BBC Omits Palestinian Rejectionism

[Teddy Bear]

The ridiculous lies and distortions spouted by the 'vocal' Muslim world is so commonplace, that I think we have tended to become inured to it. But still it shows what kind of reality they would like to have believed, and for what purpose, and for that reason should be reported even if to pour scorn on it.

When you know somebody is lying, then it's easy to see what they hope to achieve by it. What we have seen time and time again by the BBC with Muslim claims is that they tend to report their version of events as fact.

Robin Shepherd writes about 2 'goings on' by the Palestinians that is being ignored by the BBC, yet has complete significance to understanding what is really going on within this conflict. Even Yahoo News reports on one of them. We will see how they eventually report it, if ever. A link to one of the comments on Robin's site details how the BBC knew about the Holocaust a long time before they reported it.

Bias by deliberate omission: BBC censorship of Palestinian rejectionism continues unabated

Two items of fundamental importance to understanding Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians have come to light this week, and both have been completely ignored by the BBC’s news teams. The first is the comprehensive survey of Palestinian public opinion showing that a solid majority of Palestinians view a two-state solution to the conflict as a mere stepping stone on the way to destroying Israel and taking “back all the land for a Palestinian state” ruled by Islamic law.

The second (see this article in today’s Jerusalem Post) is a “study” approved by the Palestinian Authority which denies that the Western Wall in Jerusalem has anything to do with Judaism and the Jews and is in fact the western wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

It is, of course, simply impossible to understand Israeli doubts about Palestinian sincerity in forging a lasting peace unless one knows such things.

If dominant opinion in Palestinian society has no intention of forging such a lasting peace and aims to use a two-state solution as nothing more than a first move in a two-stage strategy of annihilating the Jewish state, then why on earth should Israel be expected to make concessions for a deal? If the Palestinian Authority itself is now making the ludicrous claim that the Western Wall was originally a Muslim construction — a claim that would mean an archeological site dated as being more than 2,000 years old is no more than 12-13 hundred years old — then it is clear that it remains mired in the kind of denial about Jewish ties to Jerusalem and the rest of the region which is nothing short of deranged.

Try putting yourself in the Israeli government’s position and telling the Israeli people that potentially dangerous concessions should be made to the Palestinians in the name of a long term peace based on mutual respect which the Palestinians themselves plainly do not believe in.

That changes the complexion of things somewhat, does it not?

And that is why such obviously vital pieces of information have been ignored by the BBC and most of the Western press. It is important to add that these issues have been plastered across the Israeli press, including the English language outlets. In other words, every western correspondent living in Israel is aware of all this. The decision not to publish on them must, therefore, have been deliberate.

That, I’m afraid, meets any reasonable definition of journalistic censorship — the willful omission of crucial information because it would change the way the audience understands what is going on. In this case it would drastically diminish the credibility of the Palestinian position, while simultaneously making it clear to any objective observer that the Palestinians and not the Israelis represent the true obstacle to a lasting peace.

And that, of course, is why the people of Britain and much of the English speaking world have simply not been told.

[Teddy Bear]

It's one thing that the BBC chooses to crawl into bed with the Palestinians, which is really an extension of the larger Muslim world. But by virtue of the power the BBC has in shaping public opinion on the conflicts perpetuated by them, whether against Israel or Western society as a whole, they drag all of us into the same bed.

I've no doubt history will reveal just how evil and insidious an organisation the BBC truly has been during this time, provided of course there is a truthful scrutiny that can be aired in the future, and not an extension of the bullshit propaganda machine evident today.

In the meantime all we can do to try and counter it is to provide the information that is not being made public by the BBC, or that which is being distorted. From that we see the true intent of BBC reporting.

Robin Shepherd shows an additional factor that continues to be ignored by the BBC concerning the Palestinians.

BBC censorship of inconvenient truths about Palestinian rejection of peace reaches farcical proportions

Hard on the heels of a comprehensive opinion survey showing that most Palestinians support a two-state solution only as a stepping stone to a one state solution after Israel has been destroyed, and of a Palestinian Authority report denying any Jewish connection to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, we now have the third emphatic statement of Palestinian rejection of peace and its pre-requisites in under two weeks, this time from the Fatah Revolutionary Council.

Yesterday, the Council stated its implacable opposition to recognising Israel as a Jewish state, as well as to a peace agreement involving land swaps. The first issue is critical; the second important. If Palestinians will not recognise Israel as a Jewish state the conflict cannot come to an end since, as the afore mentioned opinion polls show, Palestinian society will only view any agreement as a temporary measure until the conflict can be resumed on more fabourable terms at a later date. If they reject a priori the possibility of land swaps they are effectively saying there is nothing to talk about on border questions, in which case what is the point of negotiations in the first place?

The Jerusalem Post quoted an Israeli government official as saying the following in response to the Fatah announcement: “I would ask the Palestinians the following question: If the Jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate in your eyes, what sort of peace are you offering us? “It is clear that their refusal to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy is the true obstacle to peace and reconciliation.” Indeed so. It is crystal clear. But only to those people who are aware of the facts. So let’s have a look at how these vitally important pieces of information have been reported on by the BBC.

That, of course, was a joke. Neither the opinion poll, nor the PA report denying Jerusalem’s Jewish character nor the resolutions of the Fatah Council have been reported on at all. Now think about that for a moment. Here you have the building blocks of an immensely convincing argument that the core problem in this conflict is with the Palestinians and not with the Israelis. As the whole world is pressing the two sides towards peace talks, we have clear evidence that one of those sides is putting up insurmountable obstacles to a successful outcome. In other words, it’s obviously news worthy. If anything along such lines had been reported from the Israeli side there is no question whatsoever that it would have received saturation coverage, and rightly so.

But since the evidence casts the Palestinians in a less than flattering light, it is totally ignored. The British public, and the BBC’s tens of millions of viewers, readers and listeners around the world, are just not getting the information they need on this conflict to form a rounded judgement. It is deliberate censorship.

I know I have said all this before. But it consistently bears repeating since the role of the media, and particularly the ubiquitous BBC, in public perceptions about Israel and Palestinians is clearly vital. When it comes to this conflict the prejudices against one party, namely Israel, are so deeply entrenched that what emerges is much less like traditional journalism than the agitprop of political activism.

The BBC needs to be made aware that this is against their own charter and also makes a mockery of a once great institution’s claim to be taken seriously. In the meantime just pass stories like this around to as many people as you can. If an appeal to basic journalistic standards won’t make them mend their ways, perhaps an appeal to their sense of shame will. It’s always worth a try.

[Teddy Bear]

The glaringly obvious evasion by the BBC to report about the Palestinian denial of the Western Wall as one of the most important remains for Jews is daily becoming more evident.

Just to put the relevance of this story into context, bear in mind that EVERY synagogue built ANYWHERE in the world faces Jerusalem. This didn't just start happening in the last 60 years as a result of the conflict in this area, but has been going on for over 2000 years since the Jews were dispersed from the area by the Romans. Even the BBC in its Learning Zone Clips has one that illustrates The importance of Jerusalem for Jews, and states why the Western Wall has particular significance.

Contrast this with the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran, yet appears in the bible 767 times. So how ludicrous is it for anyone to claim that the Western Wall has no real significance for Jews, and more importantly, what would it say about the intent of their claim? To any intelligent person, it more de-legitimises those making the claim, which is precisely why the BBC don't mention it.

Reuters, on the other hand, have run 2 articles on the subject, one covering US reaction to the PA's statement, and the other by the Israelis.. They also make clear in the article that ..the Palestinian position paper on the Western Wall "raises a very serious question" as to whether the Palestinian Authority truly intends to reach a peace agreement with Israel "based on co-existence and mutual recognition."

[steevo]

Teddy, I think you should rename this site: Agenda-Driven BBC. Its time has long since past.

[Teddy Bear]

I'm sure your suggestion was tongue in cheek Steevo. Naturally I expect most reading the particular biases repeatedly engaged by the BBC to figure their 'agenda' out for themselves - and to decide really how positive they consider it to be.

I see that as a result of the negative reaction the PA did receive by it's Western Wall denial, no thanks to the BBC, they have now removed this claim from their website. Just imagine how much less bullshit and conflicts might be going on in the world if the media would present the underlying themes properly - with the values of our society as its central theme.

[steevo]

You mean for example like trying to imagine how efforts would have progressed if the folks infiltrating into Iraq to blow up cars in large crowds were not inferred, implied or outright called “freedom fighters”?

[Teddy Bear]

The term would have been okay if the correct inference would have been fighters AGAINST freedom, instead of for it.