The Supplementary Opposition

Different version 

"You’ve miscalculated on this one, haven’t you? says Tim Willcox as he begins his hostile questioning of Tzipi Hotovely, aired on BBC World news last August.

What was he talking about this time? you ask. Oh, just a little matter of the Palestinians going ape-shit over metal detectors being installed to obstruct would-be terrorists who need to take weapons inside the Temple Mount compound. 

“We found dozens of knives, slingshots, cudgels, spikes, inciting material, unexploded munitions, stun grenades, binoculars — but we haven’t yet found caches of live ammunition.”

So, just props used by Palestinians for one of their traditional rituals, ‘resistance’. How dare the nasty Jews interfere with a Palestinian cultural practice in their thirdest  mostest holiest site?

“All you’ve done is create and provoke the Palestinians and now under international pressure, had to remove these metal detectors. “ 

says Willcox indignantly. 

“The Palestinians say you are trying to increase your control over the compound, they want the status quo to be continued. Jordan is in charge of it, they want those cameras removed along with every other security measures, they say you are deliberately provoking and taking control of the site which has been managed and run successfully by Jordan for the last fifty years”  

Willcox intones furiously, waving his arms around. How dare you obstruct the Palestinians’ when they feel a little frisky. The Jordanians let them, so why don’t you? What are you? Racists?

It’s not the first time Tim Willcox has paraded his pro-Palestinian proclivities in front of the world, though is it? Even though he had to apologise (must have been under international pressure) when he attempted to justify  another spot of terrorism not so long ago.

The Palestinian cause seems to have become his specialist subject in the eyes of the BBC editorial team.The Israelis have done something controversial, they must be saying. Let’s get Tim Willcox in, he’s the expert. 

Here he goes again. This time it’s Trump, and his controversial plans for UNRWA. 

"This is pretty counter-productive, isn’t it? It could actually cause you more security problems"

Hotovely patiently sets out the case against UNRWA, even inventing a new word ‘registrated’ into the bargain. She explains that their (the Palestinians') great grandparents started the war (of independence) and lost ….Willcox is not impressed. 

“Different versions of history of course…. different.." 

Hotovely Interrupts: ”No no no! There’s only one”…. they both talk at once..

Ah. So the BBC does know that there is a version of history other than the “Palestinian” version. That’s something at least. 

“Could you just answer the question though? Of radicalising people, Are you concerned about that?

Why am I mentioning this? you ask. Well, only to  reinforce Jon Sopel’s observation that some journalists see themselves as the opposition. The BBC sees itself as the opposition to lots of things. Particularly Israel. 

Opinions on the Austrian election

In the News

Sometimes the quality of BBC reporting raises your eyebrows. Being up early this morning, I was watching BBC World News's pre-breakfast paper review and heard BBC business reporter Sally Bundock describe Susanne Thier, the girlfriend on the incoming Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz, as "his wife". Not a major error, of course, and I wouldn't have commented on it had Sally not gone on to interject her own opinions into the following discussion (and she wasn't the only one). Under discussion was the Austrian election result with guest Priya Lakhani of Century Tech.

Priya Lakhani: It is incredible. He [Sebastian Kurz] doesn't have enough of the votes to lead Austria by himself so he's looking to form a coalition, and politics in Austria has obviously shifted now to the right. There's been a rise...

Tim Willcox: Significantly so.

Priya Lakhani: Significantly to the right, yes, with the rise of this sort of anti-establishment, anti-immigration party, and so what Sebastian Kurz is looking at is to form a coalition with the Freedom Party...

Sally Bundock: Which is a real worry because they're a far-right party. 

Priya Lakhani: Absolutely. They're very anti-Islam. I think it's mentioned all over the papers. Quotes here about are anti-Islam...talking about fascism and Islam and Muslim symbols, and it is really worrying, and there's definitely a rise in these parties. So it will be interesting to see with the coalition and how it's formed and the type of weight that's given to the Freedom Party. 

Tim Willcox: A very similar campaign in tactics to what Donald Trump did and, as you mentioned, Macron as well. "Austria first" for example...Trump, you know, "America first"...and appealing to those instincts in a very populist way. Too much migration. 

Priya Lakhani: Absolutely. Absolutely. There has been a real focus on the country, who you are and what we should be doing for you, absolutely. And I think the problem is if that's a real precedent at to elections going forward and how the world really responds to this, so...

