Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 25, 2006 19:18:53 GMT
Thought it might be interesting to examine a typical 'factual' article by the BBC to see how their bias operates.
Consider this headline: Israel rejects ceasefire proposal
From this it appears that the [glow=red,2,300]'peaceloving'[/glow] Palestinians have offered a ceasefire, which would normally be thought of as a welcome move, but that [glow=red,2,300]'the aggressive'[/glow] Israel has rejected it.
Let's see why, and what the BBC has to say about it.
Israel rejects ceasefire proposal
So on the face of it is Hamas and the Palestinians that want peace, but Israel prefers conflict.
Fact is the kind of ceasefire that the Palestinians want is known as a 'Hudna'. It is not seeking peace, but a tactical withdrawal from conflict that will enable it to re-arm, reorganise, and repeat their attacks at a later time. What the Palestinians want is for Israel to allow them to do this, so it's hardly surprising that Israel doesn't want them to.
Such a cease-fire is yet another ticking bomb, which will not end the violence. It just postpones the atrocities for another time.
Israel has often previously 'given in' to the Palestinians on the issue of 'ceasefire' knowing full well what they were really doing, but to let the world be aware of it, and each time they were burnt. The world of the BBC prefers not to recognize this and goes along with the western understanding of ceasefire.
Where on earth does the BBC get "refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations" from? Who is this source? Israel tried many times to get deals with Arafat, and later Abbas, knowing full well these were terrorists and head of a terrorist and militant organisation. So that statement is clearly untrue.
Here the BBC have reminded us that Israel pulled out of Gaza completely last year, and the only reason for Israeli forces to return according to the BBC, is because the Palestinians abducted one soldier. No mention in this section of the daily firing of rockets from Gaza into surrounding Israeli towns that preceded this abduction. 'Straw' and 'camels back' come to mind, but you wouldn't know it from the BBC article.
"How unfair of the Israelis", is what the preceding paragraph tries to imply. The fact that the Palestinian militants use civilians as shields doesn't enter into their explanation, which accounts for these casualties, although tgiven the number of miltants hit by Israel, it explains why the Palestinians wish to have a 'ceasefire' HUDNA
Remember the last part of this story when an innocent aged woman might be killed in the future, and the subsequent uproar by the media that will ensue, forgetting how incidents like these precede to make the Israeli soldier quite understandably 'nervous'.
Consider this headline: Israel rejects ceasefire proposal
From this it appears that the [glow=red,2,300]'peaceloving'[/glow] Palestinians have offered a ceasefire, which would normally be thought of as a welcome move, but that [glow=red,2,300]'the aggressive'[/glow] Israel has rejected it.
Let's see why, and what the BBC has to say about it.
Israel rejects ceasefire proposal
Israel has dismissed an offer by Palestinian militant groups to stop firing rockets into Israel, if Israel ends attacks on Palestinians.
An Israeli government spokeswoman, Miri Eisen, said the militants had offered only a partial ceasefire.
She said the offer of an end to firing rockets from Gaza showed a lack of real commitment to peace.
The conditional Palestinian offer was made after a meeting on Thursday of all armed factions, including Hamas.
The militant group Hamas leads the Palestinian Authority.
Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations.
So on the face of it is Hamas and the Palestinians that want peace, but Israel prefers conflict.
Fact is the kind of ceasefire that the Palestinians want is known as a 'Hudna'. It is not seeking peace, but a tactical withdrawal from conflict that will enable it to re-arm, reorganise, and repeat their attacks at a later time. What the Palestinians want is for Israel to allow them to do this, so it's hardly surprising that Israel doesn't want them to.
Such a cease-fire is yet another ticking bomb, which will not end the violence. It just postpones the atrocities for another time.
Israel has often previously 'given in' to the Palestinians on the issue of 'ceasefire' knowing full well what they were really doing, but to let the world be aware of it, and each time they were burnt. The world of the BBC prefers not to recognize this and goes along with the western understanding of ceasefire.
Where on earth does the BBC get "refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations" from? Who is this source? Israel tried many times to get deals with Arafat, and later Abbas, knowing full well these were terrorists and head of a terrorist and militant organisation. So that statement is clearly untrue.
Rocket fire
Palestinian Qassam rockets are fired into Israel on a daily basis. They have killed two Israelis in the past 10 days.
A 57-year-old Palestinian woman killed herself in an attack on Israeli forces
Israel has launched frequent ground offensives into Gaza Strip to try to stop the militants who launch the rockets. It has also shelled targets in Gaza heavily.
Israel evacuated its settlements and military bases in Gaza last year, but the military renewed ground operations after militants captured an Israeli soldier in a border raid in June.
Here the BBC have reminded us that Israel pulled out of Gaza completely last year, and the only reason for Israeli forces to return according to the BBC, is because the Palestinians abducted one soldier. No mention in this section of the daily firing of rockets from Gaza into surrounding Israeli towns that preceded this abduction. 'Straw' and 'camels back' come to mind, but you wouldn't know it from the BBC article.
Since June, Israeli troops have killed more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza, roughly half of them civilians. Three Israeli soldiers have died in operations and two civilians were killed by rocket fire.
"How unfair of the Israelis", is what the preceding paragraph tries to imply. The fact that the Palestinian militants use civilians as shields doesn't enter into their explanation, which accounts for these casualties, although tgiven the number of miltants hit by Israel, it explains why the Palestinians wish to have a '
Continuing offensive
On Thursday, at least five Palestinians were killed by Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip as troops pressed on with operations against armed groups.
Two militants were killed in an air strike in Beit Lahiya and two others died in armed clashes with troops. Another man was also shot dead.
The deaths came as a 57-year-old female suicide bomber attacked Israeli troops in Jabaliya. Three Israeli troops were slightly wounded in the blast.
The Israeli army says that a group of soldiers became suspicious of an approaching woman.
They threw a stun grenade at her but she managed to detonate explosives that she was carrying.
Governing Palestinian party Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack by the bomber and named her as Fatma Najar, a mother and grandmother.
Remember the last part of this story when an innocent aged woman might be killed in the future, and the subsequent uproar by the media that will ensue, forgetting how incidents like these precede to make the Israeli soldier quite understandably 'nervous'.
