Biased BBC Ignores Palestinian Who Slit A Jewish Baby’s Throat In Itamar
THE biased BBC plays it hand badly as it reports on the murder of five Israelis by a Palestinian. When the biased report first went up, the words “kills five Israelis” were couched in inverted commas. Why? The thing was a fact. Later it was amended and the inverted comas wrapped around the word “Palestinian”. “Kills” remained. Not murdered. Not massacred. “Kills.”
Here’s what the BBC reports – the story is illustrated by a photo of an armed Israeli soldier:
Officials have blamed Palestinians for the overnight attack, which left a couple, two children and a baby dead in the Itamar settlement, near Nablus.
Here’s what another report says:
Hamas handed out candy last night as residents took to the streets of the southern Gazan city of Rafah to celebrate the brutal terror attack in Itamar, where five members of a single Israeli family were murdered in their home, including three children, one of whom was three years old, and another, a baby girl, was just three months old. An 11-year old boy was killed as he lay reading in bed. The children and baby had their throats slit.
Kills? Or murders? Is the killer a murderer or a terrorist? Or is he what the BBC calls him – an “intruder”?
The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home…
Was it a botched burglary?
Arab-Israeli lawmaker Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) addresses the Knesset:
“A coward entered the (Fogel) home in the middle of the night. He looked at his victims while they were sleeping, and killed an entire family. A mother, father and their children. I wonder what that man was thinking when he looked at the baby girl’s face and stabbed her. The Palestinian nation is ashamed of such people…”
Who dunnit? Reports are that it was Fatah. That’s the group headed by Mahmous Abbas. The BBC says he is a “moderate!”. He wants a Jew-free Palestine. Oh, and:
…PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent a clear message of support for terror when he awarded $2000 to the family of a terrorist who attacked IDF soldiers. Last week, the PA’s official daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida announced a football tournament named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber, and three weeks ago PA TV, which is under the direct control of Abbas’s office, broadcast videos glorifying the terrorist Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar and murdered three Israeli students. Twice the PA named summer camps after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who in 1978 led the most deadly attack in Israel’s history in which 37 civilians were killed in a bus hijacking, both in 2008 and again this past summer.
And just before the attack Abbas’s Prime Minister’s Office reported on one of his advisers (via):
On March 9, 2011, Abu Mazen’s advisor Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel.
(Click the image above to read the caption: A Palestinian man distributes sweets in the streets of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah on March 12, 2011 to celebrate an attack which killed five Israeli settlers at the Itamar settlement near the West Bankcity of Nablus.)
Udi Fogel, 36, Ruth Fogel, 35, and their children Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and three-month-old Hadas are dead. Their relatives wanted these photos of the murders to be shown. You can see them in this gallery. They are very, very graphic. You will not see them on the biased BBC:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:49 am
hah – no danger of that Vimes…!!
October 30th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Just as long as you never become an anti-sceptic.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:23 am
oops!! you got me there Yampster – revealed in all my anti-semantic glory….!
I suppose I should now come clean about being an anti-pedant as well….
October 29th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Dairy!! I never had you down as being so anti semantic!
October 29th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Yampster, almost without exception it was the Jews who were defined as the British as ” Palestinians ” .They held British Palestinian passports & served in Palestinian units of the British Army in WW2 . The Arabs previously claimed to be Syrian & sided with the Nazis . It was the Grand mufti Haj al amin Husseini , head of the Arab Higher Committee ( the forerunner of the PLO ie Palestinian Authority ) who led the Arab revolt against the British in Palestine in the mid 1930′s who claimed that they were Syrians. The invention of the Palestinians as an Arab peoples only came into existence in the late 1950′s when Egypt appointed its Agent, Egyptian born Yasser Arafat to lead what it called the Palestine Liberation Army in the Gaza strip , then still occupied by the Egyptian Army since 1948
October 29th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
semantics, Mahatma – and, as usual, completely off the point…
October 29th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
semantics, Mahatma – and, as usual, completely off the point….
October 29th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Thank you for the history lesson. However, I am already well aware of the difference between Arabs and Palestinians. I was specifically referring to Palestinians, not Arabs in my post.
October 29th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Dairy & Yampster hello, refering to Jews Vs. Muslims or Israelis Vs. Palestinians is not quite accurate. its actually Israelis Vs. Arabs. From 1920 till may 1948 the Jews were the Palestinians of Mandatory Palestine & the Arabs by & large were Stateless Arabs , ie. the Jews had Citizenship unlike the vast majority of the Arabs. The British policy in fact reflected that of the Turkish Empire, in that the Arabs were a Subject People & not citizens.
Under the Turks both present day Israel & Jordan, were the Province of the Levant not Palestine, Lebanon & Syria were the province of Syria & Northern Iraq was the province of Babylon & the Central & Southern parts the province of Messopotamia
October 29th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Firstly Claire, you are a White Brit, so you claim, I am a White Englishman. Nowdays a ” Brit ” is a derogatory term for Ethnic persons born in the UK who are not English, Welsh, Scottish or Norten Irish by ethnic origin. Your knowledge of the worlds religions seems somewhat confused, Islam specificaly permits waging war in its name against all non-muslims, is called Jihad ( Holy War ) it includes using suicide against others whilst killing them, to become a Shayheed ( martyr ) assures the muslim entry into the muslim paradise.
Then there is the matter of God, it seems you are refering to God the creator, the Lord God of Israel, who is the God of Jews & of Christians, but not the god of the muslims, that is allah, the moon god of mecca, an entirely different deity also known by other names – Satan, the Devil , Old Nick & Beelzebub. So Claire I hope this clarifies matters a bit for you
October 29th, 2012 at 10:20 am
well said Yampster – this conflict is too often deliberately clouded by religious issues.
the references should either be “Jews vs Muslims” or “Israelis vs Palestinians” – to mix them up is a mistake; one concerns religious differences and the other is political conflict.
…and does the word “murder” apply in a war situation? The word is emotive – “kill” seems more military and clinical term.
it seems to me that any news organisation is going to be damned however they portray things – by anyone who doesn’t happen to agree with that viewpoint.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:01 am
You keep bringing religion into this by calling the Israelis and Palestinians Jews and Muslims. You need to take religion out of this and see it as a political struggle. Each side believes it is fighting for its survival, not for its god
October 28th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
It is what I already knew goes on- so called Jews seek revenge & kill quickly by lots of heavy artillery. The less modernized Muslims attempt just as much damage but don’t have the tools, so go for bloody impact. Neither side is truly of any religion they have just sought comfort in revenge. If they were truly of any religion at all, they would put down their arms & find a way to get what they wanted without killing anyone. I know this may sound like a holy than thou thing to say being a white Brit, as this country has made religion a blasphemy. But I do know that no religion in the world condones killing of human beings born or even unborn & killing is seen as the ultimate blasphemy to god. It’s a shame these so called religious people, seem to be putting their blood lust above their so called god.
October 28th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Just a footnote on the slaughter of the Fogel family by Palestinian terrorists & the BBC’s biased coverage against Israel. They were not the only UK TV station to deliberately mislead the public over the horrible crime. Sky news did not report the crime for days, until after bloggers, like me , on its website bombarded Dominic Waghorns ( their Mid East reporter at the time ) blog with protests. Only then & very reluctantly was the story given any mention but once again , in a copy of the BBC style, in connection with alleged ” illegal Israeli settlement activity on the west bank ” No suprise there, since at least 70% of Sky staff used to work for the BBC !
October 28th, 2012 at 4:25 am
Horrifying…and people still pity Palestinians. What have we become?
June 22nd, 2012 at 10:44 am
Cheryl has got it just right in her analysis that if IDF soldiers would have captured these barbarians responsible for the wholesale slaughter of the Fogel family (with the exception of the two remaining children who thank’s to ‘Hashem’ weren’t in the home at the time) whereby in revenge would have slit the throats, disembowled and hung them upside down from a tree, this would have made front headlines for the BBC, however because Jews were killed by Palestinian Arab terrorists this won’t make the headlines because ‘DEAD JEWS DON’T MAKE NEWS.’ Adding to this the BBC isn’t happy with this type of news as it doesn’t fit in nicely with their pro-Arab policy that Israel is the ‘Bully-Boy’ in that area.
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 am
Cheryl is right as rain. Inflammatory affect, they’re called human emotions. ‘Just the Facts’, really? Why don’t you publish the police report and be done with it you socialite robots. It’s called News, not Data. What really happened was not portrayed. Cover up? No. Lack of interest? Yes. The fact is it was a hate crime and Y.E.S. everyone should see these pictures. This was terrorist group, and they don’t want money or oil. Go get your BBC and CNN, that’s financial News. Nobody is arguing a celebration for the first female Suicide Bomber. The data was sufficient there? A few years from now your gonna say,”Oh, I guess they are dangerous..but they don’t offer enough for us to monger if we get involved.”
March 20th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
A sensationalist headline for a fairly standard reporting of the event. did what you planned though. made us read it. not sure it added anything to the BBC report.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Of the articles quoted, it seems to me the BBC report is the less biased, less inflamatory and more objective example of reporting, including the use of quote marks where appropriate when citing other sources.
That is not to say the BBC is immune from bias in reporting, as with all news sources, through the choice of language and images. For example, in Libya currently we have “rebels” and “Gaddaffi troops” instead of “insergents” and “Government soldiers”. (since ‘rebel’ had positive connotations which many will relate to, this choice is the most blatant and widely demonstrated bias across most news media)
This article reads to me as betraying the authors own bias/predudice through seeing bias that isn’t there when their own PoV is not echoed in the reporting.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
A thoroughly disgusting and reprehensible act.
.
I don’t quite get Anoraks Ire over this. At the time I first read the article on the BBC, it had very recently happened. As far as I could tell, no one ‘knew’ who the perpetrator was or what their ethnicity was. It was ‘assumed’ by all the quoted Israeli sources that a Palestinian must have done it.
.
” The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home…
.
Was it a botched burglary?”
.
You talk about biased BBC Anorak, so what’s with that shít I just quoted from the article? You deliberately left out something from the BBC article, did you not? Was it a test to see if we are awake or to see if we are just gullible? Lets have the full quote:
.
“The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported.”
.
Sounds to me like the BBC were just quoting another biased source. CNN used the word ‘intruder also: “The CNN report said that the Israeli military was searching for an intruder” Is CNN biased too?
.
Then, in an article accusing the BBC of bias, Anorak tries to spin things to make it seem Abbas approves of the vile incident and possibly sponsored it, by referencing unsourced “reports” that it was Fatah behind it. I wonder what Abbas had to say about the incident?
.
“P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas called the killings “despicable,” “inhuman and immoral” in an interview Monday morning on Israel Radio. “A human being is not capable of something like that,” he said in Arabic, translated into Hebrew by the inteviewer. Abbas also said that the P.A. would work to find the killer or killers responsible and that he has agreed a request by Israel to launch a joint investigation. Abbas also took issue during the interview with Netanyahu’s accusation that the Palestinian Authority incites against Israel in its mosques and schools and offered to set up an Israeli-Palestinian-American committee to look in to the allegations.” http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/13/3086373/assailant-kills-parents-3-children-in-settlement
.
Maybe he didn’t mean a word of it, but at least he said it.
.
Cheryl: The murdered family made no such request. The Yesha settler council asked the relatives if they could use the images for propaganda purposes and the relatives apparently agreed.
.
“The Yesha Council blurred the victims’ faces and got relatives’ permission before releasing the photographs. Major international news agencies rejected the photos, however, because they do not accept blurred images.
.
“We realize that such a shocking murder of children needs to be clear and unequivocal on the visual level as well,” said Yesha Council spokesman Roni Arazi. “They were released with the knowledge that this is something unusual, but also with the knowledge that this should have happened a long time ago. We’re in the midst of war, and in a war, you use the tools of war.”
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settlers-release-bloody-images-taken-moments-after-itamar-attack-1.349022
Moderator- Just one link per post please, otherwise it gets spammed
March 16th, 2011 at 8:32 am
The BBC is disproportionally biased towards covering stories on Israel and is not averse to using inflammatory language to describe the way Israel deals with the “plight” of the “poor” “palestinians”….I’m unhappy with that….and it sounds to me that Anorak is too..
Lets hope with the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, including the “Palestinians”, in the middle east who are now showing their true colours in dealing with their own peoples …the BBC and other mouthpieces of oil money will now concentrate their efforts on reporting about the real troubles and leave “little” Israel in peace ..for a while…or at least report fairly on the middle-east….but I doubt it.
More likely to see the Windsors bowing down to Arab Royalty..politicians sucking up to Ghaddaffi…. a world cup,,,or grand prix on the BBC…
March 15th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
There are many possible reasons for the headline choices made here, so your criticisms of them tend to make your site seem biased, rather than the BBC. The inverted commas are a standard way of indicating you are covering reports or claims which haven’t been verified. That seems very sensible in a developing story.
Then there’s killed. It’s generally accepted as a neutral term; in UK law, murder is a specific charge, which involves a sound mind etc.
So the BBC seems to have chosen the most objective language possible to cover an emotive subject… And you’re unhappy with that?
March 15th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I never look at pictures like these because I choose not to.
If the families of victims want them to be shown to the world then those who want to see will view them and those like me won’t.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Should the pictures of victims never be shown?
March 15th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I agree with Vimes – I have chosen not to view the pictures either, not out of some sense of wanting such “news” or “evidence” or whatever you want to call it banned, but out of personal choice. There is enough suffering in the world without outsiders poring over the results of such vicious attacks. The issues remain the same as they were before this happened – exposing the horrible demise of these people does nothing to solve the conflict, quite the contrary, it can only have an inflammatory effect.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
With respect Cheryl, that’s not their decision to make – what possible motivation could they have to request that and, equally, why would anyone want to view them? Surely, the act is terrible enough, without turning it into horror-porn for the masses – unless, of course, the motivation is to crank the hate factor up another notch, leading to reprisals and more indiscriminate murder, in which case all the more reason not to do so.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Vimes, the murdered family’s relatives requested the pictures be shown of their murdered loved ones. Why shouldn’t the public be aware of and view the innocent victims slaughtered out of hatred?
As for Fox News here in the US, if I had my way they’d be banned from reporting their biased news on public television.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:40 am
How can you have news, before it happens? News is reporting on current events, surely? There may be speculation and discussion on potential scenarios, but hardly anyone can claim to have foreseen these uprisings, which is what made them so newsworthy – you may disapprove of the presentation, and I would agree that much of the BBC’s coverage is agenda-driven, but I would also argue that it represents the corporation’s fundamental bias towards the establishment and the status quo. Having seen the alternative in the US, I’d still claim that it’s the best at what it does – Fox News UK, anyone?
March 15th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Vimes – let’s see what the story is the next time Israel leads the BBC’s news agenda. And I do agree that Libya and Japan are bigger stories. But Israel is the BBC’s default news story. Where was the news on Tunisia, Egypt and Libyan uprisings before they happened?
March 15th, 2011 at 8:48 am
If my auntie had balls, she’d be my uncle – given the small matters of a revolution/civil war in Libya and an earthquake/tsunami in Japan, is it really that surprising that the BBC might not consider this to be the leading story in either its World, or even Middle Eastern coverage? I’ll pass on your generous offer to view the pictures – you may recall that, recently, three children were murdered by their mother in Edinburgh. I didn’t want to see pictures of those victims, either, and am glad that the BBC didn’t show them – each to their own, however. I’m sure that, if you look hard enough, you can satisfy your curiosity – just beware of the rather bizarre strain of tabloid media Stockholm syndrome, which increasingly seems to be infecting this valuable website.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:22 am
If this was the other way around it would lead the BBC’s news agenda