Israel accuses BBC of anti-Semitism

[Sonny]

From Yahoo!news:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman has accused the BBC of tricking him into giving an interview for a documentary examining whether Sharon should be tried as a war criminal.


The documentary, to be broadcast on the BBC's domestic Panorama programme on Sunday, has sparked outrage in Israel where officials have accused the British Broadcasting Corporation of anti-Semitism and taking an anti-Israeli editorial slant in its reporting.


Gideon Meir, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's deputy director for communications, accused the BBC on Thursday of being anti-Semitic and "not operating according to normal journalist standards".


"There have been network decisions which are, systematically, entirely anti-Israel. Moreover, I tell you that sometimes there is also just a hint of anti-Semitism," Meir told Army Radio.

[Jean le Ne]

I wonder if some of the posters will be willing to provide me with some definitions of " anti semitism " ? Is is simply having or holding a position or opinion that is different than that of a Jew? Is is any expression that is supportive of those that Jews consider to be enemies ( Palestinians )? Or does the definition require a demonstrated hatred or animus for Jews, based on their religion alone?

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Jean le Ne
I wonder if some of the posters will be willing to provide me with some definitions of " anti semitism " ? Is is simply having or holding a position or opinion that is different than that of a Jew? Is is any expression that is supportive of those that Jews consider to be enemies ( Palestinians )? Or does the definition require a demonstrated hatred or animus for Jews, based on their religion alone?

Well, rather than deal with semantics, the fact that the BBC never did an "accused" episode on any of the Arab states, or even Iran who are responsible directly and indirectly for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jews, does tell you something.

Instead, as usual Israel and Sharon are blamed for the Arab slaughter of each other.

The obvious difference in treating Jews vs. the rest of the world indicates anti-semitism to many.

[NewsGuy]

"This program was not fair; it was biased and provided partial and distorted information," said Gideon Meir, deputy director-general of the ministry's public affairs department.

"The program disregarded the judgments made in Israel and the US on the matter," he said, in reference to the Kahan Commission and the US Court of Appeals decision in Sharon's suit against Time magazine, which both found that Sharon was not responsible for the massacre.

The ministry put out a statement saying that "Israel views with the utmost gravity the distorted, unfair, and intentionally hostile nature of the Panorama program. The timing of the program, 19 years after the events in question, shows a lack of good faith and an attempt to tarnish Israel and its leader.

"The BBC has put itself up as a television tribunal, while at the same time manifestly and willfully ignoring the findings of established courts in the US and Israel."

[takeo]

Well, whom of you did really see this program?
I did, and there was absolutely nothing anti-semitic about it. I don't think either that the BBC is anti-Israeli, the Arabs in Brittain even accused the BBC to be pro-israel because it calls the muders committed by Israel as "targetted attacks" and by the Palestinians as "murders" or "assisinations". As well the BBC provides more time for the Israeli viewpoint and speakers as for the Palestinian viewpoint or speakers. but of course it isn't completely one-sided as Israeli media and some journalists try to be good journalists and see both sides and do some research on the crimes of both sides.
There has been a lot of BBC-documentories about Palestinian terrorism on innocent israeli civilians, nobody complained that the BBC was one-sided, but when a programm is made about the crimes committed by Israel suddenly the bBC is accused of being "anti-semitic".
The program was also not one-sided, as both sides could reply and answer questions by the journalist, also the spokesman of Sharon was in the programm to defend the prime minister. i don't recall that in the programms about palestinian terrorism the palestinians who defended the suicide killers had the chance to defend themselves.
Again, even someone openly attacking Israel and openly anti-zionist can not be called an anti-semitic, because the policy of Israel has nothing to do with the fate of all Jews, and one can easily hate Israel's position without hating every Jew (that is what is called anti-semitism). there are as well a lot of Jews who hate the policy of israel. But this programm was not openly attacking Israel, it only tried to reconstruct what really happened in Sabra and Shatilla and who was responsible for it.
It tried to find out what was the role of Sharon in this event, and for this it didn't rely only on palestinian or libanese eye-witnesses but as well on Israeli military who openly accused Sharon of not doing anything for stopping the massacre.
The programm also asked to the retired (jewish) Southafrican judge who had been responsible for the Yougoslavia tribunal if Sharon could be charged with war-crimes. He said "without any doubt", because he was in full controll of beirout at that time and ordered the falangists into the camps and even after he knew for sure they were committing a massacre he didn't intervene, even if he could have easily stopped it. The programm also interviewed Libanese and western eye-witnesses who also had no doubt about the responsability of Sharon in this.
in the conclusions the programm showed that the israeli trial of sharon was insufficient as he was not only, according to international laws of war, responsible for "neglect" but as well responsible for the massacres themselves because he didn't stop them and because the falangists were ordered by Sharon to go into the camps. The conclusions noted that none of the responsibles have been condamned for war-crimes, but did not only condamn Israel but as well Syria because Syria gave immunity to the falangist murderers after the Israeli withdrawel.
So could we accuse this programm to be anti-arab racist because it condamned Syria? In the same logic as the office of Sharon yes.
This call for not broadcasting this documentory because it would be "anti-semitic" was a really pathetic try to stop freedom of speech in Europe as well and extend israeli censorship to Europe. In France, belgium, the Netherlands and Italy the call of the Israeli ambassadors to the broadcasting companies was received very hostile and made the news. As a result many people went to see this documentory and absolutely nobody, not even the Jews, found this documentory to be "anti-semitic", but indeed very painfull for Israel that they elected a prime minister who committed war-crimes.

