BBC Bias on Palestinian Statehood UN Bid

[Teddy Bear]

When the Palestinians first declared their intent to request recognition as a state through the UN I knew the implications and understood their real agenda in doing so. I also knew how much effort the BBC would exert to champion their cause, despite the complete immorality of the Palestinians actions. I also know that this will continue to be a major theme here over the next weeks as it plays out.

Robin Shepherd writing in The Commentator has brilliantly outlined the main points relevant to this upcoming event, and I'm posting it here first to give any reader here those points to more readily understand how distorted the BBC is in the way they present it. Anybody not convinced of the facts as laid out by Robin, feel free to express it here with your own perceptions BASED ON FACTS.

Otherwise use this article as the basis to judge BBC output.

Guardian group leads UK charge on reckless Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood at the UN

No mainstream media outfit in the Western world has been more hostile to Israel than the Guardian group. On Sunday it ramped up the vitriol yet again. Stupidity or bigotry? Take your pick.

On Friday this coming week, the Palestinian leadership will ask the United Nations Security Council for recognition of a Palestinian state on the basis of 1967 borders which are entirely indefensible for the State of Israel.

Anyone but a fool can see that this is a blatant attempt to avoid direct negotiations with Israel so as to obviate the need for the kind of concessions that meaningful negotiations always entail.

And anyone but a bone-headed imbecile or an implacable anti-Zionist can see that the whole enterprise is fraught with extreme dangers both for Israel itself and for the peace and stability of the entire region.

The move at the Security Council will fail due to the promised American veto. It will then move to the UN General Assembly where the inbuilt anti-Israeli majority will ensure that it passes, granting symbolic (though not legal) recognition to a Palestinian state entirely on Palestinian terms.

Israel will have no choice but to ignore it. But the consequences could still be dire. That symbolic recognition is an obvious gift to every violent anti-Semitic bigot in the region, and the region is jam packed full of them as all the available evidence shows.

It is a gift to Bashar al-Assad in Syria who has already tried to use the Palestinian cause as a diversion from the appalling repression he is visiting on his own people.

It is a gift to Hezbollah who, having rearmed following the 2006 Lebanon conflict, can be activated by their masters in Tehran at any moment.

It is a gift to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt ahead of the country’s elections.

It is a gift to the men of violence in Fatah, the supposedly “moderate” Palestinian faction which consistently names public squares after terrorists and which could all too easily use it as justification for a third Intifada.

In short it is a gift to anyone looking for a rallying cry against Israel.

So, here comes an editorial in the Observer, sister paper on Sunday to the Guardian, with all guns blazing in support of the Palestinian move.

“The idea of a Palestinian state should be uncontroversial,” the paper says.

With one exception, that’s right. Britain supports a Palestinian state. So does the US. So does the EU. In fact, so does Israel.

But here’s the problem, a problem which forms the absolute root cause of this entire conflict. There is one party to this dispute that most emphatically does not support a Palestinian state, if that means long-term acceptance of the State of Israel: the Palestinians themselves.

If you watch the BBC or read the Guardian you obviously won’t be aware of this, but opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say).

As I noted in an article in May, a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”.

Two thirds supported the proposition that: “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state”. And 71 percent said Yasser Arafat was right to reject Bill Clinton’s two-state peace proposals in 2000 and 2001.

In other words, the Israelis have always been in the near impossible situation of being asked to negotiate with people who plainly don’t want any long term peace involving the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate state with a secure future, whatever their leaders say about recognising Israel to gullible Western media.

But this is how the Observer characterises matters. Referring to the alternative to the UN vote – Israel’s call for a return to the negotiating table – it talks of “a moribund peace process, which Israel has done its best to smother under the obstructionist leadership of Binyamin Netanyahu.

“Equally contentious is the claim by some supporters of Israel that in seeking their own state through the declaration of the international community rather than direct talks, Palestinians are seeking to "delegitimise" Israel.”

It’s difficult to know whether to laugh or cry. It’s not that this move seeks to “deligitimise” Israel as some sort of new departure. The core issue is that the Palestinians have never recognised the legitimacy of Israel and have never prepared their people for a lasting peace.

Israel – as the paper somewhat absurdly acknowledges without drawing the obvious conclusion – accepted a two state solution as far back as 1947 in the form of the UN partition plan, while the Palestinian/Arab side rejected it.

The Jewish state was also ready for a two-state solution under the afore-mentioned Clinton formula just over a decade ago. Again, the Palestinians rejected it.

I could go on, and on. But, in the end there is a significant constituency in the Western media and the wider political intelligentsia that is simply inaccessible to reason on this issue.

It is important, of course, to keep confronting them. But the real targets must be above, below and around them – the political and diplomatic classes above; the broader public below; and the more reasonable sections of the media around them.

This week will in all likelihood end up with yet another shameful anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations.

Britain and our allies in NATO and the EU should now make it clear that they, at least, will not be a part of it and will oppose this reckless move with all the power and influence at their disposal.

One more thing to bear in mind by the Palestinian bid, and understand the corruption involved, both by our media as well as the UN itself, is this:
UN Resolution 242, which NATO and the EU have signed up to: - Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel must be given secure and defensible boundaries and the Palestinians and other Middle East governments must fully sign up to agree the state of Israel has a right to peaceful existence.

Now you know what the Palestinians are trying to avoid as a prerequisite to getting their 'statehood'.

Below are some of the articles that the BBC already run about the subject.

[Teddy Bear]

For a change, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions - feel free to comment.

Palestinian statehood: Abbas to seek full UN membership

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said he will apply to the UN Security Council for full UN membership of a Palestinian state.

He said full UN status was a legitimate right for the Palestinian people. The address comes before a meeting of the UN General Assembly next week.

Mr Abbas's move sets up a confrontation with Israel, which sees the initiative as an attempt to isolate it.

Washington is also opposed, saying it will use its veto.

US officials urged the two sides to return to the negotiating table whatever happened in New York.

The Palestinian leader said he wanted recognition as a state within 1967 borders.

This includes the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip.

All of these areas were occupied by Israel in 1967.

Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005, but is still in control of its airspace and coastline.

Analysis - Yolande Knell BBC News, Jerusalem

This speech ticked all the right boxes - dealing with Palestinian fears and Israeli criticisms. It also spelt out a clear strategy - the Palestinians will seek full membership of the UN via the Security Council, despite US opposition.

There have been questions over the effect any UN bid could have on the Palestine Liberation Organisation - and its ability to represent all Palestinians. Mr Abbas insisted its status would not be affected. He repeatedly mentioned refugees and the diaspora. At the same time Palestinians were told to keep matters peaceful and warned they were facing "a difficult mission… not a joy-ride."

Israeli arguments that the UN bid is "unilateral" and will prevent a return to negotiations on core issues were roundly dealt with.

President Abbas is not always a good public speaker but in this 30-minute address he appeared composed and relaxed, even making some humorous asides.

'Dead end'
Mr Abbas chose the bid for full membership over the less controversial option of asking the UN General Assembly to upgrade Palestinian status from observing entity to non-member.

If statehood is rejected the Palestinian Authority could still pursue this option.

Mr Abbas said more than 126 countries had now recognised Palestine as a state, and his people had run out of patience.

"Our sincere and continuing efforts to achieve through negotiations and resolution that will put an end to occupation and emerge as an independent Palestinian state has reached an impasse, a dead end," he said.

"We are going to the United Nations to request our legitimate right, obtaining full membership for Palestine in this organisation," he added.

He said that he would seek a vote on the issue in the Security Council, a move which is likely to result in a US veto.

The BBC's Jon Donnison, in Ramallah on the West Bank, says the veto could inflame Arab opinion at a time of huge upheaval in the Middle East.

But Mr Abbas also aimed to play down expectations, our correspondent says, adding that the move would not end Israel's occupation.

He urged Palestinians to remain peaceful, saying violence would harm the Palestinian cause, and he stressed the UN move was not a substitute for negotiations.

"We are not heading there to delegitimise Israel, no one can do this, it is a state with full membership at the UN," he said. "We want to delegitimise the Israeli occupation and its measures on our territories."

Financial sanctions
Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said there would be no official Israeli response to the speech.

But earlier in the day he said the Palestinian move would damage the prospects for peace, adding that the path to peace lay through direct negotiations in Ramallah and Jerusalem and not through the UN.

Israeli government ministers have threatened retaliation, including potentially damaging financial sanctions.

Israel sees the statehood initiative as an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.

Meanwhile correspondents say White House officials are still unsure what course the Palestinians would take at the UN.

"Whatever happens at the United Nations, there's going to have to be a process to get these two parties back to the table when we get beyond next week," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, quoted by the Associated Press.

The Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, said Mr Abbas' move was unilateral and "carried great risks".

There has been an intense round of diplomacy focused both on the UN meeting next week and on trying to revive stalled peace talks.

US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Middle East envoy Tony Blair are all in the region.

Earlier on Friday, Palestinians threw stones at Israeli security forces near the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh. The Israelis fired tear gas.

There were more protests in the West Bank village of Walaje.

[Teddy Bear]

And this - notice by only focussing on the Palestinian views they avoid having to outline the Israeli ones:

West Bank residents split on Palestinian statehood bid
By Yolande Knell
BBC News, Jerusalem

Palestinians in the West Bank are generally in favour of their leaders' attempt to get recognition for an independent Palestine at the United Nations.

But where they live, and their particular daily experience of Israel's occupation of the territory, significantly affects their views on the initiative.

In al-Manara Square in central Ramallah, people are overwhelmingly positive.

This is part of the occupied West Bank known as "Area A", meaning it is under control of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

"I support the PA, they are trying to bring our freedom from the UN," says a middle-aged man, Ziad. "They are asking the international community to recognise our rights".

"I encourage everyone who's responsible to take a step towards it". "Why not? As a symbol I would be very glad about it," says Leila, a young mother heading to the supermarket.

In the city it is easy to imagine what a future Palestinian state might look like.

Palestinian police officers direct traffic on the newly cleaned streets and the shops and restaurants are packed.

It lends a sense of relative prosperity and security.

"There's still more to do be done in terms of services and infrastructure but the economy has grown and security has improved a lot in the past few years," says a Ramallah resident, Hussein.

As two decades of peace talks have failed to secure a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian officials insist the time is right to ask the UN to grant full membership to an independent state of Palestine.

They want recognition on pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as their capital.

A survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in the West Bank and Gaza found that 65% favour the UN statehood bid despite warnings from the United States not to pursue it.

Area C
However you do not have to drive far into the West Bank to find Palestinians with serious reservations.

There are signs of Israeli occupation across the West Bank
As you drive along the main roads, red-roofed Jewish settlements line the hilltops, close to Palestinian villages and Israeli flags fly over military bases.

"Everything here has a demolition order. We're close to Carmel [settlement] and the Israelis are in charge here," says Zayd Hathaleen from a small Bedouin community south of Hebron.

"There's no Palestinian Authority, just we have the ID".

The local village, Um al-Khayr is in Area C, which covers 60% of the West Bank.

Here, Israel is fully in control of security, planning and building.

Some 150,000 Palestinians live in this zone, which was designated after the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Mr Hathaleen says it is hard to imagine a Palestinian state here.

"We're under occupation until now and you speak about a state?" he says.

"The Israeli army is everywhere here and the settlers are everywhere - they're armed and they cause a lot of problems and you speak about a state?"

"It's just a speech in the Security Council and that's it," he goes on. "You can speak all you want but on the ground, in actions you can't change anything."

Fears of violence
In another Area C location, in Burin, south of Nablus, Rahma Najar opens the door to her empty barn.

Rahma Najar fears the UN bid will increase tensions with Jewish settlers
"See how the lock is broken, this used to be full of goats," she says.

Mrs Najar has lost many of her animals following clashes with the settlers who live near her family house.

Tensions have been rising again in recent weeks as the Palestinians prepare to go to the UN.

"We're afraid there will be more attacks now," she says.

However her son, Muhammad, hopes the new initiative will give the Palestinians access to international courts that will force the settlers to leave.

Settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

"Going to the United Nations is a positive step if it achieves its goal of a Palestinian state free of outside control," says Muhammad.

"Then we could live under own government in peace and security."

Public meetings have been organised by the PA and civil society figures to try to explain the details of the UN effort and boost public support.

Rallies are planned for the coming weeks.

Yet international law expert, Abdallah Abu Eid, says expectations must be managed or there will be disappointment.

"This is a big danger, a psychological one. We have to tell normal people what are the pros and cons of the issue. They are still confused," he says.

"We can have a big jump towards statehood but a lot of academics are apprehensive of the move - they think it will only be on paper, it will not bring any practical improvement to our legal status."

At this meeting, locals stand as the Palestinian national anthem blares out of the loudspeakers.

"With the longing in my blood for my land and my home have climbed the mountains and fought the wars," go the lyrics.

People here feel a strong sense of national identity and most deeply want their own state but past experiences have taught them to be cautious.

There is this picture included in this article. I notice that Gaza is still shaded as 'occupied since 1967', when in fact it was given to the Palestinians back in 2005. If one accepts that the BBC meant to show that it WAS occupied after 1967, then why isn't Sinai shaded in the same way?



Simple reason - then they'd have to say it was returned AFTER Egypt agreed to a proper peace deal.

[thehighlandrebel]

Thanks for that Teddy.
It's worrying times ahead not just for the Middle East but for western Europe as well where destruction and carnage in the aftermath of this is sure to follow.

There's still time, although not much, for our government to stamp out our terrorist supporting state broadcaster which is poisoning the minds of the people in this country with it's propaganda and lies and give those people who realise just what's happening the right to speak out without being censored or branded racist and criminal.

As for Palestine. There is no country or people called Palestine or Palestinians.

The term Palestine was invented by the Romans who named it after a coastal strip of Israel which was once occupied by the Philistines who actually came from Greece but they were thouroughly trounced in the era of King David and the land reclaimed by it's rightful owners.

There is no mention of Palestine in the Bible nor indeed in the koran because, as I've said, there is no such place.

To understand why Islam is so intent on genocide of the Jewish people you need to study the life of Mohammad, the bits that the Islamic world don't want you to hear.

Mohammad was a self confessed Satanist (read the koran) and when he was summoning demons in the caves at Hira (google it up) was offered world domination in return for eradicating the Jewish people and destroying Christianity.

He was aware that the Jews were known as God's chosen people so that of course made them his number one enemy.

Someone else who was heavily influenced by Muhammed was Adolf Hitler who, after reading about Muhammeds life joined a Satanic coven in Munich in 1922 (the Thule society, again, google it up) which was run by Deitrich Eckhart and chief acolyte Martin Borman.
Again, according to Eckhart, Hitler was offered world domination after summoning an entity from 'the very depths of Hell (Eckhart)' in return, like Muhammed, destroying the Jewish people and Christianity.

History is going to repeat itself and there is nothing much we can do as the brainwashers, the liars and the ungodly have done their job well.

But when the sh1t hits the fan at least some of us will manage a wry smile and say 'I told you so'

Going back to Hitler. Historians often wonder that when the Russians were sweeping across Europe and the Germans were finished as a military force, Hitler didn't send his crack SS divisions to the front but sent them to the concentration camps to complete the 'final solution'.
According to Eckhart, Hitler believed that if he could complete the final solution then the forces of Hell would come to his aid. This was his much vaunted 'super weapon'

Islam will be defeated this time much the same as the Nazis but it's a shame that the carnage which is about to happen on a global scale could be avoided if only we had leaders with a semblance of a spine.

[Teddy Bear]

I think we share the same cynicism THR, and a similar vision for the inevitable future.

Beings who feel inferior are jealous of those who they perceive as successful. Those who are comfortable in their own skin feel gratitude for the success they can share in, in how it's enriched their lives. The jealousy of the inferior being becomes resentment and hatred, to conceal their feeling of inferiority. Whatever excuse or justification is used, this I see as the root cause of these present and past dynamics.

The Catch 22 of the Jewish problem, is the more the Jews have excelled in an effort to be accepted into society so as to feel secure, the more this has increased the resentment felt by the inferior amongst us.

Is there a solution?

[thehighlandrebel]

Is there a solution?

I don't think so Teddy.

If you read the Book of Revelation especially the bits about the 'False Prophet' and what is going to happen to the world then it's uncannily like the situation we are at today.

The caves of Hira.

propheticnews.net/content/view/7404/60/

[Teddy Bear]

After reading the account of the Cave of Hira , it seems like the name 'Allah' might have been derived from 'Tra la la'

[Teddy Bear]

Let's have a look at the rampant anti-Israel bias in another BBC article on this topic, this time by Wyre Davies, and I'll insert my comments onto his article in italics.

Palestinians head for UN state showdown

Not for the first time this year, Israel finds itself a nervous spectator as tumultuous events in the region around it rapidly change the shape and nature of the Middle East.

The domino-like fall of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, not forgetting the violent turmoil in Syria, caught almost everyone by surprise and, arguably, left Israeli politicians floundering for a coherent policy response.
notice his use of the negative inference that the Israeli government is 'floundering', implying it's like a fish out of water. He only inserts 'arguably' to cover his own arse - which is floundering.

The Israeli government was criticised in many quarters for its lukewarm response to the Arab Spring - concerns about regional security and the rise of Islamic political parties were perhaps seen as more important than expanding political pluralism in the Middle East.
Criticised in many quarters??? - What 'quarters' couldn't understand that when the likelihood of more militant groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that may be taking over hitherto regimes that were more 'neutral' towards Israel, does this moron think that Israel should be overjoyed? In his retarded BBC mind, it's regional security should be less important than the 'expanse of political pluralism'. I just hope some travellers, like those in Dale Farm, descend on his neck of the woods so he can expand his 'political pluralism'.

Justifiable criticism or not, those were events almost exclusively beyond Israeli control and over which it could ultimately have had little or no influence.

The thorny issue of recognition for a Palestinian state is different story.

The right-wing coalition government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it abundantly clear that it opposes "unilateral" Palestinian moves towards statehood, either as a full member of the UN, via the Security Council, or for "Enhanced Observer Member" status, via a majority vote in the General Assembly.

Israel says either option seriously undermines negotiations towards a two-state solution - Israeli and Palestinian states existing side by side - saying that such a course of action will not lead to peace or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
With no attempt to explain why - lest you understand the fuller picture - but then, that would be balance

There have also been threats, from Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his deputy Danny Ayalon, that if the Palestinians go to the UN, Israel would consider changing the status of east Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements.

Palestinian UN Statehood Bid

Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN
They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza
Enhanced observer member status could be an interim option

"If the Palestinians independently take blunt unilateral steps to declare statehood, then all [previous] agreements are nullified," said Mr Ayalon on his Twitter account earlier this week.

Warnings and threats aside, Israel stands accused of doing little to offer the Palestinians a constructive and viable alternative.
One of the most twisted and downright dishonest perspectives that could be levelled at Israel. It is Israel that has offered the Palestinians their own state for many years and the Palestinians who have used every pretext to avoid a peace agreement and who are sworn to get rid of every Jew and eradicate Israel.

The airport limousine services and VIP security details must have been stretched to their limits as a succession of senior US and European diplomats shuttled between Cairo, Jerusalem and Ramallah this week.

The goal of Tony Blair, Catherine Ashton, Dennis Ross and David Hale to extract some genuine concession or initiative from the Israelis that would persuade the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to drop his bid for statehood at the UN and to return to peace talks.

There has been considerable international pressure on the Palestinian side, too, to refrain from the UN option but the Palestinians are confident momentum - and much of the world - is on their side.

Israel's long-established position is that there can be no "pre-conditions" to the resumption of talks and refuses to countenance suggestions that it should stop building in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land or offer any other concession to Mr Abbas.
I notice this time he even omits the statement that for Israel, and for hitherto the rest of the world in similar situations, in the absence of ANY peace agreement, border demarcations are disputed

Time 'running out'

There has been much analysis in Israel that, as consistent and firm as the position of Mr Netanyahu is, it only serves to increase the country's isolation at a time when Israel is losing friends and supporters in the region.
Like who exactly?

Recent difficulties with Egypt and Turkey aside, many Israelis feel their government is being out-manoeuvred by the Palestinian UN initiative and is not coming up with a credible, coherent response.
There is a response from Israel - to do what it's doing and see what transpires. What it's not doing for this reporter is buckling down to the pressure, which it appears he would like to see

Israel knows the United States will use its veto in the Security Council to oppose the declaration of a Palestinian state, should it come to that.

And while it will back its strongest ally in the region, Washington would rather not have to use that veto because of the message it would convey in the wider Arab world.

US President Barack Obama has, after all, declared his wish to see the Palestinian flag flying at the UN, albeit as a consequence of successful peace talks with Israel.

That is why, on this occasion, Europe is arguably a more important player than the United States.

If a majority of EU countries - especially the French, Germans and British - support Palestinian recognition at the UN that could make life very uncomfortable for Israel.
In other words they have as much ethics as a slug when it comes to the 'message it would convey in the wider Arab world.', so long as it doesn't affect their own back door. I see none of them were overjoyed about letting Turkey into the EU to 'convey that message'

The position of European governments is not yet clear - that is what the diplomats are busy finalising this week - but recent polls in Europe suggest their populations strongly support the idea of Palestinian membership at the UN.

Israel's diplomats around the world have been busy too, putting forward arguments against Palestinian upgrading or full recognition at the UN.

An aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu this week told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper: "Israel is not isolated... we should stop the self-flagellation as if we were to blame for everything."

