Seen this BBC headline?
“Jerusalem car rams into pedestrians, injuring Israeli police”
Now then, what exactly is “a Jerusalem car?” I THINK the BBC are using this tortuous construction to get around the fact that a Palestinian has driven a car into innocent Israeli pedestrians. The headline is a confection.
If the BBC had a shred of integrity left between the lot of them, then it has surely disintegrated now.
Why say “Palestinian”, when he is just another Arab. You are falling for the same propaganda line that you complain about with the BBC.
It’s changed now, to “Jerusalem: Israelis wounded in attack by Palestinian driver”.
‘It’s changed now, to “Jerusalem: Israelis wounded in attack by Palestinian driver”.’
I wonder if that is as a result of a wee word from one of those cheery chaps who never pay any attention to what is written here, and knows no one else at the BBC who does.
Or maybe from a swift complaint that will never get beyond being a little secret between the sender and CECUTT?
Or… at last a Beeboid with a smidgen of professional pride and integrity realised that trying to go with ‘Christine Does Jerusalem’ was not going to fly… drive… for long without crash and burn… er.. needing a swift update.
The wounds were not just due to the car, but the driver got out and may have started to stab the women, who were probably lying in a dazed state. This is not clear at the moment, but first reports indicated that.
This reminds me of the brutal slaying of Lee Rigby.
OT
The people arrested, allegedly for the murder of Becky Watts, were named, and even their photographs shown on TV. Would that have happened if the alleged perps were “Asians????”
Oh, no! I thought they only did things like this when ‘new information’ came to light!
‘Jerusalem car’ makes me think of Jerusalem artichoke.
It must have been one of them there self-driving cars that accidentally went haywire.
Please remember that the real victims of this accidental collision are muslim arabs who may now face increased islamophobia.
Also remember that the Jews provoked this by celebrating a religious festival in their own country. This behaviour could be offensive to some muslims.
Muslims will claim of a viscuous backlash, and an increase in Islamophobia.
This is terrible, as everyone knows that Imam Daoud al Cameroon has said many a time, that it has “Nothing to do with Islam”.
I made an exception to my rule and followed the link to the BBC web page. No surprises that they’ve been called out on their headline and had to amend it.
However if you scroll down to the map that the BBC have drawn up you’ll see that it’s straight out of the Jeremy Bowen book of lies and distortions. The BBC is at great pains to point out East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem and also provide something which they call the 1967 ceasefire line. A deliberate distortion.
In 1948 after the Arabs had swarmed over the Israeli border from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan, the Jews, who were supposed to roll over and die, actually fought back and gave the Arabs a bloody good hiding.
What the Bowens in the BBC call the 1967 ceasefire line is actually the 1948 ceasefire line. A nasty little inference by the BBC that everything was sweetness and light until those naughty Israelis, without provocation, aggressively invaded the peace loving Arabs.
Even then the BBC can’t get it right because what they refer to as the so called ‘West Bank’ was part of Transjordan until 1967 when Nasser made it quite clear that he was spoiling for a fight with Israel.
Following the Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt and Syria, Israel, through diplomatic channels, laid it out to Jordan that they had no quarrel with Jordan and begged the Jordanians to stay out of the fight, something the Jordanians chose to ignore much to their cost. The eventuality was that Jordan lost territory as a result of their attack on Israel.
I was in the UK armed forces at the time and remember it well. In 2001 I went to Jerusalem and visited the memorial at Ammunition Hill where Israeli paratroopers overran the Jordanians fortified positions. A location that the Arab Legion had seized from Israel in the 1948 war.
But all this will be lost on the no nothings at the BBC.
Sorry, in the last line it should read ‘know nothings’
I wonder, given the agonising in the BBC over the fact that Israel reclaimed territory that was rightfully theirs in the first place, will the BBC also agonise over the land grabs by the Soviet Union in 1945. The Polish border certainly moved westward by a few hundred miles, and a large section of Finland was grabbed.
I have always thought it rather odd that unlike many countries that have “lost” territory the Jordanians have never seemed to have agitated to get it back!
