The BBC Favors Islam & Muslims, according to Sikh Leader

BBC favoritism for Arabs and Muslims goes far back, maybe as far back as its founding in 1927. Likewise, the BBC. either openly or by omission, has long been hostile to Jews. After all, if the BBC omits from its broadcasts during the Shoah the news that organized, systematic mass murder of Jews is going on in Nazi-occupied territory, then that is obvious Judeophobia. For several reasons, but let us consider just two: If people in the BBC's home country, that is the United Kingdom, do not know about the Shoah, then they will not demand that their government do anything about it. The British Jews too may remain in the dark. Of course, it is and was the duty of the BBC to inform British people about what is going on in the world, and during WW2 in particular, to inform them of what is happening in the Nazi-ruled countries. One would think that news about the Shoah would have increased the disgust of British people for the Nazi Germans. But this cannot happen if people do not know about the ongoing Shoah.

On the other hand, during WW2 people in occupied countries often depended on BBC radio broadcasts to inform them. That included many Jews. If the Jews do not know about the ongoing Shoah, then they are not likely to take steps to save themselves or to fight the Wehrmacht and SS or the local armed forces that collaborated with the Germans, such as the SS Handschar Division which was made up of Bosnian Muslims and had been recruited  for the Germans by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the top leader of the Palestinian Arabs at the time. This SS division plus the Skanderbeg SS division, recruited among ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kossovo, were guilty for mass slaughter of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in that order [this applies more to the Handschar, as far as I know].

At the same time, it has been BBC policy to whitewash wrongs done by Muslims, whether Arabs or Pakistanis, etc. This policy caused a minor storm lately when a leader of the Sikh religion in the UK, Lord Indarjit Singh [he is a British peer] quit his long time  participation on a  radio show focused on religion, called Thought for a Day on BBC Radio Four. Here is a summary of highlights of Lord Singh's complaints:

Celebrated interfaith activist Lord Indarjit Singh has sensationally quit BBC Radio 4 after accusing it of behaving like the "thought police". He alleges that the corporation tried to prevent him discussing a historical Sikh religious figure who stood up to Muslim oppression -- in case it caused offence to Muslims, despite a lack of complaints.
The Sikh peer, who has been a contributor on Radio Four's Thought For The Day programme for more than three decades, is also accusing Radio Four bosses of "prejudice and intolerance" and over-sensitivity in relation to its coverage of Islam, after he says he was "blocked" from discussing the forced conversion of Hindus to Islam, under the Mughal emperors in 17^th century India.

 - - - - - - - - - - - -

The segment, originally aired on November 28, 2018 -- and in spite of Singh's script containing no criticism of Islam -- is the latest in a long line of suspect BBC decisions enforced by seemingly over-zealous producers. [Gatestone Institute]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -ss
Subsequently, Lord Singh told the London Times:

 Another time "when I wanted to include the words 'the one God of us all' [central to Sikh teachings], I was told I could not mention this 'because it might offend Muslims.'" . . . . 

Of course, overlapping with the BBC's pro-Muslim favoritism is its anti-Israel hostility. See at link:
here.

BBC Equals Fake News -- Gavin Esler & Dateline London

The Dateline London program on BBC is usually interesting even if the guests, journalists stationed in London, British or foreign, usually stay within certain acceptable or conventional bounds of permitted opinion. Hence, the opinions expressed about Israel and issues connected with Israel stay within the narrow framework of conventional Western anti-Israel opinion -- or better said, within the bounds of anti-Israel prejudice. Of course they are free to express their opinions. They are free to affirm fake news, however false it may be. Now, with charges of "fake news" flying in all directions, it is relevant to discuss the falsehoods of the BBC, not only of the guests on the Dateline London discussion panel.

We are long  used to the BBC's anti-Jewish prejudice, which was expressed during the Shoah by avoiding reporting on the ongoing mass murder of Jews by the German Nazi forces. And we also keep in mind that the BBC's foreign reporting is supervised by the Foreign Office, as Shmul Zigelboym noted during the Holocaust.

So it was no surprise to hear Gavin Esler, moderator of Dateline London, utter several lies that fit into the smear-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-PLO narrative. In the middle, approximately, of the show broadcast on 18 & 19 February 2017, Esler introduced the topic of one-state or two-states to supposedly settle the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. He said that there were supporters of the one-state solution on both sides, Israeli and Arab. Then he said that Israeli supporters of that "solution" wanted the one-state to be Jewish, whereas Arabs ("Palestinians" in his lingo) wanted "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". This presentation of the desires of both sides --to an audience devoted to equality and democracy-- makes Israelis sound bigoted and Palestinian Arabs sound broad-minded, democratic, egalitarian, and liberal.

Now, how accurate or honest was Esler's description? First, have the many mass murder terrorist attacks against Jews by Palestinian Arabs over the years, and especially in the wave of murderous terrorism that began about one and a half years ago in September 2015, demonstrated a desire to live together in peace with Jews on the part of the Arabs, who are --by the way-- an overwhelmingly Muslim population? Second, how is it that, whereas no Arab state is truly democratic and all but Lebanon affirm the supremacy of Islam or Islamic law in their constitutions, that the Palestinian Arabs, unlike the other Arabs, want a democratic government with equality for persons of all religions and all ethnic groups living within the state -- quoth Esler? That would be very curious indeed and would demand special scholarly investigation -- if true. Thirdly, the treatment of Arabic-speaking Christians in the Palestinian Authority is bad and does not indicate respect for their equal rights. Fourth, is there any documentation of the supposedly democratic inclinations of the Palestinian Arabs and their putative statelet, the Palestinian Authority? Can Esler or anyone else supply a reliable public opinion poll to that effect?

In fact, it is widely known that the Palestinian Authority is far from democratic. It is far from respecting basic human and civil rights for its own people-- let alone Jews. Just look at documentation provided by PMW (Palestinian Media Watch) demonstrating the hate agitation of the PA government in Ramallah headed by Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen], as well its financial corruption regarding its own people. There is also the record of anti-Israel hate agitation in Arab media generally --although there are exceptions-- provided by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) And most pertinent to the discussion, the PA has drawn up a constitution for its not yet existent state. This document like Arab state constitutions generally, provides for the supremacy of Islam and Islamic law. What exactly does the PA-proposed constitution for a future state comprise?

The draft constitution of the planned state affirms: 

“This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6). [emph. added] [Prof Shmuel Trigano pointed to these articles of the draft constitution]

Now, it is notorious that the status of the non-Muslim, the dhimmi, in the Islamic state is an inferior one. The section of Islamic law that deals with dhimmis is called the dhimma and it provides for the regular inferiority of the dhimmi in many areas of life, such as the special taxes borne by the dhimmi and his regular humiliation, his worth as half of a Muslim in that his testimony in court is worth half of a Muslim's testimony, and so on and so forth [see dhimma rules here & here].

Further, Esler claimed that the "Palestinians" who wanted a one-state solution wanted it to be "a democratic state" with --presumably-- equal rights for all and Jews and Arabs ("Palestinians") living "side by side". Whereas Islamic law, shariy`ah holds that non-Muslims, dhimmis, are inferior, one wonders whether there are more than a handful of genuine, loyal Arab Muslims who want a truly democratic liberal state where Jews have equal rights. And as to living "side by side," Jews in Arab-Muslim-ruled lands were often forced to live in ghettos, as in Christian Europe up to the French Revolution and after it in many places. I have not found a public opinion poll of Palestinian Arabs who both want a single state and want it to be democratic with equal rights for Jews. If Esler or anyone knows of such a poll, please publicize it and send us a link. I will be glad to post such a link. However, I did find something:

Saeb Erekat, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said Wednesday that the only alternative to a two-state solution is one state with equal democratic rights for all. [here]

Now Saeb Erikat is an expert propagandist, a liar and double-talker. The liberal affirmations that he makes when speaking English are typically contradicted by what he says to his own people in Arabic. So his sincerity in speaking of an egalitarian, democratic state is highly dubious, especially if we take into account how his Palestinian Authority treats its own Arab population. And bear in mind that he subscribes to the draft constitution quoted above which is an Islamic supremacist document. Furthermore, it seems likely that when Esler was saying that Palestinian Arabs who wanted a single state wanted it to be democratic and egalitarian with Jews and Arabs living side by side, he was thinking about Erikat's statement above which had been published just days before on 15 February 2017. If Esler believes one word uttered by Erikat then he is a fool. But maybe believing in the likes of Erikat is a rule at the BBC.

Be that as it may, how about Jews living in the same state with Palestinian Arabs? Could they live or reside in such a state? As far as Erikat's relative, Maen Areikat [the spelling difference is immaterial] is concerned, Jews would not have the right to live in a "Palestinian state."

INTERVIEWER: So you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew.
AREIKAT: Absolutely. No, I'm not saying to transfer every Jew. I'm saying to transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
INTERVIEWER: Any Jew who is in the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
AREIKAT: Absolutely.
[here & here]

The "Palestine" that Areikat wants to construct would include Jewish holy places and cities that the Jews have long traditionally considered holy, like Jerusalem, especially the Old City, and Hebron. The Jewish holy places that he would foreclose Jews from living close to include the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Simon the Just in Jerusalem [outside & north of the Old City], the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and so on. Given the record of the Kingdom of Jordan before the Six Day War in preventing Jews from visiting the Jewish holy places, access to which had been stipulated in the 1949 armistice accords,  the projected "State of Palestine" would likewise prevent Jews from visiting Jewish holy places.

We see that public opinion among Arabs in the Palestinin Authority is not liberal and not eager to live in equality with Jews. And therefore, Gavin Esler was broadcasting fake news. Nothing new for the BBC.

Why Are Ukrainian Officials & Bashar Assad Allowed to Call Enemies "Terrorists" but the Western Press Won't Use the Word?

Forty years ago in the 1970s, the Irish Republican Army Provisional faction was performing acts of terrorism and sometimes mass murder in Northern Ireland. And the BBC called them "terrorists." In the same years, the Fatah --meaning conquest of a city in Arabic-- was acting as a mass murderous terrorist group. Neither Fatah nor its partners in mass murder terrorism against Israelis and Jews, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,  the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine plus half a dozen smaller murder factions, was called "terrorist" by the BBC. Who can reckon why this discrepancy? Why were IRA Provos called "terrorists" but not Fatah or the PFLP or the PDFLP?

Maybe the BBC thought that British blood was redder than Jewish-Israeli blood. I can only speculate.

In recent years it is not only the BBC that refuses to call terrorists what they are. Now it is a well-established widespread practice in Western press and media outlets that terrorists are called "militants." In earlier years, a militant was a guy who came out to walk the picket line during a strike, a guy who came to the picket line every day, even in bad weather when most people would be more comfortable at home. A militant for a revolutionary faction was somebody who would pick up a thousand leaflets printed by his faction and stand on a street corner all day giving them out. But nobody in those far off days  would call somebody who planted a bomb in a school playground a "militant."

But the word "terrorist" is still  used these days. Bashar Assad called his domestic enemies "terrorists" in 2011 even before allies and cothinkers of al-Qa`ida had joined the struggle against Assad, or what is now a struggle  to determine the future of Syria.
When Assad started calling the rebels against him "terrorists" before it was  true, back in 2011, he was wrong. But he knew very well what and who were terrorists. He himself and his father before him had funded and trained Arab terrorists attacking Israel. The Assad regime in Syria had funded and trained several of the smaller PLO factions since the 1960s, and Hamas & Hizbullah, since the 1980s. After the  US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Assad regime armed and trained terrorists who operated in Iraq against the foreign occupation troops, including Americans of course. These Syrian-trained terrorists especially took to using bombs to slaughter the Shiite population in Iraq. Surely the Assad regime knew that these were terrorists. By the way, today Assad is allied with Shiites warriors against Sunni Muslim rebels against him.

Now we know that Assad's regime is greatly aided by the Russian government. The Russian govt also supports rebels and insurgents in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. These rebels and insurgents who favor Russian rule over their home areas in Eastern Ukraine, in the Don Basin, and so on, are rough and abusive and often thuggish. But they are hardly terrorists in the sense of Hamas or Hizbullah or al-Qa`ida. Yet officials of the Ukrainian government, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko and so on, call these rebels/insurgents "terrorists." This is one of the things that keeps the new Ukrainian govt from having any credibility,

Now the new Ukrainian govt is supported by Western powers including the EU & USA. So Russia's ally in Syria, Assad, called his opponents "terrorists"  even when the rebels fighting him were not terrorists.
Today, Ukrainian officials supported by the EU & USA call the rebels that Russia supports "terrorists" when they are not.

Meanwhile, Western news outlets like BBC, France24, the New York Times and so many others, call the real terrorists mere "militants."

Hence the word terrorist has become an ill-treated orphan. Can't somebody sort out the meanings and  usages of the words "terrorist" & "militant"? Where is Orwell when we need him?

British Press Censors Historical Truth, Promotes Lies

UPDATE 12-25 & 27-2009 & 1-2 & 3-9-2010 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

In its smear campaign against Israel, much of the the British press --indeed of the British "quality" press-- both "leftist" like the Guardian and frankly business-oriented, pro-capitalist like The Financial Times, bash Israel with smears and lies. They promote falsifications of Jewish history as well as smears relating to current events, such as last winter's Israeli effort to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population.

In this context, the FT censored significant historical facts in a book review. The FT asked one of its regular book reviewers, the respected historian Simon Schama, to review the book The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand. In this book, Sand, an Israeli Communist, seems to be trying to validate the claim of the former leader of his Communist movement, Stalin, that the Jews were not a nation in his time. Stalin wrote this in 1915, apparently to delegitimize Zionism. Since then, the Jews set up a state in 1948, obviously refuting Stalin. Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor the British Foreign Office had thought that a Jewish state should or could come into being. Of course, for hard-line Judeophobes, such as populate the Foreign Office, the problem then became how to destroy the Jewish State that had been established. Hence, a Communist's fanatical invention meant to confirm and update Stalin's claim of 1915 gets support in the capitalist United Kingdom. Without getting into Sand's book too deeply, suffice it to say that he claims that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a medieval northern Caucasus or Turkic people called Khazars, whose ruling elite, at least, converted to Judaism but who disappeared after military defeat in the northern Caucasus-northern Black Sea region. Sand also claims that North African Jews are mainly descended from the Berbers of North Africa. Thus, modern Jews are not descended from ancient Jews, according to Sand, and thus have no historical right to return to the Land of Israel, nor does Israel have a right to exist as a state.

Arthur Koestler raised a similar argument about Ashkenazim being descended from Khazars about 30 years ago, although he was more tentative, less positive in his claims than Sand is today. Koestler got little scholarly support for his tentative argument. One strong critique was the demolition of his book by Edward Grossman. There were a lot of things wrong with Koestler's theory that were perceived 30 years ago. That did not deter Sand when he wrote his book a few years ago, although a whole new set of factual data refuting his and Koestler's theory had emerged since publication of Koestler's book. This data is the study of Jewish DNA. A number of researchers have found great genetic proximity among Ashkenazic, Sefardic, Oriental and Yemenite Jews. There is also proximity to various Arab groups as well as Armenians and Kurds. To a lesser extent, there is Jewish genetic proximity to Greeks, Turks and Italians. This scientific data effectively refutes Sand and Koestler's theory. But fanatics want to believe what suits their prejudices. So Sand dismisses and largely overlooks all of the DNA research by Professors Bonne-Tamir, Hammer and others. That very significant data does not fit the conclusion that Sand wants to reach. Of course, the DNA data was not available in Koestler's time, but now it is. Hence, Sand had less justification for publishing his crackpot theory than Koestler did. But that didn't stop Sand.

This has taken us far from censorship by the British press. The FT published, as said, a critical review of Sand's book, but the review seemed peculiar. Certain points that one would expect to be brought up in a critical review were not there. Then there is a passage in the review that very clearly seems to have been altered, tampered with, bowdlerized, censored, eviscerated. Schama outlined Roman anti-Jewish actions after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt [131-135 CE]:

. . . there was also the mass extirpation of everything that constituted Jewish religion and culture; the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, the obliteration of the Temple, the prohibition on rituals and prayers. Sand asserts, correctly, that an unknowable number of Jews remained in what the Romans called Palestina. [here]

This outline, as it stands, is mainly correct, but it is misleading on a crucial point as well as incomplete. Indeed, Rome, under Hadrian, the emperor of the time, renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, Aelia referred to Hadrian's clan or gens and Capitolina to a hill in the historic center of Rome where a Roman temple was located. However, in addition to Jerusalem, the Romans also renamed the whole country, which up to the defeat of Bar Kokhba was called Provincia Iudaea [IVDAEA], Province of Judea. The Romans did call the country Palaestina, but that name came only after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. According to most authorities [Michael Avi-Yonah, Felix Abel, Solomon Zeitlin, Mary Sherwood, inter alia, as I read them], the whole country, all of the Land of Israel, was called Judea by the Romans up to the aftermath of the Jews' defeat in 135 when it was renamed at the same time as Jerusalem, and made symbolically subordinate to Syria with the name Syria Palaestina. In this name, Palaestina is an adjective, not a noun, by the way.

Now, Simon Schama is a respected historian and I cannot imagine that he did not know that both Jerusalem and the Province of Judea were renamed by the Romans at the same time, and that Palestine was a name introduced by the Romans as a replacement meant to degrade and humiliate the Jews. The structure of the text that I have quoted also seems to support my surmise. It is likely that he wrote "the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and of Judea as Palestina." Or perhaps he wrote: ". . . Jews remained in what the Romans thereafter called Palestina" or ". . . what the Romans henceforth [or from then on] called Palestina." After all, if he is writing about changing geographic names of political import, then why not also point out that the country too was renamed? Schama is aware of the name Judea for the country, since he uses it --or was allowed to use it-- elsewhere in the review. But that usage of the name does not indicate that it was the Roman official name for the country throughout the heyday of the empire up to Hadrian's difficult victory over the Jews led by Bar Kokhba.

I believe that burying the fact that the country was called Judea officially by the Romans is likely a policy in the British press. I say this from personal experience. Some years ago, a letter of mine was published in a prestigious British weekly, which I shall not name to protect my own identity. The letter was published in its entirety except for one sentence which pointed out that the official name of the country was Judea until Hadrian changed it upon defeating the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It seems that the British psychological warfare/cognitive warfare experts do not want their own people to know that the Land of Israel, all of it, not just the southern inland area, was called Judea by Rome at the height of the empire.

An omission from the review was any mention of the DNA evidence, which would seem to naturally come up in a critical review of Sand's book. However, I am less certain that Prof Schama had mentioned this in his review. But it is surprising that it is not there, unless the editors of the FT did not want it there.

Additional support for my belief that the review was tampered with, distorted, weakened deliberately by the FT editors is that they took the most unusual step of publishing a second review of the same book, a favorable review this time. Martin Kramer commented on the Financial Times' felt need to publish a second review of Shlomo Sand's tract:

The Financial Times decided one review of Shlomo Sand's 'The Invention of theJewish People' (reviewer, Simon Schama: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b74fdfd2-cfe1-11de-a36d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1J4C3P7CY) just wasn't good enough, and so runs another by Tony Judt, who knows even less about the subject than Sand. The result is entirely predictable: a rant against Israel in the thin disguise of a review.

Kramer's comment appeared on facebook [here].

This affair leads to the conclusion that the British press, daily and weekly, as well as many of the UK's supposed scholarly and scientific journals, are unreliable and politically guided and motivated where Israel is concerned and where Jewish history is concerned. It is no secret that the BBC is directed politically in regard to foreign affairs by the UK Foreign Office. The BBC long delayed reporting on the Holocaust as it was happening and then minimized its extent, thus failing to warn Jews and others in the Axis occupied countries who depended on the BBC for news. The BBC did this as part of a policy decided by the Ministry of Information [Orwell mocked it as the Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984] while the BBC's foreign news was directed by the Foreign Office. The British press, daily, weekly, scientific, professional, and scholarly has been mobilized, at least in large parts, to a Crusade of slander and demonization against the Jews and Israel, in which crucial facts are often omitted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here are some useful links:

Here is a strong demolition of Koestler's book by Edward Grossman.
Here are posts on the Bar Kokhba Revolt and its aftermath, including the expulsion of Jews from the area of Jerusalem: here & here & here & here & here & here & here & here
Arab auxiliary troops fought for Rome in the earlier war against the Jews which resulted in destruction of the Temple in 70 CE [here]
On the Arch of Titus in Rome as a monument to the Roman destruction of the Temple [החורבן] here.
Coins issued by Rome to celebrate victory over the Jews [here]
Names of the Land of Israel before and after the Bar Kokhba Revolt: here
A fairly well preserved ancient Roman metallic military diploma showing Roman use of Judea [IVDAEA] as the name of the Land of Israel [here].

Here are print accounts by ancient sources on the Jewish revolts against Rome. Some of these ancient works may be available online but I do not have the links.
Ancient accounts of the Jewish revolt and its suppression by the Roman Empire:
Orosius, VII, 9:5 f.
Sulpicius Severus, II
Dio Cassius [or Cassius Dio], Roman History [Italian edition: Cassio Dione, Storia Romana], LXIII, 22; LXV, 8:1-3, 9:2; LXVI, 1:1-4, 4-7, 9:2, 12:1
Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1980), pp 64-67.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATE 12-25-2009 Martin Peretz, editor of the New Republic, frankly calls The Financial Times, a "viciously anti-Israel newspaper" [here]
12-27-2009 Link to article on Jewish DNA, plus speculations on possible 11.5% Khazar genetic heritage among Ashkenazim [here]. H/T to Martin Kramer [here].
UPDATE 1-2-2010 The BBC in English disregarded an important story about Iranian involvement in mass murder of Jews. However, the BBC in Spanish did cover the story, which was reported by the Spanish-speaking media in any case [here].
UPDATE 3-9-2010 Martin Goodman, a historian of the Jews in Roman times, takes on Sand's tract in the TLS and throws it in the trash bin of history [here]

The BBC works in an atmosphere of slanders and fraud-- Besmirching character seems to come naturally to such as Jeremy Bowen

UPDATING 4-17-2009 [links on PM Gordon Brown & Jeremy Bowen added]

We and many others have long held that the BBC deliberately smears Israel in its radio and TV broadcasts labeled "news." One BBC propaganda agent, Jeremy Bowen, chief of propaganda on Middle Eastern affairs for the Beeb, has recently been censured [also see here & ici (added 4-17-2009)]. Either he had gone too far or representations made by CAMERA and British critics of the BBC had put the management in the position of having to discipline him.

But the BBC works in a political atmosphere where slander and fraud, fake "news" stories and sleaze operate at the highest level of government. A close associate of PM Gordon Brown, one Damian McBride, invented vicious slanders, sexual and otherwise, of opposition politicians. David Pryce-Jones reports part of the McBride story:

McPoison

The name of Damian McBride was virtually unknown in Britain, except to a small circle of political insiders, and some of them already called him McPoison. That nickname will now stick for the rest of his life, a reminder of disgrace and shame. For some time this man has been in charge of communications for Gordon Brown, the prime minister, with an office in Downing Street and a six-figure salary courtesy of the taxpayer. Brown likes to parade a fine set of morals on every conceivable occasion, stressing that he is the son of an upright Scottish clergyman, boasting that he himself is whiter than white, and that sleaze in his administration would not be tolerated because he has values (a favorite word of his, spoken with a strange little twist of his mouth). All this release of morality, it turns out, is for external consumption; for internally he has been directing McBride to release rats from the sewer.

The Conservatives had apparently been winning the battle for public opinion in the blogosphere. Therefore McBride decided to launch a website, to be titled Red Rag, on which he would put lies and innuendoes to denigrate these political opponents. To a colleague and like-minded spin-doctor, also a Labour insider and advisor, by the name of Derek Draper, he sent samples, involving disgusting sexual fictions about Conservative leaders, including David Cameron and George Osborne. They also fabricated stories about Mrs. Osborne’s state of mind. Absolutely totally brilliant, Draper chortled to McBride. The pair were evidently certain that this filth would stick and win them the election to be held next June. It is inconceivable that they did this without at least the knowledge of Brown, and quite likely his approval, whether open or tacit. Brown used to consult McBride daily, and Draper was invited to Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence.

A Conservative blogger somehow learnt about all this, and exposed it. The scandal is rocking Britain. At first Brown and the others tried to cover up, pretending that this was all juvenile, and never intended for publication. That could not wash. McBride has been duly fired. Brown tries to plead ignorance. The Conservatives are pressing for an apology, but moral Mr. Brown will do no more than express regret.

In the centuries of British parliamentary and political life, hard things have often been said and cruel deeds done, but the cut and thrust did not involve deliberate and considered destruction of rivals through deception and lying and sexual scurrilities concocted behind the scene like this. Previous socialists would not have sunk so low, but such complete disregard for principle in the pursuit of power is nonetheless the outcome, the necessary culmination, of socialism

Think of McBride when you watch or listen to the BBC. Is Tony Blair above this kind of fraud? Was Gordon Brown unaware of the scandalous conduct? If they're willing and even eager to lie like this about fellow British politicians, what lies wouldn't they invent about Israel or Jews?

Swedes Call Brits Liars -- Somebody finally challenges BBC

Swedish state TV has shown up the BBC as falsifying a story of starvation in the land of Niger in West Africa. The Swedes with cooperation from Norwegians, of all people, documented the fraud in a 2005 BBC "report" on starvation in Niger, with star BBC journalist Hilary Andersson. Hilary is proficient in a favorite BBC technique of pulling at your heartstrings, eliciting tears from the coldest hearts, winning sympathy for the deserving and the undeserving. Andersson once illustrated a story about alleged contemporary events in Bethlehem by going on melodramatically about the New Testament story of King Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents that supposedly took place in Bethlehem more than 2000 years ago.

. . . Herod is going to search for the child [Jesus] to kill him. . .

Because of his supposed descent from David through his father, Joseph [Matt 1:1-17]. In Jewish tradition, those of Davidic descent are the most legitimate to be kings of Israel. Herod was Jewish by religion but his forefathers were not Jews, let alone of the House of David. Thus he plausibly feared challenge to his kingship by descendants of David. In the NT story, in order to keep Jesus safe from Herod, his parents took him to Egypt. Then,

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted. . . he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and younger. . .

The NT then goes on with Mother Rachel's lament copied from the Book of Jeremiah [31:15]:

A voice is heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted because they are no more.
[Matt 2:13-18; NIV version]

Hilary Andersson's obvious intent was to have Herod's cruelty as depicted in the NT --a book hallowed in the West-- rub off on Israel. Herod was king of Judea as a Roman client king. If stretching Herod's ancient guilt to enshroud modern Israel was not her purpose, then why did she go on at length --this is TV news where every second is precious-- about an ancient story when supposedly reporting contemporary events??? She wanted Israel's allegedly cruel nature to be established in a hallowed narrative, fundamentally unchallengeable by rational discourse. And that is the basic BBC purpose too, as approved by the dominant British psychological warfare experts.

The Swedes and Norwegians are --as governments-- hostile to Israel themselves. So their refutation of another lachrymose BBC tale comes as a welcome surprise.

A documentary broadcast on Swedish public television on Tuesday called into question the reputation of Britain’s public broadcaster, the BBC, for filing misleading and inaccurate reports about the severity of a food shortage in Niger in 2005
. . .
In interviews with experts from the international development community, other journalists, Niger’s prime minister at the time, as well as local farmers from the village of Zinder in Niger where the first BBC reports originated, Ektvedt uncovered evidence to suggest that BBC had misrepresented the facts.

“I’ve never heard of anyone starving to death here,” said one woman from Zinder in the Norwegian documentary "Sultbløffen" (‘The Hunger Bluff’).

“It was tough, but I never saw anyone die of hunger.”

Yet the BBC stories from the time report that thousands of people were dying from starvation in Zinder.

This is revolutionary. If even Swedes and Norwegians cast doubt on the BBC's veracity, albeit not in regard to Israel, what might happen next in the media world?? The BBC of course defended their star tearjerker:

"BBC News refuted the TV2 allegations unequivocally and we absolutely stand by the validity and professionalism of Hilary Andersson's reports," reads the BBC's statement to SVT, which was also supplied to The Local.

What can we expect next from the BBC? An admission of guilt in falsifying??
- - - - -
Thanks to Martin Kramer & Camera as well as Swedish TV.
- - - - - - -
Curiously, another British anti-Israel propagandist, self-styled historian Stewart Perowne, insisted that Herod was an Arab [His mother was an Arab, his father an Edomite/Idumaean, which Perowne overlooks, unless he falsely claims that the Edomites were Arabs!]. If Herod was an Arab, then (according to Hilary Andersson's logic) shouldn't his cruelty in the Bethlehem Slaughter be attributed to -- Arabs?? Can't these British propagandists get their stories straight?? [Stewart Perowne, The Pilgrim's Companion in Jerusalem and Bethlehem (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1964), p32].

Perowne has only words of praise for Herod, nothing negative: ". . . a brilliant and energetic ruler. . . a great builder" [p32]. The NT story of the Slaughter of the Innocents is not mentioned, which is curious in a guidebook for the Christian pilgrim. Here is a sampling of the flavor of the book, pro-British Empire, pro-Arab allies of Britain, anti-Israel by insinuation:

"The British mandatory regime imposed here [in Bethlehem] as in Jerusalem, respect for order and dignity, a tradition which the present Government of Jordan has most happily perpetuated." [p 131]

And the book's dedication:

TO THE KING GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN AS AN AFFECTIONATE TRIBUTE TO THEIR COURTESY DIGNITY AND FORTITUDE THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR

Their "fortitude" probably refers to their fortitude in struggle against Israel.
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

British AgitProp Agencies Assault Israel, Skynews Omits Mention of Karsenty Acquittal

Was it a coincidence that 5 or 6 weeks after the alleged killing by an Israeli tank shell of a Gaza Arab cameraman working for Reuters, the story was revived on Skynews on 5-22-2008, a day after a French appeals court had acquitted Philippe Karsenty of libel for calling the alleged killing by Israeli troops of 12-year old Muhammad al-Durah [30 September 2000] -- a hoax?? British anti-Israel agitprop seems to be moving into high gear not only to deflect attention from the court decision in Paris but to intensify their usual smearing of Israel.

Now, it's not just coming from the BBC but from Sky and Reuters which are also British agencies. Coincidentally or not, just a day or two after a court in Paris ruled that Philippe Karsenty was not guilty of libel for calling the alleged Muhammad al-Durah killing [Sept 2000] a hoax, Skynews ran a similar, although not identical, smear of Israel with the cooperation of Reuters. The questionable character of the coincidence is confirmed by the fact that Skynews did not report the verdict in the Karsenty-France2-al-Durah case, which I ascertained from searches on Sky's website of posts between 5-20 & 5-24.

The French court made its ruling after the judges viewed extended but incomplete footage of events at the Netsarim intersection that day in 2000. The judge had called for all footage still in the hands of France2 to be shown to the court's next session [France2 and its employes had earlier alleged that 27 minutes of film footage remained that had not been broadcast] . However, France2 did not comply fully with the court's order and only showed 18 minutes of the alleged 27 at the next session [November 2007]. Some or all of the missing 9 minutes had been seen several years ago by Richard Landes, a history professor at Boston University, Luc Rosenzweig, a former chief editor of LeMonde, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, both journalists, separately on at least two separate occasions. Jeambar and Leconte published their reaction to viewing the footage, the "rushes," in an op ed in the French daily, LeFigaro. Rosenzweig published his conclusions on the MENA website which is available through the Guysen Israel News website linked to from our blogroll. Much info on this matter is found on Menahem Macina's debriefing website, including Jeambar & Leconte's op ed.

