This glowing report of life in Ramallah in the “occupied” West Bank by BBC reporter Aleem Maqbool is well worth a read for anyone who thinks the BBC is no biased. Is Aleem a BBC employee or does he by chance work for for Fatah? I’m sure the next of kin of all those Israelis murdered by the Palestinian Jihad spawn that infest modern downtown Ramallah will greatly appreciate Aleem’s chilled out report. Maybe they’ll join him for a cool ice-cream at Rukab’s?
THE BBC IS NOT BIASED.
Bookmark the permalink.
5. The incident of the shooting is not the point of the story. It’s there to demonstrate how the urban war punctures the sense of an aspirational environment.
But if the story is untrue, inaccurately reported, exaggerated or completely fabricated by the “Palestinians” and their friendly BBC reporter what does that demonstrate?
“Why don’t you start a pro-BBC website seeing you feel so strongly about them?”
Possibly can’t get the funding without an Act of Parliament imposing a poll tax.
More stupidity from Hillcunt:
“Get real with the anti-semitism/blood libel bollix. Disapproval of Israeli military action is not at all the same thing as a hatred of all Jews, as the many Jewish people who oppose Israeli policies will tell you”
Bullshit of the usual kind we hear so much. The unrelenting, vicious singling out of Israel for non-stop vilification is antisemitism.
“If you don’t like the Palestinians playing the victim card, it might be a good idea to stop playing it yourselves”
More dumb crap. Israel happens to be the victim and the Arabs are the aggressors. Only antisemites and negative-IQ tossers can’t see this.
The problem that hillhunt and others overlook is that Iran,Hizbollah and Hamas and maybe Syria too wish to see the complete destruction of Israel.They keep saying it and there is no reason to disbelieve them.As the Israelis will presumably resist it means war and death on an almost unimaginable scale.There is no room for compromise here.Either you believe Israel has a right to exist or you don’t.With the BBC I just do not know and that is the worry.
Well, I’ll have to go down to the travel agent’s and book that package holiday to Ramallah then…
villification of the IDF or settlers etc is always a front for hatred of jews regardless of hillhunt and co’s bleatings.
Hillcunt: You prove that it is possible to masturbate and type at the same time. You should try out for the next series of Britain’s got Talent.
Hillhunt | 04.06.08 – 12:53 pm |
I was going to leave this alone, but you got too much wrong here, and somehow ignored important bits.
1. Why does B-BBC insist on assuming that a journalist with a Muslim name is incapable of objective reporting in the way that someone with a Sikh, Jewish or Catholic name is? You’d all be outraged if someone suggested that a reporter named Cohen was automatically biased.
Except we already know who Maqbool is, and have previously complained about his other biased reports (aviv @ 11:23 am has linked to a list). This guy is partially responsible for pushing the “Open Prison of Gaza” meme.
2. This is a piece about contrasts: About the difference between the pleasures he finds there and the common external image of Palestinian areas as grim, oppressed and brutal places. In that sense, he’s lifting the blanket of victimhood which is often criticised here.
He is not lifting the blanket of victimhood at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. This shows the heroic qualities of the perennial victim. They have created a bit of happiness for themselves amid all the stress and oppression. I know why the caged bird sings, etc.
3. It’s also about tensions in Palestinian society. Again it knocks the liberal perception of the place as unified in guerrilla politics. He’s saying those who can afford it have the same aspirations of middle-class city-dwellers everywhere and are thought by others to be turning their backs on the conflict with Israel.
If by “the place” you mean the West Bank, there is no such thing as a “liberal perception of the place as unified in guerrilla politics”. Even if you are using the word “liberal” to imply “generous” or as an analogue to the phrase “using that term loosely”, that’s still not really the case here. Gaza, yes, but not the West Bank. If anything, that’s the kind of viewpoint you usually chide us for having here. As we are all just loopy extremists in your book, and, as you have pointed out so many times, not at all connected to mainstream opinion, I can’t imaging that Maqbool would feel the need to address that in this piece.
4. He points out that some Palestinians are in denial about the nicer lives people live there and try to pass it off, unfairly, as Israeli spin: Some Palestinians suggest this city is a product of an Israeli plot, to create a place for the foreign diplomats and journalists to visit, and wonder what all the occupation fuss is about.
Yes, some do suggest that. Some Western Leftoids think the same thing. You conveniently ignore the fact that Maqbool immediately sets about knocking that theory by saying things like:
“But, in truth, if you’re looking for it, the impact of that occupation is not too hard to find, even in Ramallah. There are three refugee camps around the city and the Torture Rehabilitation Centre here is overwhelmed with cases of those affected by their incarceration in Israel.”
In case anyone forgot. Ooh, Torture!
5. The incident of the shooting is not the point of the story. It’s there to demonstrate how the urban war punctures the sense of an aspirational environment.
In fact it is part and parcel of the point of the story: Even if Ramallah doesn’t seem like the hellhole of a human rights tragedy that all the “Occupied Territories” are supposed to be, these people are still heroic victims. Maqbool picked a pretty brutal killing – in cold blood, in front of children, naturally – to illustrate his point, don’t you think? Oh, I know, there are no “nice” stories of Israeli aggression. But there are some that don’t involve painting the absolute lowest possible picture of Israelis. Perhaps there are even incidents Maqbool could have mentioned which he actually witnessed himself. Or is that asking too much of a reporter?
6. I don’t know whether the details of the shooting are true, misguided or dishonest. Neither do any of you. Your anti-BBC filter assumes malicious intent. I do not.
As experience has taught dogs and cattle to avoid the electric fence, experience has taught us that the BBC gets these things wrong far too often.
7. I notice that no-one has challenged that part of the story which says the Torture Rehabilitation Centre here is overwhelmed with cases of those affected by their incarceration in Israel. Why would that be?
It would be silly to challenge the statement that the centre is filled with cases. Thousands of Palestinians have been in an out of the Israeli prison system, and I’m sure lots of them were affected by their experiences. But please, we all know that the very name of the place is more for propaganda purposes (which the BBC always loves), and is not an accurate representation of reality. I would challenge that the place is not “overwhelmed” with actual torture victims, but that is for another time. Suffice to say that the place served its purpose once again in this article: as a cudgel with which to beat Israel.
Of course, you probably just look at that at cluck your tongue, knowing that Israelis have seriously tortured thousands of Palestinians, and that this Torture Rehabilitation Centre is merely a mute witness to Israeli atrocities
8. Get real with the anti-semitism/blood libel bollix. Disapproval of Israeli military action is not at all the same thing as a hatred of all Jews, as the many Jewish people who oppose Israeli policies will tell you. If you don’t like the Palestinians playing the victim card, it might be a good idea to stop playing it yourselves.
The problem is really disapproval of all Israeli military action, isn’t it? Not just in general, to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It’s also the little things, like BBC reporters ascribing emotions to the actions on which they are supposed to be reporting impartially. Like when our boy Maqbool refers to “an angry Israeli reaction”. But that didn’t register with you at all, did it?
And once again you get our other main complaint wrong. We don’t like other people, especially national broadcasters with a Charter and Agreement abjuring them to remain impartial, to portray the Palestinians as the eternal, heroic victims.
How’s that, you ask? Well, for example, this very article, which, after everything else, ends by saying this, which you also somehow failed to notice:
“But they’ll also tell you they’ve simply had enough of the struggling. After so many years, the residents of Ramallah just seem to want to forget it and get on with living as best they can.
It really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Those in Israel who can, do the same. And, if given the chance, so too would people living in Jenin, and Nablus and Gaza.”
If given the chance? Now, what could that possibly mean? Who might be preventing them?
You got the message of this article completely wrong.
