Even Islamic killers are clear that they engage in premeditated acts of terrorism. “This was a martyrdom-seeking [suicide] operation aimed at kidnapping Zionist soldiers,” the Islamic Jihad spokesman said. But to the BBC it was an “attack” by “militants.” I am sick of the witless BBC equivocation on this subject. These Palestinians are JIHADISTS, they even call themselves this. They enjoy taking the life of innocent Israelis. They are, by any standard, engaging in act of terrorism, so why will the BBC not call it like it is?
I also hate the way in which the BBC buries away another little lie in this same report. It innocuously states ” Fighting had subsided since early March, when the Israeli army launched an offensive that killed around 120 Palestinians. ” It conveniently leaves out the fact that a/ This Israeli strike followed the terror attack on Israel that resulted in the death of young teenage Jewish students in Jerusalem and b/ The 120 figure quoted includes a significant number of Hamas terrorists with others dying because they either voluntarily or involuntarily provided sanctuary to Hamas terrorists. What justification have the BBC for calling Islamic killers “militants” when even the Islamic killers boast of their terrorist ambitions?
Is there such a thing as “involuntary sanctury”?
But yeah, release the Balen Report al-Beeb.
Unfortunately the truth is that far too many people in the arab world have too much to lose of peace ever breaks out in the middle east.
Its just unfortunate that people like the beeb also have a vested interest in the continuation of violence in the area.
Mailman
Here’s the CNN headline:
“Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid”, followed immediately by “Palestinian militants who infiltrated Israel from Gaza killed two Israeli civilians…” ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/09/israel.gaza/index.html )
It is a mark of how starved we are for impartiality that I find it refreshing that the headline indicates WHO did the killing, and the first line in the article indicates the victims were Israeli civilians. This despite the fact that obviously “raid” is a whitewashing of the actual nature of the attack, and the absurd way in which the ubiquitous term “militant” is used, (a term which you could equally apply, say, to feminists, as in “militant feminists”, which would in no way indicate irate women strapping on suicide belts and blowing up men in pizza parlours). John Reith claims the BBC can’t use the word “Palestinians” in the way CNN did because the sovereign country of “Palestine” does not yet exist, so using the term “Palestinians” to describe who committed the actual murder unfairly “paints all Palestinians with the same brush”. The BBC itself, more absurdly, argues the word “Palestinians” itself has TOO MANY LETTERS IN IT to be suitable for a headline, while the word “Israelis” (as in “Israelis kill 3 in Gaza”) does not.
Apparently the headline is short enough for CNN. Why not for the BBC?
JG posts on a previous thread, which I thought would be appropriate for this thread as well. JG, hope that’s okay:
”
JG:
Israeli civilians killed after border stormed
Times Online
Two Israelis Killed in Terror Attack at Border
CNSNews
Palestinian militants kill Israeli civilians in Gaza attack
Guardian
Palestinians kill 2 Israelis in raid
CNN International
Two Israeli civilians slain by terrorists from Gaza
Jerusalem Newswire
So it seems that these (and many more) sources are reporting on an attack on Israeli civilians.
.
.
.
But at the BBC it’s only the border under attack!
Militant attack on Israeli border
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ 7338055.stm
JG | 09.04.08 – 8:29 pm “
Here is a list of articles about this attack:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DKUK&um=1&ncl=1148807266&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1&sa=N&start=0
To save people the bother, the world’s press, including such left-leaning publications as the Telegraph and Times describe the Islamic Jihad attackers as ‘militants’. The Israeli Press (except Ha’aretz) describe them as ‘terrorists’. I didn’t bother checking the Palestinian stuff but it probably refers to them as ‘martyrs’ or ‘civilians’ or whatever their perspective is.
Shall we change the name of the blog to biased-MSM? There will be a lot more to write about.
A British SAS trooper dies, four more wounded, in an attempt to neutralise a bomb making group of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The whole report is about what a mess our boys made of it, how many civilians they killed and how many more terrorists they’ve created.
Slipped in there in the middle is this piece of gratuitous anti-Israel propaganda:
Another man arrived to make an angry speech. He said he was a neighbour and had also seen the whole thing.
