It has been seen as a daring raid by crack Israeli troops to rescue dozens of their countrymen held at the mercy of hijackers.
But newly released documents contain a claim that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe in Uganda, was not all it seemed.
A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.
“Contains a claim”, the weasel words so good they used them twice. Here is the claim as reported by the BBC:
An unnamed contact told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane.
So if you get that far you discover that a junior diplomat chappie in, er, Paris, where they know all about events in Uganda and really know how to live, heard another chappie in Paris tell him that the Hand Of Israel was behind it all. The junior diplomat chappie then wrote it all down, writing down tedious gossip being what junior diplomat chappies are paid to do so that they can eventually become Ambassador to Belgium.
A little more info about the second chappie will be revealed later in this post, but even as it stands, this is pathetic. In its domestic reporting the BBC is painfully careful to avoid engendering prejudice, so careful in fact that it sometimes defeats its own object – but when Israel can be made to look bad it will grab any old mouldy leftovers from the back of the fridge and serve them up to its audience. The BBC is in no way excused by the fact it was not the only one. It is the only one I am compelled to pay for.
Hat tips to commenters Pounce and Ashley Pomeroy. The latter wrote,
“Inevitably this will be passed around the internet as the gospel truth, because it’s on the BBC. I can picture the arguments on Wikipedia in my head. “It is widely known that the Israelis faked the Entebbe crisis – even the BBC admits this” they will say.
Under the subheading “Ugandans killed” – not “Uganda soldiers killed”, just “Ugandans killed” – we learn that: “Two Israeli civilian hostages died in the shooting, and a third died later in a Nairobi hospital.”
The third hostage was an old woman who was strangled at the orders of Idi Amin, in revenge for his humiliation by the Israeli commandos. The report doesn’t say that. “A third died later” is incredibly misleading. It implies that the hostage was wounded in the shooting and expired of these wounds in hospital, whereas in reality she had been removed from the hostages before the rescue took place.”
Indeed. Dora Bloch, a 75 year old widow with dual British-Israeli nationality, was on her way to her son’s wedding when the plane was hijacked. The BBC has form on this use of “died” to mean “murdered while Jewish.” It played the same game when describing the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.
Now, about that second chappie, described as unnamed by the BBC.
The Times reported, but the BBC did not, that this mysterious person was “A contact Euro-Arab Parliamentary association”. The Times seems to have lost an “in the” at some point, but that’s nothing compared to the BBC losing a whole Euro-Arab Parliamentarian. Talk about Arab voices being silenced in the media, eh? Never mind, he did get a mention in Guardian, the Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post (Hat tip: Biodegradable for the JP) and practically every other outlet other than the BBC.
It would be nice to think that the BBC avoided mention of the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association because unlike the sheep in the Guardian / Times / Telegraph all copying the same news agency report, the ever-diligent BBC had bothered to ascertain that there is no such body. There is a Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation. But I have a feeling that someone at the Beeb just didn’t think that an Arab (OK, OK, it could have been a Euro, only I don’t think even the Foreign Office wallahs see Luxembourgian rumours about the Israelis as worth recording) … where was I? Oh, yes, someone at the Beeb just didn’t think an Arab claiming that bad things done by Arabs were really the work of duplicitous Jews had news value.
The BBC story ends,
The file does not make it clear how seriously the government took the claim that Israel also may have aided the hijackers.
And, in the great tradition of Yellow Journalism everywhere, neither does the BBC.
I think the reasoining behind the BBC running this story now is painfuly obvious…..
Palis have snatched their reporter…Muslims are shelling Tripoli……so, the Muslims in that area are looking real bad….and the BBC can;t have that, so they dig up this old bullshit story, and say, “Yeah, but look how bad the Isralis are”…..
Defelction……pure and simple…..
As we say in Spain, ¡Olé!
Let’s see.
The Jerusalem Post thought it an interesting story.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat…icle%2FShowFull
So did the Daily Telegraph, not among the nation’s fatwa fans.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/01/nhijack01.xml
So the the great tradition of Yellow Journalism doesn’t really wash, unless you invite the Post and the Torygraph into that club.
Yes, the BBC should have attributed the Paris diplomat’s source, but no great scandal there.
As I posted on the other thread, there was a suspicion the French were complicit with Amin and the hijackers at the time. This is from a report dated 9 June 1976:
President Giscard d’Estaing is the odd man out in the Entebbe rescue drama, carefully refraining from issuing any approving or congratualtory statement concerning Israel’s daring and successful operation in Uganda on Saturday night. Not only that, but Paris political circles assert that the statement by the captain of the Air France airbus at Orly airport was dictated by the French Government. The airbus captain, Michel Bacos, an Egyptian-born Maronite Christian, was rescued together with his aircrew and 14 French passengers by the Israeli task force. When he arrived back at Orly, a statement was read out on his behalf, because he claimed to have lost his voice. The statement praised President Amin for “the constant concern” he had shown for the passengers and for “a nurse and doctor put constantly at their disposal.”
Little hillhunt misses the point. Again. The criticism isn’t in the running of the story, but in the way it was run. The BBC, alone, chose to portray the source as reliable and refused to actually give a clue to teh source’s allegiances. Jpost and the telegraph both pointed out that the source had, to put it mildly, ulterior motives for wanting to portray the hijack as an Israli-inspired plot.
archonix,
hillhunt does not want to understand – he only seeks attention and to monopolise threads.
I’ve already explained all this to him, several times.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8450124287229043948/#358076
If Natalie won’t ban him all we can do is try to ignore him.
Hillhunt is woefully inconsistent.
A few comments back Hillhunt supported John Reith’s view that the BBC’s output merely reflects other media’s coverage.
Now Hh quotes the Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post which do mention the inconvenient (for the BBC) fact that the the diplomat’s source was linked to a pro-Arab group.
So Hillhunt wants to have it both ways…
I hope they don’t ban Hillhunt ‘cos pointing out the inconsistencies are soooo easy.
I really think B-BBC’s line on this is way OTT.
Yes, there is in general a pro-Palestinian and anti Israel bias in BBC reporting. It is obvious even to people like me who have a lot more sympathy with the Palestinian people than with the Israeli government.
Your jolly caricature of the nature of the diplomatic report from Paris, however, does not impress me.
The basic story was interesting and worth worth reporting.
I’d pick the BBC up for way they describe the casualties – only too typical of an unprofessional sloppiness which, somehow, does usually seem to reveal underlying bias. It is, though, the sort of sloppiness that they will usually sort out in later editions/reports if they are presented with it.
Matt
MattLondon,
The story was only ‘interesting’ because the BBC concealed the provenance of the source for the diplomat’s report.
Forget ‘interesting’, what about accurate?
At least the Telegraph called the accusation “extraordinary”. Stupid stuff, anyway, which the BBC should be far and away above. If the Entebbe hijacking was partly Israeli-orchestrated, I think a certain Benjamin Netanyahu would have found out by now, and the matter wouldn’t have rested. His brother was killed in the rescue mission.
Battersea:
Hillhunt is woefully inconsistent
Because he has no interest in the argument (any argument). He is only interested in provoking and disrupting. To this end consistency is not a consideration, in fact it promotes discussion about him which is what he wants.
Second paragraph Jerusalem Post report.
Shimon Peres, who was defense minster at the time of the hijacking and Entebbe rescue, said over the weekend that the claims are so outrageously baseless that they do not merit comment.
The Israeli Government essentially doesn’t work on Friday and definitely doesn’t work on Saturday. I have no doubt a similar press statement will come out from the Israel Government Press Office tomorrow. Will the BBC give it the same prominence as the original report? Will the BBC cover it at all?
archonix:
Little hillhunt misses the point. Again. The criticism isn’t in the running of the story, but in the way it was run. The BBC, alone, chose to portray the source as reliable and refused to actually give a clue to teh source’s allegiances.
Biodegradable:
Hillhunt is woefully inconsistent
Because he has no interest in the argument (any argument). He is only interested in provoking and disrupting.
None so blind as those who will not see.
This is what I said to Biodegraded earlier…
I agree, by the way, that it would have been preferable had the BBC included the name of the diplomat’s source.
And above…
Yes, the BBC should have attributed the Paris diplomat’s source
So I was already in agreement with you on that point.
But on Natalie’s wider point about Yellow Press…
Our crack team of media analysts have been wondering why this decades old tittle tattle qualified for a position on the BBC front page.
I disagree that this wasn’t a story. You can read it several ways – as a vignette of diplomatic disdain, as a lesson about who Britain was listening to…or even as an insight into an iconic incident.
Always happy to chat.
“Israel hijack role ‘was queried'”
First person: Israel was behind the hijack.
Second person: Really? Are you sure?
There we are, see? Israel hijack role has been queried.
And don’t ban hillhunt. I have a nice daily routine sorted out. At the top of the hour, I listen to Radio Solent News, for three minutes of hilarious amateur comment by ignorant muppets on the day’s news. And in between, I read hillhunt’s stuff, for the same reason.
