Harry’s Place

I wanted to post on this but thought better of it. I feared making it my Martin Amin moment. You know, saying something like “their values, our values”, where “their” is menat to indicate a particular type of person who lives in that region. They type that thinks a the brutal murder of a 4-year-old girl can be excused, you know, so long as the murderer is ‘one of us’ and the victim is ‘one of them’.

Yep, really glad I didn’t do that.

Martin Amin? Is he related to Idi Amin?

Amis, obviously.

It is quite amazing how alot of western msm skirted past the details of the murderous event for which Qantar was imprisoned.

Smashing a baby girl’s heads in with a rifle butt is an act of “resistance” according to the Milne types.

It is unfortunately that he is called Kuntar.

Reading Fisk’s latest putrescence just reminded again me why I like John Malkovich so much. Has anyone noted the similarity of the latter’s appearance with this man?

doh! this man.

The New York Times did a good article on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/world/middleeast/16israel.html?scp=1&sq=Kuntar&st=cse

Read the comments in Fisk’s article and you will see what we are up against - the indecents are out in force.

I’m sure George Galloway is working on a PressTV pitch for “The Kuntars at No. 42″ as we speak.

The Kuntar’s at no 42 might be a bit too near the bone for the BBC, but Al Manar might be so craven that they would miss the irony. But when the BBC was less politically correct, they (or rather the irrepressible Milligan) did do this.

Sorry, HTML typo.

The Kuntar’s at no 42 might be a bit too near the bone for the BBC, but Al Manar might be so craven that they would miss the irony. But when the BBC was less politically correct, they (or rather the irrepressible Milligan) did do this.

Tim said:”I’m sure George Galloway is working on a PressTV pitch for “The Kuntars at No. 42″ as we speak.”

Nothing but nothing would surprise me if it did turn out that Galloway was doing something like that.

I wonder what Galloways opinion of the release of this child murderer. Probably would bow down and describe him as a ‘glorious hero of the Palestinian resistance.’

I was curious to see how the anti-Zionists/JFJFP brigade would paint this deal. However, never in my wildest dreams did I think that they would suggest that Kuntar may be innocent and that his attack on the family was a Zionist smear.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

Their depravity is simply beyond belief.

A few years ago Al Jazeera made a documentary about Kuntar and Ron Arad called “Talking with the Enemy” - there was nothing in it about him killing a 4 year old girl.

I was curious to see how the anti-Zionists/JFJFP brigade would paint this deal. However, never in my wildest dreams did I think that they would suggest that Kuntar may be innocent and that his attack on the family was a Zionist smear.

Oh, this sort of thing is pretty common amongst people who get their news exclusively from the BBC, Guardian and Independent.

Norm has just put an excellent post up on this.

Israel kept this filthy savage alive and in good health for 28 years. He can now go back home and bask in the adulation of his clan members and co-religionists for the rest of his miserable, meaningless life

And what did the Israelis get in return?

The remains of two corpses, two soldiers, captured alive and then tortured and murdered.

And how touching the way he murdered a 4 year-old girl, eh?

One can only assume he wasn’t bright enough to have thought of raping her first.

Incidents like this demonstrate beyond all doubt that the gap in values, the chasm between the modern and the primitive/tribal can never be bridged.

I’d dearly love to see the face of the fat, scowling hag who shat this inbred dirtbag out.

“Their depravity is simply beyond belief.”

Indeed. Essentially, this kid of scum (a word I am using advisedly) has had two “responses” to Kuntar and they were (no surprise here) both present on the relevant CiF thread:

• It is all a Zionist smear. Kuntar just landed on Nehariya coast to deliver a bunch of flowers and the Haran family was murdered by thugs from The Zionist Entity.

• It was a legitimate target: after all, 4-year old Jews of both genders grow up to be 18-year old Jews and join the IDF – or even if not, they live in Occupied Palestine. They are fair game. (This is the opinion of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi the favourite clergyman of the former Mayor of London and of the IslamExpo organisers.)

But it is a useful exercise. Not everybody opposed to Israeli policies, not even everybody opposed to Israel (which is an altogether different kettle of fish) reacted in this manner. So, it is good to have this litmus paper, to flush out the morally-degenerate filth.

So is Samuel Huntington still wrong? I want him to be, but scenes such as those in Lebanon yesterday get me wondering.

Hezbollah takes this stand on purpose. They want to make it clear that they support the murder of Jewish babies. That genocide is their goal.

Michael.
To be fair to Elf, he does admit that he hasn’t any idea what happened.
Then rants about Israel.
Then stops.

“So is Samuel Huntington still wrong? I want him to be, but scenes such as those in Lebanon yesterday get me wondering.

More celebrations over child murder:

Gaza Celebration of Terrorist Attack on Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMxPUzEBWDU

It should also be remembered that Qantar (Samir Kuntar) was the trigger for the war, when Hezbollah raided Israel in order to obtain the dead bodies

He was also the trigger for the Achille Lauro/Klinghoffer murder.

Shmuel, they support genocide. It’s as simple as that.

Fisk skims over the murder of a four year old girl but he does decribe this:

“Cornered by the Lebanese army, she decided to fight it out. Thirty-six people died and a surviving videotape shows an Israeli agent, a certain Ehud Barak – yes, the man who is now Israel’s Defence Minister – firing shots into her body and dragging her across a road.”

Basically he doesn’t give a shit about the kid because she happened to be Israeli.

An appalling story. Nothing could justify or excuse such brutality; the death of Yael is almost even more awful that that of her sister - one’s heart goes out to the children’s mother. This man should never have been released from prison.

Just a small point regarding the Lebanese political journal blog entry. The text refers to the possible opposition of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt to Kuntar’s running for parliament for Hizballah. Jumblatt might well object, but his objection would be on political grounds, not moral. His PSP sent a special delegation to meet with Kuntar, and he was an enthusiastic participant at his fellow Druze’s party in Beirut last night. He also gave some interviews in his fluent english to various western media outlets, in which he contemptuously dismissed questions asking if he had any sympathy for Israelis mourning the loss of their loved ones.

Fisks column hardly appears to be praising Kuntar, indeed, he seems to be warilly dismissive of the whole event - not to say pessimistic. The tone of the article appears to be one of recounting just how many have died in these successive spats, and suggesting that more will come.

Oh, (not that it needs to be said) I meant that there was nothing about him killing a child - I meant there was nothing about him killing a child in the Al Jazeera documentary. i.e. they left that piece of information out of their programme because it would ruin the “noble resistance” myth and force the audience to confront a difficult issue.

Not for a moment was I implying that he isn’t a child murderer.

It was a comment on Al Jazeera bias not me disputing in any way that Kuntar is a child murdering piece of shit.

Tim, why should we fair to Elf. This is what he says:

‘Perhaps Kuntar is the monster he is said to be, but the record available so far doesn’t prove it at all. What the record shows is facile assumptions, potential lies, and blatant lies–and of course the willful credulity of journalists and commentators.’

I wonder what criteria he uses to establish truth. I suspect only those facts or interpretations of events that fit in with his view of the world.

Elf can’t get his head around the undeniable truth that Kuntar is a savage, murderous animal. So he questions the narrative.

Elf’s reasoning reminds me of those who draw the conclusion that the Holocaust was fabricated or exaggerated to serve Jewish or Israeli ends. Come to think of it, look who’s been celebrating Kuntar’s release.

“Shmuel, they support genocide. It’s as simple as that.”

Well to be fair, Hamas only supports genocide explicitly; in their charter and on the streets when they celebrate the cold-blooded murder of children. Who can really say what they support in their hearts though? (Other than Seamus Milne of course.) And we should not generalize this sort of behavior to that of a greater trend in “Arab” or “Muslim” culture. Because, for example, Kuntar is a Druze and Ahmadinejad is a Persian.

So to answer Brownie, I disagree with Huntington because a “clash of civilizations” implies at least two civilizations but I only count one (pitted against a bunch of primitive (yes primitive) tribal nutjobs.)

Brownie

Malise Ruthven’s view is that the Huntington thesis has more weight if we think not in terms of ‘civilisations’ but of Cultures.

There are fault lines between cultures that make a ‘multi-culture’ in the sense of a synthesised composite culture impossible.

Cultures that are fundamentally irreducible to each other (ie no common substrate eg gender would be an example of a fundamental fault line) cannot be ‘resolved’ and cannot easily co-exist within the norms of the other culture.

There are ways to institutionally and politically accomodate these cultures but these mechanisms can easily be undermined by those on both sides who would like to see or provoke a clash of civilisations.

Another way of saying it is that there is no necessary civilisational clash between islam and the West (or modernity) but that any equilibrium is unstable and a clash can be brought about intentionally as each provocation and outrage is politically designed and has the effect of creating a further clash.

Only exceptional restraint might avoid this.

It is easy to see how the cycle could be exacerbated.

Kuntar’s atrocity was a political act but a clash of civilisation values one, intended to provoke outrage and bring about an extreme reaction.

We all know (as the clash type commenters inform us) the kind of response that would provoke a similar outrage, it would be along the lines of take kuntar before a family member force him to eat pork before shooting him then choke his mother to death by forcing a Koran down her throat etc.

Each political atrocity that is also a symbolic acting out of the fundamental ‘clash’ between cultures, invites or tempts the victim to respond with a similarly brutal atrocity intended to violate the opposing cultures basic values.

Soon there would be no reason, no rational common ground, merely a set of acts and reprisals that are priincipally acts of cultural terrorism.

Pass a certain tipping point (and its new media amplification possibilities) and you have an ‘end times’ total war of civilisation scenario.

Israel actually behaves with exceptional restraint overall in such circumstances, this is only possible given the stregth of its democracy.

Of course one of the major targets of a clash of civilisations type strategy (such as that of Al Qaeda) is to strike at the heart of democracy itself.

Islamism has as its final object a clash of civilisations (not justice in islamic nations that is merely a rhetorical vehicle) which is why it must oppose democracy so strongly.

Demos and othe muslim engagement types who think that moderate Islamism can be a supporter of democracy against terrorism are deluded and naive, and very very dangerous.

Paul Frenkel - Junblatt and morality said goodbye to each other a long, long time ago.

(Though I kind of like him to a certain extent because he’s the only one with the balls at the moment to stand up to Syria and Hizbbullah. Of course this could all change at any point in the future.)

As the JPost notes, some Arab media are mocking Hezballah’s so-called victory:

“The Radwan deal,” the headline of Ashark Alawsat on Thursday cynically ran, “cost Hizbullah over $7 billion, more than 1,200 dead and 4,500 wounded Lebanese citizens.”

But hey, Samir was worth it, right? So sez Nasrallah. Speaking of whom, look who crawled out from under his rock (for two minutes):
—–
During a meticulously planned ceremony celebrating Kuntar’s release, the man stepped onto a stage in Beirut donning a Hizbullah uniform, and broke out of mock jail-cell bars before appearing in front of a cheering crowd waving yellow Hizbullah flags.

Nasrallah surprised the crowd by joining Kuntar on stage, an unusual live appearance from a man who, since the end of the Second Lebanon War, has interacted with the outside world almost exclusively through video.

Nasrallah appeared to be visibly afraid, looking over his shoulder at least twice during a brief appearance of less than two minutes, despite being surrounded by five bodyguards. He exited the stage quickly after congratulating Kuntar on his release.
—–
Back to your hole, chump.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331004306&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

What I meant when I said “to be fair to Elf” is that he says he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the first para.

Kuntar!

Tim writes

Michael.
To be fair to Elf, he does admit that he hasn’t any idea what happened.
Then rants about Israel.
Then stops.

Sorry Tim, but I don’t buy it. This is typical of those other kind of deniers. Go long and hard about how it may well be a set up and how terrible the Israelis are, (implicitly accusing them of killing the girl) but then suggesting that, actually, he doesn’t know what really happened.

He knows full well what happened, because noone (including Kuntar) has ever suggested that version of events

Actually, on reading it again, you’re right Michael.
Its just that when he admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about I glazed over.
He does try and create some sort of case from no evidence.
I notice that the prison visitor who married then divorce Kuntar never made the case either.

“To be fair to Elf, he does admit that he hasn’t any idea what happened.”

I mean, can we really know that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon? The video could have been faked in a studio. I don’t really know one way or the other, to be fair. Just sayin’.

“he man stepped onto a stage in Beirut donning a Hizbullah uniform, and broke out of mock jail-cell bars before appearing in front of a cheering crowd waving yellow Hizbullah flags.”

I found the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbNOqIU0Hms

Just to be clear on the emerging consensus, the Arabs/Lebanese are tribal primitivists who cannot help their brutish ways? - I just want to be clear on the nature of the arguments of the people sharing this platform…

“the Arabs/Lebanese are tribal primitivists who cannot help their brutish ways? - I just want to be clear on the nature of the arguments of the people sharing this platform…”

Who said they are incapable of ultimately helping themselves? Are you a racist?

So let’s be clear about your views then: Do you believe in the concept of “primitivism”? For example, do you think sacrificing children on top of stone pyramids is “primitive” or just “different”?

Fisk notes that a United Nations representative was present at Beirut airport to welcome back the Hezballah prisoners and Kuntar.

If true, that is scandalous (and a slap in the face to Israel, among other parties) and yet another lowpoint on the UN’s record.

Shmuel,

I’d say so. What about teh culture of those who would cut the ears off fallen enemies?

Looking at OED:

Primative:
An original inhabitant, an aboriginal; a person belonging to a preliterate, non-industrial society.

Is this the use you’re meaning? or this?

With the. That which is primitive or recalls an early or ancient period; (with pl. concord) simple, unsophisticated, or crude things or people as a class.

Or this:

derogatory. An uncivilized, unintelligent, or uncouth person.

Well, this was very self-serving, Red Deathy.

I would imagine that the usual suspects will brand all Arabs/Lebanese something or other, but usual suspects are (I believe) in a minority here. There are many possible reasons why most of Lebanese polity (and, for all we know, its public opinion) reacted in a frankly disgusting manner. Thirty five years of on-off civil war, with repeated atrocities, with different tribal groups perpetrating unspeakable deeds on each other, with outside interventions (and the Syrian one was much, much more bloodthirsty than Israeli), fundamentalist religious narratives, fundamentalist nationalist narratives – need I go on?

But, in a sense, all this is a red herring. Perhaps next week we should debate the detailed reasons why individuals and collectives lose their basic humanity. Today we are discussing one specific instance, the Lebanese welcome for a disgusting child murderer and the enthusiasm of their apologists in the West either to forgive of child murder or lie their way out of it.

Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Tribal scum. Moloch’s adorators. Primitive in the sense of cavemen.

Apparently Nasrallah is a holy man - a mullah. Yet yesterday he embraced a cold-blooded child killer.

There must be a definition of “holy” that escapes me.

Of course, Hitler loved children and was a vegetarian.
North of the border they love hummus instead.

Kuntar/Qantar confessed to his killings when first apprehended. He change his statement later to claim that Danny was killed by a stray Israeli bullet in cross-fire, and that he passed out from his injuries moments later. He never saw what happened to Einat.

I don’t see how anyone could dispute that “the” Lebanese are tribal. This is a matter of fact. I don’t know what a “primitivist” is (sounds more like a kind of painter to me).

You know, where I came from, Argentina, the army was a real shit, composed of bastards. During the dictatorship, 1976-1983, the army kidnapped innocent citizens, tortured them, dissapeared them, caught their friends and repeated the circle.
They also kidnapped pregnant women, who gave birth in prison.
The ideology underpinning this monstrosity considered “communists” as a kind of virus, infecting the Argentinian body.

And generally, when I used to think about evil, I thought about the Argentinian experience of those wicked and criminal army men and their followers.

But when a pregnant prisoner gave birth, they did not smash the head of the child with the rifle butt. They gave the child to some family, associated with the army, and they raised the child as their own. That is why, 25 years after the dictatorship, the Mothers of the Dissapeared keep fighting to discover those children, so they can recover their real identity.

But the Lebanese have proved today that they are even lower scum than what the Argentinian army ever was in Argentina. They define what evil truly is.

“Junblatt and morality said goodbye to each other a long, long time ago.”

You are correct, davem. The reason I point this out and think its important is because a less remarked upon aspect of all this has been the willingness of the leaders of the US-supported March 14 movement to jump on board with the kuntar worship, issue fulsome words of praise for Kuntar etc etc. Jumblatt and the PSP were among the loudest and earliest in this.

The March 14 people want to be heroes in Washington, while maintaining the (despicable and dehumanising) norms of the Arabic-speaking world with regard to their view of Israel and Israelis. As a student of Arabic, I’m sure you’ve been following their statements. I should imagine that people in washington were watching what happened yesterday, and I hope it cured the remaining naivete that some of them still cleave to with regard to March 14.

