May 24 2013

BBC article on rising bigotry hosts antisemitic comments

The US State Department’s recently published ‘International Religious Freedom Report for 2012‘ was the subject of an article entitled “Bigotry against Jews and Muslims on the rise, says US” which appeared on the Middle East page and the US & Canada page of the BBC News website on May 20^th.

Interestingly, the BBC’s summary of the report chose to concentrate on rising antisemitism in Egypt, Venezuela and Iran whilst ignoring the State Department report’s observations regarding Europe.

“…a member of the Golden Dawn party in Greece read from the notorious Tsarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, during a parliamentary session. In a worrisome sign, such anti-Semitic and xenophobic parties gained seats in parliaments, and a rise in violent attacks on Jews in Europe included several shocking incidents. Hungary saw continued racist commentary by an openly anti-Semitic political party with seats in parliament, the Jobbik Party, and also witnessed an attack on a member of the Jewish community outside of a prayer house in Budapest. In France, an Islamist extremist killed a rabbi and his two children, along with another student, outside a Jewish school in Toulouse. While a number of governments took active measures to combat anti-Semitism, this pernicious evil continued to spread.”

Particularly notable – given the BBC’s own recent whitewashing of antisemitism in Tunisia (see here, here and here) – is the omission from the BBC article of the conclusions of the report relating to that country.

“In Tunisia, Salafists (fundamentalist Sunni Muslims) attacked synagogues and issued anti-Semitic messages, as did some imams during Friday prayer sermons. Certain Salafist imams preached anti-Jewish and anti-Christian messages, including calling for the killing of non-Muslim citizens. Police arrested five persons, including one police officer, for allegedly plotting to kidnap Jews in Zarzis in October for ransom.”

Unfortunately, the BBC’s own record on combating antisemitism is by no means as good as it could – and should – be. In addition to whitewashing and downplaying antisemitic remarks made by certain public figures in the UK, it has on occasion furthered the spread of anti-Semitic discourse by, for example, allowing the unhindered promotion of antisemitic tropes by interviewees as well as the airbrushing of a known antisemitic hate preacher, the promotion of a film company which uses antisemitic imagery and the hosting of an openly antisemitic guest on more than one occasion.

On BBC internet comment boards it is not rare to see antisemitic comments permitted to stand (for example see here, here, here and here), with the overall impression being that the BBC’s moderators and the editors responsible for keeping the discussion within BBC guidelines are not sufficiently proficient in identifying comments which meet the definitions of antisemitism.

That impression was once more reinforced by some of the comments which got past moderation in the discussion under this particular BBC article pertaining – ironically – to the spread of bigotry.

Next week (May 28^th – 30^th inclusive) Jerusalem will host the ‘4th International Conference of the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism‘. Readers interested in watching live streaming from the conference’s plenary session will be able to do so at this URL. BBC Watch will be participating in the working group on antisemitism on the internet and in the media.

May 21 2013

Move over Galloway: BBC Radio Ulster airs pro-Assad & anti-Israel propaganda

h/t IM

When George Galloway promotes Assad regime propaganda on Iran’s Press TV or the Iranian/Syrian funded Beirut-based Al Mayadeen TV, most of us are probably not in the least bit surprised that media outlets beholden to totalitarian regimes make no effort whatsoever to conceal their conscripted status.

However, we reassure ourselves that such blatant and unabashed amplification of the baseless lies and propaganda of a vicious dictatorship could not happen in Western countries where reliable and reputable broadcasters operate according to clearly defined editorial standards. Or could it?

We recently witnessed one instance in which the BBC ran a headline (later amended) composed of pure, unadulterated Assad propaganda. On Sunday, May 19^th 2013 BBC Radio Ulster’s ‘Sunday Sequence’ programme – which claims to “explore the week’s religious and ethical news and examine the key debates from the worlds of culture and ideas” with host William Crawley – permitted a long segment of the show to be devoted to running interference for the Assad regime, together with the promotion of anti-Israel conspiracies and tropes of an antisemitic nature.

The programme’s guest who was provided with a BBC platform from which to engage in that diatribe was prolific anti-Israel campaigner, Vanunu fan, ‘Global March to Jerusalem‘ supporter, ‘Russell Tribunal on Palestine’ “jury” member and former flotilla passenger Mairead Maguire. Host William Crawley – apparently rather over-awed by her status as a 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner – refrained from informing listeners about Maguire’s rich history of anti-Israel activity before allowing her to launch into her largely unhindered propaganda rant.

The programme can be heard here for a limited period of time, with the relevant segment commencing at 08:04. Not far into the broadcast we already hear Maguire state:

“No – Assad is not murdering his own people.”

That is followed at 11:19 by Maguire’s ‘explanation’ of the ‘reasons’ behind potential Western intervention in the Syrian civil war.

“And do you know what the agenda is? The agenda is Israeli security. The agenda is taking over Syria so they can destroy Iran and then we move from Iran to North Korea.”

But Maguire really gets into her stride from 18:10 onwards when Crawley asks:

“Why do you think – why do you believe – the Syrian crisis is really about Israel?”

MM: “The President of Syria took a very strong stand against the Iraqi war. The President of Syria has taken a very strong stand in defence of the rights of the Palestinian people. He has not bowed down or cowed down to the Israeli and the American agenda. So in that situation he runs the risk of being someone outside who’s not doing as he’s told.”

Of course neither Maguire nor Crawley bother to inform listeners that the Assad dynasty’s supposed “defence of the rights of the Palestinian people” has never extended to Palestinians living in Syria.

“Between 70 and 90 thousand refugees arrived in Syria, the majority from Tzfat, Haifa, Tiberias and Acco. In 1954 they were awarded partial rights, which did not include political rights. Until 1968 they were forbidden to hold property. Syrian law allows any Arab to obtain Syrian citizenship as long as his permanent residence is in Syria and he is capable of supporting himself economically. But the Palestinians are the only ones excluded from the terms this law. Even if they are permanent residents and affluent, the law prevents them from receiving citizenship.

Only thirty percent of those still considered for some reason ‘Palestinian refugees in Syria’ live in refugee camps. In fact, they should have been considered as Syrians from all points of view a long time ago. They were part of the Arab national identity, they are linked by family connections, they should have been integrated into economic life. Yet despite this, as a result of political brain-washing, they remain in Syria as a foreign body, dreaming endlessly of ‘the right of return’, and beaten by their inferior situation. Most of them are at the bottom of the career ladder, in service industries (41%) and construction (27%). But there is nothing like the field of education to clarify their situation. 23% do not even get to elementary school and 3% only get academic education.”

At 19:28 Maguire goes on to say:

“Somebody has to say to the Americans and to the Israelis you need to make peace out here or you’re going to destroy the whole Middle East and that will affect the whole world. Israel doesn’t want peace. I’ve been many, many times to Israel and Palestine – they don’t want peace. They have chosen land. And as long as Israel chooses land, then it will continue to cause a slow genocide of the Palestinian people, stealing their land. And America says nothing because America’s afraid of Israel and President Obama is afraid of the Israeli [sic] vote in America because it is powerful. But America has to take a stand. It’s funded to the tune of millions of pounds – the militarization of Israel. And Israel with its nuclear weapons is the greatest threat in the Middle East.”

That barrage of downright lies, factual inaccuracies, defamations and antisemitic tropes is met with a tepid “there are two sides to this story, aren’t there?” reaction from Crawley, but he makes no effort to correct the erroneous impressions audiences have already received from Maguire. At 20:34 Maguire claims:

“Well you see when we were in Syria, Israel attacked Syria. Two planes over Syria.

Crawley interjects:

“Because of concerns about chemical weapons.”

MM: “No – because it wants to control…”

WC: “But that is their explanation.”

MM: “But I mean this idea that there are chemical weapons – the Syrian government, immediately this myth was put out – immediately wrote to the UN and said send in anybody you want because we can prove we don’t have chemical weapons. And the UN never even answered their letters. But that kind of thing has sort of slowed down now because they knew it was disinformation to destroy Syria.”

The Syrian regime has of course refused entry to UN weapons inspectors and the existence of its chemical weapons stockpiles is common knowledge, but Maguire’s lies go uncorrected by Crawley, who instead poses a question which one seriously doubts he would ask in relation to any other country:

“Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?”

Maguire’s presumably unintentionally clichéd reply to that is:

“I totally believe that Israel has the right to exist and I love my Jewish friends. I have very many Jewish friends. But I totally oppose the policies being carried out by Israel. Israel has not the right to attack other countries and feel that it will not be held accountable under international law.”

The programme continues with what is presumably supposed to be a ‘balancing’ phone interview with Professor Beverly Milton-Edwards, which will do little to correct the perverted impressions listeners have already received from Maguire – not least because of its dismal sound quality and the fact that it lasts far less than half the time which she was allocated.

The Assad regime and its Iranian backers will no doubt be very impressed with the latest BBC voluntary contribution to the cause of spreading classic Syrian dictatorship propaganda – although the MP for Bradford West might be somewhat put out at no longer being the only star of the Assad makeover show. Real journalists – particularly publicly funded ones bound by standards of accuracy and impartiality – should, however, know better.

May 12 2013

BBC whitewashes Islamist antisemitism with semantics

A reader has contacted BBC Watch concerning the reply received from the Middle East desk of the BBC News website following a complaint made with regard to the May 1^st 2013 article by BBC Arabic’s Ahmed Maher entitled “Tunisia’s last Jews at ease despite troubled past”.

The complaint related to Ahmed Maher’s following claim:

“Several media reports spoke about YouTube videos that showed radical Islamists threatening Tunisian Jews. Despite searching extensively, I did not find any of them.”

The reader provided four video clips in support of the complaint – viewable here, here, here and here.

Below is the reply received.

“Dear XXXXX

Thank you for getting in touch. We have reviewed Ahmed Maher’s article “Tunisia’s last Jews at ease despite troubled past”, and discussed your complaint with him.

Regarding the You Tube links, Mr Maher reaffirms that he conducted an extensive search in Arabic and English to find clips or links of Salafists or hardliners attacking “Tunisian Jews” – a specification he makes clear in his piece. He found clips of rallies in support of Osama Bin Laden, but stresses he did not find anything attacking “Tunisian Jews” specifically.

Mr Maher says: “The chants heard in the four links cited [in your complaint] are against ‘the State of Israel and Jews but not Tunisian Jews’. The chants were echoed across several Muslim countries in the past two years in the wake of the Arab spring (and even before the revolutions) by extremists (even lay people and leftists in Egypt in particular who attacked the headquarters of the Israeli embassy in Giza in August 2011) to protest what they term ‘the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the blockade of the Gaza strip’. They chanted it in Tunisia during the visit of the Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah. Again, the chants, which are in Arabic, were not directed at ‘Tunisian Jews’ but ‘Israel’ in general.

“I spoke to Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan, one of the most prominent Salafi, Wahabi sheikhs in post-revolution Tunisian, and asked him again about two things: the chants and the protest in front of the Tunis synagogue. He said: ‘The chants were not aimed at the Tunisian Jews; make no mistake. It was directed at Israel because Israel is a very sensitive issue in the Muslim world. Our Prophet Muhammad asked us to take good care and protect non-Muslims living in our countries like Christians and Jews.’

“Regarding the Tunis synagogue video, Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan said it was ‘misleading because it was taken out of context. The protest was not against the Tunisian Jews but rather it was in support of Salafists and other Islamist forces in Egypt. The protesters were heading towards the Egyptian embassy in Tunis and they stopped for moments in front of the synagogue to express their anger at the Zionist entity’s policies’.

