“Seriously, can you please point to some sources were the people who detonated themselves in Pizza restaurants, or at wedding parties or on the London underground were called “militants” by the liberal media (your term) and not terrorist.”
OK, I will.
Pizza restaurants first. Here are are some BBC stories about the attack on the Sbarro pizza restaurant.
Link 1. “Hamas, the hard-line Palestinian militant group, said one of its members had been the bomber.
Link 2. It starts, “With Palestinian militants continuing to carry out suicide attacks in Israel…”
Later, happy Palestinians staged the Sbarro show – no mention of terrorists there in the BBC’s own voice either. Why don’t you google through bbc.co.uk for Sbarro and look for the word “terrorist” in the BBC’s own voice, rather than in quotes?
Incidentally, the father of a 15 year old girl murdered at Sbarro, commented on this blog here.
Now for a wedding party. Here are some BBC stories about the 2005 suicide bombing of a wedding in Amman, Jordan.
Link 1 – “At least several hundred people have marched through Amman to denounce the bombers and show loyalty to King Abdullah II. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” they chanted, referring to the Jordanian-born militant believed to lead al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Link 2 It refers to “bombers”, but not terrorists. Again, why don’t you have a look through the BBC website for stories regarding this crime and see if you can find the bombers described as terrorists in the BBC’s own voice?
Finally, here’s something about the London Underground. In the immediate aftermath of the “7/7” London bombings of 2005 certain BBC staff did use the word terrorist several times. “Terrorist atrocity”, even. As in the case of Beslan, it looked for a moment like a change of heart. But this indelicacy contradicted policy. So the BBC went back through the stories and changed “terrorist” to “bomber”.
For proof, Harry’s Place got screenshots. This story was discussed in the Telegraph, which named the BBC official responsible as Helen Boaden. She was worried the word terrorist might offend the World Service customers.
(Links to old Biased BBC posts take you to the relevant month. You may have to scroll down to see the relevant post.)
I’m not being rude Nick and I can assure you that the murder of two civilain Israeli security guards was not reported by the BBC.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3535729,00.html
2 killed in shooting attack in Sharon region
Gunman fires at two Israeli guards in charge of checking Palestinians arriving from West Bank at industrial zone near Nitzanei Oz. Islamic Jihad, Hamas claim shared responsibility for attack, say terrorist crossed barrier disguised as a woman. IDF sources criticize security at terminal
Raanan Ben-Zur
Latest Update: 04.25.08, 13:04 / Israel News
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870490120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Apr 25, 2008 8:09 | Updated Apr 27, 2008 9:15
Two Israeli security guards killed near Tulkarm
By YAAKOV KATZ
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_4
By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer Fri Apr 25, 1:31 PM ET
JERUSALEM – The killing of two Israeli security guards by a Palestinian gunman Friday focused attention on one of the biggest challenges facing Mideast peace negotiators: keeping extremists in check.
Israel says the moderate Palestinian leadership with whom it hopes to strike a peace deal by year’s end is failing to ensure the calm necessary for any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
A Palestinian militant, apparently pretending to be a laborer, shot and killed two middle-aged guards who were screening Palestinian workers as they entered an Israeli factory in Nitzanei Shalom, along the divide between Israel and the West Bank.
Of course the BBC “can’t cover everything”, but excuse my cynicism when the BBC does cover every single time a Palestinian dies, or even hints at Israeli “brutality”, but deems itself too busy to report on the murder of two Israelis. The overall balance of information is therefore distorted with the Palestinians being constantly the victims while the Israelis are always the aggressors.
The BBC had a duty to report on the deaths of those two Israelis and I don’t accept your excuse for one moment. The failure clearly demonstrates bias, pure and simple.
there was quite a lot happening in the Middle East that day.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 29.04.08 – 4:24 pm
Indeed, from the AP report:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_4
All this, combined with the Palestinians’ failure to rein in militants, as evidenced by Friday’s shooting, are making the goal of a peace deal by year’s end appear increasingly unrealistic. It’s also making high-profile meetings like the one Thursday between Abbas and President Bush in Washington look somewhat removed from reality, despite the leaders’ public expressions of optimism.
Medics pronounced the two guards dead at the scene, rescue services said, and troops began combing surrounding areas for traces of the assailant. One body remained on the ground outside the factory, covered in a gray blanket, and police concealed the second body with a white sheet.
Three militant groups took responsibility for the attack — Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a violent offshoot of Abbas’ moderate Fatah movement. An Islamic Jihad spokesman, Abu Mujahed, said in a phone call to The Associated Press that the gunman crossed into Israel several days ago dressed as a woman and then pretended to be a worker to get close to the factory.
The assailant then began shooting and was slightly wounded in an exchange of gunfire but managed to escape, said Abu Mujahed, who gave only his nom de guerre because he is wanted by Israel.
“This was a clear example of extremism and terrorism by those seeking to foil any prospects for advancing peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Israeli government spokesman David Baker.
Israel’s military regularly carries out arrest raids targeting militants in the West Bank, and Israel has refused Palestinian calls to cease such operations and allow Palestinian security forces to take control. Under a U.S.-backed peace plan, Palestinians are supposed to dismantle violent groups.
Shootings such as Friday’s are relatively rare in the West Bank. Most Israeli-Palestinian violence takes place in and around Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Of all the “things happening” in the Middle East that day the BBC in its “wisdom” chose to ignore the murder of two Israelis.
Disgraceful, nothing less!
The word I’d use is ‘contemptible’. Both for the BBC cover-up, and for Nick’s weasely excuse for the cover-up.
Look, Nick Reynolds, it can be done:
“Even if they’re terrorists they’re treated like any other person being brought into the emergency room – we make no distinction between treating Israelis or Palestinians.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7375439.stm
This is a fair article. The only quibble I have that the theme of the headline – Israel’s dilemma over sick Gazans – is not developed in the body of the article. The only dilemma seems to be that the hospital comes under fire from Gaza while treating Gazans. Other than that, the Israeli have no problems treating the Palestinians, as indicated in the quoted passage.
More straight reporting like this please, BBC.
Yes Bryan, an excellent article, credit where it’s due. I suppose the fact that it’s written by Raffi Berg has nothing to do with it. :-/
Although the headline on the Middle East page is:
Getting through
Sick Gazans overcome hurdles to get medical treatment in Israel
Notwithstanding Raffi Berg’s sterling efforts to get the truth out the BBC is still spinning the story as one of Israel causing problems for “Gazans” rather than curing them.
Here’s another dilemma that Israel faces when deciding which Palestinians to treat:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422652388&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In any case, I don’t see why Israel should be obliged to treat Palestinians. As you pointed out on another thread Egypt also blocks its border with Gaza, and Egypyt has hospitals too.
Israel: The only country in the world that feeds the hand that bites it.
Israel: The only country in the world that feeds the hand that bites it.
Biodegradable | 01.05.08 – 12:41 am
Thanks for the laugh, Biodegradable. Yes, Raffi Berb notwithstanding, the BBC will continue to demonise Israel.
I believe that Berg was the only BBC writer who looked at the Israeli point of view during the Second Lebanon War. I think he wrote an article on Kiryat Shmona…
Ah, here it is, isn’t Google amazing??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5264594.stm
That is in stark contrast to the little propagandist on the World Service right after the war, who reported from Kiryat Shmona that he could see 4 or 5 damaged houses, ignoring the other 1995 or 1996 beyond his terror-friendly tunnel vision. Wish I’d been able to record that one.
Meant to add that the propagandist was either Hugh Sykes or Jim Muir.
And none looked at the Israeli point of view during the first Lebanon War, to put it mildly.
For one Raffi Berg the BBC has how many Jim Muirs, Jeremy Bowens, Orla Guerins, Katya Adlers, Barbara Pletts, etc., etc., ad nauseum?
That’s balance for you!
Nick still running scared.
Abbas successfully undergoes catheterization at Jordanian hospital
Why can’t other Arabs from the West Bank get medical treatment in Jordan?
Could it be that like the Egyptians they don’t want anything to do with “Palestinians”?
A rhethorical question, I trust 😉
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 29.04.08 – 1:35 pm |
Even using the word “terror” in this context could be seen as being biased one way or the other. Better to be consistent and avoid it for all incidents in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East.
We know that, and can we please be honest that this would mean biased toward Israel? It’s just too bad that you guys aren’t anywhere nearly as concerned about appearing biased the other way. Many examples have been pointed out in these pages.
Personally I would prefer it if the BBC never used the words “terror” or “terrorist” for any incident at home or abroad. There are always better, more accurate words to use.
Why, exactly? Is it because it is an emotion-based term? It may well be, but it is, in fact, an accurate description of the tactic. If this tactic did not have (or was not presumed to have) an emotional impact, it would have been abandoned long ago, as it is never militarily successful.
The problem is that the whole thing involves civilians, and not military targets. Both you and I know that attacking civilians is seriously frowned upon in the West, and so using the term is a giveaway that the BBC does not approve of the tactic. It logically follows that those who do approve of the act will infer that the BBC does not approve of the ideology behind it, or those who support it, either.
So I understand why you don’t like the term, and your colleagues try very hard not to use it. Sometimes. I don’t agree with that because, as I and many others have pointed out, the BBC has no problem taking a moral stance on other issues. I would nearly accept your defense that this is perhaps the most contentious issue on the planet, and extra care must be taken. Except….
The BBC makes no such effort to avoid being critical of Israeli tactics or policies, and doesn’t mind misrepresenting certain issues – consistently – in a way that demonizes Israel. The BBC cares about being biased one way, but not the other.
Masterly, David. Except this, perhaps:
“The BBC makes no such effort to avoid being critical of Israeli tactics or policies, and doesn’t mind misrepresenting certain issues – consistently – in a way that demonizes Israel” —
This is, imo, far too lenient. It’s not a question of ‘not minding’: they go out of their way, day in day out, to DELIBERATELY misrepresent and demonise Israel. The examples are legion. Little antisemitic scum like Bowen and Guerin, for example. The sickening lies on their website. It’s straight out of the Stuermer.
Instead of referring to terrorists as militants, can’t we just refer to them all as ‘fluffy bunny wunnies’?
Perhaps Nick could mention this to whoever brought these ‘BBC guidelines’ down from the high mountain.
Like most BBC staffers, I wouldn’t want to offend any terrorist or muslims, in case they get in the way of my 6 figure income in the public sector.