Monday, March 03, 2008

BBC: Israel warns of Gaza ‘holocaust’

Except that Israel warned of no such thing, but that inconvenient truth has not deterred the pathologically anti-Israel BBC or anti-Semitic Guardian from perpetuating the lie.

It all stems from a Reuters mistranslation of remarks by Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai. He said on Israeli radio: “The more the Qassam rocket fire (on Israeli civilians) intensifies and increases its range, the Palestinians are bringing upon themselves a bigger disaster because we will use all our might to defend ourselves."

But the Hebrew word ‘shoah’ (‘disaster’) was mistakenly translated by Reuters as ‘Holocaust’ (Heb. ‘HaShoah’), and this has triggered what Anglican Friends of Israel have termed ‘an international news libel against Israel’.

A number of British-owned or British-based media are among the news outlets which have propagated the libel, and one may reasonably conjecture, from their recent track record, that their predisposition is to stir up anti-Semitism through false and inflammatory coverage of Israel.

Cranmer will not hold his breath (if he but had any) awaiting the retraction and apology.


Anonymous nedsherry said...

His Grace is right: the BBC and Guardian are badly biased against Israel and the translation was false, but Israel is hated because it is seen as white and western, not because it is Jewish. If antisemitism were at work, it's hardly likely Jews would be so over-represented at both organizations. His Grace should concern himself with more important matters, like his own people and religion, the target of worse and more frequent attacks from the BBC and Guardian than Israel ever is.

3 March 2008 at 19:19  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Nedsherry,

His Grace shall concern himself with whatever he wishes.

3 March 2008 at 19:41  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

While I hate the idea of ever agreeing with anything Nedsherry says, I think I rather agree with the first half of his comment. I find it interesting Your Grace that you are keen to find anti-Semitism at the Guardian, but not in Shakespeare. Certainly the argument for Shylock being an anti-Semitic figure is stronger than the claim that the misinterpretation of the word shoah is clearly anti-Semitic. No?

Anti-Israel, certainly, (and one might criticise the Guardian for this), but anti-Semitic? I am yet to be convinced.

3 March 2008 at 19:42  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Your Grace may care to alert Steven Speilberg to the fact that misnamed the foundation he created "The USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education".

The the DNA Shoah Project is dedicated to, and I quote "reuniting families disrupted by the Shoah(“Holocaust” in Hebrew)". Sadly, they appear to have named themselves incorrectly.

Perhaps the prejudices of Aunty Beeb and La Grauniad should be remarked on some other occasion.

3 March 2008 at 19:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are an odious hypocrital creep Cranmer.

Now get back to fantasising about dead Palestinian kids (try not to get too excited)

3 March 2008 at 20:40  
Anonymous mickey said...

Whilst his Grace has opted for the first line rebuttal stance, he may be interested to know that there are two others also in play. The second line defence is a distinction between "A shoah" and "THE Shoah". There is also the "Vilnai, never heard of him. Just a middle ranking spokesman...etc" fallback.

3 March 2008 at 21:36  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

His Grace shall concern himself with whatever he wishes.

And I do not dispute his right to do so. I do, however, question whether everything His Grace wishes to concern himself with is invariably what His Grace should concern himself with. Traditional Christianity does not seek to appease Jews -- it seeks to convert them. And it does not trust them in the meantime. The distrust is mutual, but Jews seek Christianity's destruction rather than the conversion of Christians to Judaism.

3 March 2008 at 23:08  
Anonymous Midbible said...

Thank you, Your Grace, for standing by Israel as you do from time to time. I go there often (I'm currently researching for a book on the nature of Christian-state relations in the Holy Land) and regularly speak to both Palestinians and Israelis about the political situation. It never ceases to surprise me, despite all we hear in our biased news, how so many Palestinians simply want to get on with their lives, actually blaming their own failed and often corrupt leaders for making matters much worse for them. A case in point is how some 4500 rockets have been fired at southern Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza this year alone. I was in Sederot two weeks ago and the place is reminiscent of a ghost town, with those who remain reduced to nervous wrecks. Now the rockets are reaching Ashkelon, so it was inevitable that Israel would eventually have to respond (which other country wouldn't?). Of course, Hamas knows this precisely, but continues the barrage anyway in a bid to exploit their own peopleto secure a propaganda victory. (A pity indeed they are aided in this by parts of the Western media.)

I agree many Palestinians have had a raw deal, but I suggest much of it is down to their failed leaders who care more about their own interests rather than their own people, together with segments of a wider Arab world which seeks to keep the Palestinian issue a running sore in order to deflect from their own failed, authoritarian policies that likewise have failed dismally their own people in places like Syria.

Thank you also, Cranmer, for allowing obnoxious people like Anonymous vent their poison. Your decision not to censor such stupidity merely serves to expose it for what it is. Perhaps Anonymous might consider spending some time in Gaza and speaking his/her mind there. I doubt he/she is a particularly committed member of the Christian faith so there is perhaps little danger of being treated like Rami Ayyad. Of course, Anonymous may find it more problematic discussing some of those classic liberal views (eg the death penalty, homosexuality, sexual mores etc). Worse, she might be a woman, and if so I definitely suspect Anonymous might not like being in Gaza too much.

One last thing, Concerning those who do not equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, didn't that champion of the civil rights movement Martin Luther King do precisely that, i.e. equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism? It certainly offers an explanation why, with all that is going on in places like Darfur, Zimbabwe, China ad infinitum it is always Israel which is singled out for vociferous, unfair and irrational criticism.

3 March 2008 at 23:29  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
whilst my concerns of somthing similar to Gaza happening in this country. israel and lebanon always seem to be fighting , none of there children on either side have known peace. mr abbas offered some hope , only for the crooks and hardenhearts if hamas to have to take the gaza .

a home made rocket an idescriminate fear and murder weapon , what sort of negioation for the peace that the palstinians want is this.

of course i would think many families want to at least try peace . but as ever we find the terrorist unbeholden to any authority, unable to recognise anything but themseleves or there backers and then declare it holy .

it is like a play that they cant stop performing.
one day i hope , but for now it appears as dangerous as ever .

i can see why people cite religion as a cause of wars , if only the terrorists religous leaders had the courage to condem them .

4 March 2008 at 01:33  
Blogger Bar Kochba said...

Anti-Zionism is certainly the latest form of anti-semitism. No longer do we use Christian babies' blood for matzah; we kill Arab children for pleasure. Denying the Jews a state, while allowing everyone else to have one, is clearly anti-semitic.

PS Great blog here. I'll blogroll you. Car eto reciprocate?

4 March 2008 at 03:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bar Kochba said...
Anti-Zionism is certainly the latest form of anti-semitism. No longer do we use Christian babies' blood for matzah; we kill Arab children for pleasure.

Nice try but there's a problem here called the facts. The preponderance of headshots on dead Palestinian children shows that the killings are targeted and not 'accidental'.

We can dismiss the possibility that the children are 'legitimate' military targets. The worst they will do is throw stones - which isn't a capital offence except apparently on the Wesy Bank/Gaza

So why is it done? Answer:

1. I because the Israelis can - the 'culture of impunity' - the children are after all part of the so-called 'demographic problem'

2. Because they get off on it.

Now back to your game of anti-semitism card whist..

4 March 2008 at 08:54  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Anti-Zionism is ... anti-semitism

What a novel and exciting insight. I can't wait to read your blog. Your Grace, you really must link.

Denying the Jews a state, while allowing everyone else to have one

I think it's the colonisation of the occupied territories that really sticks in peoples crop. The Jews already have a state but it does not include the West Bank. They must learn to get on with their neighbours or meet the same fate as the Bar Kochba revolt.

4 March 2008 at 08:54  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Denying the Jews a state, while allowing everyone else to have one...

Imagine how Jews would react to a state that discriminated in favour of Christians or whites or both the way Israel does in favour of Jews. In fact, you don't need to imagine: just look at Jewish support for mass immigration into Europe and America.

4 March 2008 at 15:27  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 March 2008 at 17:30  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

Israelites belong to the World.
The original Tribes have spread far and wide and become many nations and probably many religions. I think the current State of Israel was as silly an idea as the creation of Pakistan so the Muslims could have their own State.
Had to delete the above comment because the link failed :)

4 March 2008 at 18:00  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Not true. Those other places you name are not seen to be white and western. Israel is. The liberals who attack Israel, attack Bush and America with the same venom. It is, as Nedsherry said in his first comment.

4 March 2008 at 20:30  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

I would suggest that if we keep supporting a British policy of dividing nations so that religions can have their own seperate State.

Whether it be a Jewish State of Israel, with all the death its caused a Pakistan State for Muslims, again with all the untold death and misery or the recent Kosovon State with its ancient churches being raised to the ground, then its time to stop asking what the future is for Britain and its Christian heritage.

Just apply British policy!

4 March 2008 at 21:19  
Blogger Bar Kochba said...

Judea and Samaria (the proper terms for Arab Occupied West Bank) for the basis of the Biblical Jewish homeland. Jews have as much right to Judea and Samaria as they have to Jerusalem or Tel-Aviv. We have lived in those lands for centuries while it is the Arabs who are the conquerors and occupiers since the 7th century. Those lands were liberated when Israel defeated the Arabs in the 6 Day War. They are, and will remain, Jewish lands.

4 March 2008 at 21:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bar Kochba said...
Judea and Samaria (the proper terms for Arab Occupied West Bank) for the basis of the Biblical Jewish homeland. Jews have as much right to Judea and Samaria as they have to Jerusalem or Tel-Aviv.

Ever so slightly overdeveloped sense of entitlement here...

And about the headshots???

4 March 2008 at 22:55  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

Good for you Bar Kochoba.
Sorry I cannot take sides without being seen to be either racist or anti-semitic. You guys slug it out and may the best man win.

Here in occupied Britain we have our own problems.

5 March 2008 at 18:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No response on the preponderance of headshots in killings of Palestinian children in the occupied teritories.

J'Accuse: these are deliberate and racist murder.

Any takers?

6 March 2008 at 23:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older