Mr Maher also points out that the four Tunisian Jews quoted in his piece all spoke about “media exaggeration” about oppression of Jews in Tunisia.

He says: “I was told by many Tunisian Jews indeed and I do have their contacts, chiefly the head of the Jewish community in Tunisia Peres Trabelsi, that there was too much media fuss about the ‘oppression of Jews in Tunisia’ whether past or current. I was there to make a colour piece on the annual pilgrimage itself really, but every time I spoke to a Jewish pilgrim living in Djerba, and who can tell us their experience first-hand, they were keen on ‘dismissing media reports about us as exaggerated, as if we will become non-existent any longer. We are fed up’, as I was told by many of them. I have not put words into their mouths, neither did I push them to speak on this angle. There is no question about that.”

Kind regards

Middle East desk
BBC News website”

Get it? According to the BBC, if Tunisian Islamists (and presumably any elsewhere too) chant “Killing the Jews is a duty” or “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud” or ”the army of Mohammed will return”, then local Jews have nothing whatsoever to worry about because in fact they are not referring to them – or indeed to Jews at all – but to Israel, which should apparently be perfectly understandable. And the BBC website’s Middle East desk is quite sure of that because a prominent Salafist – who obviously thinks it unremarkable to chant hate speech relating to “the Zionist entity’s policies” in front of a synagogue in Tunisia – told them so.

If that is the level of understanding and interpretation prevalent among staff at the BBC’s Middle East desk, then the only conclusion can be that the licence fee payer is funding an outfit not fit for purpose.

Apr 28 2013

BBC discovers the word antisemitism

In the ‘Sussex’ category of the ‘England’ section of the UK page on the BBC News website we find a report entitled “Crowborough UKIP candidate Anna-Marie Crampton suspended” dated April 25^th. Somewhat surprisingly – given its record when reporting similar recent cases of antisemitic remarks made by other politicians and public figures in the UK – this time the BBC has found itself able to accurately describe the nature of the statements made.

“A UK Independence Party (UKIP) candidate in East Sussex has been suspended by the party over reports she posted anti-Semitic comments online.”

A definite improvement.

Apr 18 2013

BBC: the word antisemitism is too long

Back in March we noted the BBC’s use of the euphemistic and ambiguous term “Jewish claims” in a headline relating to antisemitic remarks made by Lord Ahmed.

Over at The Commentator is an account of a complaint on that subject made to the BBC by a member of the public.

The BBC replied:

“Thanks for your email and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We try and stick as closely as possible to the words used, so, in this case we used ‘Jewish claims’ in the short space available for headlines to summarise his comments.”

But, as the complainant pointed out:

“Thanks for your reply, but with all due respect that is utter nonsense. ’Jewish claims’ 13 characters. ’Antisemitism’ 12 characters.”

Read the rest here.

Mar 21 2013

BBC opens comments on Obama visit article, quotes flotilla organiser

The BBC’s coverage of the visit by Barack Obama to Israel on March 20^th 2013 included a rolling article (changes to which can be seen here) featured on the Middle East page and on the Home page of the BBC News website.

Readers of the article will notice another attempt by the BBC to shape audience perception of the new Israeli government and its usual framing of lack of progress in the peace process as being attributable to “continued Israeli settlement construction” – despite the ten month-long building freeze in 2009/10, during which the Palestinian Authority continued to refuse to enter talks for nine months.

Photo: US Embassy Tel Aviv

“Correspondents say Israelis are more preoccupied with instability in the wider Middle East region than with breathing new life into the peace process, which broke down in 2010 amid a dispute over continued Israeli settlement construction.

Settlement supporters are a big force in Israel’s new coalition government.” [emphasis added]

Sharp-eyed readers will also notice that the BBC’s article quotes Huwaida Arraf, describing her as a “demonstrator”.

“On Tuesday Palestinian protesters gathered in Ramallah and Bethlehem, some throwing shoes at images of the president and others driving over his portrait, reports said.

Demonstrator Huwaida Arraf told Reuters news agency that Mr Obama’s visit was “a slap in the face”.

“People are angry and disappointed that this far into his presidency, Obama has done nothing, and aid to Israel’s occupation continues to flow,” he (sic) said.”

The article fails to point out to BBC audiences that Huwaida Arraf is one of the founders and leaders of the ‘International Solidarity Movement’ (ISM) and the flotilla-organising ‘Free Gaza Movement’, both of which provide support to Hamas, and who was an active participant in the ISM support group to the Palestinian terrorists who took over the Church of the Nativity in 2002.

As the BBC Editorial Guidelines clearly state in section 4.4.14:

”..we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made.”

The fact that Huwaida Arraf is not just a run-of-the-mill Palestinian “demonstrator”, but a dual-nationality professional anti-Israel campaigner with a long record of supporting terrorism, should have been made clear to this article’s readers.

One of the ‘protests’ against Obama’s visit, which took place in Bethlehem – not far from the Church of the Nativity, was filmed by the Palestine News Network and translated by MEMRI. The footage shows that this BBC report neglects to mention the burning and vandalising of posters portraying President Obama with swastikas.

The BBC also elected to open this article to comments from the general public, but a lack of appropriate moderation of those comments meant that the thread was soon littered with antisemitic conspiracy theories of “Jewish power” and offensive remarks of other kinds, such as the suggestion that Jews are “driven by greed” or that the US should “start bombing Israeli settlements”. Many of the comments on that BBC article would not be out-of-place on some of the worst Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ threads as highlighted in the 2012 CST report on anti-Semitic discourse. Below are just a few examples.

As previously noted here in the past, moderation on BBC articles relating to Israel which are open to comments is often very lax – despite the existence of ‘house rules’ prohibiting comments which display racism, abuse or are deemed “otherwise likely to offend”, as well as those which are likely to “provoke, attack or offend others”.

Clearly, there is an urgent need for the BBC to take a much more responsible approach to moderation on its comments boards in order to avoid being any further complicit in the spread of antisemitic discourse.

Mar 18 2013

BBC pussy-footing around British antisemitism again

Here is the BBC’s report from March 14^th on the subject of the suspension of Lord Ahmed from the Labour Party pending investigation of his alleged remarks made during a television interview in Pakistan, as reported by The Times.

What on earth possessed the BBC to describe those alleged remarks as “Jewish claims”?

The terminology used on Twitter was little better:

According to the Times article:

“Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels”. Britain’s first male Muslim peer also alleged that the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important case”.

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent from London to carry out the 2009 sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court because no other judge was willing to handle his case. The alleged plot to punish him stemmed, Lord Ahmed claimed, from Jewish disapproval of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza. His comments were made during a television interview on a visit to Pakistan.”

The EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism clearly states that one of its manifestations is:

“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

The Labour Party is obviously aware of the implications of the alleged remarks, having stated:

“The Labour Party deplores and does not tolerate any sort of anti-Semitism. Following reports in The Times today we are suspending Lord Ahmed pending an investigation.”

According to The Telegraph, Labour Party leader Ed Milliband added:

“There’s no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and frankly anybody who makes those kinds of comments cannot be either a Labour lord or a Labour member of Parliament.”

The Times article also quotes a British lawyer:

“Katie Wheatley, a criminal law expert and partner at the London solicitors’ firm Bindmans, said that if Lord Ahmed had made such claims in Britain he could have faced prosecution for a hate crime.

“If these words had been spoken or broadcast publicly to an audience in the UK it is certainly possible that they could lead to an investigation as to whether an offence of incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 had been committed,” she added.”

So why did the BBC elect to airbrush the racist nature of Lord Ahmed’s alleged remarks by using the ambiguous terms “Jewish claims” and “anti-Jewish remarks”? Coming hot on the heels of the BBC’s previous attempts to downplay the antisemitic nature of remarks made by David Ward MP (see here, here, here and here), this really does suggest an endemic problem at the BBC.

Jan 31 2013

BBC R4 guest promotes Qaradawi as a source of “nuanced understanding”

On January 28^th 2013, BBC Radio 4 broadcast an edition of its ‘Beyond Belief’ programme, hosted by Ernie Rea, which supposedly dealt with the subject of contemporary antisemitism in Europe.

The programme can be heard here or as a podcast here. Its guests were Dr Edward Kessler – Executive Director of the Woolf Institute, Dr Yaakov Wise of the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester and Mohammed Ansar (referred to by the host as ‘Mo’ during the broadcast) – described as a “social and political commentator”. Beyond Belief

After listening to the programme, readers may find much to criticize and comment upon. For example, Rea states unquestioningly that there is “little doubt that Jews fared better under Islam than under Christianity throughout the Middle Ages” and, with equal certainty, later says:

“It does seem that it’s very difficult to criticize the Israeli government without in turn being told you’re antisemitc and some people would say that Jews see antisemitism everywhere.”

Yaakov Wise replies:

“Yes – they tend to be Americans actually, rather than European Jews who, I think, are probably a bit more realistic about…and of course have a lot more experience of living with antisemitism.”

Also notable are the repeated suggestions by Mohammed Ansar that it is “far right activity” on social media which promotes antisemitism, his constant attempts to shift the conversation in the direction of Islamophobia, his claim that “Islam is incredibly inclusive” and his promotion of Norman Finkelstein (he later made it clear on Twitter that this was the specific piece he was promoting – suggesting to his Twitter followers that they read Chomsky and Pilger too). Mind you, Ansar also thinks that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Ansar’s inclusion in a discussion panel about antisemitism – particularly one which highlights the recent case of racist Tweets in France – may seem distinctly odd when one considers that, despite his writings on the subject, only four months ago Ansar endorsed a Twitter account entitled “IsraeltheNazis”.

However, the part of this programme which is by far the most egregious comes at 23:15 when Ansar says:

“I think it’s really important to recognize also that as well as making the distinction in this country and the West about the distinction between Zionism, Israeli foreign policy and Judaism and Jews, this distinction is also being made in the Middle East – in the Arab territories. We have somebody who’s been considered a very controversial Muslim scholar in the West – Yusuf al Qaradawi – who goes to great lengths to ensure that people have a nuanced understanding and saying if you have difficulty with Israeli foreign policy, if you have difficulty with military occupation, this is something distinct from Judaism and Jews. And so regardless of many of his other statements, I think it’s really important that wherever we work we continue to make this distinction.”

Qaradawi – the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood – has been refused entry to Ireland, the US and the UK. The British ban was the subject of criticism from the Muslim Council of Britain, with which Ansar is associated.

“Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary-general of the MCB, condemned the ban. He said the UK government had bowed to Zionist and neo-con pressure…”

So let’s have a look at some of Qaradawi’s promotion of what Mohammed Ansar describes as “nuanced understanding”.

(Transcript available here.)

In his 2003 book ‘Fatwas on Palestine’ Qaradawi wrote:

“[W]e believe that the battle between us and the Jews is coming … Such a battle is not driven by nationalistic causes or patriotic belonging; it is rather driven by religious incentives. This battle is not going to happen between Arabs and Zionists, or between Jews and Palestinians, or between Jews or anybody else. It is between Muslims and Jews as is clearly stated in the hadith. This battle will occur between the collective body of Muslims and the collective body of Jews i.e. all Muslims and all Jews.”

And that – as anyone even slightly familiar with Qaradawi knows – is merely the tip of the iceberg.

This BBC Radio 4 programme was not a live broadcast. According to Ansar himself it was recorded on January 23^rd.

In other words, the BBC had five whole days in which to edit out Mohammed Ansar’s misrepresentation and promotion of one of the most reprehensible antisemitic hate-preachers around. But it chose not to do that.

That decision by the programme’s editor turns a broadcast supposedly attempting to discuss and inform on the subject of antisemitism into one indirectly promoting it. It makes the BBC part of the problem rather than a contributing factor to any solution. Beyond belief indeed.

Jan 18 2013

BBC corrects Morsi video article

As we noted here on January 16^th, the BBC produced an article relating to the 2010 video of Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi in which it downplayed his encouragement of and support for terror attacks against Israelis by claiming that Morsi was ‘only’ referring to “Jewish settlers”.

“In the clip from Palestinian broadcaster Al-Quds TV, Mr Morsi referred to Jewish settlers as “occupiers of Palestine” and “warmongers”.

He called for a “military resistance in Palestine against these Zionist criminals assaulting the land of Palestine and Palestinian”.”

On January 17^th – and apparently following complaints from readers – the article was amended and the offending passage now reads:

“In the clip from Palestinian broadcaster Al-Quds TV, Mr Morsi referred to Zionists, the term most commonly used by the Muslim Brotherhood to refer to Israelis or Jews, as “occupiers of Palestine” and “warmongers”.

He called for a “military resistance in Palestine against these Zionist criminals assaulting the land of Palestine and Palestinian”. “

The correction was also pointed out a footnote to the article, which even made headlines across the Atlantic:

“Correction 17 January 2013: This report was amended to take out the reference to settlers from the comments made by the Egyptian president.“

In addition to this very welcome step, it would of course be appropriate for the BBC to explain to its audiences how that very problematic reference got there in the first place.

Jan 16 2013

BBC tones down Morsi’s support for terrorism against all Israelis

It has taken far too much time, but the US State Department’s recent condemnation of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi’s antisemitic, terror-glorifying statements – shown in a video from 2010 which was released almost two weeks ago by MEMRI – has left Western journalists no choice but to begin reporting the story.

However, in its own report on the subject which appeared in the Middle East section of the BBC News website on January 16^th, the BBC apparently could not resist ‘tweaking’ Morsi’s words.

The BBC article states: [emphasis added]

“In the clip from Palestinian broadcaster Al-Quds TV, Mr Morsi referred to Jewish settlers as “occupiers of Palestine” and “warmongers”.

He called for a “military resistance in Palestine against these Zionist criminals assaulting the land of Palestine and Palestinian”.”

Firstly, Al Quds TV is not merely a “Palestinian broadcaster” – it is a television station owned and run by Hamas. Of course this is not the first time that the BBC has elected to conceal from its audiences the terror connections of Al Quds TV and its sister organization Al Aqsa TV.

Secondly, Morsi makes no reference whatsoever to “Jewish settlers” in his antisemitic, terror-glorifying rant: that phrase is an invention by the BBC. In fact, Morsi speaks of “Zionists”, by which he means all Israeli Jews – regardless of whether they live on one side or the other of the ‘green line’ – the existence of which Morsi clearly says he does not recognize.

So, the question is this: does the BBC follow the party line expounded by Hamas and other terrorist organisations whereby all Jewish Israelis are considered “settlers” no matter where they live? That is certainly one possible explanation for the choice of wording above.

And if that is not the case, then we must ask why the BBC is trying to tone down Morsi’s support of terrorism in the whole of Israel by pretending that his statements encouraging violence ‘only’ refer to the use of terror against a specific group of people. Did the BBC perhaps consider that Morsi’s words would go down a little less badly with its audiences if they were framed as relating to “Jewish settlers” whom – according to the bien pensants of certain circles in the West – it has become perfectly acceptable to demonise, dehumanize and stereotype?

If that is the case, then it also means that we cannot avoid asking the rather unpleasant – but necessary – question of whether the BBC considers there to be a difference between the palatability of terror attacks inside and outside the ‘green line’.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: antisemitism