and it’s an embarrassment for Israel, says the BBC:
…the BBC’s Jill McGivering, in Jerusalem, says the incident is sure to cause some embarrassment for the Israelis.
Huh? Why Israel? Are the Egyptians likely to berate the Israelis for not having a bunch of non-Muslim security goons crawling over one of Islam’s most holy shrines? Are the Egyptians likely to demand that Israel make its control over Jerusalem more strongly felt?
It’s an embarrassment all right. But not for the Israelis.
I sent thi in a few hours ago.
I noticed that the BBC has now changed the webstory to read:
“But the BBC’s Jill McGivering, in Jerusalem, says the incident is likely to prove embarrassing for the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, as well as Egypt.”
i was watching der bbc’s 10 oclock news and the skinny reporter said the same: an embarrasment for the israelis, palestinians and egyptians, for thinking of themselves of being neutral but actually aren’t.
der bbc at its best. motherfuckers.
More stealth edits.
BBC reporting is an embarrassment for Britain.
(Needless to say, however, the BBC has transcended shame.)
This is quite a long email so be warned.
Just wanted to say what a great site this is, and how happy I am that i found it. Congrats to those responsible. I’m currently writing a book, that in simple terms accuses the BBC not only of an anti US/Israeli bias, but that either knowingly or unknowingly, with certain groups at EU level, they are involved in a conspiracy to turn British and world opinion in general against the US. The fact that the British public is not only paying for this agenda, but is being subliminally brainwashed is probably the more dangerous in the long run.
Yes, I know it sounds far fetched. I think I can positively prove these allegations, with hard data. This leads me to the analysis of the BBC story in question
I read this same article directly from the BBC site yesterday, as the news broke, and I also thought
it was completely odd that not only was; “it sure to cause embarassment to Israel”, but on the next line of
the release at 17:50 GMT yesterda
Back to the usual stuff –
BBC.com has its screaming headlines of “Palestinians Killed in Isreali Raid!”
Then, towards the end of the article you read —
“An unnamed Israeli military source told Reuters that soldiers had opened fire at Palestinians trying to plant or detonate an explosive device.
Witnesses said gunmen fired at troops as they entered the camp.”
Seems they were militants killed in a battle, which they seem to have instigated, doesn’t it?
The fact that troops were entering the camp suggests it was a raid in which Palestinians were killed, hence the headline??????
YEs, but the point is that throught a front page abstract and most of the linkes article you have no idea that those Palestinians killed were militants attacking or attempting to blow up the Israelis.
As in most of these incidents, if the Palestinians did not start attacking, nothing would of likely happened except a search, arrest, or whatever the Israelis were doing. The implication, however, is that they somehow went in with the goal of shooting people.
The follow-up story, also by Jill McGivering, is even worse:
Why, for example, did the Israeli authorities let Mr Maher visit a site as sensitive as Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque, just hours after presenting him to television cameras as a newly-restored friend of Israel and following a series of high profile meetings with their president, prime minister and foreign minister?
The area around the mosque – the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif – is sacred to both Jews and Muslims and notoriously controversial.
…
Given the sensitivities, if Mr Maher insisted on the visit, why was he not better protected by security?