web analytics
April 26, 2015 / 7 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘BBC’

Widow Confirms Arafat Pre-Planned ‘Al-Aqsa Intifada’

Monday, December 31st, 2012

In an interview on Dubai Television on December 16, Yassir Arafat’s widow, Suha Arafat, confirmed what so many who have imbibed the Arab Palestinian narrative refuse to believe: the “al Aqsa Intifada” was not a spontaneous uprising ignited by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000.

The outbreak of violence that claimed the lives of more than 3000 Arabs and 1000 Israelis, was a calculated decision by Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.  Arafat responded to U.S. President Clinton’s efforts to forge peace between Arabs and Israelis at Camp David with his calculated plan to unleash brutal, organized mass killings and destruction because he viewed a positive response to those efforts  to be a betrayal of the Arab Palestinian cause.

Suha Arafat told the Dubai interviewer:

Yasser Arafat had made a decision to launch the intifada.  Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him in Paris upon his return, in July, 2001 [sic]. Camp David has failed, and he said to me: “You should remain in Paris.” I asked him why, and he said: Because I am going to start an Intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause.  They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so.

The fact that the uprising had nothing to do with Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was admitted by  Arab Palestinian leadership as early as 2001.  Marwan Bharghouti, the head of the Tanzim Arab Palestinian terrorist group admitted, “whoever thinks that this started as a result of Sharon’s despicable visit to Al Aksa [mosque on the Temple Mount] is in error.  It was planned since Arafat’s return from Camp David [where he] firmly stood up to Clinton and rejected the U.S. terms.”

Despite the admission by many Arab leaders and those with knowledge over the course of more than a dozen years that the 2000 uprising was planned as early as July, 2000 and was not the result of incitement by Ariel Sharon, most major news sources still endorse the blatantly false narrative.  For example, the BBC  provides its audience with this description of how the al-Aqsa Intifada began:

Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel’s opposition, paid a visit to the site in East Jerusalem known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, and to Jews as Temple Mount, which houses the al-Aqsa mosque – and frustration boiled over into violence.

Not surprisingly, al Jazeera also explains the outbreak of the 2000 Arab Palestinian uprising as resulting from Sharon’s visit, as does the Middle East organization, Adalah, “the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.” For some organizations ostensibly dedicated to truth telling and legal rights, a false truth, no matter how many times it has been exposed, no matter how long it has been exposed, and no matter by whom it has been exposed, if it fits the false Arab Palestinian narrative of victimization at the hands of Israel, it will continue to be told.

 

Roundup of Middle East News from Around the World

Monday, December 10th, 2012

(((CLICK BELOW TO HEAR AUDIO)))

Yishai presents an audio piece from the BBC entitled “Tehrangeles”, which talks about the Iranian and Persian existence in Los Angeles. This audio presents a unique perspective on Iranians in LA, especially those that are members of the Persian Jewish community. Be sure to listen in!

Yishai Fleisher on Twitter: @YishaiFleisher
Yishai on Facebook

The Struggle Between Secular and Ultra-Orthodox Israelis

Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

(((CLICK BELOW TO HEAR AUDIO)))

Yishai presents audio from the BBC about the coming together of the ultra-orthodox and secular worlds.  This piece presents an overall very unbiased view of the situation and is a very interesting listen.  Don’t miss it!

Yishai Fleisher on Twitter: @YishaiFleisher
Yishai on Facebook

The Future of America in the Middle East

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

(((CLICK BELOW TO HEAR AUDIO)))

Yishai presents a recent broadcast from the BBC about how the United States fits into the Middle East and also how the upcoming American elections can affect Middle Eastern policy, especially in regards to Israel.

Yishai Fleisher on Twitter: @YishaiFleisher
Yishai on Facebook

Circumcision in Germany, An Update

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

(((CLICK BELOW TO HEAR AUDIO)))

Yishai presents a fascinating audio piece from the BBC about the issue of the legality of circumcision in Germany.  Be sure to tune in to stay informed!

Yishai Fleisher on Twitter: @YishaiFleisher
Yishai on Facebook

The Launch of BBC Watch

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

Fans of this blog have often asked why we do not monitor British media institutions other than the Guardian for anti-Israel bias – a query to which we have not had an answer.

Until now.

Recognizing the importance of the BBC in shaping world-wide opinion, a new site, BBC Watch, has been launched which will monitor BBC coverage of Israel and the Middle East.

BBC Watch – a sister project of CiF Watch with the independent support of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) – will provide comprehensive monitoring of the BBC’s coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to ensure adherence to the BBC’s own editorial guidelines.

A few of the more egregious problems at the BBC will be familiar to many CiF Watch readers:

* The BBC demonstrates a disproportionate focus on Israel in relation to other countries in the Middle East – a trend which continued even through the ‘Arab Spring.

* The BBC’s Middle East editor frequently displays an egregious lack of objectivity, portraying Israel in an overwhelmingly negative light and the Palestinians in a positive light.

* The BBC is self-regulating, and has been less than transparent and open to change in response to substantive criticism.

Inspired by CiF Watch’s success in holding the Guardian accountable, BBC Watch will strive to curb the spread of inaccurate or misleading information and distortions at the BBC by fact-checking and providing relevant historical context and complimentary information .

In the case of an organisation as widely viewed, heard and trusted as the BBC, it is vital that misinformation be corrected before it spreads world-wide.

CiF Watch’s Hadar Sela, Managing Editor of the new BBC Watch site, explained the new site’s mission:

Two organisations which formerly monitored BBC output – ‘Just Journalism’ and Trevor Asserson’s ‘BBC Watch’ website – have ceased operations in recent years, exacerbating the need for close and regular monitoring of the world’s most influential broadcaster.”  BBC Watch will seek to build upon and develop the work already done by those organisations in order to continue the monitoring of BBC output on the subject of Israel and to examine the broadcaster’s adherence to its legal obligation to produce accurate and impartial reporting as a service to its funding public.

The BBC’s responsibility, as defined in the Royal Charter, includes the obligation to inform its funders – i.e. the license fee-paying British public.  This obligation is emphasized in the agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:

In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for sustaining citizenship and civil society, the [BBC] Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the BBC gives information about, and increases understanding of, the world through accurate and impartial news, other information, and analysis of current events and ideas.

BBC Watch intends to diligently hold the BBC accountable to this standard.

Visit CifWatch.com.

From the Left or Right, Totalitarianism Must Not Be Excused

Wednesday, October 10th, 2012

The competition may be pretty intense, but if I were asked to name the single worst idea in the twentieth century it would be the one adopted by people who believed that the response to totalitarianism was totalitarianism. The twentieth century is littered with these people: those who became fascists because they were fearful of communists, or communists because they were fearful of fascists. Both had reason to fear the other, but both ended by propelling the other and in the process sucking nearly all air out of the decent center ground.

Of course those who took the fascist cause to their heart have not heard the end of it. Even those who played no active part in the horrors of Nazism find themselves rightly excoriated if they ever acted as apologists for, or deniers of, the crimes of that wicked ideology. When Diana Mosley went on the BBC radio program, “Desert Island Discs,” and reminisced about how amusing her friend Adolf Hitler had been, it went down very badly indeed. Alas for her, had she only made the right type of friends on the other side of the totalitarian spectrum she might have gone to her grave a national treasure.

For certainly that is how the news was received in Britain after the death of Eric Hobsbawm on 1st October at the age of 95. A prize-winning and highly decorated historian, Hobsbawm was lauded in death, as in life, by colleagues from academia and the world of left-wing politics. Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair released a personal tribute. His predecessor, Neil Kinnock, reminisced about what a guru Hobsbawm had been to him while Kinnock was leader of the Labour party. The current Labour leader, Ed Miliband, himself the son of a famous Marxist, mourned, “An extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics and a great friend of my family.”

Britain’s main left-wing newspaper, The Guardian, cleared the front-page and much of its inside pages for the obsequies. An uncritical leader was published by the ordinarily centrist Times, and the BBC altered its broadcast schedule to make room for special programming once the news had been announced. All of which would ordinarily be rather nice to see. There are not very many thinkers, writers or historians who receive such popular acclaim, or are ever credited with practical political influence.

Unfortunately, whatever Hobsbawm’s skills as a historian – and these are certainly open to question – the ideology to which he subscribed for his entire life was one which if anything outdid even Nazism in the devastation it wrought on our planet. For Hobsbawm was a life-long Marxist and a member of the Communist Party from his schooldays and all the way through. I imagine that if Diana Mosley had been offered the opportunity to acquire and retain Nazi Party membership from 1945 right up until her death, she may well have taken it. But the popular reaction to the fact would not have been joshing. Not so with Hobsbawm. A former Labour Party speech-writer explained that, “His decision never to leave the Communist party was quixotic – prompted by loyalty to old comrades, the way he told it.” A writer in the Times recalled the dead Communist to have been – “a man of deep intellect, humility and charm” – on his only meeting with him; going on to claim that the talent the man had shown had “superseded” the ideology.

I do not see how this could be so. This man’s career was spent whitewashing, minimizing, excusing and stooging for some of the worst crimes in human history. Having been given ample years to recant his views, he resisted the call, instead holding them to the end. The system he supported prevented many people reaching even a quarter of the age he was fortunate enough to live to. But for him human life always took an – at best – secondary importance. The really crucial thing was communist ideology – surely, along with Nazism, the most bankrupt and destructive ideology the world has ever seen? Asked in a BBC television interview in 1994 whether the creation of a communist utopia would be worth the loss of “15, 20 million people,” he replied clearly, “Yes.”

It should not need to be said that this man, with his lifelong actions, teachings and propagation of a disgusting ideology would not have been celebrated had his crime been support of Nazism. Had he joined the Hitler youth voluntarily in 1933 and stayed inside fascist movements until his death; had he denied the Holocaust and said that the death of six million Jews and many millions of others would have been worth it for the achievement of the ideal Nazi state he would have died in ignominy. He would not have been celebrated in his life and he would not have been celebrated after death. Irrespective of any consideration of his works he would not have had plaudits from politicians of any stripe, let alone the leaders of political parties of the right.

And this, forgetting (as people will) the appalling Hobsbawm is the truly, seriously, deeply wrong thing.

Today, the crimes of Nazism are recognized and reviled enough for us to be confident – not wholly confident, but fairly confident – that such crimes will not be allowed to recur. Can the same be confidently said of its twin ideology?

If a Nazi had just died and the main newspapers, the national broadcaster, leading right-wing politicians and others broke out into a wave of mourning, regret and “we shall not see his like” routines, you would worry that this could come back, wouldn’t you? Most of all you would worry that no lessons at all appeared to have been learned. We do not have to imagine the dread of such a scenario, for we have just seen it. And the sight of it should freeze our blood, whether we believe ourselves on the “right” or on the “left.”

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/from-the-left-or-right-totalitarianism-must-not-be-excused/2012/10/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: