BBC R4 breaches editorial guidelines in ‘Today’ interview with Jack Straw

The Friday June 14th edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme included an item in which presenter John Humphrys spoke with Labour MP Jack Straw and Dr. Dore Gold about the election in Iran. 

Today prog 14 6

The relevant section of the programme can be heard here from 1:35:30 for a limited period of time.

Following remarks by Straw, including claims of demonisation and humiliation of Iran by the West along with doubts expressed with regard to the intentions of Iran’s nuclear programme, Humphrys says at 1:40:06:

“Let me put that to you Dr. Gold, because if anybody has demonised them, you could argue it has been Israel.”

After Dore Gold’s reply, at 1:41:30, Jack Straw says: [emphasis added]

“Well hang on a second. Israel has the most extensive nuclear weapons capability there [Middle East]. It has no territorial ambitions apart from stealing the land of the Palestinians and it’s not going to use nuclear weapons for that, but it has [a] very extensive nuclear weapons programme…”

Humphrys follows with:

“Right, well you can’t argue…let me put that to Dr. Gold. You can’t argue with that, can you Dr Gold?”

Actually, one can – and indeed should – argue with such a gratuitous, dishonest and inaccurate cheap slur – and that is exactly what John Humphrys should have done as the representative of an organisation committed to accuracy and impartiality. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on live broadcasts state:

“If offensive comments are expressed during live interviews, the interviewer should normally intervene, challenge the comments where appropriate and/or distance the BBC from the comments. If this doesn’t happen we should make an on-air apology at the earliest opportunity. Potentially offensive comments include remarks that may be interpreted as, for example, racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced against a religious group, or reflecting an unflattering national stereotype.”

And:

“If it is established during a live programme that a factual error has been made and we can accurately correct it then we should admit our mistake clearly and frankly. Saying what was wrong as well as putting it right can be an important element in making an effective correction. Where the inaccuracy is unfair, a timely correction may dissuade the aggrieved party from complaining. Any serious factual errors or potential defamation problems should be referred immediately to Programme Legal Advice.”

And:

“Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s standards. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. It is vital that any package or interview broadcast during a live event is impartial and fair. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion of bias. This can be achieved by careful casting and ensuring the presenter/interviewer is properly briefed to conduct a robust interview.”

But instead, we find that – apparently not content with the real time broadcast of that defamatory and libellous lie from Straw – the BBC actually amplified it further, despite the fact that those same Editorial Guidelines clearly state: [emphasis added]

“Live events are often repeated in highlights programmes and are increasingly available on various ‘On Demand’ platforms (for example on the Radio Player, Interactive Television, Video On Demand or the iPlayer). Programme Editors should ensure that any derogatory remarks which caused concern on transmission are edited from any repeat or online provision. Where a defamatory remark has been made, programme editors should ensure they comply with all legal advice given. It is also the responsibility of the programme editors to ensure that, where appropriate, programmes with unexpected legal issues are not repeated or made available ‘On Demand’.”

In addition to the programme being made available to listeners for a week on the programme’s webpage, on a separate  “live” webpage we find an invitation to readers to “listen to the discussion” with a link leading to another webpage on the BBC News site featuring a recording of the item. 

Today prog Straw

Straw 3

The ‘Today’ programme’s official Twitter account also promoted another audio version of the item.

twitter today straw

Today audioboo

So there we have it. Once again the BBC makes a laughing stock of its supposed standards of accuracy and impartiality by not only failing to challenge a deliberate inaccuracy spouted in a live interview, but by promoting it widely afterwards. 

124 comments on “BBC R4 breaches editorial guidelines in ‘Today’ interview with Jack Straw

  1. How absurd of Straw to suggest that the reason it’s difficult to negotiate with Iran is because it’s “demonized” by the West!

    Has he never listened to the speeches made by Ahmadinejad at the UN, or the constant flow of antisemitic hatred coming from the Iranian government demonizing Israel? How does one negotiate with people like that?

    it’s clear that Humphrys and Straw both share Iran’s hatred of Jews and Israel. Straw, these days, is a nobody, but Humphrys is the mouthpiece of the BBC and is guilty, not for the first time, of spreading hatred and lies about Israel.

    Disgraceful!

    • Ever heard of the chicken and egg phenomenon? I mean, which do you think came first, the demonisation or Ahmadinejad’s speeches? Cause and effect, you know, cause and effect!

  2. “Humphrys follows with:

    “Right, well you can’t argue…let me put that to Dr. Gold. You can’t argue with that, can you Dr Gold?””

    It is clear from the context of the interview that Humphrys is referring to Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons when he says, ” You can’t argue with that”, and not to “stealing the land of the Palestinians”.

    In any case a very high proportion of those who know anything about Israel/Palestine (including most experts in international law) believe Israel IS “stealing the land of the Palestinians”, so it seems a little excessive to refer to such an opinion as ” [a] gratuitous, dishonest and inaccurate cheap slur”.

    • Humphrys was referring to “territorial ambitions”. Are you saying that Iran has no “territorial ambitions”?

      Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, not to mention Turkey and Latin America are all being influenced by Iran and it’s support of terrorism.

    • What land has Israel has stolen and from whom? You are obviously not among those who know anything about Israel/Palestine. Go check your history.

  3. I heard the interview and was incensed by Jack Straw’s remarks. Once again, it is all the fault of the Jews! It is truly alarming that a former foreign minister, and a Jew to boot, should adopt the narrative of the Islamist-supporting far left. One wonders whether he wishes to appeal to a certain electorate or is just spectacularly ignorant. Hard to tell which is worse, but it is certainly shockingly irresponsible. I was not surprised that Humphrys did not contradict him, as although he is combative he is never very well informed. More disappointing was that Dr Gold could only mildly remark that the “stolen land” discussion would have to be for another day. Unfortunately, Israelis seem unaware of the depth of hostility towards Israel in the UK and are often ill-prepared to tackle it. The BBC for its part allows such statements to stand, and even promotes them, because its editors are just as pig ignorant as Jack Straw. I am tired of writing to complain of their errors just to receive a slippery, boilerplate reply, and can only hope they follow and take note of this site.

  4. A point worth making is that the Today piece was purportedly about the Iranian elections.

    In which case why was Straw allowed and encouraged by Humphrys to divert the discussion to one about Israel, its alleged nuclear program and accusations of “land theft”?

    A clear case of the BBC jumping on any excuse to “demonize” Israel if ever there was.

    • Jack Straw has a lot of Muslims in his constituency.
      Humphrys is a sounding box for PC groupthink, which is why he holds the job he does.
      What a loving duet they dance together.

    • “In which case why was Straw allowed and encouraged by Humphrys to divert the discussion to one about Israel, its alleged nuclear program ”

      Since Iranian nuclear ambitions are the main reason for the West taking an interest in the country this is an obvious aspect of any discussion of the elections. That being said, when interviewing an Israeli authority on the subject the elephant in the room is plainly Israel’s nuclear weapons. Straw was “allowed” to raise the subject because we enjoy a certain amount of free speech in the UK. If Israel chooses to discourage discussion of their nuclear arsenal that is their affair.

      • My point is that absolutely nothing else regarding Iran was touched upon.

        Gay rights? The economy? Public hangings? State interception of Iranian citizens’ Gmail accounts?

        There’s plenty to discuss, analyse and comment on regarding Iran and the elections there but we only heard Straw and Humphrys attacking Israel.

  5. Your accusation seems to be that Jack Straw expressed lies and libel.
    I don’t agree. To summarise the points he made:

    1. Israel has the most extensive nuclear weapons capability in the [Middle East
    2. Israel has no territorial ambitions
    3. Israel is stealing the land of the Palestinians
    4. Israel is not going to use nuclear weapons to steal land from Palestinians

    As far as I know all these things are true. Which one do you not agree with? The “ambiguity” which Israel claims about nuclear weapons? Or perhaps you think Israel does have territorial ambitions?
    We all know that Israel is remorselessly and relentlessly stealing Palestinians land. Bit by bit. year by year.

    Or perhaps you think that Israel is going to use nuclear weapons in Gaza or the West Bank.

    Your blog article also seems hysterical by using the term libel. As far as I’m aware one cannot libel a country. It’s also notable that the Israeli guy did not try to argue with Straw on these points but just tried to change the subject.

    Straw was right to state the bloody obvious and Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby do themselves no favour by their idiotic attempts to refute what the whole world knows. Israel merely gives itself a reputation for Talking Bollocks.

      • Israel has built settlements for thousands of people in the West bank. I’m surprised you are unaware of them

        My map is an excellent source. It comes from the internationally respected newspaper The Economist, which, I find, broadly supports Israel though not the settlements.

        • The map is a lie because the land under the British mandate was state land . British didn;t occupy it from a Palestinian state . there were not much private arab land in the time of Mandate of Palestine.

          • yes, I rad that other article too.
            Whether the land is state land or not makes no difference. This is not an argument about whether Mr. Smith at number 8 has stolen Mr. Jones house.
            It is whether the state of Israel has stolen and is stealing land which is not part of the state of Israel.

          • “But it makes a lot of different when people claime ownership to a land that is not their.”

            Not sure what you are you saying? That the West Bank doesn’t exist? – Obviously it does whatever you want to call it.
            Or that it’s not theirs (whose?).
            The UN considers it not part of Israel and that settlement of occupied land is illegal.

          • YOu show us a map were arabs calime all the land under Madate was theirs . They are claiming ownership to a land that wasn;t theirs. It was state land.

