The Jewish Chronicle has a leader column this week which surely ought to make the BBC sit up and take notice:
BBC Arabic’s anti-Israel bias is a problem for the region
What is the purpose of the BBC’s Arabic service? The answer might seem obvious — to bring the BBC’s editorial standards to coverage of Arab countries in their own languages. But its output reveals what seems to be a very different purpose: to promote a view of the Middle East with which we are all wearily familiar, in which Israel is the wicked enemy and those who fight it are heroes. That includes news coverage in which Jerusalem is called “the occupied city”, the Israeli army the “Israeli Occupation Forces” and the PLO “the Palestinian Resistance”. The anti-Israel bias of BBC news in general has long been an issue, but the specific failings relating to its Arabic service are of a different order of magnitude. As our investigation reveals, the BBC has itself admitted to 25 mistakes in its Arabic coverage in just over two years. But that figure barely scratches the surface of the problem.
In this week’s JC Essay, David Patrikarakos shows how polling in parts of the Arab world show a move towards a more favourable view of Israel; a slow move, but a move nonetheless. One of the blocks to progress is the BBC’s Arabic service. Instead of being given the facts, impartially and without bias, viewers are often given barely more than anti-Israel propaganda. This matters because it means the BBC is itself part of the problem in the Middle East. Last year, the BBC published new impartiality guidelines, supposedly to be enforced by a senior executive. Ken MacQuarrie, the man appointed to the role, is paid £325,000 a year. We would suggest that he might now start earning it by turning his attention to BBC Arabic.
There's a lot of damning detail in Jonathan Sacerdoti and Gary O'Shea's JC accompanying investigation into BBC Arabic's "anti-Israel bias and inaccuracies" and it's quite something to learn that the BBC has been compelled to admit 25 "mistakes" in its Arabic coverage of Israel in just over two years, "issuing on average nearly one correction every month". It suggests at best that standards at the BBC's Arabic Service aren't what they ought to be.
The BBC has been given "a detailed dossier of apparent breaches" this week.
As well as listing the inaccuracies and the forced apologies, the dossier accuses the BBC of "systematically downplaying terror attacks on Israelis; repeatedly using Hamas-inspired language; showcasing extreme views without challenge; and publishing a map in which Israel was erased".
According to the piece, the BBC has apologised in recent years, among other things concerning BBC Arabic, for:
A "fawning" portrait of a Hamas terrorist.
Describing Jerusalem as “the occupied city”.
Calling the Israeli army the “Israeli Occupation Forces”.
Describing the PLO as “the Palestinian Resistance”.
Referring to nine victims of a terrorist attack as “nine Jewish settlers”, though four weren't Jewish and none was a settler.
Also detailed is the fact that BBC Arabic repeatedly calls the West Bank, Gaza and even Israel “Palestine”, despite its own style guide outlawing the term.
Strikingly, the JC notes the service's employment (one as a correspondent, another as an editor) of two journalists who previously worked at the Hezbollah-owned TV station Al-Manar (a channel designated a “Terrorist Entity” by the US).
BBC Arabic are also accused of "regularly giving a platform" to blog favourite, Abdel Bari Atwan - though the BBC News Channel has been indulging his extreme views on Dateline London for well over a decade now. At least on Dateline, he was sometimes challenged. Apparently, BBC Arabic hasn't provided “appropriate challenge and / or other context”.
One I'd not heard of came last May: BBC Arabic "showcased social media comments which celebrated a sci-fi drama that envisioned the destruction of the Jewish state".
The article also says:
The corporation has also appeared to depart from editorial standards in its Arabic output with respect to reporting terror attacks.
According to the BBC style guide, journalists must “report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly”.
But while the BBC reported in English on 34 fatal terror attacks on Israeli civilians between 2015 and 2020, its Arabic service covered just 25 of these, analysts said, seriously downplaying the extent of Palestinian brutality.
A BBC spokesperson has responded already: “BBC Arabic shares exactly the same principles of accuracy and impartiality as BBC News in English, and we strongly reject the suggestion that its impartiality is compromised.”
Instead of the usual kneejerk dismissal, however, the BBC would do better to thank the people behind the study for their efforts, and then go away and think about all that they've been presented with here.
They've a really big problem if they don't see that there could be a big problem with the BBC Arabic service here that needs careful consideration and maybe serious action.
I've been keeping half an eye on the ups and downs of the Jewish Chronicle. The FT reported the situation while it was still unresolved - I can’t give you the date of publication because won’t let me back into the website now - but here’s the excerpt I managed to grab, explaining the way things stood back then:
“The Kessler Foundation, a charitable trust that has owned the Jewish Chronicle since 1984, submitted an offer to the proposed liquidators Begbies Traynor this week, which would have seen them acquire the assets of both publications and run them as a merged publication.
But a rival bid from a consortium through lawyers Osborne Clarke has also been submitted, according to two people familiar with the matter.
