Why the media and leftists are silent on the Iranian uprising

It doesn't fit their narrative

See: Why Can’t the American Media Cover the Protests in Iran?

See: More leftist logic

Obama and Kerry's secret concession to Iran revealed

See also:
Iran deal - why the comparison with 1938 is wrong
The Iran deal in full exclusive
Iran and sanctions - the dummies guide

BBC responds to my complaint about its statement that nobody in Iran has threatened Israel for a very long time

Updated 4 August 2015
I (along with a number of people including Denis MacEoin - see below) complained to the BBC following a typically outrageous interview on Radio 4 with an Israeli representative.

My complaint:

During the Newshour interview with Danny Danon (July 14) the interviewer Razia Iqbal said nobody in Iran has threatened Israel for a very long time. In fact the threats to annihilate Israel have never stopped and during the last week the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamanei and the President Rouhani both repeated their threats and intent. See: http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/07/07/as-iran-nuclear-talks-extended-iranian-leader-repeats-threat-to-destroy-israel/# and http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6160/iran-quds-day-death-america-israel (an event ignored by BBC: http://bbcwatch.org/2015/07/12/bbc-news-ignores-al-quds-day-in-english/)

BBC response:

Dear Mr Davidson

Thank you for your email in which you complained about the interview with the Israeli Minister for Science, Technology and Space Danny Danon the BBC World Service broadcast in Newshour on 14/07/2015 in the wider context of the agreement reached about Iran’s nuclear programme.

We have received a wide range of feedback about this interview referring to the segment of it in which our presenter, Razia Iqbal, broached the subject of how and why the Israeli government perceives Iran as a threat.

In order to use our Licence Fee resources efficiently, this response aims to answer the key concerns raised regarding the interview, but we apologise in advance if it doesn’t address your specific points in the manner you would prefer…

The question about whether Israel faces a threat from Iran was a legitimate one for the interview with Danny Danon. However, after our editors spoke with Razia about the interview, it was agreed that her question could have been framed more clearly. The context of live radio, a developing story and a presenter responding to an interviewee’s points, should also be taken into account.

Mr Danon was allowed to give his views at length and in detail. He stated that Israel had the capability and right to defend itself - what Razia was trying to elicit in response from Mr Danon was what Israel considered to be the current threat from the state of Iran. In so doing, she was seeking to compare the very public and aggressive statements about Israel made by the previous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the language used by the current president, Hassan Rouhani. Mr Danon was allowed to give a lengthy, uninterrupted response. Questioning that response does not constitute bias, it is about seeking accountability for a viewpoint. The issue of whether Iran poses an existential threat is not without controversy within Israel. The current head of Mossad has said that a nuclear Iran would not necessarily pose such a threat; two of his predecessors have been critical Mr Netanyahu’s stance on the issue.

In that context, it was absolutely correct and legitimate for Razia to ask the question.

We hope the above allays the concerns you have raised and thank you once again for listening to our programmes and taking the time to write.

Best regards,
Dejan Calovski
Audience Relations
BBC World Service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

My follow-up response to Dejan Calovski

Dear Mr Calovski,

Your response did not address the core point, which was that Razia Iqbal stated the blatant lie that Iran's leaders had not threatened Israel since the time of Ahemdinejad. This is not a matter of interpretation. The recent statements by Khomaini and Rouhani are a matter of record, for which you have the links.

Also, what I find both disingenuous and quite disgraceful about your response is the fact that you are using alleged statements by some of Netanyahu's political opponents as a defence for the BBCs lie. This is analogous to telling David Cameron that ISIS has never committed any atrocities and then supporting this assertion by claiming that George Galloway and Ken Livingstone disagree with Cameron on his stance about ISIS. Whatever politicised individuals associated with Mossad may or may not have said about their perceived views of Iran's military capabilities, none of them would ever deny that Iran's leaders continue to make existential threats against Israel and that those leaders would attempt to destroy Israel if they could. So why is the BBC attempting to cover up this fact?

