BBC sorry for calling Jerusalem capital of Israel

...can we get an apology from Ahmadinejad for saying the Holocaust is a myth?....

I'm not the least bit sorry for calling the BBC the Bullshit Balestinian Collaborators.

OT but par for the course for the BBC. A couple of seasons back, Newcastle were playing Chelsea in a cup match. Towards the end of the first half, Newcastle were under a lot of pressure and a commentator said that 'a little chink was appearing in the Newcastle defence'. I telephoned to denounce this 'racist' remark..........worse still they apologised!

"sent a joint complaint to the BBC after a presenter on its Football Focus program on March 24 mentioned that Jerusalem was Israel's capital and "historic soul.'"

What was the mistake? Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is the place where the Knesset meets, the President has his house, and the Vice-President. Jerusalem is also the "historic soul" as the keen presenter put it, of Israel. Where is the Western Wall? Where is the Old City itself, with that Western Wall? And where, despite Arab depredations, remain so much of what is central to Jewish history and Jewish life?

The fact that in 1948 the Arab Legion managed to seize the Old City, and hold onto it until the Six-Day War, does not make Jerusalem less a center, the "historic soul," of Israel. And the fact that since the Six-Day War, Arab blackmail, based on a quite unnecessary fear of offending what are essentially gas station owners who need have no favors done them beyond paying the posted price for their gas, the Western world has forgotten the legal, moral, and historic claim of the Jews to Jerusalem, has proceeded to believe that the Arab claim, which is based not on history but on the belief that a single phrase in the Qur'an (Jerusalem is nowhere mentioned in that Qur'an), about the "farthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aksa) must be located in Jerusalme, right on Temple Mount (which is where, after some intitial squabbling, Muslims of the time of the Umayyad Caliphate based in nearby Damascus, as a symbol of the power of Islam and the conquering Muslims, decided to place it, in the city holy to Jews and Christians, right smack on the site most important to Jews).

It is a matter of regret that Western countries did not immediately recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and gotten it over with forty years ago. It is too bad, but it reflects not history, nor a historical judgment, but merely cowardice and laziness. One can compare this inattention to real history, with the alacrity with which, after the Six-Day War, the Western world, or much of it, accepted the hastily-created "Palestinian people" out of what had always been -- not least among the Arab diplomats and leaders -- merely the "Arabs" of the area, who suddenly acquired not merely a name, but a hasty "construction of 'Palestinian' identity" out of people identicial in langugae, culture, religion, in every way, to those other Arabs around them, but who took on this purely verbal cloak to disguise, for obvious propagandistic reasons, the Arab war against the Infidel state of Israel which is nothing but a classic Jihad, the Lesser Jihad.

The BBC can apologize all it wants to the Arabs and Muslims who have it in thrall. This is merely of a piece with its entire editorial policy, and its speakers and speakerines, of a piece with the head of its World Service, John Simpson (who, or possibly which, google along with "Jihad Watch" to find out about his enthusiastic delight in the antisemitic conspiracy history of one Lonni Brenner). And it is of a piece with the hideous crap the British and world public have been fed about the Middle East, and that has aroused the fury not only of those with a particular sympathy for Israel, but of all those who are still capable of seeing through the manipulation by and of the media -- such people, for examle, as the celebrated Soviet dissident, long resident in Cambridge, England, Vladimir Bukovsky, who finds the BBC Stalinoid.

A very few of the individual reporters who spewed their venom, have been transferred away from the Middle East. There was Barbara Plett, who wept when Yassir Arafat died (for more on Arafat, see the account of Magdi Allam in the just-published "Viva Israele"). There was Orla Guerin, who, herself married to the mob -- that is, married to a 'Palestinian' who told her all she needed to know, and which she was intent, every day, on helping the larger public know as well -- reported on the Arabs and Israel, her accounts of the 'Palestinians' in their self-inflicted wretchedness and hate and cultivated primitivization reflecting a diseased sympathy, and she got to be even too much for the BBC, which has now switched her to southern Africa, while Barbara Plett reports from Afghanistan and Pakistan. But so many others remain in place, including those whose voices became immediately hostile when the word "Israel" was mentioned, and whose "interviews" with Israeli officials became exercises not in mere skepticisim, but hectoring abuse, while the assorted "Palestinians" and "Arabs" were treated with kid gloves, and all kinds of local open supporters of terrorism, including an open supporter of Hamas, were welcomed on the BBC, introduced with respect, and allowed to speak their piece.

That's the BBC.

The Hamas supporter mentioned above, who used to be such a regular on the BBC, is Azzam Tamimi. Google "images" and you will find him hysterically haranguing a crowd in London (you may also get the video).

Here's something put up at Jihad Watch last year about Azzam Tamimi:

Duplicity from Azzam Tamimi

Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London is a frequent guest on talk shows, and he spreads the predictable soothing syrup about how most Muslims abhor violence, etc. But when he speaks to Muslim audiences, he sings a different tune. How different? Dan Sytman (thanks to LGF), cohost of "Sytman & Boze" on Seattle's Talk 770 KTTH radio, has put together an audio file showing exactly how different. Take a listen.

[Posted by Robert at August 16, 2006 5:21 PM]

Go to that article, and click on the links (which I have been unable to reproduce).

If Arab Media Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa and the Institute of Islamic Political Thought are British then my name's Mohammed.

On its About Us page, the Arab Media Watch web site states that it:

... must be a bridge of understanding at a time when the idea of a "clash of civilisations" is gaining alarming acceptance

We have a "clash of civilisations" because of voluntary mass immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim lands. After they arrive they start getting offended by the host nation's culture and attitudes, completely ignoring the fact that they chose to immigrate, knowing full well what it would be like in their new "home".

Why don't these ungrateful rabble rousers and terrorists simply return to the backward countries they came from? Then we'd all be happy.

I hear the Gaza Strip is lovely this time of year.

An article from last year, about both the BBC and NPR, re-posted below:

Fitzgerald: Publicly funded dhimmitude

"What will it take for the BBC's coverage of Islam, the Middle East, and Israel, which is of a piece, to be investigated? A number of powerful people at the BBC effectively have been promoting an Islamic agenda. John Simpson, who is deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, runs the BBC World Service and in turn reports to the Foreign Office –- for the World Service is under its control. Does John Simpson's introduction to Operaton Cyanide, the anti-Israel conspiracy-theory book by Peter Hounam (a one-man anti-Israel investigative unit, who when last heard from had been arrested in Israel as a security risk), the anti-Israel and anti-American head of BBC World Service, continue to get a pass, or to pass unnoticed? Why?

