BBC Takes a Stand for Journalistic Integrity, and Faces the Wrath of the Street

1) "Gaza War Strengthens Israeli Hard-Liners, Not Those in Power," A8, by Isabel Kershner
2) "BBC Assailed for Refusing to Carry Aids' Group Video Appeal for Gaza Relief," A8, by John F. Burns
3) "Obama Sends Special Envoy to Mideast," A8, by Mark Landler

*****
1) Gaza War Strengthens Israeli Hard-Liners, Not Those in Power

The first article discusses gains made by Israel's center-right and rightist parties in the aftermath of Israel's military operations in Gaza. In a truly obnoxious tone, Kershner writes that "the politicians who seem to have benefited the most from the military offensive against Hamas in Gaza are those who were not involved in planning or carrying out the war. That is not because Israelis have regrets or have become faint-hearted about the casualties and destruction in Gaza." In this comment, she appears to be insinuating that if Israelis were more humane (had more "regrets"), they would have recognized the brutality of their actions and turned to more dovish parties.

Instead, the center-right Likud party has solidified its support and Yisrael Beitenu, the right-wing party led by the always controversial Avigdor Lieberman, is slated to gain more parliamentary seats in upcoming elections on February 10. Kershner labels Lieberman with the aggressive-edged adjective, "hawkish," as she has used to previously describe Bibi Netanyahu, leader of Likud.

In the end, this article comes off as somewhat overstated. Only several paragraphs in, does Kershner mention that Ehud Barak, current Defense Minister and leader of the left-of-center Labor Party, also benefited politically from the Gaza campaign. Actually, these military operations essentially made Labor relevant again. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, polls predicted that Labor would receive less than 10 parliamentary seats in the next government. Now polls place Labor at around 15 seats. That would probably make Labor the greatest political beneficiary of the conflict, even if the right has gained as a whole. An inconvenient fact I suppose.

In the end, the Times continues to paint Livni as the "good guy" who will actively continue negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, the right-leaning parties come off as intransigent for not being as enthused about negotiating with a feeble Palestinian Authority that continues incitement against Israel and Jews, and still has failed to dismantle the terrorist apparatus in its midst. The Times does not really recognize the merit of any of these concerns.

It's amusing to note that rising extremism in Palestinian society is reflexively blamed upon Israel, but if Israel takes a slight turn to the right, Israelis are perceived as senselessly "hard-line." Overall, an overstated article.

*****
2) BBC Assailed for Refusing to Carry Aids' Group Video Appeal for Gaza Relief

The next article discusses BBC's decision not to air a video appeal for Gaza relief "prepared by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an organization representing 11 relief agencies." The BBC rightfully claimed that such an appeal would rightfully jeopardize their impartiality in reporting the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sky News has also refused to air the appeal. As a result, BBC News has come under severe pressure, including widespread protests throughout the United Kingdom.

This piece suffers, like Times coverage of other protests that involve an anti-Israel posture, from an inability to communicate the extremism of the protesters involved. Instead, their demands are presented as quite reasonable, even if their actions involve violence or outright anti-Semitism.

For example, dozens of protesters stormed the BBC's headquarters in Glasgow, Scotland to communicate their anger at BBC's decision. This is not normal, reasonable behavior. Furthermore, those in protest have made widespread use of anti-Semitic motifs, particularly the view that the Jews and Israel possess a preponderance of power and wield it in a conspiratorial manner. Take the comments of British Health Minister Ben Bradshaw: "I am afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally." I suppose all this Israeli power somehow explains why more than 170 British MPs have signed a parliamentary motion criticizing BBC and Sky News for their refusal to air the appeal.

The Times reporter calls the Gaza appeal "a purely humanitarian issue" when it carries clear political overtones. For the sake of journalistic integrity, BBC made the right decision here, despite their common criticism of Israel on their airwaves. The Times should be supportive of BBC's stand, rather than paint the BBC protesters as being perfectly reasonable. These protesters are willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for narrow political interests, constituting a danger to the free press of liberal democracies.

3) Obama Sends Special Envoy to Mideast

The last article succinctly summarizes the upcoming Mideast travels of Senator Mitchell, special envoy to the Middle East. President Obama said that "Senator Mitchell has is to engage vigorously and consistently in order for us to achieve genuine progress."

It appears that Obama still views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core" conflict of the region, the sort of fantastical notion that if that conflict reaches a peaceful resolution than the tide of radicalism in the Middle East will somehow dissipate.

If I were an ordinary American, I would be puzzled why the President - who phoned "Arab and Israeli leaders on his first full day in office" - is dedicating so much time to such a narrow issue at the cost of focusing on the economy, Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.