I followed this link to an “On This Day” article about the 1985 airlift by Israel of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. I have no bias complaints about that article itself. It actually said that the Jews had suffered particular president under “Marxist President Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam.” But I noticed several funny things about the “Timeline Israel/Palestinians” covering the 1950s to the present.
I’m afraid this is going to take some space to demonstrate. Below I have posted the entire timeline. I couldn’t cut and paste for some reason so I typed it out myself. The only thing I have edited out because they were too tedious to type is the exact dates; other than that these are the BBC’s own words in full. I have, however, changed the original font or added reference symbols in the following four cases:
1) Headlines where Israel or Israelis (category includes “Jewish” as no non-Israeli Jews are mentioned) are identified as doing violent acts have been put in italics. I counted 17.
2) Headlines where Arabs (category covers any Arab nationality or political group) are identified as doing violent acts are marked with an asterisk (*). I counted 5.
It would be absurd to expect exactly equal numbers. However the discrepancy between the category above and this one is surprising: no Arab is mentioned as carrying out any violent act until 1973 (“Arab states launch war on Israeli forces.) The second explicit mention of Arab violence, and the first explicit mention of Palestinians as the authors of violence, does not come until 1996 (“Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv kills 12”). Then there are three more, all in 2001 for some reason.
3) Headlines where no race or nationality is attributed to the authors of a violent act but it was actually carried out by Arabs have been put in bold. I counted 18.
The most striking of these was one from 1974, “Teenagers die in Israeli school attack.” Anyone would think the proto-Beslan at Ma’alot was carried out by the Israelis.
The BBC’s reluctance to ascribe violent acts to Palestinian authors has had a paradoxically un-PC effect. In this so-called “Israel/Palestinians” timeline the word Palestinian is not mentioned until 1987.
4) Headlines where no race or nationality is attributed to the authors of a violent act but it was actually carried out by Israelis are marked with a hash (#) sign. I counted 3. Again, it would be absurd to expect exact equality between the previous category and this one, but 18:3 is a startling ratio. I think I see a pattern here.
Headlines mentioning violence by both sides and violence within either side have been left unclassified. Warlike but non-lethal acts have been left unclassified. Headlines mentioning violent acts where who carried them out is controversial have been left unclassified.
This timeline is also unfair to the Palestinians in that the large number of Palestinians killed in the Intifada are not mentioned. I do not refer to actual terrorists but to stone-throwers and civilians who were not carrying out violence at all. Even those sypmathetic to Israel must concede that this is a large category. Possibly the fact that they tended to die by ones and twos means that there were few headline stories.
The BBC timeline follows:
Timeline Israel/Palestinians
1950s:
1953 Israeli raids on Jordan.
1955 Egyptian and Israeli fighters clash over Gaza.
1956 Egypt siezes Suez Canal.
1956 Israeli troops move into Sinai.
1956 Anglo-French forces bomb Suez.
1956 UN forces British to agree withdrawal from Suez.
1957 Israel to pull out of Gaza under UN pressure.
1960s:
1965 West Germany and Israel establish relations.
1967 UN to withdraw peace force from Sinai.
1967 Nasser bans Israeli ships from Gulf of Aqaba.
1967 Egypt and Jordan unite against Israel.
1967 Jordan moves tanks towards Israel.
1967 Moshe Dayan appointed defence minister
1967 Israel launches attack on Egypt.
1967 Israel ends Six Day War.
1967 Moscow calls for UN action against Israel.
1970s:
1970 New peace plan for Middle East.
1970 Hundreds held in series of hijacks.
1970 Hijacked jets destroyed by guerillas.
1972 Israel commandos storm hijacked jet.
1972 Japanese kill 26 at Tel Aviv airport.
1973 Parcel bomb attack on Israeli embassy.
1973 Arab states launch war on Israeli forces.*
1973 Egypt and Israel sign historic ceasefire.
1973 Israel’s founding father died.
1974 Violent border clashes at Golan Heights.
1974 Teenagers die in Israeli school attack.
1974 Dozens die as Israel retaliates for Ma’alot.
1976 Israelis rescue Entebbe hostages.
1977 Egyptian leader’s Israel trip makes history.
1978 Sadat in US for Mid-East talks.
1978 Israel invades Southern Lebanon.
1978 Israel troops leave Southern Lebanon.
1978 Two dead after El Al crew ambushed.
1978 Arab-Israeli breakthrough in US.
1979 Israel and Egypt shake hands on peace deal.
1980s:
1981 Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor.