What about the hectoring and sneering that is so palpable a feature of BBC interviews with Israeli guests, or with those defending Israel, or which for that matter is a feature of interviews with those defending American policy in Iraq? And what about the BBC’s use of the Hamas supporter and promoter Azzam Tamimi as an "expert"? His views are frequently aired on the BBC. Or what about the loaded language -- "insurgents" in Iraq, "militants" in Israel, never "terrorists"; "occupied Arab lands" for what are "disputed lands" which are legally unallocated portions of the Mandate for Palestine, set up for the express and sole purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home.

Trevor Asserson has published a number of reports on the BBC. Vladimir Bukovsky has that Russian smell-sense (chootyo) for the loaded language and lies in which the BBC, like Pravda of yore, specializes -- not about all things, but specifically about anything remotely to do with Islam, Israel, or the Middle East. Bukovsky has started a campaign to end the mandatory payment, the license fee, that is exacted to support the BBC, even from those who cannot stand its coverage. A more sinister thing than this forced tribute, this jizya, which is used to pay for the very coverage one may find deceptive and dangerous, is hard to imagine.

Huw Weldon and Hugh Greene, and many other powerful figures from the BBC’s intelligent past are missed. And even among the Guardian-reading, left-leaning staff, there are those who -- outside of the powerful, tight little group of Arab and Muslim staff and their non-Muslim supporters, hirelings, and hangers-on (some motivated by antisemitic animus, a pathology not to be overlooked or poohpoohed) -- are aware of this BBC slant and cannot bear it. Do any of them care to reveal what they know, in some tell-it-all revelations about the Islamic equivalent of the Comintern, and its infiltration of the BBC, as of so many other organizations?

It is not up to Blair or Straw to call for a BBC investigation. But others should do it. Donald Watt, Kenneth Minogue, J. B. Kelly, Conor Cruise O'Brien, Bukovsky himself, and others might form a committee, something like the American Committee on the Present Danger, to demand that the BBC’s coverage be investigated -- and without the usual "both sides complain, so we must be doing it right" excuse that is so idiotically offered up by both the BBC and by PBS when its only slightly less biased coverage is under attack.

Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses now broadcast conveniently right from Bush House and PBS, untouched and seemingly untouchable. And what is even more maddening, they are being paid by British and American taxpayers, respectively. Sentimentality about a free press misses the point. These organizations are self-contained, immune to criticism or oversight. Who appointed the smarmy Dick Gordon (now moved on to fresh fields and pastures new, thank god), or the self-assured ahd comically ignorant Tom Ashbrook, to their PBS news programs? Was there a poll? Was any audience consulted? Or was it a decision by the very well paid czarette of WBUR, Jane Christo?

Now Christo is gone, forced to resign (see "under a cloud"), but while she ruled the roost at the NPR station in a major American city, who or what gave her the right to decide who will cover the news for the taxpayer-supported, tax-exempt PBS?

And what makes John Simpson exempt from investigation? What makes him permanently immune to being called to account for the outrageous coverage he not only permits but encourages at the BBC? Both the BBC and PBS, these "publicly-funded" institutions (the BBC by fiat, the PBS by tax-exempt status, grants, and constant handouts from unwary or innocent listeners), keep pretending that the very fact of this public funding makes them somehow "unbiased." WBUR keeps telling everyone that it offers a genuine "diversity" of views -- it runs all the way from Kerry to Dean and back. And then they keep telling us that all those other, crazy right-wing stations are the ones that are full of lies.

Spare us.

[Posted by Hugh at April 9, 2006 6:52 AM]

Yes don't offend Palestinian sensitivities especially when they are kindly 'accommodating' one of your reporters.

Why is it that the truth always offends Palestinian sensibilities? Hey, ignorant writers for the BBC how are you going to tell the Paleos they were better off under occupation by the Zionist entity? Or that those who live in the Zionist entity are better off and live better by any objective criteria than the other billion Moslems on the planet?

BBC are you really concerned about the "sensitive" Paleos, a "sensitive" people that upon the murder and mayhem of Israeli women and children sort of excite and dance and share candy with one another?

The SOFTIES from the bbc can't help it if they want to be mollycoddled. They're just big into appeasment. Hugh, I listen to Sytman and Boze when I get a chance.

...The BBC is just "sorry"....

Mainstream media need an excorcism.

"The power of Christ compels you!"
"The power of Christ compels you!"
"The power of Christ compels you!"

You think that'd work. Oh by the way... if you're looking for a bit of fun, please consider renting 'Shaun of the Dead' it's a British zombie movie set in North London. I like British shows and movies because they're wittier than anything US sources produce. Shaun of the Dead is a lot of fun if you don't mind some zombie violence and you might even consider it an allegory to potential Islamification... if you're so inclined.

I like the working class British perspective on things. Oy, where's the bar john? :)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was
.Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Always is, always was.

Got it?

"The BBC bent over backwards to appease the Muslim groups"

Seems to me they bent over in another direction.

I guess the BBC should stop refering "Gibraltar" as Brittish aswell, in order not to offend spanish feelings.

Oh wait! Spanish people don't send pregnant women to bomb civilians. I forgot.

"...the matter was one of such sensitivity and concern to the Palestinian people..."

"...We of course accept that the international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that the BBC should not describe it as such..."

This disgusts me.

Why is the BBC apologizing to "the Palestinians"? Isn't it still the British Broadcasting Corporation? Or has it been quietly changed to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation?

I guess the folks at the BBC also "recognize" that "the international community" they are appeasing does not acknowledge the state of Israel's right to exist and therefore its reporters will do everything it can to avoid "describing it as such".

*Spit*

I just made a complaint to the BBC for apologising, told them it was a fact and not an error, and not to apologise just cos Muslims don't like it and demanded they retract the apology and then apologise to us. Not that it will like, but hey i wasn't busy haha.

STOP ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION.

I suppose if the BBC called Jerusalem the capital of palestine all would have been well.

Who needs Al-Jazeera with the BBC around? Unfortunately, the BBC has plenty of American imitators.

Another reason why i despise the BBC. Malanie Phillips has written that the BBC "filters events through a prism of hatred – of Israel, of America and of western values. The BBC is simply the single greatest cultural weapon in the armoury of those who intend to bring the west down" (from "The War against the Jews (2)").