          • They were living under occupation by the Ottoman Empire.
            It’s not about whether the land was state or leasehold or freehold or whether they had a partial mortgage. You are doing what pro-Isralis all do and that is trying to muddy the waters and it cuts no ice with me.

            The Palestinians had Ottomans as rulers, then the British decided they were in charge. Then a lot of jews from elsewhere came and told them the land was not theres.

            Now, OK, after the holocaust this was understandable but the UN set boundaries. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza but they are an occupying power. the land is not theirs.

            You duck and weave and bring up daft arguments about state versus private land.

            But you fail to justify settlements.

          • They were living under occuaption of the Ottoman. So you want us to belive that the Ottoaman occupied an independent Paletsinian state?

        • So I’ll ask agaian what land are we stealing from the Paletsinain unless of course you meana palestien from the river to the sea. Israel is bulding only on area c which is according to Oslo agreement under Israeli rule.

          • The land in the West bank that has been settled with Jewish settlers.
            I don’t mean from the river to the sea. More prejudice on your part because you insist on portraying all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
            Building on areas under Israeli rule is just another word for occupied territories.

          • The qustion of area C in the west bank has to be negotiated. If an agreement is reached Israeli will be expelled the same way Jews were expelled from Gaza and settelmetn in the north of the West Bank. Like I said lying is not criticism.

          • I agree that negotiation is required to end occupation and this might involve some eviction of settlers.
            Like I said, I have not lied and your persistent allegation of lies is a lie in itself.

          • Saying that all your abuse sounded the same to me in now way is like saying that all Chinese or Negroes look the same But your statement is pretty much the same as others. Ie. It is yet another, yawn, boring and prejudice attempt to imply racism
            A start to a viable peace process. Good grief you really are scraping the barrel trying to justify your prejudice aren’t you.

  6. In addition it may be more truthful to rename your site pro-Israel BBC Watch as it is obviously not a site which covers much else.

    • So you don’t agree that Humphrys breached the BBC’s own editorial guidelines?

      No, I do not agree with 3. Israel is stealing the land of the Palestinians.

      “Boycott Israel” indeed! You should rename yourself “Anti-Israel”, but I imagine you’d describe yourself as “pro-Palestinian” to avoid being branded as antisemitic.

      By the way, do you call anybody who supports Israel a “lobby”?

    • These guys aren’t interested in the BBC, only in censoring its coverage of Israel/Palestine.

  7. West Bank is not part of Israel, Israel is sending settlers there and preventing Palestinians from being in that land. I call that stealing.

    Your comment that I should call myself anti-Israel is off target. Your blog is predominantly supporting Israel which is why I thought you should reflect this in the name. As a person I do not predominantly express anti-Israeli opinions hence it would be idiotic to call myself Anti-Israel.

    And no I don’t refer to individuals as a lobby. I was referring the the pro-Israeli lobby. i.e. those who lobby in favour of Israel.

    • As a person I do not predominantly express anti-Israeli opinions hence it would be idiotic to call myself Anti-Israel.

      But you do support the boycott movement.

      And no I don’t refer to individuals as a lobby. I was referring the the pro-Israeli lobby. i.e. those who lobby in favour of Israel.

      I’m one of those who are in favour of Israel, and one could say by commenting here and elsewhere I’m “lobbying”.

      By the way, this isn’t “my blog”.

      • By saying “But you do support the boycott” movement I guess you mean that therefore I should call myself anti-Israel. I support lots of things. Naming myself after each is absurd. You are implying that I am only commenting on this blog just because I am anti-Israeli. I am not. I am commenting. Because Jack Straw did not lie or libel anyone. He told the truth which is useful for the debate.

        Yes, I guess you are lobbying. We both are.

        Didn’t mean to suggest it was your blog.

        • You say you’re not anti-Israel yet you apparently support the boycott movement. How so?

          • I think that the foundation of Israel inflicted an injustice on the Palestinians. There were big reasons why this happened so I am not against the state of Israel. However, Israel relentlessly and systematically takes more and more Palestinian land. During the Oslo peace process they doubled the size of the settlements.

            I also believe that settlements do Israel no good as they prove to non-partisan observers that Israel is not sincere and keep the sense of grievance alive to Palestinians. They also make it more and more difficult to create a viable Palestinians state which leaves the Palestinians as second class citizens.

            I support a boycott of Israel as an attempt to get them to stop the settlements.

          • Israle left all populated areas in the west bank during Oslo so do give us examples for your claime that Israle take more and more lands. 22,500 PA Arabs are employed inside Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria .Did you ask them what they think about the boycott? do you really mind that they will lose their jobs .As a supporter of the BDS are you in favour of 1 state solution as BDS organization is?

