Compare these reports. The BBC website is upbeat about the Palestinians’ latest measures to heal the feud between Hamas and Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas is ready to go to Gaza, and Hamas has welcomed the move. Hoorah!
The second paragraph reads:
“Both parties seem to be responding to the recent demonstrations that were inspired by the uprisings elsewhere in the Middle East, reports the BBC’s Jon Donnison from Ramallah.”
Then why is it under the jarring sub heading “AIRSTRIKE” ? Oh. The article suddenly veers off topic, skidding onto a path well-worn by the BBC.
“Meanwhile, doctors in Gaza said at least two Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the central Gaza Strip. The Israeli army confirmed the attack, saying it was responding to rockets fired from Gaza.”
The BBC is barely interested in silly old rockets fired from Gaza, it wouldn’t have mentioned them at all had two Palestinians not been killed.
“Israel says militants have sent dozens of rockets into Israeli territory since the start of the year.”
‘Doctors in Gaza’ said the interesting thing; disembodied ‘Israel’ says the barely interesting, dodgy-looking thing.
“Before Wednesday’s incident, UN figures showed at least eight Palestinians had been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza in 2011.”
No reason given.
Another report is discussed here.
“the Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that Gaza demonstrators in favour of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah were violently dispersed by the Islamist group:
‘They beat people with batons and set fire to tents that were set up by the demonstrators, according to activists in Gaza City.’
So, not all sweetness and light inspired by the glorious Arab uprising then, BBC?
And what’s all this?
“on a day ostensibly devoted to Palestinian unity, police brutally attacked photographers and cameramen, beating the, breaking equipment and confiscating photos and video footage. This is the latest in a string of chilling attacks on reporters in Gaza.”
But the West sits silent.
Well, not completely silent. They did mention the airstrike.
I do hope Jon Donnison gets well soon. I’m assuming he was knocked unconscious in the fracas. That must be it.
This is what happens when you append a well financed news operation onto a gigantic public sector mass manufacturer of junk TV.
Just what is the BBCs game? They are determined to hide and exclude information while pimping patently dishonest propaganda. We see on the BBC a festive happy crowd waving flags and talking of unity(to kill jews) and thats it, that yer lot. The BBC report reveals nothing of the realities and shows us nothing of the true intent or nothing of the tensions and hatreds and violence that drives the hamarse gangsters and their Fatarse gangster rivals.
Its almost as if someone with editorial control and veto is stripping out news that might contradict the BBC narrative that fatarse and hamarse want nothing more than to hold hands and take wam showers together, all sweetness and light and having good times and the only fly in the ointment and spanner in the works is perfidious nasty Israel and those intransigent warmongering violent nasty Jews.
In fact if it wasnt for the fact that the BBC claims it is independent and impartial it would look like the BBC employs pro ‘Palestinian’ censors and editors who control all BBC output on the Israeli-‘Palestinian’ conflict. Imagine a group of islamists/useful idiot collaborators housed and payed by the licence fee and equipped with all the comforts of home like a special prayer room and special food and all paid for by the licence fee and with one simple rule to follow, Israel is wrong and the ‘Palestinians’ are right. Israel must always be shown in a negative light and the ‘Palestinians’ are always the innocent victims, Jews are not to be portrayed as human beings, they must never be shown to be acting like human beings.
Come to think of it, it would make perfect sense for the BBC to be employing pro jihadist, pro islamist, pro ‘Palestinian’ Jew baiting Jew haters. The BBC output would be the same if hamarse&fatarse gangsters were actually installed at the BBC itself.
THE BBC: THE JEWS ARE OUR MISFORTUNE!
Cassie, you do wonder, especially about their website team, who seem incapable of publishing a story from Israel without missing out some vital piece of information helpful to Israel’s case.
That ‘Airstrike’ article in Sue’s post is a case in point, because the BBC online reporter hides and excludes some highly relevant information here, such as the fact that the “two Palestians” killed were from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas (AFP). Calling them just “two Palestinians” is likely to mislead people into thinking the dead men were civilians and indiscrimate victims of the Israeli airstrike. There’s no excuse for this, as the Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported the identity of the killed Palestinians and other news organisations, such as China’s Xinhua, felt able to mention it.
Quoting AFP again, “Israeli aircraft fired rockets at a Hamas training ground in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, killing two militants from the Islamist group, Palestinian officials said.”
Compare that to the BBC’s “Meanwhile, doctors in Gaza said at least two Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the central Gaza Strip.”
The BBC report should have stated that the target struck was an Hamas training ground and the men killed were Hamas fighters. Was it just sloppy reporting, or deliberate censorship? It looks more like the latter to me.
And when the BBC report ends with the latest version of its ghoulish body count (“Before Wednesday’s incident, UN figures showed at least eight Palestinians had been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza in 2011“), the question arises ‘Why aren’t you telling us how many of those were Hamas fighters?’ Isn’t the BBC implying they are all innocent civilians?
Maybe the BBC are following the Islamist line that all Israelis are settlers and therefore legitimate targets whilst all Palestinians are innocent.
It’s an extremely important point. And it’s an obvious editorial decision from the BBC to omit mention of the terror affiliation of these Palestinians. The BBC has done exactly the same thing a number of times in the past. Put that together with the Israel says “reporting” by the BBC….
Israel says militants have sent dozens of rockets into Israeli territory since the start of the year.
….and you have propaganda, not journalism.
If Jon Donnison were really a journalist, he would investigate whether or not Israel is correct in stating that those rockets have been fired and then simply report it as a fact. Since he is an anti-Israel propagandist, he hides behind the standard BBC Israel says bluff. This kills two birds with one stone – absolves him of the obligation to investigate the number of attacks from Gaza while sowing doubt in the mind of the public that they have really occurred.
Of course, this is also down to the editing. If the BBC had actual editors dealing with these reports, they would require Donnison to come up with facts, not obfuscation and propaganda. But it’s also possible that the editors themselves are honing his reports into one-sided anti-Israel bulletins – that is if Donnison ever strays from the standard BBC anti-Israel line.
Thanks Craig, for fleshing out my skeletal post. There were so many points to convey and so little time.
First, as Cassandra has pointed out, this is a good example of an incomplete picture giving an entirely false impression. The BBC’s efforts mislead rather than inform. They’re ignoring the violence completely. Why? It plays down the impossibility of the Palestinians becoming ‘credible partners for peace’ (and they can continue citing settlements as the only obstacle)
Secondly, the BBC can’t report a Palestinian story without a gratuitous reminder of Palestinian ‘victimhood’ at the hands of Israel.
As Craig explains, the bias by omission follows the usual pattern.
They give the impression that the Palestinians were random innocents. How? They mention ‘doctors’ in Gaza. Doctors can’t be unreliable, can they? And if doctors are involved it looks like a civilian rather than a military issue.
Doctors (good) said at least two Palestinians were killed and the Israeli army(bad) confirmed the ‘attack’ (so that was labelled an attack, while firing rockets was not)
……saying it was responding to rockets fired from Gaza. (Saying? sounds plausible to me, but evidently not to the BBC.) The rockets (an attack) came first, and the response was a response.
‘Palestinians firing rockets’ is not seen by the BBC as an attack, only Israel’s response is.
Israel (liars?) says ‘militants’ (terrorists?) have sent dozens of rockets into Israeli territory….. (Not newsworthy)
UN figures (The UN are obviously good at calculating figures) showed ‘at least’ (so they’re not quite sure) eight Palestinians had been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza in 2011.
Oh well. Dozens of rockets into ‘Israeli territory’ (they use the word territory; that looks ‘military’ and distances it from towns where people like you or I are bringing up their children) …….and at least eight disproportionate innocent Palestinians killed.
Sorry BBC. Sorry it isn’t Eight rockets and Dozens of Palestinians, then you would have something more to crow about.
You are right, the paragraph below is not a mistake or error or the result of impartial reporting. It is in fact criminal misrepresentation of an event.
The numbers of dead will add up and will include terrorists engaged in acts of terror along with civilians.
