It's clear why the BBC invariably caves in to Zionist pressure: but what on Earth did the foot-stamping little whiner Daniel Taub threaten the Church of Scotland with?
Last week I went to watch a documentary on BBC 4 about archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem. It was featured in the TV listings as one of the programmes of the day, so I was a little taken aback to find that it had been replaced at zero notice with a repeat of a documentary about the famous Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie.
It was always likely that a programme questioning one of the founding myths of the state of Israel would upset Zionists; and given the BBC's dogged and one-sided support for Israel and dismissal of any alternative viewpoints it was hardly surprising that this programme was pulled. A quick phone call from the Israeli embassy or one of its embedded BBC managers, and the programme vanishes as an "editorial misfit", never to be shown under any circumstances.
Well, it seems that it wasn't that exactly: the BBC never actually intended to show the film itself but only a censored version of it, hence the retitling (the original film was called Exile: A Myth Unearthed). When the film's director complained that he'd been given about three days to comment on the cuts (the BBC having sat on the film for six months) the BBC simply cancelled it for good.
At least in countries such as North Korea when the state broadcaster bows to government pressure it's from their own government.
Meanwhile, more locally, the Chiurch of Scotland has published a discussion paper to be debated at its General Assembly in a couple of weeks. The paper The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the Promised Land suggests that there is no biblical support for a divine right of Jews to the land of Israel. It criticises the illegal occupation and the contiuing expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Well, duh. The report makes it quite clear that it does not question Israel's right to exist nor does it call for a boycott or sanctions against the regime.
Of course, there's no pleasing some folk. Israel's Ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, described the report as "playing into extremist political positions" (read: we accuse anyone who fails to march in step with the Israeli regime of being a Nazi) and said that it "belittles the deeply held Jewish attachment to the land of Israel in a way that is deeply hurtful". I'm so sorry that Mr Taub's ickle feelings were hurt, but I'm sure he'll feel better after a few more Palestinian children have been extrajudicially executed for throwing stones.
Still, if you try to follow the link from that BBC report to the Kirk's report itself you will find that the link is broken, as is the link from the Kirk's own website. It appears that the report is being suppressed until editorial changes have been made to bring it in line with Israeli requirements. So if a Christian church is having its policy made by the government of a self-proclaimed "Jewish state", what will be the next demand? Crucifixion denial? Jesus wasn't killed, that's just an anti-semitic calumny that "plays into extremist political positions"? Scottish Christians' disinclination to be circumcised belittles the "deeply held Jewish attachment" to mutilation of babies?
I sincerely hope that if Scotland votes for independence next year we will not feel the need to invite Israel to send us