I’m focusing this post on an individual journalist who works for the BBC and was stationed in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense. I make no apologies. We’ve had plenty of dealing with him here.
Jon Donnison, you may remember, uncritically re-tweeted a picture of a dead child from Syria adding the word “Heartbreaking”. He applied zero journalistic rigour, uncritically passing on terrorist lies.
But what I’m going to highlight here is the debacle over the death of a baby. Not just any baby, the 10 month old son of a BBC employee in Gaza.
The terrorists running Gaza immediately blamed Israel and Jon Donnison of the BBC immediately believed them.
Very quickly, led by Elder of Zion who is half a world away, extreme doubt was cast on the story. It looked strongly like the baby and a woman were killed by a mis-firing Hamas rocket loosely aimed at Israeli civilians. When this theory was proposed it was given almost no attention by the mainstream and dismissed by Jon Donnison and his BBC friends.
Well it turns out the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), a body known for being highly critical of Israel at every opportunity, has all but declared the baby was killed by Hamas.
Elder of Zion caught this first, of course, and now Jon Donnison has been forced to write a story because AP picked it up. He has included every caveat and doubt he could possibly muster. BBC Watch has dissected his story carefully.
I do have one nervousness about all of this: we’re all exalting the OHCHR at the UN for finally coming out with something we agree with: don’t make the mistake of thinking this excuses this and other UN bodies from their institutionalised anti-Israel bias.
So by repeating, uncritically, the lies fed to him by known Hamas sympathisers in Gaza, Jon Donnison and the BBC apparatus he represents are either acting as shills to provide aid and comfort to terrorists and enemies of humanity, or he is the most naive fool of a reporter since Walter Duranty.
And finally, the BBC story contains one oddity. The man whose son was killed is named, according to the BBC, “Jehad Masharawi”. That’s a rather odd spelling.
His first name in Arabic is spelt exactly the same way as the word Jihad: a holy war against unbelievers. Why on earth is the BBC, alone, choosing to use a very rare English transliteration when Jihad is by far the more common one?
Could it be they don’t want to admit their employee in Gaza is named after the very expression of Islamic desire to conquer the world for Allah? I think you know the answer.