Andrew Neil's BBC’s Sunday Politics Show is Devoted to Proving Labour ‘anti-Semitism’

Ironically a Programme Devoted to ‘anti-Semitism’ is itself anti-Semitic as Neil talks of the ‘Jewish’ Vote

Andrew Neil - the BBC's Conservative Interviewer who failed to critically question John Mann MP at any stage

It was a show which began with a question from its presenter Andrew Neil: 

John Mann - The non-Jewish MP who makes a good living out of 'anti-Semitism' - Mann believes he has the right to accuse Jewish opponents of Zionism and Israeli racism of 'anti-Semitism'

‘Now does Labour have a problem dealing with allegations of anti-Semitism?'

Having asked the question, Neil immediately assumed that the question was ‘yes’ and he proceeded accordingly,

James Schneider of Momentum was allowed 25 seconds to oppose Neil's argument - a mere 16 times less than his opponents

Andrew Neil is a devoted Tory.  He is a former editor of Murdoch’s Sunday Times for 11 years, the right-wing Spectator as well as a former member of the Conservative club at Glasgow University and a research assistant for the Conservative Party.  In other words he is a died in the wool Tory and, as is natural these days, with Tories, a Zionist supporter to the tips of his socks, as are the overwhelming majority of Tories.

Gerry Downing of the tiny 'Trotskyist' group Socialist Fight who has been played like a violin by the Right for indulging in anti-Semitic theories of Jewish capitalists controlling foreign policy

It was therefore a bit too much to expect neutrality from Neil on March 3^rd when the Sunday Politics show which he presents examined the question of ‘Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.’

John Mann MP the right-wing windbag and friend of racists 

What followed was a non-stop propaganda broadcast for the Zionist Federation and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  The transcript for the programme can be found here.

I covered the episode shortly after it was broadcast.   The broadcast can be seen on i-player.

Under cross-examination in an Employment Tribunal Mann fell to pieces - he was unable to explain what the anti-semitism was that he complained of and characterised any boycott of Israel as 'anti-Semitic'

The tone of the programme was set by the voice over which asked:
‘Does Jeremy Corbyn support 4 causes like the Palestinians or Stop the War mean he’s not tough enough when there are allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour.’

Jeremy Newmark - Chair of the 'Jewish Labour Movement' i.e. the overseas wing of the racist Israeli Labour Party was branded a liar by the employment tribunal in Fraser v UCU

There was no explanation why supporting the Palestinians should mean hostility to Jews and even less reason to suppose that opposition to war means anti-Semitism, unless it is being suggested that Jews are war-like.  Itself an anti-Semitic assumption.

The Tribunal brands Jeremy Newmark a liar and is extremely critical of Mann, who 'enjoyed making speeches' but 'eschewed the opportunity to locate it (anti-Semitism) for us.'

We then had a reference to two alleged incidents of ‘anti-Semitism’ at Oxford University Labour Club which had supported Israel Apartheid Week and whose Zionist activist Chair Alex Chalmers had walked out and at the LSE where a Labour club candidate for an election had talked about Zionists wanting to take over the student union and make it right-wing again.  Neither of these seem to have anything to do with hatred of Jews either.

Wes Streeting - the mediocre far-right Labour MP

There then followed an interview with the bonkers Gerry Downing of Socialist Fight who believes that Zionist or Jewish capitalists, he doesn’t seem to distinguish between them, are responsible for the West’s support for Israel.  An anti-Semitic theory without doubt but is hardly proof that the Labour Party is anti-Semitic.

Wes Streeting, a particularly unpleasant right-wing Labour MP, who would feel equally at home in the Conservative Party, was given 45 seconds for an uninterrupted tirade which tied in Downing with the anti-war left which he said was not ‘so much stop the war as stop the West, people who seem to hate their country more than they hate the people who attack us.’  I must confess I wasn’t aware Britain was under attack.  The ISIS attacks in Paris and Brussels can be directly traced back to the American and British invasion of Iraq.  ISIS was born out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that was unknown before the 2003 invasion. 

There then followed a 25 second response from James Schneider, a Momentum supporter defending Jeremy Corbyn but not saying very much else. 

It was then the turn of John Mann, the Zionist MP and Chair of the so-called Parliamentary Anti-Semitism Committee, who is of the opinion that those who support a boycott of Israel are inherently and automatically anti-Semitic.  He was given 6 minutes and 4 seconds.  In other words those arguing that the LP was saturated with anti-Semitism had a mere 16 times as much time as the person who defended Corbyn.  Schneider didn’t even tackle the question of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, because he didn’t have any time.  The idea of having someone directly confront John Mann is obviously an alien concept to the BBC and Andrew Neil.

In my previous post I described Neil’s questions as ‘softball questions’.  In fact even that underplays the fact that they were really an attempt to encourage Mann to even greater heights of vacuous rhetoric.  Mann’s message, which he was allowed to repeat ad nauseum is that anti-Semitism is a big problem in the Labour Party and Corbyn is doing nothing about it.  What he wasn’t asked, at any stage, was the slightest bit of evidence to support his arguments. 

Neil asked 6 questions:

The first question was to ask is there a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.  An interviewer with any scruples or sense of balance of fairness would have asked ‘Why do you say there is an anti-Semitism problem… ‘ or ‘what is the evidence for your assertion that…’

Unsurprisingly Mann waffled and engaged in empty  rhetoric but provided not a scrap of evidence for his assertion.  But Neil was anxious to help Mann develop his argument.

The second question was no better.  It assumed there was a problem of anti-Semitism. Why has it come back and his third question simply focussed the question, why in the Labour Party.  Again no challenge to the central thesis.

Neil’s next question shows exactly where this Murdoch hack is coming from.  He refers to Corbyn’s ‘friends in Hamas and Hezbollah’ which is a repetition of the lies that were told in the summer.  Corbyn chaired a meeting at which he referred to the speakers as ‘friends’ in a general and polite sense.  That was all.  They weren’t his personal friends.

Neil then suggests that Corbyn shares platforms with people hostile to Israel and whether that is anti-Semitic.  Notice the sleight of hand.  Hostility to the Zionist state is therefore anti-Semitic.

His fifth question was no different.  Are you doing enough about this – there’s no pretence as to whether or not ‘this’ is actually happening.

But it was Neil’s 6^th question which is the beauty.  Irony of irony – having paid homage to the idea that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, Andrew Neil demonstrates that the only problem with anti-Semitism lies with people like himself.  He asks about that old canard, the ‘Jewish vote’ as if there is a block Jewish vote to begin with.

If Neil had bothered to get the programme assistants to do a bit of background research they could have done worse than read Geoffrey Alderman’s book of 35 years ago ‘The Jewish Community in British Politics’ which showed conclusively that, even then, the Jewish community predominantly voted Conservative because Jews had risen socio-economically up the ladder.  There is no reason to believe that Jewish people vote Tory because of anti-Zionism.  His statements that ‘Historically JM the Labour Party has done well from the Jewish vote,  The Jewish vote over time has tended to vote Labour.’ is simply untrue.

Alderman showed that even in the 1970's there was a significant number of Jews voting for the racist and fascist National Front, even though they were anti-Semitic and denied the holocaust, because their racism was directed at Black people.  Since the 1950’s as Jews have become progressively better off, having moved from the East End to the suburbs, their voting patterns have switched from Labour to Tory.

We have a non-Jew John Mann MP, who travels the world and makes a good living out of ‘anti-Semitism’ telling Jewish opponents of Israel, people who follow the prophetic tradition of opposing injustice whoever commits it, that they are anti-Semitic!  The word ‘chutzpah’ comes to mind.  But that is understandable because the most enthusiastic Zionists have always been non-Jewish reactionaries and imperialists.

We should not forget however that even by normal political standards, John Mann is a particularly dishonest and disingenuous politician who wouldn’t know what the truth is if it bit him in his thinking parts.  The employment tribunal in Fraser v University College Union got the measure of this windbag who likes the sound of his own voice.

John Mann MP was a good friend of the former Labour Minister Phil Woollas, a racist MP who was disqualified by an electoral court  because of the lies he told about his Lib-Dem political opponent.  He deliberately tried to stir up what his associates called the ‘white vote’ portraying caricatures of Muslims on his leaflets as jihadists and himself as the dam holding back the barbarian tide.  By their friends shall he know them.

This is one more example of BBC Bias at its Best. 

Below is the Appeal I sent to the BBC on April 8th.

Reference CAS-3747932-2H1W9P

In your response to my complaint you said you hoped that your reply would go some way to allaying my concerns.  Rest assured that it did not.

The BBC’s complaint system has a reputation for a knee jerk defence of its presenters.  In this case you have exceeded even your own abysmal standards.

i.           I complained that although the subject of the programme was whether Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party had a problem with anti-Semitism, not once did you probe or question whether this was true.  The interviewers & Andrew Neil, assumed the very question that was the subject of the programme, i.e. whether there was anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and on the left. 

ii.          You state that the programme was an ‘analysis of whether or not the Labour Party has problems with anti-Semitism… (and) if there were problems of anti-Semitism in the Left.’  Unfortunately it wasn’t an analysis.  No evidence was presented at any stage of the programme.

iii.         The vast majority of the programme consisted of a monologue by MPs John Mann and Wes Streeting, both of whom were convinced of the prevalence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, backed up by the interviewer Andrew Neil.  Yet there was no evidence produced whatsoever.  All we had was assertion and in Mann’s case a generalised anecdote. 

iv.        One indication of bias was that there was a fleeting appearance by James Schneider, a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn for 25 seconds.  Contrast this with the 45 seconds for Streeting and the 6 minutes and 4 seconds devoted to Mann.

v.         At no point did Neil challenge what Mann said, he merely asked him to clarify and expand on his points.  John Mann should have been treated vigorously and subject to cross-examination, instead Neil’s questioning took his statements for granted and developed them.

vi.        John Mann is a discredited witness.  When he gave evidence as a witness at the Fraser v University College Union employment tribunal in 2012 [Case No:  2203290/2011].  The Tribunal  found that

‘The parliamentarians did not provide any detail and did not genuinely respond to that inquiry [by the UCU] at all. Mr Mann led for them and the more conciliatory tone of Dr MacShane gave way to a somewhat hostile display in which Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way…. He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic.’ [para. 84]

‘He [John Mann] told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently…. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking. [Para. 148]

vii.       John Mann was tested under cross-examination in the Employment Tribunal.  He was not tested at all by Andrew Neil because Neil shared Mann’s prejudices.  At no stage were there any probative questioning which would have tested Mann’s arguments.  I shall explain. 

a.      Neil’s first question was ‘Why has it [anti-Semitism] come back?  The obvious question to have asked would have been to challenge if anti-Semitism had come back, where’s the evidence etc.

b.      Neils second question was ‘But why in the LP has it come back?’  This question too did not question the underlying assumption.

c.      The third question showed where the prejudices of Neil lay.  He asked: ‘Well is the Labour leader doing enough?  The fact that he’s talked about his friends in Hamas and Hezbollah and shared platforms with people who are very hostile to Israel and so on.  Is that a disadvantage.  Is that encouraging anti-Semitism or is it not relevant.’ 

Note how Neil refers to Hamas and Hezbollah, who have after all been elected by their respective constituencies, as ‘his friends’ thus completely distorting Corbyn’s use of the term ‘friends’ which was a general reference in the context of a public meeting he was chairing with Hamas and Hezbollah speakers.  In other words a complete distortion.

Note also how Neil links people who are hostile to Israel (whatever that means) to ‘encouraging anti-Semitism’ thus your point about ‘It wasn’t a look at the Israel/Palestine situation’ is invalid because the comparison was made by Neil as interviewer.

d.      Neil’s 4th question asks, in the context of the inquiry into Oxford university Labour Club ‘But is your party doing enough about this?  Because I understand that these inquiries may be subsumed into a much bigger enquiry bullying and so on.’  What Neil never does is to query the ‘this’ – all Neil’s questions assume that the allegations of anti-Semitism are correct.  Not once does Neil question the basic premise.

e.      Neil’s next question was a gem.  He asks ‘Historically the Labour Party has done well from the Jewish vote,  The Jewish vote ov’er time has tended to vote Labour.  If this anti-Semitism continues in your party are you in danger of losing the Jewish vote.’  It is priceless because in the course of asking a question about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party, Neil indulges in one of the worst anti-Semitic tropes himself!  Priceless.  The suggestion of a Jewish vote is on a par with the suggestion of ‘Jewish money’ and the hidden hand of Judah.  The idea that Jews vote according to Jewish interests.   Even John Mann ignores Neil’s idiocy.

f.       Even by the biased and bigoted standards of the BBC this interview has set  new standards.  At no time did Andrew Neil even once challenge the basic assumptions of John Mann.  Instead the advocates of the idea that anti-Semitism is a major problem in the Labour Party had approximately 16 times more time than the spokesman for Momentum.  I ignore the idiocy of Gerry Downing.

g.      By way of distraction your response to my complaint said that ‘The item did not suggest that Jeremy Corbyn was “racist”.  Neither did my complaint suggest this.  However by your presenter suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn tolerates anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, he went a long way to suggesting exactly this.

Unsurprisingly I therefore want to appeal.

Tony Greenstein

The reply below which I received to the above complaint  naturally did not deal with my complaint  - it ludicrously says that it 'wasn't a look at the Israel/Palestine situation' despite the question from Neil which covered just that

Dear Mr Greenstein

Reference CAS-3747932-2H1W9P

Thanks for getting in touch and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying.
The 13 March edition of ‘Sunday Politics’ specifically looked at allegations of anti-Semitism amongst some Labour student members at specific universities. This was an analysis of whether or not the Labour Party has problems with anti-Semitism, and looking at if there were problems of anti-Semitism in the Left. It wasn’t a look at the Israel/Palestine situation, and we did not conflate the actions of Israel with all Jewish people.

The item did not suggest that Jeremy Corbyn was “racist”. A representative from Momentum, James Schneider, was included in the item. We hear him say that Corbyn is attacked for his long-standing commitment to anti-war, anti-imperialism, peace in the Middle East, before adding that “he does absolutely condemn anti-Semitism...there is not a shred of anti-Semitism in his personal make-up”. He robustly said that Mr Corbyn condemns anti-Semitism, and is not at all anti-Semitic.

While we hope this goes some way to allaying your concerns, we’d thank you for going to the trouble to let us know your thoughts on this. Your feedback is valued. Your comments have been sent to the right people.

Kind regards

Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

BBC Forced to Accept that Once Again, John Humphrys & Today are Biased on Palestine

BBC Radio 4 report on Israel breached accuracy guidelines 

Guardian 8^th December 2015

On Radio 4’s flagship programme, Today, on the 19th October, there was a short 3 minute exchange between John Humphrys, the presenter and Kevin Connolly, the BBC’s Middle East correspondent.  Even by the BBC’s shoddy standards, the banter between them was shocking in its ignorance and bias.  I was one of a number of people who wrote in to complain.  The complaint has been upheld in one part, the most indefensible part, but my complaint was far wider than the grounds on which the BBC have conceded:

Danny Cohen - Director of BBC Television Signed Letter Opposing Cultural Boycott of Israel

The BBC conceded that its reference to 50 dead , in the context of reference having been made only to Israelis, would lead to the obvious and inexorable inference that the only people who had been killed were Israeli Jews, whereas, of course it was mostly Palestinians who were dead.   But this was just one element of the exchange between John Humphrys [JH] and Kevin Connolly [KC].

Brighton PSC Demonstration outside local BBC Radio Sussex 

In its provisional findings there was no comment on or mention even of the bulk of my complaint:

i.               The Humphrys-Connolly [HC] banter took place in the context of an assumption that Israel’s Occupation was completely normal, that the Palestinian response was abnormal and that the problem was one of criminality, that it was a law and order situation in an otherwise normal situation.  The Palestinians, of course, being the criminals.  There was no suggestion that the violence that was occurring might have something to do with racism, oppression and occupation.

1. It is as if, during WW2 there was a wave of shootings and stabbings of Nazi police or soldiers or German civilians in Paris and the BBC reported that the cause was unknown and that the Nazi authorities were at their wits end to know what to do!  And with John Humphries remarking 'its 50 now, the Nazi authorities are at a loss Kevin to know what to do.'  Absurd but that is what the idiot Humphrys was doing.

Brighton PSC Demonstration outside local BBC Radio Sussex

ii.             KC reported the killing of an Israeli soldier at Beersheva bus station, whilst omitting to mention that immediately afterwards there took place the lynch-mob killing of an Eritrean refugee, who was first shot by security guards and then kicked and beaten to death by a mob of Israelis, including security personnel.  The refugee beaten to death had nothing to do with the killing of the soldier.  It was reported widely by the Israeli and international press but the BBC chose to keep silent.

Humphries at work defending Israel

iii.           KC stated that ‘'individuals are taking the decision to stage these attacks for reasons which we are often left to guess at.’  If KC really doesn’t have any idea about the reasons for the attack then he would, as I suggested, be better suited to covering the Chelsea Flower Show.  The reasons for the upsurge in Palestinian violence are so obvious that they barely need stating.  The eviction of Palestinian families in Jerusalem to make way for settlers intent on Judaising the city.  The Occupation and all that goes with it from checkpoints to wanton and random killings. Settler violence and the confiscation of land.    Only an abysmall ignorant BBC correspondent, which is what KC is, could fail to understand the motivation behind the attacks.

I have also subsequently complained about the fact that the Controller of BBC Television, Danny Cohen, put his name to a letter ‘Israel needs cultural bridges, not boycotts in the Guardian of 22^nd October condemning the Cultural Boycott of Israel.   Apparently he only signed the letter in his personal capacity.  Nothing to do with heading BBC TV of course.

I also made another complaint relating to a raid by Israeli soldiers on Hebron’s hospital on 12^th November.  On the BBC website there was an article headlined: “Israelis shoot dead Palestinian in Hebron hospital raid.”

It was a straightforward headline which summed up the story. But soon a different headline appeared above the report, reading: “Israelis in disguise raid Hebronhospital, seizing suspect.” 

The emphasis had changed from the unprovoked murder of a hospital visitor to the Israeli’s pretext for staging the raid.  Just another, small, example of the BBC’s relentless bias.

John Humphry's - Zionist bias is notorious

Transcript 20.10.15. Today Programme 6.39 a.m.

Humphries – 21 minutes to 7 - Yet another attack on Israelis last night.  This time an Arab man with a gun and a knife killed a soldier & wounded 10 people.  The number is mounting, it’s about 50 now isn’t it? 

No mention that 40 of them Palestinians – including executions

Kevin Connolly: We think about 50 in the past month.  Sharp uptake of violence – Not just that attack in Beer Sheba inside Israel itself.  On Saturday a wave of stabbing attacks in Hebron & Jerusalem.  No sign that this wave of rising tension & rising casualties is going to abate.  The Israeli government frankly is casting about for a convincing answer because the nature of the acts of violence still appears to be random and spontaneous.  The decisions of individuals at a given moment to stage an attack are not the work of organised extremist groups. For that reason it’s been very tough to formulate a convincing security answer

Humphries It is not Intifada is it?

Kevin Connolly:        It’s a very difficult question part of the problem is that media organisations begin asking that question very early in these upsurges of violence.  Whatever we call it, it’s an extraordinarily difficult situation for the Israeli government to deal with because its own people look to it for security.  That very random and spontaneous nature of the attack has left many Israeli citizens feeling that any Palestinian passing them in the street might be carrying a knife, might be planning to attack them and any passing car might at any moment be used as a vehicle against Israeli civilian pedestrians. So although it’s not at all at the level of critical mass of violence that you would need to use the word Intifada, it doesn’t have the leadership perhaps that an Intifada might require it has achieved an extraordinary change in the atmosphere of daily life here, hence the political urgency for the Israeli government.

Humphries: There is talk of more powers for the Police to stop and search but that seems to be fairly inadequate in a way doesn’t it?

Kevin Connolly:  I think that is true.  They are reviving a plan which existed a few years ago to expand stop and search powers so the Police wouldn’t need reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed before they stopped and searched somebody. I think that was actually originally formulated to deal with a wave of night club stabbings.  So they have that on the books, they have erected a concrete screen between an Arab and Jewish area of Jerusalem, not far from where I’m talking to you, that also has a bit of an ad-hoc feeling to it and they also of course have armed reinforcements in the West Bank. You have Police reinforcements here in Jerusalem.   So they are doing what they can with visible security.  But you can’t get away from the fact that they are struggling with the nature of this upsurge of violence. And that’s also a problem for the politicians.  Because you will be having Benjamin Netanyahu meeting John Kerry later this week.  Probably Kerry also meeting Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.  So the big politics is beginning to kick in here.  But it’s hard to see where the connecting wheels are between those big political meetings and the fact that individuals are taking the decision to stage these attacks for reasons which we are often left to guess at.  Because the attackers often die in the course of the attack.

Humphries:  Kevin, many thanks. 

It’s 17 minutes to 7. 19^th October 2015

Grounds for Complaint by Tony Greenstein

My initial complaint, which was confined to 2,000 characters was thus:

Humphries interview with Kevin Connolly re violence in Israel.  Mentions 50 dead but not that 40 are Palestinians.  No mention mob violence against Palestinians or  murder of Fadi Alloun, chased by lynch mob, executed by Police. No background to events eg firebombing of Dawabshe family in Duma.  3 dead.  No prosecutions - culprits known.  No mention that West Bank is Occupied.  No mention of 'Death to Arabs' marches in Jerusalem.  And no mention of murder of Eritrean refugee last night though other reporters picked it up.  All of these are documented by video footage Connolly doesn't report.

Connolly says 'individuals are taking the decision to stage these attacks for reasons which we are often left to guess at.'  Let me see, what might be the reasons:

i.  An occupation for 48 years.  ii.  settler violence that is abetted by Military.  iii.   That this is not a question of law and order but one where the law is in the hands of one party which deprives the other party of basic human rights.  iv.   Israel is in breach of perpetual breach of international law.  vi. The attack by Police on the Al Aqsa mosque and the Temple Mount Institute and similar messianic groups which openly call for the Mosque's demolition, its replacement by 3rd Temple.  Groups r funded by Israeli gov.  Connolly mentioned Hebron, where violent settlers repeatedly attack Palestinian civilians.  No mention of death of Hadeek al-Hashlamon last month killed by army. 

In other words a complete lack of context

Needless to say, my initial complaint was rejected with a pro-forma response.  Likewise my follow-up was also rejected and I then submitted the following to the BBC’s Editorial Complaint Unit, the second rung of their torturous complaints procedure:

1^st November 2015

Reference CAS-3535889-VXORCY

To ecu@bbc.co.uk

Dear ECU,

I wish to appeal against the dismissal of the complaint which I submitted to you on 20^th October 2015 concerning John Humphries conversation with Kevin Connolly on the upsurge in violence in Israel.

My appeal in respect of your response is:

i.               The unnamed person who responded from Today is either hopelessly biased or is simply incapable of understanding the complaint.  S/he says:

‘Kevin was reporting on the security situation inside Israel. The attack at Beersheba bus station attack was the latest in a serious of attacks by Palestinians in Israel.’ 

This precisely sums up what my complaint is about.  What actually happened at the Beersheba bus station was not just an attack by a lone Palestinian but also the lynching of an Eritrean refugee.  KC failed to make even a cursory mention of the fact that an Eritrean refugee, guilty of nothing other than being in the despise category of refugee in Israel, (Israel doesn’t admit refugees as a matter of policy, they are called ‘infiltrators) was murdered.  Shot by a security guard and then kicked and beaten until he died.  Not one word of this lynching passed KC’s lips. 

By way of contrast the on-line version of Israel’s largest daily paper, Yediot Aharanot, on 18^th October, managed to include in its report both the killing of an Israeli soldier and the murder of a refugee.  Perhaps you could explain such an omission – bias or just ignorance? 

ii.             You say that ‘We talked about the attacks and the security measures being taken to counter them by Israel security agencies.’  That is indeed the problem.  It is just a security situation, what is happening is simply a matter of individual criminality.  There is no recognition that what is happening is a reaction, on an individual level, to a harsh military occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem, to say nothing of the nakedly racist treatment of Israel’s own Arab citizens.  It’s just a situation of law and order, so the BBC avoids all context.  It is a continuation of your bias against understanding.

iii.           The response to that part of my complaint relating to the suggestion that those who were killed were treated as being solely Israelis (i.e. Israeli Jews) is incomprehensible.  You simply deny what is plain and evident from the transcript.  Like Humpty Dumpty words mean what you want them to mean.

JH says:  “Yet another attack on Israelis last night” and you comment on this saying that ‘this was one of a number of similar attacks recently so I think that is fair.’   You then say that ‘The other exchange was;

JH : “The number is mounting now isn’t it Kevin. it’s about 50 now isn’t it?”

KC “we think around 50 dead over the last month or so in this sudden, sharp, uptick in violence”

You assert that ‘At no point did either John or Kevin say that it was solely Israelis dead in this period of violence.’

The reference by JH and KC was solely to Israelis and yet most of the dead were Palestinians.  So even at the most basic level it was wrong.  There was no mention of Palestinians other than as attackers.  Hence it would have been reasonable for viewers to conclude that the only people who were dead were Israeli Jews. 

Of course you could have mentioned the fact that there have been a number of attacks on Palestinians by Israeli Jews and even attacks by Jews on Jews, who were mistaken for Arabs.  These are dressed up as retaliations, for example the murder of Fadi Alloun.  For example the online news magazine +972 carries the video of his shooting plus an accompanying article. New video shows accused stabber posed nothreat when shot 

In Jerusalem there are regular attacks by Jewish mobs on individual Palestinians led by groups such as Lehava, which target Arabs in ‘Jewish’ areas.  Their favourite chant is ‘death to the Arabs’ [Mavet La’aravim]  But this phenomenon has never been reported on by the BBC.  Fadi Alloun is believed to have been targeted  by just such a group and executed by the Police who only asked questions afterwards.

There have been a number of other such shootings for example of an Arab woman in Afula bus shelter who it was later admitted had not been trying to stab anyone.  Israeli Arab Woman Shot in Bus Station Not a Terrorist, ConcludeSecurity Services   Of course since the BBC never seems to manage to report on such things they didn’t happen.  It’s a vicious circle which maintains the constant bias that you indulge in.

iv.           You said that

‘Kevin states that the most of the motives are unknown, because in the context of recent history, they are. This nature of these attacks, and the fact the attackers often die in the attacks mean they cannot be investigated, therefore the precise motivation is unknown. We think anyone listening to the piece will understand that Kevin was talking about why this form of violence is happening now. The wider causes and context of the Israel/Palestinian conflict are frequently discussed across the BBC.’

This is totally absurd.  It is as if you have compartmentalised the knife attacks and associated violence on the one hand and the Occupation on the other, ne’er the twain do they meet.  Are you really saying that it has never occurred to your correspondent in Israel, KC, that there might, just might, be a connection between the random violence of individual knife attacks and the fact of the Occupation?  Does he not consider that the daily ritual humiliations of being harassed by the security forces, stopped at check points, subject to random violence by unaccountable border police, living in an uncertain situation where land confiscation takes place all around you, where your residency rights in Jerusalem can be withdrawn at a moments notice etc. etc. might just have some connection with the violence that arose?  If KC really does not appreciate these things, perhaps you might consider transferring him to report on the Chelsea Flower Show?

v.             You talk about how ‘this subject inspires real passion on both sides’.  That is a convenient way of dismissing a complaint but my concern is not passion but accuracy or the lack of it and now dissembling by the Today team.

vi.           You also state that ‘we remain committed to impartial reporting on all controversial issues’.  RT and Al Jazeera have reported tonight on the attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese journalists by the Israeli para military Border Police.  Nothing on BBC.  No doubt if Israeli journalists were being attacked in an Arab country, it would be headline news.  Bias by omission is another facet of your coverage.  Your commitment to reporting on all controversial issues is therefore just a pious statement of intent rather than an established practice.

I also note the  signing of a letter in the Guardian last week by Danny Cohen, the Director of BBC Television.  This no doubt is another example of your commitment to impartiality.

I therefore do not find your handling to date of the complaint as satisfactory.

Yours faithfully,

Tony Greenstein

On 2^nd December Fraser Steel, head of Editorial Complaints responded thus:

Dear Mr Greenstein

Today, Radio 4, 19 October 2015

I’m writing to let you know the provisional outcome of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into your complaint about the above programme.

You expressed concern about an exchange between John Humphrys and Kevin Connolly on the deaths arising from recent violence in Israel and the West Bank:

JH: Yet another attack on Israelis last night – this time an Arab man armed with a gun and a knife killed a soldier and wounded ten people. Our Middle East correspondent is Kevin Connolly. The number is mounting, isn’t it Kevin? It's about fifty now, isn’t it?

KC: We think about fifty dead over the last month or so, John – this sharp uptick of violence – not just that attack on the bus station in Beersheba, in Israeli itself but also on Saturday a wave of stabbing attacks in Hebron and Jerusalem.

I have no doubt that “about fifty” was intended to refer to the total number of deaths in the “sharp uptick of violence” which lay behind the story. However, in the context of a discussion of violence initiated by Palestinians, and in the absence of clarification on the point, I think the natural inference for listeners was that it referred to the number of Israeli dead – which, in view of the actual incidence of mortality, would have been misleading.

To that extent, the report did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards regarding accuracy and I am proposing to uphold this part of your complaint. As you know from Richard Hutt’s earlier email, however, our remit prevents us from investigating your more general concerns about the BBC’s coverage, including stories you believe the BBC ought to have reported on – or reported on differently. Decisions about what material to cover, or what aspects of a story to focus on at a particular time, fall under the legitimate exercise of editorial judgement on the part of programme-makers.

This is a provisional finding, and I’ll be happy to consider any comments you may wish to make so long as you can let me have them by 16 December. Meanwhile, I’d like to thank you for giving us the opportunity of investigating your concerns, and I hope you’ll accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the breach of editorial standards which you identified.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel

Head of Editorial Complaints

Although partially upholding the complaint, Fraser Steel manages to avoid the meat of the complaint.  I therefore submitted a response to these provisional findings:

Reference CAS-3535889-VX0RCY

Dear Mr Steel,

Thank you for your email of 2^nd December 2015.

I am pleased to accept your decision relating to the upholding of that part of my complaint which related to the failure to mention that some 40 of the 50 people who had died recently in Israel had been Palestinians not Israeli Jews. 

I do however wish to refer back to you two sections of my complaints which you did not deal with in your letter in addition to considering the overall point I made relating to systematic and institutional bias which lies behind individual complaints such as mine. 

The first section I am referring back relates to Anna Sweeney’s previous finding that:

1.             ‘Kevin was reporting on the security situation inside Israel. The attack at Beersheba bus station attack was the latest in a serious of attacks by Palestinians in Israel.’ 