1981 Egypt’s President Sadat assassinated.
1982 Israeli ambassador shot in London.
1982 Israel invades Lebanon.
1982 PLO leader forced from Beirut.
1982 Refugees massacred in Beirut camps.
1983 Sharon quits after massacre enquiry.
1983 39 troops killed in Lebanon car bomb.
1985 Israel ends major Ethiopian rescue mission.
1985 Gunmen hijack Italian cruise liner.
1985 Gunmen kill 16 at two European airports.
1986 Nuclear technician missing after secrets leak.
1987 Palestinian intifada begins.
1988 Dead heat in Israel elections.
1988 Arafat recognises State of Israel.
1989 Six killed in West Bank village raid. #
1990s:
1991 Bush opens historic Mid-East peace conference.
1993 Israel launches major attack on Southern Lebanon.
1993 Israeli Court sets Demjanjuk free.
1993 Rabin and Arafat shake on peace deal.
1993 Israel and the PLO agree to recognise each other.
1994 Jewish settler kills 30 at holy site.
1994 Yasser Arafat ends 27 year exile.
1994 Israel’s London embassy bombed.
1994 Israelis and Arafat share peace prize.
1994 Israel and Jordan make peace.
1995 Palestinian self rule in West Bank agreed.
1995 Israeli PM shot dead.
1995 Shimon Peres appointed Prime Minister.
1995 Nablus handed to Palestinian Authority.
1995 Israeli troops withdraw from Bethlehem.
1996 Suicide bomber kills 19 on a Jerusalem bus.
1996 Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv kills 12.*
1996 Israel bombs Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.
1996 Clashes at Al-Aqsa shrine in Jerusalem.
1997 Israel gives Hebron to Palestinian Authority.
1997 Suicide bomb kills four in Tel Aviv café.
1997 Suicide bombings put peace visit in doubt.
1998 Further self-rule promised in Wye Memorandum.
1999 Revised Wye Accord aims to revive peace process.
2000s:
2000 Deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian talks.
2000 Israeli cabinet votes to leave Lebanon.
2000 Hezbollah makes gains in Lebanon.
2000 Hezbollah celebrates Israeli retreat.
2000 “Provocative” mosque visit sparks riots.
2000 Shocking images of boy shot in Gaza.
2000 Sharm El-Sheikh peace talks collapse.
2000 Ceasefire in Israel collapses as fighting erupts.
2001 Ariel Sharon elected Israeli prime minister.
2001 Israel sends F-16 fighter planes to Gaza.
2001 Islamic Jihad bombs Tel Aviv disco.*
2001 Hamas bomb kills 15 in Jerusalem.*
2001 Israel kills PFLP leader Abu Ali Mustafa.
2001 PFLP assassinates Israeli tourism minister.*
2002 30 Palestinians killed in major offensive. #
2002 Suicide bomber kills 19 in Netanya hotel.
2002 Fifth suicide bomb in one month kills 14.
2002 Israeli troops besiege Arafat HQ.
2002 Israeli seige of Bethlehem begins.
2002 US calls on Israel to leave West Bank.
2002 Israeli soldiers die in Jenin ambush.
2002 Fierce fighting in Jenin and Nablus.
2002 Horror at pictures of Jenin in ruins.
2002 Powel peace mission ends in failure.
2002 Israel loosens grip on Jenin.
2002 Bethlehem siege ends – militants deported.
2002 Israelis begin building security wall.
2002 Suicide bomber kills 19 on Jerusalem bus.
2002 Israel kills Hamas leader Salah Shehada.
2003 Suicide bombers kill scores in Tel Aviv.
2003 Mahmoud Abbas to become first Palestinian PM.
2003 EU, UN, Russia and US launch Peace Roadmap.
2003 Israel tries to kill Hamas lead al-Rantissi.
2003 16 dead in Jerusalem suicide bus bomb.
