Excellent catch send my way!
Here is a BBC news story (last paragraph), reporting the “Palestinian man” who was shot dead near the Gaza security fence: Here is the same story by Israel National News:
Note that the BBC’s sanitised & sketchy version makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the “Palestinian man” who was shot also happened to be carrying a Kalachnikov assault rifle. (Maybe he was just going shopping?) This vital fact, missing from the BBC’s account, would strongly indicate that the “Palestinian man” was a terrorist, rather than some hapless Palestinian civilian who accidentally wandered too close to the fence. This omission by the BBC (by neglect or design?) would have their readership conclude wrongly that again those evil Israelis killed another innocent Palestinian civilian…
It doesn’t end there. If you read the BBC report again, you have to get NINE PARAGRAPHS in before it is made clear that Israel that facilitated the fuel for Hamastan. Yes, I know the second para has the curious formulation “tankers of Israeli diesel” but why not just plainly state upfront that ISRAEL has sent fuel to keep the lights on in Gaza? Might that deflect from the endless narrative about those bad Jews and the poor Palestinians? Just for laughs, here’s the sort of video you will NEVER see on the BBC.
Comparing the two is just ridiculous as the BBC report only includes the info as a byline at the end of another item, which the INN version (a far-right mouthpiece of the Israeli settler movement) is an entire news article about the incident. It’s not surprising that the BBC article goes into less detail as it only has two paragraphs on the subject as opposed to the six on INN.
“If you read the BBC report again, you have to get NINE PARAGRAPHS in before it is made clear that Israel that facilitated the fuel for Hamastan.”
This is clearly not true, as the phrase “tankers of Israeli diesel” is used in the second paragraph.
Arnold have a look again at what DV wrote:
“It doesn’t end there. If you read the BBC report again, you have to get NINE PARAGRAPHS in before it is made clear that Israel that facilitated the fuel for Hamastan. “
Now even with my very limited grasp of English. I understand what ‘to facilitate’ means. Now I don’t know how much you know on the story at hand, but I know that Israel has offered to furnish Gaza with fuel. However Hamas would rather bite off their nose in which to spite their face which is why they use Egyptian fuel which has been smuggled in. But because it is smuggled in, despite being called ‘Egyptian fuel’ it has nothing to do with..Eygpt. Now go back to the second paragraph and the bit about Israeli diesel
If INN is “a far-right mouthpiece of the Israeli settler movement” how would you describe the BBC?
Indeed it’s not surprising that the BBC “goes into less detail” about the dead “Palestinian”, not surprising either that the detail it chose to omit was that the man was armed with a Kalashnikov.
Hello BioD, long time no see.
Good to see you back here too!
Thanks, and you. Have to say though that having moved to Canada some 4 1/2 years ago the Beeb is something that we rarely if ever come into contact with now, so I won’t be saying much here, but I do look in every day.
Not to worry, the BBC rarely if ever reports anything about Canada.
Yes, the Canadian government is too conservative, the communists have been outed and destroyed in the polls, the country is doing too well, no lefty fodder for the idiots there!
Arnold, an unclear phrase couched within a couple of weasel paragraphs? I think DV’s description was completely clear.
Yes, noticed this also…..’Hamas decided more than a year ago to use fuel smuggled from Egypt to run the power station, rather than pay for diesel from Israel, which is more expensive and subject to restrictions.’
So Israel not really responsible for not supplying fuel to the ‘open prison’ of Gaza then?
Curiously a few lines down the BBC give us a completely different (and the more usual) slant on Gaza….
‘Hamas has also blamed Israel’s continuing blockade of the territory, from which it withdrew in 2005 but nearly all whose land crossings it still controls. But Israeli officials have accused the Islamist group of manufacturing the crisis and of rejecting offers of supplies from Israel.’
“but nearly all whose land crossings it still controls”. In other words Israel is responsible for its borders. What is wrong or unusal about that? Britain is responsible for all borders (i.e. ports / airports) to Britain.
The only thing wrong about it is that the BBC decided to drop it in as a reason to blame Israel for something. This is the Palestinian narrative of course, therefore the one that the BBC unthinkingly repeats.
Hey, at least the BBC is finally making a gesture towards admitting that there’s also a border with Egypt. That “nearly all” is an improvement over past reporting.
It’s weird, though, that the BBC reports that Hamas was smuggling fuel until the Egyptians put a stop to it. Why did they have to smuggle anything in the first place, BBC? Is not an “Israeli/Egyptian Blockade”, then?
Give the BBC a break! To them, an AK carried by a Palestinian is simply a fashion accessory.
and is that a grenade in his pocket or is he just thinking about forty virgins. Duh, same thing.
Isn’t that Hamas chap on the above video a spit for George Gobaway.
Thanks for this David.
Yet we all know that it would not make the BBCs news UNLESS the “victim” was a card-carrying terrorist..this is the only kind of martyr that gets the BBC all excited that another intifada may yet erupt for the ten o clock spot.
No-one in their right mind…lefties and Guardian types…thinks for a minute that the BBC give a damn unless it curries favour with Galloways new chums( providing funding solutions for retired Kalashnikovs since 1982).
If I were a Palestinian with half a brain, I would resent the BBCs continual safari park narrative for my country…they are not pandas to be patronised, but people that know that taking arms against a sovereign nation just might cost you more than a subscription to the Guardian.
My understanding is that the Palestinian Authority (read Fatah) refused to pay for the fuel, not that Israel was restricting delivery to Gaza (read Hamas).