“We could hear the women and children screaming but the coalition just kept shooting,” he said.
His face was wrapped in a chequered kefeyah headscarf and he was wearing sunglasses to obscure his identity.
Pointing at the rubble and wagging his finger, he said the coalition’s actions were more brutal than those of Israel against the Palestinians.
“This is Islamic soil, the Prophet’s ground. I swear to God that we won’t rest until we are liberated, until every last dog and pig of the coalition forces leaves this country.”
‘Ambush’ that left SAS trooper dead
Sarah Jane,
Are you blind? The Guardian’s headline is “Palestinian militants kill Israeli civilians in Gaza attack”. Even forgiving the use of the word “militant” (which apparently, to you, should go unquestioned based on its common usage alone), the headline is far more fair and descriptive than the ridiculous BBC headline “Militant attack on Israeli border”. I mean, that could be anything–damage to property, an attack on a tank, whatever. There is zero indication that civilians were targeted and killed, nor even who the militants were (Palestinians). I mean why not “PFLP” attack if the word “Palestinians” is too long? The whole headline is so denuded it’s just, really, laughable. But the BBC has a responsibility to report the tone and tenor of stories accurately. Over and over it can be demonstrably shown that it whitewashes or downplays or omits information in its headlines and stories which involve Palestinians as perpetrators and Israelis as victims, while bending over backwards to include vilifying “context” when reporting on Israeli “aggression” and Palestinian “victimization.”
I was struck by the fact that the BBC are constantly copy ‘n’ pasting their well worn, and badly written phrase, “Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory“.
Do they mean “at (or into) its (Israel’s) territory” or “from its (Gaza’s) territory”?
Whatever, a google search shows the number of times its been copied ‘n’ pasted without a single highly paid editor or sub-editor noticing. What’s more, note that none of the reports’ or their headlines make it clear that the attack took place in Israel, not in Gaza.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel+frequently+mounts+raids+into+Gaza+to+try+to+stop+militants+from+firing+rockets+its+territory%22+site:news.bbc.co.uk
Results 1 – 10 of 10 from news.bbc.co.uk for “Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory”. (0.07 seconds)
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Gaza gunmen attack border depot
BBC News Online | Middle East | Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes
etc…
“To save people the bother, the world’s press, including such left-leaning publications as the Telegraph and Times describe the Islamic Jihad attackers as ‘militants’.”
Of course they are bloody militant,pacifists would not be attacking anyone.The word militant is so anodyne as to be meaningless in this context.In this context murderers would be appropriate.
“”This is Islamic soil, the Prophet’s ground. I swear to God that we won’t rest until we are liberated, until every last dog and pig of the coalition forces leaves this country.”
For thousands of years before the 7th century it was somebody else’s ground.Funny how everyone forgets that.
Not to worry, the American left is about to elect a President which is going to turn the Middle East on it’s ear.
Obama’s advisors plan on abandoning Iraq, using the US military to confront Israel to accept the Palistinian demands, invade Pakistan and talk with Iran to find out what it is that America needs to pay or give up in order for them not to act the way they are.
My suggestion for the Israelis is load up on ammo because you about to be fed to the wolves. The BBC will have ample opportunity for their “militant” buddies to till Israelis.
LogicalUS | 10.04.08 – 3:33 am
So it seems. Something terrible is happening in the world, possibly worse than the 1930s.
“This is Islamic soil, the Prophet’s ground. I swear to God that we won’t rest until we are liberated, until every last dog and pig of the coalition forces leaves this country.”
Biodegradable (Banned) | 09.04.08 – 11:54 pm
A succinct description of the Islamist (Koranic?) view of the situation.
No place for non-Muslims in Dar al-Islam or a place that was once Dar al-Islam. This is something which should give Spain, F.R.O. Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Sicily, Thailand, India, Philippines, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus collective shivers. 🙁
Jews and Christians are collectively Dogs and Pigs in Islam. Not individual bad people in the coalition armed forces. 🙁
Did the BBC correspondent know this? Did he care? Certainly he didn’t feel the need to explain the code words.
Shall we change the name of the blog to biased-MSM? There will be a lot more to write about.
Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 09.04.08 – 11:44 pm | #
Does that mean only 20%of your brain works.
The BBC really must STOP using the word or euphemism ‘militant’. First, the word is an adjective, not a noun, derived from Latin ‘miles, militis, soldier’. It therefore means ‘fighting as a soldier does’. Second, there are things all of us would be happy to describe ourselves as ‘militant’ about (= fighting according to the rules of war), but the act of blowing up or shooting civilians is NEVER the act of a soldier. These are simply pre-meditated, politically (and religiously) motivated killing. EVERY legal system of the world defines these acts as murder. (Of course, the IRA described its killers and bombers as ‘soldiers’ and POWs, but they had no legitimacy in anyone’s eyes but their own, and maybe the BBC’s.) Third, the killers and bombers proudly describes themselves as jihadis, so the BBC should follow their own self-designation.
Anonymous:
Shall we change the name of the blog to biased-MSM? There will be a lot more to write about.
Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 09.04.08 – 11:44 pm | #
Does that mean only 20%of your brain works.
Anonymous | 10.04.08 – 7:46 am | #
My point being, in case your 20% brain power cannot work it out. It doesn’t matter to this blog if the rest of the MSM is biased or not. I suggest you try to understand what this blog is really all about before you post any more ridiculous comments like that.
So it seems. Something terrible is happening in the world, possibly worse than the 1930s.
Anat (Israel) | 10.04.08 – 3:43 am |
deegee:
“This is Islamic soil, the Prophet’s ground. I swear to God that we won’t rest until we are liberated, until every last dog and pig of the coalition forces leaves this country.”
Biodegradable (Banned) | 09.04.08 – 11:54 pm
A succinct description of the Islamist (Koranic?) view of the situation.
No place for non-Muslims in Dar al-Islam or a place that was once Dar al-Islam. This is something which should give Spain, F.R.O. Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Sicily, Thailand, India, Philippines, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus collective shivers.
—
Don’t worry folks. With the coming of Euromed thanks to our PHILOSOPHER KINGS in the EU, a NEW AGE of TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY will BEGIN, and HUMANKIND will be REDEEMED. Spain, F.R.O. Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Sicily, Thailand, India, Philippines, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, all these will be DAR AL-DIVERSE!!!
We all need to shut up and learn how to die.
Sarah Jane 20% BBC
Fine, privatise the BBC and remove it as state broadcaster and I accept your argument in full.
Otherwise the BBC in receipt of massive compulsory tax funding and having a position of special status has a higher duty of reporting it has a duty of unbiased reporting.
Comparisons to the Times or Telegraph do not work.
Your support for total privatisation and removal as state broadcaster is however welcome.
From another thread,
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2905582878566930490/#393400
here is the recommendation on terrorism that the BBC so contemptuously dismisses:
b) the BBC is right to avoid terms which are a barrier to understanding, and should use words
which best express the desired meaning clearly and effectively. The term “terrorism” should
accordingly be used in respect of relevant events since it is the most accurate expression for
actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians with the intention of causing
terror for ideological, including political or religious, objectives, whether perpetrated by state
or non-state agencies. While those immediately responsible for the actions might be described
as terrorists, the BBC is right to avoid so labelling organisations, except in attributed remarks;
From the BBC-appointed panel’s review of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:bvYxATC4Pt0J:www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.pdf+BBC+Review+of+the+Israeli-Palestinian+conflict&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
Evidently the BBC doesn’t think there are any terrorists, at least not of the Islamic variety.
BaggieJonathan | 10.04.08 – 11:13 am | #
Absolutely 100% correct. But you know many of those who try to defend BBC bias on here by comparing it to other news orgs simply do not get it.
Well said BaggieJonathan. If the BBC were privatized then it woull be like any other news/media organization. If you didn’t like it then you need not buy the product. With the BBC, you are *forced* to buy the product – if want a tv and live in the UK. The BBC might be surprised at the result if they had the guts to be privatized. Even I would buy *some* of their output.
Third, the killers and bombers proudly describes themselves as jihadis, so the BBC should follow their own self-designation.
libertus | 10.04.08 – 7:54 am
True, and Jihadi is short enough to fit in the BBC’s 33-character maximum headlines. Hell, it’s even shorter than Israeli. The BBC should jump at this opportunity.
regardless of the terminology it must annoy the beeb that those nasty jews just will not do as they are told and the IDF keeps on killing the activists,militants..or whoever with great gusto…not going according to the script eh beeb?
Sarah-Jane,
I do have issues with the leftist MSM but only one of them forces me to pay to view their bias. The others give me choice!
All bias is wrong.
The BBC’s take on terminology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/6044090.stm#terrorists
Editorial guidelines approved by a) the BBC Trust, who represent the licence payer and b) the democratically elected British government.
The trouble with reporting from anywhere in the Middle East is the amount of propoganda from both sides. Mistakes get made, most recently the BBC’s “house was destroyed” debacle, but unbiassed reporting will ALWAYS appear biassed to one side or the other.
With Israel and the occupied territories (yes, “occupied” according to international terminology) it is simply two sets of bad guys blowing the crap out of each other. On one side, religious nutters who think it’s okay to murder innocent people based on the fact that those people are not Muslims, and on the other you have a mighty millitary machine who assassinates “suspected” terrorist leaders without trial and without any thought as to who may be caught in the cross-fire (children did NOT vote for Hamas).
I’m not a journalist, and I can see why bias is perceived left right and centre in this issue, but it’s not as simple as anyone on here seems to think.
According to the report in 2006 audience research shows “There is low understanding of the conflict.”
If the man in the street has any opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict it is normally hostile towards Israel. He perceives it, if anything, as a bully, and an oppressor of the Palestinians. He has little knowledge of the history of Israel and ‘knows’, if anything, only that the ‘Israelis stole the land’ from an indigenous Arab population, driving them out of their homes into refugee camps, where Israelis control, harass and kill the inhabitants from time to time.
Would J.R.. and S.J.. etc. acknowledge that it is the case? If so, how would they account for this?
Is it because that is what the BBC is telling us? Or that the man in the street is inherently biased against Israel, and ignores the BBC’s even-handed treatment of the subject?
Or because the BBC is accurate and impartial, but the man in the street is wise enough to know right from wrong and can glean the underlying morality of the conflict from the BBC’s impartial reports?
AA Gill says that most people still get their news from the telly. Most people still regard the BBC as a beacon of excellence and rely on the impartiality and accuracy for which it was renowned in the past. It is probably the main or only source of information about foreign affairs for the majority of people.
I disagree with some of the other posters here on only one thing. I don’t believe the Beeboids hate Israel particularly. I think they are indifferent if anything. They regard Jews and Islamists as equally unpleasant, and there is nothing more unequal as the equal treatment of unequals as the saying goes.
If you accuse J.R.. and Sarah Jane of hating Israel they can deny it and feel genuinely indignant at such an unfair assumption, and I think this only weakens the case against the BBC. I think incompetence, misunderstanding, indifference, suspicion, stupidity, superiority, laziness, are the cause of these failings, rather than hatred. I don’t think they’ve got it in ‘em.
New Beeboid above.3:13 pm
” it is simply two sets of bad guys blowing the crap out of each other. On one side, religious nutters who think it’s okay to murder innocent people based on the fact that those people are not Muslims, and on the other you have a mighty millitary machine who assassinates “suspected” terrorist leaders without trial and without any thought as to who may be caught in the cross-fire”
a fine example of what I’ve just been saying. Ignorance is bliss.
“(children did NOT vote for Hamas)”
No doubt their parents did.
Barry- actually I think it is pretty simple. On one side you have a democratic country that has sought a two state solution to the “Palestinaian Question” since day one; that affords full rights to Palestinains living within its borders and that as a matter of policy does NOT target civilians in military operations.
On the other side you have religious nutters who deny the right of Israel to exist, who explicitly target civilians and who have rejected every single attempt at solving this problem via a two state solution since day one.
Yes the Palestinans are victims. They are victims of their own bigotry, intransigence and stupidty as well as the cynicism of their muslim brothers.
Well said Aviv. Glib relativism (equivalentism? gliberalism?) has informed the BBC’s approach to the Middle East for too long. One side is not as bad as the other – and pretending that it is only serves to prolong the agony of the average Palestinian.
Were the Palestinians to adopt Gandhian techniques of non-violent protest – ie ditch the guns and bombs and take up peaceful, dignified protest – I reckon they’d have their own state within six months. That, unfortunately, is precisely what too many of their leaders don’t want, because they have a vital interest in maintaining the violence.
Israel…without any thought as to who may be caught in the cross-fire (children…).
Beeboid Barry | 10.04.08 – 3:13 pm |
do you really believe that, barry?
it is simply two sets of bad guys blowing the crap out of each other
Really that simple is it?
I’m not a journalist, and I can see why bias is perceived left right and centre in this issue, but it’s not as simple as anyone on here seems to think.
Beeboid Barry | 10.04.08 – 3:13 pm
You’re the one who just said it was simple!
Perhaps if you actually read some of the comments on this site related to Israel/”Palestine” you’d learn something. You’d see that nobody here sees it as simple, on the contrary you’ll find much in depth information that the BBC simply doesn’t give its audience.
If you’re the best the BBC can send along here you’ve done your bosses no favours at all. Your ridiculous comments prove without a doubt that the BBC and its employees are biased, and worse, pig ignorant of the facts.
Aviv – I agree.
But surely no one can deny that neither side are angels. I’m NOT sticking up for terrorists – just their dead kids. I’m not condemning Israel’s right defend itself from terror – just its methods.
As for “does NOT target civilians in military operations” – but makes little effort to avoid them either.
There’s no doubt the worst of the conflict are the terrorists, but that in no way excuses the actions of a democratically elected government. Critics of Mid-East reporting constantly point out a lack of balance, which there is, but never fully justify Israeli actions – as if “they started it” is acceptable for the supposed good guys. It’s easy to condemn terrorists slaughtering innocents via rocket attacks (unless you’re an unbiassed public broadcaster, of course), but the retaliation is still awful.
If Welsh seperatists were firing rockets at Bristol (with approval from the Welsh assembly), would dead Welsh babies be an acceptable response, even if their parents voted for that assembly? Would it be acceptable for our government to assassinate people they “suspected” of being terrorist leaders? Come on.
Apologies for going off-topic with the above, but to claw myself back on: I am not supporting lack of clarity by the BBC. The Israeli side of the conflict IS under-reported IMO. BUT they are far from a wholly innocent party.
“If you’re the best the BBC can send along here you’ve done your bosses no favours at all.”
Not posting as Beeb staff. Just an ignorant bystander who reads many theads like this, Fox news, CNN, the BBC, various threads to the Jeruselem post, etc, etc.
Perhaps not being gifted in terms of writing skills I haven’t made my point very well.
I don’t support one side over the other.
I agree the terrorists should lay down their arms and begin peaceful negotiations.
I believe there is a lack of balance in reporting the conflict (not just the BBC).
Thought I’d be lightly flamed rather than bitten, but hey. Maybe I’ll go on a course on how to twist words around so I can argue better.
Yes, my “simply” contradictions are a result of that.
I’m NOT sticking up for terrorists – just their dead kids.
The terrorists are responsible for many of their dead kids. Read the Geneva Conventions properly and this, for example:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/08/yes-the-kid-was-killed-by-a-palestinian-arab-mortar/
I’m not condemning Israel’s right defend itself from terror – just its methods.
You are accusing Israel of carrying out its military operations “without any thought as to who may be caught in the cross-fire”, your words. That is far from the truth and comes pretty close to a modern day blood-libel.
As for “does NOT target civilians in military operations” – but makes little effort to avoid them either.
Perhaps you can show some proof of that?
I can, with a little effort, show plenty of proof that many planned operations have been called off because the military considered there was a high risk of causing innocent casualties.
Israeli military technology is at the leading edge in high precison, low impact, guided munitions. Some of its missiles launched from unmanned aerial vehicles are capable of hitting and killing a target while leaving those within a few yards of the target unscathed.
There’s no doubt the worst of the conflict are the terrorists, but that in no way excuses the actions of a democratically elected government.
But you, and the BBC find plenty of ways to excuse and even justify the terrorists’ actions.
If Welsh seperatists were firing rockets at Bristol (with approval from the Welsh assembly), would dead Welsh babies be an acceptable response, even if their parents voted for that assembly?
If those Welsh terrorists were firing their missiles from within school yards or civilian homes, using those children as human shields, the answer would be yes. Again I suggest that you read the Geneva Conventions, even Human Rights watch reports, which lay the blame for civilian deaths in those circumstances squarely on the terrorists. The GC clearly states that protected areas such as schools and hospitals lose their protected status once one of the belligerent parties uses those locations to launch attacks on the other party.
Would it be acceptable for our government to assassinate people they “suspected” of being terrorist leaders?
In times of war yes, and the “Palestinian” terrorists are at war with Israel. Read their charters.
Come on.
I’m serious.
The Israeli side of the conflict IS under-reported IMO. BUT they are far from a wholly innocent party.
BUT the Arab side is wholly innocent?
I wish they would stop using the word martyr. This Greek word has an identifiable pattern in Christian (and Jewish) history relating to those undergoing death or suffering for their faith (rather than trying to kill as many others as possible). The BBC (and other MSM BTW) should use the word shaheed to distinguish between the two.
You don’t suppose there would be a reason why the BBC would want to conflate the two terms, do you?
Perhaps not being gifted in terms of writing skills I haven’t made my point very well.
Most of us here, me included, are not writers as such. There’s nothing wrong with your writing, I’ve seen much worse.
I don’t support one side over the other.
Perhaps you should.
the idea that there is no wrong or right, only different “narratives” is morally bankrupt and cowardly.
I’m not saying the BBC should take sides in its reporting but its clear that most of those writing about Israel (Bowen, the infamous Guerin and Plett, et al.) do support the wroing side. And I say wrong not because I support Israel but because to support the terrorists side, with whatever excuse, is morally wrong.
I agree the terrorists should lay down their arms and begin peaceful negotiations.
Somebody, perhaps Moshe Dyan (?) once said “if the Arabs laid down teir arms there would be no war, if the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no Israel”. You should bear that in mind when talking disapprovingly about Israel’s “mighty military machine”.
I believe there is a lack of balance in reporting the conflict (not just the BBC).
Good, now we’re getting somewhere!
Would it be acceptable for our government to assassinate people they “suspected” of being terrorist leaders?
Welcome to the bear pit Beeboid Barry If you can just let the abuse go over your head you can engage in some lively debates here.
How about this for starters, if you assume that ‘terrorists’ are simply ‘criminals’ then you would expect all democratic governments to follow due process and not stoop to assassination for example. However if you assume that ‘terrorists’ are actually at war with you then due process no longer applies, after all we didn’t worry too much about trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to assassinate the leaders of the third Reich in 1940.
Now the problem is that ‘terrorists’ are neither ‘criminals’ nor are they conventionally ‘at war’ so this puts us and Israel into a bit of a quandry since all our legal systems are, as someone on Harrys Place has just pointed out, 10th September based.
So any ideas? The IDF is not waging ‘war’ on the palestinian terrorists, but it is not treating them to due process either and it’s middle way approach leads to civilian casualties. What should they do? Remember Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel by whatever means.
BB:
In addition to Arthur’s questions, you’re not allowed to build a wall to keep terrorists out either, because that amounts to a “blockade”.
Fighting had subsided since early March, when the Israeli army launched an offensive that killed around 120 Palestinians?
There have been 7,000+ rockets and mortars fired on Sderot.
you have a mighty millitary machine who assassinates “suspected” terrorist leaders without trial and without any thought as to who may be caught in the cross-fire…
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/doctrine/ethics.htm
Human Dignity – The IDF and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.
