British Zionist says Israeli lives more valuable than Arab lives

British Zionist columnist Maureen Lipman has stated that Israeli lives are more valuable than Arab lives. Her comments, which were broadcast on BBC television on 13 July 2006, went unchallenged by the programme's presenter, Andrew Neil.

Press release: CAABU condemns Maureen Lipman's comments on the BBC

The director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), Chris Doyle, has written to the BBC to condemn the comments on the BBC television programme "This Week" by leading British columnist Maureen Lipman.

Unchallenged by the presenter, Andrew Neil, Lipman commented on the situation in the Middle East and denied that the Israeli actions were disproportionate.

"What's proportion got to do with it. It's not about proportion, is it? Human life is not cheap to the Israelis. And human life on the other side is quite cheap actually because they strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up."

The idea that somehow Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, do not value human life as much as anyone else is disgraceful.

In the letter, Doyle wrote:

"Is it acceptable that what most people would consider a racist comment is merely allowed to pass like this? It is simply outrageous. The comments were made in the context of discussing proportionality; therefore, implicitly she is saying that you could not measure proportion because there was no equivalence between an Israeli and an Arab life. All Arabs, like all other people, value human life.

"I ask, if an Arab had stated on this programme that Jews did not value life as much as Arabs and, therefore, disproportionate killings were acceptable, what would have been the reaction?"
[Redress Information & Analysis editor adds: "Maureen Lipman and Andrew Neil, the presenter of the programme 'This Week', are but two of a species which lies at the very heart of the British establishment, including much of the BBC, an establishment which bears an overwhelming responsibility for the dispossession of the Palestinians but whose bigotry and affection for Zionism also blinds it to the pain and suffering caused by Britain's policies in the Middle East."]

Hear Maureen Lipman's racist comments

To hear Maureen Lipman's racist comments, click here and choose the 13 July 2006 programme from the drop-down menu. Her comments come 30 minutes into the programme.

My official complaint to the BBC:

"I watched the show This Week with Andrew Neil and was shocked by the racist comments made by Maureen Lipman.

She stated verbatim: "What`s proportion got to do with it Diane? It`s not about proportion is it? Human life is not cheap to the Israelis, human life on the other side is quite cheap because they strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up..."

This has got to be one of the most disgusting racist comments I have ever heard: that Israeli lives are worth more than the Palestinian ones - both morally and legally unnacceptable. I noticed that Andrew Neil immediately ended the Middle East discussion at that point, but again with no countering comment. Why? Does he agree with Lipman?

I demand an unreserved apology from both the BBC and Maureen Lipman for her overtly racist statement. "

I urge everyone to do the same. Its about time these racists - Zionists - and their apartheid policies were condemmed to the same fate as the South African apartheid regime.

Update 25 September 2006:

Maureen Lipman is a disgusting, dangerous racist and Zionist propagandist. This has been proved by her comments in the past including on BBC TV's This Week with Andrew Neil. She defends an apartheid state that has been committing war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity since 1948 with impunity and she defends the immoral and racist viewpoint that Israeli lives are worth more than the Palestinian ones - in this she is not alone.

The fact that such an extremist is given so much time to spout her racist propaganda in the British media is proof enough of the campaign outlined by Jonathan Cook in his article: "The 'New Anti-Semitism' and Nuclear War"
and outlined by John Mearsheimer (Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) in their paper on the "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", which although dealing specifically with the US, shows us the similarity in techniques used in Britain (just replace 'US' with 'UK' and 'American' with 'British' to get the picture).

As Mearsheimer and Walt state:

"What Is The Lobby?
We use "the Lobby" as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that "the Lobby" is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.
The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests."

How do they do this? According to M & W their strategy for success includes ensuring:

"that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel’s side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a
different policy."

and

"Manipulating the Media
In addition to influencing government policy directly, the Lobby strives to shape public perceptions about Israel and the Middle East. It does not want an open debate on issues involving Israel, because an open debate might cause Americans to question the level of support that they currently provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organizations work hard to influence the media, think tanks, and academia, because these institutions are critical in shaping popular opinion."

"The Great Silencer
No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism...pro-Israel forces, when pressed to go beyond assertion, claim that there is a ‘new anti-Semitism’, which they equate with criticism of Israel. In other words criticize Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-Semite."

Jonathan Cook then takes it from there:

"It is now clear that Israel and its loyalists had three main goals in mind as they began their campaign. Two were familiar motives from previous attempts at highlighting a "new anti-Semitism." The third was new.
...
The first aim, and possibly the best understood, was to stifle all criticism of Israel, particularly in the U.S.
...
A second, less noticed, goal was an urgent desire to prevent any slippage in the numbers of Jews inside Israel that might benefit the Palestinians as the two ethnic groups approached demographic parity in the area know to Israelis as Greater Israel and to Palestinians as historic Palestine.
...
The third goal, however, had not seen before. It tied the rise of a new anti-Semitism to the increase of Islamic fundamentalism in the West, implying that Muslim extremists were asserting an ideological control over Western thinking. It chimed well with the post 9/11 atmosphere.
...
This final goal of the proponents of "the new anti-Semitism" was so successful because it could be easily conflated with other ideas associated with America's War on Terror, such as the clash of civilizations.
...
Faced with the evil designs of the "Islamic fascists," such as those in Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal – and the nuclear holocaust Israel can and appears prepared to unleash – may be presented as the civilized world's salvation."