Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Why the BBC - and the rest of the left-liberal media - got the Israeli election result wrong

My considered response to last night's news that Benjamin Netanyahu had won the election was as follows:
This has remained my position today, especially when reading the headlines on the BBC News site. Whenever I see something along the lines of "Netanyahu in surprise election win" I'm almost surprised not to see "Bugger!" in brackets after it. Poor old Jeremy Bowen and his fellow-correspondents must be feeling sick as pigs - they've all been so pant-wettingly excited at the prospect of getting rid of a politician they so evidently hate.

Of course, the BBC isn't alone. Here's US commentator Pamela Geller on the reaction over at the New York Times, a newspaper now fittingly run by fomer BBC Director-General, Mark Thompson (here):
The NY Times now even admits that Netanyahu “soundly beat” his rivals. It’s practically a funeral over on Eighth Avenue. Their pain is turning to anger and they are attacking Netanyahu, predicting his failure even as he wins such a victory. They are practically spitting blood. Haters gonna hate.
NYT: To bridge the gap, Mr. Netanyahu embarked on a last-minute scorched-earth campaign, promising that no Palestinian state would be established as long as he remained in office and insulting Arab citizens.
As that quote from the paper demonstrates, all the lefties praying for Bibi's defenestration have done what they always do when they suffer a reverse - gone into bitter, smeary, ferocious attack mode. Here's a typical piece of unbiased analysis from the BBC's Mark Lowen in Jerusalem:

His victory defied the odds, but now Benjamin Netanyahu is confident he can build a coalition. 
It will be staunchly nationalist, inevitably including far right and ultra-Orthodox parties but may also involve centrists who'll try to tame his hardline stance on the Palestinian issue. 
Mr Netanyahu recently vowed to step up building in settlements and effectively ruled out a Palestinian state. 
An official from the Palestine Liberation Organisation said Israel had chosen "the path of racism and occupation". 
There will be concern in the West that peace talks are unlikely to be reignited unless the new coalition tempers its views.

Oh dear - not a happy bunny! Note all the leftie buzzwords and phrases: staunchly nationalist (nationals are always "staunch", apparently); far-right (i.e. usually anti-Big State, but it's a description that can mean anything when wielded by a leftist); ultra-Orthodox (religious maniacs - not a phrase ever applied to Muslims, obviously); hardline stance (i.e. irrational war-monger); the word racist is smuggled in via a quote from the PLO, which isn't in the least anti-Semitic, but just happens to want to kill all the Jews; and it almost goes without saying that right-wingers need to be tamed and that their viewes need to be tempered - hey, we all know they're batshit crazy, right?

Classic stuff. The reason the Left loses its temper so badly when things don't go their way is that they're so used to being allowed to reconfigure awkward facts to suit their worldview (otherwise known as "lying") that they get jolly upset when those facts stubbornly resist reinterpretation. When discussing the economy, or the NHS, or education, or immigration etc. lefties habitually rerarrange actuality into a more pleasing pattern by making up facts, or by blatantly misrepresenting them. Just listen to any member of Labour's front-bench team (if you can stomach the thought) making statements about any of the things they screwed up so badly while in office (that would be everything) to see what I'm getting at - Mid-Staffs never happened; the economy was fine when they left office - or, if it wasn't, it was nothing to do with them; they didn't "dumb down" education - all those fabulous exam results reflected genuine achievement; okay, they let immigration get ever-so-slightly out of hand, but they're going to be scarily tough next time - but, unlike those horrid Tories or racist UKIP, they're going to be fair, because they're really, really nice - or something.

When it comes to election results, the left-wing trick is to claim that the other side didn't do as well as it was expected to do, and that, therefore, in a very real sense, voters have resoundingly rejected their opponents' policies, and, consequently, the election can be seen as a ringing endorsement of their own platform. But when the Right win an election they were expected to lose - or win it by a larger margin than had been predicted - the fall-back position is to claim that THE END IS NIGH!

I have no idea whether Netanyahu's election victory has enhanced or harmed the prospect of a solution to the Arab-Israeli problem. But as I don't for one moment believe that the PLO or Hamas or Iran actually want a solution that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of Jewry in the region, I'd go with the guy who mistrusts Arab intentions (which is what all the evidence would seem to suggest) rather than one who actually believes a bunch of homicidal rocket-lobbers have any interest in reaching an equitable, workable, peaceful settlement of their differences with their neighbours.

A lot of people I respect loathe Bibi with a vengeance. But while Barack Obama, the BBC, the New York Times, The Guardian and their ilk continue to propagandise against him - at the same time lending uncritical support to the Palestinian cause by wilfully turning a blind eye to the sheer wickedness being perpetrated in its name - I'm all for the man.


  1. "An official from the Palestine Liberation Organisation said Israel had chosen 'the path of racism and occupation'." In an otherwise unhelpful article in the DT [19/3] David Blair gets at least one thing right: "...whenever they have relinquished territory in the past, by leaving South Lebanon in 2000...or evacuating settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 - nothing has been gained except for barrages of rockets launched by Hizbollah and Hamas."

    J.M.Coetzee on Israel and Palestine: " There is such a thing as defeat and the Palestinians have been defeated. Bitter though such a fate may be, they must taste it, call it by its true name, swallow it. They must accept defeat and accept it constructively. The alternative unreconstructive way is to go on nourishing revanchist dreams of a to-morrow when all the wrongs will be righted by some miracle. For a constructive way of accepting defeat they might look to Germany post-1945." ["Here and Now: Letters 2008-20112"].

    I suspect Benjamin Netanyahu is extremely unpleasant to deal with, but he is not only a "Realpolitiker" [like many Israeli politicians he has a distinguished military record unlike the whey-faced cream puffs who have been running the show in the West for the last 25 years] but also a "conviction" politician whose prime motivation is for his country to survive as opposed to himself getting re-elected simply so he can continue to enjoy the trappings of power. David Blair in the DT says that "King Bibi...offers nothing but a swaggering and articulate brand of paralysis". No Blair [dread name], he offers the Israelis a continuing hope of survival and that's why they voted for him in great numbers, you mealy-mouthed dick-head. Now why don't you shut your gob and give your arse a chance?

    1. " mealy-mouthed dick-head. Now why don't you shut your gob and give your arse a chance?" - I'm pretty sure you're quoting Charles Moore there. I see Obama has yet again displayed his magnanimity, big-heartedness and respect for democracy by threatening to withdraw US support for Israel because they voted for the wrong man. God, what a truly petty little man Barry is.

      I was reading Charles Moore in the Telegraph this morning on the Dolce & Gabanna/Elton John spat over gays and "pet" babies and not for the first time wondering if the day will ever come when this once-great newspaper appoints another editor as clear-headed, articulate and conservative as Moore. I can't remember the last time he wriote anything with which a sensible right-winger would disagree.

      I too suspect Bibi of being a bit of a bastard - but when you're surrounded by savages who all want to kill you, I'd be inclined to go for the "bastard" option - after all, the enemies of Israel appear to be incapable of gratitude and uninterested in compromise, so I'm not sure why any Israeli leader with his countrymen's interests at heart would want to be "reasonable".