CBC`s Poor Excuse for "Analysis"

After a week of over-reporting on Harper`s visit to Israel, with only a tiny bit of criticism in it, CBC chose to cap it off with this article that it described as an "analysis":

ANALYSIS

Stephen Harper survives Mideast minefield, tough talk and all

Staying clear of gaffes and disasters counts as victory on a Mideast tour

By Terry Milewski, CBC News  ET Last Updated: Jan 24, 2014 5:18 AM ET

Harper`s totally unbalanced approach to Israel/Palestine was an embarrassment to Canada, and his visit was full of statements and claims that were not only wrong; many of them were disgraceful. Many of them were "gaffes". Certainly if CBC was interested in an analysis of this visit, it could do better than this article which basically claimed the trip was a success because no one lost their luggage.

Here are some passages from the article, followed by some of the basic points that should have been made in any so-called analysis. The author chose to raise these points, so it was his obligation to deal with them intelligently which he totally failed to do:

1)  Stephen Harper received a courteous welcome from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, in the West Bank city of Ramallah Monday, where he announced $66 million in new aid from Canada. (Darren Whiteside/Reuters)

But, in some respects, he did better than that — not least, by evading some of the expected Palestinian hostility to Harper's sharp tilt toward Israel.

Harper, of course, pledged that Canada would stand with Israel, "through fire and water." But the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, meekly said that he hoped Canada's policy would change.

Of course, when you are standing next to a visitor holding a cheque for $66 million to help build a future state, it's rude to complain. In fact, under both Liberals and Conservatives, Canada has played a quiet but effective role in creating a security force and a justice system, without which no Palestinian state will ever function. So Abbas was polite.

Two points should have been made here. 

a) Abbas`s meekness was largely a function of the fact that he has no credibility as the leader of the Palestinians. He lost the election to Hamas; his term has expired, his party is noted for its corruption; and he is widely despised in Palestine. A legitimate Palestinian leader would have refused to met Harper, in spite of the money he carried. 

b) Canadian aid to the Palestinian Authority is really aid to Israel - it is used to finance the Palestinian police force which actually works for Israel to keep control over the Occupied Territory.

2) Of course, there's no doubt that, under Harper, Canada is taking sides, merely by insisting that Israel is entitled to exist as a Jewish state and to defend itself.

But Harper went further, first, by directly attacking Israel's critics in the harshest terms, and, second, by giving a scathing account of the prevailing dysfunction in Israel's turbulent neighbourhood.

His assault on Israel's detractors was merciless. Harper called it "sickening" that Israel is accused of practising "apartheid." And he made a virtue of his refusal to navigate the Mideast minefield by being nice to both sides.

Harper went to an unacceptable extreme in denouncing critics of Israel; including making the absurd claim that criticism of Israel was a new form of antisemitism. He was telling the Palestinians, among hundreds of thousands of other decent people around the world, that their legitimate concern for the rights of Palestinians was a vile form of racism. This is as ridiculous as saying criticism of the White Apartheid regime in South Africa was anti-White. This claim shames all Canadians. How could it be ignored in a so-called "analysis"?

Also the article fails to note the insult Harper rightly received from two Palestinian members of the Knesset who heckled him, and walked out on him. They left because Harper had effectively said they were antisemites for defending the rights of their own Palestinian people. They did the right thing to walk out on him, and Canadians should feel shame that decent, honest people cannot bear to be in the same room with our ignorant, prejudiced Prime Minister.

3)  Nor was Harper ambiguous about his disdain for Islamist forces around the region. He poured scorn on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for attempting, under the ousted president Mohamed Morsi, to establish "an authoritarian Islamic state."

And he came close to expressing some nostalgia for the old Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak.

"There was a lot of enthusiasm, unbridled enthusiasm in much of the West for the revolution in Egypt, and with very good reason. We were a little more cautious, and I think that caution has been borne out."

Harper declared that the Egyptian people should not have a democracy because they vote for people he does not like. He said the same thing when the Palestinians elected a Hamas Government. Certainly CBC should point out that Harper`s commitment to democracy is very questionable with these remarks, and that he is supporting the renewed Egyptian dictatorship. Also a word or two might be worthwhile about the fact that eurocentric, anti-Muslim, Christian fundamentalists like Harper and George W. Bush play a very negative role in the stability of the Middle East with their actions in support of dictators and against elected governments.

4)  And he accused Iran of planning not just to build nuclear weapons but to use them.

"This is a regime in Iran, an extremist fundamentalist regime with a violent and hateful ideology, and it wants to possess nuclear weapons. It tells the world it wants to possess nuclear weapons for the purpose of using nuclear weapons, which is truly frightening."

How in Heaven`s name does this claim by Harper warrant being repeated, without analysis. CBC has quoted Harper in the past when he has made this claim, and it is contemptible for CBC to echo it without analysis. It is essentially a kind of "blood libel" against Iranians. It has absolutely no basis in fact. It is entirely a figment of Harper`s imagination. The scary thing is that Harper looks into his own evil soul, filled with the desire to fight the battles of his God, and then projects his violent, blood lust onto his enemies. The fact is that NO IRANIAN LEADER HAS EVER EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO USE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Even the Americans never make this ridiculous claim. Iran may want to have a nuclear weapon, although they say they do not, but there is absolutely no reason or evidence to suggest they WANT to use one. Nor have they ever said they want to use one. Not only would it be suicidal to do so, but the mass killing of civilians would be immoral within their own system of morality. Indeed they have declared all nuclear weapons as "haram" - that is, forbidden by God.

Stephen Harper`s trip to Israel was a disaster for Canada`s reputation in the world. He accomplished nothing that would benefit Canadians. In fact, he probably harmed Canada. Perhaps some analysis might be warranted as to whether he has seriously overstepped the bounds of acceptable Prime Ministerial behaviour. Could his grossly unbalanced commitment to Israel, and promises of unflinching support no matter what the implications for Canada, be considered traitorous? How far can you go in promoting the interests of a foreign state and still be considered acceptable as a Canadian Prime Minister?

It is a crying shame, that CBC, with all its resources financed by Canadians, could not produce a better "analysis" of Harper`s visit to Israel and what it means for Canadian interests in the world. You have to wonder who CBC is working for.

Harper in Israel - For Shame

CBC coverage of Harper`s visit to Israel has been extensive. It has eclipsed much more significant events such as the demonstrations in Ukraine and in Thailand. Obviously CBC thinks Israel is an important country, that is of great interest to Canadians. I wonder whether this is truly the case.

Although there is a little bit of critical comment in CBC on Harper`s visit, it has not pointed out some of the most glaring, most embarrassingly-stupid statements made by Harper, especially in his Knesset speech. For example, Harper claimed that the BDS Campaign and much of the widespread criticism of Israel`s policies and actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians is anti-semitic. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim, especially insulting when made to Palestinians who launched the BDS Campaign as a non-violent means of trying to receive some justice to their cause.

How can a Canadian Prime Minister go to a foreign country and tell them that those who criticize their policies and actions are just racists or irrationally-biased people? Could he go to Venezuela and tell their parliament that critics of Venezuela must be anti-Hispanics? Or go to Uganda, and tell their parliament that critics of their policies are just anti-black? 

This ridiculous claim by Harper has brought shame on all Canadians, and CBC should have clearly pointed this out in the reporting on this visit.

Stephen Harper is a euro-centric, white supremacist, Christian fundamentalist, believer in the imminent Second Coming, with an 18th Century view of the world. He does not pay attention to the advice of his Foreign Affairs Department, but rather acts as if his ignorant, distorted, primitive worldview is superior to theirs. Harper is an embarrassment to Canada, and a danger to world peace. CBC ｈａｓ ａ responsibility to advise and warn Canadians about this rogue individual who is speaking on our behalf internationally.

CBC is failing in its responsibilities by not at least alluding to this fact and this danger.

Ariel Sharon is Dead. So What?

On January 12, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finally ended his coma of six years and died.

CBC online has made this the major news story of the day, as if this man somehow had significance for Canada and the world. In fact even when he was alive, he was an extremely negative presence on the global scene, and certainly had no special significance for Canada. Why this dramatic coverage as if a major world leader has been lost to the world? Is it some bias or special love of Israel that explains this? If so, where does this come from?

Israel ranks No. 96 in the world by population size. The population of Israel is only 0.11 percent of the world population. And even 20 percent of this population are Palestinians who are second-class citizens in Israel. Israel is about the same size as Papua New Guinea or Tajikistan. 

Zionists often complain that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign unfairly focuses on Israel, while ignoring human rights abuses elsewhere. They say this is an unfair double standard. But the fact is that tiny, little, belligerent Israel is covered positively in the news to a degree which is way out of proportion to its real merits. There really is a double standard here, and most of the time it is in Israel`s favour.

What other leader of a puny country like Israel, who had a very controversial history that probably included massive human rights abuses, racist ultra-nationalism, and military recklessness, would receive so much glowing coverage on his passing?

CBC - on January 12, 2014, there was violent suppression of citizen demonstrations in the Ukraine, and Bangkok is being devastated by anti-democracy riots. There are probably a thousand news stories of far, far greater significance than the death of this insignificant man from an insignificant little country. 

To what extent does an unbridled love of Israel influence your notions of what is significant to Canadians? Perhaps you should try to put your unreasonable bias aside, and put real Canadian interests first.

More CBC War-mongering

On August 26, CBC online published an article about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government. As usual it was unbalanced and strongly suggesting that the Syrian Government is guilty as claimed and deserves to be attacked by the US and its allies.

The article included this paragraph:

The United States strongly suspects that Assad's regime was behind the Aug. 21 attack on the eastern outskirts of Damascus. That suspicion is supported by the international aid group Doctors Without Borders, which reported that 355 people were killed in an artillery attack that also included the purported use of a toxic chemical weapon.

The organization's president, Mego Terzian, has said the group is "100 per cent" certain that some sort of neurotoxic gas was deployed.

CBC is distorting the words of Doctors without Borders. Terzan's report did confirm that poison gas was probably used, but he also reported that he does not know which side in the conflict actually used it. CBC has written this paragraph to make it appear that Terzan is supporting the accusations against Assad, WHICH HE DID NOT.

This is a good example of the corrupted, war-mongering reporting on the Middle East that CBC is producing on a regular basis. 

Chemical Weapons in Syria

CBC online has carried many articles over the past week on a chemical weapons massacre near Damascus.

Although it has quoted Syrian Government sources a few times saying they were not responsible, the bulk of the reporting clearly pointed the finger of responsibility at the Syrian Government.

CBC knows that the US and its allies, especially Britain, but also Canada, have stated that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government would be a justification to intervene and massively expand the scale of Syria's civil war. So when CBC writes articles and drafts headlines pointing the finger at the Syrian Government, it is practising war journalism. It is aiding the war-mongers.

If CBC wanted to be fair and balanced, in the hundreds of lines on this topic, somewhere it would have asked the following questions:

Knowing that that the use of chemical weapons would bring the combined military might of the US and its allies on their heads, why would the Syrian Government use chemical weapons? Since they are currently winning the civil war, and are more massively armed than the rebels, why would they use chemical weapons when they do not need to use them? Why would they target women and children in their capital city, rather than rebel fighters? Why would they do this when UN inspectors are about to arrive in Damascus? Knowing they are losing the war, and desperately need US help, why wouldn't the rebels create a "false flag" attack, then try to blame it on the government? 

It is hard for any rational person to believe that the Syrian Government would be so stupid as to do the thing that would guarantee its destruction, and that Assad would authorize a thing that would guarantee he joined Gaddafi and Saddam as a murdered victim of a US intervention.

It is easy to believe that the rebels who are they only ones who would benefit from this chemical attack, because it would bring the US in on their side. and who are losing their fight, would carry out a "false flag" chemical attack.

Why does CBC not make these points anywhere in its reporting? Where in CBC's charter does it say they must not practice peace journalism, but always must be touts for war in the Middle East???

It's settlements, not prisoners, that are important

CBC has made an unnaturally big deal out of the Israeli prisoner release, and has paid much less attention to the much more fundamental issue of continued expansion of Israeli settlements (that is, Israel eating the pie while slowly negotiating how to divide it).

There have been several headline articles over the past week about the prisoner release, but only one about settlement expansion:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/11/israel-settlements.html

Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes

However if one looks at this article, even here about half of the words are about how painful it is for Israel to release a hundred or so of its 4,500 Palestinian political prisoners.

On August 14th we have this latest of several articles on the prisoner release:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/13/israel-frees-palestinian-prisoners-appeals-rejected.html

Israel frees 26 Palestinian prisoners before peace talks

Israel will free 104 Palestinian prisoners before Wednesday's peace talks

Notice how CBC goes to the extent of naming the victims of Palestinian violence:

"Among those released Tuesday was a Palestinian convicted in the 1994 slaying of Isaac Rotenberg, a 69-year-old Holocaust survivor who was attacked with an ax as he was working at a construction site where he was a contractor. Others were convicted in the slayings of Ian Feinberg, an Israeli lawyer killed in a European aid office in Gaza in 1993, and Frederick Rosenfeld, an American slain while hiking in the West Bank in 1989."

The fact is that 3 Palestinians are killed by Israelis for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, and the ratio is as high as 5 to 1 more Palestinian children and youths being killed. How often are we given the full names and details of these killings.

What exactly is CBC trying to prove by going into such detail on Israel's supposed generosity in releasing a few prisoners, and offering so little detail on Israel's duplicity in expanding settlements? Why not give the full names and details of Palestinians killed, injured, or simply illegally dispossessed of their homes and land by Israel? Why not more details on how painful the actual new construction will be for Palestinians living nearby?

CBC, if you think we need to know the names of victims, give us the names of the hundreds and thousands of Palestinian victims as well!

And lets have more details about what actually is happening with the expansion being announced by Israel. There is a campaign of ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from East Jerusalem which is being furthered by this expansion; the settlement (colony) of Ma'ale Adumim literally divides the West Bank in half so expanding this is a death blow to Palestinian sovereignty. Why are details like this absent from CBC's reporting? Why do we need to know the name of Isaac Rotenburg who was killed almost 20 years ago?

If this is balance for CBC, I shudder to think what would be considered imbalance by these so-called journalists.

So What?

On August 2nd CBC online used the headline:    IRAN'S PRESIDENT-ELECT CALLS ISRAEL A "WOUND" 

The article then quoted Israeli PM Netanyahu (Oh, how CBC loves to echo Israelis!) claiming that the new Iranian leader was thus threatening to destroy Israel. Of course, Rowhani said nothing about attacking or destroying Israel. This is just another war-mongering claim by Netanyahu who dearly wants to destroy Iran. Why does CBC repeat it without pointing out that Netanyahu is misrepresenting Rowhani's words? Is CBC into war-mongering as well? What do you think?

So what if Rowhani called Israel a wound. If the Japanese had invaded and occupied southern California, and were daily expanding their territory at the expense of Americans, would American leaders call the Japanese mini-state on their territory a dimple or a beauty spot? No "scar", "wound", "blemish" "shame" would all be more likely words, and that is exactly how hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims feel about the Jewish/Israeli occupation of their traditional territories.

Just because Rowhani is expressing the true sentiments of almost a billion Muslims, does not constitute a threat to destroy Israel. Is CBC or the Associated Press too stupid to know this, or so malicious that they knowingly echo war-mongering falsehoods? How in Heaven"s name would a war against Iran serve anyone in Canada? Who is CBC working for?