This is what this story reminds me of:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2584164.ece
Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal
By Donald Macintyre
Published: 26 May 2007
A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right.
still the Indpendent story wa s amisleading headline (and frontpage) and this BBC one is even worse. I’ve been warning my friends that this 40th anniversary terrible things will be brought to us by the media
I’m appalled and shocked and furious.
hillhunt still refusing to read and comprehend:
This is what I said to Biodegraded earlier…
I agree, by the way, that it would have been preferable had the BBC included the name of the diplomat’s source.
And I pointed out to hillhunt that nobody knows the name of the source:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8450124287229043948/#358084
Constantly returning to points already dealt with, constantly seeking attention – it’s what hillhunt does.
BioD:
Biased BBC: The Pedants’ Revolt
Why, Oscar Wilde lives!
Anyway, back to BBC bias. Strangely, the author of this puff piece, sorry article, about Gordon Brown unaccountably forgot to add the boilerplate whinging from the Liberty pressure group:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6715885.stm
Increasing anti-terrorism powers (shouldn’t that be anti-activist?), extending detention without charge; all these are usually opportunities for the BBC to spend 3/4 of the article airing the grievances of Liberty. Surely they haven’t deliberately missed it out because they are rooting for our Scottish viceroy?
If it is okay for the BBC to peddle this crap about the IDF/Mossad/Shin Bet and Entebbe with NO reliable sources then we should be able to discuss the possibility that Alan Johnston colluded with his kidnappers in some way.
After all, the second scenario is much more probable then the first.
BBC Middle East coverage seems to be missing a story. Can’t think why.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277435,00.html.
K,
That’s an easy question to answer; the BBC already have this story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6715873.stm
(note the picture caption)
The BBC doesn’t report attacks on Israel unless somebody dies, and then the death is only reported in passing, usually something like 50 words in a 250 word article mostly about Israeli aggression.
We also have to remember that while Alan Johnston is being fed to death the BBC doesn’t want to do anything that could antagonise his hosts.
Not only is he held hostage, so are the millions of licence fee payers deprived of real news reporting for fear of upsetting the terrorists.
” Biodegradable | 03.06.07 – 11:07 am |”
at least there’s one side benefit from the Johnston kidnapping – we’ve had no car swarming or “oh we’re so angry at the jooooos” or “cry me a river” reporting from gaza, which is a nice bonus. long may it continue.
i hope they keep feeding him for the rest of the year
.
Anonymous:
If it is okay for the BBC to peddle this crap about the IDF/Mossad/Shin Bet and Entebbe with NO reliable sources…
1. It’s from the National Archive. Usually regarded as a reliable source.
2. It’s been reported, too, by many other media, including the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph. Why no complaints about them peddling this crap?
3. It’s a historical account of the way part of the FCO saw Entebbe at the time and gives an interesting insight into how diplomacy was played out in those days.
…then we should be able to discuss the possibility that Alan Johnston colluded with his kidnappers in some way.
I realise that we are an elevated pool of analysts, but modesty prevents me seeing these pages as equivalent to the National Archive and diplomatic records.
I realise, of course, that many of you will take a different view.
.
Re: Alan Johnston kidnapping
I’m looking forward to the BBC asking Alan Johnston the obvious questions upon his release:
1) “Do you recant anything you said in the video?”
2) “Did you say anything in the video that you don’t believe to be true?”
3) “What did you say in the video that you would not have said, had you not been fearful of losing your life?”
Checked out BioD’s link and noticed “Obstacles to Peace” links on the right sidebar. Those obstacles are: Jerusalem, refugees, water.
No mention of widespread Arab refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist, Arab anti-semitism, indoctrination of Arab children with hatred – or even the 800,000 Jewish refugees who fled Arab lands after 1948.
Oh no, I forgot. Israel assimilated those refugees and gave them citizenship (along with the million or so Arabs who didn’t respond to Arab leaders’ calls to flee until after Israel had been destroyed).
The poor refugee Arabs were left to the tender mercies of those same Arab leaders (and the UN). so no home, no citizenship etc.
But I doubt I’d find any of that under “Obstacles to Peace” on Al Beeb. ‘Cos it’s all the Jews fault, see!
Fran,
momotaro posted an excellent link yesterday to a good fisking of the BBC’s “Obstacles to peace” mini-series:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1321
The poor refugee Arabs were left to the tender mercies of those same Arab leaders (and the UN). so no home, no citizenship etc.
Somebody here, I forget who, recently asked why, if Gaza is no longer “occupied” by Israel, are there still “refugee camps” there.
Enquiring minds would like to know…
Hillhunt says – 1. It’s from the National Archive. Usually regarded as a reliable source.
The National Archives is a collection of documents of national interest. Because a document is in the National Archives does not mean that it contains the truth.
gfen:
The National Archives is a collection of documents of national interest. Because a document is in the National Archives does not mean that it contains the truth.
Fair point, but it does indicate that a document comes from the UK government´s official archive, containing 900 years of history from Domesday Book to the present i.e. that it is part of the official record and was considered worth preserving.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/whowhathow.htm?source=ddmenu_about1
Anonymous claimed above that the BBC was peddling crap by reporting on it. Its status as absolute truth is clearly open to doubt. The light it throws on diplomatic thinking at the time is revelatory, and a reasonable subject for the BBC, the Jerusalem Post and the Telegraph.
Hilarious! I can just remember that BBC headline – “Revelatory light thrown on 1970s British diplomatic thinking”, wasn’t it? And there was I thinking it was pushed as something which cast doubt on Isreal’s motives!
Biodegradable:
Somebody here, I forget who, recently asked why, if Gaza is no longer “occupied” by Israel, are there still “refugee camps” there.
The same reason there are refugee camps in Jordan, one of the few (maybe only) Arab states that gives citizenship to Palestinians.
Every other refugee in the world remains a refugee until resettled, returned or in the worst case deceased. Palestinian refugees (and four generations of descendants) will remain refugees and receive benefits until the unlikely event of returning to the homes they left in 1948. Hence the camps.
I will now take out my prophesy hat and predict: If Israel is either defeated or stupid enough to allow the ‘return’ of the refugees, refugee camps will remain in Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. Lebanon, Syria and Egypt will no longer need ‘camps’ because they will expel their unwelcome guests.
bob:
And there was I thinking it was pushed as something which cast doubt on Isreal’s motives!
The BBC headline reads Israel hijack role “was queried”
Most of us would read that as if someone had merely asked questions about Israel’s role, but we’ll let that pass.
How did the Jerusalem Post headline it?
‘Shin Bet involved in 1976 hijacking’. Slightly more emphatic, wouldn’t you say?
The Telegraph: Israeli agents ‘helped Entebbe hijackers’. Again, pretty clear. Don’t you think?
Simple point: It’s based on the release of an interesting contemporary diplomatic document. Media across the political spectrum thought it interesting. None wrote about it as if it was gospel truth.
Fox shot. Move on.
Thanks for the practice Hilly!
BBC Middle East coverage seems to be missing a story. Can’t think why.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277435,00.html
K | 03.06.07 – 10:48 am
It’s mentioned here now, as a tiny part of a report on “Palestinian” casualties and as justification for Arab terror:
Palestinians killed in West Bank
[…]
Palestinian militants Hamas later fired eight mortar rounds at the Erez border crossing, wounding four soldiers.
[…]
Earlier on Saturday, a number of shops and homes in Nablus were damaged when Israeli forces blew up concrete barriers nearby.
Some people suffered minor injuries, and water and electricity supplies were also cut off, the town’s mayor said.
The Palestinian Information Minister, Mustafa Barghouti, said the action was a “new crime coming in the context of Israeli escalation against the Palestinian Authority and people”.
The Israeli army frequently launches raids into Nablus to search for suspected militants.
According to the BBC Israeli casualties are a result of “Palestinian” reaction to Israeli aggression.
Biodegraded:
According to the BBC Israeli casualties are a result of “Palestinian” reaction to Israeli aggression.
Er, no.
According to the BBC, the Palestinian Information Minister says that the casualties are caused by Palestinians reacting to Israeli escalation.
Attributed speech: Until you understand that concept, life will be very hard for you to understand. Sufferers from attributed speech blindness sometimes rage into their keyboards for weeks on end tragically convinced that respected organisations like the BBC are full of Jihadis.
It’s a long road, but together we can make it.
Biased BBC: A friend in need.
To Hillhunt: do YOU believe that the Israelis had a role in the hijack (the plot and deed) of the Air France flight forced to Entebbe?
Just got back to see the discussion going on about the Israeli ‘connivance’ in the Entebbe hijacking (I prefer air piracy).
Can’t elaborate tonight but it is total tosh. Will give an insight into FCO workings tomorrow (and a little about multinational company involvement – but no names).
Trust me – it’s total tosh. But of course the asylum lunatics will try to make capital of it.
Allan@Aberdeen:
To Hillhunt: do YOU believe that the Israelis had a role in the hijack (the plot and deed) of the Air France flight forced to Entebbe?