Not quite right..Jordon “occupied” Judea, Sumeria and East Jerusalem following the 1948 war. Only two nations recognized the annexation. One was Pakistan and the other was ……Britain!!
During the period 1948 until 1967 this area was Judenrein (“cleansed of Jews”) the Arabs on the West Bank were called
Jordanians..Palestinians didn’t appear until after the six day war!!
My belief is that Israel was not supposed to survive the 1948 war..Following its defeat, with many Jews being slaughtered, their would have been many crocodile tears shed.
Jerusalem car rams into pedestrians, injuring Israeli police
It’s an interesting headline. Makes me think of that ancient TV show, ‘Knight Rider.’ The car was called ‘Kim’ and could do anything, including picking up the driver on command.
Of course, the headline is potentially inaccurate – at least until it’s possible to ascertain that it was indeed a Jerusalem car. Could have been a Ramallah car or whatever.
Well, the point is that the BBC was desperately trying to avoid laying blame on the Palestinians, in case it turned out not to be just a road accident. The entire staff would have to go into red-faced apology mode at such a slight to the Palestinians.
(Naturally the hacks can insult the Israelis as much as they like.)
Taking a closer look at the headline, it seems the writer is deliberately trying to muddy the waters by implying that the injured police were not the prime target when any journalist who has been half awake for the last year or so knows that some of these attacks have deliberately targeted the police. And it’s important to note that these were female officers, and the Palestinian have no qualms about attacking Israeli women.
All that said, headline writing is quite a difficult art, especially when the story is still breaking, and the difficulty is increased when dealing with the complex Israeli-Arab conflict.
I’d go with the following one when the story is breaking:
Driver rams car into Jerusalem policewomen
(That’s because he could be an Israeli-Arab terrorist or a Palestinian terrorist or someone else, but it would be clear at that early stage that he had attacked women because the victims, rather than the attacker, would be the first to be identified as they were rushed to hospital.)
Let’s hope those brave women are not badly hurt and recover quickly. They are border police and they are right in the firing line against Arab terrorists.
I think that you mean Kit!
Lol, thanks for that!
Strange how so many attacks by Muslims are carried out on a Friday, I wonder why?
Could it be because of all the mercury poisoning they suffer, from extra fish consumption on Fridays?
Oh, wait: am I confusing religions? Or, as the BBC would often have it, ‘sects’?
If it had been an Israeli ramming muslims in Palestine, BBC would have got the headline right first time.
There would be hours and days of airtime given over to it.
..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964984/Fight-Jewish-scum-Shocking-anti-Semitism-streets-BRITAIN-Jewish-journalist-spat-abused-stalked-happens-Copenhagen.html
Is INBBC censored ‘report’ approved by Hamas?
An alternative report, inc video clip-
“Terror attack in Jerusalem injures seven, terrorist shot”
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/63367-150306-terror-attack-in-jerusalem-injures-five
complete lies at the end of the article.
“Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since the 1967 Middle East war and annexed it in a move not recognised internationally.”
No – Jerusalem residents were meant to vote on which country they wanted to live but the vote never happened as Jordan ( and others ) attacked Israel in 1948. Jordan then illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1950. This illegal annexation was overturned when Israel , defending itself from mobilising Arab armies, attacked Jordan in 1967. If Egyptian forces had not mobilised then Israel would not have attacked Jordan and would not have seized East Jerusalem.
secondly , the article concludes
“It ( Israel) regards the whole of Jerusalem as its “eternal and indivisible” capital, while the Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.”
NO – Hamas says that “The land of Palestine is an Islamic property for Muslim generations until the day of judgment. It is inadmissible to abandon it or a part of it, or to con¬cede it all or a part of it… Who has the right to decide on behalf of the Muslim generations from now until the day of judgement? ”
Hamas want all Israeli land including all of Jerusalem.
BBC – big on two of their favourite points: facts avoidance AND facts evasion, when it suits.
Expect weaponised cars and kitchen utensils (knives) to be used for terrorism in the UK. Unlike firearms and explosives the organisation, communication and cash flow is minimised making the attacks impossible to predict.