The audio file of Azzam Tamimi's rantings from the August 16, 2006 article (posted by Robert) is here:

http://www.moonbatwars.com/images/Timmini_on_NPR.mp3

John Simpson, 'taker of Kabul' cannot even bear to live in his own country. He lives in John Bull's Other Island.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/page/0,8097,1239486,00.html

Correction to above post -- that's Melanie Phillips (www.melaniephillips.com) -- Melanie with an "e", not "a." sorry about typo.

How soon before this dhimmitude catches on in American media outlets who wouldn't want to turn off advertisers or customers?

And, look forward to more Middle Eastern oil-rich potentates buying up American businesses and renaming them, too.

Look for the new ads promoting "The Well." "The Well," which was fka as "The Gap," is your one-stop shopping experience for sturdy haram threads.

The American Arab Anti Discrimination Council wants to build "a well" also. Not a bridge. Not a door. Not a window of opportunity. A well!

Hugh wrote (and has reproduced it repeatedly):
"John Simpson, who is deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, runs the BBC World Service and in turn reports to the Foreign Office –- for the World Service is under its control."

Hugh - could you provide any evidence of your claim that the BBC World Service is under the control of, or reports to, the Foreign Office. I doubt you can, as it's completely untrue.

"Crossposted from The American Israeli Patriot."

Isn't JW/DW becoming somewhat redundant when so many of the stories are merely crosspostings from the 'American Israeli Chauvinist' website?

I'm sorry the West is full of so many Apologists, Wussies, and Pushovers.

There, everyone feel better? Last apology from me. EVER.

Signed,

Miss Bitch

"Hugh wrote (and has reproduced it repeatedly):
'John Simpson, who is deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, runs the BBC World Service and in turn reports to the Foreign Office –- for the World Service is under its control.'

Hugh - could you provide any evidence of your claim that the BBC World Service is under the control of, or reports to, the Foreign Office. I doubt you can, as it's completely untrue."
-- from a poster above

“Completely untrue” is it? Hmmm. Then I, who knew Huw Weldon, must have been misinformed. And equally misinformed must be a good many Englishmen, and among those misinformed Englishman must be counted Nigel Chapman, the Director of the BBC World Service (the operational, day to day overseer of operations, the one who makes sure Israel is properly maligned and Islam protected for listenrs to the BBC, is third-from-the-top-of-the-tottering-totem-pole John Simpson):

"The BBC's core values of accuracy, fairness and impartiality underpin all its journalism, irrespective of the language or the medium we use to reach our audiences. Diversity of points of view It is also very important to broadcast a diversity of points of view on a subject, and to monitor this spread of opinion over time. Of course, no individual programme can capture every relevant shade of opinion, but the output, as a whole, must strive to do so; that way, the audience can make up its own mind about who it believes and why. The ambition is clear. Attaining these goals is not easy and requires thought, vigilance and a determination to monitor standards rigorously. Impartiality There should be no axes to grind or hidden agendas in the BBC's journalism; indeed, unless it is already involved in a story as a participating organisation, it has no point of view. Our job is to report the facts, provide context and analysis and thereby give our audiences the means to form their own view. We strive to hear from the many shades of opinion already present across the world. Ensuring a similar range of views was part of our remit, too, during the coverage of war in Iraq. Some people question our commitment to these values, arguing that being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office precludes our being able to broadcast without fear or favour. Independence Our right to editorial freedom and independence of Government is embedded in the BBC Charter, and in the World Service's Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The founders of the World Service in 1932 had the foresight to see the value and long-term necessity of such independence, and all parties respect it. It's one of the reasons why the World Service is trusted and relied upon worldwide and places it in a unique position in international broadcasting. Our values These journalistic values are an unshakeable part of our heritage, and the heart of our mission today. Everyone who works at the BBC is aware of how precious these values are and, whatever the challenge, we strive to uphold them. And if we make mistakes – as all humans do – we admit them and correct them as soon as possible. Upholding our reputation for accuracy, fairness and impartiality must be at the heart of everything we do and, I would argue, of any journalistic organisation that wants to be taken seriously across the world."
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1721_independence/page2.shtml]

Aside from the self-serving nonsense about how fair and balanced the BBC is, how willing it is to admit mistakes (it fights tooth and nail to avoid releasing information about its pro-Arab anti-Israel bias), which is so much bunf, there is this, the key sentence for our purposes:

“Some people question our commitment to these values, arguing that being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office precludes our being able to broadcast without fear or favour.”

I repeat: the Foreign Office funds directly, and has a great influence, even control over, the BBC World Service and what it broadcasts, both topics and tenor of the coverage. It is not I, but you who, in assuming this is not the case, apparently believe something that is "completely untrue."

And it is easy enough to find out what almost ever educated person in Great Britain knows. You only had to google "Foreign Office" and "BBC World Service" before making such an absurd charge against me.

Since you did not perform that three-second act of simple and obvious googling before attacking me in such a manner, you will no doubt wish to make amends by apologizing right here for your negligence and ignorance. You will wish to do so, I am sure, if only in order to ensure the continued possibility of being able to post here, at least for a little while longer.

"John Simpson, 'taker of Kabul'"
-- from a post above

So he's got a place in Dalkey, does he? Where he likes to swim in the nude among other males? That's nice. Does Robert Fisk join him for these gatherings?

Everyone knows that the new-found prosperity of the Celtic Tiger has apparently brought all sorts of foreign riff-raff to dear dirty Dublin, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that John Simpson is among them. There goes the neighborhood.

Israel could repond in kind - either close down its British embassy altogether (although that may have the downside of inconviniencing British Jews), or it could move its embassy out of Londonistan to maybe an Islam-free city - I don't know - Cardiff? Liverpool? Glasgow?

Coming to think of it, Israel should do that to all countries that keep their embassies in Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem. Move the US embassy to New York, Russian embassy to St Petersburg, Indian embassy to Simla, et al.

P.S. The English people should leave London - they have no business being there - that belongs to the ummah.

The Arab capital and muslim capital is not Jeruselem but Mecca.

Good one grobari - did the BEEB apologize for the term derogatory to Asians, or for the reference to people of small stature?

Hugh,

you forgot to mention Karin Laub, AP's very own Leni Rifenstahl...

Hugh
No doubt Simpson, Fisk and Paul Hewson get together regularly to polish their haloes.

