Israeli historian and dissenter Ilan Pappe explains the inherent pro-Israel bias at the BBC:
"The decision to maintain the disciplinary procedures against [BBC journalist] Barbara Platt and even to go as far as to establish a commission of inquiry into the way the BBC covers the Palestine question (BBC bias complaint upheld, November 26) is one of many manifestations of the grotesque phase we have all reached in this troublesome part of the world.
"Had it not been for Ms Platt's balanced and informative reports, it would have been difficult to distinguish between the BBC coverage of the occupied territories and that of the Israeli Broadcasting Authority. Ms Platt admirably tried for many months to "balance" a simple imbalanced reality: of Israeli occupation and Palestinian victimisation. The atrocities on the ground - the killing of children and women and the blowing up of houses - warranted an emotional response as it is, and it was only natural that once, and only once, this would show in her reports (as many BBC reporters allowed themselves a show of emotion when reporting the deaths of George Best or Princess Diana). Only outside pressure could have produced such an ill-thought procedure and action.
"As for the inquiry commission, one can save taxpayers' money. The cable companies in Israel come now and then under official pressure for allowing free access to international TV news stations. They would like to remove CNN and al-Jazeera. There are no complaints in Israel about Fox news (representing the US neoconservative point of view) and the BBC. The BBC is indeed a pro-Israeli news agency and is going to remain so if its directors silence the professional reporting of Barbara Platt."
Ilan Pappe
Tivon, Israel
Indeed, every major news organisation in the Western world shares a similar bias.
"The decision to maintain the disciplinary procedures against [BBC journalist] Barbara Platt and even to go as far as to establish a commission of inquiry into the way the BBC covers the Palestine question (BBC bias complaint upheld, November 26) is one of many manifestations of the grotesque phase we have all reached in this troublesome part of the world.
"Had it not been for Ms Platt's balanced and informative reports, it would have been difficult to distinguish between the BBC coverage of the occupied territories and that of the Israeli Broadcasting Authority. Ms Platt admirably tried for many months to "balance" a simple imbalanced reality: of Israeli occupation and Palestinian victimisation. The atrocities on the ground - the killing of children and women and the blowing up of houses - warranted an emotional response as it is, and it was only natural that once, and only once, this would show in her reports (as many BBC reporters allowed themselves a show of emotion when reporting the deaths of George Best or Princess Diana). Only outside pressure could have produced such an ill-thought procedure and action.
"As for the inquiry commission, one can save taxpayers' money. The cable companies in Israel come now and then under official pressure for allowing free access to international TV news stations. They would like to remove CNN and al-Jazeera. There are no complaints in Israel about Fox news (representing the US neoconservative point of view) and the BBC. The BBC is indeed a pro-Israeli news agency and is going to remain so if its directors silence the professional reporting of Barbara Platt."
Ilan Pappe
Tivon, Israel
Indeed, every major news organisation in the Western world shares a similar bias.
14 Comments:
I'm sure she also cries at the execution of pedaphiles who murdered their victims after raping them.
Why, for the umpteenth time, don't you two bugger off over there to help if it means that much to you?
What is more important to you - Israel or Australia? Be honest. If the answer's as obvious as it appears to be, you'd be more use over there helping extinguish the Palestinians than here helping make us a target of Muslim terror. I classify your attitudes as a danger to my country, as unAustralian (a term I promised myself years ago I'd never use, but it's apposite here). And if, as I suspect you are part of an organised campaign to marginalise and/or harass Antony, a stridently anti-Likudnik Jew (the most dangerous kind for your lot) then I'd go further and say that you deserve the type of punishment that you recommend for your ethnic enemies.
You are as low as they come in blogland - your last comment ibrahamav would make a person capable of reflection and perspective ashamed. But you don't do shame do you, or even apology for that matter.
Sometimes I almost feel you're hardly human, hardly the same species as me. Does that feeling ring a bell with you blokes I wonder?
Why is the death of an Arab muslim living in the palestinian territories less important to you than the death of an Austrailian? Are they not both people? Do they not both have souls? Are you willing to deny the humanity of one because he wasn't born closer to where you live?
I guess I'm not the same speciaes as you. You're just some sick racist bloke who demands that white people rule the world!
My standards of hypocricy? I'm surprised you don't need a breathing coach.
You consider me to be 'chosen' and superior to you. It part of your personality and why you whine so much. It is what drives your antisemitic bent.
It is the palestinian who preaches routine execution of jews in his mosque, school, street, home, and places it in his newspapers and television programming.
And you really need to wipe of the foam, it's spraying all over your post.
I'm suggesting nothing. I'm stating that your inferiority complex leads you towards your antisemitic stance. It is fairly obvious which group you believe is superior to you above all (seeing as there are so many others that you feel are slightly better than you)
If you don't understand it, it is not up to me to enlighten you. That would only make you feel more inferior and I am not about to launch you into a cycle which would probably end with your suicide.
I'm not concerned with your well being. But no matter how reprehensible you are, I would not want to be responsible for you doing away with yourself, no matter how much the world would benefit.
And "If you don't understand that, it is not up to me to enlighten you"
If the palestinians got their act together, their lot will improve. But they will not get Jerusalem nor certain portions of the West Bank.
There is no requirement to give it to them. Acting like angels doesn't get you what is not yours to begin with.
And if that is what it will take before they lay down their arms and learn to live in peace as neighbors with their equals, then they'd better prepare their wills.
Ibrahamav,
Your extremism continues to emerge. Never get Jerusalem or certain portions of the West Bank? I suspect years ago you wouldn't have thought the Palestinians deserved anything at all.
Just wait a few years, history will overtake you - as it does for all Zionists - and your goalposts will have shifted.
You clearly move in very hallowed circles.
Whatever portion is mutually decided on by the two parties, taking account israel's security needs as envisioned in 242. As for Jerusalem, they will probably have to settle for a small symbolic piece of land and control of the Temple Mount. There is no palestinian share of the city.
Israel doesn't need the headache of exercising control of the mount, just sovereignty. The fight amongst the Jews reguarding control would be too much to bear.
When you define the boundaries of land as stated in Bamidbar, then we might have another useless discussion which you won't understand.
There is no legal requirement. It has to do with resolution 242.
Lefty, I certainly don't agree with all you've written but I applaud your effort. There is tones of historical evidence of the Arabs in the region being referred to as Palestinians as well as Syrians. Just a western mindset makes us think of pre-mandate palestinians as Jews.
While many of the refugees were tenent farmers, there certainly was a significant number of land owners. And, culturally, leaving a war zone was accepted, and they should not be penalized because of their culture.
But because of the unique definition of Refugee for this one situation, definitions not used before or since, it appears there will never be a solution which will satisfy the Arab side and keep Israel as a refuge for the world's Jews, as it was recreated to be.
When not having to deal with those whose outlook is basically antisemitic, there is no need to denounce the other side. realistic discussions can be held with realistic goals.
But when the otherside operates with an antisemitic bent, well, fuck them. You can't reason with idoits like that.
"Why did the antisemite attempt to bait the Jew?"
Now you're making me read. The Jews were able to purchase about 6% to 8% of the land. Various edicts were created to prevent the Jewish groups from buying more. About 50% could be called State land owned by whatever group exercized soverenty at the time, and the other 42% in private hands, mostly in large holding by abseentee owners.
More later.
Post a Comment
<< Home