Yours

Edgar Davidson

Second Response (received 3 August 2015):

Dear Mr Davidson

Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the interview with Danny Danon in Newshour on 14/07.

I’m sorry you are not satisfied with our previous response. It was certainly not meant to be disingenuous but rather explanatory...

Regarding the gist of the complaint, I can only reiterate that, in our first reply, we did acknowledge that the ‘question in question’ (that Razia Iqbal put to Mr Danon) could have been phrased better.

We feel that Razia did not make a statement of fact but rather simply put forward a question (admittedly without an obvious question mark at the end of it, but it served exactly the same purpose). It was an interjection by the presenter inviting a response from the interviewee. It was, in our view, a perfectly normal part of any interview in which the presenter sets various points of view (not his/her own but alternative points of view to those of the interviewee) before the interviewee to elicit further explanation – in this case, as to what the Israeli minister considered was the existential threat to Israel. It clearly worked as Mr Danon gave a very detailed answer.

I hope the above allays your concerns. If not, you can contact the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit within 20 days of this email at ecu@bbc.co.uk or you can write to:

BBC Editorial Complaints Unit
Media Centre, BBC Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TP

Denis MacEoin (who is a genuine authority) had made the following complaint:

On Newshour on July 14, I listened to a brief interview with Danny Danon, Israel's Minister of Science, Technology and Space. Speaking of the new deal to allow Iran to develop nuclear power (which will lead to the building of nuclear weapons), the interviewer made one of the most fatuous and inaccurate statements I have ever heard. Perhaps I should note first that I am an academic in Persian/Iranian Studies with a long personal knowledge of the country, its religion, its language and its politics. I currently research and write about Iranian affairs. When Danon said Israel would have to stand on its own against the Iranian threat, here is what she said: 'But you’re not under threat by Iran. Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time. You’re harking back to a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel directly.' I have collaborated on a book detailing Iranian threats to Israel. I have lost track of the number of times, even during the current year when Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamene'i, members of the religious ruling elite, members of parliament, former presidents Ahdmadinezhad and Rafsanjani, have threatened Israel directly, saying Iran will obliterate the Jewish state by force. Threats made by senior officials have been made only a few days ago, around the time this interview was broadcast. Israel is the most threatened country in the world. A nuclear Iran increases the threat. I demand a correction and an apology from the interviewer.

Denis got exactly the same response and has noted:

But the interview lasted about one minute, so these comments ‘Mr Danon was allowed to give his views at length and in detail’ and ‘Mr Danon was allowed to give a lengthy, uninterrupted response’ are just rubbish. And the ‘answer’ doesn’t actually look at the content of my complaint at all. Anyone else who has had this response should also get back to them.

The Iran deal: the comparison with 1938 is wrong and here is why

The 1938 deal at least attempted to address the core problem: To stop the militaristic intentions of a murderous antisemitic dictatorship (Germany).   The 2015 deal legitimizes and funds the militaristic intentions of a murderous antisemitic dictatorship (Iran).

Aspect of treaty agreement	1938 treaty signed by Germany	2015 treaty signed by Iran
Money just for signing deal	Germany gets nothing	Iran gets $50 billion
Money if they stick to the deal	Germany gets nothing	Iran get hundreds of billions each year from sanctions relief and new contracts
Penalties if they do not stick to deal	War declared against Germany	None (the Russians and Chinese have already made it clear that the sanctions ‘snap back’ will not be implemented) and all military options have been taken off the table
Military	Some limits imposed on Germany’s army/navy movements	No limits to Iran’s army/navy movements
Weapons conventional	Minor limits imposed on Germany	All previous limits imposed on Iran dropped. They will be given the money to buy the world’s most sophisticated weapon systems.
Weapons nuclear	None	Iran gets to build nuclear bombs with the full approval of the international community
Territory	Stringent limits Imposed on Germany’s territorial ambitions	No limits imposed on Iran’s territorial ambitions (so immediate expansion of interest in Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank)
Support for terrorism	Not accepted	Iran can continue its support for terrorist movements all over the world
Jews	Germany promised not to harm them, although Hitler made it very clear he wanted all Jews out of Germany	Iran promises death to Israel

 See also:

See also:
Daniel Greenfield's excellent analysis of the deal
The Iran deal in full exclusive
Iran and sanctions - the dummies guide
The war against the Jews
 

Peace in our time

The hypocrisy of Obama: when words matter

This is covered in depth at Israel Matzav.

There is a useful (but far from 'complete' as claimed) log of Obama's anti-Israel activities here.

Update: Great article by Daniel Greenfield.

Some previous relevant graphics:

Obama has Israel's back, Jan 2015

The Iran nuclear deal in leaked, 9 March 2015

The ongoing world war against the Jews, 19 Jan 2015

Obama's hypocrisy over civilian deaths

Obama's love affair with Palestinian terrorists, 2014

Obama: The future must not belong to those who insult Islam, 2013

Exclusive (leaked from top negotiator): The Iran nuclear deal in full*

The P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) hereby agree to the following

• Allow Iran to develop as many nuclear bombs as they wish, providing that for the next 10 years they are used only for peace-keeping purposes.
• Provide $200 billion in immediate assistance to help Iran develop nuclear reactors for peaceful energy use. This is urgently needed since Iran's natural energy reserves consist only of the second largest oil reserves in the world and the third largest gas reserves in the world. Without the alternative of nuclear energy, Iran's natural resources will run out in less than 23 million years, at which point it will be unable to meet the energy demands of its own population.
• Immediately drop all sanctions against Iran, but with the strict condition that this will be reviewed - and could even be reversed - as early as May 2160 if Iran does not abide by the terms of the agreement.
• Provide $100 billion in aid to support Iran's peaceful long-range missile programme and a further $50 billion in aid to support the beleaguered Iranian Revolutionary Guards fighting heroically to preserve democracy in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen.

In response Iran commits to the following tough conditions for a minimum period of 2 months

• Iran promises not to launch a nuclear bomb against any country, providing that country is recognised by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
• Iran promises to allow IAEA inspectors to stay in the best hotels in Iran. All requests to visit nuclear sites will be carefully considered by the Ayatollah and the Al Quds forces. 
• Iran will telephone Valerie Jarrett every week to assure her of Iran's compliance with its commitments
• Iran promises that once its embassies are reopened they will be used to educate the local population about the world Zionist threat and will also help eliminate local Zionists.

The P5+1 have also assured Iran that any attempt by any country with a Jewish majority to compromise this glorious deal, will be considered a crime against humanity and will result in comprehensive sanctions against that country.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who last week ridiculed Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in Congress saying "demanding Iran's 'capitulation' is no way to secure nuclear deal"** has today confirmed that, the only way to secure the nuclear deal was for the USA and its partners to capitulate.

See also: Iran and sanctions - the dummies guide

*satire but not much different to what is actually being negotiated
** Kerry really did say this

Iran and sanctions: the dummies guide

As Obama says: "Our position on Iran's nuclear weapons programme has been steadfast and consistent - unlike that chickensh*t country Israel ..."

The new 'moderate' Iran: 16 Baluchi political prisoners hanged in act of vengeance - West ignores it

Obama, the EU - and of course the entire main stream Western media - are so desperate to maintain the nonsensical narrative of a new 'moderate' Iran that there has been barely a mention of this story that can be found at the bottom of  page 32 of today's Telegraph.

The story reveals more than just the fact that 16 political prisoners from the Baluchi minority community were hanged in revenge for an attack by Baluchi rebels on an Iranian border post. We also discover that the Iranians use the threat of killing prisoners to deter any rebel actions, and that it in 2010 the Iranians committed an act of international air piracy to force a civilian aircraft flying from Dubai to Kysyzstan to land in Iran so that they could arrest the leader or the Baluchi rebel group. The leader was subsequently forced to make a TV confession saying:

“They [the Americans] promised to help us and they said that they would co-operate with us, free our prisoners and would give us military equipment - bombs, machine guns - and they would give us a base.” 

They hanged him anyway three months later. Did this story make the news in the West? Not that I recall. Can you imagine how the West would have reacted if Israel had done anything like that even to a mass murderer? You don't need to, because you only have to compare the West's silence on Iran to their hysterical reaction when Israel killed mass-murdering Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists in pinpoint targeted assassinations that involved no civilian loss of life.

Note also that the Sistan-Baluchistan province is occupied by Iran against the wishes of the Baluchis. While every Western political 'activist' is obsessed about 'Palestinian independence' did you ever hear a single one of these anti-Israel goons highlight the plight of the Baluchis? On the contrary, 99% of Western activists insist that Iran is peaceful nation against whom sanctions should be dropped. And that is the same narrative now being pushed by Obama and Western governments - which is why there will be no official reaction to this kind of story and why only Israel can stop Iran getting their nuclear bomb.

Arrested in the UK for criticising Iran

Following on from my story about the UK man imprisoned for 12 months for displaying posters that could cause offence to Muslims, comes the story of two Israeli men arrested at Heathrow after a stewardess overheard them making "inappropriate and potentially threatening comments regarding Iran" while on a BA flight from Las Vegas. News reports on the story are pretty skimpy (the few sites interested in the story seem to be anti-semitic and Jihadist sites and blogs who are typically using it to 'expose' the evil intents of Israel vis a vis Iran).   However, contrary to what was stated in the few early reports (such as the JC on and also this one in the Mail) Rod Liddle in today's Sun claims that the men were not disruptive in any way and no passengers reported any concerns about them (perhaps Sky News will get round to apologising some time for the tickertape headline "Israelis arrested on BA flight in terrorist alert" they put out when the story first broke). So it appears that a single stewardess took offence at two guys for criticising a terrorist regime that daily threatens the existence of their own country - and on this basis they were arrested and accused of being terrorists.

The UK's political leaders are continually telling Israel that the country has no right to defend itself from Iran - several have hinted that any strike on Iran would be 'illegal'. But now it appears that it is also illegal for Israeli citizens even to discuss the threat posed by Iran.

Coming soon to the UK:

• Man imprisoned for expressing support for Israel - deemed offensive to all Muslims
• Jews imprisoned for attending Holocause memorial event - deemed offensive to all Nazis. 
• Man imprisoned after telling his psychiatrist that he once had a negative though about Muslims
• Man imprisoned for displaying posters that could offend Muslims (oops already had that...)

Islamafascists walk through centre of London demanding Israel's destruction

A demonstration of about 400 Islamafascists - organised by the Iranian Government sponsored "Islamic Human Rights Commission" marched through central London today calling for death to Israel. Waving banners of Ayatolla Khomeini and Hezbollah flags, the Islamafascists were 'celebrating' Al Quds Day, which was introduced by Khomeini as an annual day where all Muslims demand the 'liberation of Jerusalem' and the destruction of Israel. The Islamafascists were joined by the inevitable group of Neturei Karta 'Jews' and a small handful of useful idiots from the far left (who would be sure to be among the first to be exterminated under an Islamic regime).

We joined a counter-demonstration at Eros (Piccadilly Circus) that consisted mainly of Iranian dissidents opposed to the Islamic regime. The march was supposed to come past Eros at 12.00 but was delayed. A couple of us decided to take a walk down Piccadilly to see what was going on. We eventually came to the start of the march just past Green Park station. What amazed me was that, on what should have been a lovely Sunday afternoon for London's tourists and shoppers alike to enjoy the centre of town, the police not only allowed this demonstration but actually closed the whole of Piccadilly and the streets around it for what turned out to be several hours. Anyway, when we got to the demonstrators we held up some Israeli flags; the police told us to put them away (although, to be fair, they did tell us that there was a counter-demonstration we could join). But it is a bit ironic that the Islamafascists are allowed to carry Hizbollah flags and placards inciting terrorism (all funded by a regime that is killing British soldiers in Iraq) but the police would not allow an Israeli flag to be held up for 'fear of inciting them'. I cannot begin to describe how disgusting were the scumbags on this march. Their contempt for Western values and hatred of Israel, was accompanied with a barrage of vicious anti-semitic abuse. Make no mistake this lot (despite the Neturai Karta idiots walking alongside them) were openly calling for death to Jews (not just Israel). They chanted "Kill, kill kill the Jews at us when they saw us with the Israeli flags.

We decided to return to the counter-demo at Eros. Although the Islamafascist demo was organised by an Iranian funded organisation, its sole message was anti-Israel, so it was a bit disappointing that the only other counter-demonstrators there were those who wanted to get across their anti-Iranian government message (and nothing else). If ever there was a cause for the entire Jewish community to be out in force it was this one. In many respects what happened today characterised everything that is wrong with the Western approach to Islamafascism:

1. The fact that, presumably in the 'interests of free speech', the authorities allowed this disgusting hate-fest to take place. We the taxpayers had to pay for its policing, and thousands of ordinary Londoners and tourists were massively inconvienced by the disruption.
2. That the authorities seem to think that the freedom to call for the death of millions of non-muslims is important; and that the offence that this causes in the streets of London is irrelevant. After all it's the Muslims' 'right' to incite hatred - but nobody has the right to even slightly upset Muslims.
3. The fact that these people were simply allowed to walk through our streets spewing their hatred totally unchallenged. The thousands of non-political passers-by presumably think it is normal for people to be demanding the destruction of Israel. It is just another part of the process of deligitimisation of Israel.
4. The fact that a march like this (focusing uniquely on the destruction of Israel) can take place with a total absence of any organised Jewish opposition. Nothing from the Zionist Federation; nothing from any of the Youth Groups or students; not even a mention in the Jewish Chronicle that it was happening.

Update: another report at Harry's Place and a couple of videos here.

More reaction to Iran

The Sun seems to be the only British newspaper that recognises the seriousness of Iran's threat to Israel and the West -- it covered the initial story on page 2, and followed today with another news item, an editorial and a 2-page spread about Ahmadinejad on pages 32-33 with the heading "The most evil man in the world".

Unfortunately, plenty of the British public (who've been brainwashed by the BBC in the last few years into believing that Israel and the USA are the real threats to world peace) seem to think this is all an American-Zionist plot to create a pretext for military action against peace-loving Iran. Have a look at the following sample of posts on the BBC website highlighted by Melanie Philips today:


• It is also somewhat in poor taste for us Brits to condemn Ahmadinejad's fiery wording when our government has stood by an American President who is even more guilty of such charges. Bush and Blair led an illegal war where thousands of innocent people have died and for us to now turn around and comment from afar on a situation in the Middle East that we have made far worse is beyond belief...
• Is this story true? The current American regime is expert at creating faked excuses for military and political action. The WMD scam in Iraq for example. The Americans who operate in concert with Israel have made almost daily unsubstantiated threats against Iran, Syria, and any country that opposes a domineering foreign policy. Maybe Iran is just sick of Americans...
• Israel continues its brutal human rights abuses against Palestinians ...and the rest of the middle east therefore continue to hate Israel. In a nutshell. When will we see justice for the innocent people killed? America provides billions of dollars annually to Israel, which is used on advanced military hardware mercilessly against palestinian people. Only when the killing stops will ties be mended.
• OK, his remarks were a bit strong, and personally I do find them offensive. But I'm not sure it's any worse than what Bush said about Iraq, and at least Ahmedinejad is using only words, not bombs.