Former BBC MidEast reporter Llewellyn: ‘Zionists scattered at strategic points in UK business’


Cross posted by Richard Millett

Milne, Alibhai-Brown, Llewellyn, Rowland listening to Jenny Tonge’s rant last nigh

The reputation of the Jewish community was dragged through the gutter at last night’s book launch of The Battle for Public Opinion in Europe: Changing Perceptions of the Palestine-Israel Conflict. The event was staged by anti-Israel pressure group Middle East Monitor at the University of London’s Senate House.

The panelists were Tim Llewellyn (former BBC Middle East correspondent and now adviser to Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding), Jackie Rowland (Al Jazeera correspondent) and Seumas Milne (The Guardian associate editor). Yasmin Alibhai-Browne (The Independent) chaired the event.

Seumas Milne

Llewellyn and Rowland described a persistent manipulation of the British broadcast media by a well-moneyed pro-Jewish lobby. Llewellyn said, inter alia, that:

“The BBC is very sparing in the amount of delegations or visitors it allows from the Palestinian side. Whereas from remarks that have been heard from the head of BBC News, Helen Boaden, the British Board of Deputies (of British Jews), for example, practically lives at the BBC. They’re there all the time.”

And:

“I was there (at the BBC) when we weren’t interfered with. But the last 10-12 years, since the beginning of the second Intifada, has coincided with Israel’s decision  to mount a tremendously well organised, careful, assiduous and extremely well-financed propaganda campaign in this country, especially in Britain.

The BBC has completely and utterly become feeble and has misreported, in my view; misrepresenting the situation in Israel-Palestine. It has done this maybe because of intense Israeli and pro-Israeli pressure from within this country, from political elements like the Friends of Israel of our three main political parties.

Also through the higher level of pro-Israel Zionists who are scattered at strategic points throughout the British establishment, throughout British business and among the people whose voices are respected.

The propaganda can sometimes be extremely intense, it can be bitter, it can be angry, it could be violent, it can be other forms of coercion. But it’s something the suits at the BBC find very hard to resist. So what has developed over the past 10 years at the BBC, and at other broadcasting institutions like ITN, not so much Channel 4, is a kind of self-censorship.

It is known now by the reporters if they are reporting on an atrocity by the Israelis, in the occupied territories or elsewhere, that they have to add-on to the end of their story some kind of appeasing story of how terrible the Palestinians are or how the Israelis have suffered.”

And:

“The pressure of this Israeli campaign has had a tremendous effect, especially at the institutional level of the BBC and inside the political parties. These people are extremely tough, tough-minded. I have just read a book by Anthony Lerman called The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist. If you studied the internecine warfare that goes on inside the Jewish community between the different groups; the anti-Zionists, the Zionists, the liberal Zionists, the non-Zionists, it is vitriolic, it is dreadful, I mean what chance have we got outside that community.”

Llewellyn even described Jews as “an alien people”. He said:

“The situation in Palestine now is the direct result of British deviousness, betrayal…dividing Syria in at least three parts; Lebanon, Syria as it is now, and Palestine, and setting the stage for the imposition and the implanting of an alien country, an alien people in that region.”

Rowland described how the BBC’s obligation for accountability, because it is publicly funded, has been “used and exploited by very well organised pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish lobby groups.”

She said that she knew someone who worked in the complaints department of the BBC who told her “that 85% of the complaints he dealt with were complaints by pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish lobby groups complaining about the perceived bias of the BBC’s Middle East coverage.”

She said this gives an idea of “how well organised, well-funded people use the idea of public accountability to tie up a lot of BBC resources on one very narrow focus.”

Alibhai-Browne told of how she had been given a rent free home in England by Professor Hugh Blaschko for seven years after she fled Uganda and how he had said to her that “Israel will bring the worst out in us Jewish people”.

Alibahi-Browne also compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.

Milne said “there are well-funded and well organised organisations that campaign in support of Israel. If you’re editing in these area you will find pressure and campaigning constantly by those groups.”

During the Q&A I couldn’t resist mentioning, seeing she was in the audience, that I took the footage that contributed to Jenny Tonge’s exit from the Liberal Democrats. In a bizarre outburst right at the end she took to the microphone to announce:

“I’d like to say, I hope he hasn’t gone, a big, big ‘thank you’ to Richard Millett, the Jewish Chronicle, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the entire pro-Israel lobby who have relentlessly attacked me for eight years but making sure that the Palestinian cause gets heard.”

I have no problem at all with the Palestinian cause getting heard. The main problem for the Palestinians is that it is heard via the likes of Tonge, Milne, Rowland, Alibhai-Browne and Llewellyn.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to clarify exactly what Helen Boaden did say that led to Llewellyn’s accusation that the Board of Deputies of British Jews “practically lives at the BBC”.

Click HERE for Jonathan Hoffman’s view of last night.

Click HERE for MEMO’s version with photos.

61 comments on “Former BBC MidEast reporter Llewellyn: ‘Zionists scattered at strategic points in UK business’

  1. According to his Sky News image I had always considered Llewellyn to be fair. But I suppose that he who pays the pipe calls the tune. A clean warm house in a nice suburb is so much more comfortable than a clean conscience. And old Tim isn’t the only one who is doing it, after all.

  2. The panelists were Tim Llewellyn (former BBC Middle East correspondent and now adviser to Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding

    Yes. I wonder how many former BBC employees there are ‘advising’ pro Israel organisations. Wonderful yardstick to measure the BBC, dare I mention it, ‘biases’.

    Gosh and golly.

  3. What kind of “panel” is that supposed to be? One rant after the next, and zero actual “discussion.”

    At least Richard’s evening wasn’t completely wasted – because he got to see and hear Tonge making an utter arse of herself.

  4. ‘The situation in Palestine now is the direct result of British deviousness, betrayal…dividing Syria in at least three parts’

    So he’s a fucking Baathist, is he?

    • If you think that’s bad, see this recent article about WWI: “But the outcome also laid the ground for the rise of nazism and the even bloodier second world war, and led to a new imperial carve-up of the Middle East, whose consequences we are still living with today, including the Palestinian tragedy.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/16/first-world-war-imperial-bloodbath

      Oh – and the author was on the “panel” of the above book launch. Guess who.

    • “The situation in Palestine now is the direct result of British deviousness, betrayal…dividing Syria in at least three parts”

      So, what exactly is a Palestinian again?

  5. These panels of the likemionded preaching to the likeminded about Israel’s iniquities would be a joke if they didn’t manage to reach a grwoing audience, thanks to the strenuous efforts of the media organizations that employ them.

    In reality, they are crackpots who would once have written letters to the Guardian signed “Infuriated, Lower Boredomville”. But the lunatics have the keys to the asylum at the BBC, Guardian, and the Observer. I admit to being puzzled by the misnamed “Independent”, owned by Alexander Lebedev, who I would have thought had had enough of the loony left from his days in Russia.

  6. But obviously the BBC and the Guardian is totally unbiased and objective reporting from the Middle East…

  7. “Alibhai-Browne told of how she had been given a rent free home in England by Professor Hugh Blaschko for seven years after she fled Uganda and how he had said to her that “Israel will bring the worst out in us Jewish people”. Now why does this echo eerily of the kind of well-meaning tosh mouthed by the likes of the late Prof Eric Hobsbawm, et al?

  8. “Also through the higher level of pro-Israel Zionists who are scattered at strategic points throughout the British establishment, throughout British business and among the people whose voices are respected.”

    The legend of the “Elders of Zion” in a new form – the Anti-Semites are back again, on a global level, surfing on a wave of oil dollars and media stupidity, and nobody there to kick the shit out of them.

  9. Llwellyn trying to say the British supported the Jews during the Mandate is the biggest lie in history.
    The British never gave the Jews one inch of land.
    Instead the British in 1922 gave 75% of the Mandate borders to the judenrein autocratic kingdom of Jordan/
    Fatah and Hamas also have laws stating lands they control must be Jew free.
    3rd, the British gave out a White Paper in 39 barring all Jewish immigration, while letting in thousands of Arabs to the land.
    4th, we had at the olympics this year, the IOC refusing to remember the 40th anniversary of Munich massacre commiting by Palestinian terrorists because of the Arab oil lobby.
    Imagine that, people are so scared to condemn Arab terrorism against Israeli civilians cause of fear of the Arab lobby.

    • What a load of propaganda.

      You make the familiar – and dishonest – insinuation that what became Jordan was originally Jewish and therefore “given away” by the British. And the British absolutely did help the Jews during the Mandate – by both going ahead with its plan for a Jewish homeland and allowing Jewish immigration.

      • The Balfour declaration promised Palestine to ‘the Jews’. (All of it). Palestine included what is now Jordan. Factually what is written by Ed Frias is correct. It is not propaganda.

        • The Balfour declaration promised Palestine to ‘the Jews’. (All of it).

          It did not. And indeed: why ever would or should it have?

            • Absolutely true.

              But how is that a response to my question? My point is, of course, that NobblyStick and Ed’s argument is a strawman – used in a pathetic attempt to justify the Israeli settlement of the West Bank.

              • Pretz, you are conflating different points: politics and international law.

                If one takes the birth certificates of Israel as the foundation of that law, namely the San Remo Resolutions of April 1920, the Anglo-French Boundary Agreement (1920 ), the Mandate approved unanimously by 51 countries at the league of Nations, you will note that a National Homeland for Jews meant the whole of Palestine. The Brits were the Mandatory and had obligations under the Mandate to administer it according to the terms agreed. The Brits were trustees, not beneficiaries and they reneged from the start by acting as if this was their territory.

                The UN Partition Plan 1947 has confused many into believing that the boundaries were set out here. They were not, It was a proposal, which if it had been accepted, would have become the legal boundaries for 2 states. It was rejected by the Arabs and until now, the law derived from San Remo remains valid.The settlements cannot therefore be deemed illegal, whether one agrees with them being there or not. It has nothing to do with international law.

                With regard to politics, many accept that if a new Arab State is to be created, israel will need to compromise, and indeed many argue this position from the left as well as the right.It makes it harder, after one is realising that no Jew would be allowed to remain in a new state whether the Arabs intend to act bona fides in future, hence the deadlock.

                For a left wing position professor Gil Troy argues that the left should stop referring to the settlements as illegal and look at the practicalities to justify the removal of settlements.

                http://blogs.jpost.com/content/yes-there-no-occupation-legally-not-practically

                • You’re not seriously agreeing with NobblyStick’s strawman argument that all the territory in the Mandate was originally supposed to become the Jewish homeland?

                  As I asked above – which nobody has replied to: why ever would or should Britain have done such a thing in the first place?

                  Historical claims??

                • It is not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. That was the position, and it was agreed upon by every single member of the League of Nations in 1922.

                  In response to your question, I ask you a question: why should Britain have agreed to commit a pledge to the Jewish people in the first place? If you can answer that, you have your answer. It’s worth also recalling that San Remo Resolution was also the foundation of 3 other new states; Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

                  You could have asked a better question: why has San Remo, for so long been ignored?

                • The thing is (and please correct me if I’m wrong) but my memory is that the mandate was that a homeland for the Jewish people should be established “in Palestine”. I don’t recall ever reading that this homeland should comprise the WHOLE of Palestine as claimed by you and nobbly above, but should be IN Palestine.

                  You are right, however, that the 1967 “borders” so widely accepted these days as a holy grail have never had any sort of legitimate status as such.

                • You must be joking. Turning the whole of the Mandate including Trans-Jordan into a Jewish state was “agreed upon by every single member of the League of Nations”?

                  Come off it. Did even one single member support such an idea?

                  And yet again I ask: why would or should they have given Trans-Jordan to the Jews? On what grounds?

                • Q: “You must be joking. Turning the whole of the Mandate including Trans-Jordan into a Jewish state was “agreed upon by every single member of the League of Nations”?”

                  A: Absolutely yes. Can you name one country that disagreed Pretz?

                  Q: “Come off it. Did even one single member support such an idea?”

                  A: They ALL did!

                  Q: “And yet again I ask: why would or should they have given Trans-Jordan to the Jews? On what grounds?”

                  A: The original plan was to give the Jews what constitued the original Land of Israel from first and second temple period. That land included a great deal more than what was set out at San Remo and even included parts of Sinai. It is arguable even that those lands were illegally excluded. But let’s not go there. The fact is that if any part of palestine was to be given to another people , the Mandate would have explicitly named the “other people”. It did not.

                  The fact remains that the Arabs were given a lot more land – 7 million square miles of it

                • @Labenal.

                  You are right about pre-1967 Green Line, the terms under which Israel negotiated a ceasefire in 1949. These Agreements did not confer or change the legal position.

                  As regards to the Mandate of Palestine, it was the whole of Palestine that was to be administered and not part. The League entrusted the British (by agreement of the parties, including the Hashemites (the US did not wish to partake, and it was in preference to the French)) to administer it. No other party other than the Jewish People were beneficially entitled to it – that is sovereign rights, while the rights of non-Jews were not to be prejudiced – that is civic and religious rights.

                  The Hashemites represented the Judean Arabs, who were not then a polity and who considered themselves Syrian and so became bound by the terms agreed. There was no right to veto

                  Howard Grief has advocated this position for many years having studied the documents , minutes of meetings and he talks on the points on youtube and has written extensively on this subject. If you are interested, here is a link to an article he wrote in NATIV in or around 2003/04. It deals quite clearly with the boundaries of palestine, why homeland and not state, the non-binding resolutions at the UN and the ICJ ruling, or advisory opinion under which so many of Israel’s detractors heavily rely on to bash Israel etc.

                  http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm

                • Thank you AJ. I have to say that having read the San Remo/Balfour/mandate/League of Nation docs in the past I do not recall such a distinction between beneficial and civil rights as you describe, but I will look up the source you have provided.

      • I think it’s fair to say that at first the British encouraged immigration before reversing course, imposing severe restrictions on immigration at a time when it was crucial for Jews to escape Europe. They also imposed restrictions on where they could purchase land and settle, as well as imposing restrictions on religious practice in Jerusalem in order to cow-tow to Muslim sensibilities (prejudices). The British violated the terms of the mandate repeatedly.
        I haven’t read your link yet, Peter, but I will.

      • Pretzel you are every day a bit closer to denying the Holocaust.

        What a shameless scumbag you are – and all the other morons supporting this outrageous and BASELESS slur.

        Jeff below says “at first the British encouraged immigration” – strange how you don’t accuse him of Holocaust denial, isn’t it?

        What a bunch of bigoted hypocrites.

  10. With all that guff to listen to Richard about the zionists at the BBC, did anyone mention Balen?
    …thought so.

      • Not for the first time, Duvdl posted an utterly tasteless and revolting comment – this time having a jolly joke about child abuse.

        Quite why that juvenile arse is still permitted to post here is frankly beyond me.

          • Interesting that after the level of the Mediterranean visibly higher than one month ago as a consequence of your tears and whining because somebody called you a Nazi, you are doing pretty well…
            Have you ever thought about looking up in a vocabulary the meaning of the word “hypocrisy”?

  11. Isn’t amazing that these people actually fear that the tiny British Zionist community can control a country the size of the UK, and not even blush as they say it?

    • AKUS, don’t forget that a particular personality trait – paranoid – and people who are inclined towards pernicious envy of the success of others (success which they are incapable of attaining) – is more inclined to attribute that success to devious means.

      The obsession with alleged “Jewish/Zionist” power (whilst ignoring, say, the growing influence of the Muslim lobby in the west – which, in my opinion, constitutes a far greater threat to peace than any Jewish/Zionist one) has most of the elements of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

    • Have you read the rest of Ed’s post?

      What on earth entitles Arab mindless haters of Israel and Jews, bigoted to a man/woman, to special consideration and to have excuses made for their barbarism? Why should any criticism of that mindless hatred be bigotry? It may indeed be true that not all Arabs agree with it, but why do we not hear about or from them? You would think that they would be so ashamed to be associated with such stupidity that they would distance themselves publicly from it. Why don’t they?

      • “Arabs will be Arabs. Hatred and violence is all they know; all they have ever been taught.” is not – as you put it – “criticism”.

        Your post likewise reeks of prejudice – because you are judging an entire ethnic group on the actions of a minority.

        • Well. Look at Arab states Pretz. Is there one peaceful Arab State? Just one? They are all prone to extreme internal violence. They are all dysfunctional. (Mind you, Israel is sometimes dysfunctional too). None, absolutely none have respect for human rights as you see ‘human rights’.

          And none are really democratic in the full sense of the word. Certainly not in the sense that Israel is democratic with a complete change of leadership every few years. (Except the Haredim of course).

          • Why are you defending Ed’s bigotry?
            Imagine if someone were to post “Jews will be Jews” in a negative tone over at CiF!?

            You’d be outraged – and rightly so.

            It’s bizarre how narrow-minded most posters here are.

        • “Your post likewise reeks of prejudice – because you are judging an entire ethnic group on the actions of a minority.”

          It’s only a minority of Arabs are taught to hate Israel and Jews?
          I think you’re going to need a bit more research on that portion of your comment.

          • You’re saying that “Arabs will be Arabs. Hatred and violence is all they know; all they have ever been taught” is perfectly fine “criticism”?

            Imagine if someone were to say something similar about Jews!?

            Is this website really so infested with bigots????

  12. I saw this post when discussing these Israel haters like Tim Llewellyn, Fisk, Pilger etc.
    Its funny but right on the money.

    Even you are under under the control of the all powerful Jewish lobby. Next time you slip on a banana peel you must know it was those evil Zionists who planted it in your way.
    It is commonly known that, the only way to shake of the control of the Zionist on your mind is to wear a metal spaghetti strainer. You must try this as a counter measure to the Zionist mind control technics.

  13. “It is known now by the reporters if they are reporting on an atrocity by the Israelis, in the occupied territories or elsewhere, that they have to add-on to the end of their story some kind of appeasing story of how terrible the Palestinians are or how the Israelis have suffered.”

    Oh boy. Here we go again. Perfect inversion of media coverage.
    How about this Llew (may I call you Llew)?

    “It is known now by the reporters if they are reporting on an atrocity by the Palestinians, in the occupied territories or the Israeli side of the green line, that they have to add-on to the end of their story some kind of appeasing story of how terrible the Israelis are or how the Palestinians have suffered.”

    • No, Jeff. You give them too much credit. The actual picture is:

      “It is known now by the reporters if they are reporting on an atrocity by the Palestinians, in the occupied territories or on the Israeli side of the green line, that they have to bury it at the end of some kind of appeasing story of how terrible the Israelis are or how the Palestinians have suffered.”

      • Yes, unfortunately that’s all too common, although I’ve seen both practiced. Either way, it’s biased. How do you think such a sorry state of affairs ever came to be?

  14. All I see in this Llewellyn character’s speech is a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations bearing no small amount of resemblance to “The Protocols.”
    Is that the way things were at the Beeb before it was “interfered with?”
    Or, is it that now that he’s a “former” journalist he no longer needs to be accountable for what is nothing more than a disgusting anti-Semitic rant.

  15. Palestinian homicide bomber who slaughtered 21 Israelis in the Haifa Homicide bombing at a restaurant in 03 honored by the Palestinian Nazis.

    http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=7625

    Suicide terrorist who killed 21
    receives “highest honor” from Palestine Committe of Arab Lawyers Union

    Union is observer at UNESCO, in consultative status with ECOSOC
    Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
    Oct. 18, 2012

    • “Palestinian homicide bomber who slaughtered 21 Israelis in the Haifa Homicide bombing at a restaurant in 03 honored by the Palestinian Nazis.”

      You just don’t seem to understand, Ed, that this is how they stake out a compromise position. Seek out sencar, or one of the other “humanitarian geniuses” that visit us now and again, and I’m sure one of them can explain it all to you.

  16. @ Labenal
    “I have to say that having read the San Remo/Balfour/mandate/League of Nation docs in the past I do not recall such a distinction between beneficial and civil rights.. ”

    You won’t find the words are used , as I have explained.

    “Jewish National Home” meant statehood and sovereign rights that come with it. Balfour refers to non-Jews and their rights not to be prejudiced in the Jewish national home to mean that they will be entitled to become citizens, but that they would not become entitled to a state. There cannot be 2 national homes in the same place and it could not have meant that, because it would have said so.

    It is worth mentioning here that in 1917, Jews had by then bought up and also had previously owned 8% of the land of Palestine including areas in Gaza and the West Bank(Judea/Samaria). The Arabs owned only 22% of the land. The rest, belonged to the Ottomans as uncultivated mawat land. If land became derelict, it reverted to the empire. When the Turks lost the war, they lost their empire and the lands were divided up, Palestine being one part of it. The 70% of Sovereign land rights were therefore acquired once the Mandates were set up and the Jews became beneficially entitled to it.

Comments are closed.