I am aware that the BBC’s attitude towards Israel is a bit of a niche topic, even amongst ‘BBC bias’ specialists and spotters, many of whom find the subject tedious and irrelevant.
Nevertheless, it interests me, and as this is partly my blog I’ll cry if I want to.
Most bloggers and keyboard warriors get material from the media, other blogs and elsewhere online, and all we do, in our own sweet way, is add value.
Ultimately it’s a matter of trawling, selecting and recycling. We do it for you (so you don’t have to)
One of the resources I have discovered, a rich seam of interesting information in my opinion, is Yiftah Curiel’s Twitter feed. Curiel is ‘spokesperson of the Embassy of Israel in London.”
We hear about the Palestinians arming themselves with rocks and missiles inside the Al-Aqsa mosque, and find that someone has put a video of it on YouTube.
We do hear about this on the BBC but only in the BBC’s customary ‘half-a-story’ manner.
We see an informative video of Dore Gold explaining the background of the current flare-up, but all we get from the BBC is Yolande Knell’s misleading copy.
We see that the BBC used an antisemitic illustration in their Proms Programme, and we also see that they apologised for it.
WE discover that the woman at the PSC parade who made several extremely offensive antisemitic comments is being investigated by the police. (nothing much is likely to be done about it, but still.)
From journeys through links, and links to other links, we can find a cornucopia of material. Here’s something that I found very upsetting, which I might as well share with you, since it’s (partly) my party and I’ll jolly well cry if I want to.
A woman phones into some US radio Jock’s phone-in. He’s a million times more obnoxious than the bitter essence of James O’Brien and Stephen Nolan rolled into one. She starts to talk about rocket attacks into Israel. She’s asking how many rocket attacks must Israel endure before retaliation is deemed legitimate. Her name is Mimi.
Radio Jock decides he is now going to deliver his opinion on Israel. He has invented an analogy so that his listeners can identify more easily with the Palestinians and fully absorb the insult - the effrontery - of Jews thinking they have the right to defend themselves and the audacity of the very existence of Israel.
“Imagine”, he says, “you are a family in Saint Paul Minnesota. Your family has lived there for hundreds of years....”
You can tell straight away where this is going. I’ve heard this analogy before, thoughtfully adapted to fit a place near you.
“Imagine”, they say,”that you are driven out of your home, at gunpoint, by a mob who say ‘this is now our home because God has given it to me’. “
As this person builds up steam it is apparent that his vile opinions are set in stone. Nothing could ever budge them. The caller tries to intervene, but the neanderthal-browed individual in the headphones is so convinced of the righteousness of his cause, so puffed up with misguided certainty, that he cuts her off and continues with his ugly diatribe in a spittle-flecked frenzy. He’s nasty, with it. He keeps saying the woman’s name “Mimi” with exaggerated sarcasm and a sickening kind of venom that could never be mistaken for friendliness.
He must have been proud of this performance, as there it is on Youtube for all to admire.
Wrong on so many counts; completely unaware of it.
The reason I’m mentioning this is because I’ve heard exactly the same kind of thing, albeit more delicately put, before. From friends!! Guardian readers and so on. Somehow they have got their facts so very very wrong, and I’m wondering if everyone at the BBC is similarly ill-informed. Surely not. Not to that extent.
If so, is it any wonder that we get the kind of reporting we have to complain about in our blogs?
It does seem that the collective message one gets from the BBC’s output indicates that this level of ignorance is widespread amongst some of those prolific tweeters and adolescent BBC staffers.
“I sincerely believe the BBC takes a fierce and firm anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian approach, which I suspect stems from ignorance on the part of BBC management as well as their on-the-spot reporters and foreign correspondents.”
A commenter responded:
“ If only the BBC slanderous reporting against Israel did stem just from ignorance !!!.”
Of course it doesn’t ‘just’ stem from ignorance, but I do still think - aside from some genuine old-fashioned antisemitism and some Islam-based Jew-hate that emanates from certain Muslim employees - the BBC’s Israel related output would be much more balanced and its anti-Israel bias far less heartfelt if they actually knew what they were talking about. I think most of them believe they’re fighting for a good cause, just like many Germans did in the 1930s.
A pretty good illustration of what I mean can be seen in a video of a “pro-Palestinian” stall set up (after being banned by the organisers from the “fair proper” ) on the fringes of the Richmond May Fair. H/T Daphne Anson.
