What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC man?.

[Lonnie]

This was origially published in the Telegraph, but its an interesting question, http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectiv ity/Moral_Madness.asp

[Whickerman]

I think the article is pretty fair, and probably right. But I think that's because Israel is seen as a Western country, and like it or not there's a 'them and us' mentality built in to most people's psyche.

The article then moves on to a totally unrelated subject about universities, and I think that is both unwise and unfair to the reader.

[jake-the-peg]

Or even if they'd kidnapped one of their own who'd been living in London, lured him to Rome and then rather than bother with a formal extradition, drugged him on Italian soil and smuggled him out of Europe in a freighter?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

[maxximus]

exactly jake, they'd get away with it, as usual.

[Gromit]

This article is is extremely biased, flawed and muddled.

The writer complains:

"Throughout Mr Johnston's captivity, the BBC has continually emphasized that he gave "a voice" to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. iOne cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis."

Mr Johnson is the BBC's Gaza correspondent and therefore should report what the Palestinian people are thinking and saying. To imply that by reporting this he agrees with suicide bombing and terrorism shows the writer of the article is extremely disingenuous.

Every so often there is pressure put on the BBC claiming it is biased, or gives a certain group a raw deal. Both Tory and Labour politians have accused the BBC of bias against there parties. The Tories even st up a MediaWatch unit to monitor BBC output and highlight bits it didn't like. The truth was that the BBC was impartitial, and probably the most impartial news organisation at the time.

It is the same when the Jewish lobby claim that the BBC favours the Palestinian cause. The truth is it does not. The truth is it is impartial. The truth is that it is not afraid to report unpalitable truths even if it goes against our our government's foreign policy line.

[Lonnie]

Just a quickie guys.
Thanks for answering.

[paddywak]

Interesting to see the article says that no member of the Israeli goverment would consider such an act when the state itself was founded on similar acts and that many of the older Israeli poiticians had been actively involved in these similar acts,Menachem Begin for instance was once the head of the "Irgun" a militant anti British organisation. The various organisations campaigning for a Israeli state carried out such acts as the Bombing of the King David Hotel Jeruselem (91 dead , loads injured) 1945, the assassination of Lord Moyne a British Cabinet Minister, & the murder by hanging of Sargents Martin & Paice. Which makes me wonder when does a terrorist stop being a terrorist & become a world leader. What ever the righteousness of his or her cause a terrorist is still a terrorist

[Lonnie]

Of course your right paddywak, but that come down to 'todays Terrorists, tomorrows goverment',

But thats been covered not too long ago.

[paddywak]

Too true lonnie.In fact most countries and goverments have been thru some fairly violent civil unrest if you go back far enough, but at least the "old style terrorists" mainly wanted to live & enjoy the new system they had fought for & were prepared to negotiate if necessary to get it. The scary thing about the ones today is that not only do they believe that their way is the only way, but that it is "holy" to kill themselves if they take the enemy with them. It is actually terrifying to think what could happen with the stuff thats avaiable.

[Lonnie]

Agree with you 100% paddywak.

Thanks for your time, that also goes for Whickerman, jake, maxximus and Gromit.