I responded that:

‘This precisely sums up what my complaint is about.  What actually happened at the Beersheba bus station was not just an attack by a lone Palestinian but also the lynching of an Eritrean refugee.  KC failed to make even a cursory mention of the fact that an Eritrean refugee, guilty of nothing other than being in the despise category of refugee in Israel, (Israel doesn’t admit refugees as a matter of policy, they are called ‘infiltrators) was murdered.  Shot by a security guard and then kicked and beaten until he died.  Not one word of this lynching passed KC’s lips.’

I also pointed out that:

‘By way of contrast the on-line version of Israel’s largest daily paper, Yediot Aharanot, on 18^th October, managed to include in its report both the killing of an Israeli soldier and the murder of a refugee.  Perhaps you could explain such an omission – bias or just ignorance? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4712997,00.html’

You state that:

‘our remit prevents us from investigating your more general concerns about the BBC’s coverage, including stories you believe the BBC ought to have reported on – or reported on differently. Decisions about what material to cover, or what aspects of a story to focus on at a particular time, fall under the legitimate exercise of editorial judgement on the part of programme-makers.’

As a general point this may be true, though when a persistent pattern of not reporting certain facts or always putting a particular slant and gloss on stories when they are covered, then the question arises as to whether this constitutes a breach in the BBC’s duty to maintain impartiality.  Are you saying that the question of impartiality is not part of ECU’s remit?  If so then the complaint must be escalated to the BBC Trust.

By your own admission, Kevin Connolly had reported on what had happened at Beer Sheva bus station but he had completely omitted the lynching of an Eritrean refugee who was mistaken for a Palestinian.  This took place at the same time.  I pointed out that this lynching had been widely covered in the media in Israel and I find it inconceivable that Kevin Connolly was unaware of this story.  To take one murder and fail to cover another which took place at the same time, because the second killing was that of a refugee is unforgiveable.  It displays such obvious bias that I am surprised that you fail to recognise it.  If it is not bias then it is incompetence.  I’m  not sure which is worse but it is nonetheless lamentable and I would expect you take this seriously.  You chose the material, I’m not complaining about a story that you didn’t cover but the selective and partial report which led to an unbalanced and biased report.

2.             The second section of my complaint that you failed to address was where you stated that:

‘Kevin states that the most of the motives are unknown, because in the context of recent history, they are. This nature of these attacks, and the fact the attackers often die in the attacks mean they cannot be investigated, therefore the precise motivation is unknown. We think anyone listening to the piece will understand that Kevin was talking about why this form of violence is happening now. The wider causes and context of the Israel/Palestinian conflict are frequently discussed across the BBC.’

I responded that:

‘This is totally absurd.  It is as if you have compartmentalised the knife attacks and associated violence on the one hand and the Occupation on the other, ne’er the twain do they meet.  Are you really saying that it has never occurred to your correspondent in Israel, KC, that there might, just might, be a connection between the random violence of individual knife attacks and the fact of the Occupation?  Does he not consider that the daily ritual humiliations of being harassed by the security forces, stopped at check points, subject to random violence by unaccountable border police, living in an uncertain situation where land confiscation takes place all around you, where your residency rights in Jerusalem can be withdrawn at a moments notice etc. etc. might just have some connection with the violence that arose?  If KC really does not appreciate these things, perhaps you might consider transferring him to report on the Chelsea Flower Show?’

I still find this reporting inexplicable.  Other news organisations have interviewed friends and family members of the Palestinians shot dead in order to try and gain an understanding of why they did what they did. Why is this beyond Kevin Connolly, and why does he, and the BBC, give up so easily in trying to understand Palestinians?

Al Jazeera for example did an article Portraits of Palestinian Knife Attackers http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/portraits-palestinian-knife-attackers-151106093509929.html in which family members explain it was the pressure of the occupation which led their loved ones to violence. Such interviews are basic journalism, but Connolly failure to do even a basic investigation suggests that he is almost wilfully not wanting to gain an understanding of Palestinian motivation.

This relates to the whole manner of your reporting.  You treat the whole question of Palestinian violence in the way you would report the commission of crimes in Britain.  Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is treated as normative.  It is not seen as violent in the same way as Palestinian reactions are.  It is as if the Occupation is a peaceful affair that only a few disturbed elements might object to rather than seeing the violence that erupts reflecting a wider dissatisfaction with the existing Occupation.  This leads to wholesale bias across all of your reporting.  Your inability to deal with this point isn’t simply a matter of lack of comprehension.  It suggests institutional and ingrained bias, of which this and I have no doubt many other complaints are but symptoms. 

I would therefore like you to address this aspect of my complaint too.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein