On BBC Bias

The Guardian really plugged the Israel haters yesterday; as well as publishing a letter from the senior editor of the pro-Hamas MEMO, they also published an article alleging that the BBC is biased towards Israel, by Tim Llewellyn, another of the speakers at MEMO's debate yesterday on the same subject.

Llewellyn's agenda is evident from the beginning. In the second paragraph he claims:

"The BBC coverage of Israel and Palestine, where another state continually kills and oppresses Arabs, is replete with imbalance and distortion".

His summing up of the conflict, as Israel intentionally and maliciously oppressing the Palestinians for no apparent reason is simply absurd and the fact that he follows this by lecturing the BBC on "imbalance and distortion" renders his entire article a joke.

He lists ways the media is supposedly biased towards Israel, according to a book co-written by Greg Philo, also a speaker at the debate:

"They find that the Israeli explanation of why it went to war on a mainly defenceless Gazan population is the one broadly accepted by the BBC. It was a 'response' to Palestinian rockets. The Palestinian case, that the Israelis violated a ceasefire that had held for nearly five months in November 2008, and that the Gazans had endured many years of intensifying siege and blockade, which had reduced them to stagnation and penury, was rarely put, if at all... The BBC repeatedly stressed the word [Israeli] 'retaliation'". 

But Israel didn't go to war on the "defenceless Gazan population", it targetted Hamas and the evidence is in the ratio of civilians to terrorists killed; much lower than in other conflicts, with Hamas confessing to over 700 terrorists being killed, all this bearing in mind all the precautions Israel took to minimize civilian casualties, and the fact that Hamas used the Palestinians as human shields. Also it is undeniable that the war was a response - Hamas fired about 200 rockets into Israel in November 2008. They are entirely to blame for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, so Llewellyn's complaints are void.

"They cite a BBC reporter saying: 'Israel feels itself surrounded by enemies, with reason.' They add: 'We have not found a commentary noting that 'Palestinians feel themselves to be subject to a brutal military occupation, with reason.' Israel's official view is given as fact, they say, but the Palestinian view, on the rare occasions it is found at all, is not. Israelis 'state', Palestinians 'claim'."

The first point above is true, the media hardly ever cite the real reasons for the conflict, how aside from the fact that Hamas want to destroy Israel, they also constantly act directly against the Palestinians' best interests. As for the second point, it's just not true - Palestinians' lies are constantly repeated as fact (eg. Israel murdered a peaceful protestor with tear gas), and when the truth comes out (she wasn't even at the protest, she died of medical issues), the media never report what actually happened. On the rare occasion that they do say the Palestinians "claim", well, it might be because it's not unheard of for Palestinians to tell outright lies. (eg. Palestinians "claim" Israel eats Palestinian babies; Palestinians "claim" there is no Jewish connection to the land of Israel etc etc).

"Israeli attacks are always reported as retaliation to Palestinian violence or rockets, and the idea that Palestinian rockets, however ineffective, are armed resistance to Israel's hammering from land, sea and air is rarely broadcast. The daily indignities and brutalities of the siege and the occupation and the shelling and shooting of civilians are virtually absent from BBC consciousness unless an attack on Israel sparks interest."

Here Llewellyn shows that he views rockets targetted at innocent civilians as a justified "response" ("resistance") to Israel killing the terrorists who fire the rockets. That and the fact that he calls the rockets "ineffective" when just last month an Israeli schoolboy was killed, is insane and obscene. And whilst it is constantly reported when Palestinians are killed, whether they are terrorists, or civilians where terrorists had just fired rockets from their back garden, the most common, almost daily, Palestinian attacks deliberately targetted at Israeli civilians (whether by rocks or rockets, both can be fatal) are rarely reported, much less when they celebrate and boast about it.

"what is missing from the coverage is the view that the Palestinians are engaged in a war of national liberation, trying to throw off an occupying force. Any Israeli casualty is headline news, shown in high quality images. BBC teams are based in West Jerusalem, de facto Israeli territory, and are on hand. Arab casualties may be shown in reports of a funeral, usually agency film, the victim anonymous"

This is just so untrue I really wonder where they get their "evidence" for this. Again Llewellyn demonstrates that he views Israeli citizens, whether a three month old baby or a 16 year old schoolboy or a pregnant woman, as legitimate targets because they are "an occupying force". And again, his second point is a blatant lie. Not only are Palestinian deaths reported in great detail - both visually and in words - and often out of context (if it's civilians ignoring how they are used as human shields, if it's terrorists showing their families mourning), but Israeli deaths are reported with much of the focus on how it would be considered Israel's fault, for example where the victims are called "hardline" settlers as though it's ok to kill a baby just because she lives on land that the Palestinians claim is theirs.

When Philo and Berry interviewed students, they found that they:

"were largely unaware of the Israeli occupation, often believing the Palestinians are the occupiers. Few knew that Hamas had been democratically elected in January 2006. 'I had the impression they were a terrorist group from watching the BBC' said one respondent."

Which is a bizarre quote to use to try to back up their claims of BBC bias, because everyone know Hamas is a terrorist organistaion, even they don't try to hide it - and just because they were "elected" doesn't change that fact. Just Journalism "recently addressed how a BBC profile of Hamas downplayed the Islamist group’s targeting of civilians and its extremist ideology."
 
If all that wasn't bad enough so far, Llewellyn ends the article by claiming that after 9/11:

"Israel and its friends were quick to capitalise on 'terror' and 'Arabs' and massively enhanced their propaganda here, gaining access to BBC staff at all levels".

