Israel president Shimon Peres accuses Britain of pro-Arab bias

[Spy Bee]

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/772-gaza-massacre.html

Soon after Malaysian Airlines MH17 crashed near Donetsk, Ukraine on July 18, killing 298 people, the BBC website quickly, and rightly, set up a 'LIVE' feed with rolling reports and commentary on the disaster. This was clearly an important and dramatic event involving horrific loss of life with serious political implications. The public would, of course, be searching for the latest news.

 

However, since July 8, ten days prior to the crash, Israeli armed forces had been bombarding the trapped civilian population of Gaza with airstrikes, drone strikes and naval shelling. As the massive Israeli assault ramped up on July 9, the World section of the BBC News website had this as its headline:

 

'Israel under renewed Hamas attack'

 

By July 18, around 300 people had been killed in Gaza, 80% of them civilians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a key political issue of our time, one that was clearly developing by the minute after July 8. And yet at no point had the BBC set up a 'LIVE' feed with rolling news.

 

That finally changed on July 20 after so many days in which so many Palestinians had been killed. Why July 20? The answer appears to be found in the fourth entry of the live feed under the title 'Breaking News':

 

'Some 13 Israeli soldiers were killed overnight in Gaza, news agencies, quoting Israeli military sources, say. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address the nation shortly.'

 

Despite this small number of military deaths compared to the Palestinian toll, it seems clear that the killing of the Israeli troops triggered the BBC live feed. It focused intensely on these deaths, with entries of this kind:

 

'Ben White, writer tweets: Israel has lost more soldiers in a 3 day old ground offensive than it did during Cast Lead & Pillar of Defense combined (12).'

 

And:

 

'View to the Mid East, a writer in Ashdod, Israel tweets: One of the soldiers who was killed in Gaza tonight prays at the same synagogue I go to. Grew up in the same neighbourhood.'

 

The feed incorporated no less than five photographs from two funerals of the Israeli soldiers but none from the far more numerous Palestinian funerals (one picture showed Palestinian relatives collecting a body from a morgue), with these captions:

 

'Friends and relatives of Israeli Sergeant Adar Barsano mourn during his funeral at the military cemetery in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya.'

 

And:

 

'Sagit Greenberg, the wife of Israeli soldier Maj Amotz Greenberg, mourns during his funeral in the central town of Hod Hasharon.'

 

Obviously, Israeli suffering also merits compassion, but these military deaths were overshadowed by a far higher loss of Palestinian lives, most of them civilian men, women and children. The toll currently stands at 746 Palestinians killed and 4,640 wounded. Israel has suffered 32 military and two civilian deaths. One foreign worker from Thailand has also been killed.

 

In the following days (and at time of writing) the live feed was cancelled; a period that has seen hundreds of Palestinian deaths and a handful of Israeli military deaths.

 

For some time on the morning of July 21, the sole Gaza content on the BBC News home page was 'Breaking News' of an 'Israeli soldier missing in Gaza'.

 

Remarkably, on the morning of July 23, when 18 Palestinians were killed, the BBC set up a live feed for the wrecked Italian cruise liner Costa Concordia, which showed the ship being towed to Genoa. There was no live feed for Gaza.

 

The BBC has supplied names, ages, pictures and emotive background stories of the Malaysian air crash victims while, with rare exceptions, Palestinian dead have been presented as nameless figures, briefly mentioned, then forgotten.

 

The level of BBC bias was emphasised by an article headline that placed inverted commas around the siege in Gaza, as if it were a matter for debate: "Palestinian PM says lift Gaza 'siege' as part of ceasefire". The BBC subsequently changed the title, but a tweet promoting the article with the original wording remains.

 

The BBC has also implied that 'Rockets fired from Gaza' are comparable to 'Gaza targets hit by Israel'. Readers are to understand that attempted attacks by unguided, low-tech rockets are comparable to actual bombings by state of the art bombs, missiles and shells. The BBC's source? 'Israel Defence Forces.'

 

On July 21, BBC News at Ten presenter Huw Edwards asked a colleague live on air:

 

'...the Israelis saying they'll carry on as long as necessary to stop the Hamas rocket attacks. Do you detect any signs at all that there's a hope of a coming together in the next few days or weeks, or not?'

 

In other words, BBC News presented Hamas rocket attacks as the stumbling block to peace, exactly conforming to Israeli state propaganda.

 

In a report on the same edition of News at Ten, the BBC's world affairs editor, John Fidler-Simpson CBE, asserted that 'one reason why casualties on the two sides are so out of proportion' is because 'Israel has developed the world's most effective anti-missile defence'.

 

This suggested a more or less equal fight with Israel simply better able to protect itself. Fidler-Simpson added:

 

'The Iron Dome system's ability to knock Hamas missiles out of the sky has been a remarkable achievement for Israel during this crisis. The success rate is quite phenomenal.'