The BBC is actively engaged in smearing an entire race, the BBC are so confident now that nobody is going to bring them to account.
“Compare that to the BBC’s “Meanwhile, doctors in Gaza said at least two Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the central Gaza Strip.”
I hope everyone who followed my link noticed this:
“Although some of the journalists who were assaulted work with international news organizations, many of these foreign media outlets ignored the story, apparently out of fear of retribution by the Hamas authorities.
These journalists who chose to defy Hamas should be supported not only by their foreign colleagues, but also by Western governments and human rights organizations.
Otherwise, the day will come when the world will never know what is really happening inside Hamas’s Gaza Strip.”
“Otherwise the world will never know………?” The day has already come I’m afraid.
Sue, thanks for introducing me to Khaled Abu Toameh, a reporter with integrity and a strong track record.
It’s not possible to understand the Middle East properly unless you realise that in every Muslim country (proportions vary) there are two competing and hostile groups – the Islamists who want to see a return to a Muslim Caliphate over all countries of the Dir al-Islam (literally house/abode of Islam) and 7th century Sharia Law strictly applied and the Nationalists who themselves constitute two groups. Less important at the moment are the Pan-Arabists who want an Arab superstate (NB. In their world view all Arabs are Muslim but not all Muslims are Arab e.g. Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia) and mostly accept modernity. Most important in the Israel-Palestine context are the Nationalists who want (or allowing for opportunists claim to want) a modern nation state. These are major ideological differences and they are quite willing to kill for them.
if you follow the BBC narrative there is no real gap between Hamas (Islamists) and Fatah (Nationalists) and no reason for their emnity is ever supplied. Nor is any reason for bringing them together ever discussed. From a BBC POV it would appear that this is a family spat or a power struggle between individuals or even a dispute over tactics.
It is poor journalism not bring forward the reasons for the split particularly from the BBC who cut-and-paste boilerplate about settlements and international law to every piece about Israel.
Technically I think there are many more groups than that.
For instance there are not such thing as “Islamists’ in any simple meaning. There are various traditionalist, conservative and fundamentalist(all these are unique and separate- traditionalists and fundamentalists are as different as either and liberals.) groups that are perhaps sometimes labelled as ‘Islamist’ in the West. There are huge gulfs between these on multiple layers from the most metaphysical and theological to those of action and practice. There are even multiple factions in each of these three categories.
The same is true for more less explicitly religious groupings in these nations. There are alll sorts of ideological, ethnic and national factions.
The complex reality of society in the Islamic world is ignored by most in the West, whether left or right, and is why so little is understood about this world.
JJ: there is a widely quoted Bedouin saying is “Me against my brother, My brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and me against strangers“. So clearly I have left out kinship in my calculation. There is another saying generally attributed at least to the Arabs “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Once again I should have acknowledged that temporary alliances between deadly enemies is part of Arab tradition. Fatah and Hamas allied against Israel is one example. Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel is another.
However, I will stick by my main point that in the Arab world, especially Israel/Palestine with which I am most familiar the two camps I have indicated are the most and perhaps only dominant ones.
They are the ones running for election. Anyone else is either a ‘straw man’ or irrelevant in terms of mass support. They are the ones with the organised armed forces.
Well I was more concentrating on the term ‘Islamist”. There are huge divisions in the non-secular faction of Arab society. Fundamentalists, conservatives and traditionalists are different and each of these groupings in turn has many diverse sub-divisions.
But yes the non-religious factions are themselves quite diverse.
Against my better judgement I’ve complained to the “Complaints” website about that disgusting propaganda piece by Donisson. I’ve also made a draft of an e-mail to Donnison and Steve Herrmann, “Editor” of the BBC News website.
But I’ve held that e-mail back because it’s always possible that they’ll stealth edit the piece so they can claim the complaint was unjustified.
Hell, I’m starting to think like them now.
Hi TT,
There’s nothing on NewsSniffer, but I’ve got a grab just in case.
Hi sue, good move.
