BBC's Paul Danahar - Clever AFTER Fact

[Teddy Bear]

You have probably heard the news that terrorists fired on several vehicles around the Eilat area today, killing 7 and wounding 35.

In relating the story, the BBC article updated at 15:25 carried an analysis by their journalist there, Paul Danahar. I was struck to read the section below which I've underlined, which he presents as if it's his deduction;

Analysis

Paul Danahar
BBC News, Jerusalem
Whether or not Hamas are to blame for this attack, Israel will hold them responsible and there is likely to be a tough military response in the coming hours.

Hamas run Gaza but there are a number of splinter groups that want to see a more violent response to Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

For Israel to come out so quickly after the attack and say they know it came from Gaza is surprising. If they had had good intelligence of their own about possible attacks in Eilat they would normally have issued a warning to people in the area.

That suggests that perhaps intelligence came from another country like Jordan, but came too late to tackle the gunmen before they carried out the attack

"...perhaps intelligence came from another country like Jordan..."

The reason it struck me was that an hour before his 'analysis' appeared on the page, Bicom had issued a report on the attack where they state quite clearly

Overnight, Israel received a Jordanian intelligence alert of an imminent terror attack. Following this, security forces in the south were put on high alert, which enabled the quick response of Special Forces to the attack.

Looking further I also found an article on Ynet also updated before the BBC article which shows
Ynet learned Thursday that shortly before Thursday's attacks, Jordan had passed a message to Israel suggesting their intelligence indicated that a terror cell was plotting such an attack.

The warning was in tow with defense establishment indications of a clear and present threats of terror in the southern sector.


What a brilliant analysis; read the news already reported and then present the outcome as if you deduced that would be the case.

My genuine analysis is that we can expect much more disingenuous reporting from the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

The subsequent story shown by the BBC on events here follows Israel retaliation in Gaza for the attack earlier in Eilat.

I'm pleased to say first that Danahar's 'analysis' has not been included in this article. But what prompts me to write now is the headline the BBC have chosen for this article
Israel pounds Gaza after deadly attacks near Eilat

Also that the earlier article linked to in the post above Deadly attacks hit Israeli vehicles near Egypt have been removed from the Mid-East main webpage. In fact the only other articles related to Israel on that page are
Israeli forces kill two in Gaza and
Israel backs Ariel settler homes

So if we just analyse the BBC view based on the headlines, and assuming you hadn't read the news you would just see
Israel pounds Gaza after deadly attacks near Eilat

What does that mean to you? As far as you would know it also implies that Israel was also responsible for deadly attacks near Eilat.

Compare it to how Reuters headlines this news
Gunmen kill 7 in Israel; Israel targets Gaza militants
I know which one makes it clearer, and which one confuses.

Even the original BBC headline for the story Deadly attacks hit Israeli vehicles near Egypt makes it look like somebody had it in for Israeli vehicles, where surely the story should be that terrorists killed 8 Israelis, as the figure now stands.

If you look at the other story covered by BBC from a few days ago the headline states Israeli forces kill two in Gaza leaving no doubt as to who did what and to who, although no mention in the headline of the Gazan rocket attacks on Israel that preceded this.

Seems the BBC can understand this very well when it is Israel performing the deed, but not when it's the other way round.

The constant drip, drip, drip of BBC bias.