I’ll be honest and state my own prejudice. I am pleased that Gilad Shalit is being freed today but I TOTALLY oppose the swap on the simple principle that rewarding terrorism usually ensures you get more of it. But it’s a big day for Israel and also for Hamastan.

I was surprised to hear the BBC refer to Shalit’s five year incarceration as “detention” this morning. Detention, eh? Even after all these years they just cannot bring themselves to admit that Shalit was kidnapped and then held hostage by Hamastan. Nor do they mention that two of Shalit’s colleagues were murdered by the same loathsome Hamas killers.

The BBC also seems a bit coy about the nature of those Palestinian “fighters” being released, almost as if their convictions for terrorism against Israel has no meaning. Similarly, the comment “Those released will return to armed struggle. It is a great national achievement.” by Khaled Mashal, Chairman, Hamas Political Bureau, Damascus, Syria, seems to have been missed by the world class BBC.

The BBC will record the jubilation amongst Palestinians as they celebrate their hatred of Israel and yet I suggest it will do everything possible to sanitise the blood lust on display, I will leave it to you to determine why.


Biased BBC reader Clifford provides his first contribution…

“The news reports onRadio 4 (the only BBC source I’ve used about this) since yesterday (11 October2011) evening have carried the story of the deal to release Gilad Shalit, anIsraeli soldier, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israel. All the reportsI have heard have used the word ‘captured’ to describe how Shalit came to beheld in Gaza by a Palestinian militant group, which is possibly not entirelyunder the control of Hamas, though for years Hamas has made no real effort tocontrol it.

To ‘capture’ means to seize someone who is meant to be in legal custody in thenational territory concerned. The normal word for taking someone, including asoldier, against his will across an internationally recognised border, as theborder prevailing between Israel and Gaza is, when he was on his own side ofthat border, as Shalit was at the time (2006), is ‘kidnapping’. However, thatdistinction is either too complicated and subtle for BBC journalists or, inview of the BBC’s record in such matters, the failure to observe thatdistinction is a calculated attempt to present the kidnapping of Shalit by aparamilitary Palestinian group as legitimate. This was either linguisticincompetence or (as I suspect) biased reporting — the BBC is capable of usingthe word ‘kidnapped’ when it wants, as in its reporting on Afghanistan.”