Making The Ghosts Grin: The BBC Trust's White Decision

"There were ghosts haunting the Third Committee that day: the ghosts of Hitler and Goebbels and Julius Streicher, grinning with delight to hear, not only Israel, but Jews as such denounced in language which would have provoked hysterical applause at any Nuremberg rally and justify a special edition of Der Stürmer.

 And there were other ghosts also at the debate: the ghosts of the 6,000,000 dead in ... extermination camps, listening to the same voices which had cheered and jeered and abused them as they made their way to the gas chambers.

For the fundamental thesis advanced by the supporters of the resolution, and approved by the majority of the Third Committee, was that to be a Jew, and to be proud of it, and to preserve the right to be a Jew, is to be an enemy of the human race."

In the above words, the Oxford-educated Welsh journalist and author Goronwy Rees (1909-79) – no rightwinger, he, by the way – expressed his disgust for the adoption by the United Nations in 1975 of the notorious resolution equating Zionism with racism.

More obscenity from The Age's notorious Michael Leunig

Fast forward 37 years, and another British journalist, former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, suggested following Operation Pillar of Cloud (Defence) that media hostility to Israel is "a form of proxy for antisemitism by journalists in the West".

He observed:

"It is a massive puzzle because journalists normally are on the side of the little guy, and there can’t be a smaller guy in the Middle East than Israel....

[Israel] is pro-gay, pro-democracy, pro-women. It’s the most liberal establishment probably for 1,000 miles in any direction. You would have thought every journalist would embrace that thought process – but for some reason they don’t.

The most interesting thing was the way the people from Gaza treated those guys they claimed were Israeli spies – they shot them in public and dragged around their bodies.

Compare that with the Israelis when they captured the guy who let off the bomb in Tel Aviv and then followed due process and the law. That is never portrayed in the British media. Never...."

There is, of course, no British media outlet more accomplished at misrepresenting Israel by sins of both commission and omission than the BBC.  The consequences inevitably impact to Israel's detriment upon the public mind:


Commented an apparent apologist for the Corporation on a November BBCWatch post.

"Israel should be starved of resources by an international blockade. Only allowed reduced medical and food supplies, given dirty water to drink, UN overwatch present at every place where the IDF are active, and no more military materiel provided by the west. Once you have run out of guns and ammo, all your bulldozers and tanks and iron dome lie by the roadside and your Israeli population is desperate and willing to kill themselves in protest at the conditions of their imprisonment and repression, only then will it be a fair fight.

But Iran will probably nuke you before that and save the world the trouble."

And now the potential for more incalculable harm has been unleashed by the BBC Trust's bizarre and unconscionable decision to uphold a complaint by anti-Israel zealot Ben White regarding the a BBC Radio 4 broadcast's coverage of the so-called Nakba.  To quote the Jewish Chronicle report by Marcus Dysch: 

'.... A “lack of clarity” had been evident in the coverage of West Bank protests last May which marked “Nakba Day”, when Palestinians mourn the creation of Israel, the BBC investigation found.

The report breached the Corporation’s accuracy guidelines by failing to note the “degree of force or coercion in the manner of the departure” of Palestinians, the Trust concluded....

Mr White complained to the BBC, claiming that the introduction to the news report was “deeply offensive” to Palestinians who had “lost everything as a result of ethnic cleansing”.

The introduction had stated that 60 Palestinians were injured in clashes with Israeli forces while marking Nakba Day, which the piece said was “the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of statehood which resulted in thousands of Palestinians leaving their homes”.

A Radio 4 editor who worked on the introduction told an initial BBC editorial standards committee that referring to Palestinians “leaving their homes” had not been “dynamic” enough.

The Trust concluded that the language used had “failed adequately to convey the reality of the departures”, and had “understated” the number of Palestinians affected by Israel’s creation....'

Dysch also notes:

'Ben White is a campaigner who accuses Israel of being an apartheid state and who wrote in 2002 that he could “understand” why people were antisemitic.

He encouraged his Twitter followers to protest against Israeli theatre company Habima last May by posting a picture of Jewish author Howard Jacobson, saying the Booker Prize winner’s face was “another reason to support the boycott”.'

As Robin Shepherd remarks at the end of his must-read piece on this unsavoury decision by the BBC Trust and and its implications, 

"Bear in mind that the (fairly) new chairman of the BBC trust is former European Commissioner Chris [Lord] Patten, a well known Israel basher. So, in this case, essentially, the complaints procedure broke down as follows:

Anti-Zionist fanatic makes complaint to watchdog organisation run by Israel basher that broadcaster already well-known for anti-Israel bias is not being biased enough. Watchdog organisation run by Israel basher upholds complaint made by anti-Zionist fanatic and warns broadcaster well known for anti-Israel bias that it should be careful to be more biased in the future."

Alan Aziz, executive director of the Zionist Federation, observes of the Trust's decision that  the BBC’s obligatory commitment to impartiality

“seems never to apply when it comes to Israel. The BBC, by recognising a false narrative that Israel committed a catastrophe against the Palestinians, is providing a biased picture demonising Israel.'

And, as Robin Shepherd says,

"The BBC Trust has now effectively sent a signal to reporters and editors that they have a duty to distort the historical record to suit the pro-Palestinian narrative"

The ghosts of Hitler, Goebbels and Streicher cannot be the only ones grinning.

The BBC: Pride & Prejudice & The Pooh Bah

Jon Donnison and Paul Danahar.  What a pair!  These two BBC journalists, respectively Gaza/West Bank correspondent and Jerusalem-based Middle East Bureau chief, were carpeted by the Israeli Government Press Office on Wednesday regarding Donnison's notorious retweet of a child injured in Syria which purported to be a child injured in Gaza.  As well as retweeting the image, sent to him by a Palestinian contact, Donnison had described the image as "Heartbreaking".

It appears that the Government Press Office told Donnison that if he offends again he could be deprived of his press card.

So he got off with a warning, much to the disgust of many BBC viewers, who, concerned at his perceived pattern of prejudice against Israel, had hoped to see the back of him and were convinced that he'd be expelled.

Ah, but that's Israel for you.  Imagine the fate that would await a reporter who had fallen foul of the authorities in, say, Hamastan.

And if he had been expelled, what an instant hero he'd have become in certain circles!

There have been reports that Donnison and Danahar apologised to the Government Press Office for the fauxtography retweet.

But the pair, otherwise silent (as far as I can tell) regarding what transpired on Wednesday, have hastened to state that this is not so.

Danahar led the way, and Donnison followed.

Little wonder that some Twitter watchers are aghast at the pair's apparent pride in their failure to apologise.

Meanwhile, regarding yesterday's UN vote (138 in favour, nine against, and 41 abstentions) regarding the upgrading of Palestine to "observer state" status, Danahar (retweeted by Donnison) has made this seemingly non-objective remark:

"Voted No: Canada, Czechs, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall island, Panama, US, Israel. Looks like cast list of 'Coalition of the Willing' "

What a pair!  Isn't it time the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, threw the Corporation's rule book on impartiality at them?

Speaking of the portly and pompous Lord Patten (himself with a history of pro-Palestinian partisanship), who's dubbed Pooh Bah by some elements of the press, here's highly satisfying footage of the drubbing he took recently on a separate matter from Conservative MP Philip Davies:

If only Philip Davies, blunt Yorkshireman and stormy petrel that he is, would ask Patten why he allows BBC reporters to flout the BBC's Charter again and again and again.

Al Beeb's pro-Palestinian Boss Patten Talks Up Turkey

To try to demonstrate "objectivity" as the incoming Chairman of the BBC Trust, demonstrably pro-Palestinian Lord Patten, a Conservative Party "wet" ("wet" being the operative word) wrote his last article for the online "Project Syndicate: A World of Ideas" at the end of March.

He explained that. given the new role,

 "I have to take a Sicilian vow of omerta on controversial issues for the term of my chairmanship. That makes for boring commentary: better to put down my pen."

The article in question is entitled "Turkey and the Future of Europe" and it inspires no great confidence for expectations that Al Beeb, so doggedly anti-Israel, will desist in its other biases towards British membership of the European Union and towards Islam anytime soon.

For Patten demonstrated, like that other Conservative Party "wet", David Cameron, that he's gung-go about securing Turkey's admission to the European Union.  His article concluded:

'So what is the point of Europe today? .... Europe’s moral purpose today is an existential question that all Europeans must consider.

For me the answer is to be found in Turkey. Europe with Turkey as a member would naturally be a more dynamic economy. Turkey is a regional energy hub. It has clout and respect in its own region with formidable fighting forces. And, above all, Turkey is now a role model for other Islamic societies striving to accommodate democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, an open economy, pluralism, and religion.

As an EU member, Turkey would add a new dimension of massive historic importance. Europeans would show that we could embrace an Islamic democracy and build a strong bridge between Europe and Western Asia.

That, in turn, would create a new European identity and narrative, a new reason for the EU to exist in this century, a way of rejecting the divisive politics of old. I hope that by the time I take up my pen again, we will be on our way to this destination. If not, then many of us will find it increasingly difficult to see Europe as anything more than a glorified customs union with political ambitions that are far too big for its boots.'

(http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/patten39/English; hat tip: Biased BBC)

Personally, the thought of millions and millions of Muslims from Turkey's Islamic hinterland in Asia being eligible for immigration to Britain and other lands inside the EU fills me with dread, for reasons delineated by a former UKIP parliamentay candidate in his blog a couple of years ago:
http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-of-bridge-too-far-by-philip.html

Given Patten's predilections, the Turkish case for EU entry, like zeal for the Palestinian cause, is certainly unlikely to diminish at Al Beeb.

Lord Patten as Chairman of the BBC Trust? Part of a Pattern of Anti-Israel Prejudice at Al Beeb

In exchange for its unique and privileged status as a licence-payer funded broadcaster – an anachronism from the 1930s that is decades past its use-by date – the BBC is obligated by the terms of its Charter (and its Producers’ Guidelines) to be impartial in its presentation of news. It is a requirement which this arrogant, bloated, incorrigibly left-leaning institution breaches with impunity again and again.

As the lawyers Trevor Asserson and Elisheva Mironi stated in an analysis of the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2001:

“Some breaches are minor and would not be worthy of note in isolation. Taken together, however ... even these subtler or more minor breaches reveal a clear and significant trend of bias. Some of the breaches are ... quite glaring. At times, by mere selection or omission of facts, the BBC report is misleading. At times, it appears to invent material to suit its own bias. “

Several further Asserson reports later, and the BBC remains as biased as ever. In 2009, following public complaints, the BBC Trust rapped Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen (pictured below, right, and again left) over the knuckles for several instances of bias, an action that merely left Bowen petulant and defiant.

And he had his champions. “You don’t have to search far on the web to find Zionist publications, lobby groups and bloggers all over the world using distorted versions of the report to justify their ill-founded prejudice that the BBC has a deep-seated and long-standing bias against the state of Israel,” inveiged  the pro-Palestinian broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, scion of one of those familial dynasties the BBC (despite its disdain for the hereditary principle in monarchy and House of Lords) is not averse to creating, and author of a book on the PLO.  “Conversely, millions of Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims will by now have been confirmed in their – equally false – belief that the BBC is yet again running scared of Israeli propaganda.” (As satirical magazine Private Eye might add: “Shome mishtake shurely?”)
See http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/05/dimbleby-fearful-bbc-risks-losing-its-way/http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/13/jonathan-dimbleby-jeremy-bowen-bbc-middle-east

Dollars to doughnuts Bowen’s getting ready to uncork the bubbly now that former Hong Kong Governor and EU Commissioner Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes) has been recommended by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to David Cameron as the person to fill the £110,000 p.a. post of Chairman of the BBC Trust. For barring an unforeseen hiccup, Patten will be a shoe-in.

He’s a terrible choice, given his own highly demonstrable track record of pro-Palestinian partisanship.  Not only is he President of Medical Aid for Palestinians, no doubt a worthy cause in and of itself, but he has publicly excoriated Israel on several occasions, demanding, for example, that Israel opens talks with Hamas and declaring that Israel’s easing of the siege on Gaza is insufficient.

Here’s a video that gives a brief glimpse into his stance on the issue (the announcer mistakenly calls the Guardian by its old and no longer appropriate locational title, the Manchester Guardian, by the way):

And see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece
See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/11/eu-show-courage-on-middle-east

An “analysis” on the BBC News website by Professor Fawaz Gerges, director of the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics, entitled “Arab unrest: Winners and losers,” is so outrageously propagandistic that it should be formally protested by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Zionist Federation. In a passage sub-headed “Fortress Israel” it says:

“Regionally, Israel is the biggest loser. It has put all its eggs into the basket of Arab dictators and autocrats, like Egypt's deposed Hosni Mubarak. Israel fought tooth and nail to support Mr Mubarak, who played a key role in tightening the siege of Gaza and the noose around Hamas's neck.

Time and again, the Israeli political class has proven to be its own worst enemy. Israel lost Iran 40 years ago because it put all its eggs in the Shah's basket. It has just lost Turkey over the killing of nine activists on board a Gaza-bound Turkish aid ship.

And now Israel is likely to lose Egypt, a critical and pivotal neighbour whose Camp David peace agreement in the late 1970s consolidated Israel's superiority in the region and undermined the official Arab state system.

Regardless of what governments emerge out of the rubble of political authoritarianism in the Arab world, they will have assertive foreign policies that challenge Israel's hegemony and further colonisation of Palestinian lands.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, has lost all credibility in the eyes of the people there. The leaked negotiation documents obtained by al-Jazeera - offering wide-ranging concessions to the Israeli side - were the final nail in the PA's coffin.

Resistance-based movements like Hamas and Hezbollah have gained more popularity at the expense of Abbas's Palestinian Authority; they will emerge as major winners of the social turmoil unless Israel takes concrete steps to sign a peace settlement and withdraw from occupied Arab territories.

So Israel has become a military fortress. The best way for Israel to address its security dilemma is to accept a two-state solution as suggested by the international community - including its long-time ally, the US.” [My emphasis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12599515

This goes beyond political commentary into subjective prescription – by what it claims and what it omits it tells us as much about the writer’s prejudices as the Middle East situation that he is meant to be describing.

And notice, incidentally, how this BBC video report on Britain's relations, historically, with the Arab world implies the Arab nature of "Palestine" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12616565

It is that piece I've quoted above, by Gerges, that might fittingly provide the first test of Patten’s mettle and show whether he can rise above his own pattern of prejudice against the Jewish State.

That is, if Anglo-Jewry’s infamously supine leadership (there are exceptions to the malaise) is willing to stir itself and rise to the challenge of confronting Al Beeb over the issue.