BBC Bias on Palestinian Statehood UN Bid

[Teddy Bear]

It's really a revelation.

Speaking of which, it just occurred to me that the symbol for Islam is the crescent moon and star

Really Moonstars/Monsters!

[thehighlandrebel]

George Galloway was under the impression that the people of Scotland would fall over themselves in worship and adoration for his Nazi ideologies.



I'm glad to say it didn't quite turn out as he expectrd.

[Teddy Bear]

Music to my ears
After Lockerbie, why would he think they would?

[Teddy Bear]

One of the most striking examples of the bias exhibited by the BBC in supporting the Palestinian claims, however spurious, and dismissing the concerns of Israel.

Both Netanyahu and Abbas addressed the UN, each voicing their thoughts on the subject. For Abbas they give a full page account plus video of what they call 'Annotated Extracts'. These are interspersed with the additions of BBC's journalist, Jonathan Marcus, to add extra weight to whatever he said to make sure it would be interpreted by the reader in exactly the right way the BBC want you to understand it. Almost like a fawning echo, in case you didn't get the drift the first time round.

He ends on this note: JONATHAN MARCUS: This is by far the best turn of phrase in the speech and certainly the best sound-bite: "bridges of dialogue" versus "checkpoints and walls of separation".

The speech, which was strong on setting out the Palestinians' historic case and clearly played well among his supporters, included a strongly-worded appeal for dialogue with Israel in skilfully-worded terms.

You can read it for yourself, but I warn you this content shows a man sticking his head up the backside of another man.

Abbas UN speech: Annotated extracts
President Abbas received a standing ovation as he announced his application to the UN

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his bid to the United Nations for recognition of a Palestinian state and made a speech, to rapturous applause, to the General Assembly. The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus interprets the key phrases in his address.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "The Question of Palestine is intricately linked with the United Nations via the resolutions adopted by its various organs and agencies and via the essential and lauded role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East - UNRWA - which embodies the international responsibility towards the plight of Palestine refugees, who are the victims of al-Nakba [Catastrophe] that occurred in 1948.

"We aspire for and seek a greater and more effective role for the United Nations in working to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in our region that ensures the inalienable, legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people as defined by the resolutions of international legitimacy of the United Nations."

JONATHAN MARCUS: From the outset, he makes clear that this UN route, although forced upon the Palestinians, in their view by lack of progress elsewhere, is nonetheless an entirely natural and legitimate step, as the UN has been intimately involved in the Palestine dossier from the outset.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "A year ago, at this same time, distinguished leaders in this hall addressed the stalled peace efforts in our region. Everyone had high hopes for a new round of final status negotiations, which had begun in early September in Washington under the direct auspices of President Barack Obama and with participation of the Quartet, and with Egyptian and Jordanian participation, to reach a peace agreement within one year.

"We entered those negotiations with open hearts and attentive ears and sincere intentions, and we were ready with our documents, papers and proposals. But the negotiations broke down just weeks after their launch."

JONATHAN MARCUS: This paragraph underlines the Palestinians' view that it is the failures of the so-called peace process that has brought them to this moment.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "Settlement activities embody the core of the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the Palestinian people and all of the brutality of aggression and racial discrimination against our people that this policy entails.

"This policy, which constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions, is the primary cause for the failure of the peace process, the collapse of dozens of opportunities, and the burial of the great hopes that arose from the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel to achieve a just peace that would begin a new era for our region."

JONATHAN MARCUS: This is the core of Mr Abbas' case - Israel is busy creating new facts on the ground, making the establishment of a Palestinian state more difficult as the years go by.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "Yet, because we believe in peace and because of our conviction in international legitimacy, and because we had the courage to make difficult decisions for our people, and in the absence of absolute justice, we decided to adopt the path of relative justice - justice that is possible and could correct part of the grave historical injustice committed against our people.

"Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine - on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967."

