BBC still airbrushing David Ward’s remarks

In a story which bears more resemblance to an episode of Fawlty Towers by the day, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip has formally censured the MP for Bradford East, David Ward, with a “don’t mention the Jews” clause included in his letter

The BBC’s report on this latest development has been relegated from the UK Politics and Middle East pages of its BBC News website to the regional ‘Leeds & West Yorkshire’ page. However, the BBC is still trying to pretend that Ward’s remarks pertained to Israeli Jews – as it did in its two previous reports on the incident.

“A Lib-Dem MP who accused “the Jews” in Israel of “inflicting atrocities on Palestinians” has received a letter of censure by the party.”

[emphasis added]

Ward censure art

Even the tepid reaction of the Lib Dem Chief Whip (which, notably, does nothing to address the subject of Ward’s use of an antisemitic Nazi analogy) indicates that the BBC’s repeated attempts to suggest that Ward was referring to Israeli Jews – rather than “the Jews” as a collective – are futile and mistaken.

So why is the BBC still flogging this dead horse?

24 comments on “BBC still airbrushing David Ward’s remarks

  1. Arrogance springs to mind, here, rather than flogging a dead horse: A form of Marie-Antoinette Syndrome which inclines the BBC towards the haughty attitude that it towers over other media sources and can say what it wants.

  2. David Ward was certainly not being anti-Semitic. He was being factual, but unfortunately did not phrase his statement well. Israel is a Jewish State so he was not wrong is referring to ‘Jews’ plural. However, there are many Jews, like myself, who are not included in his criticism and do not take offence about such wording, in the way that my American friends do not take personally criticism that I make about USA actions that I consider terrorist in nature. Generalizations are, it is true, made too often about groups of diverse people, whether as members of the same religion or nation, but it is interesting that the Israeli lobby and the BoD play the same game by suggesting all too often that ALL Jews will be or have been upset by something in the media. That is not true and I so often cry ‘Not in my name’!

      • Well spotted Daphne. A case of the children’s rhyme,
        “Adam and Eve and Pinch me went down to the river to bathe.
        Adam and Eve were drowned; who do you think was saved?”

    • “However, there are many Jews, like myself, who are not included in his criticism… …That is not true and I so often cry ‘Not in my name’!”

      According to the sex abuse article, you converted to Christianity. If this is true, do you still consider yourself Jewish? I hope this is not too personal, but bring this up as you have implied as much above, and I find this interesting on a personal level, in relation to my own Jewish agnostic identity.

    • He certainly is antisemitic when he points to atrocities allegedly committed by Jews and omitts to comment the terror attacks of Palestinians on a daily base.
      I`m not sure that you will be excluded as target for these terrorists just because you play the lobby card, distance yourself from the Jews you think being rightly accused by Ward and accept Antisemitism.

  3. As I have explained in another blog where I have also received abuse for daring to express a different perspective, the article in the Jewish Chron was in regard to a misquote. I had made an accusation of verbal sexual abuse not of physical abuse. Both are abhorrent, but it was a misquote and therefore not factually accurate. My mother was a secular Jew. I am proud of my heritage though no doubt I will receive abuse for that statement as well. My mother was ashamed at what the Jews in Israel were doing to the Palestinians. I am not a convert as I was not brought up as a religious Jew. So my question to you is please define for me what the definition of a Jew is. If I was born belonging to a particular race or culture, do I lose that be living elsewhere or taking part in another culture. many Israeli Jews are actually secular rather than religious after all.

    • In which way do you feel responsible for Israel? Do you suppose problems in your social context when declaring solidarity with Israel?

      • I don’t understand your question. I have never spoken of feeling responsible for Israel. At the risk of abuse once again, perhaps you could elaborate?

        • Well, why do you post here when you don`t feel responsible for Israel? What about solidarity with Israeli Jews when rockets , mortars and sucide attacks are under way?

    • You write that you are not a convert, but that implies that you don’t understand how Judaism works. If you are born as a Jew, or convert to become one, you are then a Jew for the rest of your life, regardless of whether you are religious. The only way you stop being a Jew is if you convert to another religion. Ergo if you did convert to Christianity, you are a convert and are no longer Jewish.

      Your political opinions aside, I write this without judgment as I believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I am hardly a believing Jew. I am however a Jew based on the commonly held criteria, and based on my own association.

      So based on what you have written, my question stands: Do you still consider yourself Jewish?

      • Thank you for a reasonable question. I do still consider myself Jewish. I believe everyone has the right to practice and believe whatever they choose as long as their beliefs in no way cause damage to anyone else so, before I answer your question I want to make it clear that I have no desire to convert anyone else to my beliefs! I am proud of my Jewish heritage and the foundations of Christianity are, after all, Jewish. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the Roman occupation. Jesus lived and died a Jew and just because I follow his teachings does not take away my ancestry which is on my mother’s side and therefore makes me always Jewish. You are welcome to disagree with me. That is fine and you are entitled to believe otherwise.

        • Thank you Miranda, I won’t agree or disagree with your beliefs because I have no feelings for religion other than a warm feeling of belonging when I go to synagogue, based on my heritage. So based on your logic, there is justifiably such a thing as a Jewish people, separate from religious belief, and indeed religion. If you accept that, then the conclusion must be that the Jewish people, being entitled to self-determination, are entitles to a viable and defendable Jewish state, just like Italians, Irish, French, and any other people. Just wanted to make sure we in agreement on that point.

        • I am sorry to get in the way of what seems to be an exchange between you two,
          but Jesus, a “Palestinian Jew”?
          Darling, at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, there was no such thing as Palestine. In fact, the name had not been coined in Latin yet. Present Palestinians are mostly Arabs, making any connection between them, and Rome impossible(the Arab invaders overran the Byzantine province of Palestine, in the 8th century AD).
          Lastly, Herod, the last king of the Roman province of Iudaea, was officially crowned(by Augustus Caesar, & by the Roman Senate), King of the Jews.
          In short, Islam, Palestinians, Christianity, at the time did not exist. There was, however, a functioning, Jewish, Hasmonean kingdom.
          Your historical revisionism, as well as the mythical(and outright offensive) Holocaust-guilt allusions, are disgusting. If you are the face of Palestinian advocacy(and as others have demonstrated — you are a notorious liar), the Palestinians are very much in trouble.

        • The Palestinians (nor any other people) ever called themselves Palestinians until 1964, when they founded the PLO with the sole aim of destroying Israel. Until the British Mandate, they had called themselves South-Syrians, and most of them were economic migrants from neighbouring lands of the Middle East who came over to enjoy the prosperity that the Zionist Jews had brought to the land. Palestine was a geographical name, introduced by the Romans, and later by the West (although interestingly not used by the Ottomans). So the argument that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew is laughable, as mentioned here by someone else.

          The Palestinians do have a viable and defendable state, the 3/4 of the original mandate which was renamed as Transjordan, and subsequently Jordan. They have chosen to go along with the Bedouin minority and not overthrow the Hashemites while they fight Israel for a second Palestinian state encompassing the remaining quarter, kicking the Jews into the sea. They are already a majority of the population in Jordan, which is a large country, so why not rename that Palestine and open into negotiations with Israel on the future borders in a way that will ensure both people have safe boundaries?

          • Your understand of history is different to mine as is your understanding of the present situation. After all there is no such thing as subjective history from any perspective, so at this juncture I am just going to agree to differ rather than write a whole other history that you will only throw out anyway.
            As for your second paragraph it does not seem to reflect the situation on the ground at all, except from the point of view of someone trying to make excuses for those taking land that does not belong to them. Why is it not possible for Israel to exist within its given borders? Why must it keep on expanding? Those are rhetorical questions because I know there are several answers to those questions none of which I find reasonable and I have been a lone voice on this blog long enough so I am stopping there. thanks for a reasonable discussion in the last few responses.

  4. Pingback: The Curious Case of Terry Rooney: Listen up, Clegg « abdelxyz

  5. Pingback: Dumbest interview question ever on BBC Radio Leeds | BBC Watch

  6. Pingback: BBC does yet another makeover on Ward remarks | BBC Watch

  7. Pingback: Light bulb moment at the BBC | BBC Watch

  8. Pingback: BBC pussy-footing around British antisemitism again | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.