Oh va voy!
/WARNING: Anti-Semitic post ahead (that is to say, anti-Semitic in the sense that it dares to criticise the thuggish, criminal and terrorist state of Israel)
Harry’s Place: Jeremy Bowen guilty of breaking guidelines on inaccuracy and impartiality
Here is a view from a man known for writing something of a little more substance than biographies of Amy Winehouse and Paris Hilton and a handbook for Arsenal FC.
Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?
The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest...The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".
Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust – and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop – says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook – under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement– said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa – not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim – shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen...
Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own?
Harry’s Place: Jeremy Bowen guilty of breaking guidelines on inaccuracy and impartiality
The Zionist Federation said in response to today’s news: “Mr Bowen’s position as Middle East Editor of a public service broadcaster is untenable in the light of the ESC’s findings.”A response from The ZIONIST Federation! Included with not a hint of irony. This was a guest post from Chas Newkey-Burden a non- Jewish writer and journalist accused by Private Eye of posting positive reviews of his books on Amazon. Being a journalist we can be sure that he takes a measured and objective view of the behaviour of the State of Israel. After all, look at his website header:
Here is a view from a man known for writing something of a little more substance than biographies of Amy Winehouse and Paris Hilton and a handbook for Arsenal FC.
Robert Fisk: How can you trust the cowardly BBC?
The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest...The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".
Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust – and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop – says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook – under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement– said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa – not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim – shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen...
Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own?
