A false[deceptive] balance is - indeed, in every way - an abomination: Why 'peace in the Middle East' ever proves so very elusive

It remains incomparably one of the best sources of world news - on this, that, and especially the other. Nevertheless, like everything and everyone else, the BBC is far from a perfectly reliable purveyor of the issues of our day, and nowhere is this more the case than in various 'moral issues' of great controversy, on religious (and 'cultural') matters and even figures of note, and on political controversies causing major schisms throughout our present-day world - with two notable exceptions: 'World Have Your Say' with Jackie Leonard; and 'Outlook' with Jo Fidgen. Thus, while tuning into BBC World Service Radio early this morning, I heard a brief report on Israel being in the process of passing a new law preventing the release of the bodies of Palestinian perpetrators of murderous violence upon Israeli civilians; following on from the unprecedented rash/spate of 'random acts of unkindness' as in unprovoked stabbings, often fatal, that have been occurring - initiated by both Israelis upon Palestinians as well as Palestinian upon Israelis, incidentally - mostly in Jerusalem. Thus Mr [Liebermann:sp?], Israel's newly-installed Defence Minister (I believe), has been enacting this new law, clearly as a way of retaliating against the Palestinian community, in particular in its connection to the Palestinian Authority - ever seen as initiating or ultimately behind any orchestrated campaign of violence against Israeli citizens (though of course not necessarily directly involved; except by implication. As Israel of course has long had a large Palestinian Arab population, and indeed, when combined with Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians constitute a greater proportion of the present population than Israeli Jews - the essential reason the latter are so wary of the sometimes touted 'one state solution' to the incessant Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) What grabbed my attention - as in made me involuntarily stop and pay closer attention, though to say I was surprised is hardly the case - was simply the following: after announcing the above-mentioned new law being enacted in response to another recent killing - this time in Israel's post-resettlement capital, Tel Aviv - the BBC correspondent, as if to say (echoing Yours Truly's other blogsite name): 'Nuff Said: this is the final, unchallengeable word on the matter', thus - implicitly - rejecting and dismissing all future consideration of the question, declared, in response to the above report and specifically to the lack of perceived justification (on the part of the BBC, presumably) for such a law: "the head of the Palestinian Authority" - i.e. Mahmoud Abbas - "condemned all attacks on innocents/innocent civilians in Israel." As if such a typically weak-kneed, arguably entirely worthless and trivializing 'condemnation' was all that the situation required or demanded, or would - to any right-minded person - be sufficient to stem the tide (of) recent (months), the outpouring of brutal violence of Israel's two major ethnicities against each other (in especially Jerusalem). One is almost tempted to wonder whether the reporter actually really, truly believed what he'd just reported, or - much more likely - wanted to believe it - probably simply so as to be able to dismiss any further consideration of the matter from his mind; 'out of sight, out of mind' kinda thing.But irrespective, Mahmoud's simplistic response, and the reporter's ready, unquestioning acceptance of this as anything remotely approaching an adequate response, themselves parallel and even highlight the gulf that currently exists in our world between apologists for the worldwide campaign of terrorism conducted in the wake of 9/11, and those who simply cannot accept - whatever the supposed provocation - human beings carrying on a way which is simply barbaric, inhuman and indeed devilish and beastly. Thus such softminded 'thinking' - if one can possibly dignify it with such a term - is exactly why the 'few and far between' 'condemnation' of ISIS/ISIL/DAYISH/DAYESH and Al Qaeda and the like - such as their African equivalents Al Shabab and Boco Haran - has justly earned its own unsparing condemnation by Westerners and others. These people are not merely perplexed by but outright appalled that these fellow-travellers not only evidently see no need to apologize on their 'compatriots'' behalf, ashamed - by obvious implication - in even being associated, if only by religious affiliation, with such subhumans; but more significantly perhaps, the generally Western apologists for such terrorists apparently see nothing the matter with these fellow Muslims themselves failing to do so[i.e. condemn these terrorists], whilst earnestly and constantly seeking to reassure the rest of us that, for example, 'Islam is a religion of peace' and no-one need suppose any possible danger from the unprecedented influx of Middle Easterners throughout the Western world but especially throughout 'Western Europe'. (Yes, even pre-Syrian refugee deluge, and personally, I've no time for those scapegoating such tragic-stricken folk; it's well-known these days that ISIS 'plants' its terrorists in their midst to foment further troubles by deliberate design.) Certainly any so-called condemnation of such folk by Muslim authorities and leadership around the world has consistently failed to make a skerrick of difference to the situation, still less to the terrorists themselves(and presumably also other would-be terrorists). Supposedly these Muslim authorities and their leadership around the globe are as shocked and horrified - like everyone else, or rather all reasonable-minded folk - by the barbaric beheadings, both individual and group; the mass suicide bombings (for a contradiction in terms; most people surely wouldn't have any objection if such folk simply took themselves out of circulation - a 'good riddance' as we used to say); and other associated mass slaughters of innocent civilians throughout much of the Middle East and parts of Western Europe. No, sadly - but all too predictably enough - interestingly, quite unlike the consistent and entirely realistic response of the noble Kurds, Jordan's heroic military-king, and even Egypt's restored military government - such 'responses' are much more akin to slapping someone with the proverbial wet bus ticket and/or seeking to cover a gaping wound with a mere sticking plaster. It clearly won't do, it just isn't - remotely - credible, and those trying to pawn off on their rightly-concerned populations such specious 'solutions', are, to use Mitt Romney's memorable words but in an entirely different context, simply trying to take the rest of us for a bunch of suckers. However, to return to the main matter in discussion, it is always best to apply impartiality in all such matters. And so, on the other hand, until the present Israeli Government is brought to account for its own horrific barbarity against innocents in its invasion of Gaza in mid-2014 (I believe), yes, its own genocidal massacre of Gazan innocents in hospitals, schools and elsewhere for which Palestinians are presently seeking to bring it to the International Criminal Court, nothing will change; in the Middle East anyhow, in the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yes, though I accept it's also high time the world started to pay some and proper attention to the very real threats to the every existence of Israel and its people by all manner of officials and politicians and other leaders in the Palestinian territories and Iran especially - and stop simply throwing it under the proverbial rug as per usual, it's still all too and tragically true that Israel still quite definitely has some very serious blood on its hands. and until it deals with that uimaginably appalling blind spot in its own mirror, nothing is going to change in the Middle East. That much is only too glaringly obvious - and then some.