2003 Abbas resigns after clash with Arafat.
2003 Geneva accords rejected.
2004 Sharon plans removal of settlements in Gaza.
2004 Israel kills Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
2004 New Hamas leader al-Rantissi killed. #
2004 Tourists killed in Egyptian resort bombings.
2004 Veteran leader Yasser Arafat is dead.
2005 Abbas triumphs in Palestinian elections.
2005 Israel completes Gaza settler evictions.
ADDED LATER: Here are some more. In the comments, Lee Moore writes: “I noticed this same headline tendency before, and this is a good example – a BBC page summarising Israel v Palestinians headlines in 2002.
There are twelve stories about Israelis committing violent acts and they are named eight times in the headlines for those stories. There are fourteen stories about Palestinians committing violent acts and they are named in the headlines for those stories….not once.”
Natalie,
Full marks. Thnx for the useful references. But will wonders never cease? I actually found a reasonably objective treatment of the chaos in Gaza. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4581334.stm
“Hafiz Barghouti, the editor of the newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeed, has written: “It appears we are neither prepared to change, nor admit that we have failed in running our own affairs. Everyone is busy calculating how to make the biggest possible gains at the homeland’s expense.
While most Palestinians find it easy to blame the occupation for all our ills, it is a fact that the occupation was not as bad as the lawlessness and corruption that we are now facing.”
Why does the BBC start this timeline on the 14th October 1953 with Israeli raids on Jordan?
Why not start on January 1st 1951, after which time the Palestinian Fedayeen group carried out terrorist attacks inside Israeli borders. Between 1951 and 1955, 967 Israelis were murdered by Arab terrorists.
Why not start on 15th May 1948 when six Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq & Saudi Arabia) invaded Israel.
Why not start in the early forties of the last century when the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinians were cosying up to the Nazis and were complicit in ‘the Final Solution’
Why not start at the turn of the last century when Arab landlords charged grossly inflated prices for swamp or barren land to Jewish settlers returning from the Diaspora, only to see these areas of land turned into fertile farms. The Arab response? Murder the Jews, drive them out, take over the farms.
Why not? Because it doesn’t fit into the far-left revisionist history that this disgraced organisation continues to peddle.
An excellent read on the Arab-Israeli conflict is Martin Gilbert’s Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (ISBN 0-19-521042-5).
O/T
Just how many BBC ’correspondents’ does it take to stand outside a Jerusalem hospital to report on the health of Ariel Sharon? By my reckoning, at the last count, six, including tired old Jeremy Bowen. One for BBC News 24, One for Newsnight, One for etc, ect.
Good spot, Natalie. I noticed this same headline tendency before, and this is a good example – a BBC page summarising Israel v Palestinians headlines in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/tv_and_radio_reports/1741600.stm
There are twelve stories about Israelis committing violent acts and they are named eight times in the headlines for those stories. There are fourteen stories about Palestinians committing violent acts and they are named in the headlines for those stories….not once.
The anti Israeli bias shown by the BBC is getting worse everyday in my mind. Any readers who have not seen the roughly 18mins long video named ‘Pally Wood’ would be absolutly amazed by what they see in it, please educate yourselves and do a google search for this video and watch it – you will be simply stunned by the Palestinians utterly awful staged fight scenes that are broadcast as actual combat. Much like the footage we see from iraq all the time which is so blatently staged and filmed by pro islamic journalists then put on al-Jizzera , you know the shots of a man stood in an empty road firing his AK-47 at absolutly NOTHING while his buddies cheer and shout allah akbar but really theres noone there to shoot at and its all fake. Anyway watch PallyWood and you’ll understand. Fake combat footsge is getting alot of airtime latly, just last month sky and the BBC ran a blatently staged ‘combat’ scene from iraq in which Religious nuts claimed to have taken over the whole of Ramadi, anyway turned out that absolutly nothing happened in Ramadi that day but 1 yes 1 rpg being fired!!! yes amazing eh and our media breathlessly report the pallywood style combat scenes. Long rant i know but it make me mad. It would be like the BBC airing footage of German armoured blitzkreig TRAINING exercise and passing it off as the real thing!!!!!
Good work, Natalie.
Whenever possible, the BBC has a neutral, and therefore misleading headline, with the killers unmentioned and the verb ‘kill’ in the passive tense when Palestinian terrorists go on their frequent murderous rampages:
Olympic hostages killed in gun battle
And your example:
So we should insist on at least the same treatment of Jews in the incredibly rare event that they do the same thing:
Jewish settler kills 30 at holy site
should be changed to
30 killed in gunfire at holy site
There. That’s better.
