I think there is a strong anti-Israel bias in the coverage. The perspective of the origins of the conflict is completely wrong. The reference should not be 1947 (UN division plan ) but 1900 (before the immigration).

Is Israel occupying Arab-owned land ? The only historic statistics available are about Jerusalem. At the beginning of last century 85% or more of its population was Jew or Christian. Most of the rest of Israel was waste land, to a large extent inhabited.

So 90% of the Arabs now living between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River descent from Arab immigrants who came from neighbouring countries and who were looking for a job, made possible because of the presence of Jews (immigrants or natives).

The last of the Palestinian irresponsible decisions shows what it is all about. Palestinians are not “retaliating”. They were by Israeli PM Barak even offered 100% of the territories, but Arafat thought, just after the Israeli defeat in South Lebanon, that he could inflict a fatal blow to Israel with his terror campaign. Thousands of murdered Israeli civilians later, Israel invented the fence, something that went beyond Arafat’s imagination!

I am no Jew, but as a Fleming from Belgium, I feel much solidarity with Israel, also because the Jews suffer to a large extent from the same prejudices as the Flemish.

It reminds me of Brussels, were most French-speakers claim that it has never been a Dutch-speaking city, although it is completely surrounded by Flemish soil! Nowadays only 15% of its inhabitants declare to be Dutch-speaking, although 30 % send their children to a Dutch-speaking school. Of course the perspective of time is different in comparison with Israel. In Belgium part of the problem (Brussels itself) started already with Napoleon who forbade the use of Dutch. On the other hand, the legislation that limits Brussels to its actual frontier (1963) dates from BEFORE the actual French-speaking immigration from Brussels to its surrounding area in Flanders.

In Brussels’ surrounding area, the French-speaking immigrants refuse to learn Dutch and to recognise their new home-land, because they feel superior. And in the Council of Europe, the French-speakers try to compare the Flemish with brutal Serbians, whereas it is (mentally spoken) just the inverse. The French-speakers simply want to annex the Flemish border zone to French-speaking Brussels. And they even don’t hesitate through their “privileged” French-speaking contacts in the Council of Europe to affect fundamental principals such as freedom of speech and political association to ban parties that promote Flemish secession. Europe objectively assumes the French-speakers’ attitude that one should not stick to agreements, on condition that a good pretext can be found. So I fully understand the British “fear” for Europe!

BTW, most of the Flemish don’t want to adapt to the new immigrants and to learn French under pressure. The Flemish prefer to learn English, a language that is closer to Dutch, not only in vocabulary and grammar, but also in its way to express feelings.

And when was the last time the BBC mentioned the fact that pre-1949 Jews were buying land from Arabs for immigrant Jews. I don't what they are trying to avoid admitting that Arabs might actually have sold land to Jews or that Jews actually bothered to buy something.

Johan,

Good luck in your struggle for self-determination. Where do matters stand now with the Blok?

The Vlaams Blok: state of affairs.

First of all I want to state that although I am for Flemish self-determination, I am no Blok voter.

June 13 with the regional elections, the Blok got 24,5% of the votes. But probably next week all the other Flemish parties (with the exception of a little far-left one with 7 %) will form in Flanders an anti-Blok coalition, which is not comfortable.

Now each day one can read several pages in the newspapers with analyses, why the Vlaams Blok continues to grow, also in the French-speaking press. But oddly the French-speakers continue to write that there are no substantial financial transfers (????) from Flanders to Wallonia (I read the French-speaking press too). Of course, all depends how you interpret things (willingness to learn a new job for an unemployed person, the hospitals invoice in Wallonia and Brussels a multitude for the same medical performances etc.). As long as the opposite isn’t proven, I believe what the Vlaams Blok writes: each year, 6 million Flemish people transfer 11 billion Euro to 4 million Walloons and French-speakers in Brussels. Why do you think it is so difficult to get a good accountancy report about businesses in Wallonia? They simply have things to hide!

The Blok also seems to have transgressed a critical level. Now Flemish people in the street are no longer ashamed to say that they vote for the Vlaams Blok and in panels on television other Flemish politicians are no longer afraid to take positions that formerly where only attributed to the Vlaams Blok. For instance last Sunday a liberal MP said what I already knew for long: the political co-operation in the Belgian parliament of red Wallonia with the small Flemish left makes that 70% of all laws in Belgium (and thus in Flanders) are not what 75% of the Flemish want. Moreover, it was said by a Christian-democrat that the generalised abuses in the social welfare system in Wallonia are undermining the global Belgian system.

Meanwhile the Vlaams Blok has announced that it will “reform”. They want to become “salonfähig”, thus simply a very very conservative party. Probably the same people will found a new party with a new name (the Vlaams Blok+ or so) as soon as the ban is confirmed in appeal, and this with a directly chosen Vlaams Blok president. I also hope they will look for a fraction in the European Parliament without Le Pen. So in the end the conviction by the Court in Ghent has rather helped them to reform. There is only one thing I don’t understand, what will be the future of the actual political personal? Will they be allowed to continue or will they have to pass the torch to others (of their family)? I don’t think the Thought Police will let them in peace!

Basically, I am not happy with the banning of a party, although in this case they have enough financial and human resources to survive it. I will give you an example: Abou Jahjah was burning publicly a puppet of an orthodox Jew in the streets of Antwerp and members of the far-left green party stood aside, laughing. This had no consequences. But for the Vlaams Blok a French-speaking judge from Ghent makes a collection of everything that has been written the last ten years or so. Things that sometimes have been said by others too! But for a better understanding, I will give you the definition of a Vlaams Blok voter given by the French-speaking daily Le Soir (which I suppose is the newspaper read by the judge who condemned the Vlaams Blok in Ghent):

Autistes, fascistes, égoïstes, nostalgiques (=melancholic people), xénophobes, nationalistes, écervelés(=birdbrains) et pieds nickelés (=bone-idle people) : les électeurs du Blok sont tout cela. See at : http://www.lesoir.be/quotidien/page_5158_227770.shtml

If you are a frustrated French-speaking judge and in Ghent and that’s the definition you read every day in your newspaper about the person that is indicted and stands before you…

Foer four years an annual poll taken by Prof. Gavriel Ben Dor of Haifa University has found that more than half of Israeli Jews (64% in the latest survey) want the 1.4m Arab Israelis to be "encouraged" to leave the country altogether. In the latest poll, 46% of these Jewish respondents wished this encouragement to include the removal of Knesset voting rights for all Arab Israelis, whether Muslim or Christian.

I wonder if the BBC or anyone else will mention this settled preference for ethnic cleansing the next time some Likud spoksewoman with an American accent tells us what a modern, inclusive, multiracial democracy the Zionists have created.

Figures.
If you can't prove wrongdoing by Jews, talk about what the Jews "really" want to do.

I am totally in accord with you.
A lot of people that are not interested a lot in politics, and only read the paper at mornings or see TV at night, the only thing that they learn about the conflict is the bias in favour of the terrorist-palestinians. It is a pity.

Has anyone noticed that the BBC tried a similar tactic to defuse criticism of its Iraq war coverage by sponsoring a "media study" at Cardiff University which "proved" that the BBC was excessively "pro-War" and "pro-Coaltion"?

Now the Beeb is trumpeting a "study" which shows that they are too pro-Israeli when anyone with half-a-brain can see that they are overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian. Does anyone seriously think that Orla Bin Goering is pro-Israeli? Perhaps, but only in contrast to Joseph Goebbels.

I suspect that the next "media study" that the Beeb will trumpet will allege that they are too pro-Bush, or perhaps too pro-Euroskeptic.

Paging George Orwell.

WHY DOES BIAS IN BROADCASTING MATTER?

By George Rolph

Television and radio broadcasting today helps to shape, mould and inform the views of millions of people every day. Because these mediums are so powerful they have a duty, both moral and legal, to accurately and fairly represent the views of its population as well as those of dissident groups within that population.

The question is, what can you do about it when the broadcasters do not carry out these obligations. The truth is, virtually nothing!

You can complain to the broadcasting watchdogs and, if they feel your complaint has merit, they will complain to the station that broadcast the offensive material. In turn, the offending broadcaster will issue an apology about whatever it was they did wrong. This is highly unsatisfactory because it does not stop further, identical, breaches of the law at a later date. The current system gives the broadcasters a way of avoiding the kind of court actions the rest of us have to endure if we break the law. How would you feel if you caught the local burglar robbing your home and when you called the police they contacted the burglar and complained and asked him to issue an apology to you and a promise -- you know he will break -- not to do it again?

There is also another and more sinister side to this cosy set-up. Imagine you are the head of a national broadcaster like the BBC. Further, imagine that you hold very strong personal political views that you would love to impose on the population as a whole. Unfortunately, the population do not share your views and show no sign of doing so in the near future. One way to get your views broadcast to the nation would be to recruit others into the organisation who also share your views and then place them into key positions within the corporation. Once this is done, your personal political ‘slant’ can be added to every appropriate news report. You can commission programs that also reflect your views. The power you would have over the views of the population would be massive and frightening. The fact that most people do not share your views would now be irrelevant. Now you have the power to mould the publics thinking so that they will, in time, come to share those personal political views but without being aware of how they were manipulated into that position.

Do you think this is just scare mongering and it could not happen? You would be wrong. It is happening today at the BBC.

In order to understand what I mean by the above statement it is necessary to give some historical background to it.

Mainstream feminism calls, quite rightly, for a level playing field between men and women, both in law and in the workplace etc.

However, there is another strand of feminism that most people regard as extreme and do not subscribe to. It is known, among other names, as Radical Feminism. Radical feminism is not based upon the ideals of equality between the sexes, but upon the idea of revenge upon and replacement of, the ‘patriarchy’. Its views are rooted in communist, revolutionary Russia and was first postulated by Marx and Engels and other such ‘luminaries’ in the world of communism.

In the early 1970’s in Great Britain, the mainstream and reasonable feminist organisations suffered a take over by their more extreme, radical sisters. There followed an outbreak of mild bombings, demonstrations, ousting of detractors and death threats * made against those who wrote about what was going on. Powerful background support was given to these people by the extreme left wing of the Labour party and trade unions. The fledgling domestic abuse and refuge movement was taken over completely and its founder ousted and threatened to the point where she was forced to leave the country in exile for a time.

The radical feminists, (both male and female) during the two decades of the 70’s and 80’s, aided by their powerful political allies, quickly advanced into positions of high influence within publishing, broadcasting, education and social services. The politicians wrote laws that helped smooth their paths into the highest echelons of these organisations and so ensured that the political philosophies of radical feminism were widely disseminated.

By the 1990’s the BBC, along with large portions of the print media, had been thoroughly infiltrated and the slow manipulation of the population began. The problem was, the British people (much to their credit), were not interested in the message of the radical feminists because, in the main, they simply do not believe it. This led to a more aggressive policy by the radical feminist element in our society and by the year 2000 the BBC began to pump the political views of this group into more and more of its programming. At the same time, the BBC began to suppress all contrary debate and exclude anyone who did not go along with the radical feminist ethos. So began the most disgusting high jacking of British democracy ever seen in this country. We are all having a political viewpoint we have no interest in, foisted upon us by a powerful broadcaster and other institutions and all without being given a platform on which to object. It all amounts to an horrendous brainwashing of the population by a minority political group. Imagine what would happen if the B.N.P managed to do this in the future!

Incidentally, at the same time as all of this was happening in Great Britain, it was also happening in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and America. If that is not an organised attempt to thwart western democracy, then I do not know what is! These events have been well documented and the information is available in many places on the Internet.

The BBC will not allow any masculist views to be aired on their programs in anything like the coverage they give to the feminist view point. Neither will they allow the men's movement to discuss 3.3 million men who suffer domestic abuse in the UK and who have no refuges to escape too with their children. In fact, all discussion on matters unrelated to the radical feminist agenda, is completely ignored. However, the feminist ethos and position is pumped at us all relentlessly.

At the time of writing this I am aware that just this morning on the BBC breakfast news program, another feminist author was given space to plug her views. No contrary position was allowed to be given by way of balance. The net effect of all of this is that we, the British people, are not allowed to think outside of the feminist box, or question any of the feminist viewpoints or interpretations of history, or philosophy. Nothing is more dangerous. If you doubt it, consider Germany in 1935. Now, as then, a minority is being allowed to impose a political viewpoint on the majority.

Bias in broadcasting, while seeming to be harmless and low key, may well have a darker and more organised side than most of us realise. Our only chance of stemming the tide is not through the useless regulatory bodies, or the self regulation of the broadcasters, but through the courts where we can at least argue our case publicly before the people. For the moment, the men's movement in the UK and a few other unaffiliated organisations are the only ones who are speaking of these matters. We have to work harder to get these disturbing facts placed before the people so that they may pass an informed judgement on those who have perpetrated these deceptions.

*Dan Lynch writes: "I admire Erin Pizzey for her objectivity when it comes to violence in the home and for her constant efforts to search for a solution by looking at the whole picture and not to create a 'blame game'.

Erin Pizzey is accredited with having opened the first modern shelter for abused women and is the founder of the women’s shelter movement. That was in 1971. She is the author of numerous books, including probably the first book on the subject of domestic violence, Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear, as well as Prone to Violence, which is now an online book that was originally published in paperback. The paperback is a rare find and, according to some, worth a tremendous amount. To my understanding it is now in reprint.

Erin has been doing her work in the field for over 30 years.

It's funny, you'd think we would be having an Erin Pizzey day, or parades in her honour, even memorabilia or a constant mention of her contribution, on television, radio or newspaper, each time the issue comes up. Hell; even mention her on all those numerous pamphlets that are circulated or on billboards about Domestic Violence that can be seen all across the U.K., Canada the US, right down to Australia and New Zealand.

What she got instead was ostracism and death threats. Erin was cast out of many circles because of her statements. She has been denied web space at nearly every Domestic Violence site there is.

You wouldn't think that people would be burning or trashing her books in every English-speaking country in the world to the point that it has been found that there are only about two known copies of her book Prone to Violence left in Canadian libraries.

How did this pioneer come to deserve such wrath from fellow DV counselors and feminists; what did she do to elicit such hatred? Erin stated that women, too, are abusers, that they are often violent, and not just in self-defense. Studies show that they are equally likely, or even more likely than men, to be the ones who initiate violence – the ones who attack and elicit a self-defense response from their partners."

http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/Dan_Lynch_on_EP.htm

If you are interested in joining our campaign or just affiliating your organisation with it, please go to forum board and let us know. Together we can end this Bias.

http://data.forumhoster.com/forum_ct4m/

George Rolph

No More Silence

For years I have noticed its bias. The BBC is guilty of bias in many of its articles, even aside from the issue of terrorism. All the issues seem to be linked to either the US or Israel: Guantanamo Bay torture, George Bush's inadequacies, the failure of coalition intervention in Iraq, Palestinian injustice, the ills of globalisation and the Kyoto Accord.

All these have been frequently raised by the BBC and it is the left leaning slant which they always take. Because the BBC has stamped the points with legitimitacy, even though there is another unexamined side to each one, the general public has now largely accepted that these are 'facts'.

Thankfully careful scrutinisation is being done by ex-Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, and many other media analysise experts. Long may this continue, and hopefully it will, until one day the lack of credibility possessed by the BBC is revealed to all.

beauty ass* better then asstrafic* fucking old old* fucking old pic* lindsey ward porno* linsey dawn mckenzie maximum insertion* clara allinternal* claudia ferrari allinternal* ass parade rebecca* dp womens asses* husbands exchange wives* husbands fuck*