[Negev]

To begin, it is almost impossible to respond to all of the misinformation and disinformation of takeo just because there are so many mistaken points he makes.

Looking at the main thrust of the clearly anti-semitic and anti-Israel BBC show, I strongly disagree that Sharon was negligent in any way. He could not have foreseen the brutality of the Arabs against one another and should not have been required to do so in the first place. I find it ridiculous that all of a sudden, the Islamists look to Israel to save them from their own Arab brothers' revenge.

Also, I will refer back to what Sonny wrote earlier, which of course takeo chooses to ignore:

the fact that the BBC never did an "accused" episode on any of the Arab states, or even Iran who are responsible directly and indirectly for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jews, does tell you something.

Instead, as usual Israel and Sharon are blamed for the Arab slaughter of each other.

The obvious difference in treating Jews vs. the rest of the world indicates anti-semitism to many.

I think that's one of the main points to consider. The fact that Ariel Sharon and Israel constantly are attacked by the BBC sends a clear message of Anti-Semitism and bias.

It is no coincidence that the Arabs have awarded the BBC a special award this year as the news agency best expressing the Arab point of view.

I pity the British taxpayer who funds the BBC and its distorted journalism. Then again, what else would one expect from Europe?

[takeo]

Negev, do you really believe this or what? Maybe you ARE Sharon himself (who also lives in the Negev, doesn't he?)
This was not about Arabs killing each other, this was about one group of armed extremists send in a refugee camp by Sharon and the Israeli army. Sharon could have prevented this massacre at any time and he knew what kind of thugs the falangists were, somewhere in the documentory an Israeli who cooperated with Sharon told that sharon once told him that, if they could, they would finish of all Palestinians. So by sending those people in the camps without doing anything he was co-responsible for what happened. If you deny this you can as well deny that if you send in some armed hamas-supporters into a jewish settlement you will not be responsible for the massacre that will happen next.

"the fact that the BBC never did an "accused" episode on any of the Arab states, or even Iran who are responsible directly and indirectly for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jews, does tell you something. "

The BBC did make documentories about the fate of the Moroccan Jews after the establishment of Israel, that is one documentory i saw, but there must be others too. Also the BBC made many documentories about Iraq, in which it was blamed too for support to anti-Israeli terrorism, and about Syria too. At many occasions they made documentories about Arab terrorism. they never made as much documentories about the suffering of the Palestinians than about the suffering of israeli, so if the BBC is biased, it will be more likely in favour of Israel. For the BBC, a jewish victim is worth more time on BBC than a palestinian victim , that has been calculated by an Arab pressure group in London.
the problem is that you see ANY critic on Israel as unacceptable, and also any attention for palestinian suffering as unacceptable.

[lee]

The BBC has been accused over the last 2 years of conflict of an anti-israel bias. I have watched one BBC documentry which i found anti-israel and also 1 interview with a Rabbi who held office in the Knessett who was quite lest wing, but when the interviewer could not get an answer that he found inciminating he spent most of the time shouting at the guy.It was a disgrace.

[Isiah 2:4]

Originally posted by lee
The BBC has been accused over the last 2 years of conflict of an anti-israel bias. I have watched one BBC documentry which i found anti-israel and also 1 interview with a Rabbi who held office in the Knessett who was quite lest wing, but when the interviewer could not get an answer that he found inciminating he spent most of the time shouting at the guy.It was a disgrace.

