I think we are long past the point where organisations such as the UK’s BBC, never mind such havens of moral bankruptcy, the UN, can be treated seriously any more. One of the long list of reasons I have for despising the current Conservative government (and that’s not about Rishi Sunak, but earlier) is that the BBC still exists. It ought to be a smouldering wreck, as if taken out by an IDF F-15:
The non-surprise is that professional anti-Israel voices, United Nations officials and the European Union foreign-policy chief rushed to attack Israel. Egypt condemned the operation “in the strongest terms.” How dare Israel rescue its own citizens. Didn’t it know there would be casualties? The BBC asked whether Israel gave a warning that the rescue raid was coming. Seriously? A tip-off to terrorists? Perhaps read them Miranda rights too.
Wall Street Journal editorial comment on how the rescue of four hostages has elicited condemnation from various quarters.
Hamas started the war with a massacre, took these hostages and hid them in a crowded civilian area. Then, when Israel came to free them, Hamas responded with heavy fire, including RPGs—yet people are condemning Israel. It makes us wonder if the West has lost the moral discernment and instinct for self-preservation needed to defend itself in a world of killers. Hamas could not survive if not for its enablers around the world.
A question that appears not to occur to some, but does to me, and a few others, is if the civilians in Gaza are the poor innocent types that we are told they are, how come the hostages were residing at the pleasure of them? According to Charles Moore, in the Daily Telegraph (£), Questions that ought to be put by journalists include: “Why does the BBC not inquire into the reasons that Hamas keeps hostages in civilian areas?”
He also asks: “At least three of the hostages were held by civilians (a former Al Jazeera journalist and his family members). What is the extent of Gaza civilian cooperation with Hamas murder and hostage-taking?”
Finally: “One understands…deeply deplores, that the BBC has committed itself to extreme bias in its coverage of Israel/Gaza, but does that mean that it has to employ imbiciles?” I fear the answer is `yes'”.
A few years ago, the UK’s Institute for Economic Affairs had a relatively mildly-written case for scrapping the licence fee tax. It seems to me that if any supposedly sane political party wants to win my vote, the least it can do is pledge to scrap that fee and break the BBC up. For years, the standard response of the BBC grandees to any suggestion of reform is to go on about how it provides world-class journalism and programmes. It’s not a joke that gets funnier with being repeated.
A good start would be for all British readers of this blog to scrap their TV licence. Just stop paying. It is easy and legal.
As I pointed out earlier, that makes them not-civilians.
Anybody in Gaza that participates in any aspect of the armed conflict is *BY* *DEFINITION* /NOT/ a civilian. And, yes BBC, this includes children, this includes women, this include journalists, this includes aid workers.
Saying “children and other civilians” is LYING when many of those children are engaging in armed conflict.
Saying “women and other civilians” is LYING when many of those women are engaging in armed conflict.
Saying “journalists and other civilians” is LYING when many of those journalists are engaging in “back office” support of the armed conflict.
In reality of course an elected government could no more break up the BBC than it could privatize the NHS or introduce school vouchers, the civil service simply wouldn’t allow it. Health, education and broadcasting are power bases of the bureaucracy and it would bring down any government that attempted to interfere with them. It would be able to this because, bizarrely, the civil service controls ministerial appointments. Piss off Sir Humphrey and you will never progress beyond backbencher.
As I have said on another thread, the international establishment (or “international community” as it is sometimes called) has a great hatred of Israel – as Israel is an independent nation-state (indeed an ethno-state with a religious foundation), Israel is everything they hate, especially as it has become more conservative over time – the exact opposite of most Western countries where such things as the traditional family have been in terrible decline for decades. In short Israel has been going in the opposite direction to most Western countries – with their rejection (at least elite rejection) of national independence and rejection of traditional society (the family and so on).
Israeli Jews are also held to be wealthy (a lot of them are NOT – but the perception is that they are wealthy) and fashionable international doctrine, that of “Social Justice”, holds that income and wealth come from “exploitation and oppression”, in this case of “the Palestinians”.
So it is not just the BBC – the BBC reflects the (horrible) opinions of the international establishment, but then so do all other institutions, public and private.
Do not mistake me, of course the BBC Tax (“License Fee”) should be abolished – the BBC is a despicable organisation, and even if it were not despicable there is no justification for a tax funded broadcaster.
But this will not stop the hatred of Jews – which is the logical conclusion of fashionable international doctrines such as “Social Justice” (which holds that income and wealth, indeed any success in life, is proof of “exploitation and oppression”).
I’ve never had a particularly high opinion of the BBC so have to admit I don’t get that steamed up about it much anymore, especially as about 99pc of private media is just as bad or even worse these days. Admittedly looking on YouTube you can often find old BBC documentaries from 20-40 years ago which are quite impressive and based even when considering the left-wing bias the BBC had even then (they let the late Alan Clark present a documentary series on the 20th century Tory party in 1998, something I doubt any TV broadcaster would allow today even if Alan Clark was still alive) and I often have them on in the background on headphones when doing admin stuff at work. Considering I barely watch any contemporary TV I am probably guilty of having rose tinted spectacles.
Rour le Jour – sadly there is some truth in what you say.
And what you say proves that the warnings of Lord Chief Justice Hewitt way back in 1929 (“The New Despotism”) were correct.
Indeed that the 19th century warnings of Senator Conkling in the United States were correct – that if neither the people nor those politicians the people elect can hire-and-fire the staff of government, representative government is subverted from within – undermined.
This is just about the only matter, foreign or domestic, where I find myself in agreement with Disraeli – has he warned against the creation of the Civil Service.
By the way….. the Civil Service was created by Sir Charles Trevelyan – Trevelyan did not do well in India (claims that he did do well turn out to be “spin” that can be traced back to Trevelyan himself – much like Sir Edwin Chadwick whose reports on his own work are treated as objective sources by pro statist historians, even though the reports were written by Chadwick himself) and when Trevelyan. (unelected) was in control of Ireland, only a few years, the population of Ireland fell by a third – one in three Irish people either died or fled the country (in less than five years).
I know I “bang on about this” a lot – but it still strikes me as astonishing that a person, Sir Charles Trevelyan, with a record of utter (disastrous) failure – was entrusted with designing “the modern British state”. And it is not a surprise that he designed it in his own image – highly “educated” officials who despise both democratic accountability and (indeed) any real dissent – “the men [now men and women] from Whitehall know best” being their unofficial motto.
The reports of Sir Edwin Chadwick are all much the same – X problem is terrible and caused by liberty, state intervention (spending and regulations) will make things better.
They are, basically, the script of BBC programmes – even though they were written more than one and half centuries ago.
If one is looking for a time when the British establishment was pro free market (in their beliefs) one has to look at a time before such people as “liberal” Sir Edwin Chadwick and “conservative” Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) were influential.
And that takes us back to the 1820s – to the days of Lord Liverpool, Huskinsson, Robinson and so on.
Although the British state, as a share of the total economy, was reducing in size (yes reducing in size) till the early 1870s. The economy was growing faster than the state was – so the state, relatively, was reducing in size.
Since the early 1870s the state has been growing – even relative to the economy (to society) as a whole.
There are reports that the freed hostages were moved around spending time in a number of vulnerable above-ground locations including a well-to-do family home before ending up chez journalist. I imagine the families lived in fear never knowing when their location would be leaked in order to precipitate a rescue mission with the main purpose of guaranteeing numerous deaths for propaganda purposes irrespective of who was actually firing the RPGs etc. If hamas really want to keep hold of hostages as bargaining chips why not use somewhere secure like, say, 300 odd miles of deep tunnels?
Don’t expect to see anyone in the media asking that rather obvious question.
There are limited similarities with “The Troubles” when civilians already overwhelmingly sympathetic to, as well as fearful of, the republicans provided safe houses while concealing weapons and explosives for the boyos. However even the IRA didn’t see them as cannon fodder to be slaughtered for the greater good in a worldwide outpouring of one-sided condemnation of the rescuers.
@John – that’s an odd coincidence. Just last night, I re-watched the old Yorkshire TV series ‘Harry’s Game’, where the tensions in the civilian population between support for, and, at the same time, fear of, “the boys”, was a pivotal plot point.
I suspect that, since Hamas and the PIRA are very similar in that they are (were) primarily criminal enterprises that did a bit of nationalist politics on the side, that the same tensions must prevail in Gaza, and that those who merely disagree with or who do not actively support the regime are attacked just as fiercely, if not more so, than the notional “enemy”. Both Catholicism and Islam have a particular history with apostasy, which may have a bearing on this mindset.
llater,
llamas
I was going to mention that the Gazans are in a bad position- told by Hamas to hide some hostages, and attacked by Israel when they do!
Taking civilian hostages? War crime.
Using a civilian population as human shields for said hostages, who are guarded by military forces? War crime.
Funny how the international press, normally so eager to make accusations of war crimes, offers not a peep about these open and blatant violations of the laws and traditions of war.
Almost as if they’re partisans who don’t care about either.
(See also “sovereignty”, a concept only applied to states like Hussein’s Iraq, or North Korea, never to democratic powers.
People were very upset that merely “invading Kuwait” could cause a war with Iraq’s dictatorship, if I recall.)
llamas – Jesus and Muhammed taught different things and behaved differently in their lives.
So one can say, as a powerful argument, to Roman Catholics or other Christians “would Jesus do this?”
But it makes no sense to say to a Muslim “would Muhammed do this?” – as the truthful answer comes back “yes he would – he did”.
The population of Gaza is, overwhelmingly, made up of Muslims – people who believe in Islam, the teachings and personal example (deeds) of Muhammed.
By the way, watching “Woke” lunatics please note, nothing in this comment is a criticism of Muhammed.
Why do you fear “criticizing” Mohammed and his believers, Paul?
You’ve no fear of criticizing anyone else, so why this specific fear?
There is, I’m afraid, a counterpoint to the supposed “Islamophobia” of those who know Islam for what it is: That counterpoint is “Islamophilia”, and it’s the product of raw fear and actual admiration, which tells us a lot about the people we encounter it in.
All that you need to become “anti-Islam” is to actually read what they term their “holy book”, the commentary thereof, along with their actual history. If you do that, and remain on the “-philia” side, you’re demonstrating a certain… Depravity.
Because I would be punished Kirk – as I have been in the past, and the punishment would be much worse this time.
Of course I have never said anything like what Gladstone or Winston Churchill said about the matter – if they were alive today and said now what they said when they were alive, they would be in prison so fast their feet would not not touch the ground.
“We love Winston Churchill – but we hate the things he said, wrote and believed, and we would savagely persecute people who said such things today”.
That is the modern attitude.
In France it is much the same – Charles De Gaulle was the leader of the opposition to the Nazis, yet today people who have the same beliefs as him are denounced as “Nazis” in France.
At least the left are consistent – they do not pretend to love Winston Churchill and Charles De Galle, whilst persecuting people who share the beliefs of Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle.
The left are open in their hatred of such historical figures – denouncing them as “racists”, “Islamophobes” and-so-on.