“………a new consortium moved fast to intervene, and outbid the existing management in order to reinstate Pollard, see the staff right, pay off the debts and secure the future. Headed by Sir Robbie Gibb, a Gentile, the consortium is serious about reinforcing the Jewish Chronicle’s strength rather than shutting it down. Behind all this I detect a battle for leadership in the community. Those who are braver about confronting Islamist anti-Semitism have prevailed over the outdated establishment view that the greater threat to British Jews is from the far right and that Islamists should be appeased in the name of ‘interfaith dialogue’.
The consortium’s victory is good news. It would have been a weird epilogue to the successful exposure of Labour’s anti-Semitism under Jeremy Corbyn if the most prestigious Jewish paper in Europe had then folded. As the general election result proved, the supposedly anti-Semitic white working class saw through Corbyn. The rising danger to Jews — as, though more surreptitiously, to Christians — comes from the alliance between the hard, secular left and political Islam.”
Ah, the last few words open a Pandora’s box of inconvenient and hard to answer questions.
The reason for this post is simply this. (And it’s even BBC related)
A particularly annoying photo of the BBC’s Fran Unsworth illustrates the piece. In it, she’s looking both startled and extremely pleased with herself all at once.
The issue concerns a knotty problem. How much does political or personal prejudice affect one’s professional credibility? We’re talking about renowned antisemites being invited onto the Beeb to opine about supposedly unconnected matters. Notably but not exclusively, as per that Panorama.
Maybe there’s an element of ‘intersectionality’ here? To what extent does a person’s race, class, and gender prejudice create a unique mode of discrimination dent one’s entire credibility?
Can one’s irrationality in the form of racial hatred - viz “the cognitively dissonant alliance between the hard, secular left and political Islam” be completely divorced from other areas of one’s personality. For example, does it affect one’s expertise in a seemingly unrelated sphere? Does that make sense?
Let’s temporarily forget Professor Ashton, whom Fran Unsworth says is “eminently well qualified to speak about this subject [public health]”. Let’s examine her reasoning, by using a more extreme example like, say, the late Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking was so highly regarded as a theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author that his reputation as such is untouchable and sealed forever. But even he fell foul of pressure from the hard, secular left and political Islam in his irrational decision to join the academic boycott of Israel by rejecting an invitation to attend a conference there (despite relying on Israeli sourced technology to help keep him alive.) That was just common or garden hypocrisy, but we’re not concerned with that at the moment.
The conference, called “Facing Tomorrow 2013,” is billed as a meeting place for exploring the developments shaping the future of Israel, the Jewish people and the world. Its program includes former heads of state, academics, artists and business executives. Former President Bill Clinton is to receive an award from Mr. Peres. Also listed among the speakers is Munib al-Masri, a Palestinian tycoon from the West Bank city of Nablus who has been working to promote internal Palestinian reconciliation.
If that is indeed an accurate description of the event that Hawking boycotted, doesn't the decision to boycott it look a bit stupid and ill-conceived? It does to me.
However, as I know quite a bit more about factually and historically illiterate antisemitism than I do about theoretical or any other kind of physics, all I can possibly ask is ‘does a specific demonstration of irrationality and prejudice dent one’s whole credibility? A little bit? Not at all? Does stupidity, prejudice and irrationality run through one like the proverbial stick of rock?
What I do know is that Stephen Hawking’s and professor John Ashworth’s reputations are seriously flawed in the eyes of this non-expert, and as far as Fran Unsworth's reputation is concerned, wheeling out the ‘Freeze Peach’ argument certainly dents the remaining dregs of it.
The issue here is that while antisemitism under the accepted definition is not actually illegal, and we don’t want to create a bespoke version of a blasphemy law to make it so, what can most effectively be done to show disgust and disapproval where anti-Jew prejudice raises its head?
For the BBC, maybe keeping known antisemites out of the limelight would go along with the spirit of the zeitgeist. However, as we’ve been saying for the last umpteen years, the BBC is not minded to keep antisemites out of the limelight. The BBC has tacitly taken the side of the antisemites and promotes the hard, secular left and political (and particularly cultural) Islam at every opportunity. It has made antisemitism a political choice and it’s not afraid to say so.
The BBC’s guidelines require that output is “well sourced” and “based on sound evidence”.
In the absence of any evidence to support the reference to “lots” of children being killed at the time of transmission, it seems to us to have risked misleading audiences on a material point.
We therefore propose to uphold this part of your complaint.
Today the BBC finds itself in the most unusual situation it has ever been catapulted into. It has been propelled onstage, in front of an expectant audience, but doesn’t know what for. Rabbit in headlights.
If there was one occasion for popcorn, this is it. It’s an explosion in slow motion.
Well, it started rumbling quietly last night when “Two Jewish Peers” were dragged on to Newsnight to discuss Naz Shah and antisemitism in the Labour party, and to ensure that ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’ continues to be ‘nothing to do with antisemitism’.
