Unglorious Britannia
The celebration of anti-Israel rhetoric in Britain seems to be reaching new lows by the day. This week, it was decided that Orla Guerin of the BBC, known for the consistent anti-Israel bias in her reporting, will receive an MBE (Member of the British Empire) honor from the British government for "outstanding service to broadcasting."
In one of Guerin's worst displays of antagonism towards the State of Israel, she described the arrest of a mentally-challenged 16-year old would-be suicide bomber by the IDF as "Israel's cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes." Somehow, civilized people fail to note the cynicism involved in a nation preventing terror against its citizens. Instead, they would see that cynicism displayed in sending a mentally-disabled youth to commit the murders of innocents.
When Israeli officials protested the BBC's lack of balance in Mideast coverage by refusing to cooperate with its reporters, Guerin accused the officials of paranoia, compared Israel's press freedoms to Zimbabwe's, and questioned the status of Israel as a democracy. Apparently, she didn't realize the irony of her being able to return to Israel and continue "reporting" even after she made those comments.
The British have a history of rewarding gross anti-Israel bias. In 2003, Dave Brown won the "Cartoon of the Year" award from the Political Cartoon Society for his depiction of a naked Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian child, while IDF helicopters dropped bombs (presumably on the oh-so-innocent residents of Jenin) that blared "Vote Likud". This lousy take on Goya brings to mind the anti-Semitic blood libels of medieval Europe and the present-day Arab world, and it is a telling example of how anti-Semitism has become trendy again in Britain, at least when masked in the intellectually acceptable standard of anti-Israel rhetoric.
The BBC, funded by British taxpayers, of course, has to bear much of the blame for the rising anti-Semitism in Britain. Viewers are inundated with out-of-context images of Israeli tanks vs. Palestinian stone-throwers, Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian homes, anything that depicts Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinians as their victims. There is no mention of the AK-47-clad terrorist among the stone throwers, or the weapons smuggling tunnel underneath the demolished home.
Viewers also see people interviewed regularly on the BBC who deny Israel's right to exist and accuse it of outrageous human rights abuses. These detractors and their opinions are given full legitimacy, even prominence, with perhaps a few words by a "token Jew" (Melanie Phillips's favorite way to describe her status) to provide ostensible balance. There are frequent anti-Israel documentaries, from one showing the "secrets of the Israeli nuclear program" to a fake "war crimes trial" of Ariel Sharon.
The word "terror" is never used to describe an attack against Israeli civillians; instead, the word is used in reference to retaliatory strikes by the IDF. In another example of semantic manipulation, attacks against Israelis are described in the passive voice, while the deaths of Palestinians (never taking into account in the headlines whether they were terrorists) are described as active. If this seems like a trivial complaint on my part, notice the difference between "Bus Blows up in Central Jerusalem" (Was this spontaneous combustion? Do buses just randomly blow up in Israel? Is this phenomena relegated to only Israel?) and "Four Die in Israeli Shooting Rampage" (In reference to the two terrorists who were shot dead by Israeli policemen after they had killed two Israelis and wounded 50 others in the town of Afula).
Reporting from the region is an exercise in pro-Palestinian melodrama. Almost always, there are gratuitous close-ups of doe-eyed little children in a refugee camp. Somehow, the Hamas member behind the child is always left out of the frame. Barbara Plett of the BBC was "moved literally to tears" at the sight of Yasser Arafat being carried away to Paris in a helicopter before his death. The editorials after the monster's death described him as a "hero" who had a "performer's flair".
This level of bias against the State of Israel in such a prominent part of the British media only increases animosity towards Israel among the British public. That animosity toward the Jewish state, combined with the almost non-existent response from British Jews, can only lead to increased anti-Semitism in Unglorious Britainnia.
posted by rshams @ 6:51 PM
22 comments
links to this post
22 Comments:
Wait, doesn't Israel have a nuclear program?
Oh, but isn't a little bias worth those smashing 'Masterpiece Theatre' specials?
Yes, they have one. But I doubt the documentary dealt with the fact that the Dimona reactor exists as a means of self-defense.
I'd take media accuracy over "Masterpiece Theatre" any day...and it's more than a little bias.
I do not track this sort of thing - certainly don't read the UK press - but I am aware that anti-Israel sentiment in Europe is very strong.