Er… By ‘Your example’ I meant:
Teenagers die in Israeli school attack
That’s really a BBC classic.
Pallywood is available to download from here (right-click and select ‘save as’):
http://mensa-barbie.blogspot.com/2005/12/media-spoof.html
I think we are missing a point here.
As well as the BBC bias, the BBC also acquires the bias of other news organisations ‘second hand’; Reuters and AFP spring immediately to mind as having wholely embraced the palestinian agenda.
Not about the ME, but as an example of Auntie regurgitating other people’s stuff; Ashley Pomeroy put up a link to an ‘Independent’ article on the french New Year train disturbances.
R5 midday news coverage of the same criminal rampage was verbatim, with a bit of Beeb speculation tacked onto the end.
A more interesting question is how much US and Israeli news feed does the Beeb take?
And how much of it is reshaped by the BBC editorial hand?
At last a BBC timeline for Israel. A timeline is conspicuously absent from the BBC country profiles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm , the only important country in the area not to warrant one.
O/T
al-Beeb’s Rabiya Parekh joins the pilgrims (no doubt including some plumbers) on the Hajj:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580474.stm
(All prominently showcased on BBC Views Online’s main page).
O/t
When the Beeb’s political writers start straying onto sporting matters their ignorance quickly comes to the fore:
He(Tony Banks) took his role in the cabinet in Tony Blair’s first administration but resigned in 1999 to concentrate on the unsuccessful bid to host the World Cup at Wembley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4591230.stm
Now, had the English 2006 World Cup bid been a success the final would have been played at Wembley. However, the World Cup would have been hosted across England, not just Wembley.
re: “Timeline: Israel/Palestinians”
Yes indeedy, that is a very odd selection for such a “timeline”.
What has Israel’s attack on Saddam’s nuclear reactor got to do with the subject of “Israel/Palestinians”. If you do see a rational connection, how do you explain the failure to mention Saddam’s later Scud missile attacks on Israel? After all, Palestinian Arabs danced in the streets at news of those attacks – at least until the missiles started falling on the West Bank…
.
>>>>
A more interesting question is how much US and Israeli news feed does the Beeb take?
Let’s try again.
QUOTE
A more interesting question is how much US and Israeli news feed does the Beeb take?
UNQUOTE
I’m wracking my brains here, and I could be wrong, but didn’t the Israeli government officially break ties with the BBC last year? Ah, according to Reporters sans Frontieres – which puts me in mind of Jeremy Paxman hitting someone with a big inflatable hammer, and he’d be really good at it probably:
“GPO director Seaman said on 30 June that the Israeli authorities were cutting off all ties with the British BBC TV because it systematically criticised Israel and had put out programmes that were virtually anti-Semitic.”
Might be just the Israelis being oversensitive, although I don’t remember them cutting ties with ITN, for example.
… and this was in 2003. I have no idea if Israel and the BBC have kissed each other and made up.
paulc: As well as the BBC bias, the BBC also acquires the bias of other news organisations ‘second hand’; Reuters and AFP spring immediately to mind as having wholly embraced the Palestinian agenda.
Yes – groupthink. Here’s the BBC’s Caroline Hawley talking about living arrangements in Iraq – “In our area we had Reuters, and the New York Times was round the corner.”
Gee, who’d have guessed?
The staged fight scenes are even more concerning than simply their bad entertainment value. An article in Canada’s “National Post” last year revealed that the scene of the boy shot in Gaza being cradled by his father which ginned up the intifada to no end was in fact staged. Apparently France 2 which widely aired it has grudgingly admitted as much. How long has ME peace process been stalled and how many have died due to shoddy, biased reporting?
Ashley Pomeroy!
Are you conducting some sort of psychological experiment? I’ve followed the link to your website more than once and my immediate Pavlovian response is always to click on the Maria Sharapova link. It’s only when I get to that page that I remember I’ve been before.
Please, either put some pictures up or sort out a mechanism for giving out biscuits.