But many senior Israelis are convinced that a return to negotiations with the Palestinians will allay tensions, not only in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Israel but in the region as a whole.

With time running out, what might be required now is a gesture from Israel that can make that a reality and avoid a showdown in New York next week.
Interpret as 'a sign of weakness or kowtowing to a long time enemy that has offered nothing ever in return' - except death.

To anybody who wants to confirm the real facts pertaining to the peace process with the Palestinians, or non peace process which is more apt, or any contentious claims concerning Israel, I heartily recommend this site Myths & Facts Online - The Peace Process by Mitchell Bard

[thehighlandrebel]

Sept 19, 2011 19:35:53 GMT Teddy Bear said:

After reading the account of the Cave of Hira , it seems like the name 'Allah' might have been derived from 'Tra la la'

Allah is actually Al Illa, the Medinan pagan moon god.
When Muhammad was trying to get the local Medinans on his side he said to them that they could continue worshiping their idols but just change the name.
In fact, islam was commonly known in Europe up until the 15th. century as 'the cult of the moon god'

www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

Muslims should wake up and realise that what they are worshiping is nothing more than a lump of stone depicting a pagan idol.

BTW, this was first brought to my intention by a Muslim acquaintance who was thinking that their was something amiss that he was forced to learn his 'religion' with a gun to his head and was told he would be killed if he ever questioned or doubted it.

It's wrong for us to demonise Muslims for the attrocities carried out every day in the name of the Moon God.

Muslims aren't the problem.

The problem is Islam.

[Teddy Bear]

I seem to recall the expression Tra-la-la meant somewhat crazy - maybe it was in French.
Now you say the name Allah comes from Moon God - so it's 'Loony'.
Seems like we're on the same page

I'm well aware there are many Muslims who are moderate and don't agree with the way their religion is being used. Unfortunately they're not as vocal in denouncing it, or countering the demands made by the more fundamentalists among them. Almost like they are leaving it to the rest of us to sort things out and either way they'll be okay - without having to stick their own necks out.

Somewhat 'good for nothing'.

[thehighlandrebel]

Skimming through the news channels on Sky recently I've noticed that William (Elmer Fudd) Hague is strutting the worlds media with his views on the upcoming UN circus.

Elmer seemed to have different views depending on which channel he was spouting on from calling for dialogue on the more rational stations to calling on Israel to end it's 'illegal occupation' on the terrorist supporting ones.

Now, Elmer purports to be foreign secretary for this country so it's reasonable for people to expect him to be up to speed on facts like Israel is not occupying any territory but it's own.

Of course Fudd is entitled to his views but a bit of consistency would be appreciated as the events panning out in the Islamic world just now are going to affect every man, woman and child in this country and in western Europe and the rest of the free world.

Somehow I cannot see Elmer going down in history as a Churchillian style statesman but more like Chamberlain with his head in the sand hoping these problems will just go away.

Regarding the UN farce it will be interesting to see who votes for the Palestinian propaganda motion considering that the Palestinian charter calls for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of it's people.

This is contrary to the principles that the UN was founded on and support for Palestine should make the world realise that the time has come for this corrupt Islamic run organisation to be disbanded.

[thehighlandrebel]

Elmer and Elmer.

Separated at Birth?

My, my. They do look alike, don't they? Of course, Elmer Fudd would not have been dumb enough to do something like this.

Hague expects Obama to 'deliver' Israel

[thehighlandrebel]

The link between Nazism and Islam including a warning from an ex Hitler Youth member.

Something our politicians and media should heed.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYR5F3mbQ-4&feature=related
[/youtube]

[Teddy Bear]

Excellent posts THR
With the last video, I will add that the warnings come not only from an ex Hitler Youth member, but also from Walid Shoebat who was first indoctrinated to be a suicide bomber before he 'saw the light', and Nonie Darwish an Egyptian/American REAL human rights activists as opposed to the many left wing morons who consider themselves the same. I highly recommend watching this chilling video - consider it a wake up call.

The mentality of our media and politicians is evident, and I doubt it's due to ignorance of the real dynamics going on in the Muslim world. When you see the way the children of these Islamic nations are indoctrinated to hate the infidel West and Israel, to already be referring to the revolutions going on in some of these these countries as an Arab 'Spring' is premature at best. If they were even attempting to making intelligent references they would hold ALL opinion until it was seen what the nature of the new rulers of these regimes was to be. In the meantime making it very clear the implications if they were to continue as all evidence shows them to be.

Instead they ingratiate themselves to the worst forces that human imagination can up with. Perhaps they think that sacrificing Israel, which is what they are really doing, will pay off in the long run. JUST THE SAME AS HITLER, who victimised the minority of Jews by demonization to justify his policies and rally greater support.

The lowest of the low.
Elmer Fudd is ignorant - the likes of Hague et al are evil.

This comparison would be closer to the truth


Robin Shepherd has 2 excellent articles I also recommend reading
One on the Arab 'Spring', and the other on the upcoming Palestinian attempt to gain statehood through the UN..

[thehighlandrebel]

You say the Arab Spring is premature at best, Teddy.

The people of Tunisia are starting to find that out.

www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7095248/summer-of-hate.thtml

If you are looking for news about the reality of what's going on then don't waste your time checking the b-bbc.

[Teddy Bear]

I'm really not surprised at events in Tunisia as shown by this article THR, nor what has really been happening in the other Arab 'Spring' countries. The huge rise in violence against Christians in those countries alone should make any Western media organisation revise this wholly inappropriate descriptive term.