The only comment I have on this is... yes, the BBC is sorry. Just like CNN, and a few others, they are sorry organizations.

Hugh -

I'm afraid that what you posted in response to me actually confirmed what I said, i.e. that the BBC is independent from government control. You quoted the following, from the Director of the BBC World Service:

"Some people question our commitment to these values, arguing that being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office precludes our being able to broadcast without fear or favour. Independence Our right to editorial freedom and independence of Government is embedded in the BBC Charter, and in the World Service's Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The founders of the World Service in 1932 had the foresight to see the value and long-term necessity of such independence, and all parties respect it."

This clearly states that the BBC, while being state-funded, has legally enshrined editorial independence from the government.

Yet, referring to the same quote you come up with the following non-sequitur of a conclusion:

"I repeat: the Foreign Office funds directly, and has a great influence, even control over, the BBC World Service and what it broadcasts, both topics and tenor of the coverage."

Your only evidence for this is that the BBC is state-funded. The latter is, of course, well-known. However, it is a leap of logic to move from state-funded to state-controlled. You might reply that funding implies control, because funding can be withdrawn if the fundee doesn't behave as required. This is not the case here, because, I repeat, the BBC's editorial independence is enshrined by law.

Of course, the government can always change the law. But that distant theoretical possibility is not enough to establish government influence over editorial policy (particularly in this case where such influence is actually illegal). It is doubtful whether any government would dare go through the convoluted procedure of putting an act through parliament that would undermine a cornerstone of British life. Tony Blair has made vague threats to do precisely this (in the run up to the Iraq War, because he didn't like the BBC's reporting on the exaggerations involved in the government dossier that justified war). Tony Blair hates the BBC even more than American neo-cons do. Which itself indicates that the government does not have control over the BBC.

Furthermore, isn't there something a little hypocritical about all this BBC bashing when such a high proportion of the stories featured on JW/DW come from this source?

Of course, Hugh, you have every right to ban me from posting on your website because I disagree with you. You will be banning me because of my assertion that you are mistaken in claiming that the BBC is state-controlled. Hmmm.

Hugh -

I'm afraid that what you posted in response to me actually confirmed what I said, i.e. that the BBC is independent from government control. You quoted the following, from the Director of the BBC World Service:

"Some people question our commitment to these values, arguing that being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office precludes our being able to broadcast without fear or favour. Independence Our right to editorial freedom and independence of Government is embedded in the BBC Charter, and in the World Service's Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The founders of the World Service in 1932 had the foresight to see the value and long-term necessity of such independence, and all parties respect it."

This clearly states that the BBC, while being state-funded, has legally enshrined editorial independence from the government.

Yet, referring to the same quote you come up with the following non-sequitur of a conclusion:

"I repeat: the Foreign Office funds directly, and has a great influence, even control over, the BBC World Service and what it broadcasts, both topics and tenor of the coverage."

Your only evidence for this is that the BBC is state-funded. The latter is, of course, well-known. However, it is a leap of logic to move from state-funded to state-controlled. You might reply that funding implies control, because funding can be withdrawn if the fundee doesn't behave as required. This is not the case here, because, I repeat, the BBC's editorial independence is enshrined by law.

Of course, the government can always change the law. But that distant theoretical possibility is not enough to establish government influence over editorial policy (particularly in this case where such influence is actually illegal). It is doubtful whether any government would dare go through the convoluted procedure of putting an act through parliament that would undermine a cornerstone of British life. Tony Blair has made vague threats to do precisely this (in the run up to the Iraq War, because he didn't like the BBC's reporting on the exaggerations involved in the government dossier that justified war). Tony Blair hates the BBC even more than American neo-cons do. Which itself indicates that the government does not have control over the BBC.

Furthermore, isn't there something a little hypocritical about all this BBC bashing when such a high proportion of the stories featured on JW/DW come from this source?

Of course, Hugh, you have every right to ban me from posting on your website because I disagree with you. You will be banning me because of my assertion that you are mistaken in claiming that the BBC is state-controlled. Hmmm.

What kind of idiot do you take me, or others who visit this site, for?

The important part of the quote from Nigel Chapman was the clear admission that, unlike the entire rest of the BBC, there is special funding for the World Service, directly from the Foreign Office. And if you exect me, or others, to believe that the "important" part of Chapman's self-serving and amazingly complacent apologia is not his admission about the funding, but his insistence that the BBC World Service was proudly independent of that same Foreign Office that provides the very funding he just admitted it received and was completely dependent on.

It is this very funding, the existence of which he confirms, that you apparently were denying when you issued the following dismissive challenge to me:

"could you provide any evidence of your claim that the BBC World Service is under the control of, or reports to, the Foreign Office. I doubt you can, as it's completely untrue."

You do not acknowledge that inquoting Chapman, I provided evidence for that claim,for if you think the Foreign Office funding of the BBC is simply without strings, that there is no reporting to, and no control by, the Foreign Office of the line the BBC World Service takes in what it puts on, and how it phrases it-- just think of the effect of that word "occupation" or "occupied lands" which, as a matter of international law, are incorrect, for as applied to unallocated parts of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine (Gaza, the "West Bank"), they ignore the legal and historic claims, that go far beyond those of a mere military occupier, of Israel to those same territories.

Instead, ignoring the important part , you focus on -- claim not the fact of the Foreign Office funding, but the non-fact of Chapman's little speech in banal defense of his operation.

Here is how you put it:

"I'm afraid that what you [Hugh] posted in response to me actually confirmed what I said, i.e. that the BBC is independent from government control. You quoted the following, from the Director of the BBC World Service:

'Some people question our commitment to these values, arguing that being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office precludes our being able to broadcast without fear or favour. Independence Our right to editorial freedom and independence of Government is embedded in the BBC Charter, and in the World Service's Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The founders of the World Service in 1932 had the foresight to see the value and long-term necessity of such independence, and all parties respect it.'"

So you apparently wish to convince me, or others whom you hope may be careless readers, or not paying sufficient attention, that what I posted by Nigel Chapman actually "confirms" what you maintained? You allow yourself to believe, or perhaps merely pretend to believe, that the only part that matters of the Chapman speech is not his admission, en passant, of "being funded via Grant-in-Aid from the Foreign Office" (you think that deserves to be passed over as quickly as Nigel Chapman would like us to, that is would like us to virtually ignore or dismiss it). You would like to have us, instead, focus not on a fact of funding, and all that that implies, but rather on Chapman's non-factual series of defensive assertions, belied by the BBC World Service news programs every single day(we have ears, we can hear), where the display of bias makes listeners rub their eyes in disbelief and fills them with fury -- see Vladimir Bukovsky, see all the "BBC Bias" sites.