DFH:
Help is available at http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=sharapova&sa=N&tab=wi
Another interesting inclusion:
“Horror at pictures of Jenin in ruins”
No mention of the fact that much of the horror was due to the lies about a “massacre” that never happened, originating from Palestinians as propoganda; spread by the media … including the BBC. I suspect they want people who never saw the news that no massacre had occured (so much less prominant on the Beeb than the “news” of the massacre) to remember the massacre as if it were truth.
pjf
Interesting that Israel does not get any credit for getting rid of nuclear weapons. The BBC used to like this. As I suspect that the Palistians in the west bank and Gaza strip would nearly all die in an Iranian attack. What was left could not live in the area for 100 years. Even suspect BBC journalists would have to find somewhere else to vent there anti-semitic collective insanity. If the whole area did blow up however, the BBC would mainly go back to the 24 hour slagging-off, of America, and particualy G.Bush, which they love even more.
Im quite depressed, as you all should be, that inspite of now constant complaints that the BBC is institutionly bias, it has indead (shep uk) become worse. What happened to all the reasurances that the BBC was accountable though the BBC governers. Think about the fuss the BBC makes when some nutty small Christian group attacks a bit of BBC smut. How much debate does the BBC really have with the public about its political bias in all its productions?
Answer; Tottaly none. They dont care and what is worse they dont nead to. Inspite of 3 years of this blog.
If you reasured yourself, as I used to, that the British people would not get fooled by this blaintent propergander. I have bad news. In my experience I am coming across an ever increasing amount of very real anti Jewish sentiment. All fueled and directed by our lovable BBC. BBC misinfomation has become part of this countries common knowledge. A whole generation of brain washed University educated black shirts have infultrated our media in Britain and Europe. Kind of helps you understand a little better how many of the German public in 1946 still beleived that “THE JEWS BROUGH IT ON THEMSELVES.” It was not a mistake when that “nice” Ken Livingstone regarded a Jewish reporter as acting like “a nazi concentration camp guard. “He means what he says and it is all the justification he neads for his end.
Gary:
It’s even worse. I regularly contribute to the German “Politically Incorrect” Webblog and sometimes to “Davids Medienkritik” (which is in English and comes highly recommended) and especially in the case of the former there are a lot of Leftists whose hate of Israel borders on the irrational. As someone in Germany once put it “The Germans have never forgiven the Jews the Holocaust”. Even though that may sound more than weird it seems to be a state of mind over here. As long as they can start a sentence with “Of course we don’t have anything against Israel but it should be alright to criticise a friend…” you know where they’re coming from.
I don’t know any Neo Nazis and I try to stay away from Leftists too but most anti-Israel comments I read these days seem to come from the left of the political spectrum. At least that’s the case in Germany.
P.S.: I guess I should have signed that above posting with “One of very few Germans who actually are pro-Israel”
P.P.S.: I guess that’s one of the main reason why I’m disillusioned. I may end up as totally_pissed_off_german soon
This type of 2006 national socalists dont nead an army to unite Europe under one political theory, they have the E.U. set up to do that for them. The BNP are not national socalists, they are just errelivant loonys, but New Labour and their mates are. It seems that the British public will nead the cabinet to start growing hair on there top lip or doing the goose step before they will understand what has happened to their country. As we know the BBC wont tell them.
Diss german
I have met German Neo Nazis in the midd 1990s. I was introduced to them by an East German girl I met in Amsterdam. I met 20 of them in a small flat in old East Berlin. We spent the evening playing inteligent “party games” interspersed with the oranisation of violence against Turks during the Olympic bid that year. They seemed to have little interest,although very polite, in my presence.
The very scary point I am making is that they were the absolute elite of their nation. All fluent in English and all very highly accomplished at there studies,at the highest university in Germany. Wonder what they are running now and will be in the future?
Neo Nazis speaking proper English? And they were from East Germany??? To be honest I’ve only ever been to East Germany (former) once for a few hours because I bought something there. Everything and everyone East German is suspect to me. Considering I’ve been to the UK over 50 times I know where my loyalties lie. That’s why my all time (political) hero is Sir Winston. I wish we had a leader like him again. We could do with one.
The Pallywood film at Netzarim junction is indeed a concrete example of the complicity of western news organisation in the dissemination of lies to damage Israel.
It raises the obvious question.
is it in fact possible to receive fair and balanced news form inside the Pal territories from ANY source?
Western Partisanship under the guise of “fake but accurate” reporting and the intimidation of Palestinian thuggery would result in any honest journalist being evicted from the Palestinian territories within hour of arrival.
