BBC report on the rocket that wasn’t

On May 26th 2013 the BBC published an article on the Middle East page of its BBC News website under the title “‘Rocket fired’ from southern Lebanon towards Israel” and quoting Lebanese “media and security sources”. 

metulla rocket art

The BBC article was published at 22:26 GMT – about half an hour after initial reports of an explosion having been heard in the vicinity of Metulla came to light shortly before midnight. Later in the day the IDF confirmed that no missile had fallen in Israeli territory, but the BBC report has not been updated to reflect that fact. 

Former BBC Arabic reporter Ali Hashem – now with the Hizballah-linked Al Mayadeen network – tweeted the following at 23:48 local time on May 26th

tweets metulla hashem

Metulla – founded in 1896 – is of course not a “settlement”. But of course to Hizballah supporters such as this former BBC employee, it too is illegitimate – as we see from a translation of Hashem’s second Tweet.

translation hashem tweet 2

All too often the BBC has failed to report on missile fire directed at Israeli civilians in the region surrounding the Gaza Strip or, more recently, in the Golan Heights. Curiously, in this case it appears to have somewhat jumped the gun. 

SONY DSC

Metulla, with south Lebanon in the background

BBC Watch helps secure media correction in Canada

Honest Reporting Canada informs us that a BBC Watch article of April 30th aided the securing of an on-air correction to a report by CBC which – in a similar manner to the BBC report addressed in that item – mistakenly gave impression was given that terror attacks on Israelis in Judea & Samaria are a rare event. מצפה יריחו‎‎. Photo: binyamin.org.il

We are, of course, glad to have been of help. 

Similarly, two incidents on the evening of Thursday, May 2nd went unreported by the BBC. Two mortars were fired from the Gaza Strip at communities in the Eshkol Regional Council and in a separate event shots were fired at an Israeli and a tourist hiking in the area between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, near Mitzpe Yericho. 

The day before – May 1st – was not particularly peaceful either.

tweet may 1 1

tweet may 1 2

And that’s just the first two days of May. 

Dumbing down terror for BBC audiences

On April 30th and May 1st 2013 the homepage of the Middle East section of the BBC News website featured the headline “Strike on Gaza kills Palestinian”. 

strike on gaza kills palestinian

That vaguely titled link leads to an article entitled “Gaza city: Israeli air strike kills Palestinian militant” which has been amended several times since its original publication. 

Seeing as the BBC invests a great deal of effort in the branding of Palestinian terror organisations of all stripes as ‘militants’ (with the aim of avoiding “value judgements“), readers might naturally assume that Haytham al Mishal belonged to any one of the plethora of well-known terror organisations operating in the Gaza Strip such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fatah or the PFLP. In fact, the article opens by providing readers with more information about his transport arrangements than his terror affiliations.

“A Palestinian militant has been killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza City.

Haytham al-Mishal, 29, was hit while riding a motorcycle. At least one other person was reportedly also injured.”

Haytham al Mishal

Only in the third paragraph do we find a foggy reference to some unspecified “militant group” or other:

“A militant group which fired rockets at the southern Israeli city of Eilat two weeks ago said Mishal had been one of its members.”

That still does not adequately explain events to the reader and only in the ninth paragraph does any light begin to be cast upon the real background to the story.

“The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said Mishal was a weapons expert who had made rockets and bombs for different militant groups.

It said Mishal had been involved in “extensive terror activity against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers”, including the attack on Eilat, a popular tourist destination on Israel’s southern Red Sea coast.

In that incident, two rockets fired from the Egyptian Sinai by Gaza-based militants landed in open areas, without causing damage or injury.”

Finally, in the twelfth paragraph, readers are informed: 

“The Mujahedeen Shura Council said Misshal had been one of its members.”

Does the BBC make any effort to explain to its audiences who or what the Mujahedeen Shura Council (also known as the Mujahideen Shura Council in the environs of Jerusalem and the Majilis Shura al Mujahideen) actually are? Not at all: as far as the BBC is concerned, this is just another group for readers to file away under “Palestinian militants”.

The use of the word “militants” is of course very misleading as, by definition, militance may or may not include physical violence such as terrorism. Thus, BBC audiences actually have no idea whether the people so described by the BBC are placard-waving political activists or missile-firing terrorists. As often stated here in the past, the fact that the BBC elects to use that word in order to avoid making “value judgements” is in fact a value judgement in itself. 

So what exactly is the Mujahedeen Shura Council (MSC)? Apparently established in 2011, the organisation is actually a coalition of Salafist Jihadist groups based in the Gaza Strip, although some of its operatives appear to be foreigners. The group has on several occasions engaged in missile fire from the Gaza Strip directed at Israeli civilians in nearby communities as well as in attacks upon Israeli soldiers and it was responsible for the terror attack of June 18th 2012 in which 35 year-old Saeed Fashafshe from Haifa was killed. Following that terror attack, the group stated that it was ” ‘a gift to our brothers in Qaedat al Jihad and Sheikh Zawahiri’ and a retaliation for the death of Osama bin Laden.” After the launch of missiles in August 2012, the MSC put out an ‘explanatory’ statement saying, inter alia: 

“Jihad for the sake of Allah against the criminal Jews is an obligation that we draw closer to Allah whenever we find a way to that, in any place, by what Allah facilitates to us from the reasons of power and repelling. […] 

 Let the Jews know that the holy sites, sanctities and blood have men who don’t sleep over oppression, and aren’t pleased by humiliation, and spend their blood and what they own cheaply for that, and what is coming is worst and more bitter by the willing of Allah the Irresistible Avenger.”

Most recently, as stated in the BBC article, on April 17th the MSC launched missile attacks on Eilat from the Sinai. 

The BBC article also makes no attempt to provide readers with the vital background necessary to understand this incident in context. It does not explain that the MSC is just one of several Jihadist groups operating in the Sinai and bringing about deterioration in the stability of that area which is of great concern not only to Israel, but to Egypt in particular. Neither does the report make any mention of the ensuing tensions between Egypt and Hamas which stem from the latter’s ‘blind eye’ policy towards Salafist Jihadists moving back and forth unhindered from the Gaza Strip to Sinai as and when they please and their firing of missiles from territory controlled by Hamas. 

For the BBC, this is a simple story of a “Palestinian militant” on a motorbike killed by an Israeli air strike. It apparently does not believe that its audiences need to know anything more than that.

So much for the BBC stated mission to “build a global understanding of international issues” and to “enhance UK audiences’ awareness and understanding of international issues”.

Missiles fired at Southern Israel communities – BBC silent

In order to be completely fair, we waited a full 24 hours before writing up this story.

On Saturday night (April 27th), as children all over Israel went out to light their bonfires in celebration of the Lag B’Omer holiday, a missile fired from the Gaza Strip hit the Sdot Negev region.

“There were no reports of injuries or damage in the rocket attack Saturday night that disrupted celebrations in honor of the Jewish holiday of Lag B’Omer.

Children who were outside celebrating the holiday with bonfires were instructed by police to return to their homes.”

Later, the Israeli Air Force responded by striking two terror sites in the southern Gaza Strip.

Twenty-four hours later, the incident had received no coverage whatsoever on the BBC News website.

ME HP Sun evg

As readers will no doubt be aware, this is far from the first incident of missile fire at Israeli civilian communities to be ignored by the BBC since the end of Operation Pillar of Cloud – see here and here. April has been the worst month so far, with 14 attacks originating from the Gaza Strip to date (ten missiles and four mortars), not including the two Grad missiles fired at Eilat from Sinai on April 17th.

Not only is it difficult to imagine the BBC ignoring the repeated deliberate targeting of civilian communities by terrorist organisations elsewhere, but the ability of BBC audiences to understand the dynamics at work in the Middle East is hampered by such patchy reporting. 

Update: Later reports suggest that two missiles were fired on Saturday night rather than one, so the numbers above may not be accurate. 

Just a day later, on the night of Sunday April 28th, another missile fired from the Gaza Strip hit the Eshkol regional council area. No injuries have been reported.

 

More missile attacks on Israel ignored by BBC

The BBC News website’s Middle East page of April 21st included a very reasonable report on the Grad missile attacks on Eilat on April 17th 2013 which originated from Sinai. 

Rocket Eilat HP 21 4

Unfortunately however, by April 21st there had been two further incidents of missile fire on Israeli communities – both from the Gaza Strip – which did not receive any coverage from the BBC.

Late in the evening on April 18th 2013, two missiles hit the Eshkol Regional Council area. No injuries were reported. Shortly after midnight on April 21st, another missile fired from the Gaza Strip hit the same region. 

These are of course not the only instances of missile fire from the Gaza Strip since the end of Operation ‘Pillar of Cloud’ which the BBC has failed to report. In fact it increasingly looks as though such attacks are only considered ‘newsworthy’ when they are followed by an Israeli response. Whether by accident or intent, the practice of ignoring the war crime of military-grade missiles being deliberately fired at civilian communities obviously fails to keep BBC audiences adequately informed and distorts audience views of events upon which the BBC does decide to report. 

Revisiting the BBC’s Iron Dome story

A few weeks ago we addressed on these pages the subject of an article by the BBC’s Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus concerning claims regarding the success rate of the Iron Dome made by MIT professor Ted Postol.  

Mr Marcus responded in the comments:

“I really do think this is very poor “journalism” on your part. Mr Silverstein has nothing to do with our story and presumably you include his name to excite/incite your readers. The report on Ted Postol’s work (with two other scientists cited) first ran in Ha’aretz. I saw this but waited until I had a chance to speak to Postol – who despite your rather nasty insinuations, is a highly respected scientist with a distinguished track record in this field. You will remember that he correctly questioned the performance of the initial Patriot system in the war to liberate Kuwait. His concerns about Iron Dome certainly merits an airing rather than criticism. The BBC did eventually get a response from the Israeli MoD and I updated my piece to carry this. The original story carried a blander response from them.
I fear you see plots to do down Israel where they don’t exist. I am told by technical experts that there probably are ways Israel could provide data to prove the success of its system – if indeed it was succesful – without damaging national security. Let the IDF/MoD back up their claims. It is costing rather a lot of US money, which is no problem if it works, but may be a problem if it does not.
Jonathan Marcus
BBC “

A recent article from the Jerusalem Post – written by the former Director of the Israel Missile Defence Organisation, Mr Uzi Rubin – may be of interest to readers. 

“Postol’s “analysis” of these public video clips and his underestimation of the Iron Dome’s effectiveness are meaningless and his conclusions are completely baseless.

In those clips, only the Iron Dome’s trail of smoke can be seen. The Grad rocket that it is about to intercept, however, cannot be seen.

To assess whether the Iron Dome’s missile successfully hit the Grad rocket, the trajectories of both must be observed, which is possible only through a full sky image obtained from sophisticated security sensors in which both projectiles can be observed simultaneously. This information is never released to the public since it would reveal the IDF’s discovery and tracking capabilities.”

Read the rest here

BBC resumes ‘last-first’ reporting from Gaza area – and then changes tack

Here is a headline appearing on the BBC News website’s Middle East page on the morning of April 3rd:

“Israel launches air strike on Gaza”

“Israel carries out an air strike on the Gaza Strip for the first time since an eight-day war ended in a truce last November.”

Headline ME page 3 4

The link led (see below) to an article headlined “Israel launches first air strike on Gaza since truce” – which this screenshot shows in full.

3 4 rockets Gaza

As we see, the BBC was back to its old habit of ‘last-first’ reporting, with the headlines on the Middle East home page and the article itself highlighting the last in a sequence of events and creating an impression of Israel as the initiator of violence and violator of the ceasefire. Only in the third paragraph of this seven paragraph article were readers given some sort of clue that there might have been prior incidents (not reported by the BBC at the time, incidentally) which prompted the event described in the headline.

So let’s have a look at how this article could have been written. A more accurate headline would have been phrased as follows:

Third case of rocket fire from Gaza Strip since November truce brings first Israeli response.

A more accurate strap-line would have read:

Terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip have launched missiles at Israeli civilian targets for the third time since an eight-day war ended in a truce last November.

A more logical sequence to the body of the article would have begun by explaining to readers what happened first. For example:

Sderot kindergarden hit by a Qassam rocket fired by Gaza militants during US President Barack Obama's visiting to Israel. Photo taken April 02, 2013 (photo credit: Flash90)

Qassam rocket hit on nursery school in Sderot, discovered on April 2nd. Photo credit Flash90

On Tuesday afternoon a projectile fired from the Gaza Strip hit the Eshkol Regional Council. Two additional mortars fired around the same time fell short, landing in the Gaza Strip. Earlier the same day, a rocket was discovered in a nursery school in Sderot when it reopened after the Pessah holiday. It is thought that the rocket was one of several fired by terrorist organisations from the Gaza Strip on March 21st during President Obama’s visit to Israel. On February 26th a missile fired at the town of Ashkelon marked the first violation by rocket fire of the truce which ended the eight days of fighting between terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip and Israel in November 2012. 

Late on Tuesday night the Israeli air-force responded to the rocket fire earlier in the day by targeting two terror sites in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. This was Israel’s first response to renewed rocket fire since November 2012. The IDF Spokesperson said:

“Hamas understands that there are new rules, and the past five months have been the quietest since the [2005] disengagement. The goal is to maintain the quiet in southern Israel.”

A more accurate introduction to the Hamas statement included in the BBC report would have read:

Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization which rules the Gaza Strip, says aircraft bombed fields near the border and no-one was injured.

Rather than implying that the missiles were fired into what readers will naturally understand to be empty “desert”, the report should have made it clear for accuracy’s sake that the intention was to target Israeli civilians, for example by writing: 

The Israeli newspaper ‘Ha’aretz’ said the air strike was near the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya and came after terrorists in the Gaza Strip fired mortar shells at Israeli civilian communities in the Western Negev. 

The BBC’s anodyne description of Hamas’ rise to power is also inaccurate, as its generalised reference to “building materials”. A more accurate phrasing could have read:

Since the Egyptian-mediated truce came into effect in November 2012, Israel has eased restrictions on the entry of dual-use building materials, which can be used for terror purposes, into the Gaza Strip. The restrictions were imposed after Hamas seized power there in a violent coup against the internationally recognised representatives of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, in 2007.

The article should also have been updated to include later events:

On Wednesday morning, just as children were making their way to school, two additional Qassam rockets were fired at the area of Sderot and Sha’ar HaNegev from the Gaza Strip.  

It really is not difficult to present the news in an accurate and logical sequence which is conducive to audience understanding of events. The BBC is of course not the only media organisation to contort stories by using the ‘last-first’ method of reporting, but that does not make the practice any more acceptable. 

However, it seems that perhaps at some juncture someone at the BBC realised that too.  Some thirteen hours after the original publication of the above report its headline and content were completely changed

News Sniffer

The revised headline – at the same URL- reads ”Exchange of fire between Gaza and Israel”. 

Version 2 article 3 4

The headline on the Middle East page of the BBC News website was also amended. 

Version 2 ME HP 3 4

Whilst there are still important omissions in the new article (for example the statement concerning the UN claim that four Palestinians have been killed since the end of hostilities in November does not make clear the fact that they were engaged in trying to breach the border fence), its tone is overall considerably more neutral and balanced than that of the original version of the story and that improvement is to be commended. 

Update on the BBC’s Omar Masharawi story

A member of the public has informed BBC Watch that he heard a correction made on BBC radio on March 14th 2013 regarding the BBC’s claim that an Israeli missile was responsible for the death of Omar Masharawi. He noted that:

“…the correction was very straightforwardly made, first indicating that the former blame placed on Israel was wrong, thereafter telling what had actually happened..”

Unfortunately, our correspondent could not specify the station or the programme in which he heard the announcement and so BBC Watch has been unable to trace it. 

Such an announcement would of course be a very welcome and appropriate development, but it can be of little value as long as Jon Donnison’s original report blaming Israel for the infant’s death remains ensconced on the BBC website – even taking into account the decidedly mealy-mouthed announcement now added as a footnote. 

Update Donnison Masharawi article

Magazine HP 17 3

BBC appoints Jon Donnison as ‘Shin Gimmel’ of Masharawi story

In Hebrew, the expression ‘the Shin Gimmel syndrome’ is used to describe a situation in which the public blame for an operational failure is placed upon the lowest ranking soldier – the one guarding the front gate – so that high-ranking officers can avoid having to take the responsibility and its consequences. Needless to say, the use of the ‘Shin Gimmel’ as a scapegoat is a symptom of a serious failure of leadership. 

That is precisely what the BBC has done in its belated attempt to stave off criticism of its handling of the Omar Masharawi story: it has sent Jon Donnison – the lowest ranking journalist involved in this story – to do damage control.

It has not allocated that task to Donnison’s boss at the Jerusalem Bureau, Paul Danahar, who Tweeted unverified claims that an Israeli attack had killed Omar Masharawi. Nor has the job been given to Danahar’s boss, Jeremy Bowen, whose position as Middle East Editor was created especially in order to avoid precisely such situations in the wake of previous criticisms of the BBC’s record of accuracy and impartiality when reporting on Israel. Neither was the Head of News or anyone else further up the chain of command required to provide explanations for the BBC failure. Instead, lowly Donnison was sent to take the rap.

Is it any wonder then that Donnison gives the impression of being distinctly out of his depth as he flails about trying to make passable-sounding excuses for the BBC’s failures? 

Donnison 11 3 Masharawi

Donnison’s article – entitled “UN disputes Gaza strike on BBC man’s house” – opens with the same picture of Jihad Masharawi carrying his son’s body which the BBC touted so extensively at the time. This time, however, the caption is particularly loaded. [emphasis added]

“Jehad Mashhrawi’s 11-month-old son Omar was killed in the attack on his house in Gaza”

In other words, the BBC wants to place in readers’ minds from the very beginning the idea that there was a deliberate attack on Masharawi’s house, rather than an accident. 

Donnison begins:

“The son of a BBC journalist and two relatives killed in last November’s war in Gaza may have been hit by a misfired Palestinian rocket, a UN agency says.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said its conclusions were based on a visit to the site a month after the attack.”

All the information in the first five paragraphs of Donnison’s article is for some reason repeated further on into the article and so we later find the following statements, which clearly intend to cast doubts upon the UN findings, not least because of the passage of time:

“UN officials visited the house four weeks after the strike.

They said they did not carry out a forensic investigation, but said their team did not think the damage was consistent with an Israeli air strike.

However, the UN said it could not “unequivocally conclude” it was a misfired Palestinian rocket.

A UN official said it was also possible the house was hit by a secondary explosion after an Israeli air strike on Palestinian weapons stores.”

The UN’s report states:

“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”

A footnote adds that the UN investigated the incident itself and the UN has confirmed that the above passage in its report indeed relates to the incident at the Masharawi home. 

Donnison’s “UN official” quote above also appears in an AP report which includes further information which Donnison elected not to include in his piece:

“Matthias Behnke, head of OHCHR office for the Palestinian territories, cautioned he couldn’t “unequivocally conclude” that the death was caused by an errantly fired Palestinian rocket. He said information gathered from eyewitnesses led them to report that “it appeared to be attributable to a Palestinian rocket.”

He said Palestinian militants were firing rockets at Israel not far from the al-Masharawi home. Behnke said the area was targeted by Israeli airstrikes, but the salvo that hit the al-Masharawi home was “markedly different.”

He said there was no significant damage to the house, unusual for an Israeli strike. He said witnesses reported that a fireball struck the roof of the house, suggesting it was a part of a homemade rocket. Behnke said the type of injuries sustained by al-Masharawi family members were consistent with rocket shrapnel.”

Donnison’s efforts to pick holes in the UN findings are a deliberate attempt to distract readers from the essential point. As BBC Watch noted last November:

“Whether or not Jihad Masharawi’s house was hit by a short-falling terrorist rocket, by shrapnel from secondary explosions of Fajr 5 missiles deliberately hidden by Hamas in built-up residential areas or whether an errant IDF shell targeting those rocket launching sites and weapons storage facilities caused that accident, we may never know.”

That essential point – which Donnison does his level best to bury – is that there was no solid evidence at the time that the Masharawi house has been hit in an Israeli air-strike and indeed, several other possibilities (as now confirmed by the UN) existed. The BBC, however, not only dismissed those other possibilities – to which it had been alerted by bloggers – but exclusively and unquestioningly promoted the notion of Israel’s responsibility for the infant’s death with no factual evidence to back up that assertion. 

Donnison continues:

“At the time, human rights groups blamed the deaths on an Israeli air strike.”

He later adds:

“The family, and human rights groups, said that the house was hit in an Israeli attack.”

Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas addresses the PCHR 2006 conference

Donnison does not name the “human rights groups” he cites, but it can safely be assumed that he is referring to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) which claimed on November 15th – the day after the incident – without providing any concrete evidence whatsoever, that:

“..an Israeli warplane fired a missile at a house belonging to Ali Nemer al-Masharawi in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the east of Gaza City.  Two members of the family (a woman and a toddler) were killed: Hiba Aadel Fadel al-Masharawi, 19, and Omar Jihad al-Masharawi, 11 months.”

Far from being an objective “human rights group”, the PCHR uses the mantle of human rights in its political campaign against Israel and has a long history of unreliability. This is certainly not the first time that Jon Donnison has unquestioningly promoted information from the PCHR – apparently being unable to distinguish between a genuine human rights organization and a Hamas accessory. 

Donnison continues his attempt to bring the reader back round to believing the original BBC claims of Israeli culpability by writing:

“The Israeli military says it never denied carrying out the strike because it was not clear what had happened.”

He later adds:

“The Israeli military made no comment at the time of the incident but never denied carrying out the strike.

Privately, military officials briefed journalists that they had been targeting a militant who was in the building.”

If that were true, and if Donnison was aware of the presence of a terrorist in the building, then the next question must be why no reference was ever made to that in any of the BBC’s reports on the subject – including his own. 

Donnison continues:

“The UN says 33 other Palestinian children died in Israeli attacks during the conflict.”

Towards the end of the article, and contradicting his own use of the words “33 other”, he adds:

“The UN report concluded that at least 169 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks during the offensive.

It said more than 100 were civilians, including 33 children and 13 women. The report said six Israelis were killed by Palestinians attacks, including four civilians.”

As Elder of Ziyon has pointed out, the UN report – which apparently suddenly gains renewed credibility in Donnison’s eyes when it can be used against Israel – actually says:

“During the crisis, 174 Palestinians were killed in Gaza. At least 168 of them were killed by Israeli military action, of whom 101 are believed to be civilians, including 33 children and 13 women.” [emphasis added] 

As we have previously pointed out here, other reports on the casualty figures in the Gaza Strip during Operation Pillar of Cloud indicate that as many as 60% belonged to terrorist organisations. 

Further on in his article Donnison states:

“Now, though, the United Nations says the house may have been hit by a Palestinian rocket that fell short.

This is despite the fact that the Israeli military had reported no rockets being fired out of Gaza so soon after the start of the conflict.”

However, the above claim of “no rockets” is contradicted by Donnison himself in his From our own Correspondent report of November 24th:

“But at that time, so soon after the launch of Israel’s operation, Israel’s military says mortars had been launched from Gaza, but very few rockets.” [emphasis added]

As BBC Watch remarked at the time, and as the UN official quoted by AP above confirms:

“Regarding Donnison’s claim of mortars, “but very few rockets” having been fired at the time (BBC Watch has seen no such statement by the IDF, but would be delighted if Donnison could produce it), as is pointed out here, “very few rockets” does not mean no rockets.”

Under the curious subheading “Rubbish”, Donnison goes on to inform readers that:

Jihad Masharawi at his brother’s funeral

“Jehad Mashhrawi dismissed the UN findings as “rubbish”.

He said nobody from the United Nations had spoken to him, and said Palestinian militant groups would usually apologise to the family if they had been responsible.”

Apparently Donnison seems to think that this anecdote adds some kind of back-up to his story, perhaps forgetting that his own organization had (probably unwittingly) broadcast footage of Jihad Masharawi’s brother being buried in a Hamas flag. 

Donnison also states that:

“A photo of BBC video editor Jehad Mashhrawi cradling the corpse of his baby son Omar became one of the iconic images of November’s short war.”

It certainly did, but only because the BBC deliberately and energetically promoted the story far and wide, despite having no concrete evidence whatsoever to back up its claims that Israel was responsible for Omar’s death. 

The disturbing fact is that the BBC’s only response to the findings of the UN report has been to belatedly send Jon Donnison out to offer up a badly written collection of excuses and insinuations published five days later on the Middle East page of its website, whilst Donnison’s original article remains intact on that same website’s ‘Magazine’ page with no correction and no link to his article on the UN report. 

Magazine 12 3

Donnison’s cringe-worthy attempt at damage control does nothing to address the real problem underlying this story. That problem is not one of determining which type of ordnance fired by whom hit the Masharawi house, but that the BBC knowingly published and extensively promoted a story based on local anecdote for which it had absolutely no proven evidence, purely because it fit in with the political narrative accepted and promoted by the BBC. 

Fronted by Donnison, but undoubtedly with the full knowledge of his superiors, this self-destructive attempt to shift the focus of the story away from the real issue of the BBC’s complete failure to meet its own editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality – and to protect those further up the chain of management from the obvious conclusions of that failure – calls into question, once again,  both the sincerity of the BBC’s commitment to the values behind which it hides and the quality of the organisation’s leadership. 

BBC’s Omar Masharawi story has rug pulled by UNHRC

The drop down menu of the ‘From our own correspondent’ section on the ‘magazine’ page of the BBC News website looked like this on March 7th 2013:

FOOC Masharawi magazine 7 3

Yes – over three months after Operation Pillar of Cloud, the BBC is still promoting Jon Donnison’s story about the son of the BBC employee in Gaza who the BBC very energetically insisted had been killed in an Israeli air-strike. 

As readers may remember, BBC Watch pointed out at the time that there were terrorist rocket launching sites in the Zaitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City in which the Masharawi home was situated and that the BBC’s automatic assumption that Omar Masharawi’s death was the result of an Israeli attack was not founded upon any solid evidence.

In his report Donnison stated:

“Despite the evidence pointing towards an Israeli air strike, some bloggers have suggested it might have been a misfired Hamas rocket.

But at that time, so soon after the launch of Israel’s operation, the Israeli military says mortars had been launched from Gaza but very few rockets.

Mortar fire would not cause the fireball that appears to have engulfed Jehad’s house.

Other bloggers have said that the damage to Jehad’s home was not consistent with powerful Israeli attacks but the BBC visited other bombsites this week with very similar fire damage, where Israel acknowledged carrying out what it called “surgical strikes”.

As at Jehad’s home, there was very little structural damage but the victims were brought out with massive and fatal burns. Most likely is that Omar died in the one of the more than 20 bombings across Gaza that the Israeli military says made up its initial wave of attacks.”

Despite the lack of evidence, the BBC continued (and still continues, as can be seen above) to promote this story very heavily indeed and of course it was picked up and propagated by other members of the mainstream media – as well as numerous anti-Israel websites – as cast-iron evidence of Israeli wrongdoing,  bearing the hallmark of BBC accuracy and impartiality. 

On March 6th 2013 the UN HRC issued an advance version of its report on the November 2012 hostilities and blogger Elder of Ziyon bothered to read the whole thing. The report states on page 14 that a UN investigation found that:

“On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.” [emphasis added]

A footnote adds that the UN investigated the incident itself.

Omar Masharawi was the only 11 month-old infant killed on November 14th in the Zaitoun neighbourhood (although the woman killed at the same time was not in fact his mother as the UN report states, but his father’s brother’s wife; Hiba). 

The BBC used the story of Omar Masharawi to advance the narrative of Israel as a ruthless killer of innocent children. It did so in unusually gory detail which etched the story in audiences’ minds, but without checking the facts, and with no regard whatsoever for its obligations to accuracy and impartiality. BBC reporters and editors  – including Jon Donnison, Paul Danahar and the many others who distributed the story via Twitter – rushed to spread as far and wide as possible a story they could not validate, but which fit in with their own narrative.

It is impossible to undo the extensive damage done by the BBC with this story. No apology or correction can now erase it from the internet or from the memories of the countless people who read it or heard it. Nevertheless, the people responsible for the fact that the unverified story was allowed to run – and that it was deliberately given such exceptionally extensive coverage – must be held accountable for their failure to even try to uphold the standards to which the BBC professes to adhere. 

Any other outcome will make a mockery of the supposed BBC commitment to accuracy and impartiality and will further erode the BBC’s already bruised reputation.