Lord Levy is already tainted by association (with Tony Blair) so anything he says will be filed under Mandy Rice Davies. Rabbi Julia Neuburger was assertive, but Evan helped the item to come and go with little impact.
This morning the Today programme continued the theme, carefully separating “opposition to Israel’s policies” from “antisemitism”.
Two other Left-leaning Jews, David Baddiel and Rabbi Laura Janner- Klausner were interviewed on the topic.
David Baddiel is too much of a luvvie to queer his pitch by saying anything pro Israel, so his variation on the theme: “It’s not antisemitic to criticise the policies of Israeli’s current government” went even further. He has decided that you can even be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. How silly is that? (Very)
Laura J-K is a friend of Naz Shah (an actual friend, not one of your Corby-style “friends”) and she gave her the benefit of the doubt, accepted her apology and welcomed her promise to ‘learn more.‘
By the Daily Politics things had started to hot up. Ken Livingstone appeared, and so did John Mann.
We were starting to see footage of a confrontation. A heated confrontation. Ken Livingstone with a small a rucksack on his back and a large mobile at his ear, hurrying up a flight of stairs, hotly pursued by John Mann and someone from the media wielding a bloody great camera.
John Mann was calling Ken a Nazi apologist, and telling him to read Mein Kampf. Ken has never seen any sign of antisemitism in the Labour party, but he said that Hitler was a Zionist before he went a bit mad and decided to slaughter six million Jews. (As you do when you go a bit mad) (He should know)
As the day wore on there were more interviews with Ken and Anita McVeigh, Jonathan Sacerdoti and a rather irritable Ben Brown, and an impassioned Owen Jones, who said Ken should be chucked out of the party. He reiterated that we must be careful not to confuse hatred of Jews with opposition to Israel.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought being anti-Zionist was pretty antisemitic, since Zionism only means that Jews should have their own state much like every other group/race/culture/ethnicity. If you think not, you’re very likely a racist.
It always baffles me that no sooner had we, as a society all but rejected religiosity - at least the crippling, repressive inhuman manifestation of it - than we indulgently accepted the one religion that most embodies all the negative aspects of what we’ve just divested ourselves from. Then we not only overlooked its blatantly obvious shortcomings, but accepted its religiously-based claims to holy lands and holy places, whilst rejecting and condemning similar claims made by religious Jews. And the irony of that is compounded by the fact that historical evidence bears out the claims of the latter rather than the former.
There’s something bigger than an elephant in this room. It’s the antisemitism within Islam, which is at the heart of the Israel Palestine conflict, and in the hearts of Muslim MPs like Naz Shah and Muslim sycophants like GG.
The BBC has never seen any sign of it, clearly.
I am quite keen on the idea that Naz Shah takes up John Mann’s suggestion, that she goes to Israel and learns something about the ‘other side.’
It would be a good idea if every single one of those CAABU-funded propaganda tours that have seduced so many of our MPs were compulsorily matched with an educational tour organised by their political counterparts in Israel, particularly if it included a compulsory presentation by PMW.
As the story rumbles on, this will be stale. We’ll just have to wait and see how it pans out.
It started promisingly. The first part included rather sympathetic treatment of the current wave of antisemitism in France, seen from the perspective of French Jews.
Mother and daughter. Fearful in Paris
Professor Andrew Hussey, author of “The French Intifada” was featured as the film’s resident expert.
I hadn’t heard of Prof. Hussey so I searched for a few reviews of his book. The Guardian’s critic David A Bell, didn’t seem too keen. For example, here:
“.........Hussey has written so carelessly, and in so needlessly inflammatory a manner. He repeatedly makes large, highly questionable generalisations without anything resembling evidence. "For most French people," he asserts, "Tunisians … had the same supposed racial and cultural defects of all North Africans, ranging from stupidity, criminality and a taste for violence." Most French people? How does he know?
and also here:
More serious a problem is his inflammatory style when discussing violence. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that when he describes violence committed by the French, he mostly gives quick, summary accounts, but when he turns to violence committed by Muslims, he cannot resist lurid detail.
One passage seemed out of kilter with the default Guardianista view:
So focused is Hussey on the legacy of colonialism that he pays little systematic attention to what is, in fact, one of the book's most striking and disturbing themes: Muslim antisemitism. As he notes, hatred of Jews now runs deep in Muslim populations, including in France and North Africa. In France, the worst examples of individual violence committed by alienated Muslim youth have been against Jews, notably the torture and killing of the mobile phone salesman Ilan Halimi outside Paris in 2006, and the shooting of four Jews, including three children, in front of a Hebrew school in Toulouse in 2012.
However, Bell continues in a more predictable fashion:
The role of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the formation of contemporary Muslim identities, and the way that Jews have come to stand, in much of the Muslim world, for the worst tendencies of the "west", and even of modernity, deserve more analysis than Hussey provides.
So, although this particular critique largely follows the Guardian’s default position, it deviates a little, actually mentioning “Muslim antisemitism” but swiftly reverts to type in implying that this is primarily attributable to “Israel”.
The Telegraph’s review by Rupert Edis makes no mention of antisemitism whatsoever. Although the term 'Intifada' is usually associated with violent Palestinian uprisings against Israelis, here the “French” intifada is interpreted solely as an uprising against French society by Muslim immigrants, (mostly) from Algeria.
“Hussey blames France’s tortured relations with “its” Arabs on its colonial history in the Maghreb, which started in earnest with the invasion of Algeria in 1830.”
The Telegraph critic describes Hussey as a regular contributor to the Guardian and the New Statesman.
“With this provocatively titled book, he joins the increasing number of respected authors from the liberal Left who are shocked at some of the effects of mass non-European immigration on Western European countries and cultures.”
So, that’s sort of where Prof Hussey is coming from. I imagine his views have influenced the filmmakers.
At the start of this film, Hussey addresses antisemitism, as does the female narrator, who pronounces antisemitic “anti-semetic” throughout. Emetic: (“causes vomiting”.)
We’re told that many French Jews have left France for Israel; others came to London, initially intending to return to their beloved France, but due to ever increasing antisemitism, currently plan to stay in the UK.
“Antisemitism used to come from the far right, but now it’s coming from a different group, a small minority of French Muslims”
said the narrator.
The footage turned to images of impoverished suburban neighbourhoods, the Banlieues, mostly populated by Muslim immigrants, There are ‘no jobs’ and no hope.
“Radical Islam offers you a way out”
says Hussey.
The film now appears to be accusing French secularism of driving Muslims towards extremism. Antisemitism within Islam is mentioned in passing, but played down, as in this passage:
“Muslim extremists recruiting in the suburbs often use derogatory passages from the Koran”
says the narrator,
“out of context, most Muslims would say, to further their own anti-semetic (sic) ideology”
Professor Andrew Hussey
“It’s conflation of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it’s also conflation of that old historical shibboleth - the conspiracy theory - that the Jews control everything.”
says Hussey
“They need someone to blame”.
In London, Jonathan Sacerdoti recounts incidents of anti-Jew ‘hate’.
"Unlike French schools", the narrator continues, "UK schools teach children about religion, all faiths, to improve understanding. " (This could not happen in France because of its secularism.)
To illustrate the correct approach to multiculturalism and diversity - you couldn’t make it up - we’re off to Bradford.
Bradford has worked hard to promote interfaith understanding. A class of Muslim children are shown visiting a Hindu temple.
“They’re learning about diversity” says the Hindu lady.
Prof. Hussey suggests the answer to this difficult problem lies in interfaith understanding, though he realises this hasn’t quite worked so far.
In Bradford Jewish numbers have dwindled down to nearly nothing, we learn, but we’re reassured by the fact that some Muslims have donated funds to repair the synagogue roof, and even better, a prominent Muslim is on the synagogue council.
The blurb on the website mentions Lassana Bathily,
“We hear from the families most affected and explore the reasons behind the rise in anti-Semitism. With insight from those who live in the notorious Paris suburbs, often accused of being a breeding ground for anti-Semitism, and from Lassana Bathily, a Muslim from the suburbs who saved Jewish lives during the kosher supermarket attack in 2015. “
which puts a somewhat positive spin on the fact that Bathily didn’t actually assist the terrorists, as the filmmakers might (patronisingly) assume your average black Muslim would be culturally inclined to do.
A rosy picture of Bradford, and a moving picture of antisemitism in France which studiously avoids the core issue. The antisemitism that is part and parcel of Islam.
We bloggers tend to become a little incestuous. We pat each other on the back, link to each other and I suppose we create our own little bubble. Some might say we regurgitate, plagiarise, gossip, and preach to the choir.
Perhaps we’re almost as biased against the BBC as the BBC is biased against our politically incorrect viewpoints. Perhaps we all try hard not to let our biases cloud our ability to see the bigger picture. But the BBC hardly ever entertains the possibility that it could be at fault, and it’s powerful enough not to care.
The area of biased broadcasting that interests me most, (anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian reporting, casual antisemitism and the BBC’s incessant and insidious efforts to normalise Islamic practices and customs) has ramifications as wide as anyone cares to make them.
One thing that has always troubled me is the way we allow people to get away with words and phrases that have become meaningless through over-use and laziness. I remember writing about this in July 2010. (updated)
“Constant repetition of a word or phrase can render it meaningless.Trotted out over and over again, words and phrases like illegal war, apartheid and human rights violations lose their impact; particularly when they’re bandied about thoughtlessly by ill-informed people who have no idea whether they are justified, appropriate or the truth.
We’re all trapped by words like peace, war, Zionist, Palestinian. Nazi. Fascist. Neocon.We say antisemitism, you say Islamophobia; we say terrorist, you say religion of peace; we say Islamic, you say unIslamic; we say legitimate, you say illegitimate; we say Israel, you say Zionist entity; we say biased, you say balanced. Tomato, potato, potahto, tomayto. Let’s call the whole Jeremy Bowen off.”
The BDS movement is gaining respectability with virtue-signalling student bodies and lefty ethical activists, and an atmosphere of antisemitism has gathered momentum to a terrifying degree. Even Oxford University, considered one of the top universities in the world, has succumbed.
Apartheid is a state-sanctioned discriminatory policy based on the obsolete principle of racial superiority / inferiority. Make no mistake, it has nothing to do with Israel or “What Israel is doing” to the Palestinians. Yet somehow, the apartheid state label has got itself attached to Israel in the minds of the anti-Israel activists who know no better.
Daphne Anson always manages to find disturbing videos of demos and protest marches that have taken place under our very noses here in the UK. She ferrets out some extraordinary film clips, and from Australia, is able to see our problem with antisemitism more clearly than we do.
She featured this video on her website recently (also on YouTube) It’s straight from a Channel Four News item addressing the governments latest guidelines on the BDS movement.
That’s Channel Four, with its distinctly lefty, anti-Israel agenda, apparently unconstrained by those infamous obligations that force the BBC to perform all manner of linguistic contortions in the name of their charter’s impartiality pledge.
Channel Four Newsroom’s figurehead’ is the unashamedly pro-Palestinian Jon Snow; Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Kathy Newman are his trusty sidekicks.
This particular exchange was chaired by Jon Snow, wearing one of his garish trademark ties (graphic image of rainbow vomit) It was an uncharacteristic challenge by Snow that rendered the BDS activist - not exactly speechless, but, it’s fair to say - incoherent.
Using the oft-posed, pertinent and potentially stymieing gotcha, namely “why aint you boycotting Saudi Arabia?” he demolished her credibility with ease.
In defence all she could offer was the well-worn retort: “ I. Aint. Interested. In. Saudi. Arabia.” (reworded by me)
In the spirit of regurgitate, plagiarise and gossip, I bring you this from UK Media Watch (formerly CifWatch.)
Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ Officer, currently arguing the case for BDS against Israel, actually argued (in October 2014) against a student union motion to boycott Islamic State. Not only that, but she did so on the grounds that ---wait for it -- doing that would be Islamophobic.
No bloody wonder she was momentarily lost for words.
Here is a summary of the film clip Channel Four ran by way of an introduction, preceding the studio chat.
“I think this is an attack on freedom, like, if I don’t wanna buy Israeli goods, I don’t wanna buy Israeli goods” said one of the first students interviewed.
This demonstrates so much stupidity, ignorance and illogicality that I hardly know where to start. But let’s remind ourselves of the government’s actual statement as outlined on the BBC website (The Moral Maze)
“Now the government is planning a law to make it illegal for local councils, public bodies and even some university student unions to carry out boycotts. Under the plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services as part of a political campaign. It's said that any public bodies that continue to pursue boycotts will face "severe penalties." The government believes cracking down on town-hall boycotts is justified because they undermine good community relations, poison and polarise debate and fuel anti-Semitism.”
Do students really believe individuals are going to be made into criminals if they decide to personally avoid buying Israeli goods?
Another student, waving his arms around in lieu of articulacy asks “If I don’t go into a shop to buy Israeli goods, is that violent?
“Others agree with the government’s stance that boycotts undermine community relations and fuel antisemitism” said Assed Baig sounding very like Ali G, before approaching Jonathan Sacerdoti who said:
“........ 84 percent of British Jewish people believed that boycotting Israeli produce constituted intimidation of Jewish people..
That was the gist of Sacerdoti’s contribution, and one does wonder how much material was edited out of the film, which abruptly cut to footage of one of the historic demonstrations against South African apartheid.
Current thinking seems to credit “us” with bringing about the end of South Africa’s apartheid system, solely or primarily because of “us” boycotting South African produce. I just wonder if world-wide anti-racist zeitgeist didn’t have just as much to do with that timely policy change. We never boycotted American produce, did we? I don’t think so. Yet cruel and shocking racism was once rife in the US, and state sanctioned, to boot.
“Actions like this are a vital tool,” say students. Rafeef Zidah (Palestinian society SOAS) says it’s disgraceful that government is attacking local democracy and stopping councils making ‘ethical decisions around investments’....... ‘we have the right to have an impact on corporations that we disagree with’....’and for Palestinian rights as well.’
Hang on. We have a democracy, which means we vote for our representatives. We don’t (yet) have anarchy, where we all take direct action against whatever we disagree with.
“Interestingly, that same spurious linkage was made in a statement put out by the BDS campaign’s Rafeef Ziadah (also an employee of ‘War on Want’) several hours before this programme went on air.”
I thought Ms Ziadah didn’t look like your average student. More about War on Want later.
“So what would you say to those who say that boycotting Israeli goods is antisemitic?” asks Baig, in his best Ali G patois, addressing another student who said he was Jewish. His BDS advocacy (asaJew) is worth several bonus points “Human rights violations”, he says, and “Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”“We shouldn’t confuse BDS with antisemitism” was his message, which is one way of putting Sacerdoti’s statement into PC perspective; you could almost hear the film editors crowing.
