Search the Community

Israel president Shimon Peres accuses Britain of pro-Arab bias Veteran politician claims MPs pander to Muslim voters with anti-Jewish rhetoric and glorify Palestinians as underdogs (18) Tweet this (46) Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Sunday 1 August 2010 16.20 BST Article history Shimon Peres on a trip to Slovenia earlier this month. His accusations against British MP are likely to spark a strong response. Photograph: Darko Bandic/AP Israel's president, Shimon Peres, has accused some British MPs of pandering to anti-Israel sentiment among their Muslim voters, claiming there is a "deeply pro-Arab" core in the UK establishment. In an interview with Jewish website Tablet, conducted by Israeli historian Benny Morris, Peres says: "There are several million Muslim voters [in the UK]. And for many members of parliament, that's the difference between getting elected and not getting elected." On Labour politicians, he said: "They think the Palestinians are the underdog. In their eyes, the Arabs are the underdog. Even though this is irrational." He offers the illustration of Israeli disengagement of Gaza as evidence of bias. "We evacuated 8,000 settlers, and it was very difficult … It cost us $2.5bn in compensation. "We left the Gaza Strip completely. Why did they fire rockets at us? For years they fired rockets at us … When they fired at us, the British didn't say a word." Peres's remarks chime with a deepening concern among Israeli politicians that opinion, particularly in Europe, is turning against the Jewish state. Last week, David Cameron described Gaza as a "prison camp" during a visit to Turkey, which some commentators interpreted as a hardening of an anti-Israel position in Britain. Peres, 86, also claimed there is more antisemitism in the UK than is acknowledged. "There is in England a saying that an antisemite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." He added: "There has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment." He cited historical examples of Britain's failure to support Israeli interests, including abstention in the 1947 UN partition resolution, an arms embargo against Israel in the 1950s and a defence treaty with Jordan. "They always worked against us," he said. However, he conceded that there is support for Israel today on the British right. Yesterday Labour MP Denis MacShane, who chaired a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism in 2005, said Peres was wrong. "While there has certainly been a growth of anti-semitic attacks in the UK and too many MPs and civil servants refuse to acknowledge the growth of neo antisemitism, I do not consider Britain to be an antisemitic nation any more than it is an Islamophobic nation, despite some ugly words and actions against both Jews and Muslims," he said. Mark Gardner, from the Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors antisemitism in the UK, said that although it was possible to "make a case" in support of Peres's comments the UK government had worked hard to tackle the problem of antisemitism. "There is no doubt that statistically the number of antisemitic incidents is higher now than it was in the 1990s," he said. "However, the government is taking correct and proper measures to tackle this and address the concerns of the Jewish community." Diane Abbott, Labour leadership candidate, described Peres's comments as "rubbish". "It is a confusion that people make all the time between a criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and criticism of Israel itself." Abbott said there was no correlation between MPs' views on Israeli policies and the religious or cultural makeup of their constituencies. And she denied there was a "pro Arab" bias in the British establishment. "On the contrary, the British people are naturally sympathetic to the Israeli people because of the origins of that state but that does not mean there can be no legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government." Peres is a veteran Israeli politician, who was first elected to the Knesset in 1959. As foreign minister, he won the Nobel peace prize in 1994, along with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, for the Oslo accords. He served twice as prime minister, and was elected president in 2007. I nearly spat my coffee all over the keyboard reading this horseshit. I would say that any rational person in the world would describe Palestine as underdogs.

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media March 23, 2010 MEDIA ALERT: WHEN FACTS AND PROPAGANDA COLLIDE - THE BBC BENDS OVER BACKWARDS TO ACCOMMODATE ISRAELI CLAIMS When a Thai kibbutz worker was killed in Israel by a rocket launched from Gaza last week, BBC News online gave the incident headline coverage flagged up on its home page. (BBC news online, ‘Rocket fire from Gaza kills man in southern Israel’, 23:42 GMT, Thursday, 18 March 2010 BBC News - Rocket fire from Gaza kills man in southern Israel) By contrast, the killing of two Palestinian teenagers, Mohammad Qadus and Osaid Qadus, by Israeli soldiers on Saturday was buried at the end of a short news report on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's Middle East visit. Even worse, the BBC’s footnote simply echoed Israeli propaganda that “no live bullets were fired, only tear gas and rubber bullets”, despite ample evidence to the contrary. (BBC news online, ‘UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade’, 11:26 GMT, Sunday, 21 March 2010, BBC News - UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade) Yesterday morning, we joined with a number of media activists in sending complaints to the BBC. We emailed Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. We asked Bowen why BBC News so often channels the Israeli version of events without proper scrutiny. We pointed out that, in contrast to the BBC, other news media had given the tragic killings of Mohammad Qadus and Osaid Qadus significant prominence, while also providing strong evidence that directly contradicted Israeli claims. For example, the Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported that the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem had obtained an X-ray of Osaid Qadus's body that refuted the Israeli army's assertion that “no live bullets were fired”. B‘Tselem commented: "Rubber-coated steel bullets will not enter and exit the body in that way. It's very clear these injuries would not have been caused by any kind of crowd-control measure. The army's explanation is simply impossible and not consistent with the evidence." (Ma’an news agency, ‘Army explanation “simply impossible”’, 22 March, 2010; Maan News Agency: Army explanation 'simply impossible') Likewise, the Guardian challenged Israeli claims on the use of live ammunition, reporting that "a hospital x-ray of Osaid Qadus, seen by the Guardian, showed a bullet lodged in his brain." The Guardian added: "Ahmed Hamad, a doctor at the hospital who treated the two, said the x-ray showed a 'classic, pure metallic bullet'. He said both boys had injuries with small entry wounds." (Rory McCarthy, ‘Palestinians shot dead by Israeli troops near Nablus. Two teenagers killed day after boys, 15 and 17, shot in village’, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 March 2010 14.22 GMT; Palestinians shot dead by Israeli troops near Nablus | World news | guardian.co.uk) The Independent was also able to verify that a conventional bullet was "lodged in the brain of Osaid Qadus". (Donald Macintyre, ‘Two more Palestinian youths shot dead by Israelis in bloody weekend. X-rays show deaths were caused by conventional bullets but military claim only rubber rounds were fired’, Independent, 22 March 2010; Two more Palestinian youths shot dead by Israelis in bloody weekend - Middle East, World - The Independent) We concluded our challenge to Bowen: “Why, by contrast, has the BBC provided an echo chamber for Israeli propaganda on the army killings of these two Palestinian boys? Why were their deaths buried at the end of a report on Ban Ki-Moon's visit? Why not give headline coverage, as you did when rocket fire from Gaza killed a man in Israel?” We have not yet received a response. Postscript: A Belated Note of Scepticism Several hours after media activists emailed the BBC, an online news report finally appeared on the BBC website casting doubt on the official Israeli version of events. (‘B'tselem says live bullets may have killed Palestinians’, 18:42 GMT, March 22, 2010; BBC News - B'tselem says live bullets may have killed Palestinians). Perhaps the BBC would anyway have returned to the story, but we suspect that the complaints pricked consciences and at the very least helped accelerate the response (BBC personnel have admitted as much to us in the past). What, in any case, did the broadcaster now report? The new BBC article stated that B’Tselem is “calling for an investigation into the deaths of two Palestinians it suspects were killed by live fire, contrary to military claims.” The report then generously afforded Israel some wiggle room: “On Saturday, the Israeli military said live fire had not been used. “On Monday, spokeswoman Avital Liebowich told the BBC that had been the conclusion of an initial investigation, and maintained that the army ‘did not give any orders to use live fire’. “She said a ‘debriefing’ was taking place at brigade level regarding the incident.” The article was, as far as we could see, not flagged up from the BBC news home page - in stark contrast to last week’s report of the kibbutz worker killed in Gaza. This latest report also carefully stepped back from the BBC’s initial echoing of Israeli propaganda on the deaths of two more Palestinian youths killed on Sunday; namely, that “the Israel army said soldiers shot dead two Palestinians who tried to stab a soldier at a checkpoint in the West Bank.” (BBC news online, ‘UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade’, 11:26 GMT, Sunday, 21 March 2010, BBC News - UN chief says Gaza suffering under Israeli blockade) In the latest approved version, published yesterday evening, the BBC again worked hard to accommodate the shifting Israeli version of events: “The military initially said the Palestinians had tried to stab a soldier. Later reports said they had attacked security forces with pitchforks and an axe. “On Monday Ms Liebowich said the two Palestinians were carrying a container filled with rocks and a medical syringe, and possibly also pitchforks. “‘The soldiers understood they were about to get hurt and opened fire to save themselves,’ she said. “But a local Palestinians [sic] told the BBC the two men were arrested before they were killed, on the basis of a phone call a village elder says he received from the military saying they were being held, before later hearing that they had been shot dead.” It is clear that this is a real test for BBC News - while it much prefers to echo the Israeli perspective, the facts must somehow be accommodated. Serious questions remain, then, about the BBC’s professed commitment to fair and impartial reporting. Why did the broadcaster’s initial reporting present the Israeli view at face value? Why was it so slow to present evidence to the contrary? And why does it continue to give so little prominence to the deaths of Palestinian youths at the hands of Israeli soldiers?