It is the usual soft bias as far as I can see. This is how the BBC(and CNN and others.) work. They don’t have the obvious bias of say a Fox News, they have persistent, understated bias which is all the more effective because of this. This means though that with any individual piece they’d just can claim you are reading too much into it. This is what makes cataloguing BBC bias so painstaking and full of effort.
A complaint may be worthwhile but the BBC will simply deny it and the ‘soft’ bias means there isn’t a smoking gun.
JJ, that really is hitting the nail on the head. And I guess one way to combat the more subtle bias is to turn the BBC’s “balance over time” argument around and use it against them. Since the BBC continually and with malice aforethought minimises and obfuscates the threats against Israel, that’s an imbalance over time, and therefore bias.
Eight “Palestinians” have been killed this year, eh? Looks like the ghoulish Body Count Narrative is back, albeit in different form. Were they all innocents? Were any instigators of violence? I assume none where children because the BBC would have mentioned that, even while playing down news of the cold-blooded murder of Israeli children. Oh, sorry, I forgot, it’s not cold-blooded murder as the BBC’s reporting reminds me that they had it coming for the sins of others.
There is much more about this on EOZ’s website, including a video of the demo in Gaza. I noticed a comment by regular contributor “Zvi” which agrees with something I said earlier.
(I think this is where I found the link to Toameh)
(Actually Toameh’s article was discovered via a link in a comment on Harry’s Place.)
They are still at it. Look at the <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12795809 onclick=“window.open(this.href,’newwin’); return false;” > last paragraph.</a>
OK which wise guy turned off the html and preview? Sheesh! 😎
Yes, Gaza militants fire dozens of mortars into Israel appeared at on the BBC webshite at 16.11 today and there, mentioned in passing, is the brief acknowledgement, so blatantly missing from their earlier article, that the air strike three days ago killed two Hamas members, not Palestinian civilians.
The new article mentions that “two Israelis were hurt” in the Hamas barrage (I’m guessing civilians).
Compare that article to the Telegraph‘s far more detailed article published at roughly the same time today: Hamas fires a barrage of mortars on southern Israel. Here we learn that Hamas fired more than 50 rockets into Israel in the space of 15 minutes and confirms that the Israeli wounded were indeed civilians. It mentions the Israeli claim that the mortars “were of the same type as those intercepted on a cargo ship last week loaded with weapons Israel said were sent by Iran to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip”. The BBC article didn’t think that worth mentioning.
There’s something else in the Telegraph article, which Jon Donnison should read:
“Hamas used force to disperse a reconciliation rally in Gaza. Some reporters were later beaten up, threatened and briefly detained.”
The things a BBC reporter misses while he’s taking a short power nap!
The last paragraph deserves comment Although members of Hamas’s military wing rarely carry out attacks, the Israeli military says it holds the group responsible for all militant activity in the Gaza Strip.
Firstly, it suggests that there is a difference between the military and civilian wings of Hamas. There is no more difference than between the Israeli government and the IDF or the British government and the UK armed forces. The civilian authority controls the military.
Secondly, while Hamas has been relatively quiet since the hiding it took in Operation Cast Lead except when it comes to attacking Palestinian civilians and Fatah supporters it is still the major military force and actively involved in preparing the next war.
Thirdly, and possibly most important it suggests that the group in control of a territory have no obligation to ensure that attacks don’t come from across its borders. In fact nothing happens in Gaza without Hamas at least tacitly allowing it.
The Telegraph article is more detailed, but it does contain a couple of peculiar paragraphs.
What do you make of sticking this in the middle of a report about the escalation of aggression by Hamas:
“Hamas fears triggering another Israeli invasion similar to a three-week operation aimed at stopping daily Palestinian shelling two years ago that killed about 1,400 Palestinians.”
I mean, if they fear it so much, why provoke it?
That and the last paragraph could almost be by the BBC.
“Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed last year over disputes about Israeli construction in the West bank, areas Palestinians want as parts of their future state. “
It seems wrong to me on two counts. The peace talks collapsed because of disputes about Israeli construction? Surely that’s not quite the case, and as for ‘…..areas the Palestinians want as parts of their future state – I thought that idea was pretty well blown apart by the Palileaks, at least in the eyes of the BBC and most of the Western media.
I mean it’s been virtually accepted by both parties that certain settlements in the West Bank will stay, even when this wonderful Palestinian state magics itself into existence. That’s why the Guardian thought the supposedly unilateral Pali concessions were so craven, isn’t it?
In 2006 with the rise of the cedar revolution, pressure was been placed on Hezb-allah to disarm by the locals. Instead Hezb-allah launched an attack on Israel with the aim to get them to react and thus legitimize their standing. They got their wish.
Today in Gaza, people are protesting against Hamas, they in turn are clamping down on any dissidents but need a way in which to get the people back on their side. Launching 50 Mortars in the hope of a oppressive Israeli reaction is I suppose one way in which to get the people back on your side. Oh just for the info that Israel strike knocked out nearly all the power to the North of Gaza.
Just suprised that the bBC hasn’t worked out why yet?
They know why, they just happen to agree with the tactic.
Has anyone taken note of the photograph used to illustrate the report. If someone had a severe leg injury would this be the way he would be carried, with two or possibly three men handling the leg or are they displaying the ‘injured’ limb so the photographer could gain the best angle?
The bbc caribbean world service is due to end soon due to price cuts… Good Riddance it should be more than that!!! EVERY LEVEL of programming on the world service is hostile towards israel,their real name should be palestinian victimhood service. It is an insult to the intelligence of your viewers to carry a 15 minute program dedicated to your region and calling it the caribbean service,while the majority of your airtime is dedicated to pandering to the skeptic worldview,and highlighting the palestinians at every oppurtunity.Greetings from Trinidad and Tobago.
Not too long I was on a forum where we got into the Israelis and their response to rocket attacks.
In my response to all the anti Israel claptrap I asked them to imagaine sitting in your garden at a table with several people you consider reasonable, when a wasp comes up and stings you. At first you try to brush the wasp away, but he comes back and repeatedly stings you. In the end you get tired of this, grab a newspaper, roll it and belt the wasp, squashing it on the table. I asked them how they would feel if all the friends at the table watching it turned on them and called you all the names under the sun for squashing the poor little defenceless wasp.
Suffice it to say my point was made but I’m reminded of this when because it parallels the BBC coverage.
I have come to the conclusion that something very sinister is going on the BBC and nothing underscored it more than the Fogel murders coverage.
I see they have tried it with today’s attack but have been given limited options given the ferocity of the Hamas attack:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12795809
Although they have tried to negate the effect by turning 50 into the word “dozens” – which makes it sound like about 12 even with the “s”.
What it has done though is force the BBC to acknowledge the Israeli response to the attack a few days ago as killing Hamas members as opposed to Palestinians. Plus it has also made a mockery of their other narrative of Israel hitting defenceless civillians by pointing out in the latest report that there are frequent border skirmishes which would mean combatants are involved and not civillians. So the idea that their previous stories were impartial have just been proven to not be so.
Now that we’ve spotted it, expect the report to go through rewrites to get rid of this little problem.
Of course what the beeb aren’t asking is that why are Hamas suddenly emboldened to attack now? Why their sudden confidence and why are they suddenly using large amounts of ordnance? Would it be that events over the border in Egypt have meant that the supply chain has been freed up and that they can confidently use their stockpiles because they know more can get through. Something has certainly changed – there’s no hiding that.
Of course those pesky settlements suddenly don’t look like an obstacle to peace do they?
Well said, Andrew.
Hamas attacks aimed as a diversion from internal issues Khaled abu Toameh A view of the attacks the BBC has never considered
What if Arabs had recognized the State of Israel in 1948? ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM Turns accepted BBC logic on its head. Gist of article is that Palestinian failure to recognise Israel in 1948 was not just the cause of their problems to this day but the driver of much of the Arab world’s problems. Comments are amazingly positive.
it’s because of stuff like this that I point blank refuse to pay the bbc tv tax
I refuse point blank to financially support such rabid jew haters in any way
and I woulod encourage all friends of Israel and jews everywhere to do the same
If I lived in Britain I would also refuse to pay it.