 

Back in the real world, weapons experts Ted Postol of MIT and Richard Lloyd of Tesla Laboratory, argue that claims for Iron Dome are wildly exaggerated, estimating a success rate of less than 5 per cent. Peter Coy of BloombergBusinessweek comments:

 

'Lloyd e-mailed me a copy of a 28-page analysis that's the most detailed critique yet of the holes in the Iron Dome system - holes so big that, if he's right, would justify calling it Iron Sieve.'

 

BBC bias has also been typified by its downplaying, or complete blanking, of large-scale demonstrations in several UK cities protesting BBC coverage. As activist Jonathon Shafi noted of the BBC's lack of interest:

 

'It is misinformation of the worst, and it is an insult to journalism.'

 

After the four Palestinian Bakr boys, aged between 9 and 11, were killed by an Israeli shell, the New York Times headline on July 16 read:

 

'Boys Drawn to Gaza Beach, and Into Center of Mideast Strife'

 

This worked well to obscure the truth that the boys had been killed while playing football on a beach. Artist Amir Schiby produced a wonderful, moving tribute to the Bakr boys.

 

Even indisputable evidence here and here that Israel had fired on hospitals in Gaza, major war crimes, brought little outrage from politicians and media. Jonathan Whittall, Head of Humanitarian Analysis at Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), reminded the world (citing MSF General Director Christopher Stokes on the crisis in Libya in 2012):

 

'Our role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions.'

 

Despite the unequal battle and high civilian death toll, no high-profile advocates of the West's 'responsibility to protect' ('R2P') civilians in Iraq, Libya and Syria have been calling for 'intervention'.

 

We asked passionate 'R2Pers' like David Aaronovitch, Jonathan Freedland and Menzies Campbell if they felt 'we must do something'. They did not reply. Freedland commented in a BBC interview that the death toll was 'very lopsided' – a polite euphemism for a massacre that, according to Unicef, has claimed 10 children per day. E-International Relations website reports:

 

'While the conflict has generated near blanket international media coverage it has been strangely ignored by the three most prominent and vociferous organisations established to promote the idea of "The Responsibility to Protect", namely The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP), the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) and the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (APCR2P)...

 

'Since the operation began these groups have published myriad tweets, posts and articles – on issues ranging from the rights of women, the treatment of refugees, mass atrocity cries and the provision of medical aid... Yet, coverage of the crisis in Gaza has been negligible.'

 

[Dougie Do'ins]

Why is such a fuss being made of this soldier who's funeral was today?

 

I don't mean to be unduly harsh, but now that the kidnap lie has been blown out of the water, isn't he just another soldier who is just another casualty of war? You know, one if those things "that happen" in war, like civilian casualties?

 

Why is his death being escalated beyond the deaths of all the other IDF soldiers who have succumbed during this war?

 

If one was cynical, you could see it as a deliberate attempt by the power bearers in Israel to attempt to re-shift the focus in the PR side of things, which they are slowly but surely beginning to lose?

 

Given the use of hasbara, manuals to promote Israel etc, we all know now what lengths they'll go to in the PR game, to try to get people to like them.

 

So, can we really put it past them to be as cold and calculated to use the death of one of their own to try and gain sympathy, to influence PR?

 

The Israeli PR machine - akin to those pages on Facebook that use a photo of a sick child for "likes"?

Can we put it past them not to have fabricated this whole 'kidnapped' scenario ? I'm convinced they knew he was dead from the outset. As I said yesterday, all just a little to convenient for me.

[Spy Bee]

Oh FFS, this formatting thing pisses me right off!

[Strontium]

Dog. Any reply to my last post about how Israel thought supporting Hamas to undermine the PLO feeds into you thinking they don't desire conflict?

 

Divide and conquer, or the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Who knows what the misguided thinking all those decades ago was.

[stringvest]

If you don't know just say so.  We won't laugh at you.

 

what is your point?

[Strontium]

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5602701

 

Great article. I couldn't disagree with a single word.

 

 

That article ended in what would appear a pretty balanced way but the points before that don't seem particularly objective.
One point I see keeps cropping up is how Isreal mustn't want Palastinian casualties because if it did there'd be loads more, while Hamas benefits from civilian casualties (which I don't doubt). My question to that point then is why do Isreal keep giving Hamas what they want?

 

Great question. I'm going to go for arrant stupidity.

[Croque Monsieur]

Can we put it past them not to have fabricated this whole 'kidnapped' scenario ? I'm convinced they knew he was dead from the outset. As I said yesterday, all just a little to convenient for me.

If the article linked to in post 1207 is to be believed, he was shot by IDF troops to prevent him from being taken alive.

 

So, if true, the Israeli government knew full well he was dead, but used the notion that he was 'kidnapped' as a cover for its policy of killing soldiers in imminent danger of capture.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Its not about choosing sides its not watching a football match between two neutral teams. Its seeing kids being blown to pieces with flechette shells and being appalled by it. Isreal has incredible defenses and unlimited support from powerful countries it has absolutely every power to take another path. I have no affinity to isreal or Palestine no reason to pick one side over another just enough decency as a human being to think there is no justification for this kind of response. None at all. Seeing those kids running on the beach and then being blown to pieces if that is a reasonable human response if that's an acceptable act of defence then god help us all. A million bullet points by people infinitely smarter than me won't make me think seeing a man carrying his toddlers shredded body in a plastic bag is okay, that tit for tat and they started it first or we could of done far worse if we wanted justifies it all.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

To the character who was asking a non-question about goals of Israel earlier, the focus has now shifted to Hamas members now.

 

Directly. They're dripping leaflets now in Gaza advising people to stay away from known Hamas members AND THEIR FAMILIES, as they are now their targets.

 

Families of Hamas? Surely that's not a legitimate target, both morally and legally?

[Stu Monty]

Divide and conquer, or the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Who knows what the misguided thinking all those decades ago was.

 

Well we know, for a fact, that the thinking was to support the more aggressive and violent branch of the Palestinians to undermine the less violent and less militant branch. 

 

I'm asking you how you factor that into your opinion on Israel really wanting to deal with a peaceful and progressive Palestinian face and not desiring a more militant environment.  What logical gymnastics are you doing to come to your opinion? You clearly have a different view to what that "misguided thinking" was to me and I'm asking you what it is.

[Stu Monty]

To the character who was asking a non-question about goals of Israel earlier, the focus has now shifted to Hamas members now.

 

Directly. They're dripping leaflets now in Gaza advising people to stay away from known Hamas members AND THEIR FAMILIES, as they are now their targets.

 

Families of Hamas? Surely that's not a legitimate target, both morally and legally?

 

The US did it quite recently to a teenage son of a US citizen they thought was a baddie and had recently blown up (that was nowhere near anyone that could be a legitimate target) so why not?

[Arl arse]

http://sgtreport.com/2014/08/obama-administration-sells-israeli-military-extra-grenade-and-tank-rounds-to-use-in-attack-on-gaza/#comments

[Arl arse]

[Phoenix]

To the character who was asking a non-question about goals of Israel earlier, the focus has now shifted to Hamas members now.

 

Directly. They're dripping leaflets now in Gaza advising people to stay away from known Hamas members AND THEIR FAMILIES, as they are now their targets.

 

Families of Hamas? Surely that's not a legitimate target, both morally and legally?

Its just PR to show that they are trying to avoid civilian deaths. The Dahiya doctrine is clearly in use, against the Palestinians.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just caught the end of C4 news then. Didn't see the interview, but the newscaster summed it up as the IDF claiming that the latest hit on a UNRWA shelter/school might have occurred because they were actually targeting a Hamas terrorist who was carrying rockets but was travelling past the school at the time of the IDF strike.

 

Hahahahahahahahaha! Do fuck off!

[Stu Monty]

Like when you hit someone deliberately and then tell them there was a fly on them. For a laugh. 

 

IDF - Life in the funny lane.

[Anubis]

Just caught the end of C4 news then. Didn't see the interview, but the newscaster summed it up as the IDF claiming that the latest hit on a UNRWA shelter/school might have occurred because they were actually targeting a Hamas terrorist who was carrying rockets but was travelling past the school at the time of the IDF strike.

 

Hahahahahahahahaha! Do fuck off!

 

The dog ate my homework.

[Dougie Do'ins]

Just getting up to an hour in to that. How refreshing.

[Section_31]

Remember that Kelvin McKenzie insight on the issue on Question Time? Something about gaza having too many Snickers bars due to sanctions? No, seriously.

[Spy Bee]

Great article. I couldn't disagree with a single word.

 

Although we disagreed a lot, I used to think you were pretty clever.

[Section_31]

Can't really get down with any Russia Today stuff, it's like the Yorkshire Ripper badmouthing Barry Bulsara.

[Spy Bee]

Can't really get down with any Russia Today stuff, it's like the Yorkshire Ripper badmouthing Barry Bulsara.

Have you ever watched it? I'd argue that it is less partisan than the BBC by a street.

[Jairzinho]

Can't really get down with any Russia Today stuff, it's like the Yorkshire Ripper badmouthing Barry Bulsara.

Its quite possible to disagree entirely with Russia's policies, believe RT to be purely pro Russia propaganda, yet find much of their coverage of, for e.g, Palestine/Israel, to be much closer to the truth than the abysmal shite churned out by the BBC.

 

I find the BBC to be, in general, laughably biased on many issues, but wouldn't decide to never watch any of their documentaries ever again, for e.g.

[KMD7]

Have you ever watched it? I'd argue that it is less partisan than the BBC by a street.

 

I tuned in last night for the first time mate and I agree with you.  I kept switching between that and CNN and you would think that two different conflicts were being reported, and that it wasn't RT that was biased.  CNN were a fucking disgrace

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I've just seen Regev's interview on plus 1.

 

Oh my goodness. It's cringeworthy.

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/gaza-attack-we-were-striking-a-legitimate-target-video