BBC winds up 'Toad Hall'

Toad Hall said...
Really fricking winds me up that the BBC insist on calling GAZA 'rebel's.

Gaza is a prison camp.  They can't travel.  They can't export.  They're not allowed an army or military.

Unless you expect them to just lie down and die of course, they'll defend themselves.

To call them rebels and terrorists is just Zionist propaganda which is used to justify their war crimes.

The fact that the BBC tow the line winds me up.

Lets revisit the briliant Dispatches documentary about the power of Israeli lobbies

It's mentioned in their several times that the BBC just don't want to upset the Israeli lobby because it cause s a barrage of abuse and complaints.

They are the bullies!

Yet, you have parlimentary commitites like this

That make out that there is a growing level of anti semitism in the UK, always trying to build up the belief that the Jewish and in particular Israeli community are under siege and attack. They are the vicitims.

It is straight out of Machaveli create the illusion that you are the victim and then you cannot be seen as the aggressor, your aggression is self defence.
Toad Hall said...
Here, this explains better than I:

Dear BBC,
I am writing to complain about you coverage of the ongoing violence in Israel/Palestine. I am sure that you get many such complaints. Much of this, I suspect, focuses on the balance of your reporting. I am not going to do that. Whilst my impression is that you seem much more likely to cover injury of Israelis than of Palestinians, it would require some time and a comprehensive study for me to establish if my impression was an accurate one.
Instead, I would like to focus on your use of one word: militant. It is a word which you seem to use often in your coverage. It is a word which implies aggression, combined with a radical political stance.
A typical use of the word is found here:
“Palestinian militants have continued to fire rockets at Israeli cities: by Thursday night, Hamas said it had fired more than 350 rockets from Gaza, of which Israel said 130 had been intercepted by its Iron Dome missile defence system.”
So, in this case, it is clear that when you refer to ‘militants’, you mean Hamas.
Hamas is the government of the Gaza strip. They are the government because they were elected on a strong security platform, promising to protect their people against an invading power – even if that meant deploying arms to do so. So when you call these people “militants”, you are making an active choice to refer to them as such, rather than by their official title “the government”.
The Israeli government is led by Likud – as it has been for the majority of the time since the late 1970s. They too were elected by their people on a strong security platform – more than happy to deploy arms against Palestinian people. Over the years, the Israeli government has breached 33 UN Security council resolutions.
Yet whilst one hawkish, over-violent government is referred to consistently as ‘the administration’, or ‘the government’, the other is referred to as ‘militants’. Perhaps you could point me to the piece of BBC policy which defines when an elected government is ‘militant’ and when it is ‘a government’? Clearly it isn’t when they use violence. Clearly it isn’t when they breach international law.

Now, were I a citizen of either country, I like to think I would have voted for parties who were less hawkish than either. Were Britain under siege – as Gaza is – were our country surrounded by a foreign power who had already taken most of our land, I like to think that I would remain relatively pacifist. But I am certain that it is not those who took up arms who would be seen as radicals, as militants. I am certain that it is me who would be so labelled. I know this because it is what history tells us.
There is only one analogy we can draw on in our recent national history in order to answer the question “how would the people of Britain behave if we faced the threat of having our land taken from us?”. It is a somewhat hackney comparison, and it’s summed up in this speech, with which I suspect you are familiar:
I assume that when we gave this man an official state funeral, the BBC described him as a prominent militant?
TAP - Churchill (illegitimate son of Edward 7th) was a charlatan (another paedophile just like all the other traitors) who conspired with his Zionist partners/backers to end The British Empire, and spread communism across the world.  The British were led by the Zionists in the background to destroy themselves, just as the Palestinians are hoodwinked by Hamas, which was set up Mossad/Zionists to take over from the PLO, and lead Palestine to disaster, while helping WW3 to enable World Government.

Toad Hall adds -

Also see:

"Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism" Tzipi Livnis Father was a Terrorist" Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.

During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

"My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

He accused the Israeli government of seeking "conquest" and added: "

They are not simply war criminals, they are fools."

TAP - Is Kaufman waking up to Zionist Rothschild warmongering?  Does he know that Zionists control Hamas as well as the current Israeli government?  Hamas is the only game in town, he says.       Palestinians will eventually outnumber Israelis in Israel, he says.

The State of Israel was created to make a future war inevitable, by the Zionists.  They planned WW2 and made it inevitable at the end of WW1.  Same now with Palestine.  It's the bankers' ticket to WW3, manufactured carefully during WW2 (and before).  Kaufman needs to address the underlying power issues, and reasons why war keeps happening.  The Rothschild Zionists carefully plan their wars decades in advance.