You think it can alll be ignored, insabbiato, and we are supposed to salaam-salaam the likes of Nigel Chapman, or for that matter, John Simpson, as they tell us, that we here at the BBC always "broadcast without fear or favour."

For god's sake. Listen to the goddam thing.

Don't bother trying to reply - in either sense.

Sounds like you hit a nerve Hugh. There are certain things that are sacred to certain groups, such as the 'Palestinian' Arab, the Guardian, SaintSeymour Hersh, a righteous hatred of George W. Bush, and of course the BBC. An attack on any of these ideas/entities is like a direct physical assault on Mr. Schmegel himself. It is like desecrating a Muslim's Qu'ran.

Fortunately, Hugh, you're quite wrong in asserting that the British Foreign Office controls the BBC World Service. It is true that the service is funded by a Foreign Office "grant-in-aid", but this emphatically does not translate into control or influence over programming. Speaking as someone with many years' close involvement (all in the past now) with the World Service news and current affairs operation, I can tell you that the Foreign Office has NO effect on the editorial output. None. In senior operational positions, I never received or even heard of any instruction or opinion concerning content coming from the Foreign Office, nor was ever ordered to add or omit or slant anything because of what the Foreign Office did or did not want. (Indeed, in a long journalistic career I have never received any instruction from anyone to slant anything.)

Notwithstanding perceived or actual examples of bias, BBC World Service journalists do strive very hard for objectivity - even if they and their domestic service cousins (who, I might say, include many of the TV correspondents working abroad) don't always succeed in rising above political or cultural prejudice or assumption. (Nor, regrettably, can you rule out simple incompetence or the pressures of the 24/7 news cycle.) If there were any attempt by the government to interfere in programme content, the journalists would have had something to say about it.

Can I prove this to you? I doubt it, I'm speaking from personal experience, and have no way to communicate that to you. If you were to visit the World Service headquarters at Bush House and be told the same thing by the journalists there, would you believe them? You'd probably assume they'd been told what to say, even though I know, again from my own experience, that they would reject any such order because of their devotion to principle -- which is not the sole prerogative of JihadWatch. You may choose not to accept my word, but if you do, you'll continue to labour under a misapprehension.

Incidentally, John Simpson is the BBC World Affairs Editor. In that role he is a senior correspondent based with the domestic BBC's news and current affairs operation. He has no "control" over the BBC World Service, although it and its television sister BBC World do use his material.

Regards.

There are also sacred terms for these groups such as "occupation" and "resistance." I have to laugh when Muslims and certain apologist groups paint "occupation" to be the greatest sin that could ever be committed, while routinely celebrating the 800 year occupation of Spain.

"I just made a complaint to the BBC for apologising ..." Demvaril.

So have I, there is a simple form for formal complaints on the page linked to in the article. I just posted this, though I doubt much will come from it:

"I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms at the ECU ruling on 12 June 2007 regarding Football Focus on BBC One, which apologised that a reporter had referred to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and indicating that this was an error.

The reporter’s statement was NOT an error: Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. The Government of Israel says that it is, and it is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court. Numerous reference sources such as Wikipedia confirm this.

I am of course aware that Jerusalem being the capital of Israel is controversial amongst some Arabs, but that does not change the facts, and it is absolutely outrageous that the BBC should apologise for making a factually correct statement, and then pretending that it is an error."

I'm surprised that the BBC actually let this slip through in the first place. It's probably the first correct thing they've said about Israel.

As a side note : Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan are all occupied countries. The Muslims occupied them quite forcefully many years ago. When will we see a return of these countries to the Byzantine Christians? Muslims need to return parts of Turkish to Armenia. Turkey should then make reparations for butchering Armenia Christians and forcing others to convert to Islam. How quickly we forget.

Yea, dem dar uneducated folk, they's a real hoot, eh stranger? (or uh-oh am I being too coherent here?) Oh, dear, I couldn't help myself. But, seriously, I don't think English is your native tongue, Stranger. Please do tell me that you've been "educated" in the UK and you've decided to come to the defense of your British compatriots (that would include the little schmegelah/faygelah fellow)..is that it?

Wordcraftsman wrote:
"Notwithstanding perceived or actual examples of bias, BBC World Service journalists do strive very hard for objectivity "

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Who should I believe, you, or my lying eyes?

Ofcourse Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but that does not legally include East Jerusalem, since
it is part of the occupied territories.That is why
BBC apologized.

Posted by: stranger83

So they built their capitol in a foriegn land?

Yes, root_cause, I vividly recall seeing an "interview" between Katy Kay (I wonder what her middle name is? probably begins with another K, thus, I think of her as the KKKer) and Hooper (the CAIR spokesman and convert to Islam). This was a number of years ago -- but during the interview, they were nodding and smiling and grinning from ear to ear, and the KKKer would lap up every word -- thoroughly enraptured. The conversation would go on for at a full five minutes (if not longer). I have to laugh, such a reception was not (o surprise!) given to any spokesperson from the State of Israel (and, didn't matter how much of a pacifist or from what political party) -- you could see the scowls and the frowns and the grimaces and the sharp retorts by the KKKer...the "interviews" were viscerally hostile. The KKKer obviously preferred interviewing Muslims (especially the murderous terrorist types) and detested any interview with Israelis, Americans, or any non-Muslim westerner.

their journalist is still being held captive and they never mentioned the execution of the fatah government workers. shame on the bbc. boycott them.

WBUR keeps telling everyone that it offers a genuine "diversity" of views -- it runs all the way from Kerry to Dean and back.

Thanks Hugh, excellent post.

I'm so sick of hearing a "diversity" of views-I just want the damn truth.

Is that the Broadcasting Brains Committee? What a mistake! plez. . . . .lol.. i'm luminous too! can't see my shadow. . . .we all know the capital it is.. hint I cry like a baby. .....not GAZA! ..

“Fortunately, Hugh, you're quite wrong in asserting that the British Foreign Office controls the BBC World Service. It is true that the service is funded by a Foreign Office "grant-in-aid", but this emphatically does not translate into control or influence over programming. Speaking as someone with many years' close involvement (all in the past now) with the World Service news and current affairs operation, I can tell you that the Foreign Office has NO effect on the editorial output. None. In senior operational positions, I never received or even heard of any instruction or opinion concerning content coming from the Foreign Office, nor was ever ordered to add or omit or slant anything because of what the Foreign Office did or did not want. (Indeed, in a long journalistic career I have never received any instruction from anyone to slant anything.)
Notwithstanding perceived or actual examples of bias, BBC World Service journalists do strive very hard for objectivity…
-- from a poster above
A poster above descirbes what he assures us is his long experience with the BBC World Service, his deep familiarity with its workings (how high was he? Who did he know?) that the Foreign Office has, despite being the funder of the BBC Service, no “control” and not even any “influence” over what the BBC World Service does.

Let's start with the idea that the Foreign Office is itself a perfectly objective promoter of British interests, rightly conceived, in the Middle East. The "Arabist" view of the Middle East, one which has long characteized the Foreign Office (and the State Department, come to think of it, at least since the days of Loy Hendreson), starts with a general contempt for the wogs who more or less begin at Calais, but mingled with that contempt there are two countervailing forces: the romance of the desert, whether emblemizaed by Freya Stark in the Hadramaut, or Capt. Shakespear in Arabia, or later Wilfred Thesiger crossing the Empty Quarter. And along with the vast desert spaces and sky above (fill in here, printer, the apostrophes to that Arabian sky ad libitum), there is the denizen of that desert, ringing the changes on Rousseau, that leathery-skinned bedouin, with his noble Arabian horse, or the noble camel, and possibly even hawk on hand (fill in the details here, again ad libitum).

The attitude of many of those who served in the administration of the Mandate for Palestine, and who at every step refused to fulfill the solemn terms of that Mandate, with its palpable antisemitism, merely reflected that of the Foreign Office and, of course, not a few who held power in England.

As Mandatory power, Great Britain had solemnly committed itself both to facilitating "Jewish immigration" into Mandatory Palestine and "encouraging close Jewish settlement on the land." The British did neither. With a few honorable exceptions -- Wyndham Deedes in London, John Henry Patterson, Col. Meinertzhagen (one of whose ruses played such an important role in misleading the Turks about British intentions, and formed the model for the later "Man-Who-Never-Was" trick on the Germans of Ewen Montagu), and of course the incomporable Orde Wingate, there was almost a total lack of sympathy for the Jews who found their sole refuge, through the 30s, in Mandatory Palestine, which was essentially sealed off toward the end of that decade. How many Jews might have been saved had Mandatory Palestine been open to them? The ports of Rumania remained unfrozen year round, and were open through the war -- how many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even a million, might have been saved if Great Britian had simply lived up to, had tried to fulfill, the express terms of the Mandate?

Part of the problem can be located in what recent scholarship has identified as one important impetus to Empire: the role of the colonial lands as places where middle-class or even lower-class Englishmen could enjoy a distinct rise in status and power. The Empire as theatre found, in Mandatory Palestine, the same identified by recent scholars of the Empire as theatre: the middle-class that became upper class in the , and that had in fact lived up to the tersm could have made it alive to what was, after all, supposed to be open to them by the express terms of the Mandate?)), and did not freeze over in winter) so many of whom who were so impressed with the local color of Arab notables (those Nashashibis and Husseinis), and so repelled by those Jews from Eastern Europe who offered no local color, but instead were in some cases suspiciously egalitarian (read: Bolshevik) (we're not talking about the days of Sir Reader Bullard, are we?) to see Islam as a permanent problem and, instead, to find all kinds of nice things, from the splendid chaps of the Arab Legion whom Glubb Pasha and Alec Kirkbride trained (and that attitude was on view at the memorial service for King Hussein, with Prince Charles and others mightily impressed with the plucky little king, the Good Arab, Our Sort, full of long-in-the-tooth Lawrentian nonsense, as if Richard Aldington had never put paid to the mythomane's nonsense)of things at the Foreign Office is fairly clear -- ask J. B. Kelly, ask Bernard Lewis, ask P. J. Vatikiotis, ask -- if she is still alive -- A. K. S. Lambton, ask the ghost of Elie Kedourie if it can be found.

Now we are asked to believe that the Foreign Office has “no control” and “no influence” over the BBC World Service which it funds. But how does the poster know this? He would have to be at the very top of the heap, to know whether or not this was true. And what does he mean by “control” or “influence”? It is not a question of a list of topics to be covered, or not covered. It is enough to give an idea of what the Foreign Office would want.

Let’s offer a hypothetical. Does he think that if some people high up in the BBC wanted in the period 1967-1971 to critically analyze the recent appearance, and the content, of the phrase “the Palestinian people,” if the BBC had bothered to point out that not once did any Arab diplomat or spokesman use the phrase prior to 1967, and that it was a bit strange to refer in North Africa to “Arabs and Berbers” and strange to refer, in Iraq, to “Arabs and Kurds” but then, when it came to exactly one place, Israel and the territories that were by the terms of the mandate to have been part of the territory specifically allocated for the Mandate for Palestine, that is for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, and that were not won in the war of 1948-49 but were won in the war of June 1967, to speak and write not of “Arabs and Jews” (on the model of “Arabs and Berbers” and “Arabs and Kurds”) but of “Jews (or Israelis) and ‘Palestinians’.” Now suppose the BBC World Service had wanted to do this, malgre the wishes of the Foreing Office and its long-established policy, grown still more self-defeating and dangerous to Great Britain with time,, of appeasement of the Arabs.

Is it your contention that the BBC World Service could have done so, and there would have been not a peep from the Foreign Office? Do you really think that when one mentions getting direction from the Foreign Office, or being greatly “influenced” by the Foreign Office, actual written commands are necessary? Don’t’ be silly.

And what if, some thirty years ago, the BBC World Service had begun to discuss the looming energy crisis. What if it had had programs not only about the need, at once, to start through high taxes to wean the oil-consuming world off of oil? What if that infuriated Saudi Arabia, as it no doubt would, and that the Saudis, who can get away with murder (see the BAE scandal, and the miscarriage or rather suppression of British justice, and the accompanying clumsy attempt at insabbiamento, or covering up)? Do you think the World Service would have dared to carry such a program?

One more example. Do you think the coverage of Islam, the understanding of the tenets of Islam, of the canonical texts of Islam – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been furthered at all by the BBC World Service? Has the BBC World Service gone into those texts? Has it ever mentioned the Calcutta Qur’an Petition? Has there been any coverage of the persecution and murder of Hindus, over the past thirty-five years, in Bangladesh and Pakistan itself? Any coverage of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits pushed out of Kashmir by the Muslims? How good has the coverage been, on the BBC, of Muslim attacks on Christians in Pakistan? In the Moluccas? What, of the information carefully collected by the Barnabas Fund on the persecution, and murder, of Christians in Muslim countries, has made it onto the BBC World Service? And do you think, that if it did, a country whose political class is both beholden, in many cases, financially to the Saudis and other rich Arabs (for god’s sake, everyone knows this, and everyone knows who is doing it), would have a Foreign Office that would for one second allow any home truths to be told about Islam?

You know perfectly well that the BBC employs a huge number of Muslims. You know perfectly well that they watch like a hawk their colleagues, and monitor the programs. You know perfectly well that many of their colleagues are afraid to get on the wrong side of them, and that those colleagues, in any case, are not representative of every point of view, but rather a very limited group, raised on The Guardian and at times The Independent, prepared to believe Robert Fisk and his ilk, and completely unaware of the context of Islam that makes the permanent war against Israel, a Lesser Jihad that has received exaggerated attention, attention that has done nothing to enlighten Western audiences either about the fact that the conflict admits of no solution because Israel as an Infidel state, especially as an Infidel state on land once part of Dar al-Islam, simply in the end must go, and the only quarrel nowadays is between the Slow Jihadists, who want to use diplomacy, and as much economic pressure and intermittent terrorism as they can get away with, to push Israel back into a condition of maximum insecurity, and then cause it to disappear, and the Fast Jihadists, who want the military assault now, and also are less corrupt than the Slow Jihadists (Hamas is less corrupt than Fatah), and so are less keen to have the tap of foreign aid from Infidels, that disguised Jizyah, turned on again if it means uttering a few meaningless phrases to satisfy those Infidel governments, straining tat the bit to turn that tap on themselves.

This steady stillicide of venom directed at Israel has had its effect, and is having it still. Anti-Israel feeling, and antisemitism of the most recognizable and deadly kind, feed off each other and are mutually reinforcing. The BBC’s role in the demonization of Israel, in the cruel misrepresentation or ignoring of its case, in its legal, historic, and moral aspects, is unforgivable, and should not be forgiven.

And there is a consequence not only for Israel, but for Great Britain itself. Had the BBC long ago begun to present the war on Israel as being prompted by the tenets of Islam, had it begun long ago to study Islam and its inculcated division of the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, with a permanent state of war (but not necessarily warfare) existing between the two, had it not with such alacrity taken up the “Palestinian people” theme, and developed it, as the Arabs wished, into this absurd “two tiny peoples, each struggling for their homeland” business when it has always been a case of the vast Arab people, and not only the Arabs but most of the Muslims (a few exceptions were Kemalist Turkey, where Islam was constrained, and Iran under the “secular” Shah – and many Turks and Persians have, historically, despised the Arabs and wished to distinguish themselves from them, not having themselves in the eyes of the world be identified with them), had it done all this, it is possible that thirty years ago, when there was still time, the invasion of Great Britain by Pakistani and other Muslims might have been halted, might never have reached the dangerous proportions it has reached. The ruling classes in Great Britain romanticized the desert Arabs (those Bedouin) and the Good Arabs (plucky little King Hussein of Jordan), and never acquired either the understanding, or the sympathy, that they should have had with their fellow non-Muslims, the representatives of advanced Western society, the Jews of Israel.

And what this did is harm Israel, and keep the British public unwary for too long, about the nature, and menace, of Islam. And the BBC World Service, and the BBC itself, are still in the hands of people such as John Simpson – and I note you take no issue with the factes I have presented about Simpson’s appalling enthusiasm for the antisemitic conspiracy-novel “The Cyanide Conspiracy,” nor do you take issue with the others mentioned, the ready tear of Barbara Plett, the nonstop pro-PLO propoaganda of Orla Guerin, and tutti quanti.

Finally, anyone who assures us that “Notwithstanding perceived or actual examples of bias, BBC World Service journalists do strive very hard for objectivity” is someone I refuse to take seriously. Yours !”

Marching orders are not necessary for the BBC World Service. Its ruling class need only understand what it is that the Foreign Office, in such a matter as the Arab war on Israel, or on the matter of Islam, and to make sure that it does nothing to contradict that unstated but clear party line. And of course when such people with the worldview of John Simpson, or Barbara Plett, or Orla Guerin, or a hundred others, are hired, people who already are all over Bush House and all share, to one degree or another, the same views, force-fed them by certain newspapers (The Guardian, The Indpendent), and they all think what one another think, and in the pre-existing mental pathologies that not all, but so many of them share, the two most important are a genteel anti-Americanism and a not-so-genteel antisemitism that finds what some allow themselves to believe is a socially acceptable, immune-to-criticism outlet in a vicious miscomprehension and misrepresentation of Israel (the Poet Laureate of this group is Tom Paulin, and along with The Guardian and The Independent the London Review of Books places a secondary role. No real analysis of the history of the Middle East, of the history of the Jews in that Middle East, of the history of the way in which Islam appropriated not only the stories and main figures in the two prior monotheisms, but staked a claim to the city holy to both those faiths in an act not of religious but rather political or geopolitical triumphalism, no attention paid to what the League of Nations thought it was doing, intended to do, when it planned four mandates – one of the Arabs, one for the Kurds, one for the Armenians, and one for the Jews – and how the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate for Palestine, the Jews, were betrayed from the get-go by the Great-Power maneuvering, and cruel indifference to the rights, and the fate of the Jews, by the Mandatory Authority, Great Britain.

As promoters and defenders of Mulims and of Arabs, the BBC World Service has done damage to others aside from the Israelis and, given the reinforcement of antisemitism by anti-Israel views, to Jews elsewhere. It has been largely indifferent to the Berbers of North Africa, or to the Kurds of Iraq. During the Lebanese Civil War, the BBC formulaically employed the epithet “right-wing” before the word “Christian” so that its listeners never understood what Lebanon was, as a refuge over 1350 years, for Christians, especially the indigenous Maronites who were established before the Arabs arrived with Islam. The BBC has never shown an interest in, or sympathy for, any non-Arab Muslim, or non-Muslim people – and there are many – in what that same BBC describes, quite incorrectly, as the “Arab World.” That the Middle East and North Africa were, after World War II, thought of as “the Arab World” is a tribute to the propagandists of Aramco (see J. B. Kelly’s celebrated article,, “Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies,” in the July 1979 Encounter). It is not something that the BBC, much less any government, ought to have picked up and repeated.