          • You claim that Israel left all populated areas in the West Bank during Oslo. Is that true? Are you saying that there were no Israelis in populated areas? I guess you have to define populated areas. If you mean areas populated by Palestinians then this just means settlers don’t live with Palestinians not that settlers aren’t moving in.
            The very fact that your talking about settlers means you admit they are settling in the West bank.
            The last land grab I heard of was 300 “Units” in East Jerusalem in May 2013.
            No of course I have not asked the PA Arabs who are employed inside Israeli towns (in the West bank) for their opinion. Have you?
            Are you telling me that Israel is settling Palestinians territory to give them employment?
            I am in favor of a two state solution but Israel is making this harder and harder to achieve.

          • Indeed I do no Israel live in area A and B . Only 150,000 Palestiniain are living in area C. Jerusalem is not part of area C it is part of Israel.. By the way all lands in Jerusalem were either bought or proved to be the property of Jews who were expelld from Esat Jerusalem by the Jrodanian. I said the WB will have to be negotiate didn.;t I. I am sure those Palestinain will prefer to loose their jobs and a salary and that is 88% more than those working in Arab towns. BDS by the way support a one state solution which made even Finkelstein who is not a supprter of Israel go against it

          • My point is not about area A, B, C, E, F, G or any other sub-division. It is about Israeli settlements in general – it’s wrong.

            As for your assertion that the non Jews who live there before Israel were all renting from Jews or have now sold up. You cannot believe that! It would mean that vast numbers of people living under the ottoman empire were renting from Jews.

            You may have opinions about whether Palestinians prefer to loose their jobs but I think this is a decision for them not you or me.

            I don’t ally myself with BDS so I don’t have to follow their agenda and I think Finkelstein is entitled to his own opinion.

            Your image shows as a big black block on my PC.

          • But you don;t ask the Palestinain for their opinios. You think you know what is best for them. You do twist my meaning dont you. in Jerusalem lot of properties belong to Jews who were the majority there since 1860.

          • You asked if I asked the opinions of all the Palestinians with jobs with Israelis. OBVIOUSLY I have not any more than you have.
            I don’t think I know what’s best for Palestinians. This is why I said that the decision is for them not you or me.
            As for lots of properties in Jerusalem belonging to Jews who were the majority there since 1860
            Don’t know. I could check it out but even if true it would not affect my argument which is simple. The UN partitioned the land. Israel occupied the Palestinian but and now occupies and settles it.
            It’s morally wrong and illegal.

          • But arabs rejected the partition plan and as a result begun a war we won. .are you saying that the state of Israel pre 1967 is illegal as well?

      • Names change over centuries. I don’t think anyone is any position to say what it’s “correct” name is other than the residents.
        Regardless of what you want to name them, Gaza and the West bank are not recognised by the UN as part of Israel.

        • Israel doesn’t consider Gaza to be part of Israel either – it considers it to be a “hostile entity”.

          Parts of what you call “the West Bank” are indeed recognised in previous accords as being part of Israel under any future peace agreement.

          Your ignorance on the subject is beginning to show.

          • I didn’t say that Israel consider Gaza as part of Israel.
            Parts of the West Bank were to be part of a land swap as part of a peace agreement.. …..but there was no peace agreement.

            Your accusation of ignorance doesn’t stand up.

            But what is more interesting is that your comments make no difference to the assertion that Israel is stealing land.

          • It takes 2 to make a peace agreement. So far all Israel did was give more and more land for peace. All Israel got for that was terror and rockets.

          • I can see that Israelis may feel they are giving up land and get no peace. but you should be able to see that the Palestinians consider that they had ALL their land occupied.
            And while it’s true Israel pulled out of Gaza they continue to expand in the West Bank and now Jerusalem.

            I don’t expect Palestinians to make peace just because Israel stops settlement activity but that continued settlement activity keeps the grievance alive. It’s a fresh source of grievance. Why should the Palestinians negotiate at all if all the time they are losing land?

          • You keep up with the tale that we steal land in the West Bank and still didnt prove it. . A poll found out that majority of Palestinain agree that 2 state solutin is just a step to one big Palestinian state. They are not loosing land and they know it. Lands have to negotiate about. That is how they got area A+B in Oslo. Through negotiation. The real problem is the right of return. when you want peace you need to talk with no precondition. If you want precondition what is left to talk about.

      • Biodegradable you can’t argue with the well known anti-Semitic tropes.
        A hundred years ago the Jews were accused of killing Christian children – today’s PC version: they kill Palestinian children.
        The sencars and jonesxxs a century ago said that the Jewish bankers stole their money today they are stealing Palestinian land.
        The form has been changed – the content remains the same old. The only but very significant difference that today these wannabe pogrom heroes can’t do anything apart from listening to the BBC, read the Guardian, trolling on websites and chewing their carpets to vent their hate.
        And that the BBC became an anti-israeli propaganda forum decades ago has the same news value like the big breaking news reporting that bears shit in the woods.

        • You avoid the accusation of stealing by categorizing my criticism as support for another pogrom. This is a warm out record. It cuts no ice with me. Jews who died in pogroms were humans and, as a human, I find your attempt to invoke their name to defend theft of Palestinian land quite despicable.

          Calling me a “wannabe pogrom hero” is just disgusting and calling me Guardian reading is just plain wrong.

          You call me hate filled and a troll. – such hypocrisy!

          • There is no such thing as “Palestinian land”. “Palestine” is the name given to the land of Israel by the Romans.

            Prior to the founding of the State of Israel the world referred to Jews living there as “Palestinians” and the others as what they are; “Arabs”.

            Prior to the founding of the State of Israel the Jerusalem Post was called The Palestine Post.

            In Nazi Germany the graffiti on the walls declared “Jews to Palestine”. Today people like you call for “Jews out of Palestine”.

            peterthehungarian is right. The “theft of Palestinian land” is no more than yet another libel against the Jews. He’s also right that trying to teach a dog to sing is a waste of time; it just tires one out and annoys the dog.

          • Sorry, missed that last bit about dogs.
            If you want to convince me of your arguments try making an argument rather than relying on insinuation of racism and insults.

          • I hope that Biodegradable is not so naive to think that your kind of faux protectors of Palestinian rights can be convinced. But there isn’t any need to convince you and your comrades, to contain your efforts repeating the past is good enough. Luckily apart from dirtying the blogosphere with terminology direct from the Sturmer you can’t do anything so no further action is needed. Happy teppich fressing jones…

    • Israel is not sending anyone there. West Bank is not part of a palestnian state because there is none. The area is a dispute area to be negotiated. lying about Israel like you do is what make you anti Israel.

      • Israel is sending settlers to the West bank. Everyone knows this. Denying it just reduces our credibility.
        The West Bank is not part of a state but is occupied by Israel. Settling occupied land is illegal. This is why it’s theft.

        • How does Israel send settlers ? Who was it occupied from, the Palestinian state? They are disputed area. When there will be an agreement Israel will give what it has to give like it did in the past.

          • I remember a joke from Black Adder I saw recently. I think the debate was about whether a ship needs a crew. The captain said that opinion was divided: Everyone else thought it did but he thought it didn’t.
            The West Bank is NOT a disputed area. It is an occupied area. Israel claims it is disputed to justify it’s illegal settlements.
            International Law states that occupied land may not be settled.

          • Britain as far as I know but I’m not here to be a source of information on Israel and Palestinian. Look it up.

          • Than for the WB to be occupied we had to occupy it from the British. I know the answer I was intrested to see if you do .yOur answer said a lot.

          • I’m not here to be a source of information on Israel and Palestinian. Look it up.

            You should look it up, you arrogant git!

            Do you know about the illegal occupation of what you call “the West Bank” and Jerusalem by Jordan from 1948 – 1967? An illegal occupation that was only recognised by Pakistan and guess who, the UK.

            It’s you who should be looking up facts. Your replies are showing ever more clearly that you really don’t care – you’re only interested in attacking Israel.

            Israel is sending settlers to the West bank. Everyone knows this.

            I don’t know this, neither do those “settlers” who go of their own free will. Indeed many of them are actually evicted from their “settlements” by the Israeli government. Who is this “everyone” who supposedly knows?

          • An illegal occupation by Jordan doesn’t justify the settlements?

            And I have not been attacking Israel I have been defending my fairly basic stance that settlement activity is illegal and morally wrong against a tirade of abuse, insinuation of Nazism and distractions.

            I am aware that Israeli supporters have this reputation but you guys really take the biscuit. As I said I could make a better case than you.

            Even the Israeli Embassy admits to settlement activity. How can you possibly deny this? I am not arguing that Israel is forcing settlers to go there. I am arguing that as the occupying power Israel is responsible and that Israel does encourage settlements.

        • You say, “Israel is sending settlers to the West bank”

          Then here you say, “I am not arguing that Israel is forcing settlers to go there.”.

          “Forcing” perhaps not, but you have been saying consistently that “Israel is sending settlers to the West bank”. You then have the cheek to say that nobody here is “making a case”, and that everybody else here is “all over the place” while all you do is repeat your same opinion. You really are talking bollocks!

  8. You’re all over the place. You say that there is no such thing as Palestinian land then say that Palestine was the name given by Romans.

    It does not matter what you call it. There are a bunch of people who’s land is being settled by Israel. You don’t even deny it.

    The attempt to invoke the name of Jews who have died at the hands of Nazis is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for using these deaths for your own bigotry. Six million jews died and now you try to use their names to justify racism in Palestine. Shame on you.

    • I’m assuming that your not a native English speaker so I’ll interpret your words as best I can.
      1st, You make NO arguments you merely throw insults.
      2nd If you actually read my words rather than allowing your bigoted support for Israel lead you to write accusations of of Nazism. I used no words even remotely like those of the Sturmer. (A Nazi newspaper).
      The attempt to link defense of Palestinian land with Nazis is obnoxious and, as I have said, Israeli supporters defile the name of the millions who died in the holocaust by continually trying to associate their deaths with the reprehensible theft of Palestinians land.
      I really do not understand why you think that throwing insults such as “teppich fressig” does anything to support your cause.
      Why don’t you try reasoned argument?

      • Why don’t you try reasoned argument?
        I don’t argue with trash accusing me with stealing and incite boycotts against my people. Were you represent any danger for us, the situation would be different – I would argue with you using a completely different media, but your hate propaganda here has the significance of a papillonfart in a tornado. At the moment you are a very useful example of the so called “pro-Palestinian” activists showing their true agenda. Venting your frustration on a blog by spewing irrational hate and slanders is much better than due to the lack of this safety valve you would poison your neighbor’s pet not to speak about the damage in your carpets. BTW I hope that you are boycotting every Israeli patented medical procedures, technologies, pharmaceutical products and strongly suggest the same for your friends and family. Please don’t forget to throw away your smartphone and PC too, they are full of Israeli products as well. Have a very successful boycott!

        • Yet more abuse. Is that all you have? You’re not making a convincing case. You are just highlighting the inadequacy of your position.
          You insinuation that I use hate propaganda is clearly not true. It is you who have used abuse. I have stuck to reasoned argument despite you and your comrades insults It is you who are spewing irrational hate.
          And now you try to say that I would poison my neighbors pets. You are an absurd person and you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
          I boycott Israeli goods as far as possible but am not an irrational zealot like you so I do use product with component from Israel.

          • You’re not making a convincing case.
            This is the high time for you to learn understand simple English texts.
            I repeat: I don’t have any interest to convince about anything your kind of assholes who are using anti-Semitic tropes like “land-stealing” and who are trying to dehumanize us by boycotts.
            It is you who have used abuse. I have stuck to reasoned argument
            I see. In your warped hate world accusing a whole nation with stealing is not an insult but a reasonable argument. You are so sensitive like a violet regarding yourself but insults others with the most despicable libels. Why am I not surprised about this gross hypocrisy?
            I boycott Israeli goods as far as possible but am not an irrational zealot like you so I do use product with component from Israel.
            Welcome into the gesture politics world of a Jew-hater. You don’t boycott the Jewish doctor who saves your life, only some beauty products what you obviously don’t need.
            Jones, Jones with your whining you are the textbook example of the typical modern anti-Semite. Thank you for contribution to the Zionist cause.

          • @ peterthehungarian
            Implication of anti-Semitism I have dealt with. Read back through your posts, you have not made a reasoned argument.
            I think that your prejudice is at the root of your problem.
            Your bigoted assumption that I am anti-Semitic means you assume I would boycott everything Jewish. As I said I am not anti-Semitic and so I don’t. It’s not rocket science.
            A text book example of a modern anti-Semite. What is that all anti Semitism is ? Just claiming that illegal settlements are theft?
            Anti-Semitism is much much deeper than that.
            Incidentally, are you all the same person?

    • There are a bunch of people who’s land is being settled by Israel.

      It never was “their land”. There has never been a State of Palestine. So yes, I do deny that Israel is “stealing land”.

      When will you get that through your thick head?

  9. Jonesxxx:

    The video you posted above is inaccurate and offensive propaganda and contains material often used by a variety of anti-Israel campaigners.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/map-that-lies-and-one-that-doesnt.html

    http://cifwatch.com/2011/06/24/beyond-belief-political-propaganda-in-the-anglican-church/

    You are being given the benefit of the doubt this time, but please note that whilst opinions are welcome on this forum, defamatory lies are not and inevitably lead to premoderation.

    • The video I posted contains maps taken from The Economist magazine showing the way that the Palestinians territories have shrunk over time. This was the best source I could get and I believe them to be accurate as I have seen similar maps in other newspapers.

      The video contains no defamatory material whatsoever. It may be used by anti-Israeli campaigners but facts are used by both sides. Judging by the number of hits it received I would say that it not used at all.

      I have told no lies and nobody, including yourself, have pointed out any lies. You might do better to warn some of the people who have responded to my posts with insinuations of Nazism and outright abuse.

      It’s true that the video is designed to convince rather than being reportage but then you yourself have posted links to web sites designed to convince.

      So, is this one rule for the pro Israelis and a different rule for those who criticise Israel?

      • Clicking on your Gravatar tells me all I need t know about you:

        talkingbollocks.net

        Quite!

          • I don’t boycot Jews and I reject your bigoted and prejudiced assumption that I am a racist. Stooping to such prejudice is what gives Israeli supporters a bad name. It is akin to the little boy who cried wolf. When the pro-Israelis on this blog start making accusations of racism and Nazism merely because someone supports a boycott of Israel in order to stop the illegal settlement activity it undermines your credibility. It means that your opinions are discounted because people can see that you use these terms far too frequently in a partisan attempt to support a cause which you know to be wrong. (settlements).

          • When the pro-Israelis on this blog start making accusations of racism and Nazism merely because someone supports a boycott of Israel in order to stop the illegal settlement activity it undermines your credibility.

            Not so much “pro-Israel” as pro-truth and anti-bias.

            “Settlement activity” is NOT illegal.

            The Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses before attempting to eliminate Jews from the world entirely. Therefore the comparison with the current BDS movement whose aim is to eliminate the one and only Jewish state is valid.

          • I don’t consider your statement “Settlement activity” is NOT illegal to be anything more than a statement of your opinion. We know you think that. Why can’t you reason it out?

            The fact that Nazis boycotted Jewish business does not mean all who boycott Israel are Nazis. It’s a straightforward logical error you are making.

            Daffodils are yellow. Therefore everything that is yellow is a daffodil. Clearly not true.
            Pro-Israelis spout abuse therefore everyone who spouts abuse is a pro-Israeli. Also not true.

          • I don’t consider your statement “Settlement activity” is NOT illegal to be anything more than a statement of your opinion.

            You have done nothing more than state your opinion that “settlements” are illegal!

            Where in this discussion have you provided any facts (not somebody else’s opinion) that they are in fact “illegal”?

            Don’t be shy, provide some facts to back up your opinion.

          • The UN considers them illegal. Now, you could say that you don’t consider the UN is the right body to decide but since it was the UN which have Israel statehood you would be on very tricky ground.

        • I don’t comment a lot on Israel but I do comment and tweet. I find that when people can’t make an argument they simply post a link. The reader is supposed to read the article or articles and then determine how they negate his arguments. This is just a lazy tactic which means. “I can’t think of anything to say”….”What he said”

          Yes, we know Pro-Israel activist are prolific and spend a lot of time trying to refute assertions made in numerous publications. In the end it comes down to: Can you make the case yourself. And who do you trust more, a paper like The Economist or someone with a comment history of no argument and endless abuse.

          I’ll go for the Economist on this one.

          • The Economist keeps making up facts to demonize Israelhttp://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-economist-keeps-making-up-facts-to.html
            I think that says it all about the Economist. Which goes well with the BBC both of them looks alike.

          • The reader is supposed to read the article…

            Exactly. Have you bothered to read any of those articles?

            Can you make the case yourself. And who do you trust more…

            Have you made your case other than make unfounded allegations and spout worn out slogans?

          • Yes I have read the articles and they have not convinced me. I have not spouted slogans You have with your diatribe of insinuated anti-semtisim. Change the records. I am not a Nazi. You and your fellow commentators have more of the attributes of Fascists as your methods are obviously to try and bully me.

            I could make a better case for the settlement activity than you guys. Your hopeless.

      • It is still a map of lies where ever you took it from.Lying like you do about Israel is nor criticizing it is just lying about it which makes you a hater.

  10. When I stumbled upon this site I took it as it’s word as some kidn of feedback site to the BBC. I posted one comment saying I agreed with Jack Straw who stated that Israeli settlements activity was stealing and one video showing the land and how it changed and advocating a boycott.

    The response I received from your commenters (or commentator – they all sound the same to me) was a diatribe of abuse and insinuations of Nazism.

    A few years ago I had an email correspondence with a guy at the Israeli embassy in London. Rosenburg, I think his name was. Obviously he was better equipped to rebut the charge of theft of land but I knocked over his arguments one by one until, in the end, he said “Well what do you expect us to do?”

    This is the real predicament for pro-settlement Israelis. You know it’s wrong but you can’t think of a way out.

    Well, a start would be to stop the settlements.

    • A few years ago I had an email correspondence with a guy at the Israeli embassy in London. Rosenburg, I think his name was. Obviously he was better equipped to rebut the charge of theft of land but I knocked over his arguments one by one until, in the end, he said “Well what do you expect us to do?”
      Naturally Jones. And you are the descendant of Bonaparte Napoleon and Maria-Theresa plus the Gauleiter of the Czech Protectorate. Reading your opuses I have a feeling that you are not a real person but some virtually construed caricature of Jew hating idiot. Sadly every party must come to its end, so I suggest you to hurry for your neighborhood PSC meeting – the comrades can’t start sing the Khaybar without their leader – don’t let them wait in vain. The agenda will be: How to boycott Israel saying that I don’t boycott Jews? – an interesting subject. Beating you was a real fun but when you start to fantasize about imagined victories against Israeli diplomats – how to say without hurting your extremely sensitive soul – you have to seek professional help and making fun out of an obviously disturbed person is not fair. Adieu Jones and don’t strain your nerves and tired mind with problems why above your intelligence level.

