I note that, as in Haiti, the field hospital Israel is establishing in Japan is the first to be set up by any nation offering outside assistance. Oddly I can find no mention of this on the BBC News website where they still seem determined to try and convince us that nuclear disaster is only hours away; I have news for you, it almost certainly is not.
Thanks to JPost for the spot.
Thanks to JPost for the spot.
10 comments:
Does it really matter who is first as long as countries are helping? A google search seems to reveal that the only people who care about such things are the insular and bigoted Israeli press.
A pathetic attempt to suggest BBC bias against Israel extends to coverage of a terrible tragedy in Japan.
You need to get your priorities in order, pal.
Actually it does matter. Israel is vilified by the western media for almost everything it does, right or wrong, and when it does send help to world disasters it is either ignored or accused of horrific crimes (as in Haiti).
Because Israel has a lot of experience of tragedies, albeit ones generally caused by terrorists rather than natural causes, it does have expertise in search & rescue and is willing to share that expertise and quickly.
Your worldview is clearly expressed by your use of the word 'bigotted' to describe the Israeli press. If the Israeli press is 'bigotted' how do you categorise the Palestinian media that promote hatred for and terrorism against Jews?
The tragedy in Japan has personally affected many people that I know and care about so don't tell me to get my priorities in order, 'pal'!
...and, Anon, your words would have far more weight if it wasn't a chicken-shit "anon" reply. The BBC's bias by omission is well catalogued. No, normally it wouldn't really matter 'who is first as long as countries are helping' but long suffering Israel knows it needs to report these positives because no other cunt will, especially the BBC and anonymous blog commenting fuckwits...erm...like you.
I made no mention of anything to do with Palestinians, so why bring it up? Since you did, their media can indeed be abhorrent in the way they attempt to promote their cause. The organ harvesting is one such example.
However, the Israeli media are just as guilty of dodgy reporting, and all too willing to support the military line.
That's beside the point. We should celebrate, or be grateful at least, the fact that a variety of nations are coming to the age of Japan, and again not use a tragedy as a twisted platform to make a point about something that pales into insignificance in comparison.
Span Ows, nice to see a considered comment without any swearing. Really puts my "anon" status to shame, doesn't it?
Whether I choose to leave a name or not is my perogative - as is yours to resort to base insults - it's the content of the debate that matters.
As a result of your language, your point (was there one?) is rendered pretty much invalid due to the crass one-eyedness of your worldview.
Got nothing more to say on this.
Anon, I brought up the Palestinians because I was struck by your calling the Israeli press 'bigotted' when there was a very nearby press that makes the Israeli and indeed most countries press look anything but b'bigotted'.
The Israeli press is not one homogenous whole and whilst some support the country's armed forces in all that they do, some do not. Which Israeli press do you consider 'bigotted'? Which do you not?
I am grateful that countries are provoding assistance to Japan. I would be more grateful if such help was reported by the BBC when it comes from Israel.
You rae quite correct that this piece of BBC bias pales into insignificance beside much of the rest of the Japan earthquake and its aftermath, however that does not does not make my article nor my views - 'twisted'.
This blog does not exist to cover every news story from every angle, I have neither the time nor the inclination. This blog is here to report what the BBC and other mainstream media choose not to, especially when the reasons for that choice seem clear and biased. The BBC is one of the largest news organisations in the world with a privileged position in the UK and as such should be scrupulously fair in its news coverage; it isn't so I will carry on pointing this out.
LOL!
Whether I choose to leave a name or not is my perogative - as is yours to resort to base insults - it's the content of the debate that matters.
So comment on the content then, not the swearing.
As a result of your language, your point (was there one?) is rendered pretty much invalid due to the crass one-eyedness of your worldview.
Rendered invalid in what way? You seem intent on proving what I wrote to be correct.
Got nothing more to say on this.
Sure you have but you know I'd run rings round you.
"The BBC's bias by omission is well catalogued. No, normally it wouldn't really matter 'who is first as long as countries are helping' but long suffering Israel knows it needs to report these positives because no other cunt will."
I wasn't going to, but your comment amused me so much that I thought I had better put one final comment on here.I take it this is the, ahem, content you refer to? There's nothing there that I can really respond to as you've not provided any examples of the bias by omission you seem to think happens. It's the same old line from people who think that the BBC has got something to achieve by being biased against Israel, or being anti-Semitic. Next you'll be citing the Balen Report, even though you have no idea what's in it.
Yes, the BBC is a long way from being perfect, but is - for example - something like Israellycool any better? I know I don'y pay a licence fee to read that, but the same bias exists (in the opposite direction, of course) there as it allegedly does at the BBC.
If you really want to find it, bias exists everywhere: you'll search out the grace notes and assume the empty space screams out bias, when in fact it's your own prejudices that fills in the gaps.
I'm more likely to sprout wings and fly than you are to run rings around me. Try some research of your own rather than joining the cut and paste mentality that exists here.
Oddly your last comment was clasified as 'spam' by Blogger, can't see why.
As you so rightly say we don't pay a licence fee to read IsraellyCool or this blog, we do pay one for the BBC and so are entitled to expect scrupulous levels of non bias. This we do not get and you know that.
Thank you for bringing up the Balen Report, do you know what's in it? If the Balen Report cleared the BBC of any bias do you not think that the BBC would have published it to prove that they weren't biased? They haven't which I think gives you more than a hint as to its findings.
Bias is not everywhere but the BBC is deeply biased in its reporting. It is very clear, to those who are not to blind to see, that the BBC has its pet loves and pet hates and that the BBC broadcasts and publishes accordingly.
I'm glad you were amused and you should do something about that tickly cough..."there's nothing you can repsond to" but here you are happily responding away; likewise you've " got nothing more to say on this".
see that lump on your shoulder...it's that wing you mentioned.
Post a Comment