If you read the article by Yigal Carmon, which I quoted from and linked to here, you’ll have seen the appendix which contains a transcript of the last will and testament of the martyr Hanadi Jaradat, a female Palestinian suicide bomber who exploded herself in Haifa, (2003) in the name of Allah the Merciful and Compassionate, taking 21 people with her and injuring 51. Allah’s compassion and mercy is obviously quite selective.
If you’re perplexed by the BBC’s (and, to be fair, most of the UK media's ) refusal to connect the terrorism perpetrated in countries around the world and here in Britain with the terrorism that occurs in Israel, you’ll find this universal blind spot even more inexplicable when you realise that the modi operandi are identical. Talk about ‘copy cat’ incidents! (as Theresa May did recently)
When Hanadi Jaradat exploded herself, killing 21 and injuring 51, she was explicitly following the koran.
"I know that I shall not bring back Palestine. I fully know this. However, I know that this is my duty for Allah. Believing in the principles of my faith, I respond to the call. I now inform you that, Allah willing, I shall find what Allah has promised to me and to all those who take this path – gardens which Allah promised us, in which we will live forever, Allah willing.
Like all the other holy warriors of Islam, she thinks she’s on her way to paradise.
The recent spate of car-rammings and stabbings in Europe are not a new phenomenon. This list, from the Telegraph, doesn't mention multiple similar incidents that took place in Israel.
The idea was heavily promoted by Hamas and the P.A., while Mahmoud Abbas was assuring President Trump precisely the opposite.
So; the method’s the same. The motive’s the same. The outcome is the same.
So, why, BBC, can’t you call a terrorist a terrorist? If Brexit means Brexit and Enough is Enough, surely a Terrorist is a Terrorist is a Terrorist.
But no. Something deeper is going on. Something more ideological than logical. Something wholly illogical. A gut reaction - in the Tim Willcox tradition. The BBC’s response to a listener’s complaint that BBC Watch has featured here sets it out plainly for all to see in pure, unadulterated Willcox-ese
“Where there is an ongoing geopolitical conflict – as in the Middle East – to use the term “terror attack” or similar might be seen to be taking sides. There are those who might consider the actions of the Israeli government to be considered as terrorist acts.
In a situation where a country that is not involved in a direct physical combat comes under attack, it may be reasonable to construe that as a terrorist incident.
The use of such terminology is never an exact science but where a continuing conflict exists, it is reasonable that the BBC would not wish to appear to be taking sides.”
Ignore the illiteracy and the apparent unawareness of the 'war against ISIS', and imagine that particular argument applied to Westminster, Manchester or London Bridge. “There are those who might consider the actions of Western governments to be considered as terrorist acts.”
The BBC complaints department's letter writer evidently believes the Israelis ‘deserve it’, and by that logic - well, we may not exactly deserve terrorism, but our foreign policy is to blame and it’s retaliatory and ‘NTDWI’.
And even if one were to go along with that argument, as so many historically illiterate ignoramuses choose to do, it still hasn’t stopped the BBC taking sides. They don’t hesitate to use the term ‘terror’ when knife-wielding car-rammers slaughter and maim random pedestrians in Europe, but refuse to call it ‘terrorism’ when the wretched knife-wielding car-rammers kill Israeli Jews.
I seem to recall Jon Sopel (of all people) observing some years ago that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter :(ReplyDelete