mgcvk

Israel a sovereign state and a democracy has an opportunity to take the moral high ground and show restraint and as usual fails to do so.

dpb

Need their wings chopped off !

SJ_Skyline

Best not mess with the hebes mate

fast bloke

Could we not just nuke everything that is either south or east of the Alps and be done with it. Those people are all bigots and extremists. I'm glad I live in Northern Ireland......... erm hang on......

tony de wonderful

Why should Israeli show 'restraint'?

It's got it's security to be concerned with. Any country would do the same.

Luan Pra bang

Sorry but what is legitimate about the illegal occupation of the Golan heights by Israel ? Also you are right the BBC is so ridiculousy pro Israel that its stories sometimes read like typicial Israeli propaganda.

tony de wonderful

It's agreed upon ceasefire lines. The Golan heights may be disputed but nevertheless it is a border.

You must be blind. You have the Syrian regime killing its own people, and up on cue pops a nice little side-show of Pallies getting shot trying to cross over to Israel. How convenitent and all broadcast on Syrian TV!

mgcvk

Of course you are right, it is an obvious Syrian sideshow. It is just disappointing that Israel can't show itself in a better light than the Syrian regime by opening fire on unarmed demonstrators.

tony de wonderful

Disappointing why? Israel isn't your country and it doesn't exists to satisfy your moral sensibilities.

The border is not just a border but a ceasefire line. What do you think South Korea would do if 100's tried to force their way across the DMZ?

JTaylor

Israel warned of the consequences should 15th May be repeated. It was repeated, action was taken. Don't breach Israel's borders and ignore warning shots because you will actually get shot, even if you've taken women and children along for cover. Now, back to the Shia minority ruling the Sunni majority in Syria.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Might is

dpb

Another pariah state

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Are you talking about the same BBC that the right-wing papers continually accuse of being pro-Palestinain?


M

tony de wonderful

In what way exactly?

Luan Pra bang

Which right wing papers is that ? The ones owned by Jewish Israel supporter Murdoch ? Or reference to passionate Arab haters like Melanie Phillips and Ann Leslie ?

Luan Pra bang

independent Analysis of BBC's Israel - Palestine Coverage

In 2005, the BBC commissioned a study to review the impartiality of its Israeli - Palestinian coverage. It consisted of an independent panel, the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, and British - Israeli international lawyer Noam Lubell. Their published April 2006 findings weren't what the broadcaster wished. Highlights from them showed BBC coverage:

-- rarely covered daily Palestinian hardships and repression under occupation;

-- was incomplete, misleading, and failed to consistently provide a full and fair account of the conflict;

-- overlooked important themes; in the study period it most notably ignored Israeli annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;

-- omitted a substantial amount of important news vital to Palestinian concerns;

-- failed to convey the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience; specifically that one side is dominant and the other under occupation and forced to endure dependence indignities and hard line repression;

-- seldom used the term occupation; mentioned military occupation only once during the study period;

-- reported nothing about nearly four decades of occupation and repression;

-- misportrayed Israel's Gaza disengagement as a positive step; failed to clarify it as a ruse and that Gaza remains occupied, invaded and attacked at will;

-- failed to report Israeli assertions that relocating Gaza settlers would strengthen Israel's control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem;

-- never clarified that Gaza settlements were illegal; that Gazans face ongoing hardships and stressed instead the "controversy" of withdrawing among Israelis;

-- misused or misportrayed the term "terrorism" and only applied it to Palestinians;

-- omitted any reference to historical background and failed to put stories in proper context;

-- provided inadequate analysis and interpretation of key events and issues;

-- failed to explain the meaning of Zionism;

-- failed to provide background of the 1967 and 1973 wars;

-- consistently misportrayed Hamas; described it as formally committed to Israel's destruction; ignored Hamas' acceptance of the Arab peace proposal and its willingness to recognize Israel in return for an end to the occupation;

-- mischaracterized the Oslo Accords as positive; ignored its deficiencies and betrayal;

-- mentioned the Intifada with no explanation of cause or justification;

-- failed to cite international law and UN resolutions; their call for an end to Israel's occupation; and the fact that Israel ignores international rulings contrary to its interests;

-- ignored Palestinians' legal right to return or restitution if they choose not to;

-- ignored humanitarian and human rights laws;

-- failed to explain extrajudicial executions are illegal;

-- mischaracterized the Separation Wall that the World Court ruled illegal;

-- misrepresented the status of Jerusalem;

-- gave unequal access to Israeli officials and spokespersons; stations none of its correspondents in Occupied Palestine; has them all inside Israel; results in a huge disparity in reports favoring Israel while disparaging Palestinians;

-- misportrayed Israelis as peace-seeking and Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims as aggressors;

-- stressed Israeli victimhood, the importance of Israeli deaths and injuries, and relative unimportance of a disproportionate number of Palestinian ones;

-- responded to criticism defensively; continued to repeat past errors cited; showed deference to Israeli issues and the pro-Israeli Lobby;

-- ignored its own established editorial standards, including on terminology; as a result, consistently showed bias, a lack of clarity and precision and did little to improve comprehension and understanding;

-- overall - BBC falls far short of fair and impartial reporting and has done little to redress pointed out deficiencies; one positive note - the analysis found no evidence linking anti-Semitic behavior to BBC reports; it also found none dispelling it.

Luan Pra bang

Glasgow University Media Group Study of Middle East News Coverage - It's "Bad News from Israel" and BBC

Researchers Greg Philo and Mike Berry conducted the study between 2000 and 2002, and their above quoted 2004 book title discusses it. Little has changed from then to now, BBC's reporting highlights it, and it's "bad news" for kept-in-the-dark viewers of major UK news and current affairs coverage.

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn agrees and explained in his unsparing comments about his former employer. He called it "dishonest - in concept, approach and execution....(it) favours the occupying soldiers over the occupied Arabs, depicting the latter, essentially, as alien tribes threatening the survival of Israel, rather than vice versa." It depicts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "as a battle of two (equal) forces (with equally) right and wrong responsibility. It is the tyranny of spurious equivalence." As the UK and world's leading broadcaster, BBC is justifiably blamed.

"Bad News from Israel" explains how - by consistently showing pro-Israel bias in virtually all its reporting and at times in the extreme. Beyond the book's timeline, correspondent Chris Morris' January 2004 "Lost hope in Mid-East conflict" report is a case in point. It's about an expectant Palestinian woman confronted at a checkpoint. Prevented from passing, she gives birth and miscarries.

Morris is sympathetic but sides with the soldiers. "You can't blame (them, he says) for being jumpy at checkpoints....because there are Israeli victims too, children among them, killed by snipers and suicide bombers from the West Bank. What would you have done? Would you have taken the risk? Or would you have played it safe, fearful of a trap? And so it goes on - another week in the Middle East."

Even worse, the greater issue is ignored - an instance reflecting daily life in Occupied Palestine plus regular killings and abuse. Morris turns a blind eye. He highlights suicide bombings instead - "A Palestinian mother in her early 20s blows herself to bits and takes the lives of four young Israelis, after tricking them into believing she was ill." He continues - "A Jewish settler is killed on the West Bank, leaving five children without a father, including triplets just three months old." Reports like his are commonplace on BBC. Israeli lives matter. Palestinian ones don't. Philo and Berry document the evidence.

Their study covers what media should report, a content analysis of their coverage, and how focus group interviews show how viewers are ill-served and left uninformed. Below are some results that apply to today:

-- little or no historical context was provided; origins of the conflict were omitted; in the 2000 timeframe covered, BBC (and ITN) devoted 3500 lines of text to the Intifada, but a scant 17 to context or history;

-- reporting consistently was pro-Israel and justified the most extreme actions and lawlessness; at the same time, Palestinian resistance was highlighted and condemned as terrorism;

-- in the authors' words: "There (was) no evidence from our analysis to suggest that Palestinian views were given preferential treatment on the BBC. The opposite (was) in reality the case;"

-- BBC justified Israeli violence as "response" or "retaliation;" in contrast, Palestinian resistance was called "horrific," an "atrocity," "terrorism," or even "mass murder;"

-- some BBC reports were rife with errors whether intentionally or from ignorance;

-- reports focused on Israeli security and right to exist; comparable Palestinian rights got little mention; nor did their impoverishment, deplorable daily existence, or a brutish four-decade military occupation;

-- Israeli deaths were highlighted; Palestinian ones played down or ignored; regular Israeli incursions got little mention or weren't reported;

-- as a result, only 4% of focus group respondents knew Palestinians were driven from their homeland; only 10% that Israel occupied Palestine; some believed Palestinians were the occupiers; some viewed the conflict as a border dispute; 80% didn't know the origin of Palestinian refugees or that they were dispossessed; two-thirds didn't know Palestinian casualties exceeded Israeli ones; more knowledgeable respondents had access to books and other material that dispel BBC bias and inaccuracies;

-- senior BBC journalists interviewed told researchers that they were instructed not to give explanations; to dumb-down the news for easy listening and do it in "20-second attention span" segments; researchers believe BBC has it backwards; this type reporting alienates viewers; accuracy and more context enhances viewership; under heavy Israeli Lobby pressure, BBC and other major media report propaganda; truth is the first casualty, and viewers remain uninformed; today it's worse than ever.

BBC's Coverage of Gaza Under Siege

BBC reports little about Gaza under siege and the humanitarian crisis it caused. Instead, accounts like its January 2008 one are common. It's headlined "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel" and highlights homemade Qassams "fired by Hamas and other Palestinian militants at Israeli population centres near the Gaza Strip." They've "killed 13 people inside Israel, including three children. In some months, more than 100 launches have been recorded by the Israelis."

No mention is made of Israeli incursions, their frequency, the use of F-16 air-to-surface missiles, their accuracy and destructive power, high-tech battle tanks in civilian neighborhoods, and other sophisticated weapons freely used, including illegal ones. Nor is there mention of hundreds of Palestinian deaths, injuries, inflicted Israeli destruction, and use of Palestinians as human shields. Instead, the Israeli town of Sderot is highlighted because it's "the only large Israeli population centre within the original Qassam's range." BBC describes them in detail to over-hype their destructive potential. In fact, they're crude, inaccurate and limited in range. They hardly compare to Israel's high-tech weapons that when unleashed against a civilian population are devastating.

Later in BBC's report, it admits "Qassams are very primitive missiles and their main effect on Israelis in the area is psychological torment (and that) Israeli casualties have been relatively light." In contrast, Israeli attacks on Palestinians kill and injure many hundreds and inflict immense psychological terror against a civilian population. It's gone on for six decades, shows no signs of ebbing, but BBC won't explain it.

Nor does it report on Gaza under siege, the collective punishment of its people, the humanitarian crisis it caused, and Israel's lawless act that BBC should expose and denounce. Instead it features reports like a May 10 one about a "Gaza mortar attack kill(ing an) Israeli." Israeli air strikes followed, five Hamas members were killed and four others injured. BBC featured an Israeli government spokesperson saying "We hold (Hamas) accountable for today's attack and the murder of civilians." No Palestinian response was aired, and BBC merely ended saying that "The Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas since last June when they ousted their rivals from the Fatah movement." No context, no background, no fair and impartial reporting, no truth, and no possible way for viewers to understand.

BBC suggests that Palestinians are responsible for their own condition, that a humanitarian catastrophe is their fault, and that Israel has every right to terrorize and starve them to submission for its own security and self-interest. By BBC's standards, Israel may rightfully lock down 1.5 million people, collectively punish them, continue a repressive occupation, and refuse to negotiate in good faith, or at all. BBC is dismissive. Palestinian suffering is inconsequential, yet consider its outrage from a single Israeli death. It's also contemptuous of Hamas, ignored its months-long unilateral ceasefire, and refuses to report its willingness to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders.

BBC views the conflict from an Israeli perspective. It features government officials to explain it, and reports whatever they say as fact. This turns reality on its head, makes lawless actions justifiable, results in double standard journalism, and lets Palestinians suffer the consequences. Why not and who cares. They're just Arab Muslims in the land of Israel where Jews alone matter and not a hint of even-handed reporting exists. Now more than ever in the conflict's seventh decade, and BBC's reporting exacerbates it.

Suresh

I'm not an Israel fan, but I admire the way they don't ***** around and stick to their guns (literally). The demonstrators want martyrdom and know full well that crossing the border or INVADING if you prefer is a suicide mission.

tony de wonderful

So back to age-old anti-Semitic theories of 'the Jews' controlling us all through the media.

You still haven't answered how the BBC is pro-Israel.

tony de wonderful

Can you put that in your own words Luan or just quote ad verbatim from some report?

Your cut and paste is so vast it's almost impossible to start anywhere with it especially as you don't quote the actual context and evidence in the report just the 'conclusions', most of the 'conclusions' are just opposing the BBC for not painting in black and white the pro-Palestinian narrative/propaganda anyway.

This is just stupid for example:

Are we children? Of course it is illegal if it is extrajudicial.

So the BBC should be telling us what to think then? Does the BBC need to explain everything it mentions? Or it is just the pro-Palestinian version of what Zionism is?

And this is just evidence of whole bias in the report. Who but a pro-Palestinian would use this term?:

Also so suicide bombing should not be reported? It's like that idiot move for 'good news' a few years ago. The BBC should report one positive fact for say every murder! The BBC is biased 'cos it reports murder!

dpb

Almost as farcical as saying all darkies / muslims are free loading terrorists !

tony de wonderful

This isn't a passionate report but a whole passionate disgusting polemic again Israel. What a load of rubbish. Just look at the language:

This report clearly has an agenda. It's not even good propaganda because the Authors hypocrisy is so visible.

JTaylor

Or because the abysmal leadership coerce their population in to doing things like going to the Golan Heights, with their wives and children. Nice. But of course it's the Jews' fault. The Jews kill women and children.

JTaylor

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...part-two.thtml

bigsinky

i don't recognise it as a country. they annexed the land from Palestine. veritable cookoos of the middle east. if it wasn't for their american bum chums supplying money and arms their neighbours would have wiped this parasitic nation out years ago.

Luan Pra bang

Interesting that a registered charity is described as a terrorist organisation but typical of the out and out lies melanie philips likes to spout. I did not bother to read the rest as Al Qaeda probably makes more of an effort for unbiased journalism and reporting.

Established in 1992 and officially registered in Istanbul in 1995, İHH provides humanitarian relief in areas of war, earthquake, hunger, and conflict.[5] The İHH holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council since 2004.[6][7] Current president of the İHH is Fehmi Bülent Yıldırım.

tony de wonderful

There never was an entity called 'Palestine'.

Besides who are you to decide what constitutes a sovereign state?

Do you think Kosovo should be wiped out BTW?