Friday, April 17, 2009

Fisk Takes Aunty Beeb to Task

Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?

The BBC Trust is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which abused Bowen

Thursday, 16 April 2009

The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest.

But I am mincing my words.

The trust – how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC – has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed – against all the facts – that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.

Let's go step by step through this pitiful business. Zionism does indeed instinctively "push out" the frontier. The new Israeli wall – longer and taller than the Berlin Wall although the BBC management cowards still insist its reporters call it a "security barrier" (the translation of the East German phrase for the Berlin Wall) – has gobbled up another 10 per cent of the 22 per cent of "Palestine" that Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas were supposed to negotiate. Bowen's own brilliant book on the 1967 war, Six Days, makes this land-grab perfectly clear.

Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own?

Even when the International Court in The Hague stated that the Israeli wall was illegal – the BBC, at this point, was calling it a "fence"! – Israel simply claimed that the court was wrong.

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 called upon Israel to withdraw its forces from territories that it occupied in the 1967 war – and it refused to do so. The Americans stated for more than 30 years that Israel's actions were illegal – until the gutless George Bush accepted Israel had the right to keep these illegally held territories. Thus the BBC Trust – how cruel that word "trust" now becomes – has gone along with the Bush definition of Israel's new boundaries (inside Arab land, of course).

The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".

Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust – and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop – says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook – under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement– said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa – not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim – shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen.

Haaretz gave considerable space to the BBC's findings yesterday. I'm not surprised. But why is it that Haaretz's top correspondents – Amira Hass and Gideon Levy – write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do? Whenever I'm asked by lecture audiences around the world if they should trust the BBC, I tell them to trust Amira and Gideon more than they should ever believe in the wretched broadcasting station. I'm afraid it's the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.

And this, remember, is the same institution which said that to broadcast an appeal for medicines for wounded Palestinians in Gaza might upset its "neutrality". Legless Palestinian children clearly don't count as much as the BBC's pompous executives.

How do we solve this problem? Well I can certainly advise viewers to turn to Sky TV's infinitely tougher coverage of the Middle East and – I admit I contribute to this particular station – I can recommend the courage with which Al-Jazeera English covers Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian-Israeli war.

I can well see how BBC executives will say that this article of mine today is "over the top". Jeremy Bowen may indeed think the same. But the First World War metaphor would be correct. For Bowen and his colleagues are truly lions led by BBC management donkeys.






8 comments:

Jacques said...

A hatred post. I knew your views on Israel and Palestine were extreme, but your other postings made for it until now. After reading this post, they do not. I am so disgusted that I finally decided to unsubscribe from your blog...

art harun said...

Really Jacques?

Is that all you could muster? Hatred post? How shallow one can be.

Why don't you counter this post with facts which may support what you believe to be the truth?

The truth is the eyes of most people in the West are so blinkered, if not wholly covered, by the Zionist propaganda machines that their views on the Palestinian affairs become jaundiced and coloured by prejudices.

Now if that is not hatred I don't know what is.

art-harun.blogspot.com

Mr Bojangles said...

Amazing, really.

How as predictably as clocks and Apache gunship visits to Palestinian villages, comments of biasness and accusations of extremism pop up every time something that even smacks a little of anti-Zionism, whether real or imagined, is posted anywhere.

Must need a real trained army with greyhound-like schnozzles hunched over their computers and newspapers watching and waiting to sniff out and zero in on any nonsense on the Holocaust Nation and its supporters.

Always wondered if the radar for detecting such anti-Israel sentiments are also supplied by the Americans.

Samaritan said...

Hi Sis MM,

How about an angel slander toward his creator? Read this...
Genesis 3:1-5,
Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’” At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”

It is good to know that the same bad angel's are misleading the entire humanity.

amir said...

Oh, boo hoo hoo, Jacques.

Hatred, nyeee.

rajanr said...

Marina,

Read this, on Sir Michael's (the head of BBC Trust) response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/17/middleeastthemedia-sir-michael-lyons

I quote, "Lyons added that Bowen had breached accuracy and impartiality guidelines "in two isolated news items". It was not the case that everything in those reports was inaccurate and partial, he said, but the BBC Trust had a duty to licence fee payers to investigate the complaints."

And if you read beyond Fisk (whose name is used as a slang, fisking, denoting line-for-line rebuttals his works generally are put through), you would find nuggets like this. On the Israeli settlement:

"Bowen's Har Homa report was cleared by the trust over impartiality. However, the BBC's regulatory and governance body partially upheld the complaint with regard to accuracy, saying that Bowen had not properly sourced his assertion that the settlement was considered illegal by the US."

BBC Trust didn't contend with the claims that US found the settlements illegal - they just rapped Bowen for not sourcing his allegation (I mean, it's not from an anonymous source).

"One complaint about this online report was partially upheld by the BBC Trust on the grounds of both accuracy and impartiality, with the trust ruling that Bowen should have used clearer language and been more precise in some aspects of the piece.

The trust upheld the second complaint with regard to impartiality and partially upheld it with regard to accuracy on a number of the same grounds and also on the basis that Bowen's statement that "the Israeli generals … had been training to finish the unfinished business of Israel's independence war of 1948 for most of their careers" had been imprecise."

I don't see how any of these actions by the BBC Trust unconscionable in any way. Bowen's duty as a journalist is to report - and I don't see how he is necessarily doing his job if he uses imprecise language and does not cite his sources on allegations. And if he is not quoting the other side (or at least mentioning their views), I don't see how he is necessarily impartial.

Fisk (and you) have your own views regarding Israel - doesn't mean that those views are the only valid ones that the BBC, a publicly-funded news organization, can get away reporting that one, sole view.

Joseph a.k.a. Apom Balik said...

I agree with rajanr. Very professional view.

Purple Bastard said...

They may have been biased reporting but kudos to them for recognising the fact and making public the details and conclusions of the deliberations. Unlike my home country. Sigh.