What the judges saw in the 18 minutes that France2 did bring to court indicated that the boy was alive after allegedly being killed according to the original France2 broadcast in 2000, even shifting a red cloth in his hand that in a still photograph might seem flowing blood. The judges were impressed that the death of Little Muhammad was not proven, let alone that Israeli bullets had killed him. They criticized France2, a state TV broadcaster, and Charles Enderlin, the France2 Jerusalem correspondent responsible for the original blood libel of late September 2000, among others. A pdf file of the court's verdict is available here.

Curiously indeed, after a French court rejects the al-Durah blood libel, Skynews and Reuters bring up the slightly stale case of a Gazan cameraman working for Reuters, insinuating that Israeli soldiers had deliberately killed him, knowing that he was a journalist. And this is done with considerable emotive verbiage on the part of Sky "news" presenters and Alistair MacDonald, head of the Reuters Jerusalem bureau, who is interviewed in the Sky feature story. MacDonald arrogantly asks: Why the Israelis had killed Our cameraman who was Only Going About His Business. Right there we have a dubious and unsupported factual claim, that is, that the Israelis knew that they were killing a cameraman. MacDonald's approach is like that of asking a man when he is going to stop beating his wife. Such a question presumes that the man beats his wife, without facts, without admission on his part.

Now, if we assume that the cameraman is indeed dead, then we need to point out that the tank was 1 kilometer or more away from the cameraman when it fired. Further, the film showed him carrying a film camera on his shoulder, which could easily look like a RPG launcher or like an anti-tank missile launcher to an observer a kilometer away. Moreover, Gaza Arab terrorists have in the past disguised themselves as journalists as well as medical personnel, painting the word "PRESS" on terrorist jeeps and hiding in ambulances, transporting weapons and explosives on ambulances, even using ambulances as car bombs. Obviously, on a battlefield, it is difficult to know who is that figure standing one kilometer away, besides the fact that Arab journalists in Gaza not only sympathize with one side over the other but have often provided direct help to terrorists in the form of information, carrying or concealing weapons, etc. Therefore, it was not likely that the tank crew knew that they were aiming at a cameraman. Of course, even if they were close to a man carrying a camera --shoulder-mounted or not-- and wearing an iridescent yellow press vest, they could not be sure that he was really a cameraman or journalist.

Another problem with this story as presented on Skynews on 5-22-2008 is that the number of dead victims in the incident has jumped from 3 [including the cameraman] on 4-16-2008 to nine [9] on 5-22-08. So the problem is not only the mendacity of Arab journalists & cameramen but the mendacity of Western journalists too. [see quotes below].

Indeed, it is a problem that journalists [including cameramen] with proper press credentials may take part in "news" hoaxes, like the Muhammad al-Durah "killing" hoax, which was perpetrated by Gaza cameramanTalal Abu Rahma with Charles Enderlin's cooperation. Indeed, Prof Richard Landes reports that when he viewed the rushes with Enderlin in the latter's Jerusalem offices, and that he [Landes] pointed out that much of the footage seemed fake, Enderlin answered: "Oh, they're always doing that" [that is, the Arab cameramen working for Enderlin].

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that anyone going onto a battlefield knowingly and willingly must know that he is taking a risk to his life, even if he is Only Going About His Business, in the words of the Sky/Reuters agitprop presentation. A battlefield is not a playground [שדה קרב אינו מתחם משחקים ] .

Now, despite engaging in moralistic high dudgeon over what they insinuate to have been the deliberate killing of a Reuters cameraman by Israel, neither Sky nor Reuters mentioned that Gaza Arab terrorists have been shooting rockets at the Israeli civilian population for more than seven years. If we search the Skynews and Reuters websites, we note that --although rockets are shot into Israel every day, mainly at the small city of Sderot-- there was no mention of Sderot by Sky between 19 March 2008 and now [6-6-2008]. Nor did Reuters mention Sderot from 28 April 2008 till now [6-6-2008]. This latest Reuters mention of Sderot focusses not on Israeli victims but on Gaza Arab victims. Hamas terrorists [al-Qassam] claimed that they had shot rockets at Sderot "in response to" Israeli attacks that had allegedly killed civilians in Gaza. But Hamas and other jihadist gangs shoot at Israel every day, usually at Sderot and neighboring farming communities, more recently at the larger city of Ashqelon. Apparently, Sky and Reuters would rather engage in a high dudgeon passion play over an allegedly dead Arab cameraman working for Reuters "going about his business" rather than make it the business of Sky/Reuters reporters and cameramen to go to Sderot or nearby kibbutzim to find out what it's like to be bombarded daily by Arab jihadi terrorists. By the way, a factory worker was killed yesterday [5 June 2008] on a kibbutz near Sderot. He was the father of three children.

The hypocritical --indeed, rather silly-- propaganda onslaught on Israel fits into a larger strategy, not only to demonize and dehumanize Israel and Israelis and Jews generally, but to support the Hamas campaign to raise the minimal blockade of Gaza [which gets food shipments from Israel regularly]. This propaganda assault is done by Hamas in cooperation with UN officials in Gaza who constantly speak of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza [where most of the adult population supports genocidal terrorists] but not the humanitarian plight of Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, and neighboring towns, villages, and kibbutsim. The "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza is blamed on an Israeli "siege." But this "siege" is so light that it does not prevent medium-sized weapons from being brought in from Egypt through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border, and maybe in other ways too. If there is no "humanitarian crisis" for Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, etc, according to UN officials, Hamas leaders, NGO spokesmen, and the major media --especially British media-- then maybe that means that Jews are not human. That's the purpose of the Skynews/Reuters propaganda assault.
- - - - - - - - -

HOW DID THREE BECOME NINE in ONLY FIVE WEEKS??

Original BBC report, with video, on this incident (Augean Stables post, analysis and commentary on this incident) . According to the original BBC report, there are only 2 casualties besides the cameraman, not 8 [Sky report of 5-22-2008]. Two plus one equal three.

In other violence throughout the day, a Reuters cameraman was among three killed when his car exploded, apparently after being hit by an Israeli tank shell.
Two others died in the blast that killed the Reuters cameraman
[BBC 4-16-2008]

Here's the Reuters report on the incident:

GAZA, April 16 (Reuters)- A Reuters cameraman and two other Palestinian civilians were killed on Wednesday in what local residents said was an Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip. [Reuters 4-16-08]

Five weeks later:

Five weeks on from the death of Palestinian cameraman Fadel Shana, Israel has yet to announce the findings of its investigation into the incident - which also killed eight civilians, most of them teenagers or children. [Skynews, 5-22-2008, updated 5-23-08]

It seems that Time is not only a Great Healer but a Great Multiplier. This is a three-fold multiplication of the number of victims in only five weeks [4-16 to 5-22], from three to nine!!!

Film recovered from his camera shows an Israeli tank opening fire several hundred metres away, Reuters adds. [BBC, ibid.]

"Several hundred" is an indefinite number. Use of an indefinite, indeed vague, number is an old media trick meant to disguise an amount either too small or too large for purposes of the political message, without exactly lying. "Several hundred" might mean anything from 300 meters to 2 kilometers or more. Of course, measuring an exact distance is not easy without surveying tools.
On the other hand, Sky puts the Israeli tank "a mile away" [1 mile is nearly two km].

Shana was filming Israeli tanks on a ridge a mile away, when one of them opened fire... [Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]

Sky reports that:

Reuters news agency is demanding to know why the Israelis killed one of its cameramen as he was legitimately going about his business in Gaza.
[Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]

I have a demand too. I demand to know how 3 victims reported by BBC on 16 April had multiplied to 9 victims in Sky's report of 5-(22 & 23).

By the way, note that the collateral victims, besides the cameraman --sanctified simply by belonging to the press, are mainly "teenagers or children" [according to the Sky report quoted above]. What are children, or even teenagers, doing on a battlefield?? Weren't there any responsible adults to tell the kid victims to go home?? Bear in mind that the classical anti-Jewish blood libel, such as Simon of Trent, involves Jews allegedly killing a boy. So alleged death story of the Reuters cameraman also alludes to boys being killed, as was the case in the Muhammad al-Durah hoax.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Skynews passion play about the cameraman here1, here2, here3 by order of date. The first two are videos, the third is text.
Reuters report on French court decision absolving Karsenty of libel charge.
BBC report on the same.
Seconddraft and Augean Stables sites which bring much info about the Al-Durah Affair.
Draft English translation of the French court ruling.
- - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews caught up in the Armenian genocide, archeology in Jerusalem, peace follies, obama's subtle fakery, propaganda, etc.

BBC & Obama: Pretense and Imposture, Fakery, Phoniness, Propaganda & PsyWar

UPDATINGs 2-17 & 2-20-2008 see at bottom

Molière's Don Juan asks his valet, Sganarelle:
DJ: What? Do you take what I have just said for
the genuine article, and do you believe that
my mouth is in agreement with my heart? . . .
DJ: . . . if I said that I wanted to correct my
behavior and enter into an exemplary way of
life, it was a design that I had formed as a purely
politic measure, a useful stratagem, a necessary
facial expression. . .
DJ: . . . There are so many others like me. . .
who use the same mask in order to deceive the world!
DJ: . . . hypocrisy is a fashionable vice, and all
fashionable vices are taken for virtues.
The character of a decent man is the best of all
roles that one can play today, and the profession
of hypocrite has marvelous advantages. It's an
art of which the imposture is always respected. . .
nobody dares say anything against it.
[Molière, Dom Juan, Acte V, Scène II]

Parlant à Sganarelle, Dom Juan demande:
Dom Juan: Quoi? tu prends pour de bon argent
ce que je viens de dire, et tu crois que ma bouche
étoit d'accord avec mon coeur? . . . .
Dom Juan: . . . . si j'ai dit que je voulois corriger
ma conduite et me jeter dans un train de vie
exemplaire, c'est un dessein que j'ai formé par
pure politique, un stratagème utile. une grimace nécessaire. . .
Dom Juan: . . . . Il y en a tant d'autres comme
moi . . . qui se servent du même masque pour abuser le monde!
Dom Juan: . . . l'hypocrisie est un vice à la
mode, et tous les vices à la mode passent pour
vertus. Le personnage d'homme de bien est le
meilleur de tous les personnages qu'on puisse
jouer aujourd'hui, et la profession d'hypocrite
a de merveilleux avantages. C'est un art de qui
l'imposture est toujours respectée; . . . on n'ose
rien dire contre elle. [Molière, Dom Juan, Acte V, Scène II]

US Senator Barack Obama is now ahead in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for candidate for US president in 2008. His campaign shows how theater, pretense, and fakery can go very far in American politics, especially if the so-called "news" media cooperate. The BBC has been in the fake news business for many many years. Their coverage of the execution --or assassination, if you like-- of `Imad Mughniyyah, one of the world's most skillful terrorist saboteurs, demonstrates their skills and techniques, and reveals their chief enemy. First Obama.

Senator Obama claims over and over to be against "Washington," different from "Washington," to be representing something "new." He shamelessly takes this line as if he himself were not part of "Washington," as if Zbigniew Brzezinski, a diamond-hearted, cold-blooded war planner, a Washington veteran from way back, were not one of his --Obama's-- advisors.

Jimmy Carter, widely considered by Americans who lived through his disastrous four years in the White House to be the worst president ever, also campaigned against "Washington" in 1976. Zbig B, among other things a professor at Columbia University, was Carter's national security advisor [or national insecurity advisor?]. Besides the shameful personal behavior of Carter and his brother, Billy, while Carter was president, his Administration perpetrated several disasters having worldwide impact. Israel, one of Zbig's pet hates [Zbig spent much of his childhood in Nazi Germany], was induced to give up the Sinai desert with its oil resources in exchange for a piece of paper called a "peace treaty." The Sinai was surrendered to Egypt, where the majority then and now was/is imbued with Muslim fundamentalist ideology [in the Muslim Brotherhood --Ikhwan al-Muslimin-- version] and where the government leaders, such as Sadat himself, were Nazi sympathizers. Sadat in fact conspired with German Nazi agents to help Nazi Germany win World War 2. He later blamed the foiling of the plot on Egyptian Jews, going on to claim that Germany had lost the war because of them [see Sadat's book, Revolt on the Nile, in French Revolte sur le Nil].

An equally great triumph for Zbig was helping Khomeini take over Iran, taking rule there away from the Shah who was accused of "human rights" abuses, which of course pale in the face of the Khomeini regime's human rights abuses. This means that ahmadinejad --the spiritual child of Khomeini, a probable participant in the 1979 hostage-taking of US embassy personnel in Teheran-- is also the result of Zbig's destructive policies. Then there was Zbig's buildup and training of Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Hence, Zbig helped Osama bin Laden get started too.

On February 12, 2008, the day that Mughniyyah was removed from our suffering, Zbig B was supposed to be in Syria to "engage" with the bosses of the Syrian dictatorship. I don't know if the trip to Damascus came off after all, or if he had arrived before the execution of Mughniyyah, but left when the execution became known, since I haven't seen any press notices about it. Anyway, if Zbig did successfully "engage" with Damascus, perhaps he can consummate the engagement with a same sex marriage between himself and Bashar Assad.

Elliot Engel, a US congressman [Dem-NY], has been good enough to remember Zbig's role in Khomeini's rise:

Mr. Engel yesterday said he was not a particular admirer of Mr. Brzezinski's, though he praised his intelligence. He said the former Carter administration official addressed Democratic lawmakers last month at a retreat at Williamsburg, Va., on America's policy toward Iran. "I remember thinking, 'Why are we listening to him?' He was the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. He proceeded to talk to us about Iran, and I said, 'Let me see, didn't the ayatollahs come to power, didn't we have this problem when you were in the White House?'" [New York Sun, 2-12-2008]

Another of Obama's advisors is Samantha Power. She's a prof at Harvard who specializes in "human rights." As we know "human rights" means excessive rights for some [for example Arabs in general and palestinian Arabs in particular], including the right to abuse the rights of others [such as Jews]. Samantha indicated a few years ago that she believed in the Jenin Massacre Myth propagated by arafat, sa'eb erikat, and the rest of the PLO, PA gang. I'm not sure that she still believes in that hoax but I'm sure that she still believes that Jews don't have rights, such as the right to life, especially if they are too Jewish [that is, Zionist]. As noted, "human rights" as a political tool and pretext was used by Zbig during the Carter administration against the Shah. So Barack Obama, far from representing something new, in fact represents something old, ugly, and grotesque, the misuse of humanitarian rhetoric for inhumane and immoral purposes.
- - - - - - - -

Now, how did the BBC, the world's premiere psywar propaganda purveyor, treat the execution of mass murderer `Imad Mughniyyah??? The BBC asserted that Jerusalem and Washington were happy over the execution, as if no else had reason to be happy about it --not France, not Argentina, not Lebanon. The BBC did not mention the slaughter of 58 French paratroopers in Beirut in 1983, in a bombing perpetrated by Hizbullah, at that time called The Party of God. The BBC did mention the bombings of the Israel embassy and a "Jewish center" in Buenos Aires. Apparently, the BBC did not want to properly call the AMIA a Jewish community and cultural center. Calling it a cultural center might get people to think that Jews have a culture or that they are a community or people. Though the bombings in Argentina were mentioned, the BBC did not show film of the bombed buildings or of victims, nor did the BBC give numbers of victims, as France24 did, for instance. Nor did the BBC mention the likelihood that Mughniyyah was involved in planning the truck bomb murder of Rafiq Hariri in Beirut on 14 February 2005, or any of the other murders of anti-Syrian politicians and journalists generally believed to have been perpetrated by Syria in Lebanon since the attempted murder of Marwan Hamadi in late 2004.

The stress of the story was on Mughniyyah's great talents as a terrorist saboteur --thus, trying to depict him as a hero-- and on alleged jubilation in Washington and Israel over the execution [yes, there was satisfaction in Israel over the killing]. The whole impression was that Mughniyyah was an enemy of Israel and US imperialism, that is, an "anti-imperialist," whereas no one else had a reason to celebrate [since his French and Lebanese victims were not mentioned]. To be sure, there were some facts in the BBC TV narrative. The BBC's main propaganda techniques here are that of the significant omission and the misplaced moral focus. Now, the BBC's imposture consists in the fact that it is an arm of the British Foreign Office, thus it itself is an imperialist agency [if we are permitted to call the UK imperialist]. The report can be considered a blend of truth and falsehood.

For the record, the AP report on execution of Mughniyyah follows the BBC line of falsification.

UPDATINGS 2-17-2008: Even a journalist protested the BBC's pro-terrorist editorializing. A journalist who had had a gun put to his head in Beirut by Hizbullah operatives in the 1980s, while his partner journalist was kidnapped, objected to the BBC's calling both Mughniyyah and Rafiq Hariri "great national heroes" in the same sentence.-- 2-20-2008 more on Zbig & Obama.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: Peace follies, propaganda, psywar, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the rest of the Land of Israel, etc.

Marxist-Leninist Writes His Judeophobic Drivel by the Grace of a Superrich Arab Amir

UPDATING at bottom

Prof Richard Landes at The Augean Stables blog has a long, mad quote from James Petras published on Al-Jazeera. Here is the link to the Augean Stables post. Prof Petras is an obsessive Judeophobe who has found solace in the warm bosom of Qatar's al-Jazeera website. For many years he published "anti-imperialist" articles [against US policy in South America, not always good policy, to be sure], particularly in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review. But there are a number of bizarre positions and inner contradictions in Petras' stance and arguments.

Petras uses the phrase: "On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem..." This is the same language used by State Dept officials and anti-Israel MSM commentators about Jerusalem, as if the Arabs would make peace if Jerusalem were redivided as it was for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, and only for those 19 years.

It is noteworthy that Petras published "anti-US imperialism" screeds in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review [which has disavowed part --only part-- of what Petras said in his favorable review of the walt-mearsheimer tract] for many years. Now, al-Jazeera operates out of Qatar, not exactly a socialist or revolutionary state, nor a poor state. The per capita yearly income in Qatar is rather high on a world scale. Al-Jazeera operates there by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir or whatever title the local potentate holds. He is not exactly a democrat [small D]. Qatar also hosts, by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir, the Middle Eastern HQ of Centcom, the high command of US forces in Iraq. So Petras is being published --indirectly to be sure-- by the grace of the Amir of Qatar who also shows his grace to CENTCOM. Further, the journalists who actually set up al-Jazeera were mainly veterans of BBC and Voice of America, which Petras' old Marxist-Leninist friends might call "imperialist" press services. If I'm not mistaken, the potentate of Qatar also holds a share of ownership in al-Jazeera [maybe a majority share] which is also a commercial TV operator, if I am not mistaken, thus a profitmaker. Curiously, the corporate headquarters of Al-Jazeera are in London, although it operates out of Qatar. Figure that one out.

Be that as it may, Qatar and the other Persian Gulf emirates and sheikdoms, etc., plus Saudi Arabia, own a great deal of capital and real estate in Western countries, including the United States. So by allowing his pen to be rented out by al-Jazeera, Petras seems to be --collaborating-- with imperialists, at least according to Lenin's definition. Lenin said that big capital or finance capital was imperialist by definition.

So Petras' role as a pristine pure Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialist would seem to be very tarnished by his association with or employment by Qatar's al-Jazeera.

UPDATING:
Here is a web article with documentation on the al-Jazeera link to the Qatar government and ruling family, as well as on the career history of most of its original journalists and editors as employes of BBC or VOA. George Bush, visiting Qatar, referred to the ruler as an "amir." However, shaykhs abound in the ruling al-Thani family. According to a book on Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles (London 2005), the Amir and/or government of Qatar have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Al-Jazeera which is a commercial enterprise but apparently not yet profit-making [correct error above]. Hence, members of the al-Thani family and/or the Qatar govt have given al-Jazeera additional capital inputs or loans over the years [see Miles book, p 346, quoted in the web article linked to from this paragraph].
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More lies of the "peace process" and Annapolis, more on Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, elsewhere in the Land of Israel, etc.

The Semi-Official Brits Do It Again -- The British Canard Ought to Be Muzzled [enchaine']

UPDATINGS AT BOTTOM

The surreptitious British campaign to smear Israel has struck again. The BBC, an arm of the British Foreign Office, is putting forth a virtually meaningless document to smear Israel and, as some have said, to shatter another Israeli "myth." Just why the British psywar experts and their Western and Arab comrades in arms are so busy "shattering" Israeli "myths" should be no mystery. It's an expression of hatred and a method of psychological warfare against an enemy. The Entebbe Rescue is one of the great stories of heroism in modern history. Israelis and Jews everywhere rightly took pride in it, albeit it was not 100% successful, since the commander, Yoni Netanyahu, as well as some hostages, died in the raid. Here is the BBC website article which clumsily puts forth a comment by an anonymous source as a serious argument against what Israelis and decent people throughout the world have believed about the Entebbe Rescue. See link here.

A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.

An unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane. [BBC website, 1 June 2007]

Does this contain any information other than that British diplomats and their anonymous informants were hostile to Israel? The informant in this case seems to be an Arab, probably from Fatah rather than the PFLP, since Fatah had an incentive to "smear" the rival Popular Front gang as collaborators with Israel. The document, as cited, proves nothing about any Israeli involvement in the hijacking. To even make such a virtually meaningless document the centerpiece of a media smear campaign against Israel shows the depths to which the BBC and its partners in the British print media will go in efforts to smear Israel. At the same time, it may be a sign of desperation that they even use something so cloudy and lacking in substance. They have chosen a weak reed indeed to lean upon.

The BBC web site article is interesting in that it also reports a coy official British approach toward the successful Israeli operation. The article reports that British officials questioned whether the operation was legal under international law and were uncertain whether the Ugandan dictator at the time, Idi Amin, was really collaborating with the hijackers. There is no mention that Amin came to the airport to view the hostages and talk with the hijackers. Nor is there mention that Idi Amin was under the influence at that time of a white British officer named Major Bob Astles. This coy questioning about the international legality of the Israeli operation also demonstrates the depth of hatred for Israel within the Foreign Office at that time, more than thirty years ago.

One needs to read BBC articles like this one while bearing in mind the BBC and Foreign Office attitude toward the Holocaust. At the beginning of the Holocaust, the BBC pretended not to know about it, although Britain no doubt had excellent intelligence about doings within the Nazi-fascist domain. Later, some information was broadcast but such broadcasts were minimized and the role of the Jews as victims of a monstruous crime was obfuscated to an extent. Barbara Rogers, a British historian, gives an overview of British official policy on reporting the Holocaust. Here are some other of our earlier posts on the BBC and the Holocaust based on letters published in Yiddish by Shmul Zigelboym, delegate of socialist Jewish Labor Bund to the Polish government in exile in London, who made largely fruitless efforts to get the British to help the Jews trapped in Poland and to get the BBC to emphasize their plight. Here & here & here & qui & ici & aqui'. The British Foreign Office also ordered British troops not to go into Baghdad during the massacre of Jews in 1941 called the Farhud to stop that massacre, according to a British officer named Somerset de Chair. This can be considered a British contribution to the Holocaust. Moreover, it was British policy, specifically that of Anthony Eden, the foreign minister, to foster Arab nationalism and foundation of the Arab League.

The BBC cannot be considered a neutral party in the Arab-Israel conflict, nor are its reports reliable.

UPDATING
William Goldnadel of the Association France-Israel has pointed out that LeMonde too has also played up the meaningless British embassy report as if it proved that the Israel Shin Beyt security agency were behind the Entebbe hijacking. Le Monde is a newspaper controlled by the French foreign ministry as the BBC is controlled by the British Foreign Office.

COQUECIGRUES [par Gilles William Goldnadel, le six juin 2007]

Dans son édition du 3 juin, Le Monde publie un article qui affirme : « Des documents d’archives du gouvernement britannique rendus publiques vendredi 1er juin, jettent un doute sur la version officielle d’une des plus célèbres prises d’otage de l’histoire contemporaine, le détournement, il y a 31 ans, d’un avion d’Air France vers Entebbe, en Ouganda ».

Selon ces documents, ce détournement serait « l’œuvre du F.P.L.P. avec l’aide du Shin Bet (le service de sécurité intérieure israélien) ».

Lorsqu’on se donne la peine de lire l’article, on s’aperçoit que ce serait un « contact anonyme » membre de « l’Association parlementaire euro arabe » qui aurait transmis cette « information » à un diplomate britannique en poste à Paris…

Et c’est sur cette base dont on peut juger du solide, que notre sérieux quotidien conclut péremptoirement que cette thèse « éclaire d’un jour nouveau le raid sur Entebbe ».
- - - - - - - - - - -

Here's an analysis of the same fake accusation as made by the French government's semi-official press agency, Agence France Presse [AFP]. This analysis, in French, comes from the Metulla News Agency.

- - - - - - -
Coming: More on James Baker and US policy towards Israel, Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Zigelboym's Comrades, Allied Disinterest

Bibliog added 8-8-2010

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is one the most remarkable events of the Holocaust. The downtrodden, oppressed Jews of the Ghetto rose up with weapons against their enemies. Yet the Allies were not interested in helping the Ghetto warriors, despite excuses made to Shmul Zigelboym in London before the Uprising that the reason that the Allies were not helping the Jews being sent to the death camps was because the Jews were not fighting. So when the Jews did fight [in fact, Jewish partisans fought and ghetto revolts took place not only in Warsaw], the major Allies still did not help the Jews. Can someone explain this failure or reluctance to act?

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising began in its full force on April 19, 1943 [Hebrew calendar: 14 Nisan תש'ג-5703], on the eve of Pesah [Passover], although there had been some minor skirmishing in January. So Pesah this year is an appropriate time to commemorate the Uprising. Zigelboym's comrades still in Poland took part in the fighting. This experience is described from inside by Bernard Goldstein [Zigelboym's comrade in the Jewish Socialist League, the Bund] in his book, Five Years in the Warsaw Ghetto [also called The Stars Bear Witness]. One of the obstacles to starting a Jewish uprising was the quarrels between Communists, Bundists and Zionist-socialists, as well as Revisionist-Zionists [Jabotinsky's followers]. The Communists were loyal first of all to the Workers' Paradise, the USSR, of course. They claimed to be more universalist than the Zionist-socialists, or even the Bundists, whom Lenin once mocked as Zionists who were afraid of sea voyage, since the Bundists promoted Jewish culture in Yiddish, secular culture of course. The Communists may have all too easily forgotten that the Soviet Union had made the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939, which enabled the war to get started. The USSR had invaded Poland and grabbed parts of its territory. At that time, the USSR was not so very fussy about ideological purity. In fact, in the fall of 1939, the Soviet government newspaper, Izvestya, wrote that Nazi ideology "is a matter of taste." As long as the pact between the Nazis and Communists lasted, the Communists in the Ghetto did not want to join resistance actions. Then the Germans attacked the USSR in June 1941, breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact. As should have been expected. Finally, the Communists were ready to resist. In fact, the Communists in many countries engaged in peace propaganda in favor of the Nazis until June 1941, not least in Britain and France where Communist deputies in the parliaments tried to prevent resistance to the Nazis by their governments [In France, Petain's Vichy state was set up in 1940 with the participation of Communists, socialists, Trotskyists].

So within the so-called "left," divisions, partly based on ideological rigidity leading to immobility, were rife. Moreover, the "left" as a whole loathed the more nationalistic Zionists, mainly followers of Jabotinsky who had frankly said all along that military force was necessary in human affairs, and of course for defense. Yet the nationalist Zionists, connected with the Betar youth group and the Revisionist Zionist movement, had close ties with certain Polish military men. In fact, the Polish government in the 1930s had reached agreement with Jabotinsky on teaching military skills to his followers. So there were at least two Jewish armed political-ideological underground groups in the Ghetto [there were also members of the pre-war Jewish underworld/gangsters who had weapons]. The nationalists, organized in the Ghetto as the Jewish Military Organization, got weapons from a certain friendly Polish military man named Major Henryk Iwanski. They were better armed than the "left," and in fact probably did more damage to the German Nazi forces. The "left" was organized as the Jewish Fighting Organization, led by Mordekhai Anilevitsh [Anielewicz]. The JFO, although probably doing less damage to the Germans than the JMO, has gotten the lion's share of favorable publicity. One book serving as a partial corrective to this neglect of the JMO is by David Wdowinski, And We Are Not Saved (New York: Philsophical Library 1963; repr. 1985).

Today, of course, what is called the "left" is frequently Nazi-like [that is, favors mass murder of Jews]. It is mainly a manipulated body of public opinion, fed with Nazi-like ideas by skilled practitioners of psychological warfare. Further, funding of "leftist" anti-Israel activities often comes from wealthy, pro-Arab sources. The fact that today's Left usually supports Arab nationalists who practice mass murder, whereas during the Holocaust [and the 2nd World War] the Arab nationalists overwhelmingly supported the Nazis, demonstrates the Nazi leanings of most of today's "left."

Here are some books that may be helpful for further study. Most are relatively little known compared to other books on the subject:
Reuben Ainsztein, The Warsaw Ghetto Revolt (New York: Holocaust Library 1979)
. . . . . .Part of a much larger work on Jewish armed resistance during the Holocaust
Moshe Arens, Flags over the Ghetto (2009?; Hebrew edition published first; English ed. should be out by now)
Moshe Arens, "The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- A Reappraisal" Yad vaShem Studies, 33.
Lester Eckman & Chaim Lazar, The Jewish Resistance (New York: Shengold 1977)
Philip Friedman, ed., Martyrs and Fighters (New York: Praeger 1954)
. . . . . .An anthology of personal, eyewitness accounts of Jewish resistance
Feliks Gross & Basil Vlavianos, Struggle for Tomorrow: Modern Political Ideologies of the Jewish People (New York: Arts 1954)
. . . . . .Separate chapters --written by adherents-- describe the ideologies of various Jewish political factions, including the Bund
Jan Karski, The Story of a Secret State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1944)
. . . . .Author was a courier for the Polish underground. Met Pres. Franklin Roosevelt and witnessed his coldness toward rescuing Jews.
Chaim Lazar, Muranowska 7: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Tel Aviv: Massada 1966)
The Massacre of European Jewry (Kibbutz Merchavia, Israel: World Hashomer Hatzair 1963)
Arthur D Morse, While Six Million Died (New York: Random House 1967, 1968)
. . . . .An easily read popular account of the failure to stop the massacres
Lucien Steinberg, Not as a Lamb (Farnsborough, Hants.: Saxon House, 1974) translated from
______. La Revolte des Justes (Paris: Fayard, 1970)
David Wdowinski, And We Are Not Saved (New York: Philosophical Library 1963)
Laurence Weinbaum, A Marriage of Convenience: The New Zionist Organization and the Polish Government, 1936-1939 (New York: Columbia University Press 1993).
Yad vaShem, Jewish Resistance during the Holocaust:Proceedings of the Conference on Manifestations of Jewish Resistance, Jerusalem April 7-11, 1968 (Jerusalem: Yad vaShem 1971)
- - - - - -
Coming: More on the BBC, Zigelboym, the UK govt today and Israel, the UK govt supports "Peace Now"