The BBC, and the BBC World Service, have a lot to answer for.

And anyone who assures us that “Notwithstanding perceived or actual examples of bias, BBC World Service journalists do strive very hard for objectivity” is not someone, after all that I have heard spouting from BBC speakers and speakerines, whom I would trust on the subject.

And I don’t.

If this keeps us, London won't be the capital of anything either.

Except al-Britistan.

One more example. Do you think the coverage of Islam, the understanding of the tenets of Islam, of the canonical texts of Islam – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been furthered at all by the BBC World Service? Has the BBC World Service gone into those texts? Has it ever mentioned the Calcutta Qur’an Petition? Has there been any coverage of the persecution and murder of Hindus, over the past thirty-five years, in Bangladesh and Pakistan itself?

I remember in 1989 or 1990 - I forget which - when the BBC world service had a series of programs on different religions. For the represenative on Islam, they picked Prince Hassan of Jordan, and as expected, he went on to paint a very sanitized version of Islam: what was the funniest was his being from the line of Muhammad as being the criteria for making him the spokesman, of all people. [For the Hindus (note that this was when the Ayodhya movement was gaining steam), they picked a follower of Gandhi as the representative - although Hinduism as a religion was completely independent of Gandhi, whatever his influence might have been on Indian politics. Mark Tully was an advocate of the Gandhis - listening to his reports wasn't much different from following state controled Indian TV at the time.]

The BBC apologises for being the Dhimmi, PC, leftwing, treehugging, moonbat, anti-semitic organisation that it is? Nope oh! well we can always hope.

I have been trying for years to post a critique of Palestine and palestinians on the BBC's 'have your say'site. Needless to say if you dont follow the BBC line that everything the Palestinians do is justified by their 'so called' occupation and 'refugee status' then you have no chance of getting passed by the moderators. They accept very mild criticisms but do not dare to attack the basic premise of Palestinaian occupation or you have no chance and dont even think to point out that the Arabs (palestinians) are themselves occupiers because we all know history only starts with the INVENTION by Mohammed of the cult of islam.

And only today I recieved another threatening letter stating that the T.V. licensing authority is planning to prosecute me for non payment of my license(basically and extortion tax every single householder in the U.K. is oblidged by law to pay)

I'm risking a £1000 fine by exercising what I see as my freedom of speech and choice.

I will NOT and will NEVER give theses goobers a penny of my cash.
They have made it clear to every sane person living in this once sceptered that they are with the enemy.
This piece of abject dhimmitude says it all really.

Boycott the BBC...stop funding the terrorist sympathisers.

Hugh: though perhaps lacking your literary skills and encyclopaedic knowledge, let me restate the point. The British Foreign Office does not influence or control BBC World Service editorial staff. You appear to believe that the journalists involved in providing the news and current affairs programmes always have at the back of their minds what the Foreign Office might or might not want them to say or not say, or whether they should slant coverage in whatever direction.

This simply does not occur. Over many years within the BBC World Service, I never experienced or heard of such a thing. Neither did I see BBC management attempt by instruction, suggestion or innuendo to shape coverage to suit what the Foreign Office might wish or not wish. It was just not a factor.

I repeat too: my experience was that the Bush House journalists strove for objectivity. Were any of them influenced by particular political mindsets? Perhaps some were, though I would say to a lesser degree than I think you would assert. In an ideal world, of course, this would not happen at all. Given the seriousness of the issues involved, the highest standards are crucial.

Did I encounter misunderstandings, incompetence, bias? Yes, sometimes, as in any organisation, and I tried to do something about them. That's what a rigorous editorial process is supposed to comprise. Was I always successful? Regrettably, no. There are certainly issues which in my opinion the BBC needs to address. But this needs to be seen in the context of consistent and strenuous efforts to get things right.

To sum up, the BBC World Service is far from being a perfect organisation. But in my experience, your allegation about Foreign Office influence and control is wrong.

Check out this link for some cock-a-hoop Muslims at the BBC's cave-in to MPAC.

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?s=dd59905f72851f6608a2fe1d68f1f180&t=27610

Money talks and what the BBC says with it flows like Sewage.

There is a better understanding of what is going on by taking the opposite view of those expressed by the BBC.

At the BBC the facts are a little light and out of place but the creative writing is excellent.

Bamboozlement at its finest.

Would it not be foolish to surmise that the FOREIGN OFFICE , perhaps the world masters of disinformation and subversion would be naive eneogh to reveal any links it may have in using the BBC as an instrument of propaganda for its polcies so that they might be reqdily accepted by the British public.
Heads would roll if such errors were made.
it is fairly obvious that a massive turnaround in policy had taken place in the corridors of power after the Balfour declaration and that the creation of an ISRAELI state was something that had to be avoided and the British worked to that end right up until 1948. It was something that the British worked very hard to achieve nut the strangulation of the foetus failed and after the war new methods had to be sought out.
However there was one huge impediment, namely the immense public support reinforced by the revelations of the NAZI hOLOCAUST.
public opinion especially amongst the left was extremely supportive for the nascient democracy.
Leftist students went on holidays to the kibbutz and returned full of praise for the socialism.
Of course in a democracy, Governments have to listen to public opinion, an impediment that the Russian leaders were not subjected to resulting in their early anti israel policies.
For Britain and europe, the demonisation of Israel and to take far more subtle courses and the British took a leaf out of the communists propagandists who had targetes british universities. Israel had to lose its status of victimhood otherwise it could do no wrong and this was achieved by inventing the Palestinians and bestowing on them the victimhood that The Holocaust and the expulsions from ARAB STATES had created for the jews.
The BBC recruited its journalists frpm the very universities that had been subverted by the Arab propagandists and hence by the 1980s the deed was done via a third party and the FO would have been rubbing their hands with glee that the BBC was following their pro arabist policies without any trace of direct intervention.
This is surely Gramscian politics at its finest.
The manipuLAtions that the BBC indulges in in reportin Israeli/PALESTINIAN events are worthy of the most subtle John le Carre novels amd indeed would greatly enrich a university course in journalistic technoques of propaganda.
There is no better website to understand how the BBC misleads its audiences than Biased BBC site were analytical minds dissect and expose ME reports daily.