Militant Muslims 'ConSPIRING' might be more apt.

As expected, today the Palestinians applied at the UN for their own state. To gauge the extent the BBC favours this move one only needs to see how many times they tell the reader of the 'rapturous applause' and 'standing ovations and cheers' (which I've underlined) they received. Considering over 60 member states at the UN are Islamic , and there are many others who want to ingratiate themselves with those, it's hardly surprising. As far as any morality and ethics are concerned, it merely shows how devoid of them these states and the UN are, as well as the BBC.

The Palestinians want to have their own state based on pre-1967 borders. For this they are given applause. To understand the simple ramifications of this, the Arabs started a war to drive every Jew into the sea which they lost. Israel strengthened its previous almost indefensible borders, which hitherto the Arabs had not adhered to according to the original UN demarcation of Israel territory.

So what the Palestinians want is to have their previous attempts to wipe out Israel dismissed and rewarded with the land they lost at this time without offering ANYTHING in return.

This is what the BBC want you to believe is justice and right. You can see in the article below how the simple truths that expose the Palestinian position are omitted entirely by way of explanation for the Israeli position. The claim that settlements are the barrier to peace is completely disingenuous as when the Israelis did have a 10 month hiatus in building for the purposes of ratifying some peace negotiations the Palestinians did NOTHING. Only after Israel recommenced did they say this was the reason peace negotiations failed.

There is NOTHING EVER that has been offered by the Palestinians to achieve peace - NOTHING, and I defy anybody to show different. They are sworn to get rid of every Jew and establish the whole of Israel including Arab territory as Palestine.

But you won't find that information from the twisted output of the BBC, but it is readily verifiable to anybody who wants to.

It has been said that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that pursuing the path they are, without proper peace negotiations, will ultimately prove the costliest so far. For them it's par for the course.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas makes UN statehood bid

President Abbas received a standing ovation as he announced his application to the UN

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his bid to the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state.

To rapturous applause in the General Assembly, he urged the Security Council to back a state with pre-1967 borders.

He said the Palestinians had entered negotiations with Israel with sincere intentions, but blamed the building of Jewish settlements for their failure.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said he was reaching out to Palestinians and blamed them for refusing to negotiate.

"I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace," he said in his speech in New York.

"Let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us?"

Mr Netanyahu added that the core of the conflict was not settlements but the refusal of the Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel and the US say a Palestinian state can only be achieved through talks with Israel - not through UN resolutions.

'Come to peace'
President Barack Obama told Mr Abbas on Thursday that the US would use its UN Security Council veto to block the move.

Analysis - Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East editor, New York
Some delegations here at the UN in New York gave Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas a standing ovation - they were clapping and even whistling in support.

That is significant because if it comes to a vote in the Security Council - and if the Americans veto it - Palestinians have a Plan B.

That Plan B is to go to the General Assembly - where there are no vetoes - and get enhanced status, not full membership but something better than they have now.

The Palestinians say they want to negotiate but not in the way they have negotiated before - there has to be clear parameters and a timetable.

The Palestinian point is that since 18 years of negotiation has not worked, let's try something new.

"I call upon Mr Secretary-General to expedite transmittal of our request to the Security Council, and I call upon the distinguished members of the Security Council to vote in favour of our full membership," he told the General Assembly, in what was for him an unusually impassioned speech.

He added that he hoped for swift backing. Many delegates gave him a standing ovation.

"I also appeal to the states that have not yet recognised the State of Palestine to do so."

"The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland," he said.

He urged Israel to "come to peace".

And he said the building of Jewish settlements was "the primary cause for the failure of the peace process".

A spokesman for the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, criticised the speech.

Salah Bardawil said Mr Abbas had deviated from the aspirations of the Palestinian people by accepting the 1967 borders, which he said left 80% of Palestinian land inside Israel.

'Future and destiny'
Meanwhile in the West Bank, crowds roared their approval as Mr Abbas demanded UN acceptance of a Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders.

"With our souls, with our blood, we will defend Palestine," they said.

Mr Abbas had called for peaceful marches in support of his initiative, but some clashes were reported:

One Palestinian was shot dead by Israeli troops during clashes in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, Palestinian sources say
At the Qalandiya checkpoint, Israeli troops fired tear gas on stone-throwing Palestinian youths
In the village of Nabi Saleh, protesters burned Israeli flags and pictures of President Obama
The process began with Mr Abbas presenting a written request for UN recognition of the Palestinian territories as a state to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas at the UN says that until the last minute Western diplomats tried and failed to stop the Palestinians making the request.

Even now, efforts are under way to restart direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians in an attempt to defuse tensions, our correspondent says.

If Mr Ban decides the application is in order, the Security Council will examine it and vote on it. In order to pass, it would need the backing of nine out of 15 council members, with no vetoes from the permanent members.

A Security Council vote could take weeks to come about and the US may not even need to exercise its veto - Washington and Israel have been lobbying council members to either vote against the Palestinian plan or abstain.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has urged a compromise, suggesting the General Assembly give the Palestinians enhanced status as a non-member state to allow a clear timeline for talks - a month to start negotiations, six months to deal with borders and security and a year to finalise a "definitive agreement".

A vote on enhanced status - enjoyed by others such as the Vatican - would not require a Security Council recommendation but a simple majority in the General Assembly, where no veto is possible.

Currently the Palestinians have observer status at the UN.

The "Quartet" of US, European, Russian and UN mediators has been working on reaching a framework agreement to restart talks, based on Mr Obama's vision of borders fashioned from Israel's pre-1967 boundary, with agreed land swaps.

[thehighlandrebel]

Yes. My heart goes out to the Christian population throughout the Islamic world who are suffering record levels of persecution yet not one broadcaster will air their plight nor any politician stand up in their defence.

As I've said before. The Palestinian charter calls for the eradication of a nation and the genocide of a race yet why were they even entertained at the UN, never mind cheered and given a standing ovation?
I thought the UN was founded to try and eliminate these types of terrorists and madmen.

Listening to R4's any questions tonight was sad. Every one of the panel supported the terrorists and, as usual, the audience appeared to have been bussed in from the local mosque.

I've stopped paying the licence fee and I would urge a mass campaign of non payment so we can rid ourselves of these b@stards at the b-bbc who are dragging this once great country into dark ages and eventual oblivion.

I was thinking that if 100,000 people signed the government e-petition web site and demanded an end to the licence fee then the government would be obliged to raise the matter in the House but on second thoughts when I see the calibre of our politicians who seem as if they are too scared to get out of bed in the morning, never mind tackle the b-bbc, it might be a waste of time.

[thehighlandrebel]

I see on the main board page that David Vance will be on telly on Sunday facing that cretin George Indefatiguable Galloway.
I'm having difficulty logging on to send a message but if you're reading this, Dave, then the best of luck.

Galloway is a smooth talker, much like his doppelganger Adolph Hitler, but I'm sure Dave will do us proud.

It might be a David and Gallowiath contest especially if the host lives up to b-bbc standards but one thing Galloway cannot stomach is being told the truth especially when the facts are laid in front of him and not even his wailing and flailing of arms can disguise the fact that he's been made a fool of again.

Good luck Dave.

[Teddy Bear]

We think so much alike THR it's scary
I think the spineless government prefers to try and use the BBC to their best advantage in whatever way they can, and suck up where they know the BBC are doing their best to get Labour back in. I guess it's called 'damage limitation'.

Loved your David and Gallowiath analogy, and I posted your comment on the Biased BBC Blog site for you.

[thehighlandrebel]

Thanks

[Teddy Bear]

You're more than welcome

The programme will be going out on BBC1 on Sunday (Today) at 10am

Here also are the suggestions I made for David to use if pertinent to the debate, as well as for anybody else to consider when analysing the output of the BBC on this topic.

1. Does Galloway accept the holocaust happened?
If not he shows himself a denier, which I would imagine he's not anxious to do whatever his thoughts on the subject.
If yes - then

2. Does he believe that following pogroms and the holocaust, the Jews are entitled to a land of their own free from the political machinations that led to both?

3. Since the anti-Israel voices always use settlement building as being the obstacle to peace, can he state any offer the Palestinians have made to achieve a peaceful resolution that didn't ultimately have the purpose of eliminating the Jewish state - the very purpose for Israel?
Like for example the demand to return the refugees still held in camps throughout the Arab world to Israel, thereby making Jews the minority and unable to function as a democracy.

4. Which other country in history, following attempts by other countries to destroy it, has ever been put in a situation where land gained in a defensive war have been put in a situation where they are forced to return it, or even expected that they would?

Much less countries like Britain, France, Spain, US, etc who unlike Israel, have been the aggressors in taking over countries and never been subject to those demands. Otherwise does he think that Australia should be first returned to the Aborigines, New Zealand to the Maoris, and the USA to the Indians, for starters?

5. With that in mind, is Israel the first country ever to return land won in a defensive war to those who began that war in exchange for real peace?

Since it is - how can settlements really be the issue, much less the fault of Israel for not achieving peace?

[thehighlandrebel]

Galloway likes to hone in on a few issues in his obsession with with with Israeli genocide.

One is the security barrier put up to stop terrorists murdering innocent civilians.
One question he could be asked is how many Palestinian childrens lives have been saved with the reduction of incidents of Palestinians strapping explosives around their own children and telling them to go and kill themselves and as many innocent people as possible.

Israeli 'aggression' is another favourite rant of Galloway.
He should be asked on his views about the 2500 civilians murdered in Syria by government forces controlled by Hizbollah, the Iranian backed terrorist group.

Does Galloway not feel any guilt working for Press TV and accepting money from the regime that's instigating thet terrorism?

The list is endless.

[Teddy Bear]

There's many inconsistencies in Galloway's views, but I doubt, unless he's in a rack, he will ever be still long enough to address them. Like all ignorant minds, they resort to personal attack when they see they are losing an argument.

The programme is available to be seen again here. for UK residents over the next 7 days. The section about Israel and the Palestinians begins about 29min 30sec in.

For as long as I can remember the BBC have never had a 2 right to one left point of view on any panel. Shows the deference they have for David Vance knowing he runs the Biased BBC Blogspot. They managed to attain their 'biased balance' however by having a Palestinian rant on and on without challenge, a short opinion by an Israeli mayor, neutralised by an Israeli self loather on the side of the Palestinians. Being on the BBC makes him feel important and makes all the rubbish he has to spout all worthwhile.

I felt David Vance did a fine job within the time constraints allowed him, and the other young right winger was good too. Galloway was his usual obnoxious ignorant self. I recommend watching it.

[Teddy Bear]

Apparently Jonathan Hoffman was also supposed to appear on the programme via video link, but in the end there wasn't time for him to appear. He complimented David for the points he made and posted a link to to where he's written what he was going to say, which I include below.

"Should we [the UK] recognise a Palestinian state?"
By Jonathan Hoffman
September 25, 2011

That was the question posed on "Sunday Morning Live" on BBC1 TV this morning.
You can see it (if you live in the UK) on I-Player for 7 days.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0126f8g
I was asked to appear by Videolink but in the end there was not time for me to contribute. So here is what I was going to say:

There should be a Palestinian state … But not before they are committed to living in peace with Israel. That guarantee has yet to be made. No-one can do it for them. Not the UN, not the US and not Britain. The roadmap to peace does not run through the UN. It runs through Ramallah.
Gaza is ruled by Hamas. By terrorists in other words. Britain has outlawed Hamas. How could we possibly give legitimacy to outlawed terrorists, by rewarding them with a State? We shouldn’t reward murderers, we should help bring them to Justice. And the Palestinian Authority which rules the West Bank does not even acknowledge that Israel exists. How can we grant legitimacy to a regime that simply blanks its neighbour?
Mahmoud Abbas’ letter to the UN is based on 1947 lines, not 1967 lines. Abbas is telling the world that "Palestine" must include a great deal of land that is internationally recognised to be Israeli. Ashkelon and Ashdod for example. All of that "1967 border" talk is now proven to be a lie. The official, formal request for a state of "Palestine" is a demand to take land away from another sovereign state. If this doesn't cause the Security Council to unanimously vote against it without requiring a US veto, then the UN will prove itself to be an utterly worthless organisation.
And if we recognised a Palestinian State now it would be in breach of Treaties. Britain is a signatory – through the European Union – to Treaties which say that the status of Gaza and the West Bank can’t be changed unilaterally. [For example the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 and Resolutions 242 and 338.] The same holds true of the PA. Violating those Treaties would open the way for a challenge to the PA’s legitimacy.
What I’m saying is: there’s no easy shortcut via the UN to peace: peace must be negotiated on the ground.
But it’s worse still. To declare and recognise a paper Palestinian State now would set back the cause of the real Palestinian State by many years. Because declaring it would make no difference to Israel’s need for security. Israel is tiny – it takes just three minutes to fly across it. Imagine the morning after the declaration of the paper State. The Palestinians waking up in the West Bank would be horrified to find Israeli soldiers still there. And there are militant Jihadi Islamists just dying to exploit that, by starting trouble. Just like Iran started trouble on the Golan Heights in May and June. It could quickly escalate into a full-scale War --- especially given the instability after the uprisings in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. We already saw the Israeli Embassy in Cairo attacked by extremists. And make no mistake, Mahmoud Abbas himself might be swept aside in the conflict. It’s like trying to put out a fire by pouring a bucket of petrol on it.
No, there’s no short cut. Mahmoud Abbas has to face reality and get back to the hard but essential work of negotiations. If Britain wants to see a Palestinian state, it must recognise that negotiation is the only way to get there. Negotiation - not Declaration.

Highlights of the clip:
29:40 Start
33.10 David Vance poins out that a Palestinian State would not recognise the Jewish state of Israel
33.54 George Galloway - incredibly - calls Abbas "the most moderate possible of leaders"
34.30 Milo Yiannopoulos correctly says that the only possible route is negotiation
34.50 DV points out that Hamas took over Gaza by force and it became an area for terrorism
35.20 GG interrupts
35.48 GG interrupts
36.30 GG complains that both DV and MY disagree with him
39.12 Mayor Shaul Goldstein by video
39.46 Mayor Goldstein points out that Gilad Shalit is the only Jew in Gaza
44.11 DV suggests the "Arab Spring" is becoming the "Islamist reawakening"
44.60 MY points out that peace is a 2-way process; that Israel has made good offers; that UN Resolutions make things worse not better
46:00 GG accuses DV of "Christian Obscurantism" for suggesting that Israel existed before 1948
47:13 GG accuses Mayor Goldstein of being an 'illegal occupier' and accuses DV and MY of "neocon fanaticism"

[Teddy Bear]

Another thing occurred to me today concerning something we spoke of earlier in this thread THR. It came as a result of my overhearing one of my neighbours young children talk about a MONSTER. It was the way she said it, sounded like Moon-Star. Then I recalled Moon-God.

Yup - it sure fits - Moon-Stars

[thehighlandrebel]

A good lowdown on the programme, Teddy.

You mention GG's comment about 'Christian Obscurantism' in his attempt to deny Israel's right to exist.

This should be a wake up call to Christians that Islam is not just a threat to Judaism but a threat to Christianity also.

BTW, I thought the programme was relatively neutral considering that this was the b-bbc.

[Teddy Bear]

Like I said, having David Vance on the programme appears to have had them concerned about what he might have written on his blogsite had they used their usual left-wing majority panel.

Islam are Moonsters

[thehighlandrebel]

Galloway ranted that with David Vance and Milo Yiannpoulos on the show that this was the entire pro Israel lobby on the planet.

Wrong George.

As you found out yourself when you stood for the Scottish Parliament in May, standing in the largest Muslim constituency in Scotland, Pollockshields, the people gave you a resounding sod off.

Ye gods. If even your two Muslim ex wives found you repulsive how do you think we feel.

[Teddy Bear]

He definitely appeared much less 'assured' on the programme as he does when for example he's on Question Time, and the BBC have ensured the majority left-wing audience will support him. Today he came across as the ugly ignorant sick-minded bigot he truly is.

[thehighlandrebel]

More on the Moon God.

islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/who-is-allah.html#links

Still, if Galloway can prostrate himself to this five times a day with his butt in the air to worship this then it can't be all bad.