The actor John Altman (Jewish, by the way) sets out a series of reasons why he supports the PSC. (As if we weren’t heartily sick of minor and less minor celebrities opining on political matters about which they know next to nothing on the premise that their fame bestows spiritual wisdom upon them )
Before Altman we see Jenny Tonge telling us why she’s here today:
“The injustice meted out by the Israelis against the Palestinians is the root cause of all the troubles in the Middle East that we’re now having to deal with”
What exactly does she mean? She gets away with this waffle, as she gets away with her oft quoted “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians.” Meaningless phrases that contain nothing but mendacious, substance-free inferences, swallowed hungrily by those with an appetite for the Tonge brand of lazy, prejudiced antisemitic bile.
So Jenny Tonge thinks the elimination of Israel would cure - what? Terrorism? Isis? Syria? Yemen? Iraq? Yeah right. It’s so patently untrue and antisemitic that one wonders how she gets away with it. Well, we know how. It’s because of ignorance, laziness and a misguided desire to fight what is portrayed as injustice. That’s how Joseph Goebbels managed to swing it.
The camera alights on a poster about the illegal wall, then a puffy faced John Altman appears.
“It’s John Altman once again here at the Richmond Fair supporting the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Um, many big news items have taken place recently in the world, oh Syria always dominates it of course, and the Yemen, but there on the Gaza Strip and in Palestine, people are being murdered, every week, by the Israeli armed forces, um, houses are being bulldozed, their land is being stolen as we speak and unfortunately Benjamin Netanyahu is once again in power and he’s gone with the far right.”
John Altman might be half aware of the likelihood that the kind of people who are most easily influenced by him are the ones that think he is Nick Cotton.
“So it doesn’t look good for the situation down there. I pray that this year, somebody somewhere in government, I don’t know if Cameron will, he seemed to ignore the last mass murder of Palestinian people altogether, I remember Miliband spoke up about it, but let’s hope somebody somewhere in the world really does do something about the situation down there. I hear recently, at long last, some building materials were let in to the devastated area; thousands of people were homeless, thousands of people suffering malnutrition and hypothermia last winter - none of it gets in the papers of course, but if you go deeper into the news you’ll see what the situation is like down there. It’s hell on earth. Especially on the Gaza Strip. So please. Open people’s eyes to the situation. let’s see a change. This year. In Gaza and Palestine. Give those people their freedom. Thank you.”
If I asked for a list of wrong information set out to illustrate my point, that was as good as any.
We might start by mentioning the absence of any historical or religious content in John Altman’s consciousness. He then seems to infer that Syria and Yemen dominating the news is somehow unfair, the wrong priority on behalf of the media, which should really be concentrating on the Gaza Strip.
Which people are being murdered “every week”, by the Israeli armed forces? Palestinians trying to cross the “illegal wall,” Palestinians throwing rocks, Palestinians rioting, bomb throwing. It’s that age-old, life-threatening thing, war.
Yes, there are casualties. Of course if the media reports the defence before the attack, the public don’t get to be fully informed. It doesn’t occur to John Altman that if there were no Palestinian aggression there would be no casualties.
Bulldozing houses is a controversial policy in Israel. It’s a punishment for families of terrorists who’ve murdered Israeli civilians. On the other hand, not a lot of people know that terrorists’ families receive generous salaries from the PA. Which is morally superior? Punishment or reward for killing Israelis.
“Their land is being stolen as we speak” is wrong on several levels, starting from the word “Their” and ending with “speak”. It demonstrates the ignorance of legal and historical facts, which again is due to failings of the media.
'The mass murder of Palestinian people', which allegedly Cameron seemed to ignore and “Miliband spoke up about” is a gross distortion of l’actualité, deliberately emotive, factually deficient and it completely disregards context. If he means that Miliband spoke in favour of the UK government prematurely recognising a Palestinian state, that is another factually illiterate bluster that people like Altman know they can get away with because it sounds convincing to those with an appetite for it.
The building materials ‘being let in‘ is also factually incorrect.
Perhaps John Altman hasn’t even heard of Hamas? It certainly sounds like it. I wonder if he’s heard of radical Islam? I wonder if he ever wonders whose fault it is if anyone in Gaza suffers from malnutrition and hypothermia? It can’t be Israel, because tons of commodities are trucked in there every day. Whether it reaches its destination is another matter. Does Altman know that disputes between Hamas and the PA are responsible for shortages of power?
He’s half right when he says “None of it gets into the papers.” Half of it doesn’t, and a good deal of the half that does is regurgitated antisemitic propaganda. He implies that he knows better because he “goes into it deeply”.
He must mean he’s been ‘educated’ by the PSC, a massive anti-Israel campaign with branches throughout the UK, spreading antisemitic myths and lies far and wide, from the media to academia, to the general public, to religious and political leaders and people who sincerely believe they occupy the moral high ground.
A particularly worrying group that is acutely infected with this toxic malady is the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon is an ardent advocate for BDS. The Scots Nats are passionate pro-Palestinian sympathisers and anti-Israel activists.
The tipping point had not been the Paris attacks, but events last summer in the Middle East. She blamed what she perceived as biased reporting that held Israel to account and “unleashed this torrent of hatred” against Jews. “You know what Goebbels said — if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.” Rabbis might have preached that this is not Germany in the 1930s, but Ruth was not comforted. She fears the impact of radical Islam and believes that Jews in the UK are “sitting on a time bomb”.Ruth was aware of how quickly everything had changed in Germany. She pointed to photographs of Anne Frank’s father, proudly wearing his German military uniform. German Jews thought they were German first and Jews second, said Ruth, and that was their mistake. “Some saw what was coming and had the foresight to get out. I can understand why people are sitting here, thinking, ‘Oh, life is just what it was, there’s no danger.’“I hope and pray every day that I am proved wrong...” But she had no plans to wait around.
I think many people would divest themselves of their keffiyehs and think twice about supporting BDS if they were in full possession of the vital missing parts of the story.
I am sorry to say I missed the first episode of Simon Schama’s five-part series “The story of the Jews” when it was aired last Sunday but I caught up with it via the link on BBC Watch and Craig’s impressive gesticulation-free summary.
Because of the BBC’s well documented antipathy towards present-day ‘Jewishness’ and its Arab-centric views about the legitimacy of Israel, pro-Israel bloggers have been holding their breath till Schama gets to the period of his ‘story’, circa 1948, to see whether they’re in for a feast or a fight; relief or despair.
Naturally, whether or not Shama’s ‘story’ is compromised by the need to pander to his partisan BBC hosts, he’ll be treading carefully. Whatever he says will be scrutinised, and bits will be snatched out of context and used as evidence for (or against) someone’s cause.
No wonder impartial reporting on the I/P situation is a rare thing. It’s virtually a ‘no-win’ situation. If anti-Israel fanatics detect material that they judge to be pro-Israel, and let’s face it, they instinctively perceive everything not wholly condemnatory of Israel and/or Israelis to be so, expect an outpouring of outrage and accusations about lobbies and Zionist tentacles.
If, on the other hand, Schama modifies ‘history’ to suit the Arab-centric BBC, the sinister sounding body that certain Israel/Jew-bashers refer to as “The Jewish Chronicle’s famous letter writers from Golders Green” will exert the customary and allegedly terrifying pressure on the BBC.
"Sarah Colborne, Palestine Solidarity Campaign; Daud Abdullah, Middle East Monitor;
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, British Committee for the Universities of Palestine;
Abe Hayeem, Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine; Ismail Patel, Friends of Al Aqsa; Diana Neslen, Jews for Justice for Palestinians" have handed in their objections early.
In their view this programme shouldn’t have even been made, let alone broadcast because Schama is a Jew, and a describes himself as “a historian-Zionist”, which they deem sufficient grounds to silence him because they are afraid he will succeed in making a moral case for Israel.
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
If those who can’t or won’t countenance the existence of Israel have any substantive objections to what Schama has to say, let them say so - as they will undoubtedly do in due course. If their objections are substantive, they will be listened to and debated.
By the same token, if Schama takes the official BBC line and comes over all ‘revisionist’, those who support the existence of a Jewish homeland in Palestine are at liberty to, and no doubt will make their objections known. But will they be listened to and debated?
Listening and debating are not the pro-Palestinians strongest suit. In fact they’d rather not. They’d much prefer to silence the opposition - “end of.” What a shame that would be.
It concerned Martha Kearney’s interview with Mark Regev, which took place around the time of the death of Rachel Corrie.
Rachel Corrie was allegedly mown down by an IDF bulldozer as she was protecting a Palestinian home. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Much doubt has been cast on the veracity of that tale, but suffice it to say that the late Rachel Corrie’s so-called heroism is legendary in the world of anti-Israel activism. A play has been written about her, and pages and pages of material in honor of her bravery are featured online. Her anti-Americanism and virulent hatred for Israel are less well-publicised.
The complaint is about Kearney’s awkward attempt at balance, in particular in the wording at the end of this phrase: “Clearly Rachel Corrie was one of the casualties of what happened that day – and I know Israeli soldiers died too”.
The objection, as far as I can tell, was that Israeli soldiers did not die on that day, though if that sentence was correctly reproduced here it doesn’t even state that they did, (die on that day) and the complainant seemed also to believe that Kearney’s question carried the implication that Rachel Corrie’s death could be morally counterbalanced by soldiers’ deaths. Or something like that. The BBC Trust’s review doesn’t touch upon the fundamental questions surrounding the incident, so the fact that the Trust came down on the right side, ruling that “there had been no breach of the guidelines”was probably a matter of luck rather than judgement. Furthermore, the Tust’s acknowledgment that “the question was poorly phrased and therefore gave a false impression” was enough of a concession to the PSC for them to claim a victory, which in many ways it was, as the Trust, impliedly, accepted the anti-Israel version of the Rachel Corrie incident in toto. If that is indeed the case it rather undermines the PSC’s allegation that the BBC is biased against the Palestinians. But they wouldn’t see it that way.
Corrie’s posthumous deification looks like a bit of a travesty. Firstly, when Corrie was run over she was crouching below the cab, out of the cab driver’s eye-line, where he couldn’t possibly have seen her. It is claimed that she wasn’t defending a Palestinian home, but, probably unknowingly, the entrance to an arms dump. There were discrepancies regarding the home, which was said to be still standing long after it had allegedly been bulldozed, and various additional circumstances involving Corrie herself as well as other Western activists. They were ultimately pawns in the propaganda war, which exploits foreign useful idiots because the martyrdom of a Westerner is more valuable to the cause than your common or garden martyr.
Another complaint, which belatedly succeeded in persuading the BBC to scrap some inflammatory material in an online description of a programme entitled “Gaza Surf Club” aired on 5th November 2012.
“The people of Gaza are hemmed in by checkpoints and walls, fences and watchtowers and few are able to leave the territory or to import and export goods.”
has been deleted altogether,as has: “defy both the Israeli blockadeand a sea that's often polluted with raw sewage”.
Were these sentences ever relevant or accurate? Or were they simply symptoms of the Tourette’s anti-Israel tic that the BBC just can’t help.
A small victory, too little too late, but a victory nonetheless.
Here’s another weird complaint, which got nowhere. It wasn’t made to the BBC, but it was indirectly related by way of the BDS movement, which is a typical manifestation of anti-Israel advocacy in the guise of pro-Palestinian advocacy. Anti-Israel activism usually masquerades as Pro Palestinian advocacy, in that people who profess to support the Palestinians invariably prove to be far more interested in attacking Israel, almost forgetting the poor Palestinians in the process. Being honest about this would look like racism. Not would. Does.
The Clackmannanshire Boycott Fiasco.
Exposing council members to too much BBC and too little intellectual curiosity is the likely cause. It inspired council members make a sadly misconceived gesture, the exact nature of which is unclear, both to them and everyone else. The complaint, which was made to the council and of course not the BBC, proved ineffective. Amusing banter (Modernity BlogHarry’s Place and more recently again, here) alleviated the gravity of the situation by making the council look a bit foolish.
“Clackmannanshire Council said it would resist all economic and political support for Israel in order to “end suffering in Palestine”
says the JC article. This might possibly ease, if not end, the suffering of the Palestinians, by cheering them up. Resist! Resist! Go Clackmannanshire!
“The boycott was implemented by 11 councillors after lobbying by anti-Israel activists from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.”
Note the overt reference to “anti-Israel” activists. The councillor who entertained with his witty defense of their boycott-that-isn’t-a-boycott does appear a little confused. Asked why the council were being somewhat selective with their boycotting, specifically, avoiding anything that would inconvenience them, he declared:
“ The Council is not implementing a boycott of Israel. Council has though, agreed to resist, insofar as legislative considerations permit, any action that provides political or economic support to the state of Israel.”
Resist! Resist! etc.
Not cutting off your nose to spite your face-ism is a wise kind of ism. Clackmannanshire council’s metaphysical resistance goes to show that a complaint may be futile, yet usefully illustrate the ramifications of contagious anti-Israel-itis.
And now for something completely the same. Mehdi’s weird interview with Lord Ahmed was mentioned on the Clackmannanshire thread by the way. That’s where I first saw it.
This time I don’t think Lord Ahmed’s, or for that matter Mehdi Hasan’s feelings about the Jews and/or Israel emanate from the BBC. They are more of an ingredient of the Muslim anti-Israel-ism that Mehdi had recently spotted. But really, these two back-slapping co-religionists, aren’t they a hoot? Mehdi, with his cattle on the one hand, and his “Oh, look! Antisemitism in the Muslim world!” shock horror on the other, and Lordy Ahmed with his Vicky Pollard impersonation “It weren’t me anyway, anyway; because I would never do that” He couldn’t believe some ‘twisted mind’ said something he didn’t remember saying because there’s ”no word for Zionist in Urdu.” Which apparently isn’t even true, but yer but no and anyway truth has abandoned the good ship Ahmed.
P.S.
Who still thinks Glastonbury is cool? John Humphrys seems to. Him and Farmer Eavis. Oh, and the producers of radio 4’s Today. That’s how dumb radio 4 is these days. What are radios 1,2,5 and 6 for? Keep Glastonbury away from radio 4.
