Tuesday, January 09, 2007

BBC Bias

I've long suspected the BBC of a pro-Palestinian bias, so maybe I am reading too much into this. But nonetheless I find the way this article is written as quite a striking example of this subtle, almost subliminal, bias.

The headline is “Captured Israeli 'in good health'”. Good news, I hear you say. But for me the real story is only mentioned in the fifth paragraph – with the militant’s statement of "We are ready to keep him for years so long as our demands are not met." And it is only in the sixth paragraph (of nine) that we hear what compromises the Israelis have made – “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered to release "many" Palestinian detainees, if the Palestinians free Cpl Shalit and set up a national unity government that would recognise Israel and renounce violence.”

So, in summary, this is the first announcement since Gilad Shalit was seized last summer about his condition. And yes, it is great news that he is in good health. But I can’t help but feel that the poor sod would also be in good health if he was at home with his family. I would imagine his primary concern is not the fact that he is good health, but rather that he is a hostage, a prisoner of war. And I think the threat of keeping him for many years in spite of the generous and eminently sensible deal offered by the Israelis should be the focus of the story. Not the fact that Shalit is in good health and doesn’t have a fucking cold.

The real headline is "Militants threaten to hold hostage for years". Unless, of course, you are biased towards said militants...

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Review of the Year

“And so this is Christmas, and what have you done?” asked the wife beating hippy John Lennon is his simultaneously simpering and preachy Christmas song from 1971. Personally, the answer is “not a lot.” In fact, the sole goal I set myself last year I have totally failed to achieve. Hooray! Go me! So rather than review my own year, which would be dull and pointless, I thought I would cast a caustic eye over the rest of the world. And you know what? This has been a really disappointing year. So much potential for change, and none of it realised.

For the first time, the Tories have managed to gain a respectable, solid lead in the polls and also have had a measure of electoral success. And how have they celebrated that lead? By selling out, and rushing to embrace the policies of the left and the Greens. Magnificent work from Cameron – for the first time the Tory party is in a position to offer and alternative to government and how do they respond? They offer a facsimile of Nu-Labour.

Speaking of Nu-Labour, they had a couple of attempts at change over this year. First up was the aftermath of the Local Elections, when Charlie The Safety Elephant was ditched and John Prescott crippled his party by knobbing his secretary. But nothing really changed – Clarke was replaced by an even more egregious cunt and Prescott was allowed to keep his job, but with the added bonus that he has been stripped of all of his duties. He is being paid for doing fuck all. But there was that wonderful moment over the summer where Labour appeared to go into meltdown – it actually looked like they might ditch Blair and, because of his naked and unseemly ambition during the leadership crisis, Brown might have blown his chances of succeeding Blair. But what was the end result after the dust had settled? Blair still in power, Brown still the presumptive heir to the throne. How disappointing. How dull.

The Lib Dems also had a moment of meltdown at the beginning of the year – with Kennedy finally admitting he was a drunk and resigning under pressure. With Oaten dropping out in the face of an eye-brow raising scandal and the Hughes campaign shooting itself in the foot, it actually looked like the Lib Dems might choose a radical candidate for leader. But no, it was not to be. They went with Ming “The Merciful” Campbell – a man with “Caretaker Leader” written all over him. And Ming’s most memorable moment to date? Being upstaged by Kennedy at the party conference.

Across the pond both houses of Congress went to the Democrats for the first time since 1994. And Bush offered Donny Rumsfeld, the incoherent idiot, up as a sacrificial lamb. But as I warned at the time, not a lot will actually change. Not least because they could lose control of the Senate. Change will come to the US, probably in 2008. But it hasn’t really happened this year.

Over in that massively stable region that is Middle East there was the usual unrest that happens over and over again, but with nothing being resolved. After Ariel Sharon collapsed into what must be brain death, Ehud Olmert took over as leader of Israel. And what happened? An inconclusive war with Lebanon, a Presidential sex scandal, and dire poll ratings. Israel remains as vulnerable and dependent on the US as ever.

Iraq sentenced their famous dictator to death, in what was utterly inevitable since they found him in his little hole. Even when Saddam is finally pushed off this mortal coil with a noose around his neck, nothing will change in Iraq. In fact, the biggest change for Iraq would be purely a semantic one, when the coalition of the willing finally admits that Iraq is mired in a civil war.

The utterly barmy and utterly terrifying Ahmadinejad remains in power in Iran and, despite some losses in the polls and ongoing international pressure, seems intent on becoming a nuclear power. The end result being Iran is not popular with the West. Which is pretty much how things have been since… oooo… 1979.

Speaking of powers looking to go nuclear, North Korea made a bold claim to have made a nuclear weapon. Which led to a couple of terrifying days until it became clear that Kim Jung-Il may well be a big fat liar. North Korea remains isolated from the world and mired in a destructive haze of self-deception so again - where is the change?

So my hope for next year? That some of the potential for change is actually realised. Starting with a new Prime Minister in this country

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Ceasefire ramblings

I have a lot to say about Israel and Lebanon agreeing a UN sponsored ceasfire, but it is too difficult to adequately and intelligently write those thoughts down at the moment. So instead I thought I would mock the inane crap spouted by others about the ceasefire. And where better than go that the BBC's Have Your Say? Two comments stand out amongst the hysterical, polemical, and ignorant dross - one from Ali and one from Jeff Smith. Ali starts by saying that the Jews lived together with the Arabs for thousands of years in peace and that is was only the state of Israel that has created the problem. Now, I am 99% sure that is total bollocks, but I am too lazy to do the research to prove Ali wrong at the moment so I will concede the point. What I this is total shite is this:
"Basiclly Europe wiped their hands clean of their own jewish problem (ie they were racist towards the jews for over 200 years) and put it in the middle east."
Ignoring the poor spelling and punctuation, it is highly offensive to talk of a "Jewish problem". We don't speak of a "Muslim problem" in this country, rather a "fundamentalist problem". As for Europe solving their "Jewish problem", I am not convinced that the majority of Europeans had a problem with the Jews. Certain elements in Europe did, certainly, and they had a go at solving their Jewish "problem", and it is one of the darkest times in human history. It is also worth pointing out (1) many Jews wanted to go to the Middle East (and fought for it), what with it being their Holy Land and all, and (2) many Jews still live in Europe - without a "problem". As with so many of the comments about the conflict in the Middle East, there is an ugly reek of Anti-Semitism to what Ali writes.

However Jeff's post deserves the dubious honour of complete reproduction here, partly to marvel at the terrible spelling (Islanic, anyone?) and spacing, but also just to marvel at the nonsense he is spouting. He says:
"Israel wanted rockets to stop and a buffer zone.Hezbollah wanted Sheeba Farms, no more Israel, and a Fundamentalist Islanic state modelled on Iran.Israel 2/2, Hezbollah 0/3.With one side achieving its aims and the other not, peace will not last."
Errrmmmm, no. Israel's war aims were to rescue the kidnapped soldiers and stop Hezbollah chucking missiles into Israel. Read the rest of the news, Jeff. Hezbollah still fired missiles at Israel last night, and the two soldiers are still missing. Neither side has acheieved what they wanted, true, but the assertion that peace will come only when both sides achieve their aims is dense beyond belief. Hezbollah's fundamental aim it to destroy Israel; Israel's core aim is to protect their state and their citizens. One side succeeds and the other fails - there is no compromise, no mutually aggreable solution in what is a fight for survival. There will be no lasting peace as Hezbollah will do all it can to destroy Israel, and the IDF will do all they can to stop them.

Labels: ,