“It’s also the little things, like BBC reporters ascribing emotions to the actions on which they are supposed to be reporting impartially”
Indeed. As I have said before, the first time I became conscious of the depths of BBC antisemitism was when a ‘reporter’ was standing in Beirout in 1982, supposedly ‘reporting’ on what was going on (you know, the little thing called ‘facts’), and said with a completely straight face: “Israel is cocking a snook at world opinion”.
At that exact point, the scales fell from my eyes and I realised that I am funding an antisemitic outfit.
DP:
1. It’s that filter again. We just know he’s biased.
2. I know why the caged bird sings, etc. I don’t think you do, no. And that’s very clearly not the point he makes.
3. I’m afraid he is addressing tensions among Palestinians: life in the Gaza Strip has almost come to a halt – and it’s there that people most seem to resent Ramallah’s attempts to block the conflict out of its mind.
4. Agreed. He’s saying militants think the place is an Israeli PR stunt. And it’s clearly not.
5. You say this is about victimhood. It’s clear to me that he’s making a more general point that nowhere is untouched by the nastiness of the conflict.
6. That filter again.
7. From memory, there is official recognition inside Israel of the non-standard treatment of prisoners.
Suffice to say that the place served its purpose once again in this article: as a cudgel with which to beat Israel. If there is torture, it’s reasonable to make a point about it.
8. A sense of proportion always helps… “an angry Israeli reaction” is not going to create a new Waffen SS, whatever you say.
I’ve read many definitions of heroism, but just seeming to want to forget it and get on with living as best they can does not cut the mustard, does it?
If given the chance? Now, what could that possibly mean? Who might be preventing them?
At which point there does he blame Israel? Or take sides in any way? It’s a standard journalistic side-step in troubled areas…expressing sympathy for the people getting the miserable end of things, but not apportioning blame or analysing the causes.
In truth, it’s a feature piece about that bit of the West Bank which tries to shade a few subtleties into a subject more often beset by simple body counts and counter-claim.
Mein Kampf it ain’t.
.
Hillhunt: Why don’t you answer a few questions for a change, rather than simply list out yet more bollocks?
You sound more and more like McBean at PMQ’s every day.
Hillhunt | 04.06.08 – 5:43 pm |
1. It’s that filter again. We just know he’s biased.
Oh, please. We’ve busted biased articles from this guy before. Call it a heuristic, not a filter. Bias is bias, and it’s foolish to ignore past performance.
2. I know why the caged bird sings, etc. I don’t think you do, no. And that’s very clearly not the point he makes.
It very clearly is part of it. Please explain how a successful oasis such as Ramallah (in a relative sense, of course), in which victims of Israeli violent aggression and oppression is not symbolic of the caged bird singing. Further, the idea is that these Palestinians apparently just want to get on with their lives, in spite of all their suffering and victimization (the optimism warms the heart, no?), and there is no acknowledgment of the Palestinians’ own responsibility for their current predicament. None. Israel is the sole problem, as usual, and the Palestinians are the heroic survivors.
3. I’m afraid he is addressing tensions among Palestinians: life in the Gaza Strip has almost come to a halt – and it’s there that people most seem to resent Ramallah’s attempts to block the conflict out of its mind.
Yes he is, but only to show the oasis of Ramallah in sharp relief.
4. Agreed. He’s saying militants think the place is an Israeli PR stunt. And it’s clearly not.
It’s not just militants in the West Bank, though, which is the real problem.
5. You say this is about victimhood. It’s clear to me that he’s making a more general point that nowhere is untouched by the nastiness of the conflict.
And that’s not victimhood how?
6. That filter again.
Again, please don’t tell me not to learn from experience, and to deny the reality of previous biased articles.
7. From memory, there is official recognition inside Israel of the non-standard treatment of prisoners.
Suffice to say that the place served its purpose once again in this article: as a cudgel with which to beat Israel. If there is torture, it’s reasonable to make a point about it.
Non-standard is not Torture with a capital T. And it ain’t thousands of ’em being treated no-standardly, in need of such a rehabilitation facility. It’s a political prop, still bringing them in, apparently.
8. A sense of proportion always helps… “an angry Israeli reaction” is not going to create a new Waffen SS, whatever you say.
Drip, drip, drip. This isn’t an isolated incident. I realize you filter all those out and they don’t exist to you, so this seems like one tiny anomaly.
I’ve read many definitions of heroism, but just seeming to want to forget it and get on with living as best they can does not cut the mustard, does it?
Under horrible, tragic circumstances, it does.
At which point there does he blame Israel? Or take sides in any way? It’s a standard journalistic side-step in troubled areas…expressing sympathy for the people getting the miserable end of things, but not apportioning blame or analysing the causes.
Oh yes, let’s pretend there was no colorful account of Israeli forces riddling someone full of bullets in cold bold, in front of children. Let’s pretend that when Maqbool mentioned that nasty security wall, he did not take care to point out that it’s only Israel’s opinion that it’s for stopping suicide bombers. Let’s pretend that those nasty settlers in Hebron haven’t “given that city a tense and miserable edge”. Let’s pretend that there has never been any suicide bomber attack on Israelis from the West Bank, nor rockets launched from anywhere in the West Bank. Let’s pretend that Arafat was an innocent lamb whom the Israelis held under siege.
In truth, it’s a feature piece about that bit of the West Bank which tries to shade a few subtleties into a subject more often beset by simple body counts and counter-claim.
Mein Kampf it ain’t.
“Shade a few subtleties”? Good one. I’ve never heard it called that before.
.
DP:
Avoiding repetition….
2. Where does he use the term victim?
Israel is the sole problem, as usual.
I think most readers would see the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as being the problem. Give over with the heroism. Nothing he describes is remotely heroic.
3. The tension is between Palestinians. What’s your problem with that?
4. Either way, he’s demonstrating that the cliche is untrue. You unhappy with that?
5. A conflict features two (or more sides). You can have a nasty conflict which is not caused by one side’s misbehaviour alone.
7. It’s referred to as torture in many sources. As you know.
8. Among all the prejudice in the world describing an army in a hot conflict as angry is the least of sins.
Maqbool describes the difficulties cause by two communities living side by side in a state of great tension. You see it as victimhood with Israel the aggressor. If he’d meant to say that, don’t you think he would?
As for your let’s pretend list… let’s pretend he didn’t refer to the kids hurling stones at soldiers or at Israel’s justification for the security wall as being suicide attacks on its communities…
.
It’s referred to as torture in many sources
Sure, by the nice unbiased people of Amnesty and other such assorted scum.
Bravo DP!
Yes, I echo that. Fine Fisking from David Preiser. But Hillhunt is way too pickled in his own prejudices to understand how thoroughly David has demolished his ‘argument’.
Anyone who knows a bit about this conflict and still thinks that Maqbool has any concept of ethical, responsible journalism needs to take a serious look at his own bias. It is a disgrace that Maqbool is accepted as a “reporter” for a news organisation that undertakes to inform and educate the public in an impartial manner.
Hillhunt–
Maybe you’ve forgotten that Israel’s Supreme Court outlawed torture years ago, and that any allegation of it ought to be balanced by reiterating this fact, so as to provide the reader with the necessary context so that she does not paint Israeli authorities with a uniformly negative brush.
DP, superb rebuttals. If Hillhunt actually believes what he is saying rather being a contrarian for the sake of it, then he’s not terribly perceptive.
Hillhunt | 04.06.08 – 6:49 pm |
2. Where does he use the term victim?
He doesn’t have to, does he? Not with such laundry list of Israeli nastiness. I mean, come on, he doesn’t have to spell it out like that.
I think most readers would see the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as being the problem.
Well obviously. But who are they supposed to blame? That’s the point.
Give over with the heroism. Nothing he describes is remotely heroic.
