 were in administrative detention without trial or charge.

Not to mention the remainder who were tried and found guilty (1,031 + 178 from 4,517 = 2,308)

**** 

By what stretch of the imagination can this be an impartial article?

It’s unadulterated trouble-making. Like gossips do. Malicious gossips.