BBC bias comes through again
Here’s a classic example of how the BBC pretends to be objective but proves its bias, mostly by what it doesn’t bother to mention:
Israel has protested to Egypt over the opening of a border crossing to allow Muslim pilgrims from Gaza to make their way through Egypt to Saudi Arabia.
The Israelis say they are concerned that militants may leave Gaza and go for training in Iran. …
It is the first time Palestinians in Gaza have been allowed to cross directly into Egypt since June.
Now let’s look at what the BBC didn’t say:
* Israel is not only “concerned” that terrorists are crossing the border; they identified up to two dozen of them.
* While Egypt might not have allowed Gazans to leave before today, they did allow some 85 terrorists to re-enter Gaza in late September and 30 more in October. This is pretty relevant to the story rather than just saying that Israel is “concerned.”
* By Egypt allowing Rafah to be opened, they are breaking existing agreements with Israel.
* Israel and the PA had created a mechanism for pilgrims to go to Hajj through Israel; the BBC implies that the Hajj pilgrims had no choice but to go through Rafah for their religious duties.
* Egypt’s opening of Rafah legitimizes Hamas as the leader of Gaza Palestinians; they ignored the wishes of Abbas and the PA, let alone Israel.
* Rafah is only supposed to be opened by the PA in the presence of EU observers who have all but abdicated their responsibilities – and the EU Rafah observers include some from Britain.
All of these facts would have made the BBC piece more objective and accurate. By strange coincidence, they would also have made Israel’s “concerns” look much more valid and Egypt’s role much more insidious.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
About the Author: Elder of Ziyon may or may not be a real person. He (or she, or it) blogs at 
Fact: Israel’s concerns are not valid.
Fact: Agreements with Jews do not need to be upheld.
Why are you complaining about bias considering the above facts?
On a slightly different topic (sorry, I don’t know how to send a private comment on this site), have you already mentioned the following:
1. The English name ‘philistines’ misses the Hebrew root , which is invader. So we have a group of people whose only historical connotation is that they are invader and they are presented as what now?
2. Does it strike anyone that this group of Arabs, whose only common denominator (or international interest to that matter) is that it gives hard time to Jews in Israel, picks the name ‘philistines’ whose only contribution to humanity is that it gave hard time to Jews in the same place.
3. We know that philistines were not Arabs and they sure weren’t Muslim. So even if there is a genealogical conection, why is it so hard for them to change their identity this time? If their “new” identity ties with Arabs and Islam, how come the world cares so much about their newfound love to this place?
4. Is there really no way to explain to mainstream media that Judaism has some inherent differences? After all, Judaism, which provably existed more than twice than Christianity and 3 times longer than Islam was never used as an excuse to try and conquer the world. The former was adopted and modified by an empire as a means to strengthen its hold and the latter was defined as expansionist from day one.
Disclaimer: These are just few points, and obviously do not cover the full complexity of the situation.
Regarding the comments, the Jpost has an interesting story today. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847269205&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
A Palestinian who lives in another mansion. He says:
”Which is why, he explains, there is a statue of Hercules smack in the middle of the circular entrance hall – directly below the skylight at the tip of the dome ceiling: “It represents the spirit of the Palestinians, who were said to have come from Crete.””
There’s a new origin daily. But another Arafat associate who disproves the whole homeland and real people arguement.
and the BBC, I’m still betrayed by caring about Alan Johnston after the nonsense Stockholm syndrome interview he gave after his release.
The subject of BBC’s bias becomes especially laughable when they imagine themselves as being “liberal,” “left-leaning,” etc. What a joke! BBC has to be the British version of the Bush butt-kissing FoxNews with its utterly ludicrous “fair and balanced” slogan!