The irony of the 'rising anti-semitism' debate: the ignorant Louise Mensch and the Jewish News

Update: This is so important I feel I need to summarise the key point: Louise Mensch states that Israel has no right to self defence and that it kills hundreds of children as a punishment for the rocket attacks. This is as clear a case of blood libel and incitement as you could wish to see. That it was made in a Jewish publication in an article denouncing antisemitism is beyond belief.

 The Jewish News has the above full page article** by Louise Mensch about how disgraceful it is that anti-semitism is increasing as a result of the Gaza conflict and why it needs to be stopped. Neither the Jewish News, nor the ignorant Mensch*** herself, appreciates the irony of the article. Everyone with half a brain knows that the current increase in antisemitism is the direct result of the hysterical anti-Israel media and political narrative of the Gaza conflict and, in particular, the continual repetition of the Hamas propaganda and blood libel that Israel is deliberately killing hundreds of Palestinian children. Indeed - as you can see - the picture that the Jewish News uses to illustrate the anti-semitism is one of a screaming mob holding placards that state this very blood libel. The irony is that Mensch not only regurgitates this very blood libel in the article itself but also makes it clear that she believes Israel has no right of self defence at all other than to use the Iron Dome:

" I do not support the Israeli action in Gaza. Let’s get that out of the way at the start. There is not much prospect of convincing any readers here, so I don’t propose to try. (Iron Dome already kept Israel safe and defended and there are better ways to punish for rockets than killing hundreds of children). Rather I want to concentrate on the revolting stream of anti-semitism the Gaza war has unleashed."

Indeed Mensch has made quite a name for herself in the last few weeks by writing a stream of hysterical anti-Israel pieces (such as the one mentioned here) along the lines of the above paragraph. She has been particularly outraged that so few Jewish civilians were killed in comparison to Palestinians and, because Israel has refused her demand to refrain from defending itself, she believes Israel deserves to be a pariah state.

Any attempt to 'stop the current wave of anti-semitism' which fails to address the blood libels made by the media and politicians against Israel is doomed to fail. That is why anyone who says 'this has got nothing to do with Israel' is not helping. It is also why people who say "Jews should not be punished for what Israel is doing"  are actually part of the problem.  Moreover, any attempt to 'stop the current wave of anti-semitism' by bringing on board those who actually propagate the blood libels against Israel will actually lead to increased anti-semitism. That is why it was so wrong of the Board of Deputies to issue their joint statement with the Muslim Council of Britain (who have been one of the prime sponsors of the blood libel in the UK) and why it was wrong for the Jewish News to give a full page to Louise Mensch. With this mentality we can expect to see people like George Galloway and Anjem Choudary invited to address meetings demanding an end to anti-semitism.

We need to make clear that examples of anti-semitism include any of the following statements:

"Israel deliberately kills Palestinian civilians" (Jewish blood libel)
"Israel is guilty of murder" (Jewish blood libel)
"Israel has no right to self-defence"  (denies the Jewish state the same right as any other state)
"Palestine must be Free" (means death to all Jews of Israel)
"Israel is an apartheid state" (blood libel against the Jewish state)
"Boycott Israel" (a call to destroy the Jewish state)

Anybody making any of those statements cannot be part of a campaign to stop anti-semitism.

** A slightly different online version to the above can be found here.

***What is rather sad about Louise Mensch is that, before the recent Gaza conflict her only public 'connection' with Israel was a positive one in that she managed to get an apology from the BBC for failing to cover the story of the massacre of the Fogel family by Palestinian terrorists.

Responses from Press Complaints Commission: as expected a complete whitewash of anti-Israel reporting

I have had responses to two of the complaints I have recently submitted to the Press Complaints Commission (one to a series of articles over several days in the Sun, and one to a set of articles on 1 August in the Standard). The responses can be summarised as:

Newspapers have discretion to be completely biased as long as they do not write things which have been proven to be false in a court of law - and in the absence of such proof they can accept what Hamas says as being true and ignore what Israel says as being false.

I did not really expect anything different but at least I forced the newspapers to respond (which they failed to do by writing to them). The full PCC decisions appear below. Interestingly, this piece by former AP reporter Matti Friedman tells you everything you need to know about why the media refuses to report the truth about Israel.

*****************************************

Commission's decision in the case of complainant v The Sun

The complainant was concerned that four articles in the newspaper were inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editor's Code of Practice, and that the newspaper had breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Code. The complainant was concerned that the articles were biased against Israel and did not explain that the conflict started when Hamas fired rockets into Israel or highlight the suffering caused to Israelis by the rockets. He said the figure for the number of Palestinian deaths was unreliable as it came from Hamas; this should have been challenged by the newspaper. He considered the 16 July article to be misleading in that it did not make clear that the ceasefire was only observed by Israel and not Hamas. He said the 17 July article was inaccurate when it stated the Palestinians were killed by an Israeli gunboat, as in actual fact, Israel denied the attack and the evidence indicated that Hamas was to blame for the attack. He also considered the photographs in the 14 July and 15 July articles to be distorted. Lastly, he considered Clause 2 of the Code to have been breached as the newspaper had not acknowledged his complaint to the editor.

Clause 1 (i) and (iii) of the Code state "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures" and the "the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact." The Commission firstly wished to make clear that newspapers are entitled to be partisan and to take robust, controversial editorial positions on issues of legitimate debate such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, the newspaper's obligations to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information remained. The question for the Commission was therefore not whether the articles were biased against Israel, but whether they contained inaccurate or misleading information, or otherwise breached the terms of the Code.

The Commission noted the complainant's concern that the newspaper did not mention that the present conflict was started by Hamas; however, all the articles were written at least a few days into the conflict and reported on the incidents that occurred on a particular day. The newspaper was entitled to report on these recent events and was not obliged, in doing so, to provide a full history of the conflict. While the complainant considered the figure for the number of Palestinian deaths to be inaccurate, the 15 July article clearly stated that Foreign Secretary, William Hague, had told MPs that 173 Palestinians had died. Indeed, Mr Hague had also stated that 80 per cent of the deaths were civilians. As such, the newspaper was fully entitled to report information that had come from an official government source; this did not represent a failure to take care over accuracy. The Commission noted that the complainant said the 16 July article was inaccurate because it did not make clear that the ceasefire was only observed by Israel; however, the article stated that "Israel resumed air strikes after Hamas fired scores of rockets." This indicated to readers that Israel responded with air strikes after Hamas had broken the ceasefire.

The Commission next turned to the complainant's concern that the 17 July article inaccurately stated that the young Palestinians were killed by an Israeli gunboat. He said that Israel denied the attack and that the article failed to mention that Hamas was probably responsible for their deaths as the children were playing in an area where Hamas was firing rockets. The Commission noted that the text of the article had quoted witnesses to the incident who said that the children were killed by Israeli shells. This made clear to readers that the source of the information were witnesses in Gaza. The article had also quoted the Israeli military who said that "it was looking into the incident." This indicated that the Israelis did not take responsibility for the attack, but were not blaming Hamas at this point either. In general, the Commission considered that readers would be aware that, in incidents such as this in foreign warzones, it can be almost impossible to uncover the exact circumstances surrounding an incident. Therefore, given the fact that the newspaper had made clear its source of information and the Israeli position on the incident, the Commission did not establish a breach of Clause 1 on this point.

The Commission then addressed the complainant's concern that the photographs in the 14 July and 15 July articles had been distorted in breach of Clause 1. He believed the photographs had been staged for dramatic effect. However, the Commission noted that the complainant's concern was solely based on speculation. As he did not appear to have any direct knowledge regarding this specific photograph, the Commission was unable to establish a breach of the Clause 1.

Lastly, the Commission turned to the complainant's concern under Clause 2 of the Code, which states "a fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for." The complainant was concerned that the newspaper did not acknowledge his complaint to the editor. However, as the Commission had not established any significant inaccuracies or misleading statements in the article, Clause 2 was not engaged in this case. There was no breach of the Code.

Commission's decision in the case of complainant v Evening Standard

The complainant was concerned that three articles in the newspaper which reported on the Israel-Gaza conflict breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complainant expressed concern that the articles, and indeed the newspaper's coverage in general, displayed a heavy anti-Israel bias. He said two of the articles reported human interest stories from a Palestinian perspective, but the newspaper did not provide any Israeli human interest story. He considered the first article to be inaccurate as it stated that Israel broke the ceasefire, when actually the UN had stated that the ceasefire was broken by Hamas. He expressed further concern that that the Israel-Gaza conflict was the only foreign conflict reported in the newspaper that day, when there are on-going conflicts occurring in Libya, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq. In his view, this demonstrated the newspaper's anti-Israel bias.

Clause 1 of the Code states "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures" and "the press whilst free to be partisan must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact." The Commission noted that the complainant considered the newspaper's general coverage to display an anti-Israel bias. The Commission emphasised that newspapers are entitled to be partisan and to take controversial editorial positions on issues of legitimate debate such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nevertheless, the newspaper's obligations to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information are not negated by taking a prominent, partisan position on an issue. The question for the Commission was whether they contained inaccurate or misleading information, or otherwise breached the terms of the Code.

The Commission considered the complainant's concern that the article had inaccurately suggested that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire. It noted that on multiple occasions in the article, including the headline and the first paragraph, it had suggested that Israel was responsible for breaking the ceasefire. However, the article had also stated that "Israel suggested the tanks fired in response to a militant attack." This informed the reader of the Israeli position that they did not consider themselves to be responsible for the collapse of the ceasefire. While the complainant pointed out that the UN Secretary General had blamed Hamas for violating the ceasefire, it was unclear whether this statement was made before the newspaper went to print. In any case, the Commission considered that readers would be aware that, in incidents such as this in foreign warzones, there is significant difficulty in reporting rolling news coverage when conflicting information is being given by both sides. As such, given the fact that the newspaper had also outlined the Israeli position on the incident, the Commission did not believe readers would be misled by the article, such that a correction would be required.

The Commission lastly turned to address the complainant's concern about the newspaper's general focus on the Israel-Gaza conflict as opposed to other foreign conflicts. It made clear that the presentation and selection of material for publication was a matter for the discretion of individual editors, provided that the material was not inaccurate or misleading, or did not otherwise breach the terms of Code. In this case, it had been established that the concerns the complainant raised about these articles did not breach the terms of the Code; the fact that the newspaper had not covered other foreign conflicts as much the Israel-Gaza conflict was not an issue that fell within the Commission's remit. There was no breach of the Code.

The Sun's relentless anti-Israel campaign. Now Jeremy Clarkson supports the MP who wants to kill Israelis

The Sun is now officially, it seems, Hamas's mouthpiece in the UK. Its campaign of hatred against Israel is having a big influence on many otherwise completely uninformed Brits. Following on from my earlier report, the last week has seen the pieces shown here.

Remember that these reports are significant because they are the ONLY information about the conflict the Sun provides. Every day a simple short story - provided by Hamas in Gaza - of Israelis killing Palestinian children, along with the obligatory picture of a crying child. Never the suggestion that the civilian deaths were the responsibility of Hamas's human shield policy or that many of the 'bombings' in Gaza are actually Hamas rockets falling short or secondary explosions of arms caches. But most important is that the Sun has never mentioned any of the following:

• The thousands of rockets fired against Israeli civilians by Hamas and the fact that Hamas are the elected government of the people
• That Israel only launched its offensive when Hamas refused to stop firing rockets. 
• The damage the rockets cause in Israel nor even the deaths and injuries.  
• The suffering of Israeli civilians, including 2 million children who have had to live in bomb shelters for 4 weeks now. And the complete shut down of normal life in the entire country (including the shut down of all international flights for 3 days).  While almost every day the Sun prints one of the staged photos of a 'suffering Palestinian' it has never once shown Israelis.
• Israel's relatively low civilian casualty figures are due to the fact that a) the country is living in bomb shelters; and b) it pays for an expensive missile protection system (Iron Dome). 
• Hamas use of human shields in buildings from which they are firing  and storing rockets 
• The discovery of rockets in two UNRWA schools and several hospitals, and the fact that UNWRA gave the rockets back to Hamas when they found them.
• The incredible extent Israel goes to in order to avoid civilian casualties (unlike any other nation in the history of warfare). 
• The dozens of Israeli soldiers now being sacrificed to avoid Arab deaths because the Israeli Government demands they go house to house to find the tunnels and weapons caches rather than bombing those sites.  These guys are simply young conscripts just out of school.
• The dozens of terror tunnels that Hamas has built (using billions of aid money from the EU and US) and is now using to mount attacks inside Israel (and was planning to use for a major massacre of Israeli civilians. If Hamas had used the money to build bomb shelters rather than tunnels there would have been no civilian casualties.
• All Palestinian casualty figures are provided by Hamas or "UN sources in Gaza" who are Hamas affiliates who have always been proven to lie about them. The vast majority of those killed are Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.
• The genocidal Jihadist beliefs of Hamas, including their charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews in the world.

Also remember the Sun never reports on the thousands of people (including mainly Muslims) who are being massacred every week by Muslims in various parts of the world. Only Muslims 'killed by Jews' are of any interest to the Sun. And that attitude is now reflected across the whole of the UK (yet another mass anti-Israel demo was held in London today).

But if you think all of that is bad just look at what the Sun columnists have to say. In today's issue Jeremy Clarkson came out in strong support for antisemitic LibDem MP David Ward who said he would fire rockets at Israeli if he lived in Gaza. Clarkson says he would want to do the same thing.

Jeremy Clarkson column, The Sun 26 July: He would want to kill Israelis if he lived in Gaza

This follows on from this disgraceful column earlier in the week by Louise Mensh. She is adamant that Israel has NO right to defend itself because (at the time of writing) only two Israeli civilians had died. Her disgust in this conflict is restricted to Jews defending themselves and she promotes the complete lie that the Palestinians of Gaza hate Hamas, citing "a reputable pollster in the region". Well it is true that only 75% voted for Hamas in the one election they had, but the most recent 2014 Pew survey (which really is reputable) found that 93% of Palestinians hated Jews (yes that is Jews not just Israelis).

And it is that hatred of Jews which is driving the world-wide frenzy of Israel hatred and love of the terrorists of Hamas.

26 August 2014 Update:Press Complaints Commission response

Britain's top selling newspaper the Sun is stirring up the anti-Israel frenzy (updated)

See 26 July update to this story.

The UK has now become the kind of place where Jews walking in the centre of London are accosted by mobs of Muslim antisemites - protected by the police - raging against Israel. It is the place where the average person knows absolutely nothing about foreign affairs but is certain that "Israel is an apartheid state that murders Palestinians for fun". And the average person who is toally unaware of the hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered by Islamists in dozens of countries in the last two years, somehow knows the names of individual Palestinian children 'murdered by Israel'.

To understand how Britain got this way in a such a short time you need to know the role of the Sun newspaper and not just the BBC. Plenty of people know about - and even complain - of the anti-Israel bias at the Guardian and the Independent. But those 'high-brow' newspapers have minuscule readership compared to the populist Sun - by far Britain's largest circulation newspaper. Ever since James Murdoch (known to have none of his father Rupert's sympathies with Israel) took over the reins of News Corp Europe and Asia, and the Saudis (in the form of Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal) and other Arabs bought a significant share of the company the supposedly 'conservative' Sun has done far more to deligitimize Israel than all the others newspapers combined.

First of all you have to understand that the Sun is a newspaper that - like the average Brit -  'does not do foreign affairs'. Now, if it really stuck to that philosophy I would not be writing this article. Unfortunately, the exception to its no foreign affairs rule is when Israel responds to terrorist attacks and rockets. Whereas the BBC and Guardian will follow the rules here and present a biased ant-Israel slant, if you read far enough into their reports you will at least find some context for what they are reporting.  As these articles from the last 4 days show (and the previous week was no different)  the Sun gives only the Palestinian narrative. The articles are not long. But what they write is all that the average Brit will ever know about the conflict. The Sun has never once given any indication of the rocket attacks and their scale against Israel or when the firing started.

Daniel Greenfield has written a great article about how the Western media and diplomats saved Hamas and Caroline Glick has written superbly about how the more genocidal the Palestinians become the more the Western media and elites sympathise with them and demonize Israel. The Sun has never been part of the narrative they describe, but the damage it is doing through its lies and omissions is immense.

See posts here, here, and here for examples of previous anti-Israel bias in the Sun.



Update: I have submitted the following formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission:

The article today (17 July) is simply the culmination of two weeks of articles covering the Gaza crisis in which each day the Sun has published a short article with anti-israel bias and gross inaccuracy. Effectively the Sun has become the UK spokesman for Hamas and its coverage has played a role in whipping up an anti-israel anti-semitic frenzy which has led to violence and attacks on Jews in London. Never once has the Sun explained the context of the conflict which was started when Hamas fired hundreds of rockets into Israel. Never once has the Sun described the unbelievable suffering of 5 million Israelis living in bombshelters (80% of the population) while every one of their cities is attacked. Never once has the Sun informed its readers of the simple fact that there would be no attacks on Gaza if the Hamas government there stopped firing rockets at Israeli cities. The Sun has simply taken the word of Hamas spokesmen in Gaza on casualties, without ever stating Israel's policy of never targeting civilians and without ever stating Hamas policy of using civilians as human shields.

I cite the most recent 4 articles (see web link for scans of all the articles):

• The article on 14 July ("Troops in as Gaza death toll hits 168") has a staged photo to whip up emotions and not a single mention of any of the 400 rockets against all major Israeli cities the previous day. Also unquestioning acceptance of Palestinian casualty  figures provided by Hamas (in fact the vast majority of deaths were NOT civilian and most civilian deaths have been caused by Hamas rockets landing short) or by civilians used as human shields.
• The article on 15 July 2014 ("27 Brits saved from Gaza hell") contains another staged emotional photo provided by Hamas. Not a mention of the hundreds of rockets against Israel that fell on that day a complete lie at the end saying that neither side agreed to the ceasefire. Israel agreed to it several hours before the Sun went to print and stopped all attacks. It was Hamas who refused the ceasefire.
• The article on 16 July 2014 ("Gaza truce fails") contains just 18 totally misleading words to describe a day on which only Israel observed the ceasefire and Hamas fired 300 rockets including one which killed an Israeli aid worker.
• The article on 17 July which begins “Four young boys were killed by an Israeli gunboat yesterday as they played football on a beach in Gaza” is essentially a blood libel. In fact Israel denies any such gunboat attack. The only thing certain – and the Sun fails to mention it – is that the children were playing in an area directly where Hamas were firing rockets. Why were children there? Their death is a tragedy but only Hamas is to blame. Israeli children across the whole of Israel are not allowed to go to the beach because of the Palestinian rockets directed at them.

The Sun has not acknowledged my complaints to the editor.

26 August 2014 Update:Press Complaints Commission response

Sun suggests Boston bomber was white supremacist after all

The main stream media's determination to downplay, or even whitewash altogether, the central role of Islam and Jihad in terrorist attacks around the world has been the subject over the years of many of the postings on this blog.

Sometimes the extent to which the media will go to cover up the Islam angle can be breathtaking. But todays' article in the Sun (note to non-Brits: this is the largest circulation newspaper in the UK by a very long way and is supposed to be 'conservative') ranks as the most incredible I have ever seen in this respect:

In the immediate aftermath of the Boston marathon bombings the main stream media were desperately hoping that this was carried out by right wing extremists. Even after the overwhelming evidence that it was a Jihadist attack the media were still 'looking for motives'. When the surviving bomber made it clear in his own words that his motive was Jihad against the USA and the West (after he had trained with Al Qaeda affiliates in Chechnya) the main stream media did what they always do in such situations - go very quiet.

In the UK there has been almost no coverage of the case since the immediate aftermath of the bombings (primarily because it is one of those stories that very blatantly contradicts the main stream narrative that Islam is a religion of peace).The article in today's Sun is the first it has carried about the bombings for a while. Note that the Sun, like the rest of the media, previously ignored all of the evidence of the bomber's writings and readings about Jihad because they did not consider this relevant. So, actually saying things like "I will dedicate my life to Jihad" and reading Al Qaeda manuals are considered irrelevant but reading a white supremacist publication is apparently enough to reinstate the media's desired outcome after all.

Update: I see that Jihad Watch  and Pamela Geller are also reporting that the BBC is running with this story. That makes perfect sense. It seems the BBC have invested an enormous amount of effort to do everything they can to find a motive other than Jihad.  But all they have come up with is the fact that white supremacist material has stuff that would be of common  interest to a Jihadist, most notably a desire to kill Jews. Hence this classic quote from the BBC article:

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

Wow - that really proves he was not a Jihadist.

Redefining anti-Israel bigots as 'aid workers'

Front Page of the Sun, 30/3/2013

It is appalling that two Pakistani-born British women have been raped in Libya. But to call them 'aid workers' as every main stream media outlet has in the UK (see this report about the BBC and Times coverage) is a blatant lie. And it is scandal that this story is also being used to promote the Big Lie against Israel.  Of more concern than the BBC and Times articles is this one that appeared in yesterday's Sun (since it is read by far more people).

Page 7, The Sun, 30/3/2013

These people were not 'aid workers' (as the article linked above makes very clear) and their mission had nothing to do with compassion for the Palestinians. They were part of another publicity stunt aimed purely to demonise the State of Israel, and the Sun has fully taken the bait - notably in the last two columns of the main article (click to enlarge it). Far from Israel blockading medical supplies from reaching Gaza as implied, it actually sends lorries carrying many tons of such supplies daily into Gaza despite the continued attacks at the very checkpoints through which the lorries are sent. And whereas Israel certainly does attempt to stop the flow of weapons and weapons-making equipment into Gaza (a persistent threat that the article does not mention) it never stops humanitarian aid from getting through, which is more than can be said for Egypt which also has a border with Gaza but is strangely exempt from accusations of 'mounting a blockade'.  The article is correct in stating that the convey was run by the Turkish organisation IHH. But IHH is not an 'international aid group' as stated but an Islamist organisation that even Turkey classified as a terrorist group not too long ago (see here for a good expose of IHH). The IHH link inevitably leads the article to repeats the false narrative about the Mavi Marmara ship incident in 2010, thereby further demonising Israel.

New post on Palestinian 'aid' money here.

The Sun website now addresses my complaints

My letter about the Sun's anti-Israel coverage of recent stories now also appears in bold immediately underneath their web versions of the articles. You can see it under the 16 May article here and under the 6 June article here (on that one you need to scroll to the second story). A summary of the case will shortly appear on the Press Complaints Commission website.

Letter in the Sun, Friday 1 July 2011

As you can see here, finally as result of my battle with the Sun a letter by me appeared in today's issue (and they even made it look like I'm George Clooney!). There will also be some kind of apology/statement added to the Sun's web pages of the orginal articles in question. I have found the 16 May article online (this was the least offensive of the two) but not the other and as yet can see no kind of statement (although they have possibly changed some of the text). But I can still see plenty of hate-filled comments posted there. Anyway, here is the text of my letter:

Two items (16 May, 6 June) stating Israel had killed dozens of Palestinian Arab demonstrators were based on false claims provided by Arab terrorist organisations and the tyrannical regime of Syria. The Sun failed to state the source of the claims or present Israel’s version of events, which proved to be true.  Israel was defending its borders from attack; no deaths were corroborated. Israel is a tiny state smaller than Wales surrounded by terrorist enemies sworn to its destruction. These enemies launch constant rocket and terrorist attacks (normally unreported) targeted at  Israeli civilians. Occasionally, after overwhelming provocation (such as above) Israel defends itself. The media should not automatically accept the false narrative of Arabs as victims and Israel as the villain. Israel is the only democracy in the region.

As I have said many times before: People concerned about Israel worry too much about the anti-Israel agenda of the Guardian. Their tiny readership is going to be (mostly) obsessively anti-Israel no matter how the paper covers the Middle East. But the Sun - with its massive readership (25 times more than the Guardian) - has far more influence on the average Brit. Sun readers, like most Brits, are not inherently political. False negative reporting in the Sun has the potential to cause far more damage against Israel than anything in the Guardian. Conversely simply telling the truth about Israel in the Sun has the potential to do more good than any number of other pro-Israel activities.

Now for the BBC......

Media mugs

If you need any proof of the craven, stupid, and instinctively pro-Arab bias of the British media it is worth noting that, until just a few weeks ago, they were still insisting that Syria was a country intent on reform and goodness, with the glamorous young Assads at the helm.

So, for example, whereas the Sun now finds any opportunity to demonize Israel (see yet another example today), the only previous mentions of Syria were in articles like the one here. It's over a year old, but fortunately for us, the Sun has not yet been embarrased enough to remove it from their website (in case they do as a result of this posting I have kept my own copy). The article includes such biting analysis as the following:

Yesterday she (Mrs Assad) was seen in a Sky TV interview in jeans and tight top extending an olive branch to the West.

She spoke of reforms in Syria, adding: "What we are trying to do is make sure the progress we are making across the country is inclusive to everybody or as many people as possible, whether it is economic, political or social."

In doing so, this former London schoolgirl could bring some much-needed stability to this troubled region.

 The first comment by 'talanizam' is also truly accurate and prophetic:

am from Syria , i live in Damascus and am asking every one to come and see how amazing country we have. every thing u hear about Syria is not true ...... it is peaceful here with sweet and friendly people we have a great leader Mr president and his wife who are working day and night for our country and every day there is big improvement and i can tell that they are doing great job. we syrians are proud of them coz they represent syria in a great and right image
they are a beautiful couple exactly same as Syria

Who needs Al Jazeera when we have the Sun heh? While Syria burns in a brutual civil war they can continue to focus their anger on Israel.

p.s. There are plenty of so-called intelligent people in the UK (including many Jews) who don't actually read the Sun but who parrot the line that 'the Sun is pro Israel' (because it was 4 years ago).

The Sun ratchets up its anti-Israel assault (UPDATED)

The following, which I have submitted to the Press Complaints Commission, is self-explanatory.
This article (see left) is factually wrong, misleading in several ways and shows a blatant anti-Israel bias. Specifically:

• It states that 14 people were killed “as Israeli troops fired on Palestinian protesters”. But 10 of the fatalities, as stated later in the report, were in the Lebanese town of Maarun ar-Rus. The report fails to mention that it was the Lebanese army who were shooting at these protesters.
• It fails to report the crucial part of the Israeli claim about the incidents. While it says that the Israelis claimed ‘troops had fired warning shots’ it misses out the crucial information that the fatalities were the result of shooting from the Lebanese army who have a UN-binding commitment to prevent their citizens from breaching the border.
• It fails to mention the crucial fact that violent protesters from Lebanon and Syria – who numbered in their hundreds actually breached the Israel border in an unprovoked attack, entered Israel and were stoning the handful of Israeli soldiers stationed there.
• It quotes the Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian claims and condemnation as if these were reliable sources. To quote the Syrian government, which has banned all foreign journalists from its country and is currently engaged in massacres of its own population, as if it were a reliable source is contemptible.
• It fails to mention that this attack against Israel’s northern borders was coordinated by the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, with the support of Syria’s president Al Assad who saw it an opportunity to deflect attention away from his country’s own revolution against him.
• It fails to mention the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv the same morning that resulted in a civilian being killed and 17 injured. This terrorist attack, and the attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, were part of a coordinated strategy by Israel’s enemies to ‘celebrate’ what they call ‘Naqba’ day – the day of Israel’s independence 63 years ago.
• The numbers reported are wrong. Every other report cites at most 11 people killed, of whom 10 were almost certainly killed by the Lebanese army as explained above.

I have written many times recently on this blog about the Sun's increasing hostility to Israel and the reasons behind it. Trevor Kavanagh, the Editor who is genuinely somewhat sympathetic to Israel, ludicrously claimed in last week's Jewish Chronicle that the Sun is ‘pro-Israel’. Other than the very occasional mention by Kavanagh himself in his own pieces, the Sun has not had a single article sympathetic to Israel since Richard Littlejohn left several years ago. More importantly, while the Sun has failed to report ANY of the thousands of rocket and terrorist attacks against Israel in the last three years it now invariably reports ANY story, like yesterday’s, where it can cast Israel in a purely negative light.  Perhaps Kavanagh thinks he can say this in the JC because no Jews actually read the Sun? The Sun may not be as relentlessy vicious in its anti-Israel reporting as the Guardian or the Independent, but its influence is in many ways far greater and is contributing to the casual anti-Israel attitude among people in the UK who would otherwise have no such bias or even interest.

UPDATE, 19 May 2011.  I received the following response from the Press Complaints Commission:

Thank you for your complaint.

I note your position that The Sun coverage is inaccurate as it fails to make clear that the fatalities on the Lebanese border were the result of shots fired from the Lebanese army rather than Israeli troops.

I have attached the BBC report on this matter, which – as you will see – refers to Israeli forces firing on groups of protesters, including those at the Lebanese border. It later refers to Lebanese soldiers firing warning shots, but Israeli troops firing as demonstrators vandalised the fence. The Guardian article makes similar claims (although it refers to four casualties) and states that Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Yoav Mordechai said that soldiers fired when demonstrators began vandalising the fence. Finally, I attach the Daily Mail article, which also refers to Israeli troops opening fire, although it indicates that defence officials suggested that the Lebanese army might have been responsible for some of the deaths.

It would therefore appear to have been widely reported that Israeli troops were responsible for firing shots that killed protestors, despite the suggestion in the Daily Mail article that the Lebanese army was responsible for some of the deaths. In order for the Commission to gain a full understanding of this matter, it would be most helpful if you were able to explain where you obtained the information that Israeli troops were responsible. I look forward to your response, within the next seven days if possible.

And here is the reply I just sent:

Thanks you for your response. I am well aware that the BBC and Guardian provided similar incorrect anti-Israel reports of the incidents but I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to my complaint against the Sun's coverage. The BBC and the Guardian are intrinsically anti-Israel. You may as well have quoted to Syrian and Hamas positions (actually that is exactly what the Sun, the BBC and the Guardian did).

>>It would therefore appear to have been widely reported that Israeli troops were responsible for firing shots that killed protestors, despite the suggestion in the Daily Mail article that the Lebanese army was responsible for some of the deaths. In order for the Commission to gain a full understanding of this matter, it would be most helpful if you were able to explain where you obtained the information that Israeli troops were responsible.

I assume that there was a typo in that last sentence, and that you meant Lebanese not Israeli troops?

Even with that assumption your request is somewhat bizarre since you already cited one source for the claim that the deaths were caused by Lebanese troops. Moreover, in my complaint I told you another source - namely the Israeli Government spokesman. And that is the whole point of the complaint. The Sun article ONLY provided the claims of the Syrian government - a police state seeking to deflect attention away from its internal revolution. Neverthess, the following information about the incidents were available on 15 May - BEFORE the Sun article (there has been further evidence since 16 May that the Lebanese were responsible for deaths, but that is not relevant to the complaint)

http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/05/15/updates-regarding-todays-west-bank-riots/
(the above link is especially important so it was on the widely available website of the Israel Defence Forces. You cannot get more of an official claim than that, so there is no justification for the Sun having 'missed it'.

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=220641

It is also important to note that even within Lebanon, where the official position was to claim the Israelis were responsible for the deaths, there are senior MPs who recognise that the real blame lies with UNIFIL and the Lebanese army. See here:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/May-17/LF-MP-blames-UNIFIL-Lebanese-Army-for-border-violence.ashx#axzz1Mo1YjpXu

The Sun is now censoring out news items that cast Islam in a bad light

The Sun has long been accused by Muslims and leftists of whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment. The fact that, on the contrary, the Sun has recently adopted both an anti-Israel stance and a whitewashing of Muslim extremism is something I raised here.

Well today comes the story about the trial of Faisal Shahzad who pleaded guilty to the attempt to detonate a car in Times Square New York (one of the foiled terrorist attacks in the US that people like Obama say have nothing to do with Muslims or Islam). Not only did he plead guilty but he stated in court that he was a Muslim warrior and that he would do it 100 times over because of US interference in Muslim lands. He also threatened that further Islamist attacks on the US were coming.

Despite this the Sun has decided to 'censor out' completely the Islamist angle from the story today. The report in the Sun says that Shazad pleaded guilty and that he would do it '100 times over' but completely leaves out any mention of his faith and any mention of his statement about his motives and threats he made. In fact, Sun readers would be completely unaware that this attempted mass murder attack had anything to do with Muslims/Islam.

I also listened to LBC this morning (the main London news station) and although the 7.00am bulletin mentioned the Islamist motivation, all subsequent bulletins (I listened at 7.15, 7.30, 7.45, 8.00 and 8.15) also censored out the Islamist angle.

Frankie Boyle: ignorant anti-semitic idiot

Above is the full article by Frankie Boyle on 4 June in the Sun (click to enlarge it) that was cited in my complaint to the Press Complaints Commission yesterday as an example of their biased and inaccurate anti-Israel coverage of the flotilla incident.

I decided to file a special complaint about this article today as follows:

*******************************************

The main article on the Frankie Boyle page (page 17) titled “Comic Relief must be bloody in Israel” contains a number of blatantly false and offensive anti-Israel claims that collectively constitute a blood libel. The worst examples were:

• “Israel attacked and killed a numbe of charity workers who were peacefully arriving on a boat”. This claim was proven to be false by the afternoon of 31 May through extensive video evidence.
• “Some of the protesters on board were teachers – presumably not teachers from England, as they tend to side with Israel on the policy of beating children to death”. This is an especially offensive slur which cannot be simply dismissed as a joke.
• “The Israeli forces abseiled from helicopters carrying machine guns”. The Israeli weapons that had been originally claimed to be 'machine guns' by the anti-Israel activists were proven to be paintball guns on 31 May (4 days before the article was published).

*************************************************************


Frankie Boyle, of course, has form with regards his vicious anti-Israel hatred - as you can see here:

http://www.israellycool.com/2010/05/01/off-the-boyle/

I have no doubt that he would claim to be very offended by being called anti-semitic. But, as is explained very well in the following articles, the unique obsessive hatred with Israel is always confirmation of anti-semitism:


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/06/defending-yourself-only-makes-us-hate.html

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/06/israel-human-decency-common-humanity-by-eve-garrard.html

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=177768

Forget the Guardian - it's the Sun we really have to worry about now

Until recently the Sun was the only British newspaper that could be relied on to be sympathetic to Israel's cause - in its news coverage, editorials and guest columns. That started changing when James Murdoch's son (known to have none of his father Rupert's sympathies with Israel) took over the reins of News Corp Europe and Asia, and the Saudis (in the form of Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal) and other Arabs bought a significant share of the company. As a result, instead of great friends of Israel like Richard Littlejohn, regular columnists now include left-wing Israel haters Ken Livingstone, Frankie Boyle (more of him below), and Islamist apologist Anila Baig.

Nevertheless, while I fully expected the irrational blood libel against Israel to pour out of the Guardian, Times, Independent, and Mirror over last week's flotilla incident, I never for one minute expected the Sun to follow suit. Yet, not only did it do just that, but its coverage was in many ways far more damaging - as explained in detail below - because almost uniquely among the British media it completely ignored the mass of evidence to support Israel's case day after day. Given the Sun's previous pro-Israel stance and the fact that it commands by far the largest readership in the UK, this is an exceptionally damaging development. It means that most people in the UK are completely unaware of Israel's side of the story.

I therefore felt moved to make a formal complaint to the Press Commission today as follows (note especially the details at the end of the complaint concerning the Frankie Boyle column).

************************************************************

To the Press Complaints Commission

My complaint is against the Sun newspaper for its coverage (over a number of days) of the anti-Israel flotilla incident that took place in the early hours of 31 May. The coverage breached two clauses of the Code Of Conduct, namely clause 1 (accuracy) and clause 2 (Opportunity to reply). By way of example I cite three specific articles during the period 1-7 June) that clearly breach Clause 1. One of these (on 4 June) is especially serious since it contains a sequence of blatant lies that amount to a blood libel. The Sun breached clause 2 by not offering the opportunity for any reply to the unfounded allegations against Israel.

The general complaint

For the entire duration (1 to 7 June) the coverage presented a narrative about the Israeli raid that was based purely on the perspective of the anti-Israel demonstrators on board the flotilla. This narrative – that the passengers on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmura were peace-loving activists massacred in cold blood by Israeli commandos illegally boarding the ship in international waters, was proven to be false by the afternoon of 31 May. The proof, in the form of extensive video and audio evidence, showed that:

• The Israeli commandos entered the ship legally (see below) and were armed with paintball guns, not machine guns, as they had been told by the Turkish authorities that there would not be any violent resistance.
• In a well prepared and planned attack, an organised gang of some 100 Turks from the terrorist organisation IHH, armed with knives, metal poles, slings (and possibly also guns) viciously attacked and stabbed the Israeli commandos as they landed one by one. Only when a number of Israeli commandos were critically injured during the lynching (including at least two of whom were shot by handguns either stolen from the commandos or already on board) did the Israelis get permission to use their handguns to save their men.
• The Israeli commandos had entered the ship as a last resort when the ship’s commander refused repeated requests to steer the ship to the Israeli port of Ashdod. Given the legal blockade of Gaza from the sea (to stop the import of weapons to the Hamas regime) this request, and the subsequent boarding when refused, were normal legal actions of the kind carried out routinely by governments all over the world to prevent hostile cargo and personnel reaching their shores.
• Before leaving Turkey hundreds of flotilla members had chanted slogans glorifying the historic slaughter of Jews by Muslims, while several had made ‘martyrdom’ videos. Moreover, during a radio conversation with the Israeli coastguard, the commander of the Mavi Marmura told the Israelis to ‘go back to Auschwitz’ and ‘remember 9/11’.

The relevant videos, which were widely available from the afternoon of 31 May can be found, for example, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9p5QT91QYs
http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/01/recording-idf-soldiers-report-attacks-from-the-flotilla-activists-on-board-the-marmara-1-june-2010/

Many other pictures and videos are available here:

http://idfspokesperson.com/

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, the Sun chose to ignore it all for the entire duration of its coverage of the story (which ran each day from 1 to 7 June). Indeed, the Sun continued to rely totally on ‘eye witness’ accounts from anti-Israel demonstrators, some of whom were not even on the Mavi Marmura. In all cases these accounts were clearly proven to be false from the video evidence.

The specific complaints

1 June: The coverage was on page 1, continued on pages 8-9. The page 1 headline was “19 Killed in Israel attack” while on pages 8-9 the headlines spoke of “Israel ship massacre” and “Bloody Disastrous”.
The article was inaccurate in all aspects (as discussed above). Also, the figure of “19 killed” was an exaggerated figure provided by the anti-Israel demonstrators immediately after the incident and was known to be false long before the Sun went to press on 1 June. The actual figure was 9 dead. No mention at all was made of the Israeli casualties.

4 June: The main article on the Frankie Boyle page (page 17) titled “Comic Relief must be bloody in Israel”. This article (update: see here for the full version) is nothing less than a blood libel containing a string of total fabrications from start to finish. The examples include:

• “Israel attacked and killed a number of charity workers who were peacefully arriving on a boat”.
• “Some of the protesters on board were teachers – presumably not teachers from England, as they tend to side with Israel on the policy of beating children to death”
• “The Israeli forces abseiled from helicopters carrying machine guns” (That this false accusation could be repeated on 4 June when the Israeli weapons were proven to be paintball guns on 31 May is especially revealing)

7 June: On page 2 in an article titled “Israel’s bloodied troops” the Sun is guilty of showing two photographs which were proven to be cropped versions of photos that had appeared in a Turkish newspaper. The original versions showed the full context: bloodied Israeli soldiers being dragged by Turkish attackers holding knives. The cropped version removes the knives and most of the key context. The cropping has been admitted – and subsequently corrected – by Reuters in what has become known as the Reuters photo cropping scandal. Details (including the full pictures) can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/08/reuters-fake-photos-ihh-gaza-blockade-commandos/

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-tries-to-minimize-photo.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood
Yet, although Reuters had corrected the ‘error’ on 6 June, the Sun still chose to display the incorrect versions on 7 June. Moreover, the emphasis of the story accompanying the photos was support for a narrative that was demonstrably false, namely (quoting directly from the article): “the pictures show activists tending wounded commandos”.

News of the World Article slanders Israel

I felt moved to write the following self-explanatory letter to the News of the World political writer Fraser Nelson. The article was about the child Afghan suicide bomber who killed three British marines. It was entitled "Who can spot an angel of death?". The article managed to incorporate two outrageous and totally irrelevant slurs against Israel. And what makes it so shocking in my view is that I am sure the writer had no idea that he was being offensive in any way.

****************************************************

Dear Mr Nelson

I enjoy your column in the News of the World every week, and hence am particularly disappointed that your normal journalistic standards could have been so completely compromised as they were in your article today about the child Afghan suicide bomber.

The problem in the article is that you have introduced two inappropriate, unnecessay and totally incorrect references to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There have, of course, been many articles in the media that exhibit both ignorance and anti-Israel bias, but your two references to Israel reach an all-time low in my view (especially as I am sure your outlook is generally sympathetic to Israel). Specifically:

Point 1: You say "The Taliban use children like the Israeli army use robots. Seldom has a fighting force been so callous"

I can only assume that you had a mental blockage when you wrote this statement. First of all it seems to imply that the Israelis callously use robots to attack people in the way the Aghans do with suicide bombers. I can only assume that you have confused your facts here. The Israelis have, on a small number of occasions used robots to DISARM potential suicide bombers, as in the well known case of the 14-year-old Palestinian boy in March 2004:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E0DC1530F936A15750C0A9629C8B63

This use of robots is exactly the opposite of what is implied in your statement. The use of robots is explicitly to save lives including even that of the suicide bomber. Your statement is a kind of a blood libel, that requires an apology. Perhaps you were confusing Israel's use of robots with the American use of drones against the Taliban. That would surely have been a more relevant and appropriate comparison to make given that the article was about Afghanistan and not Israel.

Point 2: You say (about the Afghan suicide bombers): "These are not the serious, adult suicide bombers used by Palestinian terrorists against Israel". This statement is offensive and ignorant on two levels. First the statement is false because the Palestinians have not only used child suicide bombers extensively, but have indoctrinated an entire generation of children to believe that killing as many Jews as possible by becoming a suicide bomber is the greatest ambition they can achieve. In fact, compared to the Afgan child bomber (who apparently may not even have known that he was on a suicide mission) the Palestinian child bombers have begged to become suicide bombers as a result of their indoctrination. For information about this, and a catalogue of Palestinian child suicide bombers see:

http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-096-Child-Abuse-In-The-Palestinian-Authority.html

Secondly, the statement implies that Palestinian use of suicide bombers is somehow a legitimate and professional type of activity compared to the Afghans. Again you need to be reminded that, almost exclusively, Palestinian suicide bombings have been directed at civilian and not military targets. To even imply that these are morally superior somehow to the Afghan suicide attacks against the army is truly abhorrant.

I am extremely upset that you of all people have now joined the rest of our media writers in using any opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to slander Israel.

Yours sincerely

Edgar Davidson

Dead Israelis don't count (letter to the Sun)

I sent the following self-explanatory letter to the Sun today:

• Your story today about the acquittal of Parveen Sharif on charges of withholding information about her brother's imminent suicide bombing mission in Israel was interesting, but contained a glaring omission. There was no mention at all that 3 civilians were killed and 65 were injured in the suicide bombing at Mike's Bar in Tel Aviv. In fact, the impression from your report is that the suicide bombing never took place, since the report concludes with the words "Omar — who posed clutching an AK47 rifle with another British bomber — failed to detonate his device in 2003. He killed himself in shame." In fact this was a joint mission with fellow Brit Asif Hanif who did blow himself up. Moreover, contrary to what was written, there is no definitive evidence about how Omar Sharif died, but most informed commentators accept that he was killed by a Hamas operative who had organized the attack.

The problem is that the Sun is actually the only pro-Israeli newspaper, yet even it does not think that dead Israelis really count.
Incidentally the Sun story was genuinely interesting because it revealed that Parveen Sharif (who incredibly is a teacher) told pupils after 9/11: “I am on Osama Bin Laden’s team.” Those following the case will also know that she sent email messages to her brother telling him he "must be strong in his mission" and that she recieved email messages from her brother telling her that she would "have to look after the family from now on". But, of course, the jury found her not guilty of failing to inform the authorities about an imminent terrorist act on the grounds that she "could not have known about it". The question I'd like to have asked is "What exactly did she think her Jihadist brother was doing when he told her he was going to Israel?" Maybe she thought he was going to visit the Wailing Wall or swim with the dolphins in Eilat.

Edgar's recent complaints of anti-Israel bias in News programmes

Letter to Sky News re their claim that 'Israel has broken the middle east truce' (15 July 2005)

Dear Sir/madam

At approx 10.15pm on 15 July Sky News brought the story of Israel's attacks against Hamas 'militants' in Gaza. The newsreader then stated that 'this attack has broken the truce that has been in place since Februrary'. Was the newsreader not aware that Islamic Jihad had already broken the truce by mounting several suicide attacks inside Israel including one in Netanya as recently as Tuesday 12 July that killed 5 people (including two children) at a shopping mall? And that Hamas had broken the truce by mounting a barrage of Qasam missiles into Israel in the previous few days, including one which killed a 22-year-old woman sitting in the porch of her house in the Negev on Thursday evening?

The Israelis' pinpointed attack killed 6 Hamas terrorists who were in the process of carrying missiles to launch further attacks. An act of self-defence if ever there was one, not a 'breach of a truce'.

Perhaps the newsreader would not have made such an obvious error if Sky News had actually covered any of the previous attacks in any detail. In fact, even the Netanya suicide bombing failed to get a mention on Sky News throughout the whole of Tuesday evening (the attack happened at 4.00pm London time). For a 24-hour news channel this omission was truly remarkable.
No response

Letter to the Sun in response to Anila Baig's article in the Sun (13 July 05)

Anila Baig ("All of us must pull together") in explaining the feelings of Muslims says "Feeling sorry for Palestinian orphans ... does not make us complicit in terror". Perhaps if Muslims also felt sorry for Israelis orphaned by the continual Palestinian suicide bombings (such as the two yesterday during a so-called 'truce') this might have more resonance. But they don't. And I have never heard a Muslim leader condemn the suicide bombings in Israel (or even Iraq) without also trying to justify it. It is time for Muslims to condemn terrorism without any 'buts'.
No response

Complaint to the BBC (21 June 2005)

BBC World Service, News (10.00pm), 21 - 06 - 05

The leading item on the News stated that, according to Palestinians, the meeting between Israeli PM Sharon and Palestinian PM Abbas ended in disappointment. The report attributed this to 'the tense atmosphere... resulting from Israel's arrest earlier in the day of 50 Palestinian militants'. It is not clear why the BBC should regard only the Palestinian viewpoint as definitive, but this report was in any case seriously flawed since it failed to mention the string of deadly terrorist attacks on Israelis (and the attempted suicide bombing of an Israeli hospital) that immediately preceded the arrests of the terrorists . The BBC's failure to report the context of both the arrests and 'tense atmosphere' represents seriously anti-Israel bias and extremely poor and misinformed reporting.
No response

Complaint to the BBC (20 June 05)

Today's BBC news on the Middle East fails to mention the two terrorist attacks in the last 24 hours that both resulted in loss of Israeli lives -- see the details, for example at:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/590104.html

Nor does the news contain any mention of the quite astonishing story of the female would-be suicide bomber who tried to repay the kindness of the Israelis who had been treating her at a Beersheba hospital by blowing them up. The full story can be found here:

Given that these (and many other similar) incidents of Palestinian terrorism are now taking place during a so-called truce I would have thought that it was imperative for the BBC to be reporting them. I would be interested to know why the BBC is keeping this information from its readers and viewers.
No response