What about British MP Gerald Kaufman's report from Israel.
His documentary focused on the roots, the causes and the future of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

he emphasised the great sadness felt my many of Jews worldwide, concerning the ongoing violence.

It was un-biased. Presented and documented by a Jew and shown on the BBC. How can that be anti - Semitic?

He sympathised with BOTH sides and gave a deep insight into the feelings of those who are striving for a just solution, through co operation and dialogue.
He stressed the ever present danger that Israel could be slowly tearing itself apart from within, destroying the relations between itself, Jews, and the rest of the world, and maybe eventually leaving it isolated, vindicated and afraid.

That is not anti - Semitism. That is the Truth.

[Mediocrates]

why are you obsessed with race?

[Isiah 2:4]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
why are you obsessed with race?

I am not obsessed with race. I am a member of the Anti - Nazi League.
I am just commenting on this thread, which concerns anti - semitism in the BBC.
Living in the U.K, i have never experienced it watching the BBC, and so made this point to add to the discussion.

Have i made any explicit attempts to preach about race or race relations?

How and why do you come to this conclusion anyway?

[Mediocrates]

Because the definition of antisemitism is obvious. It's not called anti-people-from-the-levant-ism.

Antisemitism is bigotry against Jews. Of that there is zero question or doubt. But today in the somewhat self serving world of media its impolite to talk about 'those jews' so instead we see messages crafted about

aggressive zionists
neocons
...etc...
These are codewords (when we say 'urban youth' we know what the subtext is).

And then we proceed to the actual content and the editorialized spin placed on it. Look on this board here under Resources/Anti semitism in the Honest Reporting and CAMERA folders for examples of how the press distorts the news to fit their particular agenda.

So one might say "well even if they are agendized then how is that antisemitis?"

Here is how; when the coverage becomes laden with misrepresentation and distortion in a way that is meant to be subtle enough that one might not think about it immediately then it plays into all the stereotypes we've been fighting for about forever. For example when we read about the 'neocon' who quietly 'pull the strings' of the American government we are reading a modern rewrite of "The devious Jew". When the BCC and others covers a story that about the IDF that neither solicits their input nor questions any statement made by any PLO mouthpiece (BTW most i not all of the BBCs staff in Yesha is contracted through the PA) then the reporting simply becomes an agitprop organ of the PA itself. And once that occurs then the media has been coopted to voice the same antisemitic prejudices as the people they are reporting through.

[Isiah 2:4]

But that doesn't justify your wild accusations that i am somehow 'obsessed' with race.

I will say it again.

The British Media is in no way anti - israel or anti - semitic.

In fact, some of the most senior members of the BBC are Jews.

I suppose that Channel Four's 'Rammallah Daily' which, 'Documents how Israeli's and Palestinians cope with the ongoing Conflict', is also anti-Semitic, because it shows the suffering of the Palestinians and the work done by Jews and Pals alike to reach a peaceful solution at grassroots level?

[Mediocrates]

Of that I'm sorry - but here is how I look at it. Whenever I hear discussion of racial politics or a discussion of that tired old warhorse "how can (arabs, or anyone else) be antisemitic - they are a semitic people (race)" all sorts of red flags go up.

Maybe it's just me experience but racists tend to be self professed experts on race. Again, sorry.

But here's the crux. Criticism of Israel is fine. When it becomes completely one sided and/or focused on only one side of the story then it leaves the realm of political editorializing and enters the world of borderline hate speech. Why? Because you have remember what's not being said. For example on the NY Times for months there's been a fairly regular front page below the fold soft story on the seemingly unendurable hardships suffered by (we are meant to believe) all Palestinians. And hardly a peep of what the Israelis have had to live with under a constant threat of terrorism, nor little if anything about the post traumic lives of its victims, survivors or orphans.

Did they forget? Did they simply not know? Of course not. They decided it's not worth reporting on. They've decided which lives are meaningful and which are not. And that my friend is antisemitic

[Isiah 2:4]

Thankyou for your apology.

I cannot comment on the behaviour of the press in the U.S, but i can say that there is definitely much attention focused on Israel and the effect of its friendship with other countries, particularly America, on world affairs and suchlike.

With all that focus, now is the for Isreal and its supporters, Jew or non - Jew, to demonstrate rationality and justice in a fair and comprehensive manner.

We need to revert to Israel's primary goals.

In the words of Israel's founding declaration ;

'The State of Israel will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all of its inhabitants ; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel ; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of race, religion or sex ; it will gurantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture, it will safeguard the Holy places of all religions and it will be faithful to the UN Charter'

With me?