Facing the pressure in Great Britain

Jewish culture & religion - Talk Politics Mideast

And this is just England
by annie on May 31, 2011
Like 1 Retweet 1

Following a major study on television coverage of the Second Intifada
by Glasgow University Media Group, several journalists from the BBC
continued to stay in touch with the media group. Greg Philo, research
director of the group reports in the Guardian Israel's PR victory
shames news broadcasters: "The propaganda battle over the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict has reached a new level of intensity."

Since then we have been contacted by many journalists, especially from
the BBC, and told of the intense pressures they are under that limit
criticism of Israel. They asked us to raise the issue in public
because they can't. They speak of "waiting in fear for the phone call
from the Israelis" (meaning the embassy or higher), of the BBC's
Jerusalem bureau having been "leant on by the Americans", of being
"guilty of self-censorship" and of "urgently needing an external
arbiter". Yet the public response of the BBC is to avoid reporting our
latest findings. Those in control have the power to say what is not
going to be the news.
Exposing a "relentless" barrage of coordinated messaging from Israel
endured by broadcasters and journalist alike, the toll it has taken on
both the coverage and  public impression of the conflict is

In a new project , we have analysed more than 4,000 lines of text from
the main UK news bulletins of the attack, but there was no coverage in
these of the killing by the Israelis of more than 1,000 Palestinians,
including hundreds of children, in the three years before it. In the
TV news coverage, Israeli statements on the causes of action
overwhelmed those of the Palestinians by more than three to one.
Palestinian statements tended to be only that they would seek revenge
on Israel. The underlying reasons for the conflict were absent, such
as being driven from their homes and land when Israel was
created.......We interviewed audience groups and found the gaps in
their knowledge closely paralleled absences in the news. A majority
believed Palestinians broke the ceasefire that existed before the
December attack and did not know Israel had attacked Gaza during it,
in November 2008, killing six Palestinians. Members of the public
expressed sorrow for the plight of Palestinians but, because of the
Israeli message so firmly carried by TV, they thought the Palestinians
had somehow brought it on themselves. As one put it: "When I saw the
pictures of the dead children it was dreadful, I was in tears but it
didn't make me feel that the Palestinians and Hamas were right … I
think the Palestinians haven't taken the chance to work towards a
peaceful solution. Hamas called an end to the last ceasefire." This
participant was surprised to hear Hamas was reported to have said it
would have stopped the rockets if Israel had agreed to lift its
economic siege. The source was Ephraim Halevy, former head of the
Mossad intelligence service.
(my bold)

We have to keep the pressure up, this is a crucial period. I am
reminded of the thrill I experienced the other night reviewing the
amazing evening Blueprint for Accountability when Naomi Klein called
Mondoweiss a 'lifeline' (@ 28 minutes). This is what the internet
means to Palestine and Israel. This is what we mean for justice and
freedom, all of us. We have to keep the pressure up because we can win
this. They can't fool everyone forever and it is up to us to balance
out this constant onslaught of propaganda by exposing the truth.

(hat tip seafoid)
You can get quite a lot of Jew-haters into 4 paragraphs.

But why would anyone sane want to?
Address the issue, Ariadne. If Jews are hated, ask yourself why that
is. And especially when you, yourself, are being a bloody nuisance as
you are here, ask yourself why it isn't perfectly natural for others
to dislike it, and you for indulging it.
Replace "Jews" with "Blacks" and we get a perfect KKK post.
According to KKK belief system the Blacks are hated because
they are so bad and therefore they deserve that hate.

Most people are smart enough not to talk that way when
they are not in the KKK club house. But going after the
Jews is just fine, especially between Liberals and Socialists.
Those idiots still can't understand Martin Niemoller old quote:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Say, H, deb "addressed the issue" - why don't you at least reply to
her? Let her know just who is in control.
H addressed responded in his usual fashion, whenever he finds himself
confronted -- which is to say, confounded -- by facts. He regressed to
fifth grade, and spouted nothing in particular (excepting his initial
attempt to sound like Yoda), to-wite:

"Utterly defeated she is. One struggles to find in her interventions
here anything at all but this sort of defamation. Her innards are
black as coal. She hasn't the morals of an alley cat."

Naturally, the response is wholly unsuited to the post. But nu, what
else is new?

Oh please, he was just venting to that excrement-obsessed dullard
lastperm. He lacked the balls to reply to you.

Um, I could be wrong, but I believe "but nu" is redundant.
Relying on Greg Philo and his lot for facts on Israel is like basing a
study of Jewish history solely on  Goebbels and Eichmann.

Reviewing Philo's book on Israel and the Palestine Arabs, The (London)
“Bad News from Israel”—the work of a group of academics at Glasgow
University—is a pretty dismal production. And what a waste of its
producers' time and effort. After reviewing more than 200 British
television-news programmes and questioning more than 800 people, the
researchers conclude by means of content analysis and focus groups
that the Israeli point of view is over-represented and that viewers
are being denied a full account of the history of the conflict.

"However, massive quantification counts for nothing if the research
method is flawed. The method of this book is to label as “pro-Israeli”
any piece of reportage that does not conform to the particular anti-
Israeli narrative of the researchers from Glasgow. It...is taken for
granted that the present intifada is a war of liberation against a
brutal and illegal occupation, and that any journalist who fails to
hit the audience over the head with this point of view at every
opportunity is falling down on the job. It is pro-Israeli bias, for
example, to use the word “terrorism” to describe the indiscriminate
slaughter of civilians at bus stops. Read something else."
The Economist, "The long fall from grace", 31 July 2004

Philo's book IS "a pretty dismal production." In the first 80 or so
pages -- which form the basis for what ensues -- Philo and Berry
essentially rewrite history. On the first page, they declare that
assert that European religious Zionists, such as Rabbis Yehuda Alkalai
and Zvi Hirsh Kalisher, viewed the return to Zion as "a necessary
prelude to the Redemption and the second coming of the
Messiah." (Jews, waiting for "the second coming of the Messiah"???)
They claim to quote HM Sachar's "History of Israel" on this, but their
claim is false.

Also false is their tagging as racism early Zionist attempts to use
Jewish, rather than Arab, labour. They omit the reason that a tenet of
Labour Zionism was hard physical labour in the field, the only way
Jews could return to the land. Later, Philo criticises Jews for
employing Arabs, rather than Jews, to work the land.

Philo goes on the rewrite the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence as
"British assurances of Arab independence," and Britain's "pledge" of
it. He doubts, however, the validity of the Balfour Declaration to the
Zionists. Unnamed "members of the British establishment" -- whatever
that means -- believed that the promises to Jews in the Balfour
Declaration "were directly violating the terms of the mandate." (Come
again?) If Philo was aware that the Declaration was issued in 1917,
while the Articles were finalized in 1922 -- or that the terms of
Balfour were repeated in the Articles -- then he's at wondrous pains
to conceal it.

And it's rather surprising to read that, according to Philo, the man
who "led the Arab League" in 1948 was none other than the field
commander of the aysh al-Inqadh al-Arabi gang -- Fawzi
al-"kawakji" [Qawuqji].

Along with loads of errors.

Or sober. But never underestimate the capacity of sonei Yisrael for

Not to mention the utterly ridiculous insinuation that ZioNazis
have any influence on the mass media.
Utterly defeated she is. One struggles to find in her interventions
here anything at all but this sort of defamation. Her innards are
black as coal. She hasn't the morals of an alley cat.
Greg Philo is the research director of Glasgow University Media Unit"
Eichmann was SS-Hauptsturmführer of the Reich's Zentralstelle für
jüdische Auswanderung. So what?

You can get quite a lot of jews into an oven.

Why would anyone sane not want to?
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
Psychosis out of control again, you frustrated housebound sexual cripple?
Let me guess: you weren't out of the house ALL DAY LONG, AGAIN, right? LOL
Save it shitbag, the journalists are getting tired of ZioNazi media
And more tired of the lying claims that it doesn't exist.