JONATHAN MARCUS: In Mr Abbas' view, Palestinians have already made and have been prepared to make difficult concessions. Their aspirations, he says, are limited in territorial terms to the Palestinian areas held by Egypt and Jordan since 1948 and captured by Israel in the 1967 War.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "The goal of the Palestinian people is the realisation of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the June 1967 war, in conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy and with the achievement of a just and agreed upon solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with Resolution 194, as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative which presented the consensus Arab vision to resolve the core the Arab-Israeli conflict and to achieve a just and comprehensive peace."

JONATHAN MARCUS: Mr Abbas makes no mention here of the sorts of land swaps or territorial adjustments that Israel has insisted upon, and which have been backed by successive US presidents, most recently Barack Obama.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "The PLO and the Palestinian people adhere to the renouncement of violence and rejection and condemning of terrorism in all its forms, especially State terrorism, and adhere to all agreements signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel."

JONATHAN MARCUS: Whatever happens, the Palestinians renounce violence; seeking recognition is the next stage in an essentially political struggle.

MAHMOUD ABBAS: "I am here to say on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization: We extend our hands to the Israeli government and the Israeli people for peacemaking. I say to them: Let us urgently build together a future for our children where they can enjoy freedom, security and prosperity.

"Let us build the bridges of dialogue instead of checkpoints and walls of separation, and build cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighbouring States - Palestine and Israel - instead of policies of occupation, settlement, war and eliminating the other."

JONATHAN MARCUS: This is by far the best turn of phrase in the speech and certainly the best sound-bite: "bridges of dialogue" versus "checkpoints and walls of separation".

The speech, which was strong on setting out the Palestinians' historic case and clearly played well among his supporters, included a strongly-worded appeal for dialogue with Israel in skilfully-worded terms.

For Netanyahu's address, the BBC give you this:


Balance - BBC Style

[thehighlandrebel]

Well spotted Teddy.

My experience with the b-bbc is mainly with the World Service and I can catagorically state that this station is destroying the reputation of this country abroad with it's lies and bigotry, especially with Commonwealth countries.

Most countries are taking active measures to protect their citizens from acts of terroism but the b-bbc openly praises terrorist organisations and condems those countries, ie Israel, that takes measures to stop it.

I'm not one for government intervention in the media but surely the time has come for them to crack down on these supporters of violent jihad who infest Broadcasting House.

The bbc is a terrorist supporting organisation.

Anyone who pays the criminal licence fee is betraying their country and will be responsible for the acts of terror which will soon hit these shores.

This is not an idle rant. This will come true.

Stop the b-bbc NOW.

[Teddy Bear]

I can really understand where you're coming from, and for the most part I would say I have shared similar views. Reading some of the statements you made, it occurs to me that perhaps we're not looking at the real depth of this matter.

...I can categorically state that this station is destroying the reputation of this country abroad with it's lies and bigotry

...Anyone who pays the criminal licence fee is betraying their country

...government intervention in the media, but surely the time has come for them to crack down on these supporters of violent jihad who infest Broadcasting House

My first question is - what do we define now as this country?
I know or believe when you wrote the above you meant the values that you feel you inherited from those around you, and that you still recognise many who still maintain them - and this is what you refer to as our country.

If we think of it as a once healthy body that is now infested by cancer, so it can't function as a healthy body, this is what appears to be 'our country'.

Like a sinking ship, we see the structure that once we felt safe and proud to sail in, now filling with water. At what point do we see the necessity to abandon ship to preserve our lives, or in this case, to preserve our integrity?

This country is now run by greedy, lying, cheating, immoral and unethical politicians aided by an equally insidious national broadcaster. Like yourself, I wondered if the Conservatives would have the balls to finally stand up to the BBC and end their largely twisted nonsense. Now I'm starting to believe that they are all in the same bed, and while the BBC has its own agenda for its own ambitions, it still operates largely as the tool of the government, who use them to the greatest extent they can.

We are controlled by those who are betraying the values we uphold. We can see their stupidity and short-sightedness, but other than be aware of it, and comment on it in an effort to alert others, what else is there to be done?

If the reputation of this country has gone downhill, then those seeing it as such are seeing truth - it is well deserved that they would see that.

I'm starting to believe a lot of the BBC output is sanctioned by the government, but they can distance themselves from actually committing themselves to state the same things. rather like those 'moderate' Muslims who say nothing against the more radical, knowing they will benefit either way.

The 'Ministry of Thought' is a government sponsored department.

It's a bummer! What do you think?

[thehighlandrebel]

I agree that any politician or political party who critcises the b-bbc would be crucified in the media.

One analogy I can think of is Chamberlain in 1938.
Remember him waving his bit of paper telling cheering crowds that there would be 'peace in our time'

If Churchill had come on camera afterwards and told the people that Chamberlain was talking mince he would have been laughed out of office.
Politicians and reporters today who know what's going on face the same dilemma.

All they need is to find a collective backbone and demand the b-bbc is brought to book.

[Teddy Bear]

Like I say, I've been labouring (no pun intended) under that impression for the longest time. Now I'm coming to the realisation that actually the BBC are serving the politicians, and they have no interest in dispensing with them.

How better to get voters to believe in your doomed policies than getting an 'independent' media to spin them the right way.

In addition to climate change, there's also the EU, Immigration, Nanny Stating (Political control), Soft or no Prison (to limit spending) as just a few other examples, and the appearance of being soft towards Islamics. I didn't see Britain standing up for Israel at the UN.

Looks like they're all on the same hymn sheet.

[Teddy Bear]

Just to make it clear which side of the Palestinian bid for statehood via the UN it supports, the BBC offers 2 links on the main Israel/Palestinian story it is covering at the moment.


One is this opinion piece by Jeremy Bowen Palestinian statehood bid: Useful points scored at UN in which he pours as much scorn as possible on Israeli PM Netanyahu trying to oppose it, as well as regretting that Obama has stated that he too will veto this bid. He makes the claim that the only reason Obama is doing this is Next year's US presidential race may be close and Mr Obama and the Democrats need Israel's many friends in this country to vote for them.

To further advance the Palestinian bid, the other viewpoint linked is Viewpoint: The end of a new beginning? in which former US Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley tells us When US President Barack Obama stepped to the podium in New York last Wednesday, he welcomed a new governing body to the United Nations.

The fact that it was the National Transitional Council from Libya was in its own right remarkable.

The fact that it was not the Palestinian Authority was regrettable.

That he was forced to threaten to veto the Palestinian application for membership was a policy failure.

This is what the BBC considers BALANCE on the subject.

[Teddy Bear]

Just to clarify what the UN has really done, and what those like the BBC want you to support.

I wonder when it will occur to the UN that it has really allowed the Palestinians to run rings round them, and showing them up for the ridiculous and twisted organisation, lacking any moral authority, that it has become.

64 years ago the UN issued a Resolution (181) that divided the area of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab States.
The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

The Arabs have since unsuccessfully been trying to drive the Jews into the sea and claim the whole region for themselves. Any land partitions originally allotted become null and void to any moral judge, since it is the Arabs who were trying to deprive the Jews of theirs. The fact that the Arabs have continued to lose is a good lesson for them to examine the consequences of bad reasoning and actions.
I can't think that there's been any occasion anywhere in the civilised world where a criminal that has been found guilty of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment, has had his salary reimbursed by whatever company he might also have been working for at the time he committed the crime, or serving the sentence for it.
Even worse in this example is the fact that the criminal has sworn to engage in further crimes, and still demands to receive a continual salary, despite no attempt to honest labour.

Yet this is what the UN, and mouthpieces like the BBC, thinks the world should accept. otherwise why would they seriously even entertain the notion that they should reward Palestinians by recognising them as a State, or legal entitlement to any land at all?

I can't wait for the Hardtalk that has a UN representative being challenged for this decision, but we all know why this will never happen.

[thehighlandrebel]

UNfit for purpose.

Time to delegitimise the UN

[Teddy Bear]

Well past time! The very notion that nations which are themselves not united in any way shape or from the standpoint of our society, should act as a world arbiter is ridiculous. If it was only comprised of democratic nations it would be a good start. To have nations which consistently breach any sane definition of human rights as members of the UN Human Rights Council says precisely what this ridiculous organisation is all about.