BBC, Gaza and impartiality

To put it as delicately as possible - “impartiality” my ass.
And you gotta love Tony Benn!

Yup, it’s the Jewish conspiracy yet again. And look how effectively it’s employed censorship to keep this appeal out of the public eye. I was blissfully unaware of it until I read it here…

I mean, really - grow up.

Geez, Beth, you’ve really got a hair-trigger about Israel, don’t you? “Conspiracy” is a loaded term, suggesting the far-fetched. If anything is far-fetched here, it is the BBC’s plea of “impartiality”. And if Israel, at least indirectly, is not leaning on the BBC - that it would be strikes me simply as realpolitik - then the BBC’s stance becomes downright morally perverse.

Btw, you should get a hold of Friday’s Church Times and check out the letter co-authored by Canon Paul Oestreicher and Professor Barbara Einhorn. Of Jewish grandparentage, they both work with the British organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians (which has expressed deep shame at Israel’s reckless invasion of Gaza). They write: “For years militant Zionism has imposed a cruel occupation regime. A courageous, embattled Israeli minority is not afraid to go on to the streets and to be labelled as traitors. The media around the world ignores them. Among them are teenagers who refuse to be part of an occupation army and are in Israeli prisons. That Israeli opposition is the true voice of the prophets of Israel.”

“No longer,” the letter continues, “has this state the right to shelter behind the Holocaust, the Shoah, in which our grandparents died, to render Israel immune from condemnation. The charge of anti-Semitism will not stick when levelled at patriots like the 85-year-old prophet of peace Yuri Avnery…” And the authors then go on to point to the tragic irony that it is Israel itself, with its abhorrent actions, that is exacerbating “the not-so-latent anti-Semitism in British society.”

That Israel should be denounced, and that the BBC should add its influence to the rebuilding of Gaza - I submit it’s a double ethical no-brainer.

I wish I had been at your Unity Service, Paul! For the first time, ours was hosted by the local black church, the New Testament Church of God. Its pastor had visited Israel and was subsequently sent a video for use in his services. So this video was shown in the middle of the service, to our great consternation. It was clearly a proganda video depicting the way that Palestinians indocrinate their childen against Israel - and one white lady walked out. Many others didn’t stay for the refreshments afterwards. Such a video, even if completey true, , had no place in a service for the Week of Prayer fro Christian Unity.

“Geez, Beth, you’ve really got a hair-trigger about Israel, don’t you?”
Yes, I do. Does that mean that my opinions are necessarily wrong?

“if Israel, at least indirectly, is not leaning on the BBC - that it would be strikes me simply as realpolitik - then the BBC’s stance becomes downright morally perverse.”
Okay, let’s say things were the other way round and the BBC did what you wanted and showed the appeal. Then let’s imagine that it was revealed they had been paid to do this by an anti-Semitic lobbying group. Would they then have been wrong to show the appeal? The fact that there is motivation, or even pressure, to do something does not ipso facto make that action wrong.

“…Of Jewish grandparentage, they both work with the British organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians (which has expressed deep shame at Israel’s reckless invasion of Gaza).”
So their Jewish connections make them more right than other people? Jews who do not support Israel have no more weight behind them than anyone else who doesn’t support Israel.

“…the authors then go on to point to the tragic irony that it is Israel itself, with its abhorrent actions, that is exacerbating the not-so-latent anti-Semitism in British society.”
Yes, it’s tragic but not ironic, I don’t think. The fact of a Jewish state with military power was always going to be a cause of anti-Semitism. Israel is not the guardian of the world’s Jews, but of its own citizens. If its actions are used (as they are) by liberals and right-wingers alike who need an excuse to dust off their anti-Semitism and wear it once more as a badge of pride, that is not the fault of Israel.

“That Israel should be denounced, and that the BBC should add its influence to the rebuilding of Gaza - I submit it’s a double ethical no-brainer.”
If you have to state that something goes without saying, then it probably doesn’t. There are plenty of respectable and intelligent people who would disagree with you. Do you submit that they lack brains? Or maybe just humanity?

I’m not saying that I disagree with everything you say, but I just don’t think you’ve given any particularly strong arguments for your position here.

Here’s what I think. The appeal for Gaza should be shown as widely as possible. But the BBC has no obligation to screen it if it contravenes its editorial policy. That said, the BBC should provide a clarification as to its guidelines on this kind of issue, and make sure it sticks to them, to prevent exactly this kind of furore.

World media should also give a lot more airspace to anti-war sentiment within Israel - repressing that kind of thing does a lot more harm than good.

Beth: “If its actions are used (as they are) by liberals and right-wingers alike who need an excuse to dust off their anti-Semitism and wear it once more as a badge of pride, that is not the fault of Israel.”

Oh, dear. Throwing around labels like this is really not going to clarify the issue, is it. First, I think there is more anti-Israel sentiment here from the left than the right. Second, “anti-Israel” doesn’t equate to “anti-Semitism.” Leaving aside the fact that Arabs are also semitic, the issue is more nuanced than that.

For the record, I have been a friend of Israel for over 40 years. As a young teenager, used to seeing wars in terms of goodies versus baddies, I was caught on the hop by the 1967 6-day war because I didn’t know whose side I was supposed to be on. I sided with Israel because I thought they were the underdog, being bullied by all these surrounding nasty neighbours. OK, not very sophisticated, but I was young. As I grew older, my understanding became more sophisticated and informed, and I have still tried to support Israel.

Israel has made it difficult, I’m afraid. I have gone on record in several places to attack the one-sided “it’s all Israel’s fault” reporting of the recent fighting, but I cannot accept the overkill, or the illegality of the Wall, or the oppression of Palestinian communities, or the blatant lying of Israeli propaganda as evidenced by the government website I quoted.

A friend is honest, and doesn’t stop being a friend because he’s honest.

You’re tempted to say “If that’s the best they can do…” but given some of the medieval stuff that circulated about eating babies, that’s pretty bad. Anti-Semitism has always been an issue, I’m afraid. Knowing that the idiots are idiots doesn’t make it easier to bear.

DH: “Why can’t there be a period of time for analysis before producing the ad?”

Because the need is now. The charities who are involved are politically impartial, and would be acting to support Jewish people if the situation was reversed. The fact is that the damage done by Hamas to Israel is minimal, while the damage done by Israel to Gaza is significant. It is also true that Israel is refusing to allow building materials into Gaza so people who are homeless will remain so. They cannot work to earn a living. They have no medical resources for their wounded and injured. Wihout aid, they cannot survive the few months until the sceptics and cautious can make sure everything is kosher.

Israel is pushing people into the hands of Hamas. The BBC is helping them.

Tony, by “Jewish people” you mean Israelis, of course, because you would never fall into that polemical trap of equating the Jews with the Israelis. Right?

Apart from the fact that I fully agree with the BBC’s and Sky’s stance the simple fact by deciding not to show the appeal has given it so much more publicity than it would ever of had if they had simply agreed to show it straight away.

It has been the only story that has come close to knocking off the “credit crisis” off the top billing on the news.

Well, not entirely. Whether or not you like it, Hamas IS the elected government in Gaza, and if the Gaza police seized the material, it is just possibly because the local government are trying to take back authority in their own territory.

I did hear the report on the BBC earlier today, and I note that it is open to a degree of interpretation - if it were just “Hamas militia/gunmen taking relief materials” I’d agree with you, but the police were specifically mentioned. They might be corrupt, could be working hand in glove with militia, or not. We don’t know.

Oh, I get it. When Hitler took control of Germany we can’t use the phrase “seize control of Germany” in reference to his very first election. I think that is hogwash. To me police, milita, gunmen they all are working hand in hand. Also, I really doubt the analysis that the UN said that “this was the first time”.

Happened only once when if one reads the url below there was stealing of aid in 2003? Sounds like the UN is “covering their but”. It seeems THIS article proves it:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=15216

Here is a post that gives more detail about what Hamas is doing and goes into specific detail of the Hamas attrocities:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aidgaza.html

Tony & Richard, it appears that the facts support the fact that the aid IS being stolen and has been stolen for quite some time. I also don’t buy this “police thing”. I also believe that irregardless (notice I used a proper word in the dictionary ) of being elected or not that the world has a right to protect other countires by putting Hamas in check like Israel is doing. Heck, Amadinajad in Iran is “democratically elected”. Are you saying that we have no right to look at him harshly or that if he happens to attack another nation that we cannot go after him and his regime? Also doesn’t the people of Iran have some blame for this for electing a known supporter of terrorism? The same goes for Israel in its relations with Hamas. Just because they were “elected” doesn’t mean that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself or “delay” the two state solution until Hamas and the people who elected them takes responsibility for their actions. Heck the people of Germany and the respective government took resonsibility and/or faced consequences for their actions and the world is a better place for it. I see Palastine having the same potential as post WWII Germany, Japan, etc. but if we continue to coddle Hamas the Palastinian people will never have this opportunity. Thank God that over 44% of the people do not support Hamas (at least did not vote for them). As this percentage increases the people of Palastine will survive and be successful. Also, if one truly wants to help the Palastinian government one must support not a Democracy but a Democratic-Republic where the rights of the minority are supported. That is what truly will protect the Fatah and the Palastinian people as a whole. Otherwise the people of Palastine will continue to “shoot themselves in the foot” no pun intended.