Showing posts with label Kim Ghattas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim Ghattas. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 September 2018

BBC reporter criticises US administration. Dog bites man.


The US State Department has confirmed it's ordered the closure of the Washington mission of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. A statement said that PLO leaders had failed to engage with US efforts to bring about peace with Israel, and had attempted to prompt an investigation of Israel by the International Criminal Court. A senior Palestinian official called the decision a 'dangerous escalation'. 

Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Activists



'BBC Kim Ghattas' has a very large bee in her bonnet (h/t Monkey Brains).  

You may (or may not) recall that 'viral' video of the feisty Palestinian girl who repeatedly slapped and kicked a couple of Israeli soldiers late last year. The Israeli soldiers responded with admirable professionalism, taking it all on the chin and moving away to diffuse the situation. The girl was arrested later.

In such a conflict, people take sides. For some, the video showed the bravery of the Palestinian girl. For others it showed the admirable professionalism of the Israeli army. 

It's possible to see the girl, Ahed Tamimi, as both an aggressor and as a victim. She was certainly aggressive towards the Israeli soldiers and obviously considers herself to be a victim of the Israeli forces who her family accuse of invading their property. Others say that she's actually a victim of her father because her father has been exploiting her from before she was even a teenager, filming her provoking Israeli soldiers from around the age of 11 - pushing her fist in their faces, slapping them, kicking them, all on camera. (The poor lass has become something of a celebrity as a result.)

If you stand back a bit, I think the 'Others' have a point. What normal father would repeatedly put his daughter in such situations (over a six-year period), again and again? (Not that she ever came to any harm at the hand of the Israeli army.) 

His intention was obvious: either make a heroine or a martyr of his poor daughter. (Does Ramallah have social services?)

Her father, as you might have guessed, is an activist and his extended family includes convicted terrorists. 

That said, I've been following this story closely and one of the peculiar features of it is there's a hot dispute about Ahed's age. Google it for yourself and you'll see that 'prestigious' media outlets are divided over whether she's 16 or 17. 

Some pro-Israel sites contend that she's actually 18, though I think they're misreading earlier reports and that she really is actually either 16 or 17 - and most probably 16. (I've dug into the matter!). 

Only the wildest anti-Israel propagandist sites (and even next to none of them), however, claim that she's only 15....

....oh, and the BBC's Kim Ghattas, who calls her a "15 yr old Palestinian activist". 

Have you fact-checked that, 'impartial' Kim of the BBC?

As you can see from her first tweet (below), 'BBC Kim' is wholly trusting of Ahed's father and his "poignant" letter. 

The man is an activist. Mightn't she consider that he's engaging in propaganda (as he surely is)?. Why just trust his word, unless she wants to trust it? 

This wasn't an impartial tweet from 'BBC Kim Ghattas', and nor are the others. (Is she an activist too?)

Anyone who watched that video and saw the Israeli soldiers being stoical and professional towards Ahed as she slapped and kicked them again and again will think BBC Kim's depiction of what happened - "Ahed Tamimi, unarmed, slapped a gun toting Israeli soldier who was in her back yard" - somewhat lacking in terms of the full and unvarnished truth. Take "gun toting" as a choice of words. Not exactly an impartial one, is it? And Haaretz, who Kim cites, have also published pieces headlined Ahed Tamimi and Her Family Aren't the Palestinian Saints You Want Them to Be (a piece Kim Ghattis didn't link to).

And then, in the final tweet, 'BBC Kim Ghattas' goes on to express a extremely non-neutral opinion. 

Now, yes, it's all Twitter, but - as we know from Helen Boaden, Mary Hockaday and now Fran Unworth - Twitter counts. BBC reporters aren't allowed to unimpartial on Twitter and, if they are unimpartial on Twitter, according to BBC supremo Fran Unsworth, they mustn't report on that subject for the BBC.

If I hear Kim Ghattas reporting on anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian question ever again I will write to Fran Unsworth and ask her to bring Ms Ghattas to book. 



Monday, 3 July 2017

What larks! (Or Whoops Apocalypse!)



When I was a kid I used to watch wrestling on ITV's World of Sport at 4 o'clock every Saturday afternoon with my gran, just before tea.

Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks, Mick McManus, John Prescott, Pat Roach, Bad (later Beautiful) Bobby Barnes, Kendo Nagasaki, etc.

Great names, great sportsmen. Some were good guys, some were bad guys.

My gran loved it. I loved it. We shouted at the TV. We cheered. We booed.

Big Daddy, the nicest of all the nice guys, was obviously the greatest. Why? Partly because he just was, and partly because he always won - and you can't argue with results.

And then one dark day my dad came into my gran's room, with me and her agog at the TV, and said, 'It's not real, you know? It's all kidology'.

Those terrible words are branded into my memory.

Of course, the Americans then got in on the act and made it even bigger - bigger even than Big Daddy.

WWE's World Wildlife Fund Superstars of Wrestling became massive in America, with stars like Dwayne the Rock, Hunk Hogan, Ace Ventura, 'Stone Cold' Lee Majors, Cyndi Lauper, etc.

Had he ever watched it my dad would have said that was all kidology too.

And, looking back, I now realise that my dad had a point all along. (Don't tell him though or I'll never hear the end of it). In fact, it turns out that he was 100% right (as so often). It wasn't real. It was fantasy, fakery, fun. Who knew?

(I also recently got some bad news about Father Christmas and the 2017 Labour manifesto).

One memorable piece of fantasy, fakery, fun came in 2007 with 'The Battle of the Billionaires' where some guy called Donald Trump was one of the battling billionaires and the other was WWE's main owner Vince McMahon.

In one memorable scene outside the ring Mr Trump bodyslammed into Mr McMahon and began punching him and yet, oddly, no one seemed triggered or traumatised by such an outrageous act of violence, nor did the police intervene to arrest Donald Trump - despite there being millions of witnesses to the assault....

....Oh yes, sorry Dad, I'm doing it again. Of course. It was pretend violence, acting, entertainment, fun. And none the worse for that.

Fast forward ten years and someone created a GIF of this scene and superimposed the logo of Donald Trump's least favourite news organisation CNN onto the head of the WWE boss. And Donald Trump, now known as President Trump, then tweeted the GIF. And the world responded.

And the world's response? Well, as far as I can see, it's been polarised along a pretty clear spectrum, moving roughly from those who most support Donald Trump through to those who most oppose him:

First come those who just loved it, finding it funny. Then come those who found it childish and said that tweets of this kind demean the dignity of the presidential office. And finally come those who found it absolutely appalling and who said it encourages violence against journalists.

Now on that spectrum I would place myself somewhere between the first group and the second group. To me it's just a joke, a silly joke, a harmless silly joke, quite funny, but a joke I'd probably prefer US presidents not to tweet. Decorum please, Mr President! (Call be old-fashioned and un-modern in that respect if you like).

The reaction of BBC journalists to this story has been really quite something though. And they've (predictably) been much, much further towards the third group. And some have been fully in the third group. Detached amusement and bemusement hasn't been the hallmark of their response.

The tweet story was the top story on he BBC News website's home page for many hours yesterday - the most important story in the world.

And our old friend DB has chronicled a whole host of hyperventilating BBC types on Twitter yesterday venting their BBC impartiality about the story in the usual way. 

There was the BBC's Imogen Foulkes tweeting, "Seriously? THIS is a president?" 

And the BBC's Washington News Editor Pratiksha Ghildial reacted by tweeting, "Finger on the nuclear button y'all. Happy Independence Day weekend!"....a prime example of the type of person the Spectator's Damian Thompson meant when he tweeted, "Honestly. @realDonaldTrump takes the piss out of his media critics and they run around screaming that he's going to nuke us all." 

And here's BBC Newsbeat journalist Del Crookes sounding off: "Is the US president ill? And shouldn't he be running a country?" [I think he meant to say, "And should he be running a country?"]

And here's the famous BBC Hillary-groupie Kim Ghattas having her say (and firmly taking up the 'provoking violence against journalists' theme): "At this rate, it'll be safer to cover wars in the Middle East."

John Simpson, having finally got the hang of Twitter, naturally chipped in too: "The pictures of @realDonaldTrump wrestling 'CNN' are disturbingly weird. No US president has behaved like this before. It's beyond bizarre."

Jon Sopel, the BBC's North America Editor, tweeted, "Is this normal?" 

And, of course, Katty Kay (the face of the BBC in the US) went even further - though not on Twitter. 

Here she is being shown up on on the impartiality front by her NBC host on Meet the Press. Katty being Katty, she's taking the hardest of hard lines against President Trump here, emphatically stating that the President had "condoned or encouraged or promoted violence" here. "THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE HAS JUST DONE", she asserted (impartially):


(She didn't reply to Chuck).

Meanwhile, over at The Times ol' Justin Webb has been giving us the benefit of his wisdom on such matters. His take on the "bizarre" wresting tweet about CNN is that it it forms part of a pattern of behaviour on the President's part - a pattern he openly describes as "something approaching derangement". That's nice. 

Now it hasn't all gone one way. Over at Biased BBC AsISeeIt (in his usual stylishly witty way) noted that one of the BBC drones had revolted. 'The Only Christian in the Village' Dan Walker on BBC Breakfast had suggested that Donald Trump's critics had had "a sense of humour failure". Having not seen it, I looked it up on TV Eyes, and here's the exchange. (It makes for a wonderful script. I wish I was gifted enough to have imagined it.) Look out for Louise Minchin taking my childhood naivety and bringing it right into full adulthood when it comes to wrestling:
Louise Minchin: I think people are divided on this. We're slightly divided, aren't we?
Dan Walker: I just think...
Louise Minchin: Gently divided.
Dan Walker: I'm not sure I'm saying it's a brilliant video...
Louise Minchin: No.
Dan Walker: I'm just saying it's...People seem to be taking great offence, when I think there's an element of sense of humour failure from some people who are offended by that but they're not offended by a comedian who held up a decapitated head of the President.
Louise Minchin: Well, there you go. So feel free to get in touch, tell us what you think. I personally...I don't watch a lot of wrestling, so for me, you know, I didn't know that it was all heavily scripted and all the rest of it. To me it looks quite violent.
Dan Walker: But still...exactly, and you can see there is clearly sort of violence in the video and you can see why people could look at that and think I can't believe that a President - let's not forget, a President - has actually tweeted that from his presidential account, and it was re- tweeted from the official Potus account as well.
Following on from that B-BBC comment though, Roland Deschain commented, "Yes, but did they discuss WHY Trump is taking the piss out of CNN? Because I’ve yet to hear anything on British media about the admission that their Russia story was made up. Seems to me the media protecting their own." 

Well, neither have I. Indeed, until I read RD's comment, I'd not even heard about that. 

And yet there is a BBC website report about three CNN reporters having to resign after a Trump-Russia story went seriously awry (in the direction of FAKE NEWS). It was published on 27 June and yet, despite having kept a fairly careful eye on the BBC website's home page, I never saw it. 

Did it ever make it on the BBC News's homepage? Or was it one of those stories that appeared on the BBC's US & Canada page and then faded away quickly? 

I can be more confident about BBC TV and radio. A search on TV Eyes for the word 'Scaramucci' (the Trump ally who CNN posted the FAKE NEWS about), brings up nothing whatsoever. Why?

Anyhow, that's enough of that. Over to Kent Walton....



Update: Talking of Katty Kay, the Alliterative One was also on Crazy Joe and Dumb as a Rock Mika's MSNBC show yesterday where she said, "If you take just in isolation that whatever 15 seconds, it’s hard not to see somebody punching somebody in the face". Unfortunately, Katty then went on to say, "It really looks like America has gone off the reservation in some ways", which landed her in trouble with the PC language police:

Friday, 7 April 2017

Going down well (so far)


I haven't seen much of the BBC's coverage of the Trump administration's military strike on a Syrian regime airbase but I'm getting a strong sense from the Twitter feeds of many familiar BBC reporter that the US military action is going down well with the (duly impartial) BBC.

Here's a small selection, beginning with the the BBC's Washington bureau chief, Paul Danahar:


...a point that Newsnight presenter James O'Brien has already taken on board: 


Even Katty Kay is positive about the strikes:


And for the first time ever, I've actually seen BBC reporters re-tweeting criticism of Stop The War types opposed to US military action - including Hugh Sykes:


...and John Sweeney:


John Sweeney is also among those BBC reporters re-tweeting Arab appreciation for President Trump's actions (and not - for once - re-tweeting Arab criticism):


...as is Katty Kay:


Others, like Kim Ghattas, are following their earlier tweets criticising the lack of action (by persons unspecified) over the last few years:


...with attacks on those critical of last night's strike:


Others are tweeting about editorials that back the action (and not tweeting about editorials which criticise the action), such as Ian Pannell


...while others are placing a positive gloss on the politics of the military strike, such as Barbara Plett:


Others are even hoping that President Trump might go even further and do something even better, such as Laura Bicker:


The BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, has tweeted nothing about the strikes yet. Nor has the BBC's World Affairs editor John Simpson.

How much of any of this is feeding into the BBC's actual reporting I can't yet say (as I've not had time to check it out), but a definite BBC point of view is emerging on Twitter. 

There are also, naturally, plenty of digs at Donald Trump for his past flat-out refusal to back military action in Syria, though even here - as with Quentin Somerville - there are surprising defences of Trump:


As for my Twitter feed in general, it's been fascinating seeing nearly all the anti-Trump types backing the strikes and nearly all the pro-Trump types opposing them - and Trump. 

It's all gone topsy-turvy today.

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Pinned Tweet


Even non-freelance BBC reporters write pieces for other (non-BBC) sites.

Kim Ghattas, for example, remains proud of a piece she wrote for Foreign Policy a couple of years back - so proud that she's made it her 'Pinned Tweet':


It wasn't a particularly impartial piece either, featuring statements like, "We’re also in the midst of a crisis in basic humanity", and denunciations of "headlines decrying the “disgusting” refugees, who are supposedly spoiling British tourists’ holidays on Greek islands".

I read that and immediately guessed which newspaper Kim was linking to there (on “disgusting”). See if you can guess too.

Saturday, 21 January 2017

Views their own


Talking about Twitter and DB...

DB has been catching all manner of moaning BBC types, all tweeting away as 'impartially' as ever. Here are just a few examples:

There's BBC Tech Correspondent Richard Taylor (who you may or may not recall from BBC Click), who didn't exactly hold back when tweeting: 


He first blocked DB on Twitter for having the temerity to call him out of that tweet and then, in the usual way, discreetly deleted it.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's most faithful BBC sycophant, Kim Ghattas clearly hasn't been taking the ascent of Trump at all went.

She has been very busy today aggressively defending the women's march against Trump against all criticism on Twitter, including laying into Piers Morgan. Other tweets talk impartially about Trump's speech containing "strident nationalism" and his echoes of 1930s fascism. Plus, of course, lots about the 'small' numbers attending the Trump inauguration compared to Obama and the women's march. She didn't like his use of the word "carnage" either. ("Ppl around world listening to @realDonaldTrump talking of  "carnage" to describe US must wonder which country he's describing. #superpower?"), Other anti-Trump tweeters get linked to too. Our Kim is not a happy bunny. 

As DB said, Jo-Anne Pugh ("Home Desk Editor, BBC TV & Radio. I am paid to leave my opinions at home, obviously") sounded "a little bit bitchy" - or a little bit Katty - here:


Hmm.

The ever-reliable Rachel Kennedy ("BBC TV News Ed") has been excitedly comparing the size of Trump's crowd with the women's march and linking to lots of anti-Trump stuff, plus adding the odd snarky comment about the new US president. Still, she's had time for a little light relief:


For more of the same, you can also try the Twitter feeds of well-known BBC News Channel presenter Maxine Wawhinney. I don't think she's that keen on Brexit either. Or why not try Rebecca Kesby ("Journalist for BBC World Service and Radio 4. Presenter/reporter. Views mine (or yours)"? Her views are entirely typical for a BBC reporter.

Monday, 7 November 2016

Stronger Together


Kim 'n' Hillary. 'Stronger together'


Here's a video of Kim Ghattas standing next to Hillary today - "sucking up, before asking her a lapdog question", as DB so accurately puts it. 



There's a bit of dark humour to be had from the fact that Hillary's fawning bodyguard of journalists (with the BBC's Kim Ghattas as her right-hand woman) is seen posing in front of a plane bearing the slogan 'Stronger Together'.

If ever an image ever spoke much truer than it meant this might very well be it.

Kim Ghattas asks the most sycophantic question ever (to Hillary Clinton)


(h/t DB)

I do hope you haven't just eaten...

This has to be seen to be believed. It's BBC reporter Kim Ghattas asking Hillary Clinton a question today:


And here's that what that question looks like in writing:
It seems to me that over time you've been often ahead of your time, you've been sometimes misunderstood, fought off a lot of prejudice. Do you think that, today, America understands you and is ready to accept you?

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Ghattas’s adventures in Ayatollah-land

Vice-President Masoumeh Ebtekar and Kim Ghattas

What do you think of the reports we’re getting from the BBC’s Kim Ghattas?
It’s part of “the Iranian regime’s media charm offensive”; that’s not my cynical take on it - it’s from an article in the Guardian. 

Jon Leyne

There have been several articles about the softening of Iran’s hard-line attitude to things western. 
The hard-line attitude that led, for example, to the expulsion in 2009 of the BBC’s Jon Leyne, who sadly died in 2013 at the age of 55. He’d been reporting from Iran since 2007 but was chucked out of the country in 2009 after which he reported on matters Iranian as best he could, from exile.
This is from his Guardian obit: 
“In 2007 came his most difficult posting – Tehran. The Iranian government was suspicious of foreign reporters, particularly after massive street protests erupted in response to disputed presidential elections in June 2009. Despite continued threats that the BBC bureau would be shut down, Leyne refused to dilute his coverage, exhibiting much bravery. Eventually, he was expelled when the authorities accused the BBC of fomenting revolt. Shortly after his departure, a pro-government Iranian newspaper accused him of hiring thugs to kill Neda Agha-Soltan – who was shot dead during election protests – so that he could make a documentary.”
Anyway, along with Iran’s (possible) ‘coming in out of the cold’ there has been a considerable easing of its ban on foreign correspondents. In fact they’ve been encouraged to visit in a sort of rebranding exercise. Trust us! We wish you no harm!
“According to the Fars news agency, 17 foreign media organisations have been granted press visas this month alone, including the Forward, France’s Arte channel, Science magazine, Le Monde and France Culture, as well as the BBC.”
Of Kim Ghattas’s visit the Guardian says:
“But arrangements for Ghattas’s trip reflected continuing Iranian sensitivities: she was apparently selected for the assignment because she is Dutch and not a UK national. It was also agreed that none of the material would be broadcast on the BBC Persian TV channel, which is extremely popular with ordinary Iranians but strongly disliked by the government.
The only BBC journalist to have visited Iran since 2009 was its chief international correspondent, Lyse Doucet, who travelled to Tehran with the party of the EU’s foreign policy chief after the nuclear agreement in Vienna.” 
Perhaps the most surprising visit by a foreign correspondent was by a reporter from ‘Forward” a Jewish publication; Larry Cohler-Esses.
His lengthy and lavishly illustrated article includes a video of Iranian people saying they want to be friends with the rest of the world, they don’t dislike Jews - “only Zionists”, and “occupiers must go out of those lands”. 
“My visit, coming after two years of seeking a journalist’s visa to report from Iran, represented something special: I was the first journalist from a Jewish, pro-Israel (if not always pro-Israel government) publication to be granted a journalist’s visa since the 1979 Revolution. Whether this was a reflection of increased openness by the government I cannot say. My visa came only after a former representative of Iran’s Jewish community in the country’s parliament wrote a letter on my behalf.”
Iranian 'man in the street'

Cohler-Esses believes the Iranians have no desire to attack Israel, and although they do have an ideological objection to the Jewish state they would accept a two state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians if the Palestinians were to negotiate one and approve it in a referendum.
Of course if we’ve been reading Elder of Ziyon, we would be familiar with the infamous Referendum. 
How the Ayatollah duped The Forward (and how the NYT plays along) 

This "referendum" that they are referring to would be open to all who identify themselves as Palestinian around the world, at last count some 12 million. Jews could only vote if their ancestors had lived in Ottoman Palestine and they still live in Israel. The "referendum" would then be to decide what to do with the Jews who moved to Israel since 1948. Those millions of Jews don't have a vote. The Ayatollah knows that the results of this "referendum" would be to expel all the Jews who have lived in Israel for less than a century. 
"Referendum," when used by Iranians, is a codeword for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. And they admit this freely for people who bother to read their writings.
But there may be an infinitesimal theoretical chance that these "Palestinians" would vote to allow a Jewish state on land that they claim as being stolen from them.
This is what these clerics and officials are saying, and dupes like Larry Cohler-Esses is too ignorant of the facts to understand that he has been made into a fool. 
This is explicit in the Ayatollah Khamenei's writings. But the Forward journalist is too enamored of the idea of a moderate Iran that he doesn't even know the basics of how Khamenei wants to destroy Israel - something that his interviewees agree with but were not asked.


































Michael Totten is always worth reading, and he pays the same compliment to Larry Cohler-Essen’s piece, but finds it “a bit on the naïve side”.
The article by Larry Cohler-Esses is interesting and worth reading, but it’s also a bit on the naïve side. Reporting from police states on a journalist visa doesn’t always take nerves of steel (such countries are generally not dangerous places for foreign visitors if permission to work there has been granted), but it does require heavy doses of skepticism.
“Though I had to work with a government fixer and translator,” he writes, “I decided which people I wanted to interview and what I would ask them.”
Perhaps, but he has no way of knowing if the translations are accurate, and meanwhile I know for a fact that both the translator and the fixer reported on him to the government. They were required by law to do so. For all he and I know, they worked for the Ministry of Intelligence.”
Totten doesn’t buy the excuse that Iranians don’t dislike Jews and that their objection is only to Zionists, and that they merely disagree, in a most reasoned and logical fashion, with the Israeli government’s policies
“Iran’s official line right now to Western audiences is that the government is increasingly moderate, reasonable, and flexible. (That’s probably the only reason a reporter from The Forward was given a journalist visa in the first place.) 
Anyway, it makes no sense that Iran only objects to Israeli policy. Iranian leaders routinely scream Death to Israel. They also routinely scream Death to America.”
There are valuable passages in Cohler-Esses’s article too. He quotes people who doubt that the easing of sanctions will benefit ordinary people. The power holder will not allow it. 
“So Cohler-Esses’ naiveté is balanced out to an extent with this sort of reporting. It’s also countered by an accurate analysis of who’s really in charge.
He ably dissects what he calls the Deep State—Khamenei and the instruments of power he controls directly, such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps. It’s the Deep State that executes dissidents, throws demonstrators into prison, and backs Iranian terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and Iraq. And the Iranian people, try as they might, have no leverage to stop it, not even when they “elect” a relative moderate.”
Michael J Totten

I find some of the comments below articles I’ve read on this topic almost as revealing as the articles themselves. Too many are extremely ill-informed and some are outright antisemitic.