“The guidance comes when cabinet minister Matthew Hancock is visiting Israel and the government says that locally imposed boycotts can hinder Britain’s export trade” says Baig, to end the film.
The implication of that narrative is crystal clear. The government’s guidance on BDS is purely a matter of self-interest, i.e., it’s cynical and mercenary.
Cut to Jon Snow in the Channel Four News studio. Seated in the pro-Pali / BDS corner, Malia Bouattia representing the NUS, and in the Zio corner, James Sorene from BICOM. Both are extraordinary looking individuals. (Malia Bouattia has masses of hair, James Sorene has huge eyes.)
“There’s no criminal consequence to having a boycott” begins Jon Snow, addressing James Sorene.
“I think some of your reporting was a bit overblown” explains James. In respect of procurement - “they can’t discriminate on the basis of nationality.” [..] “Most British people do not want a boycott - they believe it will hurt Israelis and Palestinians and only 12% believe a boycott will do anything at all.”
Perhaps they will remember the SodaStream fiasco, when anti-Israel pressure resulted in Palestinians having to forfeit secure and well-paid employment, all for “the cause”.
“People want non-violent options in relation to facilitating, you know, solutions” says Malia Bouattia.
How boycotts actually effect ‘solutions’, and what those ‘solutions’ would involve in the wildest imagination of the BDS movement remains to be explored.
Do boycotts hurt? asks Jon.
“The economic effect may be minimal,” says James, “but those who are close to what is a tragic, complex conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which we all want resolved, is that this armchair activism will do nothing. Interfaith dialogue is needed, whereas boycotts just put up barriers and people stop talking.”
Not that talking to Hamas and /or Fatah seems even possible, let alone likely to bring about peace. Even less so in the current incendiary climate. Never mind, let wishful thinking prevail.
“We should look at history. Look at apartheid in South Africa.” says Malia.
“If people didn’t take to the streets, if people didn’t campaign and enforce the implementation of a boycott as we did as the NUS, where did those conversations that went on for hundreds of years, go?We’ve seen continued expansion of settlements, we’ve seen continued abuses of human rights, of international law totally thrown in our faces and we have no trust in the processes that exist”
James Sorene says:
“People who know the facts know that it is nothing like apartheid, a criminal regime running a racist policy; this is completely different. Both parties are trying to reach a solution. They’ve been talking on and off for many years - they became very close to a solution - we need to keep working at that - government realises that boycotts in local communities are incredibly divisive, they whip up all sorts of ill-feeling and fear and the same thing happens in student unions. The Jewish students....
Jon interrupts:
“That’s about Israel, but what about other countries, I mean do you boycott Saudi Arabia, for example, for the human rights violations there, do you boycott Russia, for example, for human rights violations there?”
Malia:
“Um. I’m feeling slightly on trial as the leader of all boycotts worldwide. What we’re talking about here is the right to boycott, based on the fact that we feel there is a violation of human rights, of ethics, and we want to implement them and enforce them and some people will use words, like the non-violent solutions as the case of BDSing Israel. We have to come back to that question itself, that if people feel that this is in violation of those rights, then by all means implement those solutions and, you know, these guidelines that are coming out will not just affect Palestinian activism or BDS for that matter, it expands to those campaigning on fossil-free, those campaigning on divesting on trade.....
Jon, turning to James:
I’m bound to come back to...aside of the inter-communal tensions, which you’ve described - on the ground, it doesn’t have any impact does it? There is no effect in Israel at the moment.”
“There is a minimal effect,” says James,
“ but let’s be honest. What Matthew Hancock was doing there - Britain needs Israel. We need Israeli hi-tech, we need Israeli scientific cooperation, one is (indecipherable) on the NHS from Israel .. we need Israel,. But the silence on the issue of other boycotts speaks volumes to those people who will say that (unintelligible)
"We have to leave it. We’ve run out of time."
What I intended to highlight when I started this post, was the meaninglessness of phrases like “Human rights violations” when they are uttered in respect of Israel and the Palestinians. Another one is “What Israel is doing to the Palestinians” and “Palestinian rights”
“Human rights violations” sound like very terrible things, but what actually are they? Denying Palestinians the right of return? Denying Palestinians the right to eradicate Jews from “Muslim lands?” Violating their rights to stab a Jew because of the occupation?
What terrible thing IS Israel ‘doing to the Palestinians?’ Trying to stop them from attacking Israeli civilians ? Taking measures so that Israelis can live their lives without being stabbed, bombed or run down?
Palestinians do deserve human rights. That is they deserve to be divested from the hatred and lies they’re indoctrinated with from birth by believers of their own unnatural, self-loathing, Jew-hating religion. Palestinians should start boycotting Islam.
Pro Palestinian students and left-wing parrot-like ignoramuses get away with perpetuating all that lazy, historically illiterate nonsense because of biased, distorted, historically inaccurate reporting.
Tonight there’s a Moral Maze episode on this topic. Let’s see what they have to say on the matter. Melanie Phillips is on the panel, with Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox and Jill Kirby.
Okay. We listened to the Moral Maze. Michael Buerk kept trying to broaden out the debate. He didn’t want it to be specific, lest it get bogged down in the Israel/Palestine question. But that’s precisely what it should have been about. The more bogged the better, in my opinion.
It emerged from the guy from War on Want, that one of the reasons they defended BDS was that the Palestinians requested it. Yup. The Palestinians requested it.
Jonathan Sacerdoti was one of the witnesses. He tried to bring the topic back to the core issue - antisemitism and intimidation of Jews, but Michael Buerk wasn’t happy with that. He steered the conversation away each time, which was irritating.
Jill Kirby seemed to think they (Jews) should suck it up because she believes the principal of ethical boycotting is sound.
I think I need to listen again in order to to absorb the whole thing properly. It wasn’t an entirely bad debate apart from Matthew Taylor’s constant interruptions and his habit of rudely talking over others.
(Why do lefties and Muslims always do that? Have they no manners?)
I’d like to thank my co-bloggers and the entire “BBC-bias” family; my parents - if it weren't for them I might not be here - and Mr Google for facilitating my research. Most of all, thanks to Israeli technology, without which none of this would be possible. Thank you thank you.
To the rest of you, go on, boycott Israel produce, all of it, and don’t forget to wipe your hard-drives before you destroy your equipment or donate it to a good cause. The Palestinians, maybe?
Israeli technology? Yes please. The Palestinians can’t get enough of it.
By one of those strange quirks of fate - or, more likely, merely by the sheer obsessiveness of the long-distance blogger - I've now become the unofficial archivist for the BBC News Channel's/BBC World's flagship weekly news review, Dateline London.
In that capacity, here are the guest rankings for 2015 - ranked by number of appearances...
Regular readers of this blog will already be able to guess this year's winner (spoilers!).
He's been the undisputed winner (i.e. the most-invited guest) every year since I properly began monitoring the programme back in 2009.
In fact it really is time that the programme officially made him their President-for-Life...
...and that he was given the keys to the balcony at Broadcasting House so he could step out, at will, wearing a George Galloway hat and sporting a loaded rifle, to greet the cheering crowds below and hail his latest glorious appearance on Dateline as 'the mother of all appearances on Dateline'.
Step forward Abdel Bari Atwan, soon-to-be Life-President of Dateline London.
We salute your indefatigability, sir!....
....and we salute the indefatigability of Dateline London too in resolutely ignoring masses of complaints over the years about Bari's record of extreme comments - some of which would make Tyson Fury sound like June Whitfield! and their apparent fond indulgence of him.
Yes, they've stuck doggedly with their man through thick, book promotion, and thin. They just can't get enough of him (for some reason), Israel-hater though he is!
Here then are the much-anticipated full rankings, by number of appearances in 2015. They are guaranteed to make your eyes bulge too!:
Sue, however, encouraged me to watch the whole thing though - and quite right too, because I missed a lot...
I'd failed to hang around long enough to hear flame-thrower Abdel Bari Atwan, talking about Benjamin Netanyahu, and saying, "He split the Jews himself". Yes, Jews. Not Israelis. (What is it with people with aggressive moustaches?)
I'd also missed his fellow flame-thrower, absurd, earnest, ranting, well-past-her-sell-by-date, ex-BBC home affairs editor Polly Toynbee, characteristically bolting to the extremes and calling Mr Netanyahu "far right". [Various other examples of Polly's tendency towards name-calling flew around during the British politics section at the end too - and two can play at that game, Pol.]
And I'd missed John Fisher Burns, the "dean" of the U.S. press corp [who I rather like and who is, on the whole, a reasonable man], complaining about Israel's behaviour, (like Bari and Polly) calling for for a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, and blaming the West. (He clearly has some blind spots).
Jonathan Sacerdoti's lonely, embattled presence as a defender of Israel [and my way of thinking] was something to be grateful for - but not too grateful for, given what Dateline flung at him. He was attacked on (at least) three fronts. (He made a decent fist of it though, in spite of everything hurled at him.)
Ah, memories!...
I recall a comment I made at Biased BBC back in 2011 [which I can't, unfortunately, link to, but which I saved in my own drive when B-BBC was having technical problems], following Jonathan's first appearance on Dateline. I complained about how he "faced regular interruptions" from "Atwan, Polly Toynbee and Esler (and a couple of "I'll come back to you in a second"s from Esler to boot)". [I was far less polite back then].
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as Dateline's very own Marc Roche might say.
For those wondering how Dateline London's bizarre obsession with Abdel Bari Atwan is going, well, he was on again today - for the fourth time this year (one more than Steve Richards of The Independent).
His commanding lead as the programme's most-invited guest is still growing. The top of the Dateline leader board when we last looked at it (in August 2014) was as follows:
Atwan, Abdel Bari 45
Goldfarb, Michael 34
Kielinger, Thomas 34
Now it looks like this:
Atwan, Abdel Bari 53
Goldfarb, Michael 40
Kielinger, Thomas 38
For any passing Martians who may be unaware of Dateline's 'Bari', here's a sample of the kind of things he says (courtesy of The Times of Israel - which is unlikely to be among his favourite newspapers):
- In March 2008, he was quoted justifying a terrorist assault by a Palestinian gunman on Jerusalem’s Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in which eight students were killed, since the religious seminary was responsible for “hatching Israeli extremists and fundamentalists.”
- During a TV interview in 2013, he said he considered Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden only “half a terrorist” due to his positive engagement with US forces in Afghanistan.
- He was famously quoted as saying that he would dance in Trafalgar Square if Iranian missiles were to hit Israel.
- On the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he wrote that the worst terrorist attacks in US history will be remembered as the end of the US empire, since “all empires collapse when they pursue the arrogance of power.”
Canyousee why the the BBC News Channel/BBC World's flagship international discussion programme chooses to send far more invitations to Abdel Bari Atwan than to anyone else?
Just what is it about the Israel-hating, anti-American, Palestinian leftist that the makers of the BBC's Dateline London like so much? His fabulous Saddam-style moustache? The twinkle in his eye that wows the ladies? His friendship with Gavin Esler?
Still, at least today's Dateline included a strongly pro-Israeli guest, Jonathan Sacerdoti. He's made three appearances since first appearing in 2011, a round fifty less than Bari.
Here's an update to the post Guest of (Dis)honour, which listed all the guests on Dateline London, and revealed that the controversial Palestinian (extremist) journalist Abdel Bari Atwan was the programme's most regular guest by some margin.
That post appeared in November 2012. Many editions of Dateline have passed since then. Who's top of the Dateline pops now? Well, here are the total number of appearances of all Dateline's guests since 30 October 2010 (with apologies for the list's untidy look).
It shows that Abdel Bari Atwan keeps his crown as the most regular Dateline guest:
Atwan, Abdel Bari45
Kielinger, Thomas34
Goldfarb, Michael34
Karkouti, Mustapha33
Roche, Marc29
Poirier, Agnes28
Toynbee, Polly 24
Daley, Janet23
Oraibi, Mina al22
Katz, Greg21
Fisher Burns, John19
Ray, Ashis19
Zadka, Saul 19
Chu, Henry18
Maguire, Stryker18
Malik, Nesrine16
McAllister, Jef16
Magombe, Vincent16
Goes, Eunice15
Aaronovitch, David14
Ramdani, Nabila14
Brown, Yasmin Alibhai14
Leslie, Ann 14
Homouda, Abdallah13
Temko, Ned13
White, Michael12
Deane, Alex11
Margaronis, Maria11
Baker, Stephanie10
Shiskin, Dmitry10
Birrell, Ian10
O'Connell, Brian10
Montgomerie, Tim10
Richards, Steve9
Pepinster, Catherine9
Raphael, Adam9
Wei Liang, Diane8
Piras, Annalisa8
Mayer, Catherine7
Ansari, Nazenin7
Hilton, Isabel7
MacIntyre, Donal6
Owen Jones6
Taranyuk, Irena5
Karimakawenda, Tererai5
Burrell, Bernard 5
Sadullah, Shahid5
Taheri, Amir4
Dourian, Kate4
Lynch, Laura4
Linnik, Dmitry3
Dittert, Annette3
Hewlett, Steve3
Bahaijoub, Ali3
Matthews, Francis3
Caliskan, Emre2
Kofman, Jeffrey2
Lucas, Edward2
Timur, Safak2
Sacerdoti, Jonathan2
Jenkins, Simon2
Pasha, Hassan Fatah2
Faiola, Anthony2
Bolzen, Stephanie1
Gordon, Tom1
Huband, Mark1
Macleod, Catherine1
Martin, Iain1
McIntosh, Lindsay1
McKenna, Kevin1
Nekrassov, Alexander1
Patrikarakos, David1
Satwa, Richard1
Shabi, Rachel1
Sharafedi, Bozorgmehr1
Walker, Heather1
Iversen, Tonje1
Hari, Johann1
Totaro, Paola1
Hutton, Will1
Orwell, Bruce1
Shamis, Ashur1
Xue, Xinran1
Aziz, Abdul1
Purcell, Bernard1
Addison, Jake Awagah1
Paviot, Benedicte1
Fuchs, Cornelia1
al-Qassemi, Sultan1
And just to break that down by adding the latest figures, since that 2012 post, which show the recent trends on Dateline. These then are the figures from 17 November 2012 to 16 August 2014. They show that the gap is closing on Bari's dominance of the programme but that, astonishing, he's still the most invited guest on Dateline:
