There is an excellent article in the Telegraph by Charles Moore called What if Israelis had abducted BBC man?, addressing the morally demented attitude amongst the tranzi media and government set.
But just suppose that some fanatical Jews had grabbed Mr Johnston and forced him to spout their message, abusing his own country as he did so. What would the world have said?
There would have been none of the caution which has characterised the response of the BBC and of the Government since Mr Johnston was abducted on March 12. The Israeli government would immediately have been condemned for its readiness to harbour terrorists or its failure to track them down. Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.
If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.
But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been “asked” to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an “ask”, why did he not say no?
Whatever one thinks of Israel’s policies on various issues, the nauseating double standards so consistently in play by so many ‘news’ organisations are something that need to be pointed out often and unapologetically. Charles Moore is to be commended for his article. Read the whole thing.
Why would he not say it when he probably believes every word of it and is happy to ‘do his bit for the cause?’
He probably views it as an opportunity!
Hear, hear. None more so than the truly repulsive reportage we are seeing from Afghanistan in the past few days by the BBC, where families of ‘martyred’ Taliban fighters get the chance to use the BBC to rant against the ‘evils’ of the Great Satan and its Lesser Satan.
On the other hand, lovely indeed to hear that in the current UK-led Operation Lastay Kulang they discovered that many of the foreign volunteers in the Taliban had vowed to fight to the death against NATO forces, so much so that they had tied themselves to bombs in the trees and were shooting down upon advancing troops. The local population (no lovers of the Taliban by all accounts) conveyed this information to the nearest units and it just took some accurate firing by 30mm Scimitars for a few hundred Syrian/Iranian/Pakistani/British Talibans to fall out of their trees, presumably followed by a swift detonation …
Perhaps you should read American media, where Israel is granted virtual immunity from criticism.
I’m not sure that something you surmise the opposition might do in a hypothetical situation represents double standards on behalf of said opposition.
Perhaps you should read American media, where Israel is granted virtual immunity from criticism.
Apparently someone has never read the NY Times.
Or looks at ABC, CBS,NBC or PBS.
Apparently someone’s standard of what constitutes criticism of Israel is extreme even by Israeli standards.
Your compass on this issue is seriously off base.
“Perhaps you should read American media, where Israel is granted virtual immunity from criticism.”
Yeah and the world is flat here too.
“Perhaps you should read American media, where Israel is granted virtual immunity from criticism.”
Yeah and the world is flat here too.
Israeli standards? Care to elaborate?
Apparently someone has never read the NY Times. Or looks at ABC, CBS,NBC or PBS.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has several pages of Archives you can -but probably won’t- sift through documenting pro-Israel bias in all five of the media outlets you mentioned. The New York Times comes up repeatedly.
QBastard: OK. Now what about the actual case Perry brought in the post above?
Perry’s discussing British media coverage, which is a different situation altogether.
To extend DocBud’s point, speculation about what media would have done in other circumstances, and then criticising it for its hypothetical stance is hardly profitable. We should certainly criticise actual examples of unfair treatment of Israel and Israelis (such as the crazy and repulsive ‘academic boycott’), but using imaginary ones rather weakens one’s case when one comes to deal with reality.
There might be more milage in discussing the treatment of the actual case. Is kidnapping by militia groups common in Gaza (as I very much suspect)? In which case, did Mr Johnson, a resident of Gaza, report on it before he was himself kidnapped? Why is one BBC reporter being kidnapped more important than the murderous civil war going on in the same place? Has the BBC soft-pedalled its own reporting for fear of what the kidnappers may do?
I think it’s exactly as it sounds. There was an Israeli girl I knew in college, who had looks, brains, and class all in one package. I’ve come to understand that this is not exactly rare. The problem is, she also had standards and they were not low enough to include me.
Sunfish,
That was almost Chandleresque. You ought to toss in your badge and become a PI.
I also once met an Israeli girl while I was a student. She was very physically attractive (beautifully toned upper arms), a PhD student in Philosophy at Cambridge and an IDF reserve machine-gun instructor (which probably explained the upper arms)… Beauty, brains and the capacity to field-strip an M-60 blind-folded… That’s exactly my kinda girl. Ah, well…
guy,
The academic boycott is an utter disgrace. I sincerely hope that this is largely an arts & humanities thing. I would be very upset if it extended to my disciplines in maths and physics. Subjects, of course, to which Jews and Israelis have clearly contributed very little in the past. What our pals in the Gaza strip have contributed to the sciences is rather more debatable. Considering their penchant for wildly firing into the air I suspect ballistics and gravitation would not be amongst their signal achievements in the physical sciences.
More depressing than anything Mr Johnstone said (BTW does anybody believe this sort of shite anymore, other than Robert Fisk, obviously) was the news this week that Norway was going to resume aid to the Palestinians. Without being on European welfare is it not possible that the Gazans might just conclude that perhaps they have to earn a living and this absurd “victimhood theatre” might end?
Oh, and another thing, the lefties depiction of Israel as an “apartheid state” is abso-bloody-lutely typical for people who’s knee-jerk response is to call anything they disagree with “fascist”. Both display a complete lack of historical knowledge.
But then I’m the sort of stickler who wouldn’t call Hitler a fascist. He was a National Socialist. Perhaps the lefties don’t like the second part of that term being used in such a context. Although, I don’t know because the last time I debated such matters with an “anti-globalization” protester she declared that we were “exploiting Venezuela’s oil” ’till Chavez stopped this perfidy. That sort of sentiment is coming perilously close to sticking the “National” back in alongside the “Socialist”.
So they’re National Socialists and we wonder why they don’t like Jews?
Said anti-globalization protestor then tried to sell me a CD of “Revolutionary songs”. It included one by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Choral Society. (See where your cash is going Norway!) She was a pretty girl in jeans and a T-shirt and her early 20s. She’d probably done many haram things in her time. Did she not realize that the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade would have waxed her without a millisecond’s thought? Did she not realise that her feminist speil would have been deeply offensive to the Pali pals she’d never met? Did she not realize that in Israel she’d be free to hand out her leaflets* (as she was in the UK) but on the Gaza strip she’d be married to someone not of her choosing (she might even have been a lesbian – Gawd knows) and whelping puppies to be martyred for Allah at an industrial rate?
Lenin was a very dull man, but he didn’t lack intellect. Indeed he could be very insightful at times. He was absolutely bang-on when he mentioned “useful idiots”. Absolutely on the money.
*OK, I bet Alisa corrects me on this. I suspect that handing out pro-Hamas stuff in Israel will get your collar felt. But that’s a local issue and the general point holds that Israel is a relatively free society, albeit one on a permanent war-footing. The UK maintains two squadrons (36 planes total) of Tornado F-3 interceptors and they’re pretty much stood down. We’re getting Typhoons but they’ve only recently achieved IOC. A few years ago I saw the IAF lads sitting in their F-16 on the ramp, ready… It’s a tough call to have to live like that.
QB,
I’m always interested when somebody puts up evidence for their claims. So I had a quick look at your FAIR link.
First link appeared to be someone called Ali Abunah who is co-founder of “Electronic Intifada” (proposing a one-state “solution”) who is going to give us analysis on Condoleeza Rice’s Middle East visit. You’ve got to be kidding if you think this is ‘documentation’ of pro-Israel bias. Oh, and some history professor (need we guess at his politics?) talking about the depiction of torture in the media. Who will no doubt show us some of the recently-revealed-but-so-far-not-in-the-mainstream-media material on Islamist torture methods and explain to us why Al Qaeda do it – Not. But we don’t seem to get the analysis, only a couple of book promos.
Second link is a long one about the media ‘ignoring’ Hamas hints at peace. It starts badly but eventually balances it up a bit. But it seems to be the opinions of a number of Western analysts that Hamas might think about considering the possibility of discussing a moderation in their position. (And for some reason feel confident they’re not lying this time.) The ending of suicide bombing in Israel is cited as an example of this Hamas restraint, and any possible role of the border fence in this is not mentioned, nor its replacement by rocket attacks. There’s a bit on Kadima and Olmert’s proposals, which looks a bit one-sided to me, but I don’t know enough about it to be sure. And then we get into Hamas being “sworn to Israel’s destruction” as a marketing ploy, although there doesn’t seem to be any solid evidence presented to show it isn’t true. Apparently, some Hamas members are as ‘moderate’ as Abbas, (who isn’t moderate) while others aren’t. We’re told moderation is becoming the ‘consensus’ but shown no evidence, or explanation as to how the moderates could possibly stop the extremists. There’s a claim that Hamas should be granted concessions in exchange for recognising Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by international agreements to which the Palestinian Authority is signatory; a bizarre view of how international treaties should work. A hudna is proposed, and the journalist obviously doesn’t know what the word means or its implications. (Do you?)
All in all, a lot of wishful thinking by the diplomatic camel corps that we’ve seen many times before and never comes to anything. It’s not news.
Third link was a complaint that the media didn’t show enough of the dead civilians on the Lebanese side and was trying to show equal numbers in some effort at balance. Well, I certainly didn’t see equal numbers, all I saw was reporters wandering round Lebanon participating in Hezbollah publicity shots (and being careful not to show anything their Hezbollah minders didn’t want them to). The only place I saw significant coverage of the effect on Israel was the internet. No mention of the reason for the high civilian casualties either – that Hezbollah operated from civilian areas in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, that Hezbollah wear no uniform in violation of the Geneva Convention so civilians can be mistaken for fighters and dead fighters can be described as civilians, and indeed committed many other war crimes. Or that the Israelis see civilian casualties as something to be prevented rather than encouraged as a propaganda opportunity. Yes, the media missed out rather a lot.
Fourth one says pretty much the same.
Fifth one is about cluster bombs and white phosphorus – both well-known crocks. There’s an assertion that cluster bombs were used in populated areas, (obviously because that’s where Hezbollah operate, illegally – to be fair this article does mention that later on) which Human Rights Watch (who we all know as seriously biased) claim might count as ‘indiscriminate’. Well I can tell you, no it doesn’t. All the Israelis have to do is perform some basic checks before deciding to use it, and it isn’t indiscriminate any more. They’re also no more dangerous than any other munition so long as you’re not stupid enough to go round afterwards picking up the unexploded bomblets. Then we get all the white Phosphorus crap that was discredited within days of the first reports of it. It’s used for smoke screens and flares. US soldiers walk through clouds of it during training.
I looked at a couple more, but they’re all the same Palestinian propaganda talking points that complains that we’re not presenting the terrorists side fairly – in effect a complaint that they’re not biased enough in favour of the terrorists. None of it explains the history. None of it shows how Islamist nationalism operates, or mentions the rules of Jihad, or discusses the legality of the Palestinian/Hezbollah tactics.
So, yes, we are willing to sift through your examples, but aside from some pretty outrageous pro-terrorist bias, no evidence such as you claim is presented. It’s all stuff we’ve seen many times before.
I’m not going to get into an extended debate, because I recognise this as an attempt to divert attention from the headline point by throwing up a fog of tu quoques that we could spend hours dismissing. (And my apologies to everyone else for feeding the troll.) Much of the media applies entirely inverted moral standards to Israel and the Islamists – Islamist kidnap of journalists, torture, murder, indiscriminate bombing, targeting of civilians, indoctrination of children, use of human shields, propagandising, lying, breaching international treaties and laws, political corruption, bug-eyed religious extremism, supremacist nationalism – I could go on for days – that they’d never let Israel get away with the tiniest fraction of. Just giving is more examples of pro-Islamist bias put out by well-known terrorist supporters isn’t going to convince us that the media is pro-Israel.
Perhaps you’d like to try a different approach?
Yes the example Charles Moore uses is hypothetical (a rhetorical devise), and he uses it because it is currently in the media spotlight… but there is nothing hypothetical about the point he was making. Hardly any media outrage about a decade of Pallywood fakes or number padding … how many media outlets actually admitted the ‘Jenin Massacre’ was bogus as other than a footnote yet they excoriated the IDF at the time? Sometimes the BBC reports IAF airstrikes in Gaza in response to rocket attacks, yet I have lost count of the number of times sententious voiced BBC reports noting yet another IAF airstike in Gaza without mentioning it was in response to yet another rocket attack aimed blindly into Israel.
All Charles Moore was doing is making the point of how different the two sides are and how differently they get reported. His rhetorical devise was perfectly sound.
Perry’s discussing British media coverage, which is a different situation altogether. So why did you bring up the American media? Anyway, Pa has done my work for me here.
Nick: I never tried, but I strongly suspect it would pass.
Beauty, brains and the capacity to field-strip an M-60 blind-folded
The IDF are not so daft as to use the rotten M60, they have the superb FN MAG, which even the Yanks have since adopted.
Charles Moore is very nearly the only reason I still read the Telegraph and Spectator.
It’s intrigued me for some time how differently Johnston’s abduction might have been reported had he been kidnapped, not by Israelis (which, as Moore points out, would be highly unlikely in any event), but in Iraq. I’m sure Samizdatistas can imagine.
Thanks, Pa. You did all the work, and said all that need be said. Goodbye, Q-troll, and don’t let the door…
Compare and contrast:
Lebanese Army can blast with Artillery a Palestinian camp. Right now there are over 100 deaths.
Israelis sent soldiers a much more carefull way to have less colateral damage.
Who Got the blame?
The Palestinian media say to kill the Jews.
The Palestinian media dont say to kill the Lebanese.
The Palestinians have a campaign to kill Israeli civilians: via terror bombs and now rocketing Villages without military value.
The Palestinians dont have that campaign against Lebanese civilians.
I dont remember any Newspaper article, Human Rights organisation or some expert appearing in Media about attacks against villages. I dont saw any international movement to defend the Martyr village of Sderot…
I also found it very strange that all this “news” organisations dont have any qualms with the PREVENTIVE attack against Fatah Al Islam that we never have heard before. Did PREVENTIVE attacks got desirable again or it is just something for non-western countries.
John K,
OK, ya called me! I manufactured the M-60 reference because I simply couldn’t at the time think of another MG which the IDF would be likely to use. So it was a fabrication which I thought made my post flow. Inaccurate, yes, technically, but I suspect that my fundamental point isn’t weakened by it.
The problem is that the only guns I know much about are rather higher calibre and fitted to simulated aircraft. I’m a big fan of the Nudelmann-Richter 30mm and the 27mm Mauser BK-27. Both knock the M-61 into a cocked hat.
It appears many of you have quite an emotional investment in the issue, so I’m not sure if their’s any use in continuing this debate. However since PA actually read a few of the pieces, which I respect, I’ll write a response after final exams.
QB: I am the only Israeli (and AFAIK a Jew) on this thread. Whatever.
Of course, far be it from Q’s mind to split the Americans and the British;and of course, FAIR is not(definitely not) a front for Bigots Of The World Unite.(BOWU).
Sorry, typo.
That was United Bigots of the World.
UBOW(now!)
pietr,
Well I’m starting the “Popular Front for Bigotry”.
Splitter!!!!
True enough, I was looking at the NR 23mm and 37mm cannon on a MiG-15 the other day. Very impressive given that Sabres of the era only had six 50 calibre machine guns.
Quite so John K
However, vision is limited in a Mig 15, which proved to be a problem in combat.
John K,
I’m a huge fan of Korean war era flight sims.
Sabre vs MiG-15 – well that is the question.
The NR 23 & 37 combo on the Mig had it’s advantages but it was essentially designed to bring down B-29s – not Sabres… It was too slow-firing and too mismatched to be ideal against a fighter. A particular problem was the relatively low muzzle velocity of the big gun which meant high gravitational fall-off and therefore difficulty in aiming in a high-G turning fight.
The six 50 cals on a Sabre weren’t ideal either. Their range and striking power was too small. Hence the Super Sabre and the Crusader had quad 20mm cannon. The 50s did have an interesting benefit though. They flanked the cockpit and acted as armour.
What makes Sabre / MiG-15 combat fun is that both aircraft are similar in performance (the Mig beats the Sabre in power/weight but the Sabre knocks it into a cocked hat for handling and dive-rate) but are very differently armed.
I was on about the NR-30 as fitted to the MiG-19 – now that was a good gun. Twice the KE per projectile of the contemporary 30mm Adens or Defas.
Paul is absolutely right. The MiG-15 had an OK pilot view but nothing to write home about but the cockpit view from the Sabre and Shooting Star were exceptional. And when we’re talking about a VFR knife-fight that makes one hell of a difference.
Give me a Sabre and a full load of ammo and a good crew chief and a MiG-train inbound over the Yalu and…
… Well they make dreams from such things. Or at least computer games.