I’m not sure even you believe that completely. There is a very broad brush being used here to paint a picture of an underdog. Even the picture caption says that Ramallah “has had its fair share of bloodshed”.
3. The tension is between Palestinians. What’s your problem with that?
I don’t have a problem with that at all. In a discussion on that topic, we’d probably find more common ground. However, that’s not what this is about. The tension between Palestinians (this kind, in this case, at least) is merely a plot vehicle.
4. Either way, he’s demonstrating that the cliche is untrue. You unhappy with that?
Well, clearly I’m unhappy with his laundry list of Israeli nastiness, after which one can practically hear the celestial choir chord when he describes the Ramallah optimism. Any demolishing of clichés is a pyhrric victory in this context.
5. A conflict features two (or more sides). You can have a nasty conflict which is not caused by one side’s misbehaviour alone.
Very true. Can you please inform the BBC?
7. It’s referred to as torture in many sources. As you know.
As I contest as well. No surprise there, really.
8. Among all the prejudice in the world describing an army in a hot conflict as angry is the least of sins.
Drip, drip, drip.
Maqbool describes the difficulties cause by two communities living side by side in a state of great tension. You see it as victimhood with Israel the aggressor. If he’d meant to say that, don’t you think he would?
Um, he pretty much does.
As for your let’s pretend list… let’s pretend he didn’t refer to the kids hurling stones at soldiers or at Israel’s justification for the security wall as being suicide attacks on its communities…
I don’t think the one instance of the slight dig at the “Palestinian reflex” in any way balances the rest of the piece which portrays all problems as being caused by Israel. Portraying Ramallah as the oasis in the way Maqbool does merely makes the suffering of the rest of the Palestinians stand out even more. And, oh yeah, he mentions they’re pissed off about it.
Aside from any disagreements, though, I found one thing odd (not necessarily bias here, just odd). Just after Maqbool describes the “Palestinian reflex”, he expresses surprise at seeing grown men wailing and hugging like little girls. This struck me as extremely naive, if not downright parochial. Had he never seen any news footage from the region ever? The only bio info I could find on Maqbool says that he is from the UK but was born somewhere else. It just seems very strange to me that anyone with even a little exposure to the Arab World would be surprised at such a display of emotion. I can’t figure out if he was genuinely surprised (in which case, under what rock has he been hiding?), or if he was trying to illustrate just how traumatized Palestinians have become that they would break down like that.
David, he must be the most ignorant person in the world about Arab culture. There is nothing remotely unusual about the behaviour he describes. And the BBC sends such an ignorant (as well as everything else) useless waste of oxygen to ‘report’ on the ME? Give me strength.
Anonymous | 04.06.08 – 12:46 pm,
Thanks for that link. Pure Pallywood.
Nearly Oxfordian | 05.06.08 – 9:00 am |
David, he must be the most ignorant person in the world about Arab culture. There is nothing remotely unusual about the behaviour he describes. And the BBC sends such an ignorant (as well as everything else) useless waste of oxygen to ‘report’ on the ME? Give me strength.
That’s why it strikes me as so odd. I still can’t totally believe that someone of Arab descent, who grew up in Arabic culture (Islam is entirely beside the point here) could actually be surprised at grown men weeping all over each other’s shoulders. I mean, that’s on the news all the time.
Something smells funny here, but I honestly don’t know what. If I were feeling generous, I’d say that maybe Maqbool had spent so much time around emotionally, repressed, stiff-upper-lip British people for so long (he apparently spent a good portion of his life in the UK) that adults putting on such a display came as a shock to his system.
But only if he had been living in a fictional historical drama until then.
The BBC is not biased?
Contrast & Compare:
Two dead in Gaza-Israel attacks
A young Palestinian girl has been killed by an Israeli shell in the southern Gaza Strip, medics said.
The Israel army confirmed it carried out an air strike in the area, saying it targeted a group of militants.
