Violating the terms?

Interestingly, on the Today Programme, Justin was rather pleasant to Emily Thornberry, despite some fairly rigorous probing. (It can be done.)

Addressing Boris Johnson’s bid to persuade Donald Trump not to abandon the Iran deal, the Shadow Foreign Secretary said she was sad to see Boris on Fox News instead of ‘face to face’ with the POTUS, like Macron with the dandruff.

“Might that have had anything to do with your party being contemptuous of Trump?” asked Justin amenably.

“No”, said the Shadow Foreign Secretary. She was more concerned with the Iranian nuclear programme, which she pronounced “NucULAR”, and giggled at her inability to articulate ‘I A E A’.

“What’s the alternatuv?” she asked. (Has Dead Ringers got an Emily Thornberry?) “I mean the worry is is that if we don’t continue…… […] I’m not here to defend Iran but I’m here to defend the deal.” 

These trivial observations may not add up to much, but the question is is the Shadow F.S. up to the job? The only purpose of mentioning such trifling things is to highlight the difference between this amiable chat with Justin and Mishal Husain’s flagship, post-eight o’clock interview with Israel’s Ambassador, Mark Regev.

Mishal Husain has two personas; a charming, syrupy, empathetic one and the contemptuous one reserved for Israelis.

Husain’s use of the Paxman technique, most notably in that interview with Gil Hoffman, commonly known as the “How many Israelis?” interview, where she corners her victim by repeating the question “how many Israelis have died?” to force from him an admission that none had. No Israelis had been killed by Hamas’s “home-made contraptions”, ergo no retaliation was justified. 

The technique is designed to ridicule the victim and to make their argument look weak. Paxman famously employed it to humiliate Michael Howard, and the interview became legendary simply because of the number of times the question was put, and the inevitable binary answer avoided. 

Of course, it was disingenuous and unfair, as the engineered question could never be fully answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

After hastily and selectively (not verbatim) transcribing the following, I listened to Matthew Amroliwala put a similar line of questioning to another interviewee, so I can only assume it wasn’t Mishal Husain’s own idea to focus on the matter of Iran’s violation or non-violation of the terms of the deal.  It must be official BBC strategy to approach it that way. (Impartiality? What impartiality?) However, Husain’s inability to listen to Mark Regev’s answers and adapt her questioning accordingly is all her own work.

Husain

“Would you like to see this deal collapse?”[…] “Has Iran violated its terms?”

(She wants Regev to admit that Iran hasn’t violated the terms and cannot justify pulling out of the deal)

Regev

“the deal is “good for Iran” therefore it has no interest violating it, furthermore Iran lied to the IAEA from the start." (By originally denying they were pursuing a military nuclear programme.)

Husain

“But that assumption is what led to the deal being reached,” says Husain, dismissing Iran’s lying as irrelevant. 

Husain persists.

“I’m going to ask you again, has Iran violated the terms of the deal?”

Regev

“The deal itself had an element that called upon Iran to come clean regarding its prior nuclear activity. The deal is based on Iran coming clean, which it did not.”

Husain

“In terms of what they have done since 2013, have they violated the deal? she asked, again.”In the terms of the deal, in terms of their activities”

Regev

"Well first of all, not coming clean was a violation, but it’s in their interest to stick within the narrow confines of the deal because it allows them in a few short years to create unlimited amounts of uranium…”

Husain

"I think its clear from what you’re saying that your issue is about Iran’s truthfulness about its past activities and some may raise the question about Israel’s openness about its nuclear activities, given that you’re widely regarded to have a nuclear programme which you have never been open about, but international nuclear inspectors have said, again and again, eleven times in total, that the commitments in Iran, that it has signed up to, have all been fulfilled. Now, do you have evidence that that is not the case?" 

(Has Husain ignored everything Regev has been saying? It looks so. She insists that as long as Iran hasn’t violated the terms of the deal there’s no justification for pulling out.)

Regev

“The inspections at the moment are very limited. You have to notify the Iranians ahead of time and no inspector can go to any site that is declared by the Iranian regime as a military site. Now if you were the Ayatollah, and you were the Iranian government, and if you wanted to conceal your programme, where would you put it? […] You have just confirmed what I said, that you have to notify the Iranians in advance and get permission, secondly, any military site is off limits to the inspectors…"

Husain

"And do you have suspicions that things are going on right now that shouldn’t be and if so have you put these to the international nuclear agency?"

Regev

“We believe we have conclusive proof that the Iranian nuclear ambition is not benign and that they continue to want their nuclear weapons."

Husain

“You say it’s a very limited inspection regime. The IAEA say they have 2,000 tamper-proof seals in place on nuclear material and equipment, that there are hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by their surveillance cameras in Iran, that is about half the total number of images that they collect in the world. In what way is that a limited inspection?"

Regev

"They are only there at agreed sites. The Iranians have never come clean before, never voluntarily said where they’ve got equipment. [..] Iran is a huge country and every military site - that Iran declares is a military site, is off limits."

Husain

"You suspect, do you, that things are happening right now at those sites that shouldn’t be. is that what you’re saying?"

Regev

"None of us know, and we haven’t even mentioned the ballistic missile programme, which is going on as we speak. The Iranians have a very, very aggressive ballistic missile process. Over the last few years, they’ve already doubled the range of their rockets. They want a nuclear weapon and we have to stop them from getting it."

Husain

"And the ballistic missiles are outside the terms of the deal."

Regev

"Correct. that’s a problem."

Husain

"Alright. if this deal collapses, what is the alternative? Benjamin Netanyahu said we don’t want confrontation. If there needs to be one  it’s better now than later, does that mean a military confrontation."

Regev

"I think there are alternatives. I’d like to see a deal that actually does what this deal says it does. That does stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon., and the way to do that is to deal with the ballistic missile programme, to deal seriously with the issue of inspections and to deal seriously with he issue of the ‘sunset clause’ that automatically in the next few years the restriction on uranium enrichment will be lifted."

Husian

"But let’s just think about the most sensible ways to get to what you call those other alternatives. You want a more stringent deal. Now is the most effective way to get to that, to tear up what you have at present and to supposedly start to negotiate again on that basis, or to try and strengthen what is already there?"

Regev

"For us whether there’s a deal or not it’s a minor consideration. The only important point is do we have a mechanism that prevents Iran from achieving a capability to build nuclear weapons. the current deal does not do that."

Husain

"In your view."

Regev

"Not just in our view."

Husain

"Wh.. w… well, y…but okay, again, if you were to start from scratch, what makes you, what makes you think that tearing this up would lead to a more u…u..a more stringent mechanism of some kind?"

Regev

"There’s no point in keeping a deal just for the sake of keeping a deal. There was a deal with North Korea in 1994 that was heralded as a great breakthrough for nuclear non-proliferation and we know that North Koreans developed nuclear weapons so a deal for the sake of a deal gets no-one anything. It’s crucial that if we are going to talk about a deal we deal with the serious issues, Once

again, the sunset clause, the ballistic missiles, and the inspections."

Husain

"And have you put the serious issues that you believe are in place, if you do believe that there are  er activities in violation of the deal happening now, have you put those to the IAEA?"

Regev

"We have close relations with the IAEA, we have with Americans with the EU3 my PM is going to raise these issues with the Russians. Obviously, we’re making our case and we believe that evidence that we can bring to the table shows a consistent pattern of Iranian duplicity. They have lied and continue to lie to the international community about the true nature of their nuclear programme. And let’s be clear this is not Israel speaking alone, the Arab states endorse, support our position. we are as one with the Arab countries on seeing the dangerous nature of the Iranian nuclear programme."

Husain

"Well, we’ll hear from President Trump on this topic later on today. Let’s talk about Gaza and what’s been happening along its border with Israel. Since protests began on the 30th March Israeli soldiers have killed forty Palestinians including five children on the Gaza side of the border fence, more than 3,000 Palestinians have been hospitalised with injuries from live ammunition. Why are your soldiers using live ammunition to shoot people on the other side of the fence?"

Regev

"We don’t want to see anyone get hurt, We don’t want to see any violence. Unfortunately, the Hamas regime in Gaza has orchestrated continuous attempts to storm the border fence to damage the face to penetrate into Israel and to hurt out people."

Husain

"Yes, five people have been killed crossing the fence, I’m talking about those who were shot with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers inside Gaza. Why are you using live ammunition to shoot those who were inside Gaza?"

Regev

"We are only using live ammunition as a last resort after we’ve used other non-lethal mechanisms. We can’y allow people to storm the fence, break the fence and come into Israel to try to kill our people."

Husain

"Why do you need a last resort for those who haven’t crossed the fence?"

Regev

"You used the word protests before. Demonstrations. We have no problem with demonstrations.If people in Gaza want to demonstrate against PM Netanyahu or the Israeli government they are free to do so. Of course, they are not free to demonstrate against Hamas. That would never be allowed. But if you storm the fence with wire-cutters, with petrol bombs, with explosives when the goal is to damage the fence so you can infiltrate into Israel and hurt our people we will act to protect our civilian population."

Husain

"I am asking you about this who’ve been shot with live ammunition on the Gaza side of the fence, the Israeli rights group Adalah which is part of the legal challenge against the use of live ammunition says the great majority of those shot were at a distance from the fence, that there has bee a systematic use of live fire with no justification."

Regev

"If I’m not mistaken some 80% of those fatally shot in the violent confrontations were signed up members of Hamas and Islamic jihad, they were activists, not innocent civilians."

Husain

"Finally, after allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has said in recent weeks, in fac,t he told Jewish news in march that he intends to visit Israel and to meet Benjamin Netanyahu at some point, will the PM meet him?"

Regev

"I can’t pre judge. I’m not even sure a visit has been finalise at this stage."

Husain

"But if it happened, that Jeremy Corbyn hopes it happens at some point, with PM Netanyahu meet him?"


Regev

"I am very happy to meet with Jeremy Corbyn and discuss a possible programme for him to visit Israel. Anything else at this stage would be premature."

Husain

"Mark Regev, Israeli Ambassador to the UK thank you very much, listening to that is Jeremy Bowen our Middle East editor, there’s no doubt Jeremy, that the Israelis feel extremely angry about what has been agreed in terms of this deal do you think they have evidence of violations happening now?"

Bowen’s pedestrian wisdoms ensue. (Why didn’t they bring in an expert to evaluate Emily Thornberry’s observations?)

I don’t know how interviews are allocated between the presenters of the day, but it often seems to fall upon Mishal Husain to do the Israel-related ones.

On second listening I didn’t feel that the disdainful tone of voice she used for Regev was as obvious as it seemed on first hearing, this morning, but that was before President Trump made his speech explaining why he has decided to do what he’s decided to do. That was then and this is now.

I see the BBC has substituted Sarah Montague’s image for Martha Kearney’s on the website. (It looks a bit big) Also, I find it pretty exasperating that they’ve dumped the ‘running order’ so one has to trawl through the whole thing to locate the bits you’re interested in. Just think, when I first started blogging, they even supplied us with hyperlinks to individual sections of the programme. It’s almost as if they’ve done it deliberately to frustrate bloggers who criticise the BBC.

Sucking up to antisemites

Spell-check will keep altering Maitlis to Meritless - I wonder if it knows something I don’t - I but  am absolutely tired of watching people like Emily Maitlis sucking up to people like Ghada Karmi. 

As if Karmi’s opinion is in any way worth hearing. (If that comment sounds dangerously close to complaining because someone I detest has been given airtime, so be it.) 

It’s not so much that I want Karmi to be no-platformed, although I wouldn’t care if she were, it’s merely that oxygen was being given to her very partisan, embittered opinion and  she was being sucked up to by one of the BBC’s senior presenters. Not only that, but Maitlis suddenly became rude and argumentative when speaking to Israeli ambassador Mark Regev, continually interrupting him in that reproachful tone of voice.

Now we all know what the BBC (and most of the British establishment) think about Trump, and we also know what the prevailing attitude towards Israel is - let’s call it lukewarm to cool -  but we suspect that the latter is based on a mixture of ignorance, lazy thinking and fear of enraging the antisemites in British society (if not on antisemitism itself.)

In case you don’t know, Ghada Karmi is an Honorary Research Fellow based in Exeter University. I think she teaches antisemitism and related studies. Honorary?  Wassat? Oh, nothing. It just means…….. Anyway, she gets to be labelled “academic”. 

To date, the only sensible article I have read about Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is in Commentary Magazine by Sohrab Ahmari, a senior writer at the magazine who happens to be of Iranian/ American nationality. So in a good position to opine. (i.e., notaJew) 

Because I don’t know if the full article will be accessible to many ITBB readers I’m going to reproduce most of it below. (The missing paragraph virtually reiterates the law US Congress enacted in 1995, which was included in Trump’s excellent speech) 

“The journalistic class is apoplectic over President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But conservatives, including those skeptical of this president, should add it to the list of Trump-administration foreign policies that deserve praise. The case for recognizing Jerusalem, and relocating the U.S. Embassy there, is formidable. Talk of the move throwing the region into chaos is overwrought and out of touch with Mideast reality. [..] 

(Professional people) contend that Trump’s capital idea (pun intended) will scuttle any chances for a negotiated settlement to the seven-decade-long conflict. In this, they echo the Palestinian president-for-life, Mahmoud Abbas, who on Wednesday characterized the move as America’s “declaration of withdrawal” from the peace process. 

Here’s the problem with this line of argument: What peace process?

For nearly a decade, Abbas has refused to sit down for direct talks, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s open invitation. Abbas’s rejectionism was spurred in part by the Obama administration’s theory that peace would come from creating “daylight” between the U.S. and the Jewish state and tying talks to an Israeli settlement freeze. Now, with the Jerusalem move, Trump is signaling that Washington will no longer tolerate the Palestinians’ excessive demands–or the obstinacy that led them to turn down generous offers from Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008. 

But, ask the peace-processors, what about the violence that will ensue from this? Here one must respond: Have you looked at the Middle East lately? 

The whole region is on fire, as America’s traditional Arab allies respond to Iran’s hegemonic ambitions from Yemen to Lebanon. Very little of today’s instability has to do with Israel at all. Thus, Washington should take Arab leaders’ statements of outrage with a grain of salt. Arab elites have to create some sound and fury over Jerusalem to satisfy their publics. But most of them today look to Israel as a protector and potential ally against Tehran. 

It can’t be an accident, moreover, that Trump’s announcement followed news of Abbas’s visit last month to Saudi Arabia. There, the reformer-prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) reportedly told the Palestinian leader that Riyadh shares Netanyahu’s view of the conflict. The Palestinians must learn to accept a state with limited sovereignty and non-contiguous territory dotted with Israeli settlements. Under the MBS plan, the New York Times reported, “The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.” 

The leading Arab power, in other words, has concluded that maintaining the anti-Iranian alliance is more important than a settlement here or an East Jerusalem neighborhood there. The Trump administration’s Jerusalem decision, then, is attuned to the tectonic shifts taking place in the Middle East. Why keep pursuing the fiction that the Palestinian question is the most pressing problem in the region, when the Arabs themselves have moved on? 

As for Palestinian groups’ threat of staging days of rage and rioting, that’s not so much an argument against Trump’s decision as it is a case study in why peace has remained elusive for so long.

Strangely, this morning (still early days) this issue seems to have been demoted, news-wise. I do hope the BBC finds something else to gnaw on.

Saudi Arabia’s condemnation may merely be lip service - to keep their Arab co-religionists quiet, and d’you know, I hear that the Palestinians, actually, ain’t that bovvered.

Meltdown over Israel

Brendan (extra Brownie points for not being a Jew) O’Neil has written a hard-hitting but amusing blog on “Jewish News”. 

It’s about antisemitism on campus again.  “This never-ending meltdown over Israel is the distress of fools” is the title.

You see, Mark Regev, the former spokesman for the Israeli Government and now Israel’s Ambassador to the UK, was invited to speak at SOAS about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. 

However, the good folk at SOAS feared his presence on campus would cause “substantial distress” to the SOAS community.

O’Neil alludes to the “cravenness”  of academics who demand the silencing of speakers they disagree with and call for the expulsion from campus of anyone who “thinks differently from them” and he writes:

“The irony is that anti-Israel activists talk about “Israeli Apartheid”, yet they enforce a discriminatory system against all things Israeli. They treat that nation’s professors, artists, politicians and produce as poisonous almost, liable to warp minds — or cause substantial distress — and therefore deserving of censorship or destruction. They single out Israeli people for nasty, censorious treatment, and then have the front to accuse Israel of having apartheid attitude.”

These are worthy arguments, and the recent descent into snowflakery in the academic world almost beggars belief.

However, there is one aspect of this that we shouldn’t  overlook. 

Fist of all we might ask - Who are the people who would be so distressed at the sight of Mark Regev? 

If they’re from a cultural background that traditionally hates and fears Jews, no amount of verbiage from a Jewish Israeli will bring them round, whether it’s about the prospect of peace in the Middle East or anything else under the sun. Their hostility is irrational and innate and they will cling to it come what may.

The ones that don’t come from such a background, but are nevertheless distressed by the sight of Israelis on campus have been seduced by the sheer passion of those that do, and in the absence of any rational counter-arguments from the likes of the BBC they, too, have abandoned reason. 

(Who truly knows the depth of their distress at the sight of Mark Regev?) 

Test this argument by supposing that the speaker in question was a hate-preacher. Should, say, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi be given a platform on campus? (It’s not such a wild supposition, is it?)  One might indeed wish to no-platform such a person for fear that his passion would persuade or seduce the more vulnerable members of the audience. (If that’s too far-fetched to imagine, think of those gatherings of Palestine Solidarity types who routinely eject Jews asking awkward questions.) 

I don’t relish the thought of, say David Irving’s ideas being given exposure and I’m not ecstatic at the thought of Professor Ilan Pappé and Ghada Karmi influencing gullible students at Exeter University. But there it is. They’re there and there’s nowt I can do about it.

No, the ridiculousness of the SOAS position is not merely a question of no-platforming people who disagree with or think differently from the SOAS community. They don’t merely ’disagree’ or  ‘think differently’. They hate Jews, therefore they hate Israel. Their distress is caused by the prospect of their fear and loathing being exposed for the sheer irrational racism it is.

The eventual outcome of Mark Regev’s night at SOAS was positive. Outside, there were demonstrations by both sides, but the actual event passed without incident. Read Mark Regev’s piece  “Why I accepted invitation to speak at SOAS to put forward Israel’s case.” The fact that he even needed to explain why he accepted the invitation says a lot about the atmosphere on campus, and the fact that he knew it was up to him to put the case for Israel says a lot about the BBC.

You've been framed

BBC Watch has written two in-depth articles about the Bowen report we featured here recently.

I was struck by the difference between the audio and written versions, but as BBC Watch shows,  Jeremy Bowen’s visibly pro-Palestinian approach to all his reporting isn’t acceptable. 

Hadar calls it  ‘framing’. It’s the way he gives credence to those extremely imaginative allegations by Palestinian interviewees, enhanced by dramatic voice-overs or  interpreted by himself.  The BBC always promotes the theory that all Palestinian violence against Israel is an understandable manifestation of Palestinian frustration at not having a state. This is sheer agenda-driven ignorance. 

Mark Regev speaking at Oxford

In response to a listener’s complaint about the same report,  someone from the complaints department named Hugh Dignan has responded in the BBC’s customarily dismissive way. 

The listener has reproduced the letter in full in a btl comment, including the name with which she had signed her complaint. Mrs Goldberg. I can’t help wondering if Mr Dignan is related to Richard Ingrams.

"I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so," he announced, "I tend not to read it." 

Andrew Marr and Mark Regev

Andrew Marr's interview with Mark Regev this morning is well worth catching up with if you've not already seen it. Ambassador Regev (as he now is) was on excellent form throughout, e.g.:

Mark Regev: You know, if historically anti-Semites targeted individual Jews, that they were evil, that they were behind the scenes, that they were manipulators, all the typical anti-Semitic stereotypes; if you listen very carefully today modern anti-Semites target the collective Jew, the Jewish state. Israel is evil. Israel must be eliminated. Israel is a perversion. The very same slurs are now targeting the Jewish state.

Andrew Marr: But you know, also people attack, for instance, Russia. They say Russia under Putin has become a dangerous rogue and in some respects dark and evil state. That’s not Russia-phobia. That’s attacking the Russian government.

Mark Regev: But no one denies Russia’s right to sovereignty and independence. No one denies the Russian people’s right to national self-determination. Why do they deny my people’s right to national self-determination? 

Incidentally, I do hope Andrew Marr meant that question purely in the spirit of 'devil's advocate' interviewing, as it would be a particularly dopey question to have put if he'd actually meant it. 

Andrew on the whole was OK though and let Mr. Regev speak, though I think introducing him as "a controversial figure" was unnecessary, and I do wonder just how representative his "lot of Jewish friends" really are: 

I’ve talked to a lot of Jewish friends of mine recently who feel that the actions of the Israeli government and the apparent lack of interest of the Israeli government in hearing criticism from outside has made their lives as Jews more difficult in Europe. 

Also to be noted here I think was Mr. Marr describing his regular sofa guest (on the show, that is) Shami Chakrabarti as "the very, very highly respected Shami Chakrabarti". Well, speak for yourself Andrew! (Ed - I think he already was doing).

Silencing “the truth”

A few days ago I read this online article by one of the BBC’s favourite ‘experts’ on the Middle East, Abdel Bari Atwan. Or 'Barry', as Gavin Esler likes to call him.

It’s entitled “A culture of Silencing”, and it begins as a self-pitying response to the cancellation of an event he was to chair at the British Houses of Parliament, no less, and continues as (the usual) diatribe of anti Israel hate-speak.

(Labour groups seem to be experiencing a spot of trouble recently, though I have no idea if Atwan's particular cancellation had anything to do with this particular row over antisemitism.) 

“The session was cancelled at the last minute under extreme pressure from the Labour Friends of Israel parliamentary group and a campaign waged against me in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle. This is not the first, and I am certain it will not be the last, time I have been prevented from offering the Palestinian point of view by the powerful machinations of the Zionist lobby and the propaganda department of the state of Israel known as Hasbara (‘explaining’).”

As Bari acknowledges, he is a frequent guest on TV, but he attributes the times when bookings have been cancelled at the last minute “for no apparent reason”, to the “powerful machinations of Jewish Zionist lobby and the propaganda department of the state of Israel.”

If Bari can’t see the irony in this, he’s even more blinded to reality that he at first appears. Do I need to spell it out? 

Whose propaganda department? Your propaganda department is bigger and more pernicious than my propaganda department? 

And, for what it's worth, any fule kno that last moment cancellations are par for the course where the BBC is concerned. They’re notorious for dumping speakers mercilessly if they’ve secured someone more interesting on the guest list.  Actually, I lie. I once read a piece by someone (other than Abdel Bari Atwan) who was furious because he’d wasted a whole precious day on stand-by, and was eventually unceremoniously dropped.

In any case I’d have thought Bari's ubiquitous appearances on Dateline would have more than compensated for the occasional cancellation. As far as some of us are concerned even one appearance is one too many.  That’s how powerful we are.

As far as the Palestinian point of view is concerned, well, does Bari not think it is offered sufficiently? Or is Bari one of the pro-Palestinian activists who think it is perfectly reasonable to expect the BBC to BDS all references to Israel? 

Yes. Apparently so.

“Readers may recall that during the invasion of Gaza in 2009 – in which 1600 Palestinians were slaughtered whereas Israel suffered nine casualties – broadcast commentary on the atrocity (in Britain at least) came mostly from Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, rather than Palestinians.”

Apart from the cheap casualty-toll reference, this is absolute tosh. And deluded and irrational. Yes, the Israeli PM’s spokesman Mark Regev was indeed seen and heard at that time, and although the BBC is supposed to be impartial (someone should tell Bari) he (Regev) was constantly subjected to (almost exclusively) utterly hostile interrogation by anchors from all British TV channels.

Bari complains that he was disadvantaged by Regev’s dastardly ability to lie and smile, whereas poor Bari’s powers of persuasion are hampered by his uncontrollable passion and volatility. Confusingly, he then seamlessly brags about the size of his following including the millions on Twitter.

“I am only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of media figures the Israelis seek to contain. Sites such as BBCwatch and CiFwatch (referring to the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ pages) routinely blacklist people who criticise Israel.” 

What? What on earth?   He proceeds to cite an assortment of Israel-haters, antisemites and BDS advocates to back up his claim that he is being victimised and that the anti-Israel, antisemitic views of his own and of the persons he lists are somehow being silenced by the Israel lobby. 

If only.

He goes on to discuss “terror” as if he doesn’t advocate it himself. Oh, oh! pants are on fire!

Excerpt from Wiki: 

“Following an October 2003 article in which Atwan claimed that the U.S. is to blame for the Arab world's hatred of it, a Yemenite journalist and columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Munir Al-Mawari, stated: "The Abd Al Bari Atwan [appearing] on CNN is completely different from the Abdel Bari Atwan on the Al Jazeera network or in his Al Quds Al Arabi daily. On CNN, Atwan speaks solemnly and with total composure, presenting rational and balanced views. This is in complete contrast with his fuming appearances on Al Jazeera and in Al Quds Al Arabi, in which he whips up the emotions of multitudes of viewers and readers."^[22] 

In response to Atwan's legitimization of the Mercaz HaRav shooting in March 2008, Lior Ben-Dor, a spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in London, said: "The problem is that when addressing the British public, he tends to hide his true opinions and ideology - his support for terror and the murder of civilians. This article reveals Atwan's real colors, a supporter of fundamentalism and terror, and hence he should be treated accordingly."^[1]

I know, I know. We don’t much trust Wiki. But...who you gonna trust? Wiki or Bari? 

It’s interesting to look at the comments below this piece though. One or two Harry’s Place regulars have contributed, which helps to take the nasty taste away from having read the wretched thing.

The enduring question remains. Why does the BBC see this duplicitous person as worthy of a platform they have in it their gift to bestow or withdraw at will?

Price-tag ping-pong

Gosh. It almost looks as if the BBC impartiality monitors desperately needed something to redress the balance after promoting the ‘rise in antisemitic attacks’ yesterday

 Of course I don’t really mean that.

Or do I?  One could try batting some pros and cons back and forth. Ping-pong in search of an answer.  Are there grounds for cynicism?

This is about the arson attack, a horrible act of violence that caused the death of 18 month old Palestinian Ali Saad Dawabsha. It looks as though it’s another so-called ‘price-tag‘ incident carried out by teenage, Jewish, extremist, illegal settlers. There’s no doubt about the vileness of that act. 

Of course, when the BBC chose to feature that incident in their morning headlines, they weren’t being gratuitous or anything like that. Plenty of other news outlets reported it too. Not just the BBC. 

Most took a similar stance, quoting both the Palestinian leadership’s characteristically melodramatic condemnation of the attack  (and the occupation, war crimes and settlements)  and the Israeli PM’s robust, unequivocal condemnation of it.  

On the other hand, there was an almost imperceptible relish in the way the BBC announced the fact that the victim was an 18 month old baby. In fact the death of the baby seemed to have been annunciated with a flourish.

Or was it? Did I imagine that? Did I also really detect a certain stridency of tone when Mishal Husain asked  the initial interviewee, Gregg Carlstrom of the Times (no particular friend of Israel) if the perpetrators of these ‘price-tag’ attacks were ever held to account or if they were allowed to do whatever they liked ‘with impunity’. 

On the other hand, the Today programme did allow the bane of every Israel-basher’s existence, Mark Regev  to have his say. Not that Mishal was particularly civil to Regev. He’s every complainant’s one-man catalyst whose merest appearance on the BBC is enough to incite a barrage of apoplectic protests. I have a sneaking suspicion Husain wasn’t convinced by his condemnation of the attacks. 

She insisted on asking what percentage of price-tag attacks were prosecuted or brought to justice, (Regev didn’t have those figures) which, now I come to think of it, he might have countered by asking: What percentage of terror attacks against Israelis was reported by the BBC? (less than 1% in the first quarter of 2015)

It’s a sensitive subject. If you mention anything that starts looking as if you’re going anywhere near defending the killing of a baby you’re in big trouble. Even if you unintentionally do so by association, intimation or implication. Anything other than unadulterated, unequivocal condemnation will not do. You will appear to be nothing but a cruel and heartless cynic.

And yet, there are things that one could say. Things that haven’t been made known - the BBC’s deficiency, I'd have thought.

They’re mostly things that come close to ‘whataboutery’. Well, they are whataboutery. 

What about the terror attacks perpetrated by Palestinians on Israelis that don’t make the headlines, and don’t even make the news. 

Mahmoud Abbas said he holds Israel as a whole responsible for this. An online comment surmised: ‘by the same token, the PA is accountable for all the rocket attacks and acts of terror against Israel’. 

The BBC tells an unfair tale. It is quite content to present such incidents as having the tacit approval of the Israeli government and the enthusiastic backing of Israelis as a whole. It implies that Israel turns a blind eye to the violence and lets the perpetrators off with a wink and a nod. 

The BBC’s presentation of Hamas’s ‘strategy of warfare’ has done nothing to disabuse the public of their unjust perception of Israelis whom they see as baby killers.  They are ready to accept that the average Israeli would likely encourage the murder of Palestinian babies. 

However, as far as I can tell, militant settlers are regarded by most Israelis as a fifth column. They’ve had some of their homes demolished by the Israeli government because they were constructed without planning permission.

 “Those behind the attack are believed to belong to the anti-Arab Price Tag organization, which operates in West Bank Israeli settlements. The group had previously vowed to attack Palestinian targets every time the army takes action against Israeli settlers and settlements.

It was the aforementioned Gregg Carlstrom who reported in today’s Times (£) a piece headed: “Demolition of settler homes opens rift in Israel government”  It says Benjamin Netanyahu has approved a considerable number of new homes to compensate for the demolition of apartments built without permits.

The ‘revenge’ that was  tagged by the Jewish vandals is directed at the Israeli government. You might say they’re using Palestinian ‘hostages‘ to punish their own government. “Shoot me -  and the kid gets it”  It’s the perfect ransom because it draws opprobrium upon the Israeli government from the entire the world, and not particularly onto them.

Look at the statements from PM Netanyahu, Peter Lerner, (he calls it an act of barbaric terrorism) and other Israelis. Outright condemnation from all of them, but greeted by us with skepticism.  

Compare it with the praise that is heaped upon the Palestinian perpetrators of acts of violence and terror by Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are agreed on that, if nothing else. The Palestinian killer who attacks a Jew is a hero. What is our response to that? What is the BBC’s response? None at all.

The BBC is doing exactly what the settlers want. I think we do ourselves and everyone else a disservice by going along with the settlers and doing their bidding.  We’re doing what they want us to. The Israeli government calls them terrorists and describes the  act as ‘reprehensible’, yet we ignore that and blame Israel all the same. Who benefits from that? The bleeding teenage militant Jewish extremists, that’s who.

None of this mitigates the crime; but the jury’s  still out on the BBC’s reporting of it.   

No win scenario

Having read a detailed account of the IDF’s enquiry into the incident of the boys killed on the beach in Gaza I kind of knew that Krishnan Guru-Murthy would find a way of using it to damn Israel. 

Sure enough he ignored the findings apart from the admission that the IDF’s surveillance mechanism made it impossible to tell whether the running figures were adults or children. 

“Why, if it was impossible to tell, did you continue  your attack?” asked Krishnan, of his long-time bête noire Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli government.

By that token, one might surmise, one would never attack anyone ever.  

Did you see that programme last night about the Met?  There was a horrible spate of crimes - muggings with violence, that had been terrorising the law abiding people of Camden. The young criminals were using scooters to zoom up to their victims, sometimes right up to  the victim’s doorstep, (or even further) snatch the booty and speed away. 

If the police were on the scene in time to give chase, the wily lads would remove their helmets so that the police could not pursue them with any vigour lest they should cause a death. The criminals were using themselves as human shields, if you like.

Needless to say the residents of Camden were totally pissed off. The poor spokesperson from the Met had to face the residents’ hostility at a meeting - rock and a hard place anyone? I think they resolved the matter by wholesale arrests and imprisonment.  No doubt it’s only a matter of time before that un-resolves itself again.

Just look at the expression on Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s face. It’s a picture, ain’t it?

Someone has appointed Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Channel Four, the BBC and much of the press as judge, jury and hangman-in-chief  over matters of which they personally disapprove; but we don’t get to know who has made this appointment, when it was made, and by whose authority.

It must be covered by that super-duper injunction that excludes the general public from access to material prohibited under the dedicated official secrets act (otherwise known as for the purposes of journalism and art) and from knowing by whom, why or from what we have been excluded.

As it happens I can see that there are two sides to this story. 

The Israelis claim that the target was a a weapon-storage 'container', while the Palestinians and their supporters say it was only a dilapidated fishermen’s hut. 

The Israelis expressed regret, said it was a tragedy, and that they don’t target civilians.  Their opponents dispute that, and wonder why the IDF failed to identify the figures as children playing on a beach. The Israelis also say that the spot where the boys were playing was closed off from the rest of the area by a fence, and from aerial observation operational staff had concluded Hamas figures were entering the area to conduct a military action, and authorisation was given to fire a missile after one of the identified figures entered the container and after 'a civilian presence in the area' had been ruled out.

The Palestinians and their supporters say the IDF had failed to take the appropriate precautions stipulated by the rules of protecting civilians in a conflict. The stature of the boys was small compared to adults; no IDF soldiers, potentially exposed to danger, were in the area as the ground invasion had not yet got underway; no other persons were in imminent danger, and therefore there was no urgency in launching a strike. 

The IDF, they concluded, could therefore have taken more exhaustive measures to verify whether or not the targeted people were militants. 

Lastly, the compound was located in the centre of a city with a half a million residents, between a public beach and a fisherman's area, close to international hotels lodging journalists, facts that would not rule out the possibility civilians might in the area. 

***

That last paragraph implies that the entire Gaza war was not viable as a war zone under any circumstances (because Gaza is the most densely populated place on the planet and the biggest open prison in the world)

It also implies that such an area is jam-packed with international hotels full of journalists eager to mop up any scandalous gossip about Israel they can conjure up. Every confrontation in the region has at least half a dozen camera-men in attendance. 

What’s my point?  

Gaza is like a lad on a scooter without a helmet. The media is on the case, always waiting to pounce on any casualty caused by the Israelis, who are like the police, forced to chase a criminal who has made himself intentionally vulnerable, and inevitably blamed when it ends in tragedy.  The media is like the media; it puts the Israelis between a rock and a hard place.

Dangerous Delusions.

These days everyone seems to have noticed that the BBC is biased. 

And at last it does seem to have started listening to reason. For example I heard the words ‘Islamist’ and ‘terrorism’ uttered together in a news bulletin. 

Admittedly  it has taken several acts of terror to bring this about, though the perpetrators themselves articulated in no uncertain terms that their atrocities were carried out in the name of Islam. 

That, and several high profile articles in the press protesting at the BBC’s increasingly incongruous policy of banning the T word. Someone on high must have come to their senses.

However the more unbiased the BBC becomes, the more credible will be the oft heard claim that “we get complaints from both sides” and accordingly the conclusion that “we must be getting it about right” would start making sense.

At such a time logical, reasoned and  legitimate complaints about the BBC’s inexcusable pro-Islam / anti-Zionist and left-wing biases would be redundant.

Then,  perhaps the BBC would no longer need to equate the hate-filled antisemitic rants they get when, say, someone smells the blood of Mark Regev, with genuine complaints about bias in the disingenuous manner it currently does in order to even up the tally.

So spotting Peter Oborne’s strange article in the Telegraph complaining about John Humphrys’s biased interview on Today this morning (scroll to 1:33) with Mark Regev, I’d be the first to agree. But from a different side of the fence.  

Yes it does seem that Humph referred to a ‘nuclear weapons programme’ in his intro, and we all know that Iran insists that it has no such thing. Not officially. But that Intro was read out by Humph in the manner of a script, so perhaps it was someone else’s error.

So although it might have been a slip of the tongue to call it a nuclear weapons programme, It certainly is a nuclear programme, and very likely one with the ulterior motive that Oborne and appeasers of the Iranian regime seek to overlook. Even the BBC’s QA on the topic is unequivocal about that.

His second point concerned Mark Regev, a person who Israel-bashers pretend is a bullying apologist for the despicable Zionist state. In this interview I thought Regev sounded tired and weary. The bully was Humph.

Oborne thinks Humphrys should have challenged Regev’s allegations that the IAEA is being denied access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Oborne thinks is untrue, apart from one small matter

 “(True, Iran has not granted the IAEA access to the Parchin military site,)” 

but that’s okay with Oborne because Iran’s refusal isn’t “breaking any agreement” “since it isn’t a nuclear site declared to the IAEA.” 

But the real thing that gets Oborne’s goat is the fact that Regev mentioned that Iran violated Security Council resolution 487. “A bit rich”, says Oborne,  “pot calls kettle black”. He is of course alluding to what he calls Israel’s  “world record in violating Security Council resolutions.” 

It was unwise of Regev to bring that up because he must have known his opponents would always come out with that when there’s little time to refute it in all its complexity. It’s cheap, tiresomely out of context, but too predictable an elephant trap for Regev to have allowed himself to fall into; a blunder that made me think he sounded tired and weary. 

Oborne forgot to mention Humphrys’s even cheaper, even more out of context pot-kettle-black cliche. The one that goes “Israel has nukes, so why shouldn’t Iran?” That’s like saying “the warders at Broadmoor have keys, so why shouldn’t the inmates?”

Anyway Oborne’s got a book out. It’s called “A Dangerous Delusion.” Good title, for an autobiography, and one I’d be the first to agree with. 

Tipping the balance

The BBC insists it receives as many complaints about pro-Israel bias as anti. I found that claim hard to believe because I couldn’t understand what the haters of Israel have to complain about.

We have to accept the BBC’s word that someone counts up the tally of complaints received over time, finds an equal amount from both sides, and concludes that the BBC must be “getting it right”. 

I think I now see what’s happening. Complaints about pro-Israel bias must come from the kind of people who feel insulted at the mere sight of Mark Regev on their television screens; folk who pen furious letters the instant he manages to make his voice heard above the interviewer’s sneers. Appearances on BBC television by Israeli spokespersons are usually confined to times of conflict, when Israel’s retaliatory activities, which many people think shouldn’t be permitted to happen, have caught the attention of Makers of the News. 

I quite believe the BBC does receive complaints about pro-Israel reporting, but I wouldn’t call them complaints about bias.

I’m reliably informed that during Operation Cast Lead the BBC received more than twice as many complaints about bias towards Israel from pro Palestinian activists as complaints from Israel’s supporters, citing examples of bias against Israel. 

However, the substance of the ‘pro-Israel bias’ complaints baffles me. It’s hardly  surprising that the *BBC-educated* audience would have complained during Operation Cast Lead. Bear in mind that Israel has been cast as the epitome of evil, and vast numbers of people were furious at the very thought of Israeli spokespersons like Mark Regev or Avital Leibovich being given any air time at all.

Much of this anti-Israel activity has been engendered by the BBC’s biased reporting, and many anti-Israel activists make a fuss as soon as Israel is mentioned in anything other than wholly condemnatory terms, and in times of heightened violence between Israelis and Palestinians the higher death toll amongst Palestinians enables the BBC to use the ill-conceived excuse ‘disproportionality’ to justify its outright condemnation of Israel, yet even while it is doing so, complaints about pro Israel bias seem to pour in. 

In quieter times a pure diet of overt condemnation would contravene the BBC impartiality obligations. So even when there’s “no news” the BBC finds a story that can be angled against Israel, and even then the pro-Palestinian activists aren’t satisfied. They still find something trivial, imaginary or mischievous to pit against genuine complaints, and in this uneven fashion the numbers apparently even out. 

If the BBC equates spurious complaints about bias towards Israel with with  substantive complaints about bias against, and disregards the quality of those complaints, it looks like a convenient way of masking an inconvenient truth, which is that the BBC has taken a very definite political stance, which has coloured the views of its own journalists and reporters as well as those of its vast audience, and in a circular, self perpetuating manner has created a monumental mire.

Moreover, it fits in with the automaton-like policy of not making ‘value judgements’ in the name of impartiality, another smoke-screen that fails to conceal the BBC’s obsessive interest in ferreting out stories that can be spun as yet another of Israel’s misdemeanors together with a conspicuous lack of interest in her benevolence, humanitarianism and other inspirational qualities. This all adds up to bias. No two ways about it.