Journalists intimidated by Hamas

People have asked me "What's happening with Israel?" I have replied that no one has greater respect for human life than Israel. Hamas are terrorists, and have no respect for human life.

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a founding member of Hamas, who converted to Christ and now lives in the United States, put it well. "Hamas does not care about the lives of Palestinians," he said. "It does not care about the lives of Israelis, or Americans. They do not care about their own lives. They consider dying for their ideology a way of worship."

I was ashamed when I saw an ITV newscaster shout at an Israeli spokesman. "You were told 17 times that that was a UN school," he said. "Why did you fire at it?" The man could only say they had not yet had time to complete an investigation, but that the Israel Defence Forces did not target civilians. It later turned out that the carnage at the Shati refugee camp was caused by a Hamas rocket which had gone adrift. Hamas rushed in, removed the debris, and blamed Israel.

Hamas have placed rocket launchers in the heart of populated areas. They have fired rockets from hospitals and schools. Foreign journalists in Gaza have been closely monitored by Hamas. I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently not. But the news is beginning to leak out.

 Alan Johnson,a professor of democratic theory and practice, senior research fellow at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre and senior research associate at the Foreign Policy Centre, writes in the Telegraph. He says a long Hamas record of shutting down news bureaux, arresting reporters and cameramen, confiscating equipment and beating journalists has already been documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The Foreign Press Association, he says, has now issued a protest about "blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox" intimidation of journalists in the Gaza Strip by Hamas. "In several cases," it says, "foreign reporters working in Gaza have been harassed, threatened or questioned over stories." Hamas was "trying to put in place a vetting procedure."

I would invite you to read the article for yourself. You can see it here.

A Hamas Ministry of Interior video directed: "Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. . . always add 'innocent civilian' or 'innocent citizen' in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza."

Indian television broadcaster Sreenivasan Jain wrote - after leaving Gaza - how Hamas placed civilians at risk by firing rockets "deep from the heart of civilian zones." How often, he asked, did they not report such things for fear of reprisals against them?

A Spanish journalist asked how television reporting never showed Hamas people, only civilians, mainly women and children, said "It's very simple. We did see Hamas people there launching rockets. . . but if we ever dare pointing our camera on them they would simply shoot at us and kill us."

French-Palestinian journalist Rudjaa Abou Dugga was forced to leave Gaza immediately, without his papers. RT correspondent Harry Fear was told to leave Gaza after tweeting that Hamas fired rockets into Israel from near his hotel.

In his article, Johnson quotes section 11.4.1 of the BBC guidelines on accuracy and impartiality: "We should normally say if our reports are censored or monitored or if we withhold information, and explain, wherever possible, the rules under which we are operating."

"Journalists from India, America, Norway, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada and elsewhere," he says, "are complaining. Will we now hear from the Brits?"

I am waiting to see. But I'm not holding my breath.
   

Murders in the name of Allah

When is the mainstream media going to report on the persecution of Christians in other countries? When is the mainstream media going to report on what's happening with ISIS in Iraq?

Under Saddam Hussein there were said to be 60,000 Christians living in the city of Mosul. It was a Christian centre for something like 2,000 years. It was recently estimated that there were 25,000 Christians who had not fled.

A few weeks ago, ISIS, among the most bloodthirsty of Islamic jihadists, who had taken territory in Syria and Iraq, declared the territory a caliphate, with their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph. Ten days ago, they gave the Christians in Mosul until noon the following Saturday to convert to Islam, pay the jizya - the tax for non-Muslims, said to have been set at an impossible 450 dollars a month - leave, or die.

The houses of the Christians who left became the property of the state. As they left, they were relieved of all their valuables and all their money. In some cases, their cars were taken too and they were made to walk.

Despite all, some are said to have decided to stay. I have been waiting for the mainstream media to report what had happened to them. It looks like I will have a long wait.

Walid Shoebat claims to have been a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation who was willing to die for the cause of jihad - though some deny his claim. He was converted to Christ about 1994.

He claims to have obtained videos of human slaughterhouses in Syria. They show executions of Christians and of Muslims who disagree with their Takhiri theology. Shoebat notes a prayer offered before the executions: "In defence of the Sunnis, O Lord. O Lord. we bring these offerings to you, O Lord. Please accept this sacrificial offering, O Lord. O Lord, accept this from us, accept this from us. In the name of Allah." The videos show severed heads neatly lined up against a wall, and headless corpses suspended by their feet.

You can read the story here, here and here.

Lord Alton initiated a debate in the House of Lords concerning international compliance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

You can read the debate here.
   

Meriam's case 'the tip of an iceberg'

The case of Meriam Ibrahim, the mother of two young children sentenced to death in Sudan because she is a Christian and her father was a Muslim, is only the tip of a very big and ugly iceberg. The overwhelming majority of people in the West remain woefully ignorant of the sufferings of non-Muslims under Islam.

So says Raymond Ibrahim, journalist and author, here.

(Meriam, who had her convictions overturned on appeal after an international outcry and was set free on Monday, was re-arrested at Khartoum Airport on Tuesday.)

Ibrahim quotes the cases of a number of Christians set free from the condemned cell after international protest, like pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, freed after three years under sentence of death in Iran, Abdul Rahman, freed from the death cell in Afghanistan, and 14-year-old Rimsha Masih, freed from sentence of death in Pakistan.

Rahman was released under the pretext that he was mentally retarded, although most sources indicated he was quite sane, and Masih was portrayed as mentally retarded prior to her release. This, says Ibrahim, is because Islamic law says the insane are not responsible for their actions.

The point is that these cases were reported by the mainstream media, and the resulting international outrage made these Christians too much of a liability to punish as sharia requires. But thanks to the mainstream media's general indifference, there are countless more Christian "blasphemers" and "apostates" rotting on death row in all three countries, not to mention all around the Islamic world, whose cases are not reported on. 

If the mainstream media reported more on the sufferings of Christians under Islam, says Ibrahim, their lot would likely improve.
   

Hollywood does it again

The new film Noah is nothing if not controversial. Some people say it is "terrific." The Telegraph calls it "astonishing and miraculous." Others are less kind. The Independent called it "underwhelming and frequently silly." The Observer's film critic called it a "preposterous but endearingly unhinged epic."

The director, Darren Aronofsky, is often described as an atheist. (Humanist would perhaps be a better description. "I think I definitely believe," he says. "My biggest expression of what I believe is in The Fountain. And that kind of sums it up.  It's hard for me to put it into words to describe. I made a movie about it. . . I still subscribe to the ideas in that movie.")

A lot of the story in the film is not in the Bible. Jewish-born Aronofsky and his co-writer use apocryphal writings and Jewish mysticism as well as the Bible for their sources."There is a big part of the population in America who don't want anything to contradict their view of the Bible and are never going to be open to this type of interpretation," he says.

Answers in Genesis, the creationist organisation, says: "The way in which Aronofsky's Noah blasphemes God, maligns the character of a righteous man, adds pagan and mystical elements, and twists the biblical narrative has prompted AiG to alert the church and culture about this unbiblical movie."

AiG president Ken Ham said the film was "boring," and "may be the worst film I've ever seen."

Meanwhile, the blockbuster continues to rake in its millions at the box office. The proprietors of YouVersion Bible app report that during the three-day opening weekend of the film, the story of Noah from Genesis was read or listened to 389,794 times. That doesn't account for people using other gadgets or reading the Bible story in print.

A word of advice. If you decide to see the film, find out before you do what the Bible says and what it doesn't.

Iran accused of hijacking MH 370 flight

It's 14 days now since Flight MH 370 disappeared without trace on a standard night flight between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing, and still no definite news. The Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 went missing from radar screens in the early hours of March 8 in one of the most baffling aviation mysteries in recent times.

The Times of Israel says that Israeli airline security experts - Israel is the nation with the greatest experience and expertise in airline security - believe the plane was hijacked.

Isaac Yeffet, who was head of global security for El Al, Israel's national airline, and now works as an aviation security consultant, says the evidence points to Iran. He points to the two Iranians who made it on to the plane with stolen passports.

"My guess is based on the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved. They hijacked the plane and they landed it in a place that nobody could see or find it." 

Shifting attention to the pilots and far-flung conspiracy theories, he says, was a mistake. Based on the Israeli intelligence strategy of profiling, the pilots were unlikely suspects. "We are talking about a captain who is 53 years old, who has worked for Malaysian Airlines for 30 years, and suddenly he becomes a terrorist? He wanted to commit suicide? If he committed suicide, where is the debris?"

 Eran Ramot, a former Israeli fighter pilot and head of aviation research at Israel's Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, says it would be very complicated for someone other than the pilot to have flown the plane. The flight made a U-turn from its planned route and dipped in between radar points for hours with all of its tracking systems turned off.

Like Yeffet, he believes the plane was intentionally flown to a secret location. He  is holding out hope that the 239 passengers and crew on board are still alive.

Big Brother takes exception

Let me say it again: if you believe that homosexual practice is wrong, you are not allowed to say so in public - and the Christian church appears to be doing nothing about the situation.

Former world heavyweight boxer Evander Holyfield is appearing on a programme named Big Brother on Channel 5.  He is believed to be an evangelical Christian. Fellow contestant Luisa Zissman said she thought it was bad that few people speak out about being homosexual in the sports industry.

"I think it's good to be open like that because it's normal."

Said Holyfield: "But that ain't normal. The Bible lets you know there’s wrong, there’s right.”

Zissman said: "That's just the way some people are born."

Holyfield disagreed: "It don't make no difference. If you're born and your leg was turned this way, what do you do? You go to a doctor and get it fixed back right."

The conversation was broadcast. Afterward Holyfield was taken to task by the Big Brother producers.

They told him: "While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren't the views that are held by a large section of society, and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. Do you understand why?

"Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language and must therefore warn you to consider very carefully the effect expressing such views may have and the harm and offence you may cause by repeating these views inside the house."

Said Brendan O'Neill in his Telegraph blog: "Today, so cavalier have we become about the old Millian ideal of freedom of thought and speech for all – even for those who offend us – that we think nothing of censuring a man simply for expressing a view that is 'not held by many people in society'. . . "

He said the censuring of Holyfield had been done "in the name of tolerance yet it is actually a prime example of intolerance. In the name of promoting society-wide tolerance of homosexuals, we must not tolerate the expression of any criticisms of homosexuality, the anti-Holyfield lobby says.

 "Remarkably, some people think such censuring and punishment of outdated views about women and minorities is a sign that Britain has become more tolerant. Actually it shows the opposite – that Britain is now astonishingly intolerant of anyone who holds the 'wrong' views, views that run counter to mainstream thinking, and it will humiliate them in public if they dare to express themselves and warn them to keep their filthy ideologies to themselves."

This came at the same time as an announcement that the Rev Donald MacInnes, Church of Scotland minister of Gairbraid Church, Maryhill, Glasgow, had been sacked as chaplain of Glasgow Gaelic School.

Mr MacInnes wrote on a Facebook page: "The overwhelming support of our Scottish politicians in creating same-sex marriage is very disappointing. Many of us, myself included, agreed that the creation of civil partnerships was necessary so that individuals suffering from this disorder were not legally penalised in any way because of their sexuality. We can now expect to see the school curriculum changed to the end that our children will be taught this perversion as if it were a good thing."

Some parents saw the comments, and complained to the city council. One parent said she did not wish her children to be exposed to prejudice. Another said the comments were "absolutely disgraceful." 

So much for the clear teaching of the Bible on the subject.

Television worth watching

Well, I hope you caught it. The Bible, that is. By which I mean the first almost two-hour TV instalment of the Bible story on Channel 5 on Saturday evening.

The Bible was conceived by husband and wife team Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, who wanted to show how the Old Testament connects seamlessly to the New Testament. "How they are one sweeping story with one grand, overriding message. God loves each one of us as if we were the only person in the world to love."

The series showed in the US in March and became the number one show on cable TV with the biggest  cable TV audience of 2013. The first instalment covered from Creation to the Israelites about to enter into the Promised Land, with the stories of Noah and the Ark, Abraham and Isaac, Moses and Pharaoh, the ten plagues and the deliverance from Egypt. The parting of the Red Sea was spectacular, and Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac had me in tears.

If you missed it, you can see it at www.channel5.com/demand5. I recommend it. The remaining episodes you can see on Channel 5 each Saturday evening to the end of the year. Television worth watching.

Hatred, persecution. . . and love

Why are Coptic Christians in Egypt undergoing their worst persecution since the 14th century, with horrific levels of violence, to the almost complete unconcern of the West?

Pre-planned destruction of scores of ancient churches, monasteries, schools, orphanages and businesses are said to have gone unreported for days across the West. Yet it has been the worst persecution for 700 years of the largest remaining Christian minority in the Middle East.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute Religious Freedom Centre in Washington, told a meeting in London organised by Lapido Media and the Henry Jackson Society that US newspapers, asking what difference Islamists winning elections in Egypt in 2011 would make, suggested merely that women would be prohibited from wearing skimpy clothing and Sharm el Sheikh would be closed as a tourist resort. This was "utterly trivial."

The media had failed to ask the most basic questions. Why were the Copts singled out? There was enough evidence to show that the violence was part of a plan to drive out the Copts, to terrorise them into leaving.

Historian Tom Holland said in terms of the sheer scale of hatreds and sectarian rivalries, we were watching something on the scale of horror of the European Thirty Years War.

Dr Jenny Taylor said the media's job had been impeded by "secular blinders." They tended to report the Middle East's religions as a "variant of a Westminster debate" with "left-wing underdogs and right-wing overdogs and Christians getting lumped in with the overdogs, if they get mentioned at all."

The Coptic Church in UK’s Bishop Angaelos said Muslims had often protected Christians. The church and civil society together were against the extremists.  Many Muslims had turned against the Muslim Brotherhood when it became clear there was no economic plan. He agreed there had been what felt like silence from Western churches, governments and indeed Western Muslims after the attacks.
 
Meanwhile 11,000 young people from 250 churches of all denominations were attending a three-day conference in a church conference facility in the desert 70 miles north of Cairo, despite a curfew and the fact that Egypt's railway system was suspended. Many watched the conference sessions live on two Christian TV channels, and thousands more on the internet.

The main prayer for the conference, titled One Way 2013, was that God would set apart these young people as a sacred generation for Himself, ready to do His work on earth.

A Muslim journalist, who visited the conference with Muslim friends out of curiosity, wrote: "We were overwhelmed by the spirit of love that spread out all over the place, from people who have just been facing a severe wave of attacks, burning, looting - people who had been severely suffering by fanatic Muslims. I was surrounded by a massive crowd of people who were taught to love and forgive. Their genuine spirit of love and angelic worship did not leave my thought!"

'Faith illiteracy' at the BBC?

Krish Kandiah, Christian author, pastor and lecturer, complains of a lack of faith literacy among BBC researchers and sometimes BBC journalists.

Told by a researcher that they were "doing a special on the Bible" and wanted someone who believed the Bible was true to put opposite someone who thought it wasn't, he asked the researcher a basic question about which parts of the Bible she had read. She said she had never read the Bible. This, he says, is inadequate for a researcher on a religious programme about the Bible.

I mention this because the BBC has just published a new report on the breadth of opinion reflected in its output in key areas, including its treatment of religion.

Peter Hitchens says "The BBC does implicitly take a side on whether Britain is a Christan country - that it is not a Christian country and should be multicultural. Both Christianity and Islam are statements of opinion with which anyone is entitled to disagree, but on Radio 4's Sunday programme, Islam gets a free ride compared to the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, which are endlessly bombarded on that programme with stories about paedophilia, homosexuality and women priests."

BBC presenter Roger Bolton says "If a Christian is interviewed by the BBC about their objections to abortion on religious grounds, they are treated as though they are just a bit barmy."

Theologian Robert Beckford says "Worship is not aimed at or structured around the dominance of black Pentecostalism. More black people go to church in central London than any other ethnic group."

Replying to secularists' arguments that the BBC spends too much time on religious programmes, the BBC's Christine Morgan says more and more young people are interested in religion whether or not they are religious, because it is arguable that they cannot understand the modern world unless they understand religion.

The report is largely favourable. It says "The BBC's services of worship, news and analysis produced by its Religion and Ethics team is comprehensive and impressive. I found no convincing evidence that voices which could and should have been heard had not been heard,  and no convincing evidence that the BBC had not reflected an appropriate balance between different religions"

but 

"BBC journalists  need. . .  to examine their own assumptions about 'shared consensus' before embarking on interviews involving deeply held beliefs."

There is intelligent comment on the report at God and Politics' blog. It says if the BBC is to remain a credible broadcaster it needs to work hard to keep the trust of its audiences, and treating those who hold religious beliefs with respect is integral to that.

Abortion horrors 'not unique'

Illness prevented me from commenting on the result of the case of Dr Kermit Gosnell.

Dr Gosnell  was an abortionist. He was estimated to take $10,000 to $15,000 for a few hours' work each day. His abortion clinic in Philadelphia was dirty and reeked of urine. There were cat faeces on the stairs. There was blood on the floor, and furniture and blankets were bloodstained. The emergency exit was padlocked and no one knew where the key was.

Medical equipment, according to the grand jury report, was generally broken, and when it worked, it wasn't used. Disposable medical supplies, intended to be used once, were used until they broke. Venereal disease was spread with infected instruments. Bowels, cervixes and uteruses were perforated and women left sterile.

Gosnell had staff, but there was not a qualified doctor or a qualified nurse among them, and they were allowed to give repeated doses of drugs at their discretion. He would seldom arrive at the clinic before 8pm. Foetal remains were stored haphazardly in milk jugs, orange juice cartons, cat food containers and plastic bags. Dead foetuses were stored in paper bags in the employees' lunch refrigerator.

Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage. Abortions were performed long after the legal limit by inducing delivery of the babies, who were then killed by having their spinal cords cut with scissors. One clinic worker testified that a baby she estimated at 30 weeks had been delivered into a toilet. She had slit the baby's throat.

Officials from the Department of Health had not inspected the premises in 17 years, and ignored complaints against the doctor and 46 lawsuits filed against him, said prosecutors.

Gosnell faced charges of first-degree murder of babies born alive, one charge of third-degree murder of a 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee from an excess of drugs before her abortion, multiple charges of performing abortions past the legal limit, conspiracy, drug delivery resulting in death, infanticide, corruption of minors, evidence tampering, theft by deception, abuse of corpse and corruption - and despite the sensational evidence there was a virtual media blackout on the case, apparently because the case didn't fit the pro-abortion position of the majority of the American media. It was left to a couple of journalists and bloggers to shame the media into some coverage, but the case then apparently receded once more into oblivion until sentence was passed.

(In Britain, there was an occasional story in the Telegraph, the Times and the Guardian. The exception was the Daily Mail, which was said to have printed 26 stories on the case since 2011 - more than all the stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, NBS, and CNN combined.)

The prosecution could have asked for the death penalty. But since Gosnell might have died from natural causes by the time he had exhausted the appeal process - he was 72 years old - the prosecution is reported not to have asked for the death penalty in exchange for a promise not to appeal the sentence. He was sentenced to several life sentences without parole.

One pro-life organisation said when given the choice, Gosnell had chosen life. It was a pity, they said, that the children he had killed were not given the same choice.

Leaders of pro-life organisations said the incidents at Gosnell's "house of horrors" were not unique, but reflective of abuses that characterised the entire abortion industry. Other authorities seem slow to prosecute.

The BBC and the Middle East

During Tuesday night more than 70 rockets were fired into southern Israel from Gaza. (They have continued to be fired since.)

On Wednesday The Commentator published the following:

Over sixty rockets were fired into Israel overnight last night. And how exactly did the BBC choose to report it?

That's right. "Lead with the Israeli response, and wait until halfway through to bury the fact that dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel." Or at least that's what I imagine the editor would have said. It certainly looks that way if you read their article.

Also, calling terrorists  firing rockets into civilian areas 'militants'? Were the 7/7 bombers 'militants'? Were the 9/11 perpetrators 'militants'? No - they're terrorists.

But when it comes down to the Israel-Palestine conflict, equivocation and moral relativism seems to be in the BBC's guidelines. . . 

You can read the BBC story here.

You  may feel that "wait until halfway through to bury the fact that dozens of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel" is unfair. But the BBC did lead with the Israeli strikes on Gaza, not the terrorist attacks on Israel. And remarks about calling terrorists "militants" are fair comment.

I have no intention of commenting at this time on the Jimmy Savile scandal currently engulfing the BBC. (Plenty of others will be doing that.) But can it be hoped that while the BBC is seeking for the truth in that crisis, it might review its awful liberal mindset and its appalling anti-Israel bias?

The BBC and Christianity

Why, wrote Cranmer after Usain Bolt's triumphs at the Olympics, does the BBC ignore Usain Bolt's God?

Usain Bolt - the fastest man on the planet - is a devout believer (of the Protestant Christian kind) in the One True God, says Cranmer. And he makes absolutely no secret at all of the fact: he crosses himself to exalt the Trinity, and mouths a prayer to the heavens before every race. And after each victory, he publicly gives thanks to God, in word and physical supplication. Following yesterday's triumph in the 200m, he said of his Lord and Saviour: "Nothing would have been possible without Him."

Is this not worth just a passing mention by the BBC?

It is strange that they chose to narrate in minute detail every minute of the countdown: as the clock was ticking, they filmed him on CCTV and followed his every move. They described Bolt's events and focused on the man and his achievements like they have no other athlete. We were given insights into his family life, with comments by his brother, parents and coach. The focus on the personal has been intense.

But not one mention of Bolt's faith.

While he was manifestly thanking God on his knees for yesterday's victory, the BBC presenter spun this spontaneous act of worship as Bolt having 'a moment to himself.' This manifestly blurs the significance for the viewer. This is what Bolt tweeted:

I want to thank GOD for everything he as done for me cause without him none of this wouldn't be possible.

But not a mention by the BBC. Instead, they pass it over with embarrassment, pretending it is what it is not. What they refer to as 'a moment to himself' is a glorious outpouring of thanks and praise to God.

The BBC have known for more than four years what Usain Bolt always does, before and after each race, without fail: how he chooses the moment the camera is on him to make the act of humble worship, as a very public witness that it is the Creator who made him fast. They have been briefed to bits by Bolt's PR team and by members of his family: Usain Bolt is a Bible-believing, God-honouring, Jesus-worshipping Christian. But not a whisper from the BBC; not a word of explanation of the real significance of these 'moments to himself.'

It is strange, but not very surprising. Not with the BBC.

Anti-Israel? The BBC? I should say so

Another blatant example of the BBC's shameful anti-Israel bias.

Archbishop Cranmer writes:

One is used to this sort of thing from The Guardian: its Israel-loathing anti-Semitism has long been a matter of public record. But The Guardian is a privately-run, commercial enterprise with the right in law to believe as its proprietor wishes and speak as its editor wills.

The same rights do not extend to the BBC, which is publicly owned and financed by the British taxpayer, with a commitment to broadcast impartiality and factual accuracy.

His Grace has been following this story closely for the past week: The Commentator blog drew attention to the fact that the BBC's online coverage was manifestly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine: every participating nation had its capital city listed, bar the state of Israel, which was left blank.  Yet the non-state of Palestine had its capital listed as 'East Jerusalem.' Despite Israel's seat of government- the Knesset - being in Jerusalem, and despite a plethora of foreign embassies being located in Tel Aviv, the BBC opted to identify neither as Israel's capital city. And yet, despite the Palestinian seat of government being in Ramallah, and despite Jerusalem not being divided, the BBC opted to carve the East away and hand it, lock, stock and barrel (Temple Mount, Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) to the self-proclaimed Palestinian Authority.

This was a blatant bias and factual inaccuracy. Even those who might defend the BBC with an appeal to UN declarations on the 'international' status of Jerusalem - contra Israel's own assertion about its capital - are left floundering in the knowledge that any part of Jerusalem claimed by the non-state of Palestine is nothing more than self-proclamation.

Yet the BBC summarily dismissed what Israel says of and claims for Jerusalem, while validating and authenticating what Palestine says and claims of the city.

Unsurprisingly, people wrote to the BBC to complain, including the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, which wrote:

. . . we were astounded by the decision of the BBC to discriminate against Israel in the network's Olympic page. For each country (and non-country) participating in the London Olympics, a special page was given on your internet site which included background information such as capital city. For each country (and non-country) apart from Israel. Jerusalem is the capital city of the state of Israel, and accordingly we request that you correct this matter immediately.

The BBC acknowledged:

Due to an error which was made at the time the information was added onto the website, incorrect details and mistakes appeared on the Israeli and Palestinian team pages. This has since been rectified in line with BBC policy.

And so the offending page was amended to read: 'Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.'

Still no mention of a capital city.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office sent a further letter of complaint, but the BBC made it clear that this was as far as they would go.

So the Prime Minister's Office launched a Facebook page to increase awareness and to pressure the BBC in this matter. The page description states: 'Following the BBC's decision to omit Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel from its Olympic Games website, this is your place to support Jerusalem - the one and only Capital of Israel.'

The Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat wrote: "We will not accept those who deny our history, our sovereignty, and our right to determine our own capital. Irrespective of the BBC's political agenda, Jerusalem was, is and will always be the capital of Israel and the spiritual, political, and physical center of the Jewish people."

You can read the rest here.

It's the Biased Broadcasting Corporation

As a publicly-funded public service broadcaster, the BBC is supposed to be impartial. The BBC claims it is impartial. How it manages to do that in view of the fact that its bias is so obvious is a little difficult to understand.

The corporation is notorious for its bias against Israel. It commissioned a study on its coverage of the Middle East conflict which resulted in the Balen Report. After chiefs read the report, the BBC refused to make its contents public, and is reported to have spent £200,000 in legal costs so far defying an order to make its contents public under the Freedom of Information Act. It is hard to imagine why it would do that unless it were that its contents condemn the corporation for its bias.

On another front the BBC has recently been accused of acting as cheerleader in the campaign to legalise assisted suicide.

On his website, Dr Peter Saunders, of Care Not Killing, gives the background to the charge. The BBC has recently filmed a man killing himself at the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland for a documentary to be screened this summer. The programme will be presented by author Terry Pratchett, a patron of Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and a campaigner for legalised assisted suicide.

The programme will be the fifth produced by the BBC in three years, says Dr Saunders, presented by a pro-euthanasia campaigner or sympathiser and specifically designed to portray taking one's own life in a positive light.

A BBC Panorama documentary fronted by Margo MacDonald MSP in the lead-up to tabling her euthanasia bill in the Scottish Parliament was screened four times. A 90-minute docudrama starring Julie Walters, telling the story of the death of Bath GP Anne Turner at Dignitas was screened seven times.

The 34th Richard Dimbleby Lecture featured Terry Pratchett making the case for assisted suicide for patients, like himself, with Alzheimer's disease. A hand-picked audience in the Royal College of Physicians signalled their approval as he described himself ending his life by nonchalantly sipping poisoned champagne in his back garden.

BBC East Midlands featured a confession by producer Ray Gosling to smothering a homosexual lover with AIDS. The story turned out to be pure fantasy - "but not until after the BBC machinery had blown it up into a massive international news story just prior to the Director of Public Prosecutions reporting on his assisted suicide prosecution criteria.

"I am also aware of a sixth 'documentary' currently being put together, again presented by a keen advocate of legalising assisted suicide, news of which has not yet entered the public domain.

"During this three year period there has not been one BBC programme presenting the opposite point of view. This is in spite of the fact that all three parliamentary bills attempting to legalise the practice in the last five years have been heavily defeated and despite the continuing robust opposition to legalisation from disability rights groups, medical professionals and faith groups. . .

"What is somewhat ironic about this whole process is the fact that there are strict codes about media coverage of suicide, not only from bodies like the World Health Organisation, but also from the BBC itself (on covering both suicide and criminal acts), which are constantly and repeatedly flouted . . .

"Concerns about the well-documented phenomenon of suicide contagion, especially following suicides carried out by celebrities. . . are simply not part of the narrative when the BBC covers these issues. Instead it has adopted almost a campaigning stance.

"No one is denying that the debate about assisted suicide is crucially important. This is a free democratic society and those who wish to see a change in the law are fully entitled to express their views in the public square. Furthermore it is to be expected that private media outlets will want to pursue a specific editorial line.

"But with an issue as important as this one, campaigners should not have the added advantage of being able to spread their propaganda by using the publicly funded national broadcasting corporation effectively as a private public relations company and press office."

The BBC spends an almost incredible amount of money. In these days of economic difficulty, perhaps something needs to be done about that too.