As one who is opposed to the Israeli occupation and the settlements, I have to say, the European sentiment seems to me to be to be partially anti-semitic, and partially...I don't know what. I don't get it, really. Maybe it's that Israel is so close to the USA that it's a 'safe' way to vent anti-American feelings for many.
Certainly the cult of victimhood has something to do with it - all 'victims' must be good, crushed by hegemonic imperialism. And Israel, by virtue of being more affluent, technically advanced, more European, supplies a hook on which to hang the bogeyman of western despotism, but...I still don't get it. Basic jew-baiting has to be partially to blame for the vehemence of a lot it, I think.
The situation of the Palestinians is so pathetic: screwed over by the Turks; run roughshod over by the Israeli state; exploited and oppressed by their leaders; robbed blind by Arafat and his cronies; despised as scum by the oil-rich nations - maybe it's just that they're so bad off, they inspire a totally emotional sympathy that ignores the grotesqueness of their leadership. I don't like to do armchair psychology, but perhaps people feel righteous by denoucing those who oppress these forlorn people, and Israel - deserving of a fair amount of dencouncing, I think - is a convenient receptacle for it all.
You raise a good point about the fact that some of the anti-Israel sentiment may have arisen from its close ties to the U.S.
As for the Palestinians, I'll be the first to say they've been victimized - BUT NOT BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Yes, they have terrible leaders and have been used as pawns by the Arab states, but that doesn't negate that the whole movement for Palestinian independence was based on the destruction of Israel. It doesn't change the fact that the people gave explicit, as well as tacit, consent in regards to the terrorism. It is possible to oppose the existence of an occupation while keeping in mind the reason it exists - the Arab states, with the full support of the Palestinian populace in the W. Bank and Gaza, tried to destroy the state of Israel.
Therefore, I don't think Israel "deserves a fair amount of denouncing" for simply defending itself over the decades.
I don't see Israel as blameless: the state displaced thousands of Palestinians in a brutal manner in '48. In this, they are merely following the typical method of building a nation, i.e. violence and murder. No nation has clean hands (well, maybe Iceland).
The building of settlements in the occupied lands was, I believe, a stupid and misguided policy based on Begin's fundamentalism and Sharon's (et al) short-sighted belief that a simple military policy would end the 'problem' of the Palestinians. Same goes for the invasion of Lebanon.
I don't support or excuse for a minute the policies of the Palestinian leadership, and my attitude to the ordinary Palestinian who supports terror - however passively or tepidly - varies from pity to rage depending on the subject, but facts are facts.
Just because Jews have been horribly oppressed for centuries, murdered in the millions, doesn't mean that the Jewish State cannot be criticized.
The choice for both groups is simple - come to a reasonable compromise or go on killing each other. After Arafat, with Sharon seeming to perceive the limits of military policies, maybe they can do it.
Palestinians weren't "brutally displaced" as a part of the creation of the state of Israel. Zionist pioneers bought the land from Ottoman rulers, worked on it, and developed it into a modern nation themselves. Palestinian nationalism didn't really arise until the 1960s - as a way to destroy the state of Israel. The "displacement" occurred when five Arab armies decided to attack the newly established (and hugely outnumbered, in terms of population and military strength) nation. Many Palestinians left their homes because of the war that was raging around them; many more were urged to leave by Arab leaders who thought the Jews would be "driven into the sea" in no time and the Palestinians could return. Yes, some Palestinians were driven out during the war by extremists opposed to the Haganah (the main established military of pre-state Israel), and that is tragic. Yet, that is not at all representative of the way Israel was created, nor of the War of Independence itself.
"Just because Jews have been horribly oppressed for centuries, murdered in the millions, doesn't mean that the Jewish State cannot be criticized."
I have never heard any mainstream advocate of Israel say that particular Israeli policies can't be criticized (or that it is "anti-Semitic" when they are). If you've read previous posts of mine, I've criticized right-wing settlers and the Israeli government for using them and allowing so much expansion. However, when Israel is singled out for criticism when it acts as any other Western democracy would in a similar situation; when Israel is castigated simply for defending its citizens; and perhaps most of all, when the very idea of a Jewish nation is delegitimized - I personally find that to be anti-Semitic and not within the bounds of an acceptable argument.
Finally, I have a problem with the moral equivalence given to Israelis and Palestinians. They are NOT "killing each other", at least not when that phrase is taken out of context. Palestinian terrorists started this current conflict, attacking soldiers and civillians alike. IDF troops, on the other hand, kill those who sent the terrorists, so as to prevent more murder against the people they must protect. That is not a "cycle of violence".
I assent to the greater part of your history of the founding of Israel, but I believe it has been pretty well documented that there was a lot of organized pushing out of the Palestinians during the war attending its creation. (This is not a topic I spend a lot of time on, so I can't cite references from memory.) I didn't say that such displacements were typical, or characteristic, only that they happened, and, therefore, that Israel is not blameless.
I agree that Israel is often held to, and castigated for not attaining a higher standard which no nation I know of has reached. I suggested some reasons for that in my previous post here.
I was not asserting any 'moral equivalence' other than the equivalence of human beings that deserve to have decent lives. Your remark,
...They are NOT "killing each other", at least not when that phrase is taken out of context...
prompts me to say, "So, don't take it out of context." In my remarks, it simply meant what it said, to wit, Israelis are dying because of actions by Palestinians, and vice versa. I would like to see the phenomenon of death by explosion/bullet/brick/rocket...etc. ended. If that's a reprehensible example of 'moral equivalence' run amok, I can only suggest that your point of view is so passionate that you have lost sight of the fact that there are other ways of viewing the situation.
I agree with your assessment that I am passionate about the topic, but not that such passion has prevented my understanding that there are other opinions surrounding it. Disagreement with another opinion doesn't necessarily mean a lack of acknowledgement that it exists in the realm of argument.
I look forward to the day when no Israelis or Palestinians are involved in conflict. However, I see the different circumstances in which Israelis and Palestinians are currently "being killed". One side has initiated the violence and targeted civilians, while the other side has defended itself and targeted terrorists. Yes, it is undeniably tragic for both sides, but it is important to keep in mind the reality of the situation.
Well, my point is that people 'keep it in mind' a bit too much. Not that I think people should forget it - if that's what they think about it - but it seems to me that it prevents the two sides from sitting down and talking about how to end the miserable affair. The Palestinians have their version which they want 'to keep in mind.' It is sort of like the ridiculous arguments about who has 'title' to the land. Each side can cite 'sources' going back quite a ways, but what does it matter? Does the Old Testament give title? Does the Arab invasion of the 9th century? The British Mandate? Enough already.
So, as I mentioned before, I think the Palestinians and the Arab states are responsible for the century-old conflict. Therefore, I find it hard to negate the past in order to "achieve dialogue" and "achieve peace", because it would be dialogue and peace based on false assumptions, and therefore, not real dialogue and certainly not real peace. How can Israelis be sure that the Palestinians will live up to their side of the treaty if there is no historical precedent?
That is why I'm so adamant in keeping history and the current reality in mind.
Well, I'm ALL for keeing history in mind since, as I always say, the past is present. But even if I accept your statement that the Arabs and Palestinians are [solely] responsible for the conflict, it doesn't change much. Pragmatism is more important now.
As for how can the Israeli's be sure the other side will keep their bargain if there is no precedent...a bad situation, indeed - I agree. As Kissinger [a man I despise] said, "Trust, but verify."
I'm obviously too young to remember this, but wasn't it Reagan who said that?
"the state displaced thousands of Palestinians in a brutal manner in '48"
"The building of settlements in the occupied lands was, I believe, a stupid and misguided policy based on Begin's fundamentalism "
lichanos, you obviosuly haven't a friggin' clue about the history of Israel. i suggest you read up on reputable sources before posting such nonsense.
there was no 'brutal' displacement of so-called 'Palestinians" (i.e. displaced arabic speaking peoples of mixed ethnic origin, predominantly muslim, most of whom had immigrated or their ancestors immigrated to this region the past century), NOT by Jews. that's alot of tripe.
also, what in blazes is a 'settlement'? these are Jewish TOWNS, CITIES. 'settlement' would more accurately describe the situation of Little House on the Prarie.
furthermore, these disputed territories are NOT 'occupied'. these lands were CEDED to Israel by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan(West Bank) who previously ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED these lands and then lost these lands to Israel as a consequence of a war for which they are responsible.
this land belongs to Israel.
the hostile arabs ( i.e. displaced arabic speaking peoples of mixed ethnic origin, predominantly muslim)squatting on this land need to be sent packing. those willing to live peacefully under Israeli sovereignty should be allowed to stay and granted full citizenship. if the numerous polls are to be believed, the number of friendly arabs is rather miniscule, thus not presenting a great demographic threat to the single tiny Jewish state.
Around and around we go.smiling neocon is "adamant about keeping history in mind" but as Edward Said realized and articulated so well, the victors get to write the history,which of course leaves us doomed to eternal conflict.We have one history which says "the Zionist pioneers bought the land from the Ottoman rulers", something like the Lousiana Purchase I imagine, so they hold some kind of title or deed to the property.The history I know has the United Nations partitioning the British Mandate at Balfour in1947 giving 55% of Palestine to the Zionist immigrants,who at the time only owned a small percentage of the land.When neighboring Arab countries (not just Palestinians,these countries had their own aspirations)attacked the new Jewish state in 48,the Israelis siezed approximately 78% of Palestine,sending most Palestinians into exile or else forcibly removed.Jordan and Egypt then took another 22% of the little that was left(WestBank and Gaza) which was then conquered by Israel with some other Arab land in the 67 war.
The United Nations, under resolution 242, recognizes all Palestinian populated West Bank and Gaza as illegally occupied territory. Maybe some do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN, whatever,three million Palestinians live under direct occupation, another four million as refugees.Israel meanwhile,in violation of international law,has been colonizing these areas, and continues as we speak, with almost 500,000 Jewish settlers.According to jewsagainsttheoccupation.org Israel systematically violates the human rights of Palestinians,"( home demolitions,destruction of fields and orchards,arrests without due process )and has developed an elaborate system of of racial discrimination embedded in it's legal system,forming what amounts to an apartheid state. We wont even go into the checkpoints, roadblocks and security wall. The PLO formally repealed sections in it's charter calling for Israels dissolution in 1996.
Asside from that I have problems with a "Jewish nation" the same as I do with a Christian, Muslim or Hindu nation and I don't believe this is rooted in anti-semitism, just good old, leftist utopianism.
Well, responding to both peeknocker and troutsky will give me a chance to truly display my moderate tendencies, at least on this subject.
I agree that most of the horror stories that have circulated over the last six decades about Israeli "displacement" of the Palestinians are grossly exaggerated. But even the most proudly nationalistic historians in Israel say that some abuses took place during the war. No, that doesn't compare to the terrible things the Arabs did to Israel (or even to what the Arabs did to the Palestinians), and it shouldn't be cause for so much criticism in 2005, but it did happen.
In terms of the "settlements" and the "occupation", I think Israel is fully justified in remaining where it is at the moment. In 1967, they took over this territory as a purely defensive measure and have remained there because they've been under constant siege.
However, we no longer live in a world where conquered territory, regardless of the righteousness of the circumstances in which it was conquered, can remain in the hands of the conqueror. Yes, Israel won the land "fair and square", but this is the 21st century. I would think that after a negotiated settlement with Jordan and Egypt, with the proper security guarantees made, Israel would be right to withdraw from most the territories. Of course, there needs to be a buffer zone, and the settlements (or call them "communities" or "towns" if you want) that directly border "Israel proper" should be maintained.
So, even if this isn't an "illegal occupation", considering the circumstances in which the occupation took place, I hold Israel to a higher standard and would expect a withdrawal to the extent that its security isn't threatened. Furthermore, I view the issue of an Israeli withdrawal as separate from the creation of a Palestinian state. Ideally, that territory would be ceded to Jordan (already a Palestinian state, IMO) after a negotiated settlement.
Finally, I want to reiterate that I know it is the fault of the Arab states that there hasn't been a negotiated settlement. They were the ones who came up with the "3 No's" statement - no peace, no negotiation, no recognition. But the principle of an Israeli withdrawal under the right circumstances still remains intact.
Now for the other side...
First of all, Edward Said was an intellectual bully who liked to silence any disagreement with his views by calling his opponent an "Orientalist". He was foremost in fostering leftist support of the Palestinian narrative (and of course, the terror that was justified by it) and perpetuated lie after lie about his own background and that about the history of the conflict.
The Partition Plan, in my view, was negated when the Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948. Those borders, to me, are non-negotiable.