Human Life – The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission.
Purity of Arms – The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.
See also: Purity of arms
[…]
From their observation position Spearhead’s soldiers clearly saw the farmhouses nestled in among the groves. Children played in dirt lots, farmhands tended to animals and citrus trees and pickup trucks transported supplies. But sudden violent blasts regularly broke the quiet.
“We did not know where the missile launchers were until they started shooting,” recalls Nachmias, who served as assistant commander of the battalion. “But locating them was not enough. More times than I choose to count we called off artillery strikes for fear we would kill the children.”
Like hundreds of other IDF soldiers, Nachmias was forced to grapple with the moral dilemmas presented by Hizbullah’s use of human shields. Should a missile launcher, purposely positioned among civilians, be wiped out at any cost even if it means the certain death of children? For Nachmias the answer was no.
“If you are human, you must be sensitive to the knowledge that when you pull that trigger you are going to kill innocent people,” says Nachmias.
[…]
This relates to what I said about your example of the Welsh and civilian casualties:
Israeli targeted killings
Defenders of this practice point out that it is in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention (Part 3, Article 1, Section 28) which reads: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations,” and so they argue that international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances.
Now compare with this:
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/04/07/bizarro-world-hamas-pretends-not-to-target-children/
and the Hamas Carter:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
So, which side do you support?
Are both sides just as bad as each other?
Al-Beeb has lost no time in making the story which, much as they tried to obfuscate, showed a terrorist attack on an Israeli fuel depot, into a story about nasty Israel taking revenge, the same URL, different spin:
“Gaza gunmen attack border depot” or “Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes” has now become Israel will ‘respond’ over raid
Note the scary scare quotes around ‘respond’.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?uri=%2F&scope=all&go=toolbar&q=%22Two+killed+in+Gaza+Strip+clashes%22
this all that remains in google’s cache, for now:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Va32-Dy0q8YJ:news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7338000/7338055.stm+%22Two+killed+in+Gaza+Strip+clashes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en
Actually, that cached story at the same URL is a completely different one!
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Va32-Dy0q8YJ:news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7338000/7338055.stm+%22Two+killed+in+Gaza+Strip+clashes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en
Two killed in Gaza Strip clashes
An Israeli soldier and a Hamas militant have been killed in clashes in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
The Israeli army said one of its soldiers was killed and two others were slightly wounded in the course of a brief operation against militants.
Hamas said one of its fighters was killed in the operation, in the south of the Strip.
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants said they fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortar bombs at the Israeli troops, who were backed by helicopters.
The Israeli Defence Forces named the dead soldier as Saif Bissan, 21.
Hamas named its dead militant as Mohammed Shamiya, also 21.
Click the link at the top of the page:
“This is G o o g l e’s cache of http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7338000/7338055.stm as retrieved on 9 Apr 2008 09:52:09 GMT.
G o o g l e’s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.”
Biodegradable (Banned) | 10.04.08 – 5:54 pm
Yes, here’s the text of that cached story. Please explain what on earth is ‘biased’ about this report.
Israel has again held Hamas responsible for a raid by Palestinian militants on an Israeli fuel depot, and says it will respond at a time of its choosing.
Two Israeli civilians and at least seven Palestinians died in Wednesday’s violence near a Gaza border crossing.
Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai said Israel would “settle the score” with Hamas, which it blames for the raid because it controls Gaza.
Several militant groups, including Islamic Jihad, say they were to blame.
Hamas has denied that its forces were involved in the attack.
Mr Vilnai told Israel’s army radio that Hamas “bears sole responsibility for what happened in the Gaza Strip”.
However, he played down suggestions that Israel might cut off fuel supplies to Gaza in retaliation.
“We cannot afford to provoke a humanitarian crisis,” he said.
‘Massive fire’
The attack began with an apparent attempt to seize Israeli soldiers.
The two Israelis killed were workers at the depot near the Nahal Oz crossing in northern Gaza.
Israeli officials say the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis.
The raid, which happened just after a fuel delivery to Gaza, sparked a gun battle in which at least four militants were involved, the Israeli military says.
“There was a massive fire of mortar shells on the depot, and they got close to the fence with rifles and machine-guns,” an Israeli witness said.
“They killed two of the depot workers – shot them dead.”
Two militants were killed as they fled back into Gaza, the Israeli military said, while at least one other apparently escaped.
Later, Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle in Gaza City which the military said had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants involved in the attack. Palestinian civilians were reported to be among the casualties.
A spokesman for Islamic Jihad, identified as Abu-Mujahid, said the attack had been aimed at breaking the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, imposed after Hamas seized control of the territory last June.
“This was a martyrdom-seeking [suicide] operation aimed at kidnapping Zionist soldiers,” he said.
Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
John Reith asks where the bias is in the Al-BBC report he quotes. Just a quick glance show THIS bias..
“Israel has again held Hamas responsible for a raid by Palestinian MILITANTS on an Israeli fuel depot, and says it will respond at a time of its choosing.”
They are not “militants” …they are , by Al-Beeb’s own guidelines, TERRORISTS who target civilians.
“Two Israeli civilians and at least seven PALESTINIANS died in Wednesday’s violence near a Gaza border crossing.”
Why the neutral term “Palestinians” ? Here Al-BBC are making it sound like it could be Palestinian civilians when in fact the seven dead were ALL Terrorists!
Okay TWO blatant examples of Al-BBC bias in the first TWO lines. Must try harder J.R.
“Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
John Reith | 10.04.08 – 6:47 pm |”
J. R., I was wondering if you had read any of the earlier posts on this thread. Apart from the gratuitous addition of the paragraph above, how come nobody has yet corrected the mistake pointed out by Bio earlier?
“Biodegradable (Banned):
I was struck by the fact that the BBC are constantly copy ‘n’ pasting their well worn, and badly written phrase, “Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory”.
Do they mean “at (or into) its (Israel’s) territory” or “from its (Gaza’s) territory”?
Biodegradable (Banned) | 10.04.08 – 12:3
“Israel frequently mounts raids into Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets its territory.
John Reith | 10.04.08 – 6:47 pm |”
And what is the purpose of firing rockets,other than simply militating? Presumably the Israelis find the results of this militating to discommoding,else why try and stop it?
Dr Cromarty:
bang on! I’ve been angry about this use of the psychos’ own terminology for some time (and must admit that it’s not only the BBC, although they’re the worst). “Suicide (mass-)murderers” would be a more accurate term. And you’re absolutely right, the use of the Christian term “martyr” is a desperate bid by the more obnoxious (and/or ignorant) BBC elements to assimilate their (Muslim) murderers with the (Christian) murdered.
David
Why don’t you make a formal complaint to the BBC Trust and OfCom?
“There’s no doubt the worst of the conflict are the terrorists, but that in no way excuses the actions of a democratically elected government.”
Please, that is all you hear from Reith and other BBC personnel, along with every western leftist that supports the Palistinians. The ironic part is that all of you believe that because of a Soviet propaganda campaign they launched thru media and academic avenues nearly 30 years ago and you don’t even know it.
Noone had difficulty, 30 years ago, identifying the good and bad guys.
When the terrorists stated that their goal was the elimination of all Jews in the ME, no serious group of english majors jumped in front of the nearest camera to assure everyone that they don’t really mean it like the BBC now. When terrorist broke into a wedding party and shot bride, groom and children, noone would have said “Militants conducted a raid”?? Only indoctrinated idiots could believe the nonsense the media spouts about political and militant wings of Hamas or Fatah, as if the Labour party has two separate wings.
When Arafat was thrown out of Jordan to exile to Paris for trying to overthrow that government, no group of western liberals rallied to his support because they knew he was terrorist, but right now their are groups of British and American leftists corraborating with terrorist to make it easier sneak into Israel and kill Jews.
The BBC leftist and others think that they are the height of intellect and brilliance but they fell for an obvious propaganda campaign.
LogicalUS: Go here for highly instructive video on KGB brainwashing of the west