So not only is he accusing Israel (or the "Zionist/Jewish lobby") of forcing the media to report what they tell them; he also accuses Israel of exploiting "terror" in quote marks, as if it doesn't exist and Israel's never experienced the consequences of terrorism. It's more than just ironic that Llewellyn's antisemitic implication of Jewish control over the media claims that the media is afraid of being called antisemitic, because this very claim seeks to undermine defenders of Israel and balanced reporting as "playing the antisemite card".

I've found fisking this article to be totally surreal, I can't quite believe the lies I've read. And it's even more surreal that I'm having to write in defence of the BBC's reporting, especially considering that there are so many instances where they clearly are biased against Israel.

For example, Just Journalism found Wyre Davies' BBC:

"analysis of Israel’s negative response to the Fatah-Hamas unity deal declines to engage directly with the reasons why Israel might be perturbed by Hamas being brought into the process, alternatively choosing to portray a gleeful Netanyahu with a new ‘message’ to ‘take to the wider world...

Davies denigrates any treatment of Hamas as a terrorist group, making absolutely no reference to the organisation’s long history of killing and maiming Israeli civilians in targeted attacks, which is the basis for the application of the terrorist label. He makes no reference to, nor takes account of, high profile recent statements by Hamas leaders that they will never accept Israel and want to see it expunged from the Middle East."

Meanwhile I look forward to Philo. Berry and Llewellyn's defence of Press TV.

The Guardian’s Amazing Suicide-Resurrection Show

Last Sunday, the Guardian editorial criticised the Palestinian leaders as "weak" and "craven" for being willing to negotiate on issues such as the settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees' "right of return". The Guardian spelled out their idea for a solution, which is for the Palestinians to reject any sort of concessions on those issues, and for acceptance of Hamas (who, for those who don't remember, call for Israel's destruction).

This was reinforced in a Guardian column written that day by Palestinian Hamas supporter Karma Nabulsi, disgusted at the Palestinian leaders, practically spitting as she rejects the idea of concessions and states that "had such deals eventually come to light, Palestinians would have rejected them comprehensively". Her solution? The restoration of the "Palestinian revolution", a barely hidden reference to the intifada.

Two days after it's amazing scoop, the Guardian, red-faced, looked around and saw that strangely, the other newspapers didn't seem to agree that the Palestinians and Hamas should be able to do whatever-the-hell they want. The other newspapers seemed to think it was a good thing that the Palestinians were actually considering negotiating! That it might be a sign that at some point there could be peace!

So the Guardian backtracked and wrote an editorial to clarify, in case people somehow got the idea that it is anti-Israel and more terrorist than Hamas:

"Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town... But such a deal requires both sides to make difficult concessions; in other conflicts we always praise those who do so."

The next day, though, they published an article by Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan, who blathers on about repression, betrayal and treason, before offering his idea on how to solve - sorry, I mean prolong - the conflict:

"As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it."

This isn't so far off what the Guardian said in their first editorial: like Hamas they view Fatah as traitors and incompetent in their approach to negotiations, (and, needless to say, Israel as well); and they place their trust in Hamas by calling for their legitimisation and acceptance.

In case Hamdan wasn't clear in his article, by "cause" he means the destruction of Israel, and the "practical measures" he refers to are terror attacks on Israeli civilians. The day after that article, the Guardian published a reader's letter that abandons all pretence and euphemisms, claiming that the leaks show that:

"the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism... Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity".

The Guardian defended this letter as not going against their policy "not to publish letters advocating violence against others", claiming that the letter is "about the way language is used... he [the letter-writer Ted Honderich] is not advocating suicide bombing."

I think Honderich would beg to differ, seeing as he's made it quite clear that by stating that suicide bombing is a moral right, he means just that.

I can think of no better definition for the phrase 'epic fail' than - n. The Guardian.

Palestine Papers: Negotiations, Lies, And The Guardian's Relief

The Guardian, in conjunction with Al Jazeera have leaked papers relating to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations from the last 10 years. Strangely, even with their exclusive access, the Guardian can't actually seem to comprehend the meaning and significance of the documents. One of their headlines claims "Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal", leaving out what PA negotiator Saeb Erakat actually said in the memos, which was "call it what you want... this is their issue, not mine". In response to the leaks, JPost reports that Erakat denied that the PA has ever offered to give away any of East Jerusalem, and "denied that the PA had agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said that when asked by Israel to accept this demand, he replied that it was tantamount to asking a Palestinian to join the Zionist movement." Erakat has also reinforced that the position has always been that the

"Palestinian Authority would never give up any of our rights. If we did indeed offer Israel the Jewish and Armenian quarters of Jerusalem, and the biggest Yerushalayim as they claim, then why did Israel not sign a final status agreement?... Is it not strange that we would offer all these concessions which Israel demands, yet there is still no peace deal?"

Meanwhile PA president Mahmoud Abbas claims that it has been distorted so that the position of dividing the Old City, taking in 100,000 Palestinian refugees, and recognising Israel as the Jewish state is portrayed as the Palestinian position by Al Jazeera and the Guardian, when actually this is what is widely known as the Israeli position: "What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday present things as Palestinian but they were Israeli... this is therefore intentional". So Abbas is now using Israel's transparency in these matters to defend himself.

In Hamas' view, this shows the "ugly face of the [Palestinian] authority, and the level of its co-operation with the occupation... and involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

Unsurprisingly, but sickening all the same, is that this is the Guardian's take on it as well. Robin Shepherd observes that it shows that the political establishments, NGOs and media, particularly the Guardian, "have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on 'settlements'... more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself."

CifWatch point out how, even worse, the Guardian's editorial in scorning the Palestinians' flexibility as "weakness" has actively

"egged on the Palestinians to reject even the slightest territorial compromise, encouraged them to accept nothing less than new maximalist demands, and, most dangerously, legitimized and empowered the most radical movement in their society: Hamas".

"Not content to merely cheer lead for the Palestinian side, and demonize Israel, they now seem to view their role as inciting the Palestinians to reject moderation and accommodation... in framing the compromises which may have been considered by the Palestinian leadership, as a cowardly surrender to the cause, Guardian editors have now emboldened Hamas, and have abandoned even the pretense of advocating for peace."

In stark contrast to the Guardian - who, originally shocked and dismayed at the Palestinians' apparent willingness to talk, are at the same time relishing their role in how the leaks will prolong the conflict* - the Times take an optimistic view of hopes for peace in the future:

"At last, Palestinian leaders appear to acknowledge that peace requires giving up things that they would otherwise wish to keep. They have provoked denunciation from theocratic absolutists [like the Guardian!] for whom compromise is betrayal. And that is reason enough to be hopeful."

We can be hopeful, but should also be realistic. Elder of Ziyon points out that whilst the documents do seem to be true, the Palestinian leaders' reactions to it are what is most telling about the difficulties in solving the conflict. The fact that they kept it all so secret, never explaining to their people their efforts to make peace, and now the way in which they're denying the truth of the documents, indicates that peace is not their priority. They have demonstrated they they are fully aware that the majority of the Palestinian people would not accept any of the suggested concessions, and they have done nothing to try and educate their people to change this stance.

*Excellent article on 'How The Guardian Helped Kill The Peace Process'.

Terrorism And Bias

In the third shooting attack in Israel in less than a month, a nine-month pregnant Israeli woman was shot at in her car today by Palestinian terrorists. Miraculously only wounded in her leg, the woman was taken to hospital where she had to undergo an emergency caesarian section, with her baby delivered in good condition.

The media continues to report on the situation in the Middle East by ignoring the continuous terrorist attacks and writing about how Israel is the object to peace, such as in today's Oberver editorial, which Chas Newkey-Burden nicely fisks.

Also big news is UNHRC's accusation of Israel committing "war crimes" in it's soldiers defending themselves from almost certain death at the hands of the lynch mob in May's flotilla incident.

Robin Shepherd tackles the BBC's standard bias in it's coverage of the UNHRC report; Just Journalism look at the other media coverage; and Elder of Ziyon exposes the omission and twisting of evidence in the UNHRC's biased report.

Flotilla Mistakes... But Not What They Think

According to retired general Giora Eiland, the IDF investigation into the Gaza flotilla incident found that:

"Mistakes were made in the various decisions taken, including within relatively senior ranks, which contributed to the result not being as we would have wished... In this inquiry we found that there were some professional mistakes regarding both the intelligence and the decision-making process".

At this point, some people will be thinking, 'go on... get to the war crimes bit', but sadly for them the mistakes that the IDF made weren't that juicy. For myself and a lot of other people though, the mistakes were glaringly obvious from within hours of the incident, once the commandos' accounts started to come out, reinforced by the IDF's video evidence. 

So what mistakes does the report accuse the navy of? Only this:

"Failing to sufficiently consider the possibility that the commandos would encounter violent resistance when attempting to keep the ships out of Gaza... [and] not cooperating sufficiently with the Mossad in gathering information ahead of the flotilla's arrival".

The commandos were not expecting, did not want, and were not prepared for a violent battle. And they certainly didn't initiate it. As we've seen from the videos, the IDF boats alongside the Mavi Marmara were attacked even before the soldiers were able to board. In fact the report explains that the only reason the soldiers had to be lowered on board from helicopters was because the boats came under attack and the ladder was cut.

They had barely landed on the ship before they were overcome, their anti-riot paintball guns useless against the mob of activists armed with knives and other weapons. Not only were the soldiers shot at first by the activists, and with their own guns that the activists took from them - starrting with only the second soldier to descend, who was shot in the stomach - but a gun and bullets were found on board that were not Israeli weapons. Eiland said the commandos "only used force when they were under immediate danger to their lives", as they were instructed, and all the evidence confirms this.

If the IDF soldiers had been more prepared from the start, more aggressive even, if they had boarded with a more offensive mentality, then perhaps the nine activists may not have died. The soldiers may have found a way to take over the ship by force, but without their own lives being endangered so that they had no choice but to shoot.

Apart from those mistakes though - made by senior officials, not the soldiers themselves - the report concludes that:

"the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making... the use of live fire was justified".

So we know that the IDF's actions on the flotilla were justified. Last week we saw Hezbollah's preparations for war: stockpiling weapons in civilian areas. And now, in an amazing CNN report, we can see Israel's preparations for war: how to minimize civilian casualties.

The report is amazing for two reasons: first, how much effort Israel puts in to minimize civilian casualties, when the enemy are so determined to do the opposite, deliberately using their people as human shields, and second, the fact that CNN reported this at all; it is very rare to get such an insight into the evil tactics of Israel's enemies, and into the morality of the IDF in having to fight these people under such difficult conditions.

The question is whether this will count for anything when the next war comes.

UPDATE: Just Journalism analysis of the way the media reported the IDF investigation. Unsurprisingly, it seems that for the Guardian and Independent, the main findings of the investigation - namely that the activists were armed and attacked first - were just side points.

CNN Fires Terrorist-Supporting Editor

CNN have been forced to fire their senior editor of Middle East affairs, Octavia Nasr, over this tweet she posted on Sunday:

"Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.."

Honest Reporting wonder what it is about Fadlallah that Nasr respects - his support for Hezbollah, who comment on "the necessity for the destruction of Israel", his links to terrorism, or perhaps his Holocaust denial. 