Now, we hear in al-Akhbar newspaper that Hezbollah wants Qantar to run for parliament

I wonder if he’ll be given children to kiss on the campaign trail. And if the parents will look slightly nervous.

I would imagine that the usual suspects will brand all Arabs/Lebanese something or other, but usual suspects are (I believe) in a minority here.

Which suspects?

The primitivism on display has fuck all to do with ethnicity or nationality, and everything to do with a certain religion and people swept up by the wake of that certain religion.

Kuntar was a Druze mercenary for Hezbollah.

How odd and how stupid of him.

28 years ago the Druze and islamists were untied in hatred of Israel and in opposition to the leabnese Maronites.

Not long ago I watched a video of a distressed Walid Jumblatt, Lebanon’s Druze leader, begging and pleading with Christian Maronites to return to the Bekka valley where they were once 50% of the population, but now form only 20%.

Walid, it seems, doesn’t find his new Muslims consitutents quite so coperative or productive.

Kuntar is even dumber than that George Habash fellow.

Lachlan said:”Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.”

There is a huge difference between Mr McGuinness and Kuntar the Murderer. McGuinness for all his terrorist connections never smashed in the head of a four year old child.

There is a difference between the two people one, McGuinness is a former terrorist who has chosen to walk a different path, The other, Kuntar is a child killer who is no different from Ian Huntley or similar scum.

Kuntar wasn’t a Druze mercenary for Hizballah. Hizballah didnt exist in 1979, when he committed his atrocity. Kuntar was a Druze volunteer in a small and now more or less defunct secular nationalist Palestinian organisation called the Palestine Liberation Front.

SO Muffin,

Not quite so self serving, my point, apart from suggesting some of the language was veering towards the potentially racist, was that, for instance, when british personnel were accused of cutting the Ears of their fallen foes in the Falklands, the jingo press here screamed blu murder, and rallied, unthinkingly, to their defence. The toleration of barbarism is, indeed, not far beneath most cultural surfaces…

RD, there are levels in barbarism as well. Cutting ears from corpses is bad enough, but bashing the brains of a 4-year old child is in an altogether different category. And, anyway, even the worst of British tabloids (and certainly no politicians) celebrated with the ear-cutters as national heroes.

If you can bear to read it, this precious commentator likens the thrilling celebrations for Kuntar and co. to an Ani DiFranco concert.

Seriously. You couldn’t make it up.

http://bodyontheline.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/a-heros-welcome/

“As I write this at almost 2 AM there are still fireworks going off. I’m watching Al Jazeera listening to Israelis complain that we are celebrating today. I can’t imagine any other emotion other than celebration. Hezbollah returned two legitimate targets today in coffins to the Zionist state. They were soldiers. The resistance fighters who returned today should be honored and celebrated. They are resistance fighters because they fought the imperial, Zionist designs on Palestine and Lebanon.”

Party on, Marcy! Party on…

The Washington Post, the Vatican of Political Correctness in the US, had a fine editorial last Saturday dennoucing Kuntar and recounting his barbaric murders. (Sorry, do not have a link)And the Post’s story in today’s paper, though inside on p.A-12, was accurate. In their photograph of Kuntar’s being embraced in Lebanon, they even identified the monster as a murderer. Hopefully an indication the Post is re-thinking its long time anti-Israeli slant.

I hope Israel will now go after Kuntar, Nasarallah etec and execute them like they did the terrorists responsible for the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympics

Kuntar and what looks like a fascist salute:

http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/hitler-kuntar.jpg

And while we’re at, given reports at the time of their capture it seems that either or both Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were captured alive. Which means Hizbullah committed cold blooded execution, either preceded by torture and/ or followed by mutilation.

Rabbi Yisrael Weiss, former Chief Rabbi of the IDF, who was present during the transfer of the fallen soldiers yesterday, said that “the verification process yesterday was very slow, because, if we thought the enemy was cruel to the living and the dead, we were surprised, when we opened the caskets, to discover just how cruel. And I’ll leave it at that.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/150078

One shouldn’t tar all Lebanese with the same brush. But this is truly, truly awful. I would say saddening, but I think actually I feel more angry than sad.

What I fail to understand, is how crass amoral Britons, sitting in their comfortable homes with nothing really more to worry about the the price of petrol, can come out ignoring or making apologies for this evil, evil man. It makes you think, realising that you must pass people like this in the street every day. And they don’t have even the excuse of living in a brutalised country. Pure scum. Utterly inhuman filth.

Ben said:”Utterly inhuman filth.”

I couldn’t agree more there (and I’m a Briton). Please dont make the mistake that ALL Britons are ‘crass and amoral’. I normally reserve that description to those in the Socialist Workers Party /Respect etc who fawn over these murderers and call them ‘freedom fighters’.

Oh no, trundlemaster - I’m a Briton too. Possibly crass and amoral, but not, I do hope, inhuman filth!

I was referring to the fact that, presumably, as you walk down the street, there are the very sort of people who make these excuses that we all walk past. It’s a sobering thought. Because, although they may look normal, they are fundamentally lacking in basic human attributes such as compassion and a moral sense. What I find extraordinary is that none of the pressures towards the sort of visceral triumphalism seen in Lebanon exist in the UK, but some of our compatriots choose to partake of this warped perspective anyway. This actually makes them substantially worse than those Lebanese that are celebrating in my book.

The Guardian’s editorial is awful; it basically blames Israel for not giving into Hezbollah’s demands in 2006 and exonerates Hezbollah of any wrong doing.

Ben;

When I think of the term treacherous human filth I think of George Galloway.

Kuntar was a Druze volunteer in a small and now more or less defunct secular nationalist Palestinian organisation called the Palestine Liberation Front.

Agreed, except the PLO wasn’t quite as secular as once thought.

But this changes nothing of the fact Kuntar is an idiot and Lebanon’s Druze community weakened and diminished because of its associations with various islamist organisations over the years.

There is also wider published Lebanese opposition to the outcome of Hezbollah’s “triumph”, and I’ve argued that The Guardian’s leader is surprisingly not so very different from analyses being offered by strongly zionist writers who draw on Jewish religious traditions of dealing with state political hostage takers.

The Guardian’s editorial is awful; it basically blames Israel for not giving into Hezbollah’s demands in 2006 and exonerates Hezbollah of any wrong doing.

It starts off “Two years ago this month, Hizbullah ambushed an Israeli border patrol, sparking a war that claimed 1,200 lives.” hardly exonerating them of any wrongdoing.

So let’s have Ian Brady for Prime Minister then. What despicable scum. The SWP & Co. won’t blink, though. As we know from fat smelly Molyneux, this psycho “is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically).”

The Hebrew language newspaper Ma’ariv is publishing a 9000 word interview with Qantar tomorrow in which he explains himself.

I hope Israel will now go after Kuntar, Nasarallah etec and execute them like they did the terrorists responsible for the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympics

They could have attacked any of the big gatherings in Southern Beruit but have not. Surely, Israel has many agents in Lebanon capable of mounting attacks on Hezbollah (surely=I hope but really these days doubt it considering how defeatist Israel seems to be). All those glorious victory parades could make excellent targets (ditto for Gaza and the WB).

You know, it is interesting. None of the usual suspects – Flanker, “me”, Zin and all that mob – has made an appearance on any of these threads.

The truth is that, no matter what they feel inside, they are on a very sticky wicket. This entire Kuntar business doesn’t – how to say it kindly? – look good for the “We are all Hizbullah now!” PR operation.

• Even if they believe that heads of Israeli 4-year old children should be bashed with rifle butts, they know that it is a bad idea to say so in public.

• Even if they believe that deliberately bashing the head of any 4-year old child with a rifle butt is monstrous, they cannot say it in public because this interferes with the scenario of “Palestinians and their helpers always right, Israelis always wrong and evil”.

So they keep quiet. But here a proposal. Whenever they pop up, on any thread, in any context, ask them of their opinion of Kuntar, The Great Hero Of Lebanese People.

Did you read the rest of the editorial Andrew?

Citing that the incident ’sparked’ the war is fairly ambigous.

The editorial goes on to say:

“it is an admission of Israel’s responsibility for the 34-day war. ”

“Israel insisted the war was a response to the abductions, while Hizbullah said all along it wanted a prisoner exchange. By agreeing to the swap now, Israel has tacitly admitted that its real purpose was not the release of its soldiers, but the dismantlement of Hizbullah’s military infrastructure.”

“If Israel was prepared to swap prisoners, it should have done so soon after their soldiers were captured. Over 1,200 Lebanese and 159 Israelis would now be alive today if they had.”

erm where’s the criticism of Hezbollah for launching an unprovoked attack on Israel?

I disagree with Israel’s decision to go to war but I think it was understandable given that they had been attacked by force that threatened their national security and two of their soldiers were missing presumed alive. Some understanding of that dilema would be nice.

U.N. soldiers salute as a tractor-trailer loaded with coffins of nearly 200 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters and bearing the picture of slain Hezbollah top leader Imad Mughniyeh, right, arrives in the southern city of Tyre, Lebanon, Thursday, July 17, 2008. Eight tractor-trailers loaded with coffins are driving from south Lebanon to Beirut a day after a prisoner swap between Israel and Lebanon.

Good old UN eh?

Robert Fisk is scum–and a lot of people are beginning to recognize this. But the BBC is at least as bad.

My letter to them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7511001.stm

Sir, In the above you tell us that “Qantar had been in jail since 1979 for a deadly guerrilla raid in which he killed a four-year-old girl, her father and a policeman.”

So you name this.. thing Smair Qantar but deny his victims even their names. This thing you name never expressed remorse for murdering 24-year old police officer Eliyahu Shahar, 32-year old Danny Haran and for bludgeoning to death his four-year old daughter Einat Haran. Nor has he ever expressed remorse for causing the death of Einat’s sister, Yael. Yael’s mother, Smadar, and two-year old Yael hid in the attic while the thing you name and photograph was murdering Smadar’s husband and daughter. Yael began to cry and, trying to shush her, Smadar accidentally suffocated her own two-year old daughter.

This family’s crime? Picnicking while Jewish. And here is the photograph of the people the BBC will neither name nor show:

[photo that you show in this post was in the body of e-mail]

But why do I bother with you? For in many ways you are as bad as the thing you do name and show. I doubt the BBC, like Qantar, will ever express remorse at this dehumanization of Jewish people.

And we, Jews, have a saying that applies to people like you: May your name and the memory of you be erased.

May your name and the memory of you be erased,

Inna

“Shmuel, they support genocide. It’s as simple as that.”

No Joshua. They Celebrate genocide. It is a joyful thing for thim. An honor.

May their names–and the names of the filth that are their supporters the BBC, Guardian and Independent–be blotted out. May they be erased from the Book of Life.

For ever and ever.

Regards,

Inna

“…in which he explains himself.”

It is only worth the paper it will be printed on if that thing kills himself at the end.

Regards,

Inna

Inna: I know how strongly you feel about it and your anger is justified. But don’t you think that wishing “May your name and the memory of you be erased” on BBC personnel might be somewhat over the top?

“on BBC personnel might be somewhat over the top?”

On the ones printing this piece of .. stuff.. ? No, sorry. They are as bad as that thing.

Regards,

Inna

SKY NEWS
Kuntar, Israel’s most notorious prisoner, was sentenced to three life terms for killing an Israeli man in front of his four-year-old daughter, then killing the little girl by smashing her skull with his rifle butt”
DAILY MAIL
“He was convicted of one of the grisliest attacks in Israeli history - killing a man in front of his four-year-old daughter, and then killing the girl herself by crushing her skull.”
DAILY EXPRESS
“At his trial, witnesses told how Qantar shot father Danny Haran in front of his four-year-old daughter and then killed her by smashing her skull against a rock.”
Independent:
“Witnesses said that Kantar – then aged 16 – then smashed the skull of Mr Haran’s daughter against a rock with his rifle butt.”
BBC:
“A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.”

THE BBC -apologists for child murderers

I am not sure, Inna. Firstly, in the different levels of hell (to borrow Dante’s imagery), what Samir Kuntar has done belongs to the deepest pit, with the likes of Mengele. Deeper, much deeper than other acts, despicable as they might be.

Moreover… Look, I know exactly what you mean and I also know the line “every man has a name, given to him by God” (and, even as an atheist, I think I understand it). So, I know exactly why it is important to remember the names, to humanise the victims, to remember them as individuals, not as statistics. But do you really believe that what went through the mind of the BBC journalist was “let us dehumanise the 4-year old girl by not mentioning her name”? More likely, the events in Nehariyah were just for him or her a background material, to be given briefly, in easily-digestible chunks. Do you really believe that he/she should perish, with the name being erased forever? Seriously?

Inna, you are being absurd. Do you think that someone would read the sentence “Qantar had been in jail since 1979 for a deadly guerrilla raid in which he killed a four-year-old girl, her father and a policeman” and think that he might not be such a bad guy?

THE BBC - apologists for child murderers

And this is beyond absurd. It is pathetic.

“Inna, you are being absurd. Do you think that someone would read the sentence “Qantar had been in jail since 1979 for a deadly guerrilla raid in which he killed a four-year-old girl, her father and a policeman” and think that he might not be such a bad guy?”

Who killed those people? Kuntar? No. They were killed…

“A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed”

Maybe they stepped on a Zionist cluster bomb and were killed, while Kuntar was doing is brave raid.

“But do you really believe that what went through the mind of the BBC journalist was “let us dehumanise the 4-year old girl by not mentioning her name”?

Yes, I do.

Let’s review the BBC’s record in this regard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7511001.stm
name and picture of the thing given, names and picture of his (Jewish) victims are not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7485022.stm
name of the terrorist given; names of his (Jewish) victims are not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7480044.stm
name of that thing given; names of his (Jewish) victims are not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7437935.stm
Palestinian girl named; Amnon Rozenberg (a Jew killed on the same day) is not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7393067.stm
Here we learn that “a man” died. We don’t find out that he was 48 years old, he had three children (three children who are now fatherless) and his name was Jimmy Kedushim.

It goes on and on and on.

Regards,

Inna

Chris, I don’t think that saying the incident “sparked the war” is particularly ambiguous. Clearly the war wouldn’t have happened without it so Hezbollah bear some of the responsibility. Equally israel had a choice whether to go to war, which you seem to accept given that you say you disagree with the decision. I think that to say “it is an admission of Israel’s responsibility for the 34-day war” is an overstatement so you have a fair point there but I don’t disagree with the overall thrust of their argument.

Andrew -in case you missed it the title of this blog is ‘We are all child murderers now’
At least I’m only saying the BBC are merely apologists!
Not nice enough for you?

Who killed those people? Kuntar? No. They were killed…

Eh? It says “in which HE killed a four-year-old girl, her father and a policeman.”

Sorry, messed up the italics.

link please.
I am quoting from this page.

George, so point out where the BBC apologises for the murders.

From George’s comment, more exactly.
17 July 2008, 10:00 pm

S.O Muffin–

Harry’s Place is looking into my response to you. The short answer is “yes I do think that the BBC deliberately did not print the names of the Jewish victims.” I have a post on Simply Jews (first post) that gives you an abbreviated history of the BBC giving us Arab and Palestinian names but never, ever naming the Jewish victims.

Regards,

Inna

I’m quoting from your post @ 8.51, and you posted the link yourself.

post should read comment to the first post on SimplyJews.

Regards,

Inna

never, ever naming the Jewish victims.

Is that based on comprehensive research which has examined every single report by the BBC. Who conducted it?

‘The killings were particularly brutal, making his release controversial in Israel.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7508715.stm

“Is that based on comprehensive research which has examined every single report by the BBC. Who conducted it?”

I force myself to read the BBC’s online Middle East section every day, several times per day.

I try not to throw up too much.

Regards,

Inna

Here’s one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2295149.stm

A memorial service for a Glasgow teenager killed in a suicide bombing in Israel has been held amid heavy security.

Yoni Jesner, 19, died after an explosion on board a bus in Tel Aviv last month.

The Jesner family, who organised the service in Glasgow, said it had been a celebration of his life and achievements.

Hundreds of people from the local area, and from Britain’s Jewish community, attended the service.

Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sachs
Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs paid tribute
The dead student’s brother, Ari Jesner, said the family were devastated by the fact that Yoni will not be able to achieve more in the future.

He said: “I will remember his enthusiasm and love, and his dedication to the principles that he felt were important.”

Ari, 23, was joined at the service by his brother Jared, younger sister, mother and other members of the family.

In a statement read at the service Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs added to the tributes.

He said: “Because he grew up in Glasgow, Yoni was able to grow as a person. It is an incredibly close community and he contributed an incredible amount to it.

“He showed an amazing commitment to Judaism and dedicated his short life to helping the community. We are proud to have had him as a member.”

Yoni Jesner
Yoni Jesner’s family donated his kidney
The teenager, who was buried in Jerusalem, was on a gap year at a Jewish seminary with his cousin Gideon Black, who was also injured in the blast.

Six others including the bomber were killed.

Joni’s kidney was donated to save the life of seven-year-old Palestinian girl Yasmin Abu Ramila.

Private security was posted outside the synagogue because of fears the event could be targeted by a terrorist attack.

Dr Kenneth Collins, chairman of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, said precautions were prompted by a recent bomb attack on a Paris synagogue.

He appealed to the media to help the family draw a line under the tragedy.

Dr Collins said: “The family in Glasgow is trying to get on with its life and we should really look on the memorial service as the closing chapter.”

‘The killings were particularly brutal, making his release controversial in Israel.’

Show me the names. Where are their Names?

24-year old police officer Eliyahu Shahar,
32-year old Danny Haran
four-year old Einat Haran
two-year old Yael Hanar

Where are those Names, Linda????

Regards,

Inna

Thank you. The UK section is not what I look at.

Regards,

Inna

And here’s a slide show of photos of the victims of a suicide bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4916240.stm

Fabian
yes perhaps they were hit by a freak wave on the beach!
If an Englishman kidnapped a Muslim and the Muslim’s 4 year old daughter, then shot the Muslim in front of his daughter, then smashed the 4 year old bairns skull with a rifle butt.
Would the BBC report all the details?

Thank you for the slide show. I see that the Terrorist’s name is Sami Salim. I see he was 21 years old. I see some people as well. I see no names, no ages.

Regards,

Inna

And here’s the transcript of a Newsnight tv report about doctors at Hadassah hospital treating the victims of suicide bombings

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1836591.stm
URBAN:
Even the visitors here seem to obey the unwritten rules of coexistence. In the intensive care unit, Sharon Maman is comforted by his mother and a friend. He has been unable to speak or move for two and a half months - since he was caught in a suicide bombing, peppered with nails that were packed around the device. Doctors here say that home-made shrapnel was dipped in rat poison.

UNNAMED DOCTOR:
He had a few infections in other areas in his body - in the head, in the foot, in the back. At this point in time, there is probably a source of infection which we are trying to look for.

URBAN:
Sharon’s mother says that, like all mothers, she’s waiting for his first word. The violence brings new medical challenges.

Andrew:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=62859
Follow the link The BBC writes:

“Qantar is serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.”
June 29, 2008

OK, In 2002, there was one programme that gave us one Jewish name (of course it balanced it with two Palestinian ones–but at least we had one name of one Jew).

Go ahead, search some more. Prove me wrong. I Want to be wrong. But I look at the BBC’s Middle East web site every day and I shudder.

Show me I should not shudder. Show me the BBC has equal respect for life, be it Muslim, Jewish or Christian. Show me the Names Linda. Wade through the.. BBC and see how many Jewish names you find.

I am tured of wading through that. You want to show me? Show me.

Regards,

Inna

So the never ever thesis has been disproved.

“So the never ever thesis has been disproved.”

In 2002 they named one Jew.

So I guess one Jew will be named every six years.

I do apologize. Every six years the BBC picks one day to give us one Jewish name. But today, yesterday and the day before and the day before that–those were not the days.

Regards,

Inna

I wonder if you have thought of this. The reports on the suicide bombs generally go up very quickly on the site after the explosion. The murderers are keen to gain publicity for their cause by releasing the name of the bomber. It’s all part of their PR. The police and hospital can’t release the names of the murdered until the families have been informed. By that time the story is several hours old, which for broadcast news means that the agenda has moved on.

Inna
in the concentration camps the victims were given numbers bacause the nazis knew that names were personal and could lead to sympathy from the oppressors who might show some kindness to their prisoners.
it is therefore quite sinister that the BBC seems to be adopting the policy of not naming Jewish victims of terror attacks

“I wonder if you have thought of this…The police and hospital can’t release the names of the murdered until the families have been informed. By that time the story is several hours old, which for broadcast news means that the agenda has moved on.”

I have. Which is why I write complaints only when the names are widely reported in Israeli media. In the Israeli media that is available in English and on the Internet, in fact.

Regards,

Inna

George–

I know. Hence the conclusion to my e-mail.

Regards,

Inna

Correct, but because it is an Israeli story, the Israeli media are obliged to report the names of victims. And of course they will continue to update the story for hours or days because it’s a domestic story. Did the Israeli media report the names of the victims of the London 7/7 bombings? Did the British media report the names of the victims of the 9/11 bombings? Unlikely, because releasing the names is usually to do with relatives being able to establish whether or not loved ones have been killed. It’s not quite so relevant in an international story, especially when the names come several hours later.

“Correct, but because it is an Israeli story, the Israeli media are obliged to report the names of victims.”

Only Israelis are obliged to show respect?

“Did the Israeli media report the names of the victims of the London 7/7 bombings?”

Yes. So did the American one.

“Did the British media report the names of the victims of the 9/11 bombings? ”

I honestly don’t know the answer to that question–I was too shocked to look. But I suspect that in This case the answer is no.

Regards,

Inna

One other point. Israeli journalists have told me about foreign corespondents frustration at how quickly the scene of a suicide bombing is cleared up, often meaning that by the time they get there, there’s nothing to see. And there is a prohibition in Israeli law about filming or photographing corpses while the Palestinians do not, I believe, have such a rule. During the last Lebanon war the internet was full of gruesome pictures of the Lebanese dead, but not the Israeli dead, for this reason.

“Israeli journalists have told me about foreign corespondents frustration at how quickly the scene of a suicide bombing is cleared up, often meaning that by the time they get there, there’s nothing to see. And there is a prohibition in Israeli law about filming or photographing corpses while the Palestinians do not, I believe, have such a rule.”

If they are so eager to show respect for Jewish life, they should name the Jewish victims. And there is no prohibition against showing photographs of the victims in life.

Regards,

Inna

It’s not about showing respect, it’s about the obligation to inform relatives. And can you provide some evidence to demonstrate that the Israeli media did indeed publish the names of the victims of the 9/11 bombings. Because I didn’t see any.

“And can you provide some evidence to demonstrate that the Israeli media did indeed publish the names of the victims of the 9/11 bombings”

I told you–I did not look at foreign media on 9/11.

To google I need to have some idea what to google for and in this case, I’ve no idea.

Regards,

Inna

Linda, what are you asking? They were too many!

I see Ynet reported the death of Anat Rosenberg, who was Israeli, on 7/7, but not the names of other victims. Respect? or was it a fairly normal journalistic assumption that Israeli readers would want to know about the death of an Israeli, and another about foreigners, given that the bombing had not taken place in Israel?

“It’s not about showing respect..”

It’s about showing respect for human life. You either value it or you don’t.

Selective value is (IMO) same as “don’t”.

Regards,

Inna

That should read, not about foreigners.

and my first question should have been about the 7/7 bombings.

Well, it should be about showing respect, but that’s not how the media works. The names are named to inform relatives. That’s it. I have never heard the names of those killed in the innumerable car bombings in Iraq named. Nor in the Israeli press, either. So where is the Israeli media’s respect for the innocent victims of Iraqi car bombs, Inna? I’d say they don’t bother because it’s not a domestic story. Sorry, but that’s how the media functions. If you don’t like it, I’d try and get your information some other way.

“It’s about showing respect for human life. You either value it or you don’t.”

In the last year there would have been literally hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants who died in acts of terrorism, mass murder and mass savagery, all around the globe. You know: Darfur, DRC, Iraq, Sri Lanka – need I go on? Even if not all names are known, a fair proportion is. Are you suggesting, Inna, that all these names are published (by BBC? American press?), otherwise the media outlets in question neither value nor respect human life?

Had you said that BBC should have said more on the victims of Kuntar, including their names, than on him, and that it is wrong for BBC not to have done so, you would have made a reasonable point. But don’t you see that your wish that the relevant journalists should perish (be put to death? or just drop dead from natural causes) and their memory erased, is a tad over the top?

Linda:

Your internet research skills are way better than mine.

I found this on google (can’t even find any mention of anything that far back in any of the Israeli papers):

Israel News Agency’s initial report. There was chaos everywhere and they find time to name the injured they can name:

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/londonisraelterrorattack380707.html

However, since I still remember this was in Haaretz just the other day.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999774.html

Note all the names of the survivors.

Regards,

Inna

“Nor in the Israeli press, either. So where is the Israeli media’s respect for the innocent victims of Iraqi car bombs, Inna?”

It’s shameful, you’re right.

I write to our (US) media on that many times.

Regards,

Inna

Here’s a report from the Murdoch owned Sky News of a 2005 suicide bomb in Israel. No victims named
http://tinyurl.com/5jqhc3

“But don’t you see that your wish that the relevant journalists should perish (be put to death? or just drop dead from natural causes) and their memory erased, is a tad over the top?”

I don’t want the relevant journalist to be put to death or to drop dead. But I do want the relevant journalist’s name and memory be accorded the Same respect as he accords the names of the victims. I.e., none.

Let him live a long life. Let him die and bed.

And let his name perish with his last breath.

Regards,

Inna

What does Murdoch have anything to do with anything? Murdoch is a businessman. He plays to his audience. He obviously decided that in Britain he should not name Jewish Names.

Murdoch has a reputation–it is the reputation of a slik businessman. What he did was despicable and I did not know about it (or I would have written).

The BBC also has a reputation. For “impartiality”. Tell me Linda, do you believe that reputation is warranted when it comes to the Middle East?

Regards,

Inna

They aren’t the names of survivors, Inna, they’re names of eye witnesses. It’s a news story. No respect for the dead here. I’ve checked with Sky, same thing. They don’t name names either. You have got a bee in your bonnet about the anti-semitic BBC and in this case at least it just does not stand up to scrutiny.
It’s a stupid point. That’s not to see that there aren’t points to be made, but this isn’t it.

I’m sorry Inna but you are off the wall. Driven mad by rage. Goodnight.

“It’s a stupid point.”

Linda–

I have a been in my bonnet about the BBC, yes. I used to swear by them–so I feel betrayed is probably the right word here.

But the names Linda–that’s not politics and it’s not stupidity. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the conflict. It has to do with one’s own humanity.

And yes, the Israeli media loses it too. So do we. Should we protest against it when that happens?

Or should we cynically say “it’s a stupid point” ? How much is your name worth to you Linda?

You are a Jew and you travel to Israel. If God forbid something were to happen to you, would you want Your name to be on the BBC web site? How about your loved ones?

Regards,

Inna

Qantar had been in jail since 1979 for a deadly guerrilla raid in which he killed a four-year-old girl, her father and a policeman.

The girl’s two-year-old sister was accidentally smothered by her mother as they hid during the raid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7511001.stm

Qantar was jailed in 1979 for killing a four-year-old Israeli girl, her father and a policeman. The girl’s two-year-old sister was accidentally smothered by her mother as they hid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7512373.stm

The most controversial of the detainees to be released was Samir Quntar. This man is reviled in Israel. He was jailed in 1979 for killing a four-year-old Israeli girl and two other people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7509992.stm

Among those freed was Samir Qantar, seen here waving at Beirut airport having changed into military fatigues. He was jailed in 1979 for murdering three people, including a four-year-old girl.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7509368.stm

Stop me when you’re bored, because I know I am.

If the victim had been Palestinian there is absolutely no question that her name would be printed, over and over, in the fucking headlines by the BBC.

I mean if the victim had been Palestinian and the killer Israeli, of course.

Linda,

My God but you can be a tiresome nit-picker when you want. So Inna, who is feeling a bit emotional (to her great credit) is, for a moment, ‘over the top’ — to quote Muffin, who’s having a nit-picking turn of his own.

What is the sense of a response that says, I can prove the Beeb named an Israeli victim in 2002, therefore you’re wrong? Is that a good (as in, adult) argument? Leave it for the 10 year olds. Could you not simply acknowledge Inna’s real point: That in a report in which the subhuman Kuntar’s crime is a central fact — a 30 year old crime, in which all the names are known, all the facts are available and all the victims’ relatives have been notified — the BBC chooses, for whatever reason, to minimize as best it can the humanity of the Israeli victims? Of course you could, but that would bring you up against your unalterable position that there is no bias at the BBC. You’re in a bit of a cleft stick: If you concede the point about Danny, Einat and Yael Haran (even ignoring for now the fact that the Beeb clings to the obscene use of “militant” to describe Kuntar), the BBC’s impartiality begins to look a little shaky. But when it’s so obvious you won’t address the point, obsessing instead on Inna’s use of the absolute “never”, you end up inadvertently putting the spotlight right back where you don’t want it.

Well said Paul.

Just when you think that this episode coudn’t get any worse for Israelis:

AP: Freed Lebanese prisoners vow to fight Israel

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Five militants freed in a prisoner swap with Israel prayed and laid wreaths at the grave of a slain Hezbollah commander Thursday, vowing to fight Israel as supporters showered them with rice…

…”We swear by God … to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you,” said Samir Kantar [sic], who had been the longest-held Lebanese prisoner in Israel.

He referred to Mughniyeh’s “martyrdom,” saying, “This is our great wish. We envy you and we will achieve it, God willing.”

Left me speechless with anger, but not in the least bit surprised. How can Israel ever hope for peace faced with heartless child-killing bastards like this?

I can understand Inna is emotional. I’m not Israeli and I’m fucking emotional. But this hysterical BBC bashing needs to be confronted. I’m not saying they are perfect by any means, but the majority of the criticisms above are either contradicted by other articles you can find on the BBC site - see my four citations above - or not worthy of the description “criticism”.

The BBC tends to avoid the use of “terrorist” to describe individuals (although does indeed refer to “terrorist acts”). It does so in what I concede can sometimes come over as a tortuous exercise in objectivity. I think there are grounds for criticism of this policy but it is not indicative of a specifically anti-Israel bias, as is being claimed here.

Seriously, get a grip.

Thank you for that Paul.

Regards,

Inna

Brownie–

Which of the articles you cited list the names of:

24-year old police officer Eliyahu Shahar,
32-year old Danny Haran
four-year old Einat Haran
two-year old Yael Haran

Now, which ones give the name and photograph of sub-human child-murderer Samir Quntar?

Regards,

Inna

Joseph K., if this isn’t the end of Olmert’s career then Israel is so pathetic it deserves everything that happens to it.

Brownie, stop trying to defend the indefensible, next you’ll be defending Rueters or even AFP. Stop while you’re behind.

Well said Paul M.
Muffin was being a prick towards Inna.

Fabian,

“Qantar is serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.”

How could anyone read this and not believe it is explicitly clear who was responsible for the deaths?

That in a report in which the subhuman Kuntar’s crime is a central fact — a 30 year old crime, in which all the names are known, all the facts are available and all the victims’ relatives have been notified —the BBC chooses, for whatever reason, to minimize as best it can the humanity of the Israeli victims?

You don’t have a shred of evidence that that is what the BBC was trying to do.

Oh, and everything Brownie has said.

I feel as if I’ve stumbled into a Zionist Media Lens, the site that ‘proves’ that the BBC and the Guardian are are Zionist organisations.

http://www.medialens.org/board/

Here you are, Inna. Here’s the other side of the BBC mailbag (from a letter to the BBC):

‘So, why can’t the BBC use the term “apartheid” with regard to the Israeli Occupation? After all, doesn’t the BBC hierarchy make its own opinions known in such matters, as in its decision to use the word “militant”, with all its pejorative connotations, to describe Hamas? That’s, quite clearly, an opinion, one which conveniently reflects the UK’s pro-Israeli line.

‘It’s very clear that the BBC’s selective terminology here is itself subjectively weighted in favour of Israel. You may be “entitled” to report opinions on the apartheid comparison, but that entitlement doesn’t, apparently, merit serious coverage of such views.’

http://www.medialens.org/board/

I expect the BBC thinks that letters like this, put together with yours, simply cancel each other out.

I feel as if I’ve stumbled into a Zionist Media Lens

Ha, Linda, I had *exactly* the same thought this morning.

Inna, on the Haran family names business, you may even have a point that the BBC could and should have reported them. But this isn’t the same thing as arguing that a failure to print them amounts to a deliberate attempt to dehumanise the victims.

I know the names of both the Israeli soldiers whose bodies were returned on Wednesday. They are all over the BBC site. I don’t know the name of a single one of the 5 live Lebanese prisoners returned by Israel. I only know Qantar’s name, and the reason I know Qantar’s name is because his significance - for both sides - has been the focus of the reporting these last few days, specifcally because of the brutality of his crime. There are people I work and asociate with who aren’t the least bit interested in Middle East affairs who are now aware of Qantar and his despicable act nearly 30 years ago. The only reason they are aware is because news organisations, not restricted to but including the BBC, have reported it.

As before, there is room for criticism of the BBC for its Middle East reporting (and any other reporting, for that matter), but it does a thousand times better job than some of you are prepared to give it credit for and, in this particular case, the criticism is, frankly, pathetic.

Ok, Andrew and Brownie, I change my mind. I agree that the BBC has reported in other ocassions in an active voice, the deeds of Kuntar.
I have a question, though: don’t you think that the very fact that the BBC doesn’t use the word terrorist is a prove of a terrible moral relativism? And I am aware that the BBC has even refused to use the word terrorists for 7/7

@Andrew Adams:

“Qantar is serving several life sentences for murder after attacking a civilian apartment block in Nahariya in 1979. A policeman, another man and his four-year-old daughter were killed. A baby girl was accidentally smothered by her mother as she hid in a cupboard.”

How could anyone read this and not believe it is explicitly clear who was responsible for the deaths?

Andrew, that is the most tortorous and unwarranted use of the passive voice ever. Its as if the BBC didn’t want to admit that Kuntar was a murderer.

@Linda Grant:

Here you are, Inna. Here’s the other side of the BBC mailbag (from a letter to the BBC):

You’ve just committed a logical fallacy of setting up a false dichotomy.

Look, the BBC is biased against Israel. They themselves have admitted it - and its the reason they won’t release the Balen report. You’re doing yourself no favours by defending the indefensible, Linda.

Oh, for goodness sake, Morgoth!

Don’t you see that there is huge difference between (legitimate, and sometimes right) criticism of BBC reporting of the Israeli–Arab conflict on the one hand, and seeing it as a monstrous anti-Semitic conspiracy to dehumanise Jewish victims of terrorism on the other?

Human discourse which is not based on gradation is more than useless. If I happen to sit on a train and a yob opposite me puts his feet on a sit or lights up a cigarette, that’s bad (and, provided that the yob in question isn’t twice my size, I might even do something about it). But it is not as bad as the genocide in Rwanda.

Or to turn the issue around. If what the BBC did, according to Inna, is so infinitely monstrous that the names of the offending parties should be erased forever (perhaps to clarify the issue, this is the traditional Jewish curse toward the worst of murderers, ימח שמם in the original – I am not sure that the Hebrew will come out), if what they have done is the worst that can be done, then, to an innocent bystander, perhaps the worst is really not that bad? In other words, it trivialises the really bad stuff.

It seems there is a Jerusalem syndrome without the need even to travel to Jerusalem. I often feel that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a capacity to drive people barkingly, obsessive-compulsively mad. Many of whom have never set foot in Israel or indeed the Middle East.

“Inna, on the Haran family names business, you may even have a point that the BBC could and should have reported them.”

A point? I think this is *the* only point that Inna was trying to make. Her insistence in making this point was merely a product of other commenters not conceding that she had a point, the point you point out above.

“But this isn’t the same thing as arguing that a failure to print them amounts to a deliberate attempt to dehumanise the victims.”

I’m not sure that Inna argued anywhere that the this instance of bias was “deliberate” or conscious…only that this was an example of bias that had the effect of dehumanizing the victims. A point that you have conceded is entirely reasonable to argue. (The default nature of a bias is a lack of awareness or intent.) It makes no difference whether the BBC’s consistent anti-Israel reporting is founded on a conscious hatred of Jews, or an unintentional bias. The effect is entirely the same. Jewish lives are cheapened, Jewish lives are put in danger. Perhaps what makes this kind of unintentional bias even worse, is that it is protected and valorized by a pretense of objectivity.

“Look, the BBC is biased against Israel. They themselves have admitted it.”

Why do Inna’s critics think the BBC worked so hard to suppress a 20,000 page internal report which provided hard evidence of a systematic bias against Israel at the BBC? Why is it so hard to believe that Inna’s example of one kind of anti-Israel bias at the BBC is not one that the BBC has already identified, collected data on, but failed to address?

I sorry, I just read above that Inna does think this bias is deliberate.

I’m not sure I buy that based on the evidence available, but like I said above, I don’t see why it makes a difference at all.

So, where is that report?

“So, where is that report?”

The truth is nobody outside the BBC has ever seen it. Its assumed to provide evidence of anti-Israel bias (why else would the BBC have spent so much money in legal fees trying to suppress it?) but in reality nobody outside the BBC knows what it says.

We do know that certain changes came about as a result of the Balen report, one of which was the appointment of a Middle East editor to oversee the coverage. of course the instant problem was that this editor, Jeremy Bowen was denounced, on his appointment by the Media Lens types as in thrall to the Israel lobby and by the Honest reporting types as irredeemably pro-Palestinian.

Is the BBC biased? I can’t say. But I do know something about journalistic practise, and I do know that these shrill, often hysterical campaigns by pro and anti-Israel keyboard campaigners spend hours trawling through websites looking for what they’re looking for, and as Brownie says, ignoring anything which contradicts it.

On the whole, journalists simply ignore these silly accusations and get on with the job, precisely because of their hysteria. When they receive letters like the one Inna sent to the BBC on this matter, they go in the bin. That’s where I would put a letter which accused me of deliberately dehumanising Jews and wishing for my name to be wiped out.

So the writers may have got something off their chest and felt better for it, but in terms of actually achieving anything, I’d say the answer was nil, as the endlessly hilarious emails Media Lens sends to the BBC and the weary replies from Helen Boaden’s nutty-email replier-in-chief attest.

“Is the BBC biased? I can’t say.”

Why can’t you say? In the absence of the official report and valid data (as compared to the anecdotes and unsystematic googled examples we have in this thread) surely you are able to make an inference based on your own experience? If you haven’t noticed any bias why can’t you say “I don’t think the BBC is biased.”?

Fabian,

If I’m completely honest, I think I would prefer the BBC did use the term “terrorist” as, despite what others might think, I believe it is a perfectly valid term that has a specific meaning. However, I don’t regard their failure to use it as anything other than an attempt, even a misguided attempt, to maintain objectivity. As you mention yourself, they don’t even employ the term to describe those committing atrocities in Britain.

Shmuel,

I was responding to the totality of the criticism of the BBC on this thread, not just Inna’s specific point about the failure to report the Haran family names.

It makes no difference whether the BBC’s consistent anti-Israel reporting is founded on a conscious hatred of Jews, or an unintentional bias. The effect is entirely the same. Jewish lives are cheapened, Jewish lives are put in danger.

This is where I part company. I do accept that the BBC flirts with a relativism that, because I know Israel and her enemies are not two sides of the same coin, irks me from time to time. Israel is a liberal democracy and her enemies are proto-fascist thugs. I’m sometimes frustrated that this context is either unexplored/suppressed, but of course the BBC would argue it is not the job of an objective news broadcasting organization to provide that context (at least outside of the op-eds). They report on the events alone without, one hopes, editorialising, and the consumer makes up his/her mind. Like I say, it’s immensely frustrating at times because “Israel has done this, Hezbollah has done that” is not even half the story.

There’s also the fact that the BBC is a public service broadcaster. As a result, it strives harder than it should to dispel notions that it is a mouthpiece of the establishment. This is partly why the BBC is often accused of being anti-government in the UK. In its desperation to appear impartial, it tips the other way. This is the case whether the government is a Tory administration or Labour.

For the first 10 years of the current Labour administration, the BBC probably went further than it ever had previously. John Lloyd, who wrote “What the Media are doing to our Politics” devotes a whole chapter to the BBC and he puts this down to the almost total absence of a credible domestic opposition to Labour under Blair. The BBC subconsciously took it upon itself to fill that void, becoming the de facto opposition.

Given the establishment view is that Israel is a friend, an ally and, for very much the most part, the innocent victim in Middle East events, it’s almost inevitable that the BBC coverage will, sometimes, slant the other way [as it strives to maintain its non-establishment credentials]. My point is not that there is zero anti-Israel bias at the BBC, but that it is neither persistent nor consistent, and nothing like on the scale that some would claim.

