Who cares?

When I say that BBC insiders seem to be the only sentient beings who are unaware that the BBC’s influence is wielded irresponsibly, in the willy-nilly manner of those who don’t know their own strength, I immediately think of the way that your man in the street regards Israel. (sigh)

The recent news concerning Scarlett Johansson and the SodaStream factory, together with the Bethlehem Unwrapped debacle highlighted the magnitude of wrong assumptions that are generally held about Israel. Both these newsworthy occurrences showed how widespread is the reach of the BBC, with the inextricable Guardianista, left-wing affiliation that they steadfastly deny. Between them, no doubt boosted by the Islam factor, the BBC/Guardian umbrella has succeeded in vilifying Israel over decades, so that the word ‘Zion’ is now more or less analogous to ‘Nazi’, not just because of those spikey Zs and Ns, but because of the inverted ‘holocaust survivors turned oppressors’ meme that one casually encounters when least expecting it.

Incidentally, I have noticed a slight shift in BTL comments on Telegraph and Guardian blogs, especially since Daniel Birnbaum came on the scene, i.e. Newsnight. People are beginning to think.

“The settlements impoverish the Palestinians” Said Mr. Oxfam determinedly. Paxo tried to force Mr. Oxfam to admit it wants to shut SodaStream down and put 500 Palestinians out of work. He did it in a manner reminiscent of that infamous and hugely childish Paxo/Michael Howard stunt. But Oxfam wouldn’t. It merely repeated, in an almost equally repetitious fashion that the objection was “to settlements”. Despite the fact that Birnbaum trounced Mr. Oxfam, Paxo of the BBC still failed to grapple with the fundamentals such as why there is “an occupation” what are “settlements” and what is the biggest cause of Palestinians’ hardship. 

Elder of Ziyon wished Paxo had asked: "In the case of a peace agreement where the Sodastream factory ends up in Israel, would you want it to employ Palestinians?" 

(The factory is in an area that has been virtually allocated to Israel under the terms of land swaps already agreed by both sides.)

"How about in case of a peace agreement and it ends up in Palestine, would you allow an Israeli company like Sodastream to invest in the Pal areas?" 

"Then how does it make sense to insist they close today if it would remain in operation and employing Arabs no matter which side of the border it ends up on?"

Birnbaum allowed several defamatory and spurious accusations about settlements and illegality to pass, a necessary sacrifice in view of time constrains and the need to focus on the SodaStream issue. Nevertheless by concentrating on the benefits SodaStream brings to the Palestinian workers and the detrimental effect on them should Oxfam have their wish and the factory be removed, Birnbaum won the argument. I think and hope that any ‘undecideds‘ out there would have seen through Oxfam’s anti-Israel  bluster.

As for as the Bethlehem Unwrapped fiasco, I saw a video of the cringemaking closing ceremony. I spotted our old friend Zeinab Badawi amongst the attendees. Nigel Kennedy bounced up and down with his Kaffiyeh-clad mates and some Palestinian “dancers” cavorted around amateurishly. Justin Butcher thanked Lucy Winkett, and gave her  a “certificate”, and Lucy Winkett hugged Justin Butcher and thanked him for organising such a successful event. They both beamed with pleasure at their accomplishment (stirring up Jew-bashing.) The finale consisted of dancers streaming symbolically through the section of symbolic torn-down wall, accompanied by chants of “Free, Free, Palestine”. 

If that wasn’t agenda-driven outright Jew-bashing I don’t know what is.

I’d also like to mention something in a piece by Ed West, in which he is broadly sympathetic to Israel over some of these issues.   It’s just this bit:

“Still, many of the internet supporters of Israel are not exactly nuanced either, refusing to see fault in anything it does;.”

When people stop querying Israel’s right to exist its supporters can be free to criticise her without her enemies seizing on anything and everything negative and amplifying it to suit their hatred. “Refusing to see fault” is as unfair as it’s untrue. It’s only from a position of security that one can afford to self-critcise.  Ed West is being insensitive. He’s taking out each-way insurance. Covering himself against every eventuality by defending Israel whilst keeping in with the Jew-bashers and not aligning himself with Zionists.

Busy with the fizzy

As this is a blog (primarily) about the BBC, I’d better stick to the way the BBC has been reporting the Scarlett Johansson business. Naturally I think she’s fantastic. A celebrity role model who is sticking to a principle, and a good one. But the way the BBC is reporting it is odd. In some ways it’s balanced because for once they have aired the Israeli argument, but  - as if they were afraid of being criticised for doing so - they’ve sought out the opposition in an almost gratuitous way. I would argue that it’s gratuitous because that particular position has been adequately covered by the BBC multiple times, with no little or counter argument.

Brendan O’Neill has said it in the Telegraph. 

He deals with this particular case, and the broader issue of the BDS movement, which is exposing its own hypocrisy more and more with each passing “From the River to the Sea.’

Even its arch proponent Finkelstein has described it a cult. Although I don’t know if all the protesters that stand outside Sodastream outlets with placards would openly admit it, their aim is the elimination of Israel  as  Jewish state and the creation of yet another Islamic one by default.

“you make up numbers, fantasize and all of the followers are supposed to nod their heads.” 

The fact that charities like Oxfam have become politicised is gradually seeping into public consciousness, and this is reflected in the comments below Brendan O’Neill’s article. An increasing  number of people are expressing independent thought and many have decided to do a bit of low-level boycotting of their own - by not donating to Oxfam.

Even the BBC this morning on the Today programme had Kevin Connolly giving an uncharacteristically even-handed report, in contrast to various web articles that are to be found by searching “Sodastream”.

“Scarlett Johansson should know better.” What a strange title for that clip. I didn’t think that was the gist of the piece at all. It did feature a ridiculous quote from Amena Saleem, an activist of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK, who the BBC News sought out to speak to and devote a whole page to elsewhere on the web. Her comments sounded even more idiotic, unjustified and illogical in this context than normal.

As usual, BBCWatch provides the background that the BBC can’t face.

However, for once the BBC has attempted to give the other side of the story, which does make Amena Saleem and co-cultists look ridiculous, racist and purely vindictive. I bet the BBC will come in for as much flak for airing that as Scarlett herself has had to, for refusing to cave in to Oxfam. Will the BBC be as  steadfast?