Doesn’t make much sense to me. Would be an appalling betrayal of its own citizens aboard that flight if it were.
On the other hand the British embassy’s communication speaks volumes. Doesn’t it?
Poor Hillhunt, inconsistent as usual. First he writes that he believes the Entebbe story to be untrue and then in the same message says…’on the other hand’.
Hillhunt: As logical as Humpty Dumpty.
On the other hand the British embassy’s communication speaks volumes. Doesn’t it?
How so? What is the reputable source of the communication? Is there anything more than this communication?
To me, there’s nothing, yet the BBC’s bias is such that it seeks to undermine the righteousness and moral foundation of one of Israel’s greatest military successes, even thugh it cost the life of Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother. Other media outlets merely reported the existence of this scurrilous ‘communication’, but the BBC slants it as having weight and value. Names, references, sources etc are what journalism should be about.
Battersea:
Poor Hillhunt, inconsistent as usual. First he writes that he believes the Entebbe story to be untrue and then in the same message says…’on the other hand’.
Not at all. You can doubt the veracity of the Paris Embassy’s theories and be astonished that diplomats talk and think in this way.
Biased BBC: Arse? Elbow?
Aberdeen Angus:
Other media outlets merely reported the existence of this scurrilous ‘communication’, but the BBC slants it as having weight and value.
In your dreams, I’m afraid. Read the other media. Everyone thinks it’s an interesting tale.
Which it is. If you don’t spend 95% of your life squinting at BBC output through closed fingers.
Don’t feed the effing troll!
Natalie, fine post.
disillusioned_german,
I read the first few of the troll’s comments, then started scrolling. It was apparent from the beginning that he/she was only here to disrupt, taunt and sneer. However, I understand that others respond out of a reluctance to let the troll’s comments stand unchallenged.
My take on it is that if the troll has enough spare time to continually punctuate this blog with snide, uninformed comments then so be it. I’m not going to examine this misplaced punctuation. I regard it as spam that can’t be deleted. The last thing I would do is read it.
Bryan:
I take it on the chin that the odd post is a touch surreal.
But examine the hillhunt oeuvre on this thread. It’s overwhelmingly on topic.
Disagreement is not sneering. Always happy to oblige.
I’ve read this and several other threads which contain hillhunt’s ‘contributions’. My opinion is that he/she becomes the focus (owing to the sheer ignorance and contemptuous tone) rather than the subject matter of the thread. Unlike Reith, who actually does create useful discussion, hillhunt ruins the thread: he/she should be banned. This is necessary to keep the debate at a reasonably civil level. Yobs and louts should be kept out of forums for discussions such as this. Surely it is one of the custodians main roles to do so.
I go to sleep and the last comment on every current thread is by hillhunt.
I come back in the morning and hillhunt’s comments are filling every thread.
hillhunt is a pathological attention seeker and should be banned. Failing that it should be ignored.
If it is okay for the BBC to peddle this crap about the IDF/Mossad/Shin Bet and Entebbe with NO reliable sources…
1. It’s from the National Archive. Usually regarded as a reliable source.
No, the initial source is not an impartial (or reality-based) member of the human race.
The Beeb fails to point out where this ‘idea’ came from.
In the past few weeks trolls have derided suggestions made here that Alan Johnston is not being held against his will. Flaky, loony ideas like that!
But here, the £3bn-a-yr BBC comes out with something that is way beyond any such suggestion.
Did they even try and contact an Israeli Govt. official for a rebuttal? That’s what good journalists should have done, but it doesn’t look as if it happened here.
So, the BBC have descended to the level of bloggers really. Lower in fact.
Meanwhile, lets hope that Johnston is safe and well fed.
Ps. Good post Natalie – shame about Hill*unt’s comments.
Aberdeen Angus:
This is necessary to keep the debate at a reasonably civil level.
To date:
1. Unmentionable (because it was banned) violence from the ever-reliable pounce
2. A full IDF style welcome is promised by disillusioned german.
3. Biodegraded is threatening violence so startling that it’ll keep the dentist busy for some time afterwards
4. Horse & Hound offers a horsehwipping and the attentions of a pack of dogs.
And in which direction did this incivility manifest itself?
Always happy to keep it civil. I think we’d all welcome restraint from the above.
Biased BBC: Mote. Beam.
Hillhunt:
The national archives contain the records of 900 years of history.
Including the Popish Plot, British pro-German policy between 1922 and 1938, and the success of the Cambridge spies. Just because the ruling classes in London took something seriously, it does not mean that it is worth so much as pissing on.