Security forces in the Hamas-run territory say the bomb missed its target and landed near a house.
The attack, which also injured two women, came after Palestinian militants shelled an Israeli kibbutz, killing a civilian and wounding four others.
…
Militants in Gaza regularly fire rockets at southern Israel, a response they say to Israeli military operations in Palestinian territory.
Israel has sealed off the territory and blocks all but essential humanitarian supplies, while launching regular raids in an attempt to counter militant fire.
An Israeli government spokesman said Hamas would be held accountable for rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip, which Hamas seized control of a year ago.
Correspondents say the violence is a setback to Egyptian efforts to mediate a truce between Israel and Hamas.
Militant rocket fire killed two people in Israel during May. The latest death brings to 16 the toll from such attacks since 2000.
About 500 people, nearly all of them Palestinians and more than half of them militants, have been killed in violence since the troubled Israeli-Palestinian peace process was revived in November 2007.
Man killed by mortar attack in South announced as Amnon Rosenberg, 51
The man killed in a mortar attack Thursday on a factory in Kibbutz Nir Oz is Amnon Rosenberg, 51, from Kibbutz Nirim, authorities announced.
Three other people were wounded in the barrage from Gaza.
UK ‘unreservedly condemns’ Nir Oz fatal mortar shell attack
British Ambassador to Israel Tom Phillips on Thursday condemned the mortar shell attack on Kibbutz Nir Oz which killed a man and seriously wounded two others.
“I offer my deepest condolences to the family of the man killed in today’s rocket attack on Kibbutz Nir Oz, and my sympathy to those injured,” he said, adding the the British government “unreservedly condemns” such acts of terrorism by “those working
against the cause of peace.”
Phillips stressed that the Britain looked to Israel to ensure that any response to such attacks was in accordance with international law.
Palestinians: Girl killed in IAF strike in the Gaza Strip
Palestinian doctors say a four-year-old girl has been killed and her mother wounded in an IAF air strike in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas said aircraft targeted a group of gunmen in the southern Gaza Strip but missed them. Relatives of the girl said that she and her mother were in the yard of a house that was hit by the errant missile.
The army had no immediate comment.
“Phillips stressed that the Britain looked to Israel to ensure that any response to such attacks was in accordance with international law”
And it’s any of his fucking business because …?
Honest Reporting is on the Aleem Maqbool case:
BBC Reporter: Genuine Eyewitness or Palestinian Propagandist?
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/BBC_Reporter_Genuine_Eyewitness_or_Palestinian_Propagandist.asp
Hello David,
Below is a link to a BBC article about a, rather odd, Orthodox Jewish comedian in Israel. In this article I would ask you to read only the first and second paragraphs, in which a physical description of the man is given.
The article, in full confidence, then counterpoises his appearance with that of his fellow sectaries, (he is a Scots-American born a Roman Catholic by the surname of Campbell),inferring directly two, supposedly universal, off-putting physical characteristics to the Jew. The article state you can tell he is not a ‘blood Jew’ as he has a broad neck and straight teeth.
In just this one line is a direct anti-Semitic statement drawing attention to supposed off-putting general physical characteristics , a little slip, but a shocker for me. Anyway, here you go :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7443726.stm
In my humble opinion this directly contravenes European anti-racism laws.
@Proddy Dog,
I must admit, I read the article and thought to myself “No. I don’t see any problem at all with this article.”
Then I saw this line:
“Chris – as he was then – had already decided he was not the Catholic he was born as.”
Ah! I see… All is clear now. The anti Jewish agenda is once more revealed!
[BTW: Is anyone else annoyed at the BBC’s “one sentence=one paragraph policy”? I presume the BBC think we’re all so thick that we would lose our place if they had proper paragraphs. When I was at school, I was taught: New subject=new paragraph. NOT new sentence=new paragraph.
Also, I note that they don’t capitalise each word in titles anymore.]
