I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem. However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder. Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students. You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed. No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists. I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal. I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.
THE JERUSALEM “INCIDENT”.
Bookmark the permalink.
“I just saw this story and like most others, I am shocked at this wicked act of murder that has taken place at a Jewish seminary in west Jerusalem.”
As are we all.
“However from this poorly written (or is it?) BBC story you would struggle to even see this as an act of premeditated murder.”
Yes, words and phrases like ‘infiltrated’, ‘targeted’ ‘Aimed at the heart’ and ‘he had hidden his weapon in a cardboard box’
“Consider the language – the culprits were “gunmen” apparently. No they weren’t – they were dedicated Palestinian terrorists who used guns to kill the young Jewish students.”
A man. Using a gun. That makes him a gunman. He was also a terrorist, yes, but the word ‘gunman’ is a perfectly adequate term.
“You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands. Mmm, and the BBC also remind us that Israeli forces launched a raid into northern Gaza in which more than 120 Palestinians – including many civilians – were killed.”
As I said before, you complain when they fail to do this with stories about dead Palestinians.
“No insight provided into where this 120 deaths figure comes from, or how many were Hamas terrorists.”
It also does not say where the ‘eight’ of the title comes from. Now the reason it doesn’t mention how many were Hamas terrorists (or non-Hamas terrorists, for that matter) is probably because the BBC doesn’t know and so would prefer not to give unreliable statistics. If you want the BBC to speculate or believe unreliable sources, then say so.
“I’m sorry to have to keep banging on this Middle East theme (will change tomorrow!) but I think this report is almost written from the viewpoint that the Jews were just asking for this kind of act of reprisal.”
See above.
“I also notice that at the very bottom of the page this act of mass murder is described as an “incident”. Pure bloody bias.”
Well it clearly wasn’t an ‘accident’, now was it? There is nothing wrong with using neutral terminology, even for.
Angry Young Alex:
Hang on, when Israel moves into Palestinian territory and kills innocent people…
Israel entered (unoccupied – glad you noted that too) Gaza and hunted down terrorists and their arms stores and manufacturing workshops. Unfortunately Hamas hide themselves and their weapons stores in civilian areas and even shoot at Israeli troops from houses full of civilians and mosques so there are unintended civilian casualties. You and the BBC have ignored completely the evidence that some of those civilians and children were killed by their own bullets and their own missiles that fell short of Israeli targets. According to the Geneva Conventions and the Laws & Customs of War the deaths of human shields are the responsibility of the Palestinians.
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2008/03/collateral-stup.html
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2008/03/weapons-stockpi.html
There is absolutely no equivalence between Palestinian civilians killed accidentally by the IDF in buildings that house terrorists and the deliberate massacre of Jewish kids reading holy scriptures in the part of Jerusalem that has always been Jewish.
Fuck you, fuck Jeremy Bowen, and fuck any other terrorist supporting piece of fucking shit who tries to justify cold blooded murder against kids studying in a religious school.
Angry Young Alex: “Which do you want? Ideological context or no ideological context? Or is it, as I suspect, one for your enemies and the other for your friends?”
Or perhaps a consistent approach to both? It’s not contradictory to complain that there’s no context given to Israel’s action while the BBC goes out of its way to provide context for the actions of their foes. That’s the point bias, isn’t it – different treatment depending on who’s in the frame?
Or rather “that’s the point about bias”.
“And the motive’s for:
[BBC list of attacks on Israel]”
None mentioned. The BBC does exactly what Vance would want and lists previous anti-Israel atrocities without context or “excuses”.
“There is absolutely no equivalence between Palestinian civilians killed accidentally by the IDF in buildings that house terrorists and the deliberate massacre of Jewish kids reading holy scriptures in the part of Jerusalem that has always been Jewish.”
Calm down dear. Aside from the fact that both were reported by the BBC, no equivalence was implied.
“Fuck you, fuck Jeremy Bowen, and fuck any other terrorist supporting piece of fucking shit who tries to justify cold blooded murder against kids studying in a religious school.”
My my, strong words for imaginary people. How exactly have I or Jeremy Bowen tried to justify this cold-blooded murder?
“Or perhaps a consistent approach to both? It’s not contradictory to complain that there’s no context given to Israel’s action while the BBC goes out of its way to provide context for the actions of their foes. That’s the point bias, isn’t it – different treatment depending on who’s in the frame?”
Agreed. But what B-BBC has been demanding is not a consistent approach but a reversal of what it perceives the BBC to be doing.
As I’ve said before, you lot don’t want impartiality, you want bias towards your side.
The Have Your Say topic is still open. It’s being flooded by reasonable, intelligent comments like this one:
Added: Friday, 7 March, 2008, 12:55 GMT 12:55 UK
There will never be Peace as long as the Terrorist Israel State is an occupier. I was very happy to see the events of yesterday.
Ashraf, Jerusalem
Recommended by 10 people
Now check out the Debate Status:
Total comments: 1958
Published comments: 525
Rejected comments: 77
Moderation queue: 1355
The “moderators” are allowing all those comments to languish in the “moderation queue” as they so often do. I suspect it’s because they can’t find enough anti-Israel comments to publish. Scan the first few pages of the “Most Recent” comments and it’s evident that the majority by far are anti-Israel. Scan the first few pages of the “Most Recommended” comments and it’s evident that the majority by far are pro-Israel.
One would expect there to be at least a rough equivalence between the popularity of the pro-Israel comments and the number of pro-Israel comments actually appearing on the site. Instead, the reverse is the case. What do we glean from this? The “moderators” are deliberating trying to push anti-Israel propaganda by publishing a disproportionate number of anti-Israel comments. I’ve seen this countless times on Have Your Say.
The BBC will do anything to bash Israel, including lie and distort.
Since when were reporters to be condemned for suggesting a likely motive when dreadful crimes were committed?
Recent murder stories in the UK have seen correspondents explaining ghastly crimes in terms of the supposed motivation.
Thus Levi Bellfield was routinely said to have a problem with young blonde women, even though he made no such admission. Ditto the nurse convicted of murdering elderly patients… and dear old Dr Shipman. Hacks, cops and lawyers all volunteered theories that the power of life and death lay behind these deaths, or a disgust at having to look after the elderly. But as neither man came clean, nobody really knew.
I share the horror and disgust at the yeshiva massacre but of the complaints in this thread, only the stupid – and brief – labelling about an accident on an HYS note comes close to being real.
Bowen’s entitled to offer an explanation. As is the Jerusalem Post:
In striking the flagship institution of the religious Zionist movement, a Jerusalem landmark whose history is linked with the founding and fulfillment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel, the gunman aimed his weapon at the heart of the Zionist enterprise.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1204546423468&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Is Calev Ben-David a terrorist supporting piece of fucking shit who tries to justify cold blooded murder against kids studying in a religious school?
Or just a journalist trying to make sense of something monstrous?
The link:http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=4422&start=15&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20080307140329#paginator
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 2:59 pm |
As I’ve said before, you lot don’t want impartiality, you want bias towards your side.
As we’ve all said before, that is simply not true. How many “compare and contrast” complaints will it take to disabuse you of your bigoted notions?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=4422&start=15&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20080307140329#paginator
Hillhunt | 07.03.08 – 3:14 pm |
Since when were reporters to be condemned for suggesting a likely motive when dreadful crimes were committed?
There you go again. There is a difference between suggesting a motive and suggesting that there is a valid motive.
Or just a journalist trying to make sense of something monstrous?
No, it’s a “journalist” trying to make an heroic act of defiance out of something monstrous. The weaker force can have a success disproportionate to its size, don’t you know.
AYA: “As I’ve said before, you lot don’t want impartiality, you want bias towards your side.”
No, they’ve been complaining that Bowen here decided to provide context for the actions of a murderer who targeted civilians (wouldn’t have been that hard to find soldiers), despite the fact that to do so he had to resort to what is pure speculation (something your previous posts suggest you would be against). Next time some teenager is killed in the UK will we have reports that seem – at least to some mainstream commentators – to come close to justifying the attack?
On the other hand, they feel minimum context is given for Israeli military operations that – whatever else – aren’t simply targeting civilians.
David P:
There you go again. There is a difference between suggesting a motive and suggesting that there is a valid motive.
And Bowen uses the word valid? Or even implies it?
.
“Next time some teenager is killed in the UK will we have reports that seem – at least to some mainstream commentators – to come close to justifying the attack?”
Probably. With the Mary-Ann Leneghan case, there was speculation across the media as to her anonymous friend’s connection to the attackers and therefore of a possible motive. Usually when there’s a murder, people wonder why. No crime is 100% arbitrary, and unless you are naive enough to believe it is, there is always room for discussion of motive.
“There you go again. There is a difference between suggesting a motive and suggesting that there is a valid motive.”
What part of the report suggested a valid motive?
Hillhunt,
I absolutely agree motivation should be mentioned. So what, in your opinion, is the motivation for Israel’s actions in Gaza last week, and where is the BBC discussing it with any comparable emphasis?
BTW, although I am personally in favour of Israel evacuating much of the West Bank, this is not for any supposed rights of the Arabs. The West Bank became empty of Jews as a result of ethnic cleansing exercised by the Arabs, and which does not deserve any reward. What’s more, the British bear ministerial responsibility for this ethnic cleansing, having been the government at the time. This is why I have nothing but contempt for any pontification in this matter from any Brit.
That’s the point bias, isn’t it – different treatment depending on who’s in the frame?
Hugh | 07.03.08 – 2:47 pm
Quite. When there is a terrorist attack on Israel (e.g. Dimona and yesterday’s slaughter) the BBC always pushes the unedited terrorist point of view even while the blood is still flowing. But what do we get when Israel goes into Gaza to try to stop the terror?
Israel says its actions in Gaza are to stop the rocket attacks.
And any facts that support Israel’s assertion are simply not reported. Anyone learn from the BBC that Israel blew up a truck transporting 100 rockets in the latest Gaza incursion? Or that Israel killed a master terrorist bomb maker?
I didn’t. I had to go to actual news organisations for that information, not pro-terror propaganda outlets like the BBC.
Anat:
So what, in your opinion, is the motivation for Israel’s actions in Gaza last week, and where is the BBC discussing it with any comparable emphasis?
Possibly this bit:
The Israeli raids began after a rocket fired by Hamas militants killed an Israeli student in the southern town of Sderot, the first such death in nine months, on Wednesday.
.
Current headline on the News front page:
Israel buries victims of shooting.”
Shooting. Like when some miscreant off his meds takes guns to school and starts killing students. A shooting.
This is an editorial choice. There is a BBC policy which resulted in this deliberate usage.
They must be quite pleased at BH these days, as the body count is balancing out a bit the way they like it.
Hillhunt,
That’s really sweet. It was all for one death in nine months? Nothing to do with thousands of rockets fired into civilian areas? And while we are at it, can you think of any reason why these rockets incur so few deaths? Is it because those who fire them don’t intend to kil? Mere fireworks? Or maybe Israel treats its own civilians differently from the Gazans? (As in Geneva requirements concerning protected persons). A real headscratcher here, isnt’ it.
AYA: “Probably. With the Mary-Ann Leneghan case…”
And the mainstream commentator who felt the motivation was given in a way that seemed to justify the crime would be…?
Anat please don’t succumb to Hillhunts posts. He is nothing but a Islamic terrorist apologist who makes Abu Bowen look like an honest man. All Hillhunt does is speak out of his arse. (Why he talks shite) in which to flame.) Leave the wanker to stew in his own muck.
The idea that reporting that the school is at the heart of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank etc etc is some sort of justification for the attack is nonsense.
But clearly it is relevant to the story.
Newsround may be more suited to your intellectual level.
Anat:
Been a long time since I was called sweet.
It was all for one death in nine months?
Possibly not. Earlier on, the same story says:
Israel says it wants to stop rocket attacks, but about 50 hit Israel on Saturday.
And this:
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon … also condemned Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel.
Dunno about you, but most people would get a sense of Israel’s dilemma from the 50-in-day rocket tally. It’s been a little while since Nazi rockets landed in England, but most of us can understand what that must mean.
pants:
(Hillhunt)is nothing but a Islamic terrorist apologist who makes Abu Bowen look like an honest man
Y-e-e-e-s. Care to draw attention to any example of my acting as an Islamic terrorist apologist?
.
AYA
The problem is that you can ONLY argue the way you do because you feel that the IDF, a national army operating within the rule of law in a democracy (who generally try not to kill civilians deliberately but do accidentally sometimes) and Palestinian terrorists (who deliberately kill as many Jews as possible) should be treated equally.
They shouldn’t.
Thinking they should is a political choice. It might be a valid one but nonetheless it is NOT neutral.
You, like Bowen kind of think the Palestinians have a point. That’s political. That’s bias.
Today’s prize for stupidity- Katya Adler on Radio 5 Live at 4.10pm.
Q by presenter “Why do they do this?”
A by Adler “Cycle of violence” etc
Then she says “which comes first? The rockets from Gaza or the REPRISALS from Israel?”
Huh?
“The problem is that you can ONLY argue the way you do because you feel that the IDF…and Palestinian terrorists should be treated equally. They shouldn’t. Thinking they should is a political choice. It might be a valid one but nonetheless it is NOT neutral.”
Yes, it is a political choice. But it is part of a quite open political choice the BBC seems to have made, in my opinion quite rightly, that it should treat both sides equally in any conflict or dispute. What you are asking is that it make an exception to this blanket rule on political grounds.
Hillhunt:
“Since when were reporters to be condemned for suggesting a likely motive when dreadful crimes were committed?”
Since the motive they guess at comes across as a justification.
When Bowen reminds us that the yeshiva has links with the settler movement which people believe are designed only as an obstacle to the peace process, he implies this murder-spree is understandable. Even if that speculation is right, the underlying philosophy held by Hamas is that they consider all Jews to be legitimate targets as they think Israel has no right to exist. That could equally be the motive. But it would not imply justification of the murders, and he does not offer it as a motive.
If Bowen has to speculate at all, which I think was unnecessary, to be fair he could have also speculated that the motive was pure hatred of Jews, or insanity, or the terrorist got out of bed on the wrong side. But he chooses to speculate that the victims are the guilty party, and in a way brought it on themselves..
Joel | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 4:05 pm |
The idea that reporting that the school is at the heart of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank etc etc is some sort of justification for the attack is nonsense.
But clearly it is relevant to the story.
Are you blind or just mendacious? Let’s have a look at the latest report on the webiste:
Israel buries victims of shooting.
Notice how we don’t even get one-third of the way through the article when suddenly it’s all about sympathy for the bloody terrorist, complete with smiling photo:
His family set up a funeral tent outside their home there, adorned with the flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah.
His sister described him as quiet and intensely religious, but said he was not a member of a militant group. Israeli security forces detained several of his male relatives, his fiancee, and a number of neighbours after the shooting, she added.
“They surrounded the building and raided my brother’s flat. They smashed it up, took things away and arrested all these people,” she told the BBC Arabic Service.
Now, confront your own bias and explain how the following is not justification for the attack:
The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says that the school was no ordinary seminary. It was the ideological cradle of the settler movement in the West Bank, which could be the reason it was targeted.
Many of its students are on special courses that combine religious study with service in combat units in the Israeli army.
QEFD.
Sue:
I pray the JP in aid here, which was content to see the slaughter as a weapon at the heart of the Zionist enterprise. Just as the IRA or al Qaeda have chosen targets with a specific emotional or strategic value, so might young men like the yeshiva killer. To argue that he may have killed because of the political significance of his targets does not in any sense suggest that this was legitimate. No-one in their right mind would regard religious students as fair game.
AYA: “Yes, it is a political choice. But it is part of a quite open political choice the BBC seems to have made, in my opinion quite rightly, that it should treat both sides equally in any conflict or dispute. What you are asking is that it make an exception to this blanket rule on political grounds.”
“Any conflict or dispute”? Again, simply not true. The BBC has in no way openly made a choice of the type you describe, and for good reason – it’s moronic.
I guarantee you that the BBC will never be putting forward open defences of their journalism along the lines of: “Well, we must treat the July 7 bombers and their supporters and the security services equally”, even if some feel they do.
The BBC itself explicitly states that it in effect “weights” the opinions of global warming sceptics, for instance, to reflect the fact that (as the BBC see it) they do not have the same validity as those making the opposing case. Similarly, it barely bother reporting the smears against Obama in relations to receiving money from terrorists, because it didn’t consider the criticism valid.
What the BBC, in common with other journalists, do is convey the different points of view put forward but also – and crucially – give some indication of how valid and reliable they are.
David P:
I would not suggest you were mendacious. But there is an undoubted blindness about the way you see these things.
.
“…the British bear ministerial responsibility for this ethnic cleansing, having been the government at the time. This is why I have nothing but contempt for any pontification in this matter from any Brit.
Anat (Israel) | 07.03.08 – 3:29 pm | #
What’s more, in a few decades (or even years) the British will have their own ‘intifada’ to fight as Muslims become more and more prominent and the UK becomes Balkanized with independent Muslim ‘states’ like Bradford, Oldham etc (it happened in Kosovo, so why not in the UK?). I will sit and watch with interest as all those Brits who are so ready to condemn Israel and take glee in its children being killed will have to deal with their own ‘Hamas’ and perhaps watch their own children become victims of the Islamist world order.
Hillhunt | 07.03.08 – 4:39 pm |
I would not suggest you were mendacious. But there is an undoubted blindness about the way you see these things.
I appreciate that, but clearly I’m unable to see the validity and impartiality of an article on victims of a massacre spending a good portion of it sending a sympathy card to the perpetrator. I’m also so blind that I can’t see how Bowen really doesn’t think the victims were legitimate targets. Although it’s nice to learn that you don’t think anybody in his right mind would think religious students are legitimate targets, as Bowen does. I’m also too biased to accept that “shooting” is just as valid as “attack” for a headline in this situation.
If we’re all so horribly, hopelessly blinded by our prejudices, why do you bother? For fun? I know nobody here has ever convinced you of anything, and you haven’t removed the scales from our eyes, so what’s the point?
Is just that you enjoy the argument, and nothing more?
David P:
Although it’s nice to learn that you don’t think anybody in his right mind would think religious students are legitimate targets, as Bowen does.
That is wrong. And I’m surprised you don’t know that.
If President Bush was assassinated tomorrow by a Muslim, Saudi national, it might concievably be mentioned that he may have been targeted because of his ‘War on Terror’ and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan right?
Thats not to say this is a justification. But it goes to motive your honour.
Anything else is about your own perception. A perception that is coloured.
“If President Bush was assassinated tomorrow by a Muslim, Saudi national, it might concievably be mentioned that he may have been targeted because of his ‘War on Terror’ and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan right?”
So, the 9/11 attacks by “Muslim, Saudi national[s]” were before the USA invaded/liberated Iraq/Afghanistan and so the 9/11 attacks were… wait, we had no war on terror, they had no “motive”, so maybe, ITS THE ISLAM, STUPID.
When BBC guys get slaughtered by jihadis, they’ll STILL figure out a way to blame it on America and Israel.
BBC – BIGGEST BULL CRAP.
I wouln’t p on a BBC reporter if he was on fire.
Joe:
So, the 9/11 attacks by “Muslim, Saudi national[s]” were before the USA invaded/liberated Iraq/Afghanistan and so the 9/11 attacks were… wait, we had no war on terror, they had no “motive”, so maybe, ITS THE ISLAM, STUPID.
Let’s just get this clear. Should, God forbid, there be another 9/11 or 7/7, we must instruct our broadcasters not to mention any recent issues which might have seemed relevant to extremists?
A news bulletin reporting, say, carnage at a public place would be best advised to say: “And the motive for this? ITS THE ISLAM“
They wouldn’t have to mention relevant issues, just naming them would be enough information for most of us. Those extremists issues aren’t purely relevant anyway, they date back 1400 years to that tosser prophet of theirs.
Hillhunt | 07.03.08 – 5:04 pm |
That is wrong. And I’m surprised you don’t know that.
Well, they’re not just any religious students, are they? Bowen took care to point that out, which is why I’m complaining. And I hope you don’t expect me to believe that your position is that settlers aren’t part of the problem, and anyone with military associations – like these students – aren’t legitimate targets in this conflict.
Joel,
My apologies for the ill-tempered response. But I’m unable to accept your statement that this isn’t a report combining sympathy for the attacker and a detailed spelling out of the probable motivation behind this mass murder. After all, the reasons Bowen points to as motivation for the attack are constantly being put forth as legitimate grievances. You can hardly be surprised if a viewer puts two and two together.
Hugh:
The global warming controversy arguably is comparable, and I am not convinced of the BBC’s impartiality on this topic, but this is has little to do with coverage of Israel-Palestine.
Treating smears against Obama and the 7/7 bombers’ viewpoint as valid is not comparable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 7/7 bombers have support among one or two percent of British Muslims, who themselves make up about two or three per cent of the population. Obama smears are, similarly, a minority making unsubstantiated claims.
The Palestinian cause has a much wider base of support than 7/7 or the Obama = Osama brigade. Even in Israel something like a third of the population disagree with the Occupation. And note the BBC does not run debates or articles saying “Should Hamas be indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian targets?” or similar. It covers the conflict as a whole neutrally, or attempts to, and not Hamas.
David Preiser:
Now, confront your own bias and explain how the following is not justification for the attack:
The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says that the school was no ordinary seminary. It was the ideological cradle of the settler movement in the West Bank, which could be the reason it was targeted.
I personally would stop short of calling it ‘justification’, but, unless of course this is actually how the school sees itself, wording like “ideological cradle” is definitely over the top and has unduly negative associations.
Notice how we don’t even get one-third of the way through the article when suddenly it’s all about sympathy for the bloody terrorist, complete with smiling photo:
His sister described him as quiet and intensely religious, but said he was not a member of a militant group. Israeli security forces detained several of his male relatives, his fiancee, and a number of neighbours after the shooting, she added.
This, however, is standard “profile of a killer” journalism. Right down to the smiling “how could such a nice boy do such a terrible thing?” photo.
In fact this bit
His family set up a funeral tent outside their home there, adorned with the flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah.
invokes no sympathy at all, and serves to entrench the idea of a terrorist ideologue.
And your post ignored the fact that far more coverage was given to Israelis’ funerals than the terrorist’s. Basically I think the BBC has, apart from one indiscretion, covered the funerals well, if slightly hackishly and you are deliberately misrepresenting the article as a whole.
Melanie Phillips has:-
“The War against the Jews ”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/544971/the-war-against-the-jews-8.thtml
Note this post is in bold, not because I’m too stupid to close all my tags, but to confirm just how earth-shatteringly right I am.
David P:
the reasons Bowen points to as motivation for the attack are constantly being put forth as legitimate grievances.
Now what’s surprising about that? The motives that such movements put forward for their outrages are frequently framed as grievances. The IRA said they were targetting an occupying army in Ulster; al qaeda bang on about infidel forces in their Islamic lands and so on.
To suggest that students at this particular yeshiva were politically more valuable as victims to a Palestinian gunman does not in any sense imply that such justification is fair or right.
.
Note this post is in bold, not because I’m too stupid to close all my tags, but to confirm just how earth-shatteringly right I am.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 5:40 pm
GO FUCK YOURSELF
What the BBC doesn’t show us:
Hamas says that yesterday’s massacre of Jewish students was a “natural reaction”.
My natural reaction to the celebrations in Gaza would be to napalm the lot.
Angry Alex: given your earth-shattering modesty, in your honest view what do you think will end the Israeli-Pal/Arab conflict?
AYA: “The Palestinian cause has a much wider base of support than 7/7 or the Obama = Osama brigade”
Yes, nor did I suggest otherwise. What I suggested was that the claim that the BBC had openly made a choice that “it should treat both sides equally in any conflict or dispute” was demonstrably untrue.
You are also right that the BBC does not run debates or articles saying “Should Hamas be indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian targets?” I can, however, see no earthly reason why it should not. Does its journalism seriously never question the occupation should continue or if Israel’s response to rocket attacks is proportionate?
“Does its journalism seriously never question the occupation should continue or if Israel’s response to rocket attacks is proportionate?”
Of course it questions these things, and has plenty of discussion from both sides. But it’s unthinkable that it would have a two-sided debate on whether Hamas should be allowed to kill Israeli civilians indiscriminately.
Dave I noticed your post about how the BBC promotes the image of a victim for the gunman behind last nights cold blooded murder quoting the latest BBC whitewash;
“His family set up a funeral tent outside their home there, adorned with the flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah. His sister described him as quiet and intensely religious, but said he was not a member of a militant group. Israeli security forces detained several of his male relatives, his fiancee, and a number of neighbours after the shooting, she added.”They surrounded the building and raided my brother’s flat. They smashed it up, took things away and arrested all these people,” she told the BBC Arabic Service.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4065871030052814592/#388632
Here is a snippet the BBC isn’t telling you:
Family of terrorist: Everyone in Jabel Mukaber is proud
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Alaa Abu Dheim, the terrorist who murdered eight students at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva Thursday night, had been transfixed in recent days by the news from Gaza, claimed his sister, Iman Abu Dheim. “He told me he wasn’t able to sleep because of the grief,” she said. His family last saw him when he left for evening prayers Thursday, she said. “We are proud and happy, and everyone in Jabel Mukaber is proud of him,” said a cousin, who identified herself as Umm Fadi.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546426856&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
oh and a video on that story.
http://players.mediazone.co.il/media/authors/34/playlists/181471/181471_static.asx
Anybody notice the police surrounding the building?