You're right - I don't think the U.N. is a legitimate body, considering its massive anti-Israel bias and the great influence wielded by Arab (and other) dictatorships. BUT I would urge you to reread Res. 242. NOWHERE in it does it require Israel to go back fully withdraw from the territories. Because Israel fought a completely defensive war in 1967, it has no obligation to withdraw before there is a negotiated settlement.
The refugee problem was caused by the Arab states. No aggression against Israel, no refugee problem. As I mentioned before, there are various reasons why Arabs left the area - including a desire to get away from the conflict and because of urging from Arab leaders. And your statistics are grossly exaggerated - according to the U.N. figures, there were approximately 650,000 Palestinian refugees after the War of Independence. These people should have been settled into the Arab states, and therefore, their descendants really don't figure into the final count. They're living under occupation (and not all of them are, since many of them went to Jordan and other states) because there was never a negotiated settlement with Israel. Israel has to remain there for the sake of its own security. This is a situation created by both the Arab states and the Palestinians. Furthermore, there is little talk about the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab nations with all their property confiscated who were taken into Israel proper.
I don't agree with expansion of settlements, but I also see the need to maintain a security buffer zone. It isn't realistic to expect Israel to withdraw fully to the pre-1967 borders because of the precarious security situation it would be if it did.
As for "human rights violations", I really wouldn't trust a group called "Jews Against the Occupation". Most similar groups simply parrot the outrageous propaganda of the Palestinians, and simply aren't objective sources of information. In regards to policy against the Palestinians, they are not citizens of Israel and therefore do not have the same rights. Race isn't a factor, since Israeli Arab citizens can vote and hold public office.
The checkpoints, roadblocks, security fence, and anything else you classify as negative things all exist because of the Palestinian terror campaign against Israeli civilians. If there were no security threat, people would certainly be able to travel freely. I don't care what is in the PLO charter right now - what I see is state-sponsored TV showing children singing about martyrdom, schoolbooks with old anti-Semitic caricatures in them, and a leadership that will not back down from any original demands. In addition, I do not believe the PLO is a legitimate organization that has the right to make policy decisions in the first place. They are in the position they are in because of a tragic policy of appeasement of terrorists. I know I have to work with reality, but I sure as hell don't have to think it is a just situation.
There needs to be a Jewish state, because there are already Christian, Muslim, and Hindu states in the world. History has shown us that there must be at least one place where Jews can be the majority, where they can feel safe, where they can defend themselves without relying on the benevolence of foreign powers.
I don't want to get drawn into this discussion because it is tiresome and entails valuable time typing. I will however add two things:
First, 'smilingneocon', your post was (so far as i can tell on a quick scan) factual and well written.
Second, 'troutsky', you evidentally are unaware that what you call 'Palestine' (i.e. pre-'67 Israel, Gaza, Judea and Sumaria, aka West Bank) is only a sliver of the original League of Nations Mandate granted to Great Britain. The British (under favorite son, the accursed Winston Churchill, who was then colonial secretary and again showed his contempt of Jews during the Second World War by failing to put the Nazi death camps out of business as well as preventing Jews from escaping to "Palestine" or the UK) hacked off a whopping 4/5ths of the region called "Palestine" and created a fictional Arab emirate called TransJordan. Jews, incidentally, were thereafter forbidden from "settling" in these areas (a discriminatory law which continues to this day). So what you call "Palestine" is actually only the tattered remnants of 1/5th of the British Mandate.
Last, something like 60% of Israel Jews are refugees and the descents of refugees of Jews from so-called Arab lands, forcibly expelled and their assets confiscated, and where Jews had existed continuously for thousands of years. Israel absorbed these refugees, who were "displaced... in a brutal manner". That the Arabs have not done the same for their arabic-speaking and largely Muslim brethren is one of the leading irritants to this ongoing conflict, though certainly not the cause. The cause is Arab/Islamic supremacy and intolerance.
Yes, the British behaved rather terribly in that period (and some may say that has continued to the present day). I certainly won't argue there.
Suitable blog, its very good. I liked the site its
from so much I have to visit it again! I surf the web
for blogs like yours in my spare time.
No matter when you are, just stop by and check for my low fee cash advance blog site.
Nice site!
[url=http://vdwnspei.com/exjb/bxdf.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ysxwjfuf.com/bgzg/lwzz.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Well done!
http://vdwnspei.com/exjb/bxdf.html | http://oridebjy.com/lykl/qukm.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home