All but eclipsed by the battle between Sunak and Truss, the battle between the IDF and PIJ has reached the BBC headlines.
Using the “Israel said”/“claims” formulation, Yolande Knell sets it out thus:
“As well as air strikes on Gaza, where Israel said its targets included a PIJ tunnel network, there have been continued arrest raids in the occupied West Bank. Dozens of members of PIJ have been detained, according to Israel
Gaza's health ministry blamed "Israeli aggression" for the deaths of Palestinians, and for the more than 200 people wounded.
Israel accused PIJ militants of accidentally causing at least some of those deaths - claiming on Saturday that the group fired a stray rocket killing multiple children in Jabalia, in the Gaza Strip. The BBC has not been able to independently verify this claim.
One can only speculate as to why the BBC has “not been able to” verify this claim but Knell clearly signals which side of the fence she’s sitting on.
I heard Knell’s bulletin on the radio this morning. (1:38 ) She said, “Israel is blaming a misfired militant rocket for killing several people including children.”
Well, technically she’s right - Israel “is” blaming “a misfired militant rocket”, in other words, a PIJ “short-fall”, which is often exactly what these incidents turn out to be - and would it be paranoid to suggest that Knell’s phrasing had an air of “They would say that, wouldn’t they” in true Mandy Rice-Davies fashion?
If you don’t have time for acronyms, “PIJ” stands Palestinian Islamic Jihad. (“Palestinian Islamic Jihad” is an Iranian proxy)
On the other hand, Richard Kemp sets out the situation thus:
The media's inveterate Israel-opposers such as the BBC, CNN and New York Times have already printed deliberately slanted headlines painting Israel as the aggressor. Slavering for the last two days at the prospect of IDF-inflicted mass casualties, much of the media immediately and without any evidence eagerly pointed the finger at Israel over the tragic killing of seven people, including four children, in Jabalia camp in the Gaza Strip. They will undoubtedly try, but journalists and UN investigators will find it hard to refute the IDF's confirmation that they did not strike the location and have conclusive video and radar evidence that the deaths were caused by a misfired PIJ rocket, launched as so often from within the civilian population. This would certainly fit, as approximately a quarter of all terrorist rockets fired so far during this campaign have landed inside Gaza, not in Israel.
If you still don’t have time for acronyms, IDF stands for Israel Defence Forces - and the BBC is still an inveterate Israel-opposer.
For those without access to her substack Melanie Phillips provides the antidote to the BBC’s (and the MSM’s) ‘half-the-story’ reporting.
Even if you don’t know or aren’t interested in the politics, this will have a familiar ring to many readers:
"What was the immediate reaction of much of the media in Britain and elsewhere? Israel was blamed for defending itself and defamed by recycling Palestinian propaganda.
But of course. It happens every single time. You can write the script as soon as the first Israeli missile lands. You know there will be a total absence of context so that Israeli victim and Arab aggressor are reversed. You know that Palestinian lies will be believed and reported as truth. You know that Israel will be painted entirely falsely as the villain of the piece, as it is year in, year out. You know that untold numbers in the general public will buy into this demonisation."
After setting out the background to the current situation, Melanie Phillips provides an example of - wait for it -The Telegraph’s regurgitation of Palestinian propaganda!
- [The Telegraph] makes no mention of the Israelis murdered by PIJ and associates in March and April.
- No mention of Iran’s involvement.
- No mention of PIJ’s rockets falling short into Gaza.
- No mention of the Israeli video showing this happening.
Whatever has happened to the once-responsible Telegraph?
If even the Telegraph falls for this what are the chances that the BBC will fare better?