The downloadable Al Durah movie is also a must.
Taken on the same day and within 200 metres of some of the pallywood footage it is the damning final proof of one of the most dishonest peices of repoting in modern history.
Yes to both. Please understand that these people were the absolute elite of the East German Intelectual class. Just brimming with retribution for past perceived injusticies. Dressed in brown shirts tie and boots. And hating every moment of reunification. But give these gifted “individuals” 10 years and a bit of practical experience and you get something like…… a young Peter Mandelson.
O/T – BBC covering up for their anti-War chum, Charles Kennedy:
In Nick Robinson’s ‘blog’ we have an interesting defence made by Pete Clifton, Head, BBC Views Interactive, about why Views Online avoided the term ‘alcoholic’ when referring to Kennedy:
http://blogs.bbc.co.uk/nickrobinson/2006/01/westminsters_wo.html#commentsanchor
(scroll down to item 12)
Naturally, when David Cannadine gets to vent his Point of View, he is allowed to refer to Dubya as a reformed alcoholic:
“One reason why so many middle Americans still admire George Bush is that he is both a born-again Christian and a reformed alcoholic”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4493442.stm
The GWB as reformed alcoholic theme is often quoted by the naive commentators at HYS.
They are obviously prepared to believe that Kennedy’s 2 months on the wagon make him a “recovering alcoholic”, whereas (per wikipedia) there is no evidence of Bush having a drink since 1986.
Almost all the HYS crowd consider it acceptable for Kennedy to continue as leader (& potential PM – he he). I guess it is because he has an “ism” & therefore a victim who must be supported. I wonder how tolerant they would be if their own boss was unreliable.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=698&&edition=1&ttl=20060108112625
Sunday papers are full of second rate politicians and alcoholism. This is the real news. http://tinyurl.com/bhkbo
More evidence of the BBC’s bias in the Middle East – and so well argued!
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij0516.html
A bit more in depth than “they put the italics on the Israelis!!1!”.
“More evidence of the BBC’s bias in the Middle East – and so well argued!”
One of the ‘arguments’:
The constant reference to “cycle of violence” equates the Israeli violence to a response to Palestinian violence, diminishing the fact that Israeli violence is disproportionate and used to oppress the native population.
Israeli violence towards ‘militants’ IS a response to Palestinian violence towards civilians. Israeli violence against civilian-murdering scum is not disportionate.
Perhaps someone with more time can do a thorough fisking of the article highlighted by steamroller?
Why the connection to Counterpunch which is so anti-Israel it borders on on the anti-Semitic! The quote in the osting evidencing the immorality of the writer who believes that terrorism should be met with kid gloves. The moral equivalency of these people beggars belief!
Just for clarification what exactly is the BBC definition of a “Palestinian” ? Are people living in Jordan “Palestinian” ?
Did Palestinians live in The Ottoman Empire and were they around when the Romans occupied the region ?
Are “Palestinians” Christian ? Or are they exclusively Muslim ?
Is poverty in Gaza connected with a birthrate of 27/1000 and what rate of economic growth is required to absorb such a population growth ?
How far is this a new Sudeten Problem ?
PA security officials confirmed that several Palestinian journalists were being subjected to a “vicious” campaign of intimidation.
“Some factions and armed groups are responsible for the campaign of intimidation and terror against local and foreign journalists,” said one official. “They want the journalists to serve as their mouthpieces and are trying to prevent them from reporting the truth.”
A journalist working for Ramattan said the agency had received threats from Hamas, but did not elaborate. Another freelance reporter complained that he had received death threats from an armed group belonging to Fatah because of his coverage of the
PA security officials confirmed that several Palestinian journalists were being subjected to a “vicious” campaign of intimidation.
“Some factions and armed groups are responsible for the campaign of intimidation and terror against local and foreign journalists,” said one official. “They want the journalists to serve as their mouthpieces and are trying to prevent them from reporting the truth.”
A journalist working for Ramattan said the agency had received threats from Hamas, but did not elaborate. Another freelance reporter complained that he had received death threats from an armed group belonging to Fatah because of his coverage of the…
Jerusalem post
A bit more in depth than “they put the italics on the Israelis!!1!”.
steamroller | 08.01.06 – 10:27 pm | #
Um… the BBC didn’t put them in italics. The beloved Natalie did. Twit.