HR also point to how on his death bed, when asked by a nurse what he needed, he answered, "for the Zionist entity to cease to exist". And one of his last acts before he died was to issue a fatwa authorising the use of suicide bomb attacks.

Whilst Nasr's Lebanese background should not have been a problem in hiring her as senior editor of Middle East affairs, her being a terrorist sympathiser is.

Nasr blogged her apology: 

"It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all." 

She then rambled on trying to explain why she does and doesn't respect Fadlallah.

This wasn't enough for CNN though, who fired her, explaining that 

"At this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward".

What they mean is that, although she's been working for them for 20 years, as a pro-Palestinian, pro-Hezbollah, and very obviously anti-Israel reporter/editor, her bias wasn't obvious enough to raise questions about her loyalties and commitment to journalistic integrity - until now.

The Augean Stables blog has more on her reporting. AS also links to the Guardian's sickening obituary by Ian Williams, who really rivals Nasr's tweet in mourning the terrorist Fadlallah as a "moderate" deserving of respect. The Guardian obviously take their own standards a lot less seriously than CNN, and so would doubtlessly be more likely to promote Williams to Middle East Editor than they would to fire him for writing such a loving obituary for a terrorist.

UPDATE: Elder of Ziyon links to another fan of Fadlallah, this one Britain's ambassador to Lebanon, who wrote on her blog on the official British foreign office website, that "The world needs more men like him".

The result? The piece was removed and she wrote a very insincere "apology", almost identical to that of the CNN's Octavia Nasr. More on this from Robin Shepherd.

On the subject of Hezbollah, EoZ highlights the evidence that even whilst there currently is no war between Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah are committing war crimes, storing weapons near schools and hospitals in civilian villages, deliberately using the residents as human shields.

Gaza News And Latest Flotilla Backlash

Elder of Ziyon highlights that as Israel has increased the amount and variety of aid going in to Gaza, rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel have also increased.

In other news from Gaza, terrorists have, for the second time in two months, burnt down an UNRWA childrens' summer camp, both times handcuffing the camp's guards. Last time they also left behind a note threatening to kill John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza director, and other UN officials.

Ging's reaction was to praise Hamas for their response to the incident, and to seemingly blame Israel for extremism in Gaza, indicating that it is because of the blockade. Melanie Phillips points out that 

"It is Hamas that has to be isolated and defeated if a start is to be made in slowing down the rate of extremism". 

She observes that the view of the UN, Britain, US and EU is that 

"the way to stop more extremism being generated in Gaza is to provide more aid, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists". 

What they're doing is "supporting the extremism which makes the lives of Gaza's Arabs such a misery" - and then placing the blame on Israel.

One thing Israel can, for once, be rightly blamed for, is Turkey's $400 million loss in the tourism industry due to the holiday cancellations of about 100,000 Israelis. (*thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the link). One Turkish tourism company which expected to bring 17,000 Israelis to Turkey this year, has so far only had 200 Israeli clients, having to pay $1.1 million to hotels for cancelled reservations, and incurring a total loss of almost $2.5 million due to all the cancellations.

Well, what did they expect when their Prime Minister openly supported a ship of extremists who attacked Israeli soldiers, and then accused Israel of war crimes when the soldiers defended themselves - completely ignoring the IDF's video evidence that refutes that.

In a new Just Journalism study, they highlight just how much Israel's footage was ignored by the UK media. They discovered that the Times, Telegraph, and Financial Times gave the footage the attention and detail it merited - and through that, countering the activists' claims that the IDF attacked first. Just Journalism conclude that the Guardian and Independent "severely under-reported" the footage, and when it was mentioned, it was dismissed as Israeli propaganda. But then the Guardian and Independent usually do leave out Israel's side of the story so this comes as no surprise.

More Video Evidence Of "Peace Activists'" Attack

The IDF has released more video evidence of the "peace activists'" attack on the soldiers. 

This is the chilling moment when they realise they're facing live fire.

This one shows the soldiers being attacked before they've even boarded the ship.

Even Seth Freedman, who has previously shown himself to be quite the ignorant self-hater, says Israel is not to blame in this incident:

"there is not an army on earth that would not allow its soldiers to respond with force to neutralise a life-threatening attack on their fellow troops... all the kneejerk Israel-hating in the world won't absolve the activist aggressors from their share of guilt for the horrific events that unfolded today".

He generously states,

"When Israel's wrongs are brought to light, they deserve condemnation as much as those of the Palestinians, but that does not mean automatically that in any situation the default position ought to be Israel is guilty until proven innocent."

Meanwhile CiF Watch takes apart the Guardian's editorial and article on those "peace activist" "eyewitnesses".

And the Washington Times sees the truth.

Flotilla: Media Reaction

The Guardian’s editorial today is predictably biased, comparing Israel to Somali pirates, commenting “no Nato warships will in fact be heading for Israel. Perhaps they should be”; and calling Israel a pariah state because of its military action. Israel is the only state in the world called pariah for defending itself. 

The Guardian seems to mock the idea that Israel was met with “pre-planned violence” (their quotations), and then contradicts that by blaming Israel wholly for supposedly placing “themselves in a situation where they lost control and provoked a riot, the Israeli navy [saying] they were forced to open fire to avoid being lynched”. 

Just Journalism observes further contradictory statements in the Guardian’s article: 

“On the one hand, The Guardian portrayed such violence as inevitable, saying, ‘What did the commandos expect pro-Palestinian activists to do once they boarded the ships – invite them aboard for a cup of tea with the captain on the bridge?’ However, immediately after this, the piece cast doubt on whether Israeli commandos had, in fact, faced any real threat, saying of a Greek man, purportedly shot by Israel, ‘Presumably he, too, was threatening the lives of Israeli naval commandos.’"

In answer to the Guardian’s question – what did the commandos expect the activists to do – well, I would suggest they followed the example of the passengers on the five other ships that Israel took control of, without the need for force. Surrender, and not try to foolishly start a war with the Israeli army. From literally miles away the activists knew exactly what would happen. They deliberately refused to go to Ashdod because they wanted a confrontation; they intended to inflict maximum damage on the soldiers with the weapons they had at their disposal – kill if they could – knowing that Israel would have no choice but to retaliate forcefully to prevent their own soldiers from being killed. All as part of their battle in seeking to delegitimize Israel and deny it’s right to defend itself.

The Guardian then gets even more ridiculous with this statement: 

“There was nothing on board those ships that constituted a threat to Israel's security, so Binyamin Netanyahu's argument that his troops were acting in self-defence has no validity. They should not have been there in the first place.”

Well, to quote Jonathan Hoffman from his speech made in support of Israel’s right to self-defence,  

“Israel had every right to board the Mavi Marmara ship. Israel cannot allow unknown goods and people to enter Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist regime that calls for the murder of Jews, the 'obliteration' of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. In the past, Israel has intercepted weapons-laden boats headed for Gaza’s coast. No government allows unidentified people and goods to flout their border regulations and enter their countries freely. If these activists behaved similarly at passport and security control in the U.S. or any other nation’s shores, ignoring their official protocol and violently attacking security personnel, they would also have been stopped and arrested.”

The Guardian’s hatred for Israel is so strong that they believe Israel should just allow a ship potentially carrying weapons and terrorists into Gaza; and call for an end to the blockade, as Nick Clegg did knowing this would be dangerous to Israeli citizens, essentially dismissing all Israel’s security concerns as paranoia – and then express sympathy with the political isolation and pressure on “Hamas by insisting it recognise Israel before it is allowed to join a national unity government with Fatah.” How do they expect there to be peace whilst Hamas is bent on Israel's destruction?

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the presenter John Humphrys echoes the Guardian editorial to Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor, asking:

“how would you react if you were sailing on a ship with old people and children on it, in international waters, perfectly legally, and out of the sky in the middle of the night a grouped of armed men landed on your ship – what would you do, welcome them in for a cup of tea?”

If I were on a ship with old people and children on it, I’d make damn sure not to breach a military maritime blockade. I wouldn’t ignore their numerous warning to divert to Ashdod. And if I did ignore them, I wouldn’t lie in wait to start a fight with them, because hopefully I’d have the sense to know they’re not looking to start a fight with me. But that’s just me. I just happen to value life. 

Humphrys then rivals the Guardian for most ridiculous comment of the day when he says “an iron bar is not the same as a machine gun... it’s not a weapon... a knife is not a weapon”. He says the incident was Israel acting disproportionately to “the slightest threat”. Well, really, the threat wasn’t even slight, because iron bars and knives aren’t weapons and are totally harmless, don’t you know. Just like those Hamas “homemade” rockets that have been falling today and for the last 9 years.

More reaction from the blogs on my side-bar, and live blogging again from The Muqata.

Vote Conservative! - Update - Says Simon Cowell!

This coming Thursday, the UK will be voting for prime minister in the general election. The three main leaders and their parties are: Gordon Brown of Labour, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron of the Conservatives.

I'm hoping for a Conservative victory (or vic-Tory, ha ha), for several reasons, the main one being... I'm a righty, obviously. More reasons in more detail in the Times editorial on why they're backing the Tories. They also explain why voting for Nick Clegg would be a bad idea. Julie Burchill writes in the Jerusalem Post on why she wouldn't vote for any of the parties, but in her view the Tories stand out as the much-lesser of many evils - the worst of which appears to be Nick Clegg, who called for the EU to isolate and sanction Israel for daring to defend itself after eight years of rocket attacks on its citizens.

Another reason why voting for Clegg could be disastrous is addressed in a letter to the Times from senior defence and intelligence chiefs, who warn how Lib-Dem policies would leave Britain exposed to terrorism, for example by their ruling out military action against Iran's nuclear project.

It is interesting to see who the papers are backing in the election. So far only the Evening Standard hasn't revealed who they are backing. The Mirror meanwhile, is supporting Labour, whilst all the other papers are supporting the Conservatives - except for two, who are backing Nick Clegg... can you guess who they are?

It's the Guardian and Independent of course! (and their Sunday counterparts). Is it a coincidence that the two most Israel-hating newspapers are supporting the most overtly Israel-hating party leader?

Comparing their attitudes to Israel with that of the Times, it is clear that the Times' choice is the right one. I have pointed to a lot of instances of bias in the Times reporting of Israel, with James Hider being the biggest culprit. However, compared to the Guardian their reporting is a masterclass! - and more importantly, they are unusually fair towards Israel in their editorials, not to mention truthful, compared with the other papers. For example, in one, even whilst criticising Israel, they acknowledge that 

"Israel is not a rogue state... It is an accountable, democratic, transparent nation, and fighting to remain one amid challenges that few other nations ever have to face."

In another editorial, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and observed,

"First, there is no equivalence between the actions of Israel in self-defence and those of Hamas in seeking to destroy it. Second, the UNHRC is not a credible forum. It is... notorious for bloc voting and bias against Israel. And finally, the Goldstone report itself is imbalanced: it focuses on Israel's faults rather than its right to protect itself."

In contrast, it is not surprising for an Independent editorial to echo the sentiments of the disgraceful excuse for a journalist, Robert Fisk.

The Guardian meanwhile, invent their own evidence to try and delegitimise Israel, are prone to exaggeration and lack of important context, and "mistakes" whenever they mention Israel, are in denial about their anti-Israel bias and even antisemitism, and allow George Galloway a column to rave about Iran's "sophistication", whose views on Iran don't seem so different from their own, where they seem to be more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Ahmadinejad's threats to "wipe Israel off the map".

Which brings me to Nick Clegg, who has ruled out a strike on Iran, meaning that if he was in power and it came to a point where Israel has no choice but to act, (and I, as well as Israel, sincerely hope it won't come to that point), then Israel's supposedly close ally Great Britain, would not only not give it's support, but Clegg would probably even call for Israel to be disarmed - as he has already done previously when Israel was acting in defence of its' citizens.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Nick Clegg and Israel, and dealing with antisemitism.

I know I talk a lot about Israel, but England is still home for now, and most of the time I feel free and safe here. But the thought of Nick Clegg as prime minister of this great and tolerant country does not bear thinking about.

...Although it would hurry my plans to move to Israel!


UPDATE: If I'd had any doubts about my decision to vote Conservative, they'd have been completely eliminated with the news that the one-and-only Simon Cowell is backing them too! The man with his head screwed on very tight, despite being a millionaire, says:

"Choosing how you vote should not be a snap verdict based on a few minutes of television. We are not talent show judges picking pretty-sounding contestants now... Nick Clegg is made for TV."

Whatever you agree or disagree with Simon on, you can not find fault with that quote. Most of the people voting for Clegg are voting for him, not his party. Because they jump on the words "change" and "fairness", and they like him dissing the other two parties, but weren't actually paying attention to his policies. The ones who say they like his policies are probably talking about his anti-Israel stance, because that's one of the main things he stands out for, that and his unique combination of smugness, hypocrisy, and naivety.

The Western Wall = Occupied?

In what is one of the most absurd, ridiculous, I-don't-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry, Israel-related stories that I've read (and I've read a lot); the UK's Advertising Standards Authority has banned an Israeli Government Tourist Office poster for depicting pictures of....

.... wait for it....

.... Jerusalem.

Specifically, the Temple Mount and the Kotel [Western Wall], as they are considered to be in East Jerusalem, what people call "the occupied territories"; and the ASA doesn't want people to assume that those places are actually part of the State of Israel, as that would be misleading, apparently.

My spoof story was barely an exaggeration.

The Kotel is at the centre of Judaism, physically, spiritually, emotionally, historically. It is not "occupied". The Kotel is Jerusalem; Jerusalem is Israel. The ASA may as well have said that Israel does not exist and the name on the posters should be replaced with "Palestine".

In another twisted story today, Just Journalism report on the Guardian's denial of and indifference to the Iranian nuclear threat. You would have thought that you'd have to be one or the other - either in denial of, or indifferent to - but the Guardian is a special newspaper that manages to be both at the same time. The really twisted part is that the Guardian is evidently more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Iran's threats to destroy Israel. I call indifference, rather than denial or ignorance. Only someone in a coma wouldn't be able to confirm Ahmadinejad's words to "wipe Israel off the map". Only someone antisemitic wouldn't be concerned about it.

In good news, though, Britain's Charity Commission is investigating whether War On Want - you know, one of those "pro-peace" organisations that hates Israel and supports terrorists (a bit like those "human rights" organisations that only care about Palestinian, not Israeli rights) - breached regulations during an aggressive protest at a supermarket. More from Chas Newkey-Burden .

Guardian Invents Evidence Against Israel

Last week, the IDF released it’s report to counter Goldstone. The Guardian, in it’s desperation to find a negative angle, resorted to their own “evidence” to delegitimize Israel’s version of an incident in which a flour mill in Gaza was damaged.

The Guardian repeats the Goldstone report’s claim that the flour mill was hit by an air strike, implicating that it was deliberately targeted and therefore a possible war crime.

The IDF meanwhile, described the incidents in detail, explaining how 

“Hamas had fortified this area [of the flour mill] with tunnels and booby-trapped houses, and deployed its forces to attack IDF troops operating there... IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas positions in the vicinity of the flour mill. The IDF forces fired back towards the sources of fire and threatening locations. As the IDF returned fire, the upper floor of the flour mill was hit by tank shells.” 

They even arranged for fire engines to reach the area and extinguish the fire.

The Guardian quotes Israel’s defence as merely that “there were Hamas fighters ‘in the vicinity of the flour mill’”. But they claim that when they visited the mill just after the war last year, they “saw what appeared to be the remains of an aircraft-dropped bomb” on the first floor, stating that: 

“The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January.” 

Israel Matzav observes: 

“While Goldstone also refers to helicopters, note that the Guardian report, which challenges the Israeli account, refers to a 500-pound bomb. Helicopters don't carry 500-pound bombs. A 500-pound bomb would not have left the roof intact”. 

What, you want actual evidence? Alright. A satellite photograph published by UNITAR - the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, taken days after the alleged incident, shows the roof still intact. 

They note that “the damage signatures [indicate] that the majority of damage in this area was caused by intense IDF ground fire.” Elder of Ziyon points out that this is evidence that was presented to Goldstone but which he obviously ignored. This is the picture in more detail, from Dvar Dea .

More proof? A picture from a BBC report 2009, captioned “A large section of the top two floors of the al-Badr mill was completely destroyed”, also shows that despite that, the roof was, again, still intact .

Compared with the evidence in the IDF's favour, the Guardian's tale of the 500 pound bomb sounds like a work of fiction - and a very amateur and implausible one at that.

Human Rights Watch Reject Hamas' Claims

In response to the Goldstone report that made vague references to some rockets being fired into someplace in Israel from somewhere nearby, but didn't actually name the people firing the rockets , or give victims' accounts; Hamas have defended themselves and claimed that the rockets were not directed at civilians.

HRW said Hamas' claim was "belied by the facts", of which there are plenty, not least on the IDF's YouTube channel (link on the right). The whole scenario is so ridiculous; Hamas with their laughable claim that Israeli civilian casualties were accidental, and HRW actually addressing their "report", humouring them the way you would humour a child who's drawn a not-very-good picture and tell them "Well done! But the nose shouldn't be on the forehead."

In between the Guardian taking this opportunity to try and say that HRW isn't biased against Israel, and look it's all just a Zionist conspiracy to stifle criticism, it (the Guardian) manages to throw in right at the end HRW's grievance at Hamas launching rockets from populated areas in Gaza, which endangers the Palestinians "by raising the likelihood of Israeli retaliation" - but doesn't mention an incident where two Palestinian girls died when a Hamas rocket accidentally struck inside Gaza.

Strangely enough, that was just before Cast Lead when there were no Israeli military targets in the area.

Carter: Israel has "had an entire year without terrorism"

In a typically one sided opinion piece in the Guardian, Jimmy Carter writes: 

"Israel has long argued that it cannot negotiate with terrorists, yet has had an entire year without terrorism and still could not negotiate."

You could say, well the media never reports on the acts of terrorism that have occured over the past year in Israel, so Carter must be right, but then, I read the news and I am aware of the terrorism.    For example, there was a would-be suicide bomber who was stopped and disarmed at one of those darned checkpoints.    Just a few days after Carter's piece an Israeli was shot and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist , ironically, but perhaps inevitably, as a resident said, in an area where a security checkpoint had recently been removed.                    Meanwhile another Palestinian was caught at a checkpoint in Hebron in possession of two knives. An Israeli boy was injured by a Molotov cocktail and an Israeli girl was injured by a firebomb, both in the West Bank. Not to mention the continuous rocket attacks on Southern Israel from Gaza. And the Israeli settlers' persecution of the Palestinians continues. Oh, wait a minute. I got that the wrong way round.    What were you saying, Mr. Carter?

Today's Journalism Scores: Times - 1, Guardian - 0

As everyone is aware, there have been clashes at the Temple Mount between Israeli police and Palestinians looking for trouble. The Times report mentions that "The police action... came after local Muslim leaders claimed that Jews were attempting to conquer the mosque and claim it as their own." It includes a quote from a Palestinian:

"A 22-year-old, who gave his name as Amar, said he had been detained last week for hurling stones at a passing Israeli patrol, but had returned again yesterday. 'They start this. They incite this, and then we respond and they make it look like we are the bad guys... We are protecting something very important to us, and they know that this is important, and that’s why they try to make us angry by sending their settlers there'."

and from an Israeli police officer:

“These are kids that have been whipped into a frenzy by something they believe is happening here. This is all unnecessary, and at the end of the day serves no one.”

It explains why this all started:

"Local Arabic radio stations began broadcasting at the weekend that Jews were planning to enter the site to pray, or dig under the compound and harm buildings there, prompting calls for Muslims to go and defend the site."

and gives Israel's response to the accusations:

"Israeli officials said that they had carried out archaeological excavations in the area, but that the work did not threaten existing structures. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, said the accusations against Israel were lies."

It even gives a bit of historical background as to why the Temple Mount is holy to Muslims and Jews, as well as stating "It is only open for Muslims to pray, though there are several hours each day that tourists, including Jews [if they can take the stoning and won't dare to pray there], can visit.", and quoting the head of the Jewish Temple Mount Institute saying "I will be tolerant to Muslim prayer on Temple Mount, but in this democratic country everyone has the right to pray in the holiest site in the world". The Guardian, meanwhile, paints this picture:

"Israeli forces stormed up into the compound behind riot shields and crowds of Palestinians fled, some taking sanctuary in the al-Aqsa mosque." "Palestinians have been increasingly concerned about right-wing Jewish settlers entering the compound and about rumours - denied by Israel - of excavations near the site."

That second quote was only added much later today, and doesn't really get across the fact the concern wasn't about "Jewish settlers entering the compound", but the rumour that they were going to "conquer" it, or that Musilms leaders on Arab radio encouraged Palestinians to riot at the mosque to defend it. One more detail was missed out by both newspapers, that the original "storming" of the compound by the Israeli police only happened when Palestinians began throwing rocks at the regular patrol that were already there. Still, the Times wins that round.

The Guardian Just Gets Worse And Worse

First, they give the Left's beloved terrorist-sympathiser George Galloway a column in which he goes on about poor old Iran being bullied about its nuclear weapons, and calls it a 'sophisticated state'.

Chas Newkey-Burden asks,

"In what sense is Iran “a sophisticated state”, George? In the sense that it rigs elections and then persecutes and murders peaceful protestors? In the sense that it hangs women in public squares after perfunctorily finding them guilty of adultery? The way it does the same with men because they are gay? Or maybe Iran’s sophistication is seen in how its legal system executes children and cuts the hands and feet off offenders. Perhaps it is the non-free press that so proves its sophistication, or the imprisoned bloggers? Or the large parts of the country where people wallow in darkness and squalor due to its messed-up energy and economic policies?"

Then the Guardian ignore a letter spelling out their anti-Israel bias because they hope if they ignore it it'll go away. Read the letter here on CifWatch, it's amazing.

Then they mysteriously, "accidentally" omit all the names of the Israeli Nobel Peace Prize Winners from a list of all winners, ever.

And on top of that, in their editorial about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (I cannot believe I just said those words), the Guardian made a reference to "Israeli-occupied Gaza", only later remembering that in fact Israel disengaged from Gaza several years ago, and replacing 'occupied' with 'blockaded'.

In other news, an excellent website has been set up by a number of bloggers, which discredits the insanely inaccurate Goldstone report on Cast Lead.

Guardian Balance?!

The Guardian has actually exposed it's readers to a dark and dangerous pro-Israel article, for once. And they don't like it. Rivka Carmi, president of Ben Gurion University, makes an excellent case against Self-Hating-Neve-Gordon's calls to boycott Israel. Her article was also in the LA Times, and, in an extremely rare case of balance, the Guardian has included it on CiF! As expected, though, the Guardian readers and commenters completely miss the point. (The Guardian obviously knew they would before they uploaded the article, which is why on rare occasions it does publish pro-Israel pieces, with the writer inevitably getting abuse from it's deluded readers). Carmi describes BGU's

"community outreach and scientific innovation", how her "professional career has focused on preventing hereditary genetic diseases in the Bedouin Arab community", that "the laboratory that I founded at Ben-Gurion University is working with Bedouin, Palestinian and Jordanian doctors and researchers to improve the health of Arab children across the region", and about the development of "advanced water technologies to solar energy, environmental conservation and emergency medicine".

And the majority of Guardian-ites still want to boycott Israel, and by extension, Ben Gurion University and all their work and contributions. They hate Israel so much they would even deny Arabs the benefits they get from Israeli research!

Seth Freedman Idolises Ex-Jewish Fatah Member

Freedman first off tries to portray ex-Jewish, Muslim convert and Fatah member Uri Davis as moderate and peaceful -

"the image he gives off is light years away from his detractors' portrayal of him as a Qur'an-bashing, fire-breathing radical."

That is despite the fact that Fatah are radicals, at least when it comes to Israel. Although, Freedman admits, Davis wants to bring about change in Israel through boycott, divestment and sanctions against it - all as part of the "anti-apartheid campaign".

Freedman gives more of an insight into Davis' mindset, telling how Davis criticises the Hagaddah as it "celebrates collective punishment". So Davis rewrote it and "kept the original skin of the text minus the ugly parts and minus God".

Whether the 'ugly parts' of 'collective punishment' he is referring to is the Egyptians' slavery of the Jews or G-d's punishment of the Egyptians, either way his Hagaddah is not going to make much sense.

Freedman ends, almost wistfullly,

"But the task ahead of him [to get more Jews to join Fatah!] is a daunting one, and how many others he can convince to follow in the wake of him and his yellow Beetle down the streets of Ramallah remains to be seen."

I don't even think my (very low) opinion of Freedman would get any lower if he converted to Islam and joined Fatah.

Guardian Finds Yet ANOTHER Self Hating Jew!

Read Cif Watch and Robin Shepherd's takes on this self-hating Israeli Jew's typically biased Guardian comment piece. The Guardian is like a beacon to these people! Or maybe it's the other way round. This piece the Guardian found on an Israeli blog, but they have now given Meron Rapoport his own profile page, where no doubt further anti-Israel articles will soon be cropping up. Here the Guardian drools over him being "winner of the Napoli International Prize for Journalism for a inquiry about the stealing of olive trees from their Palestinian owners." (After a google check, that seems to be the only time the 'prize' has ever been won, or even mentioned.) But of course, his 'prize' would hardly be for balanced or insightful journalism; the Guardian doesn't seem to like objective journalists.

Guardian: Only Bad Israelis Are Good Israelis

We keep hearing about these human rights groups and activists, and then it always turns out they don't really care about humans' rights at all - at least, not Israel's rights.

They, according to Antony Lerman of the Guardian, are the only ones

"that have the moral authority and objective expertise to call the government to account for any human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza at the hands of Israeli officials or settlers."

Except that they have no moral authority and certainly no objective expertise whatsoever!

Lerman says that "Breaking the Silence is the organisation of veteran Israeli soldiers that interviewed those who participated in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza."

But some of the soldiers who testifed were found not to have even been in Gaza, but were just saying what they had heard.
Lerman goes on,

"If you make these groups the enemy, you are setting your face against the kind of essential truth-telling and openness that must underpin the trust both sides need to have in each other if a just peace is to be achieved and sustained."

Aside from the fact that Breaking the Silence is not about finding the truth, but about demonising Israel; what about the truth-telling and openness on the other side? All we ever hear about is Israel's war crimes and atrocities, it's time we knew the truth about the other side, that Soldiers Speak Out were given the same attention as Breaking the Silence.
And then, worst of all, Lerman claims

"Their very aims are to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. These groups are now an integral part of a kaleidoscopic array of voluntary organisations that make up a vibrant global Jewish civil society."

So what makes us Jews "civil" are Palestinian rights groups that deliberately set out to demonise Israel with no conclusive evidence. It's the same as saying not all Jews are bad, only the ones that love Israel.

Lerman accuses "Netanyahu's demonising of human [Palestinian] rights groups [of doing] disservice to a proud Jewish history."

In what world is he living that anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Palestinian rights groups are part of our proud Jewish history?! Only self haters would be proud of that! The headline even calls those groups "Israel's priceless assets"!
But Jews who are proud to be Jewish, and proud of Israel, would be proud of groups like Soldiers Speak Out, that tell the truth; and Magen David Adom, that with no political agenda treats both Israelis and Palestinians.