Thursday, August 10, 2006

More Beeb bias

Thought I'd bring you a few snippets from the BBC newslog, written by James Landale in Nick Robinson's absence. Here is the key excerpt:

Well, some of the thinking in Number 10 goes like this - you persuade Lebanon that the Israelis are keen to leave and will do so in the short term, after a cessation of violence, but only if they can be replaced by a mixture of Lebanese troops and existing UN forces which are already on the ground (they are called Unifil, they number about 2000 and they've been there for years).

These troops, Downing Street sources suggest, could be "bolstered" and given a more active role. So under this scenario, there'd be no big bang withdrawal by Israel, just a slow, incremental, coordinated pull back, with no vacuum filled by Hezbollah. That at least is the theory. There are a lot of 'ifs' built into the plan and the reality on the ground, as ever, could prove rather different.

This reasonable position drew some indignant responses, but my favourite two were these:

#1. At 03:19 PM on 08 Aug 2006, Richard O'shea wrote:

How does the prime minister intend to adjust Israels extreme and indescriminate use of force? Today we hear that they will destroy any moving vehicle, without cause, just the possibility that it may be carrying war material. This should not be tolerated nor should attempts be made to justify it as the result of such force is the potential loss of inocent life.

How does the prime minister intend to adjust Israels abuse of the institution of the UN? Using the threat of taking inocent life to pressurise the UN into decisions that benefit only Israel is abhorent to humanity, biased and unsustainable.

How does the prime minister intend to adjust his language to better reflect the views of the British people. How does he intend to adjust his own personal views on the Middle East, views that are not contained in the parties manifesto.

When the dust settles and the wholesale destruction of Lebanon is seen, how will the peace be maintained in the light of such injustice?

#17. At 10:40 PM on 08 Aug 2006, Stanley wrote:

The reality is that Israel is invading Lebanon as part of a planned push forward towards it's continuing plan to occupy and eliminate arab peoples. (no I'm not arabic)

It is absolutely astounding to me that journalism is not seeking to address this clear and historical abuse of rights and war crimes from the Israeli army.

However misguided Hezbullah's actions were that precipitated this full scale invasion one doesn't need to be a political analyst to see the writing on the wall: Israel's goal with the help of Bush and Blair's support has been to invade all along.

It is more repeating patterns of 1947 when the British and Zionists hacked out the Balfour agreement - nothing much has changed in terms of manipulations and hidden agendas.


The other postings were broadly critical of the BBC, accusing them of pandering to Tony Blair, rather than anything too directly attacking Israel. But to the idiots above, I felt compelled to write a reply - we shall see if it makes it past the BBC censors:

I was just about to respond to the absurdities of Richard O'Shea (#1) when I read the even more ridiculous nonsense of Stanley (#17). Let's get some things straight here...

1. If Israel's use of force was so extreme and indiscriminate, could someone explain how any of Lebanon is still standing? But then I guess it depends on whether you prefer your photos of Beirut doctored or not.

2. Richard's condemnation of Hizballah as extreme (calling for Israel's destruction) and indiscriminate (boasting that it aims for civilians) is notable by its absence.

3. Perhaps Richard might also comment on the UN's abuse of Israel? For example, how after voting it into existence, it has repeatedly stood by whilst other member states seek its obliteration, or the gross double standards that have led to an absurd number of resolutions against it, whilst ignoring the real egregious regimes and acts of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur etc.

4. The views of the British people are reflective of the sources of their information. If people like Richard and Stanley are the denizens of the BBC's opinion pages, it would come as no surprise if the public were hostile to pretty much anything Israel did. I would like to give them more credit than that, but it's funny how any eruption of Middle East violence is immediately followed by a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, showing that the British public have no sense of nuance, and by their actions, see a direct link between Israel and Jews.

5. Stanley is effectively perpetuating a national blood libel against Israel. The idea that they want to eliminate all the Arabs is palpably absurd on so many levels, not least that if they really did want to do this, they are currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East, so they could do this in an afternoon if they were that bothered.

6. It is absolutely astounding to me that the public is not seeking to address this clear and historical abuse of journalism that we are now seeing in the wilful misreporting of the situation in Lebanon, by Reuters, AP and others, who have all been caught doctoring and staging photos. Even Fox and CNN have admitted to self-censorship on reporting Hizballah's activities.

7. After Stanley's ranting, I was at least expecting him to get some facts right, but he disappoints on that too. The Balfour Declaration was actually written in 1917, and had it been enforced, instead of the Jewish side giving massive compromises because ANY state was more important to them than the exact size or borders, Israel would stretch into most neighbouring countries already. Instead, it tends to give up land gained in defensive wars, in the hope of peace. What it gets is more terrorism, more biased UN resolutions, and more attacks from people like Stanley and Richard.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your corrections of those two comments! Nice to see an insight which is correct and unbiased!!

Ofer said...

The problem is, those two guys are thinking like computers, when something does not compute in their own prespective, like those corrections you've presented, they just get an Error, and reboot and start from the same settings they have been before.

The corrections are logical, and may raise some thought in someone who didn't hold so much prejudice against Israel, but for those two its just rubbish that is to be ignored.

Shame, but this is the reality.