L King, a regular commenter on Totten’s blog, replies to one of several supporters of the deal with Iran as follows:
“And it is a facade. The Iranian "referendum" mentioned in the article would exclude Jews who could not prove ancestry in Israel before 1918, but no such restriction on Palestinian Arabs. No criticism from the likes of you. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is a racist apartheid regime which has a similar mantra of ethnically cleansing Jews from Jerusalem and the west bank, not unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad who, if they were given the opportunity would extirpate the whole. No criticism from you. 
The Arab nations have treated Palestinians as junkyard dogs, penning them in concentration camp like conditions and denying them the possibility of integration into their own societies. No criticism from you. And some 850,000 Jews were made refugees from Muslim countries as Arab nations turned on their Jews, many of whom had lived there since long before Mohammed was a gleam in his father Abdullah's eye. No criticism from you. 
The Arabs have turned an naksa (setback) into a nakba (catastrophe). There was no good reason other than the discrimination placed on them by their fellow Arabs that they could not have recovered their social well being in the same manner as Indians, Pakistanis, Greeks, Hungarians, Jews, Croats, Vietnamese and other countless others have done in the wake of adversity. No criticism from you. 
We're fed up with being your scapegoat of choice, Mr Cross. We didn't kill Jesus, we don't control the banks, the newspapers nor the governments of the world and never have. It's tiresome to listen to people like you repeat this. We've continually tried to find a mutually acceptable accommodation with the Palestinian leadership which they've rejected time and again. Neither Gaza nor the PA is set up as liberal or democratic, and after several failed attempts perhaps its best to wait and see what the next generation will bring about. 
Finally Israel is a liberal and conservative multicultural pluralistic middle eastern western Jewish and democratic society. Your demagoguery and claims have been examined and considered more often than they have warranted. It's time you stopped abusing others and find yourself a new hobby.”
Most fans of the Iran deal tend to regard Israel as disposable. They have convinced themselves that Iran doesn’t really mean it when it threatens to make “the occupiers get out of these lands”, but even if Iran did mean it and began to implement it by slow or fast means, they still wouldn’t care one whit. It would be for what they see as the greater good. 
I’m pretty sure the BBC thinks along those lines too. Even if the official BBC position is to deny that, claiming they don’t ‘take sides’ I think their Israel-bashing over the years has led to a chilling indifference to Israel’s future, and in some cases outright hostility to the concept of Israel as a Jewish state or a safe haven for Jews.
 
I wonder whether Kim Ghattas feels restricted and whether she was tailed by minders who report back to the regime? I wonder whether she believes she’s hearing genuine, freely expressed, heartfelt answers? Her reporting certainly feels like spin and wishful thinking. Is she trying to make the Iran deal look positive. Is that on the BBC’s agenda? Maybe that’s just my skeptical, suspicious attitude, and everything will work out fine. 

Friday, 22 November 2013

Israel’s Spoilsports


Christiane Amanpour likes to call Israeli politician Naftali Bennett “Mr. No” because he’s against making a bad deal with Iran.  He makes the case for Israel on CNN to (somewhat unnecessary) theatrical effect with the aid of an ancient artefact, which he took out of the country illegally.
"This coin, which says "Freedom of Zion" in Hebrew, was used by Jews 2,000 years ago in the state of Israel, in what you call occupied. One cannot occupy his own home." 

Mr Bennet is by no means the only Israeli who the BBC sees as a spoilsport for not wanting to hug an Ayatollah. 



On Biased BBC, David Vance  cites an early-morning report on Today R4 (38 mins in) by Kim Ghattas (odd that someone from Northern Ireland thinks Kim Ghattas’s accent could be Irish) which presents the Israelis as though they’re guilty of spoiling everyone else’s party. (how annoying is it that the Today programme no longer has items individually listenable to on the website) 
Netanyahu was presented as intransigent and US jewish people seeking to influence opinion were presented as unhelpful lobbyists!”

John Anderson in a comment links to this, and I’m about to link to this:
I do miss Mel’s articles when she wrote on the Spectator, with comments facility. Never mind. This article was worth waiting for - and here she links to the Jerusalem Post.

Why is the BBC and, for that matter, much of the western press so determined to ignore these openly stated declarations of intent? They’re news, aren’t they?