      • The Israeli Embassy was much more coherent than you and responded quite rationally. I don’t know why you would imagine that the Israeli Embassy wouldn’t respond to email. If you do not behave like a rabid boor then you will find that many people are willing to engage in debate.

        And once again I have said nothing to indicate I hate Jews and this is just your attempt to discredit me by alleging racism. Your a joke.

        And beating me? In what way have you beaten me? You have given zero justification for the settlements. Which was the point of the article on which we are commenting.

      • Just looked it up. I don’t have all the emails but his name was Michael Rosen of the Public Affairs Office. This must have been one of the first. WHo knows, if you could control your hatred and bigotry he might respond to you too?

        From: info1 [info1@london.mfa.gov.il]
        Sent: 16 May 2002 07:53
        To: ‘nigel.chaloner@hemscott.net’
        Subject: settlements

        Follow Up Flag: Follow up
        Flag Status: Flagged

        Thank you for your comments. Please find below the most common charges
        regarding the settlements, and their answers.I would also refer you to a
        briefing sheet, entitled, ‘What came first, occupation or terrorism?’
        http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0

        Kind regards
        Michael Rosen
        Public Affairs Office

        • I have much more amusing things to do at the moment but thank you for proving that your laughable claim of beating an Israeli diplomat in a debate is simply a an ugly flower of your sick fantasy.
          Your imagination:
          A few years ago I had an email correspondence with a guy at the Israeli embassy in London. Rosenburg, I think his name was. Obviously he was better equipped to rebut the charge of theft of land but I knocked over his arguments one by one until, in the end, he said “Well what do you expect us to do?”
          The reality: You wrote an e-mail to the Israeli embassy and they after seeing your somehow not exactly healthy intellect sent you a standard answer linking to an Israeli MFA page.
          Good to see you digging your hole deeper and deeper….

          • An Israeli Public Affairs Officer is hardly a diplomat. I wonder if the reason that you cannot conceive that an Israeli official would take time to debate via Email is because you know that you are only capable of cheap insults?

            If you have more amusing things to do then I suggest you go and do them rather than venting your hatred here.

        • That link should be http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Which%20Came%20First-%20Terrorism%20or%20Occupation%20-%20Major.aspx

          You should also see:
          http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/AntiSemitism/Pages/Israeli_boycott.aspx

          You can also see these pages:
          http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/AntiSemitism/Pages/Palestinian_delegitimization_of_Israel.aspx

          Most importantly, seeing as you have only repeated your opinion, see this:

          Do the settlements violate Israeli-Palestinian agreements or international law?

          … Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate international law for two reasons – first because the West Bank is claimed to be considered ‘occupied territory’, and second, because a state is prohibited from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into a territory it occupies. However, these allegations have no validity in law because firstly, it is an historical fact that the disputed West Bank is not the sovereign territory of any other state and thus cannot be considered ‘occupied’, and second, Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, but rather chose their place of residence voluntarily.

          As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the establishment of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

          In November 2009, in a dramatic move designed to encourage the Palestinians to reconsider their refusal to return to the negotiating table, the Israeli government announced a 10-month moratorium on new residential housing starts and new residential building permits in all Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Unfortunately, this move was rejected by the Palestinians before it was even officially announced…

    • The response I received from your commenters (or commentator – they all sound the same to me)

      That sounds remarkably like saying that all Chinese or Negroes look the same to you!

      Well, a start would be to stop the settlements.

      A start to what exactly? The end of the State of Israel?

  11. I don’t know what you mean by “As terrorism by arabs against the state of Israel begun just after the 48 war I guess we konw what came first.”

    What terrorism or Israel? Israel or Arabs? Chickens or eggs?

    I didn’t post any papers about your comment.

    • You did in the answer of Michael Rosen which you posted.

      Thank you for your comments. Please find below the most common charges
      regarding the settlements, and their answers.I would also refer you to a
      briefing sheet, entitled, ‘What came first, occupation or terrorism?’
      http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0

      I think my statement about terrorism agaisnt Israel by arabs after 1948 war ended was quiet clear. If you think it is not true than say so .

      • Re “You did in the answer of Michael Rosen which you posted.”

        I didn’t post an answer to Rosen’s Email.

        I don’t agree that your statement about terrorism agaisnt Israel by arabs after 1948 war ended was clear. You wrote “As terrorism by arabs against the state of Israel begun just after the 48 war I guess we konw what came first.”

        Don’t know what you mean.

Comments are closed.