The Balen report was an internal audit to provide data to news editors that could help them improve output in the future. These kinds of report are never published and the only reason why there was a furore over this one is because it was about the Middle East. So both pro- and anti-Israel commentators were anxious to know if the report supported their respective views that the BBC was pro-/anti-Israel.

If I’m completely honest - and based on what little information I’ve had shared with me - the Balen report probably does conclude that there is some soft, anti-Israel bias at the BBC. But of the type that I highlight above, and not the sort that some claim has infected BBC reportage of events in the ME.

Linda:

I don’t think that repeatedly pointing out that there are “Media Lens types” and “Honest reporting types” proves anything one way or the other about where the truth lies. And if I were forced to discern a bias in your writing, I would say that you seem biased in favor of the journalists themselves. So I could easily call your obsession with Inna’s obsession a kind of “hysteria” too if I wanted to be nasty, but that wouldn’t be very nice. It also wouldn’t be helpful because labeling opposing critics on two sides of a heated debate as crazy, or irrational is itself a lazy form of argument. A lot of people around here make themselves feel good by engaging in this sort of cheap sanctimony, but I find it rather aggravating.

A lot of people around here make themselves feel good by engaging in this sort of cheap sanctimony, but I find it rather aggravating.

Not always, Shmuel, surely?

Gerald Manley Hopkins said no worst, there is none. This today is for CIF the nadir of nadirs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/18/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon

The secret of Hizbullah’s success

Hizbullah’s unbudging resistance to Israel – and the results that has achieved – explains its clout in the Arab world

Good God almighty! And this guy lectures!

Yes, the guy lectures at the American University of Beirut, not known as a great centre of scholarship. Which means that he is no eligible for membership of UCU, although with these views they might make him a honorary member.

Doesn’t “harb” mean “war” in Arabic?, BTW?

It doesn’t prove where the truth lies. It does demonstrate that journalists tend to ignore such missives seeing them as six of one and half a dozen of the other, especially when written in an hysterical accusatory manner with melodramatic wishes that the recipient’s name ‘be blotted out.’ If the purpose is to make the sender feel better, fine. If it’s purpose is to try to correct perceived bias, then it’s waste of everyone’s time and efforts because no-one on the receiving end takes it seriously.

I know, because I get letters and emails telling me I’m a self-hating Jew who longs for the destruction of Israel, and a fascist who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians. At first they used to upset me. Now I delete or throw them with barely a glance at the contents. Either way, they don’t work. Is that your aim?

I have my own views on the media coverage, and I think Brownie’s sophisticated and penetrating summation comes closer to it than these pathetic allegations of Jew-hating.

“I have my own views on the media coverage, and I think Brownie’s sophisticated and penetrating summation comes closer to it than these pathetic allegations of Jew-hating.”

Brownie’s comments were good, although I don’t share his (or I suppose your own) complacence. When he writes:

“Given the establishment view is that Israel is a friend, an ally and, for very much the most part, the innocent victim in Middle East events, it’s almost inevitable that the BBC coverage will, sometimes, slant the other way [as it strives to maintain its non-establishment credentials].”

so first of all he beleives there is a bias. OK. He provides a source of bias that is probably valid. (That is no more supported by concrete facts than any other theoretical source of bias discussed on this thread.) But I trust that he may be right because his argument seems sensible but moreover, it resonates with a my own views.

But I don’t discount offhand that antisemitism may play a role as well.

And we really disagree in that that I think this bias *is* a kind of antisemitism, albeit a a kind of soft, unconscious antisemitism whatever the “cause”. The “effect” is a kind of antisemitism and this is how I consistently think about bias and bigotry.

(By the way you never answered why you can’t say one way or the other whether or not the BBC is biased.)

“I know, because I get letters and emails telling me I’m a self-hating Jew who longs for the destruction of Israel, and a fascist who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians. At first they used to upset me. Now I delete or throw them with barely a glance at the contents. Either way, they don’t work. Is that your aim?”

No doubt another source of your own bias. Now calm down and stop being so hysterical.

I think that often reports do not dwell on the personal details of the victims partly for practical reasons of space and brevity but also because there are unfortunately so many tragic and pointless deaths that they tend to be seen as another statistic rather than as living and breathing human beings. I think it’s good to sometimes focus on a particular tragedy and the individual people involved in order to remember that we are talking about real people, probably very much like us.
The photo above is absolutely heartbreaking, particularly so for me as I have recently become a father myself. The murder of Danny, Einat and Yael Haran was a horrible, evil act; unfortunately it was far from uniquely so and that is why their names will probably not be remembered as they deserve.
On that basis the argument that the media should mention such victims by name is a strong one, but the accusation that the BBC is failing to do so in order to wilfully dehumanise Jewish victims of violence is a very serious one which I’m sure would be grossly offensive to the journalists concerned and should not be made without any evidence.
The willingness, determination even, of some of Israel’s more vocal supporters to take offence at perfectly innocuous reporting does not help victims such as the Harans or the cause of Israel itself, in fact it actively harms it.

I think that sometimes the BBC is biased and sometimes it isn’t. I base some of my understanding on conversations with people in the BBC who give me an insight as to how decisions get made. One person I would describe as profoundly and proudly biased against Israel (he’s Jewish). I have met other who have no bones about their sympathies lying in the other direction.

Sometimes I watch BBC, sometimes Sky, sometimes CNN and I try to compare the coverage. I find that watching all three plus the Israeli media gives me a fairly balanced overview. If there is a shift in one media outlet, then obviously the balance shifts one way or the other. During the 2006 Lebanon war by consuming all these media, I probably arrived at a reasonable close approximation of whatever truth is to be obtained through the media. And that’s what I want.

But I do understand journalism and so I can tell the difference between cock up, conspiracy, and normal journalistic practice inside a news room.

I find your accusations of hysteria a bit giggle-making as I am merely mildly enjoying this piece of work distraction.

Linda–

Just tell me this. Should you or your loved one be (God forbid) the victim of a terror attack which version of the story would you prefer to see?

BBC version:

Muhammed X carried out an operation in Israel today. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility. There is concern this latest attack will undermine the peace process. Tony Blair said something. Abbas said something else.

Corruption investigation against the Olmert government are ongoing.

Israeli authorities say two people died.

The human version:

Today Muhammed X walked into a bus crowded with civilians and blew himself up. (Name) and (Name) were killed instantly. Name, Name, Name, Name, Name are severly injured. Name, Name, Name, Name are severely traumatized.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad say they have sent the man to blow himself up.

If it was you; if it was your family–which story would you want on the BBC?

Regards,

Inna

Inna, give it a rest, newspapers aren’t run for the personal benefit of the families of victims, but for the wider readership. This is an obsession you have developed with names, as if names are all that matter. What I prefer is irrelevant. You’re dealing with an industry, and it treats domestic stories and international stories differently. I’m sorry you are unable to allow that particular penny to drop in your brain. All I know is that the letters you keep sending BBC employees may allow you to let of steam but they won’t change anything.

“All I know is that the letters you keep sending BBC employees may allow you to let of steam but they won’t change anything.”

I may not be permitted to complete a task but that does not mean I should not start it.

Regards,

Inna

“This is an obsession you have developed with names…”

Linda–

I am not a big believer in organized religion. I believe there is a God and I love the stories of Judaism but I have not set foot in a shul ina long time. Even so, I remember the aggadot of where the angels ask God what manner of creature man will be and God says he will be wiser than the angels. Why? Because he will name everything in the world. Including himself; including God.

Our name is a big part of what makes us human.

And yes, the BBC probably does not know (or care) about that. But that does not mean I will stop knowing or caring.

Regards,

Inna

‘I’m trying to lose weight and I have decided to cut down on fresh fruit and vegetables and exercise and increase my intake of sugar and fat.’

‘But you’ll gain twenty pounds, not lose twenty.’

‘I may not be permitted to complete a task but that does not mean I should not start it.’

Sorry. The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness, can be trained to do most things. Help me! Help to find sites on the: kitchen islands. I found only this - Kitchen islands stainless. We focus primarily on cheap airline tickets, hotels, and great travel deals for from site to site when cheap tickets airline brings those same deals to one. Cheap airfare offers discount airline ticket reservations, hotel reservations, car rentals and travel deals and promotions. Thanks ;-). Jules from Liberia.