Different perspectives

Where is Tim Willcox these days? You know, the Tim Willcox of the Paris attacks:

“Many critics, though, of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.”

Don’t we need Tim Willcox right now, to explain the recent terrorist attacks to us, likewise? 

“Many critics, though, of Britain’s foreign policy would suggest that the Muslims suffer hugely at British hands as well.”

We haven’t heard that yet - not from the BBC at any rate. However someone should point out that it’s more or less what Jeremy Corbyn has said and that someone might as well be me.

Of course apart from Corbynists who believe that we bring terrorism upon ourselves because of our ‘foreign policy’, that particular sentiment (they had it coming) is currently reserved for Jews. 

As Tim Willcox pointed out at the time, “You understand that everything is seen from different perspectives.” However the BBC hasn’t yet tried to justify the actions of ISIS, but a large part of the BBC-educated public have yet to make the connection between Hamas and your everyday purveyors of holy jihad. 

Not only that, but to echo John Lennon’s renowned quip about Ringo, most of our our politicians haven’t even made the connection between Islam and the purveyors of holy jihad.

Home Truths

For some (very) strange reason I felt a bit shy about posting this three days ago, but (three days on)....

I saw a comment on another blog the other day (Wednesday), saying: 

Astonishing! Just heard the BBC reporter in Athens (BBC News Channel) actually say, “I think this is the first Left-Wing government to tear gas its own people. It’s usually right-wing governments that do that.” I suspect half a billion former Eastern Bloc citizens might quibble at that. Oh and the people in North Korea. Oh, and China. Then again, in BBC land Tchianamen Square was probably just “creative tank driving.”

That comment got a lot of 'likes', and various follow-up comments joining in by denouncing the "appalling ignorance" of the BBC.

It sounded like damning proof of 'BBC bias in action' to me, so - as an semi-opportunistic blogger about BBC bias - I, naturally, checked it out. 

However, on watching it back, it seemed very clear, from the context, that the BBC reporter in question (the famous Tim Willcox) was talking specifically about Greece. He wasn't making a general statement (or so I heard it).

What he actually said, talking to a Greek blogger, as Greek riot police began charging a crowd of violent anarchists, was:

This would be the first time I think that a left-wing government has actually deployed riot police against demonstrators. It's usually the other way round.

Now, taken out of context, that does sound bad, doesn't it? Left-wing governments (from the old Eastern Bloc to present-day Venezuela) have hardly been shy of employing either riot police or tear gas (and the commenter got the two confused) against "right-wing" protesters. In context, however, it's true about Greece, more or less (as my sense of Greek history tells me),..

...which all goes to show, perhaps, that we bloggers and commenters about BBC bias are, sadly, susceptible to hearing things that we expect to hear rather than what we actually hear (and I do not exempt myself from the possibility of that failing)...

...and that 'Chinese whispers' (however sincerely started), if not checked, can create an unstoppable rumour about BBC bias which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny...

...which might be all right 'in the sake of the cause'...

...except that the BBC Complaints Department, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit and the BBC Trust will have no problem whatsoever in sending complainants packing (and rightly so in this case) and unsympathetic passers-by might possibly think we're all 'coming it'.

More from the BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints...

There's more on BBC complaints over at BBC Watch - this time concerning Tim Willcox and his remark to the daughter of a Holocaust survivor during the post-Charlie Hebdo rally in Paris: "Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well". 

The BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints, Fraser Steel, has updated his earlier responses by conceding that he misunderstood the actual point that critics of Tim Willcox were making, but that it still doesn't make any difference to his preliminary findings. 

The original verdict stands: Tim Willcox's words were "poorly phrased, but no worse than that".

As Hadar writes, "Four months (and goodness knows how many publicly funded man-hours) on, the BBC has not budged an inch."

Tim nice but dim

The BBC has receive a tsunami of complaints (which they’ve rejected) about Tim Willcox from people like me. But not me, and I’ll tell you why not. 

I think calling for him to resign or be sacked is ‘playing the man not the ball’, and worse, it’s playing into the hands of critics of Israel who dismiss people like me who try to defend the Jewish state by calling us “Israel Firsters” who bleat “Israel right or wrong” at every opportunity.

Well I don’t consider myself to be one, in fact I think the whole concept is simply sloganeering and meaningless.

However this is what I think is happening. Recent events (dear boy) have caused a slight sea change. 

ISIS, Paris and Copenhagen, stirrings in Sweden and Norway, Belgium, etc etc.,  the 'Trojan Horse',  grooming gangs and all manner of Islam related trouble and strife have caused a shift in attitude at the BBC and in society in general. People have moved slightly, from the extreme 100% anti Israel position to the slightly more middle ground ‘a plague on both their houses.’ 

We’re not quite there yet, but I believe that Tim Willcox and the BBC were only being what they think is ‘even handed’. 

It’s the result of ignorance, lack of curiosity, and willingness to be seduced by huge doses of Palestinian propaganda.

 The ball we should be playing is ‘the truth’, i.e., an honest understanding what lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. They don’t understand ‘Islam’ and they can only assume that Islam-related hatred of Israel and attacks on Jews are because Jews and/or Israel have provoked it. At the same time, they are strangely blind to the deliberate provocation that travels in the opposite direction.   See here (H/T BBC Watch)

While the BBC continues to listen to, admire and give tacit approval to the likes of Abdel Bari Atwan and  other blatant antisemites who propagandise against Israel for a living, then as far as I’m concerned Tim Willcox at least can stay where he is. 

One day he and his ilk will surely come around. Perhaps when they’re on the receiving end of some of it.

All Willcox needs is a bit of a kick up the arse and I think the level of complaints has probably done that. Of course it could just harden his distrust of Jews as a whole; getting him fired would certainly do so. 

Update: Much more about this on BBC Watch.

Hadar’s points are valid and I agree with her analysis, but I still think the deeper problem is the one that must be prioritised.

The right time

"That perhaps is a debate for another time", says Kevin Connolly, after finding out that one of his interviewees blames the media, at least in part, for the current atmosphere, and argues that it has tended to demonise Israel in recent years in the wake of events ranging from the first Gulf war to the first and second Intifadas.

“It's only fair to point that out” says Kev, before moving on.

When is this ‘other time?’ Will it be quite soon? It seems the media is only interested in the blasphemy and freedom of speech questions.

For example: Today, about 8:08 am. Sima Kotecha went to investigate British Muslims in Slough. 

Sima

“A small supermarket specialising in Indian and Pakistani foods. The manager is carrying out an inventory. He’s originally from Lahore and he’s a practicing Muslim. I asked him about Charlie Hebdo’s new front cover. He agreed to speak anonymously.

This magazine cover, another cartoon of the prophet Mohammed, how does that make you feel?

Anon

“Upset. I think it’s disrespectful, I think it’s escalating things further when there was a chance to just draw a line under it they’re just basically purposefully trying to antagonise and irritate people and they’re gonna get a reaction from it, I think.

Sima

But they are saying that we forgive you. They’re basically saying that we forgive the killers

Anon

Okay I didn’t realise that, but why are they doing a picture again of our prophet?

Sima

What would you say to those people who say we live in a society where you are allowed to offend in certain respects?

Anon

That’s fine, that’s fair enough, but then at the same time they can’t get upset when things happen as the consequences of that.

Sima

Are you concerned that that might happen in this country?

Anon

Um yeah, I think there’s a distinct possibility.

Sima

He believes that the re-publication of the prophet caricature in France will worsen relations between different communities here in Britain.

Anon

All it’s gonna do is just pull them further apart. it’s not gonna help bring anybody together because whether Muslim people say it or not, deep down they’re probably happy with what happened.

Sima

What do you mean by that?

Anon

Not in the sense that people have lost their lives, but in the sense that something needs to be done to stop people from disrespecting our prophet.

Sima

Are you really saying that what’s happened has taught those who insult Islam a lesson?

Anon

It’s not as if anybody’s gonna be jumping around the streets for joy, but it’s not as if anybody’s gonna be mourning their deaths. In my opinion.

Sima

Other Muslims here are simply scared. Scared that people on the street will increasingly develop anti-Islamic views, which could translate into violence. Some moderate believers say they’re frightened to defend the argument for free speech because they fear it would aggravate Islamist extremists, as this woman who was too afraid to give her name, explains.

Woman

I’m caught between wanting peace but also defending what’s right.

Sima

And what do you think about whether this is going to stoke more anger?

Woman

It could do, again, if you take the extremists’ view, it will do. So it’s quite a conflicting time I think for Muslims living in this country, wanting freedom of speech but also being persecuted for it if you do speak out.

Sima

Three quarters of those I spoke to expressed moderate views. Across the street I’m told by a young Muslim ‘We are bound to fall under more suspicion now.’ He said ‘this attack will lead to the authorities casting more doubt on us than ever before and this will lead to further friction between us and them’.

In a Pakistani sweetshop around the corner a customer is convinced it’s only a matter of time before the tension fuelled by this attack has serious repercussions in this country.

Customer

I think personally they’re gonna make matters worse than what they are. This cartoon business happened a few years ago and this is the backlash now. So obviously they’re gonna provoke more people along the same kind of tracks, and maybe a few months down the line, or maybe a year down the line we’re gonna get something similar to that again.

That’s the end of Sima K’s report from the Muslim world. Next Sarah talks to Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy.

“We monitor this.....There’s a huge matter of concern but it doesn’t mean it will translate into violence. .....A lot of Jewish people are very fearful at the moment; a lot of Muslim people are very fearful at the moment...... They ought to come together and have open debates.........We have to be very active about community cohesion.......... The situation in Palestine brings out some very heated feelings.”

That’s a cross between a summary and a bit of cherry picking, but I hope you get the drift. Either Sir Peter Fahy is Pollyanna’s big brother, or he’s got some serious catching up to do. 

I would like Sima Kotecha or any of the BBC’s intrepid reporters who venture into the heart of Muslim world with the intention of ‘telling their story’, to mention the 'Jewish question'.

It’s very enlightening to hear the predictions of the man from Lahore (who speaks English so like a native that I suspect he is a native) about his fellow Muslims’ probable response to Charlie Hebdo, and their attitude to freedom of speech. Yes, I do want to know what they have to say, and, because it’s so antithetical to my own views, yet so understandable from someone with his, it is definitely something that needs to be brought out, chewed over and if possible resolved.

However there’s still this painfully obvious reluctance on the part of the BBC to bring in the matter of Muslim antisemitism. I realise that the BBC has publicised the latest polls about the shocking number of negative feelings in the UK towards Jews, and soon I hope it will be the right time to debate the media’s role in that. 

But I want Sima Kotecha to tease out the antisemitism that the man from Lahore, the woman who was afraid to give her name, the moderate Muslims with the ‘friction’ and the man in the sweetshop have had drilled into them as part of their religious education, if indeed it has been, and I don’t want it to be passed off as understandable because of “what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.”

Hearing Sir Peter Fahy bringing that in as well, means the time for that debate about the media is long overdue.

I’d like now to draw your attention to an item I saw on Sky.  Extra Jewish patrols in London after attacks.

It’s not the article itself. It’s the comments below that amply demonstrate the very same anti-Jewish attitudes that must have been recorded for that poll.  It’s the sheer factual inaccuracy and ignorance that needs to be addressed. I mean, “where,” in the famous words of Gillian Duffy, “does it flock from?”

The media. It has to be.

Incidentally, I noticed that today the BBC has brought back the ‘H’. They’ve stopped using the French, silent H, pronunciation of Hebdo. Was that some sort of dictat? 

Incidentally again, I’d like people to lay off Tim Willcox a bit. Yes, his attitude is appalling. However, we might make allowances for his ignorance. He didn’t seem to understand the first thing about Israel or where Muslim antisemitism is rooted. He should be forced to read up about it (proper Jewish/ Israel history) before he’s let back off the leash. So should the whole lot of them.

Muslims complain that they’re the new Jews, and say they’re being demonised by us Islamophobes, just like the Jews in the 1930s. We know this is a travesty. But making a whacking great fuss and calling for Tim Willcox to be hung, drawn with a Hitler mustache and quartered, we’re in danger of acting a bit like grievance-mongers ourselves. Then we turn into the new Muslims. We wouldn’t want that, now, would we?

Back where they belong

With typical insensitivity the BBC has plonked -  of all people - Tim Willcox in the anchor’s chair to narrate the funerals of the Jews murdered in the kosher deli -  “live, from Jerusalem.”

I am certain I heard him the other day saying, with reference to the recent exodus of French Jews, “they went back to Israel.” 

Meaning what? Back? Back from whence they came, perchance? They’re French, you oaf! ( Or “back” to someone else’s land as most of the media would have us believe) Make up your tiny mind, merci beaucoup.

He’s providing context: “The families asked for their loved-ones to be buried in Israel”. Well, not really. It took Yolande Knell - of all people - on the spot in Israel, to put him right. “Netanyahu offered, and the families accepted” she said, adding that they feared the graves would be desecrated if they had been buried in France.

Still wishing to coax something about dual loyalty out of the situation he asked Knell “ Did the four have much association with Israel?” (I’ve forgotten the exact turn of phrase, but believe me that was the gist)

Yolande did not answer. She said “There’s a lot of banging going on here - they’re clearing up after the funerals” So the question was never explored. 

The BBC's response to complaints about Tim Willcox

If you were wondering how the BBC would deal with the controversy over Tim Willcox, BBC Watch has the answer.

The following appears to be the BBC's standard response to complaints about Tim Willcox:

In other word, he's being given the BBC's full backing. He meant no harm, he's apologised on Twitter, and that - as far as the BBC is concerned - is that.

As BBC Watch points out, however, the vast majority of people don't follow Tim Willcox on Twitter, and won't have seen his apology. BBC Watch want an on-air clarification.

Jerry's final thought

There's been so much to say today. It's been rather overwhelming. 

The BBC's been absolutely relentless (from what I've heard and seen of it) in pushing a small number of messages very vigorously. 

What they've been up to only becomes clear when you watch them very closely over a period of time. Some communique must have gone out from on high to push these angles, and those very angles are duly being pushed for all they're worth.

I like blogging, but a big part of me would much prefer to blog nice stuff about the BBC. There's lots of BBC radio (rather less TV) that I really appreciate. I don't hate every BBC programme or fail to find any Radio 4 comedy funny. (Stop/Start's funny for starters). I could fill this blog with posts about things I've enjoyed hearing on Radio 4. I've even tweeted BBC producers (usually of nature programmes) thanking them.

But I really don't appreciate what they've been up to in the wake of the massacres in Paris. I really, really don't.

And I don't appreciate having to pay for it. (And I'm not the sort of person to steal things by not paying for them).

Anyhow, on related matters, and to round things off for the day...

Alan at Biased BBC has highlighted some more Jon Donnison tweets, pushing various angles, including a tweet praising UKIP-bashing James O'Brien of LBC for bullying some some 'ordinary bloke' from Maidenhead (ringing in to his phone-in show) for daring to demand that Muslims speak out without reservation about the stuff done in their name. Anita Anand would be proud of him.

Nabila Ramdani, meanwhile, has, by all accounts, been busy on the BBC today. BBC World (which we UK licence fee payers can't receive) used her for their running commentary during the Paris march. She apparently used the opportunity to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu as a "war criminal". Classy. 

Allah knows what other rubbish she came out with but, as we've said before, she's fully entitled to come out with it. The BBC, however, isn't obliged to invite her onto every programme going. That it does seem to feel it's OK to do so, suggests either bias or an absurdly small address book.

Radio 4's Beyond Belief will be tackling 'Fundamentalism' tomorrow, in the light of recent events. Ernie's guests will be (1) Haras Raffiq, Managing Director of the Quilliam Foundation, (2) Julie Scott Jones, Associate Head of the Sociology Department at Manchester Metropolitan University; and (3) Salman Sayyid, Reader in Islam and Politics at the University of Leeds. 

Here, in advance, is a flavour of where Salman Sayyid is coming from:

The attitude of many of those responsible for publishing the hostile cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (praise be upon him) can perhaps be best understood by a Marxist analysis. I refer to the quip by (Groucho) Marx: "How dare she get insulted just because I insulted her?"

The supporters of the publication of the cartoons appear to be surprised that many Muslims found the cartoons offensive; at the same they claim these cartoons are part of an effort to throw back the forces of multiculturalism in favour of national (i.e. European) cultural restoration. The conflict between those who see in the publication a noble principle at stake and those who see just another episode of European racism disguised as high moral principle has itself become a metaphor for other conflicts that exceed the xenophobia of a tiny statelet.

And finally (h/t DB), Tim Willcox (of "A lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the political mansion tax presumably?" fame) "interviewed a French Jewish couple today on the BBC News Channel. The lady was saying that the Jews are the targets now when Tim Willcox interrupted her to say, "Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well"...

[UPDATE: This one's going to run. I see BBC Watch and Biased BBC are also on the case now].

...and, frankly, that's the last straw. I'm off to bed. Good night.