Campbell’s quotes are taken verbatim from a quick interview Tim Franks did with him, I guess over the last few days (presumably not Friday evening through Saturday evening). I heard it this morning on the World Service.
However, on the World Service this morning, we were told that Franks was going to talk to an Israeli comedian today, and then a Palestinian comedian tomorrow. This is all part of the BBC’s effort, they say, to discuss who might help bring Palestinians and Israelis together. Dialogue is good, and who starts dialogue best? Comedians! At least, that’s how the BBC set up the piece. Oddly, there is no mention of that at all here. It’s just a piece about Campbell, placed merely in the context of a quickie for the “Jerusalem Diary”.
I complained about this on another thread, asking why the BBC couldn’t find a comedian who was born either Jewish or Israeli, and speculated that tomorrow’s Palestinian won’t be an analogue. Which won’t show very much balance at all.
i complained about this report, here’s the response:
Subject: BBC – From Our Own Correspondent
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:37:53 +0100
Thank you for your e-mail regarding ‘From Our Own Correspondent’.
The shooting which Aleem Maqbool refers to during the piece ‘The capital of Palestinian escapism’ took place at the end of May last year. Aleem arrived on the scene shortly after it happened, as stones were being thrown at the IDF, and the soldiers were firing back (as he pointed out in his report).
He was one of a handful of foreign correspondents who got there during the incident, mainly because his office is just a few minutes away from where it took place. Most others are based in Jerusalem and would have relied on agency copy in their reporting.
Initially, the IDF, who he spoke to on the phone from the scene, said they had targeted a wanted militant, but that there had been a fire fight which led to the man’s death.
Witnesses Aleem spoke to from the cafe and the vicinity, well over twenty of them, said there had not been a fire fight. About an hour and a half after the incident, the IDF took the step of calling journalists back, including Aleem, saying that, in fact, there had been no fire fight. They said forces had killed a militant as they tried to apprehend him.
The BBC included these accounts in its coverage of the story at the time. The account of the incident in ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ was based on what Aleem saw, heard (and, in some cases, recorded) from many witnesses as well as what the Israeli army said at the time (which ultimately backed up what the witnesses had said).
We hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Yours sincerely
BBC Complaints
Bio, I got exactly the same non-response yesterday, at 12:52 Israel time, to my complaint sent on the 3rd of June. I suppose they were trying to get it in just before the ten day deadline they set themselves – and seldom keep, if they bother to respond at all. Funny thing is, a couple of hours earlier I had a different response from a named person, which appeared to be a standard reply saying, This is an update to let you know that we’re dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.
So I guess the left BBC knee doesn’t know how strenuusly the right knee is jerking. But of course the second e-mail reveals that the intentions expressed in the first one are simply a bullshit playing for time/hoping the complainant will go away kind of exercise.
I was amazed to see that Maqbool reported on the World Service yesterday in an objective fashion on the explosion that killed seven in Gaza:
The three storey house in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza was destroyed in the explosion. It belonged to Ahmed Hamouda, the local leader of the Al Kassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. Hamas was swift in issuing a statement blaming the Israeli military and callig for revenge. The Israeli army though, whose staff usually acknowledge attacks has denied any involvement.
I don’t recall seeing the highlighted bit much on the BBC. It’s almost considerate of the Israeli point of view. Could be that someone at the BBC has told Maqbool to tone the bias down for for a while, at least until the BBC can fob off the complaints about him.
Just noticed this on the main Middle East page, the link above the caption is in bold:
Israeli air strike targets Hamas
A powerful blast destroys a Hamas commander’s house in northern Gaza, killing seven people including a baby girl
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7450477.stm
This is outrageous. Though the link takes you to a story that includes the destruction of the house, this is an obvious and blatant lie that Israel was responsible for the blast, and that is the impression that will be left with people who do not click on the link.
Unfortunately, I still don’t know how to do screen captures.
Sorry, here’s the right link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm