Jewish Chronicle apologises to readers for appearing humanitarian

This is as weird as it's disgraceful.  Apparently The Jewish Chronicle has had complainst about an ad in its print edition yesterday (August 15, 2014) for the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza.  Stephen Pollard, the JC's editor, addressed those complaints so:

There has been some controversy over the advert for the DEC Gaza appeal in this week’s paper.

I understand why some people are angry and upset and I thought it important to respond.

This is an advert, and not an expression of the JC's view. We keep editorial coverage entirely separate from our commercial operations.

As editor, I am not responsible for any ads which appear in the paper. It is a critical part of our editorial independence that we do not allow advertisers to have any influence at all on the paper.

The ad was approved by the chairman of the JC, who has no involvement in editorial decisions, as an ad for humanitarian aid which nowhere makes political or partisan points.

Both I as editor and the JC are entirely supportive of Operation Protective Edge, as our coverage has demonstrated. Almost alone in the British media the JC has stressed Israel’s right to defend herself and sought to explain why Israel was faced with no choice but to take action in Gaza.

There is, clearly, a humanitarian cost to that action. But I do not accept the figures touted around much of the media about the level of civilian casualties – many are, I am sure, terrorists.

This is not a JC-backed appeal. We have no involvement in it beyond running an ad, which has appeared in most British newspapers.

Even if you profoundly disagree with the ad appearing in the paper, I hope this will go some way to explaining its presence and that it is in no way part of our editorial stance.

So don't worry readers of the Jewish Chronicle, your weekly community newspaper doesn't do humanitarian when the most moral army in the world has created the humanitarian need.

So what's weird?  The apology by Stephen Pollard is dated August 14, 2014.  Now, whilst the JC is dated for the Friday it appears in most shops and arrives at most subscribers' homes it might appear in some shops and arrive in some homes on the Thursday.  It's delivered to my house on Fridays and I never see it on a Thursday.

So who was doing the complaining?  It could only be people from among the small minority of readers who get their copy on a Thursday, if such people exist.

Let's assume they do exist.  How many could have complained?

Ok, let's assume they don't exist and that no one gets their JC before Friday.  How did the complainers know about the ad if they hadn't seen the paper?

Now go see Stephen Pollard's explanation of how the ad, that appears to have appeared the day after he apologised to readers for its appearance, er, appeared at all.

The ad was approved by the chairman of the JC, who has no involvement in editorial decisions, as an ad for humanitarian aid which nowhere makes political or partisan points.

Now people might think the ad was approved for humanitarian reasons but Pollard is simply contrasting humanitarian with political or partisan, he is not saying that the ad was run by the JC for any humanitarian reason.  Higher up the piece he has already said, "We keep editorial coverage entirely separate from our commercial operations."  In other words, this was a commercial decision.

But now look at the Beeb.  Now I'm surprised that the Beeb has run this story at all since it puts the Zionist movement in such an unfavourable light.

First they let the JC lie for itself:

The weekly newspaper said running the advert was "meant as a purely humanitarian gesture".

Then typically it gave Israel's version of events about the attack on Gaza:

 The Israelis launched a military operation on 8 July to stop militant attacks from Gaza.

 But then comes a gem:

After a DEC advert featured in this week's Jewish Chronicle (JC), a Facebook page was set up calling on readers to boycott the title until it issued a "full apology".

A Facebook page?  The plot thickens....

And what do we see on the Facebook page?  Well, there are 182 likes.  Did Pollard really make the Jewish community look so uncaring for the sake of 182 Facebook likes?

Back to the Beeb:

Meanwhile, Israel's embassy in the UK issued a statement in which it said its own concern about the DEC appeal "stems from the fact that the list of charities on the DEC includes Islamic Relief Worldwide, which has been designated in Israel recently as an unlawful association, for providing support and funnelling funds to Hamas, a terror group designated in the UK.

"Surely this must raise cause for concern for the public donating money for children, when one of the donors has been officially declared to be using that money to support a recognized terror group," it said.

I would guess that this brings us closer to why Stephen Pollard has flaunted the sheer cruelty of Zionism.  It cannot possibly have been 182 or whatever many ordinary Joes complaining via Facebook.  Last I heard the JC had a circulation of about 30,000 and I remember reading that advertisers like the JC because it passes through the hands of every literate member of every household to which it is delivered.  182 is a pretty small proportion of its total readership.  But the State of Israel, now that's a different story.  The JC exists to promote the interests of the entity.  I reckon it was a telling off the JC received from the Israeli embassy that had Stephen Pollard suggesting his readers are a bunch of Nazis.  The only other explanation might, just might, be he doesn't like the Chair of the JC and dangerous "humanitarian" was the only putdown he could think of.

Arab spring and Palestine

I always think of this chap, Azzam Tamimi, as Hamas's man in London. He's certainly very close to them but I have heard him speak and he admitted to being "embarrassed", for example, by Hamas's charter. He also claims a fondness for democracy that you don't hear from many Hamas advocates. So, here's Dr Tamimi in The Guardian, print and on line today:

When, at the start of this year, Palestinians around the world marked the anniversary of the 2008-09 Israeli war on Gaza, few could see any hope. The Gaza Strip was still under siege, Palestinian reconciliation seemed out of reach, the Arabs were useless and the US unable, or unwilling, to broker a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine National Authority (PNA).

Then came the Arab popular revolutions, and the mood among Palestinians switched from desperation to euphoria. Soon after the fall ofHosni Mubarak I visited my old friend, the Hamas leader Khalid Mish'al, in Damascus. He told me he was sure the change in Egypt, which he expected would be followed by similar changes in other Arab countries, meant that it would not be too long before Palestine was free.

My friends in Gaza would tell me the same thing, and so would my relatives in Hebron and the diaspora. They all believed that the Mubarak regime was an impediment to the Palestinian struggle for freedom; once the Egyptian people were free, a genuine democracy in Egypt would support the Palestinians.

At the very least, in the short term, Palestinians believed that post-Mubarak Egypt would not take part in the siege of Gaza, which would all but collapse if Egypt were to open the Rafah crossing between Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Indeed, last Friday Egyptian foreign minister Nabil al-Arabi told al-Jazeera that, within seven to 10 days, steps will be taken to alleviate the "blockade and suffering of the Palestinian nation".

Palestinians monitored the Israeli reaction to the collapse of the Mubarak regime. It did not surprise them to see Israel immensely worried. Mubarak was an ally who contributed to Israel's security in a very hostile Middle East. The neutralisation of Egypt, and the minimisation of its role in the Palestinian cause since President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David peace treaty with Israel in 1978, constituted Zionism's greatest success since Israel was created 30 years earlier. Rather than spearhead the struggle to liberate Palestine, Mubarak's Egypt led the so-called Arab moderate camp, an alliance of pro-Israel and pro-US Arab states that included Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, the PNA and the United Arab Emirates.

Palestinians began to imagine what would happen if a popular revolution in Jordan were to bring about a similar change; then one in Saudi Arabia; and perhaps Morocco. Israel would have lost its most important allies in the region and the PNA would be isolated, having been fatally wounded by revelations in al-Jazeera and the Guardian about the concessions its negotiating teams offered in secret to the Israelis.

But although the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions did inspire Arabs to demand political reform or regime change, it was not Jordan, Morocco or Saudi Arabia that saw this the most. There were a few demonstrations, but demands were generally for political reform rather than a change of regime. Instead it was Yemen, Libya and Syria that witnessed the more dramatic protests, which soon escalated into armed struggle in Libya and calls for regime change in Yemen and Syria.

When I saw Khalid Mish'al in February, he did not expect a popular uprising in Syria. He believed the regime was less vulnerable because of its support for resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, as well as its anti-imperialist stance. But solidarity with the Palestinian or Lebanese resistance was not enough to protect any autocratic regime. This worried some Palestinians, and they rushed to express support for Bashar al-Assad's regime; but Hamas remained silent, to the regime's displeasure.

While the euphoria created by the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions has been dampened by the Libyan experience, seen by many in the Arab region as a revolution gone drastically wrong as a result of armament and western intervention, most Palestinians still believe a new era is coming. The more Arab dictatorships that are replaced by genuine democracies, the closer Palestine will be to liberation. Democracies representing the will of the Arab peoples can only be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

One immediate fruit of Mubarak's removal and the uprising in Syria has been the revival of Palestinian reconciliation efforts. Responding to grassroots pressure, both Hamas and Fatah met in Cairo and decided to work for the formation of a unity government and the resolution of disputes over security and elections. Fatah is anxious that it may lose favour with Egypt, while Hamas is anxious it may soon lose Syria as a safe haven. Unsurprisingly, Israel threatened to take action against the PNA if Fatah went through with the deal with Hamas.

For many years Israel claimed to be the only democracy in the region. And yet Israeli politicians appealed to the US to intervene in Egypt to prevent Mubarak's fall, and campaigned for him to remain in power. Israel clearly believes it can count on Arab dictators who are more interested in power and personal wealth than in serving their nations, let alone serving the Palestinian cause.

Despite its claims of superiority, Israel appears to suffer from the same symptoms that plague Arab dictators; the failure to learn that they need to change before it is too late. It's been too late for Mubarak, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, Assad, Muammar Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh. Israel has oppressed the Palestinians for so long, and has incurred the wrath of the Arab masses whose revolutions are bringing hope to Palestinians.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Arab revolutions are the best news the Palestinians have had for decades.

Comments are still open.

Viva Palestine Crisis: ACT NOW!

URGENT: Viva Palestina faced with 2,000 riot police in the port of Al-Arish!
To all friends of Palestine,

Our situation is now at a crisis point! Riot has broken out in the port of Al- Arish.

This late afternoon we were negotiating with a senior official from Cairo who left negotiations some two hours ago and did not return. Our negotiations with the official was regarding taking our aid vehicles into Gaza.

He left two hours ago and did not come back. Egyptian authorities called over 2,000 riot police who then moved towards our camp at the port.

We have now blocked the entrance to the port and we are now faced with riot police and water cannons and are determined to defend our vehicles and aid.

The Egyptian authorities have by their stubbornness and hostility towards the convoy, brought us to a crisis point.

We are now calling upon all friends of palestine to mount protests in person where possible, but by any means available to Egyptian representatives, consulates and Embassy's and demand that the convoy are allowed a safe passage into Gaza tomorrow!

Kevin Ovenden Viva Palestina Convoy Leader

FURTHER UPDATES AT: http://www.vivapalestina.org/home.htm

Contact your MPs + put pressure on Egyptian authorities

- Contact the Egyptian Embassy:
Egyptian Embassy (Diplomatic Mission)
E-Mail: eg.emb_london@mfa.gov.eg
Tel.: 020 7499 3304
Egyptian Tourist Office
Tel.: 020 7493 5283
Egyptian Press and Information Office
Tel.: 020 7409 2236

- Contact our representatives & UK government:
Contact your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/
David Miliband (Foreign Secretary/Labour MP for South Shields)
milibandd@parliament.uk
(0191) 456 8910
British Embassy in Egypt
Tel: +(20)(2)27916000
information.cairo@fco.gov.uk

UN nuclear watchdog boycotts the BBC over Gaza

The BBC has now been condemned by the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. He told the Guardian that

the BBC decision not to air the aid appeal for victims of the conflict "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people, irrespective of who is right or wrong".

The BBC has now brought itself into disrepute with the UN. Time for Mark Thompson to resign.

BBC's help for Israel helps the Palestinians

Assuming Israel doesn't steal the aid that is. According to this Guardian report, the Disasters Emergency Committee has raised £1 million for the people of Gaza which appears to be more than they would have raised if the BBC hadn't helped Israel with its criminal blockade. I'm assuming that's because of the sympathy aroused by the BBC (and Murdoch's Sky TV) so obviously siding with Israel and the fact that the siding with Israel generated publicity for an organisation I for one had never heard of before.

Donations to an emergency fund for Gaza have doubled despite the refusal of the BBC and Sky News to broadcast an appeal that was shown on three other channels last night.

The number of complaints to the BBC also rose overnight and now stands at more than 21,000, with just 380 writing in support of the corporation's stance. At the same time, a parliamentary motion criticising the BBC's decision has grown in popularity and has attracted the signatures of MPs from all parties.

Not only that, there's a picture doing the rounds that makes Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, look ridiculous over this:

From duckrabbit with thanks to Catherine across the pond

And it gets worse still for the Beeb because their support for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel has brought the charge of racism down on themselves:

The BBC is also being threatened with a lawsuit alleging its decision to ban the charity appeal for Gaza from its airwaves was discriminatory, the Guardian has learned. The case is being brought on behalf of 42 people who say they were offended by the corporation's decision.

They will argue that the ban discriminated against the Palestinian people because the BBC refused to allow a charity appeal for them to be broadcast, but did allow appeals for other ethnic or national groups, such as those affected by the conflicts that plagued Darfur and Kosovo. Solicitor Lawrence Davies said: "The decision not to broadcast it is tainted by racism, it is anti-Palestinian."

Davies said British race relations laws covered such acts, although they had never been used in this way before. He said the claim against the BBC could run into millions of pounds. Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, has been sent a letter giving the corporation several days to reverse the ban before legal action starts.

Now this will be interesting. I read about a Jewish guy who used to taunt a Palestinian neighbour by waving an Israeli flag whenever the Palestinian left his house. The police got involved but the accused guy got off on the grounds that Palestinians don't get the protection of race relations law in this country. That was some years ago but that was the gist of the story.

What could happen here is that Mark Thompson could buckle and the Palestinians win even more than they have already won. He could dig in and the case could go to court. People will think that the BBC isn't just pro-Israel but its DG is a zionist fanatic. If it goes to court the court could find against the Beeb. The Beeb is racist and so is Israel. Or a court could find for the Beeb in which case the Beeb is racist, so is Israel and so is the judiciary. A win win win situation for the people of Gaza and the Palestinians as a whole.

Wossisname again?

One for the Brits, or Bwits only I'm afraid. Well, I'm not afraid. I hope Jonathan Ross isn't known abroad. Here, for those who know Jonathan Ross and Melanie Phillips and who also know that the BBC is helping Israel with its criminal blockade of Gaza, is Martin Rowson's cartoon in today's Guardian:



I thought that it was by Steve Bell and when I couldn't find it on line I emailed him to ask for a copy. I hope I didn't offend him. I thought the Guardian was scared of Mad Mel Phlips!

The video nearly banned by the associates of the nearly late Ariel Sharon

Well here it is on the Guardian website and no doubt lots of other places to. It's the Gaza aid appeal video. I'm going to try to upload it but I have never succeeded before so I'll publish without it and you can follow the link to watch the vid. Meanwhile, I'll go in, edit this post and see if it works. OK?





Well it's 21:37 now and blogger is telling me that it's uploaded the clip so let's "publish" and see what happens.

Silencing the Gaza appeal: It was the ghost of Ariel Sharon wot dunnit

It was. It's true. Alright it's only half true, Ariel Sharon still hasn't quite given up the ghost yet but his influence lives on in from Palestine to the BBC and now to Sky television.

I've mentioned Sam Kiley lots of times. He's actually quite a friend of Israel these days but once upon a time he wrote this about Rupert Murdoch and Ariel Sharon:

But in the war of words, no newspaper has been so happy to hand the keys of the armoury over to one side than The Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International. Murdoch is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister.

Rupert Murdoch also owns Sky Television so that would explain Sky's refusal to host the DEC's Gaza appeal. But what about Murdoch's counterpart at the BBC? Surely the Director General of this guardian of Britain's sense of fair play couldn't be got at by the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.

But what's this we find in a 2005 gossip column in the Independent?

The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she "started to cry" when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.

Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hardine Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country's political class.

Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a "softening" to the corporation's unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.

"This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it's clearly a significant development," I'm told.

"Not many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. He's a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors."

Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.

Apopros this month's previously undocumented trip, he stressed that Thompson had also held talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

But the Palestinian sellout-in-chief seems not have made the same impression on Thompson. Or maybe he did.

Clearly the BBC and Sky have crossed a line here. They are not simply siding with Israel, they are aiding and abetting a long-standing on-going war crime. We mustn't let this blind us to the fact that the mainstream media bias in favour of Israel in the UK and throughout the west is more pronounced and its dishonesty is more outrageous in favour of zionism than on any other subject. It's a bit like Israel committing its eye catching atrocities, they distract attention from the on-going war crime represented by the State of Israel's core existence. The BBC and Sky have effectively committed an eye-catching atrocity. That doesn't make the rest of the media ok.

More pressure on the Beeb's starving of Gaza

Many thanks to one of my Scotland correspondents for drawing my attention to the occupation of the BBC's Glasgow headquarters. The report is on the Sky website which is newsworthy of itself since Sam Kiley, a Murdoch dissident, said that Murdoch was a personal friend of Ariel Sharon. Anyway cop this straight from the Sky website:

Gaza Aid Protesters In Beeb's HQ

7:05pm UK, Sunday January 25, 2009

Dozens of protesters have occupied the BBC's headquarters in Glasgow over the broadcaster's refusal to air an emergency aid appeal for Gaza.

Palestinian woman holds her baby as she stands in the rubble of east Jebaliya, Gaza

The supporters of the Stop the War Coalition and Palestinian groups said they will not leave the building's lobby area until the Beeb reverses its decision.

The coalition claimed there were about 100 demonstrators inside and outside the building.

A Strathclyde Police spokeswoman said there were about 40 to 50 protesters and there had been no arrests yet.

More than 50 MPs have already backed a parliamentary motion urging the broadcaster to show the appeal for thousands of people struggling in the Palestinian territory.

The early day motion - to be tabled on Monday by Labour's Richard Burden - has so far received the support of 51 MPs from across the Commons.

The BBC is still standing firm on its decision not to show the advert for the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).

The corporation has said it has received "approximately" 1,000 telephone complaints and a further 10,000 by email.

Rival broadcasters ITV, Channel 4 and Five have now agreed to air the appeal. Sky is still considering its position.

Suffering in Gaza

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is the latest figure to add his voice to the string of politicians, including senior government ministers, urging the corporation to change its mind.

He said he fully backed the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who said: "This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief."

Thousands of people have already demonstrated outside the BBC's Broadcasting House in London this weekend.

The DEC - an umbrella group for several major aid charities including the British Red Cross, Save the Children and Oxfam - wants the appeal to be broadcast on TV and radio.

It aims to raise millions of pounds for Gazans in need of food, medicines and shelter following Israel's three-week assault on the area.

The Charity Commission has repeated its call on the BBC to show the appeal, and also urged Sky to lend support.

BBC director general Mark Thompson says broadcasting the advert could compromise the impartiality of the BBC's reporting from Gaza.

They have a video too but I couldn't load it and you're not missing much really.

I don't get the Observer but I'm guessing that several articles on what the BBC did made it into print today. Check out this little lot:

Archbishop attacks BBC over Gaza

Corporation receives 11,000 complaints and 50 MPs plan to back motion calling for rethink on aid film

• At the heart of BBC row, the homeless of Gaza
• Tim Llewellyn: A cowardly decision

Tim Lewellyn is in a real fume:

The corporation's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, had refused to allow it to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza. She said that one reason was that "the BBC's impartiality was in danger of being damaged". Could the BBC be sure, she added, that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?

How is the BBC's impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Is Thomson more fussed about some imaginary "war on terror" that even the new White House is shying away from than she is about upholding the free speech and freedom of action of the corporation?

This pusillanimous obeisance to some imagined governmental threat has aroused unprecedented anger across the BBC.

Ok, I've done a few posts on this now but the Beeb is literally behaving like it's the Israeli state broadcaster. That is a story in itself and I can't promise there won't be more. There almost definitely will be more. I'm hoping the last one will be if and when the Beeb blinks and then buckles.

BBC crisis over Gaza appeal

Who'd be the BBC, poor things? They probably thought they were doing what the Prime Minister would approve of but the outcry about Israel's war on the people in Gaza was too great and the government distanced itself from the Beeb, and why not?

Well now, according to this Guardian article,

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has accused the broadcaster of "taking sides". He said yesterday: "This is not a row about impartiality but rather about humanity.

"This situation is akin to that of British military hospitals who treat prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva convention. They do so because they identify need rather than cause. This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief. By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality," the archbishop added.

The establishment is split over Gaza.

It's the Benn Broadcasting Corporation!

This was going to be a post of Ellis Sharp's pics from today's demo against the BBC together with a bit of context from Lenin. I went to the demo, even took some pics of my own when it was nearly over and the youngsters started dancing and the police started arresting....one young woman of maybe 15.

Anyway, I just googled something about "demonstration" and "Gaza" and I stumbled on this interview with Tony Benn on the Beeb. It was before the demo that I hasten to point out has now taken place but it's worth a listen partly to get the details of the charities whose efforts the BBC is hindering for Israel and partly because it's a good performance by Benn.

A demonstration will be held to protest against the BBC's decision not to broadcast an appeal for aid to the people of Gaza. It is being organised by the Disasters Emergency Committee - an umbrella group for some of the big charities. Politician Tony Benn discusses why he will be attending the protest outside BBC Broadcasting House.

Plot spoiler - he basically read out the appeal that the BBC tried to, indeed did and still does, ban:

The situation
After an 18 month blockade of Gaza and three weeks of heavy shelling the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is now completely overwhelming.

• Donate online to the DEC's Gaza Crisis now
  Thousands of people are struggling to survive with many having lost their homes and most down to their last supplies of food and only limited amounts of fresh drinking water.
• Just £25 can buy warm blankets for 8 children
• Just £50 can provide a Food parcel for a family for one month
• Electricity - supplies to Gaza are erratic at best with 75% of the area cut off completely. There is a significant public health risk arising out of the almost collapse of Gaza’s water and sewage system, the running of which is dependent on electricity.
  
• Water - Around 500,000 people are without running water with 37% of Gaza’s water wells not working effectively and fuel reserves depleted due to restrictions on access and damage to pipes.
  
• At least 412 Children have been killed and 1,855 injured
  
• 60% of the population is living in poverty
  
• 1.1 million people are dependent upon aid to survive.
  
• Health - The capacity of the health system has been significantly reduced due to the damage of at least 21 clinics. Ten primary health care clinics are functioning as emergency clinics and hospitals and intensive care units continue to treat the mass casualties.

But listen all the same because the interviewer appears to express the fear that rather than going into eat as you go aid, the money might aid reconstruction and under the auspices of the elected administration. The only democracy in the middle east can't have any of that going. Goodness! they'll want their own state next and in Palestine too!

More on BBC's part in Israel's war on Gaza

No, not the propaganda war, they've always played their part in that. This, for those who have only just tuned in, is about the Beeb surpassing even its own cravenness to Israel by blocking a charity appeal for funds for Gaza. I've done two posts on that now, here and here, actually three if you count the notice for the today's demo against the BBC. Well now here's a little crop of letters from the Guardian on the subject followed by a little bit more detail on the UK government's position on the matter of the BBC helping the UK government's favourite colonial settler state:

I couldn't believe I'd heard right when Channel 4 news said the BBC had refused to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza. But here it is in the Guardian (BBC refuses airtime to Gaza aid appeal, 23 January). I don't think the BBC objected to the appeal for Darfur, wondering if they were being unfair to the Janjaweed. Perhaps their problem would be solved if a tiny proportion of the money were spent on the tiny proportion of Israeli wounded. The phone number for complaining to the BBC is 03700 100 222.

Caryl Churchill
London

As a former senior news editor in the BBC, I was astonished at its decision to veto the DEC's Gaza appeal. It is absurd to suggest that broadcasting a strictly humanitarian appeal for 1.4 million desperately needy civilians risked "compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality". It is also offensive, particularly to millions of Muslims in the UK and overseas who are easily persuaded that the BBC is a British government mouthpiece. The decision risks undermining, in their eyes, years of courageous and impartial reporting of the conflict by Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin and colleagues. It's a shameful mistake which the BBC must reverse.
Jon Barton
Former editor, Today and BBC1 Six O'Clock News, Watlington, Oxfordshire

I presume in a similar attempt to remain balanced, the British Red Cross website says its Gaza appeal is in response to the "desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza and Israel". I don't think it is appropriate for the BRC to refer to the situation in Israel as a "desperate humanitarian" one. It is not their job to appear politically balanced, it is their job to respond to humanitarian need. In Gaza the need is overwhelming; thousands have been injured, thousands more made homeless and many hospitals have been destroyed. The relatively few Israelis who have been injured have access to some of the best medical care in the world and a government in a position to rehouse them immediately. Striving to achieve balance in humanitarian aid to the detriment of need would be a grave development for the millions of civilians caught up in conflict around the world.
Isabel Phillips
Liverpool

Does the BBC really want us to ignore the cries of the children in Gaza, and are we now to seek BBC guidance in deciding what nationalities are to be treated like animals and which deserve our aid?
Jacqui McCarney
Norwich

Who's lobbying the BBC on this. Where are all the investigative journalists?
Cllr Karen Barratt
Winchester, Hampshire

And here's the government's position as reported in the Guardian, for what it's worth:

Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, yesterday rebuked Britain's broadcasters for refusing to air an emergency appeal for Gaza by Britain's Disasters Emergency Committee.

In a letter to the BBC, Sky and ITV, Alexander expressed his "disappointment" that the appeal would not be broadcast.

The BBC refused to broadcast the humanitarian appeal for Gaza on the grounds that it did not want to risk public confidence in its impartiality.

The decision meant that other broadcasters also refused to air the appeal by the committee, the umbrella group for 13 aid charities.

A BBC spokesperson said: "The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

This is so freaky. The BBC has actually offered two excuses for what amounts to an act on the Palestinians on behalf of Israel and neither reason connects with the other. They could be saying that the deliverers of aid might be in danger in which case they are accusing Israel of endangering civilians. On the other hand they are saying that if they broadcast the extent of need in Gaza they will inadvertently expose the fact that Israel has been targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Now some good might come of this. The Beeb has been exposed as colluding in Israel's war on the Palestinians. That's good news. Even the UK government is embarrassed about this. That's good news too. The brouhaha has drawn as much attention to the aid agencies as the broadcast might have and, given the government's intervention, the broadcast might still be shown. That would be doubly good news. And since this story has taken on a life of its own, the BBC's website is now carrying a story about the planned protest against itself later today.

UK government complains against BBC's role in Israel's war effort

I just got an email from the Stop the War Coalition saying, "Government complains to BBC for blocking Gaza appeal". The only back up for the claim is this one line:

Stop the War understands that the government has contacted the BBC to complain about its decision to refuse the broadcasting of a humanitarian appeal for Gaza.

Now if this is true, this backs up what I was saying earlier about Israel's Sharpeville. As it happens, the Electronic Intifada said the same thing about the assault on Gaza. And now a government whose leader, Gordon Brown, is an honorary patron of the zionist organisation, the Jewish National Fund has complained to the BBC for helping Israel starve the Palestinians.

Demonstrate against the BBC

Demonstration For Gaza: Saturday 24 January

Written by Stop the War Admin

Friday, 16 January 2009

Click to download leaflet End The Blockade: Stop Arms Sales To Israel: Bring The War Criminals To Justice: Free Palestine Assemble 2pm, BBC Broadcasting House Portland Place, London, W1A 1AA (Nearest Tube Regents Park and Great Portland Place) March to Trafalgar Square via Downing Street Click here for coaches to protest Called by Stop the War Coalition, PSC and British Muslim Association