BBC turns Palestinian attacker into passive victim

The BBC News website’s Middle East section homepage of December 13th 2012 carried an article entitled “Hebron ‘fake gun’ teenager killed by Israeli troops”.

hp 13 12

The short article begins:

“Israeli troops have shot dead a Palestinian teenager carrying a fake gun in the West Bank city of Hebron.

Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the youth had pulled out a fake pistol which border police thought was real, so they opened fire.

The boy was named locally as 16-year-old Mohammed Ziad Sulaima, Reuters reported.”

The Reuters report quoted actually gives more context, making it clear that the youth was not merely “carrying a fake gun”. [emphasis added]

“Micky Rosenfeld, a spokesman for Israeli police, said that “a Palestinian pulled a pistol in front of border police on patrol in Hebron” near a flashpoint holy site after darkness fell. “Police opened fire at him, critically injuring him. He was later pronounced dead at the scene,” Rosenfeld said.

Palestinian medical officials said the youth was 17.

Rosenfeld said an initial investigation indicated “he pulled a fake pistol. They (troops at the scene) thought it was real … it’s not clear why he did that.” “

The Jerusalem Post has more information:

“Border police said that “a Palestinian youth who arrived at a Border Police post next to the Tomb of the Patriarchs raised the suspicion of the officers. They asked him for his identification card and when they approached him to check his card he pulled out a gun and pointed it at the head of one of the soldiers.” “

The Times of Israel carries the account of the Border Police Officer who shot the youth:

“The officer, a 20-year-old from Tel Aviv, recounted the events in interviews with Israeli media late Tuesday night, saying that she and two border police soldiers under her command were manning a checkpoint near the Cave of the Patriarchs when the young Palestinian approached them.

“Following the standard procedure, the soldier who was with me asked him for an ID,” she said. “The Palestinian handed him his documents and I entered the room to run a background check.”

While inside, she continued, she looked out and saw that the Palestinian had charged the soldier and drawn what appeared to be a pistol.

“With one hand,” she related, “he grabbed the soldier’s neck and pressed against him, and with the other he put the pistol to the soldier’s temple. In that situation, the soldier couldn’t break free or react.”

The female officer, who was only a few meters away, cocked her weapon.

“I was looking for an angle from which to fire without hurting the soldier,” she said, and it was only after she ascertained that his life was in danger that she pulled the trigger.

“After the first shot, he continued to hold the pistol to the soldier’s temple, so I fired two more bullets,” she said, at which point the Palestinian fell to the ground, and she quickly kicked the gun away. […]

With a gun being held to her the soldier’s head, there was no way she could fire a warning shot, the officer said. “My subordinate’s life was in immediate danger,” and it was important to fire without hitting him, she said.”

Here is a picture of the replica firearm:

gun hevron

So let us now take a closer look at the specific wording used by the BBC to describe the incident.

The headline says:

“Hebron ‘fake gun’ teenager killed by Israeli troops”

This is yet another instance in which the BBC reports events in reverse sequence to their occurrence; as we have termed it in the past, “last-first reporting”. Note too the numerical imbalance implied: there is one teenager and he is killed by “troops” – plural – according to this headline, although actually only one Border Police Officer fired at him.

The strapline practically repeats – and thus reinforces – both the themes propagated in the headline

“Israeli troops have shot dead a Palestinian teenager carrying a fake gun in the West Bank city of Hebron.”

Up to this point, the youth is entirely passive: he is only “carrying” a fake gun. 

The third line of the report says:

“Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the youth had pulled out a fake pistol which border police thought was real, so they opened fire.”

Even in this sentence, the youth’s actions are severely downplayed: he only “pulled out” what is in fact better termed a replica firearm rather than the more innocuous term “fake pistol” or “fake gun” and no mention at all is made of what he did actually with it. 

The reader is therefore left with a distorted impression of events which implies trigger-happy Israelis needlessly shooting Palestinians. And just in case the reader failed to get the ‘proper’ message, the article reinforces it by ending with the context-free words:

“Last week, Israeli security forces shot dead a Palestinian man armed with an axe in the northern West Bank.”

The disturbing trend of deliberate downplaying and distortion of security events by the BBC is a breach of Editorial Guidelines on both accuracy and impartiality. 


 Security camera footage of the attack: 

Attack on Border Policeman, Hebron, December 12th 2012


122 comments on “BBC turns Palestinian attacker into passive victim

  1. This clear-cut well-documented example of the BBC’s agenda of Israel to the general public) drfinitely needs to be formally protested, citing this fine BBCWatch post and linking to it, so that there can be no doubt regarding the burden of the argument..
    In addition, Bowen, Herrman and Tarik Kafala should all be contacted for an explanation imho.

  2. Laughable response to a tragic situation.
    Not a jot of compassion over the death of a mere youth.
    What your post leaves out is the almost certain intimidation and almost ritual humiliation that accompanies such situations.
    You casually accept the propaganda dished out by the IDF.
    Then proceed to split hairs as to how the act was reported by the BBC.
    Your obsession with the perceived bias of the BBC is not going to put a gloss on what the world sees.
    Would it be possible to disarm the so-called assailant? Very likely.
    But that is not what an occupying force does.
    Shoot first then blame the victim.Even if it is a deaf 17 year old.
    One important fact missing from this sterile debate is that the IDF shouldn’t be there in the first place!

    • Humiliation, intimidation, disarm the terrorist?

      You obviously haven’t even read the account of the officer involved:

      “With one hand,” she (the Border police officer) related, “he grabbed the soldier’s neck and pressed against him, and with the other he put the pistol to the soldier’s temple. In that situation, the soldier couldn’t break free or react.”

      • You assume the officer is telling the truth? Are you aware that subsequently the account has changed? If you were a seventeen year old would you take on a heavily armed border patrol with a toy gun? Would you do it with areal gun? Think carefully about the questions before answering.


        • If I’d grown up watching the jew hatred on Palestinian tv I might. Why would the Israeli officer be lying if Israel is honest about it being a toy gun? Where’s the cover-up. I would ask you to think about it but I dont think being objective is of very much interest to you.

          • Do you claim to be objective?Objectivity is a rather elusive concept. What you fail to understand is that the evidence shows that the IDF is programmed to collectively punish and demean the Palestinians at every turn. It is part of the DNA of any occupying force. What do you think would happen if the IDF came clean and admitted fault in this case? On past experience the answer is:- Nothing!


      • Bio, how do you want to be taken seriously when you speak of a “terrorist” who actually is a child carrying a toy gun?

        • Nat, there you go running with the BBC distortion of the story again. He held a gun to the head of an Israeli Policeman that only later was found to be a fake gun. Still, who expects honesty or objectivity from jew haters?

        • Nat, how do you expect the people involved to identify it as a “toy” gun in a split second under pressure, when it looks very much like a real one?

          I should remind you the British and other police have shot people dead in similar circumstances with much less “gun-like” objects being misidentified as firearms… Can you look at the gun photo and honestly say you’d be certain, without doubt or hesitation, that it wasn’t a real gun? I doubt it.

          • In fact, these guns are so life-like that there is a proposal (in the USA, I believe) to produce them in very bright colours in order to prevent this type of incident

            Personally, I am not convinced this would be a wholly effective solution. I would imagine non-coloured replicas – perhaps from outside the States – will not still find their way onto the market.

    • sprattyville,
      You are a disgusting piece of work. You love terrorists, and mourn their passing.
      ‘None is so evil as he who mourns evil’s demise’.

      • Matzoh, how do you want to be taken seriously when you speak of a “terrorist” who actually is a child carrying a toy gun?

          • Since when is 17 a child. Young adult, maybe. And, as I’ve pointed out; YOU negotiate when the gun (is it a toy?) is against your head. THEN, and only then you can say, take your time.

          • I looked it up in the Dictionary like you said. State terrorism is the practice of terror against individuals and civilian groups in a collective sense. Modern -day examples are the Coalition forces activities in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Closer to home one could point to Israel’s military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Like the individual terrorist the State terrorist shows scant regard for the welfare of the civilian population and is often motivated by a racist agenda.


          • Ethan, the Palestinian who was killed by this Israeli officer was a child.

            Let me remind you that the Convention on the Rights to the Child, to which Israel is a signatory, clearly states a child is a person below the age of 18 who, as a result, enjoys specific protections.

          • Nat; UN conventions are hardly the standard. A 17yo in almost any country can marry, serve in the army (with qualification), hold a job, and is considered an adult for criminal prosicution. A 17yo is certainly capable of understanding that puting a gun (and I again say, in the dark, you cannot tell it’s a toy) to someones HEAD brings lethal response. Here in the States, several real children including pre teens have been shot and sometimes killed for pointing these real looking guns at police. And thats just pointing, not holding to the HEAD!

          • Whenever Israel puts pen to paper the outcome is entirely predictable.Forget it! Israel’s interpretation of the ‘Rights to the Child’ is to be found within its prisons where it regularly holds children as young as 12. Apologists for this scandalous abuse of human rights will split hairs over the ‘childness’ of a 17 year old. In fact they will still be splitting hairs come doomsday rather than face up to fact that Israel, in its treatment of the Palestinians is morally bankrupt.


          • You are obviously one of those who equates Israel with terror states like North Korea, Iran and Pakistan. Why not at least be honest and admit you are an anti-semite. Most of the readers of this site I’m sure agree. No nation with a democratic form of government can never be as evil as you claim Israel is.

          • Never say never. Its not a one size fits all scenario. Judging by the claims you make Israel would probably wish to be judged by a higher standard than might apply to your ‘axis of evil’ However your ONLY defense to ANY criticism of Israel and its ACTIONS is to bang the tired old Anti-Semite drum. A democratic system depends on the rule of law,indivisble and equal to all.That is patently not the case in present-day Israel.


    • Your comment totally ignores the fact that this “youth” put a gun (and I dare you to tell the difference between this “toy” and the real thing, at night.) to a mans head. No time to think or plan. YOU tell me you’ld have complained if it was YOUR head!

      • how do you want to be taken seriously when you speak of a “terrorist” who actually is a child carrying a toy gun?

        • Can you really take these comments seriously? It beggars belief that a young lad would take on the might of the greatest and bravest army in the world. With a pea-shooter? These people have been watching too many cartoons on TV!


      • You haven’t answered my point. The laughable element is that the IDF put out a story such as this. What would possess a kid like this to take on a heavily armed group of soldiers and police. With a toy gun! The tragedy is of course that they can get away with murder.


        • What would possess him to threaten an officer with a gun, fake or not? We know the Palestinian schools are teaching their students that dying in an act of martyrdom is the best thing they can do. How many times have they stated that Jewish children want to live; but Palestinian children long for death? I’m sure you are shocked to think the Palestinans would violate the Conventions on the Rights to the Child in this way.

          • Conventions on the Rights to the Child? It doesn’t apply to terrorists.Right? Palestinian children are really terrorists in disguise.Right? Human shields are terrorists ( the worst kind!) Right? So all that lets Israel off the hook.Right? Why do Palestinian children long for death? Because they can’t stand listening to the sanctimonious claptrap issuing from the mouths of Israeli apologists for another second longer.


          • You are so blind biased. Palestinian text books teach the glories of suicide bombers. Hamas and Islamic Jihad brag about the young children they have sent to their deaths. These include special needs kids. Or is that all Israeli propaganda too.

          • You said it. But,on the subject of ‘blind biased’ have you looked in a mirror recently? Just caught up in the great tidal wave of Islamophobia aren’t we?


          • When I see Christians and Jews in the 21st century cutting out tongues, cutting off hands, murdering their daughters, teaching their children to be suicide bombers, then, and only then will I concede to Islamaphobia.

          • Clearly you are unfamiliar with the history of the 20th century. Just as a little ‘taster’,check out the stomach-churning details of ‘Christian’ British soldiers’ treatment of African prisoners in Kenya in the fifties. Or the little matter of the King David Hotel ( or what was left of it) in Palestine in the forties after the Stern gang had done their  dirty work. Just because today the Israeli military is committing crimes against humanity doesn’t mean it is appropriate to condemn Judaism. They are two quite separate things. Equally it is wrong to condemn a British Muslim for crimes committed  by other Muslims in Saudi or by Hamas in Southern Israel.


          • Your selective memmory is amazing. I never excuse wrong behavior. But using it to excuse terror and evil is reprehensable. And yes, there have been examples of national evil. The Nazis, Japanese militarists, Mao’s Cultural Revolution. But two wrongs NEVER make a right!
            NOTHING can justify the terror we see from radical Islamists. And there is damned little protest from the so called moderates.
            You “sprattyville” are guilty of the most despicable of wrongs! Moral equivalency!
            And yes! There are and will be moral outrages that have noyhing to do with Muslims.
            Rawanda springs to mind. But it still does not excuse Salafi terror!

    • “Would it be possible to disarm the so-called assailant? Very likely.”

      What a stupid statement. You weren’t there, so you can’t possibly have ANY idea whether there was even the vaguest possibility of disarming this youth in the split-second available to make any decision. The gun was a very realistic replica, and was clearly thought to be the real thing. If someone is holding a gun to another person’s head, the smart move is NOT to try to disarm him, as it only takes a second for him to pull the trigger (and he can’t really miss), and you have absolutely no chance of stopping him in that time if he’s really prepared to kill. The smart move is to make sure he CAN’T pull the trigger, and you’ve probably only that same second to achieve this aim – so realistically, unless you are prepared to sacrifice your colleague, and quite likely yourself, your only viable option is to kill the youth.

      And at what point did this youth suddenly become deaf? I didn’t see any reports that he was. Not that it actually makes any difference whether he was or wasn’t: It’s one thing not to produce ID when asked because you didn’t hear the policeman, it’s quite another to grab the policeman by the neck and put a gun to his head… and I don’t believe deafness causes the difference!

      Also please explain to me why a border policeman should not be in Hebron. The hard facts, legal reason, please, not just your maudlin opinions on the subject.

      • Yes it was kind of stupid to suggest that. Thank you for putting me straight on that one. Interestingly the IDF have changed their story on this one and they appear to have confiscated some documentary evidence too. What is fascinating is the ease with which you accept the IDF’s version of events apparently at face value. I may be stupid but I’m not so gullible. After all the IDF have form in these situations. Past experience has shown that they tend to be a) trigger-happy,b) aggressive and rude and c) economical with the truth on at least one occasion. Which all adds up to another very ugly episode at the expense of the Palestinians.


          • I don’t think I’ve ever been described as malign! Is that like a tumour? Some sort of canke?.Next thing you’ll be describing me as some sort of disease or bacterium.Like a plague? And all because of a few harsh words directed at the IDF and their paymasters the Israeli Government.


          • I think the jokes on you. You should calm down and not take yourself so seriously. In other words lighten up.You’ll live longer.


        • Pratt de Ville, please provide sources for you claims that “the IDF have changed their story” and “have confiscated some documentary evidence too”.

          Thanks in advance.

          • Ah, Twitter!

            I don’t Tweet myself, nor do I take whatever people do Tweet as honest reporting. None of the news sites I’ve searched report anything whatsoever to back up your spurious claims.

            Still, perhaps you’d be good enough to provide links to these Tweets you mention?

          • Check out Twitter you might learn something. It’s free and you’ll find lots of people who can follow your argument such as it is.


          • Why ? Do you actually believe their story? Half the world does. Whatever their story I don’t care because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.If they had gone home in 1967 that poor boy would still be alive along with thousands of others Palestinians and Jews.


          • You keep repeating yourself. There are some people who believe that if you repeat something often enough it eventually becomes true. But it doesn’t. Ever.


        • Actually, what’s strange is that, in the total absence of any evidence, you assume you know something about the situation beyond what was reported. If you wish to claim the IDF are lying or covering something up, you have to show evidence – without it, you’re just another delusional ‘conspiracy theorist’ fool.

      • This is a meaningless justification for the presence of a cruel,vindictive and ultimately murderous occupying force. As for any agreement reached between the Israeli government and the P.A,it really isn’t worth the paper it is written on. For the simple reason that this is not an agreement between equals as Israel has always held all the aces. Since the so-called Oslo Accords,Israel has consistently acted against the spirit and the letter of those agreements. There is this constant mantra of legalism against a background of complete disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions. A more classic case of Double standards it would be difficult to find


        • “This is a meaningless justification for the presence of a cruel,vindictive and ultimately murderous occupying force.”

          Ooh, how strange that someone with views like yours would wish to defend BBC coverage of Israel.

        • And once again, that’s just your opinion, which is not based on any legal or realisically factual premise, so not really worth much to anyone else but you.

      • Hadar, as you know Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory are considered illegal as they were built in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

        Surely you must be aware that several the most prestigious human rights organizations in Israel have repeateadly denounced the violence of some of the Israeli settlers livng in Hebron’s Old City.

        • And since you clearly didn’t fully comprehend my answer to you yesterday, I’ll give you another chance: You say land taken in war cannot be kept – but the Israelis, as I explained before, tried to give it back to its previous occuplier, Jordan, who refused it. And since there was no legal subdivision of the part of Palestine west of the river at the time Israel declared its state, the W/B was Israels before Jordan took it in 1948 (and according to you, held it illegally for 19 years). SO either way, they have a legal claim on it, and the GEneva Convention does not apply. NOW SHOW ME WHERE THE PALLESTINIAN’S BINDING LEGAL CLAIMON THE WEST BANK COMES FROM.

          And again – show me the law that states Israel is occupying those parts of the W/B where Jewish communities exist.
          Israel took the W/B in 1967 a DEFENSIVE war against the then occupier, Jordan – If you dispute that Jordan was at that time only the occupier, and not the owner, of the W/B, then you admit the land did not belong to the Palestinians between 1948 and 1967. Jordan took the W/B during the 1948 war on Independence, in which they were the AGRESSOR (so the land could not then be legally theirs). However, if you nevertheless wish to claim Jordan was somehow the legal owner of the W/B between 1948 and 1967, then the land is legally Israel’s now, both because of the circumstances under which it fell to them, and also because they offered it back to Jordan as part of their peace agreement, and Jordan didn’t accept it.

          So let’s go back a bit further. In 1947, there was a proposal put together by the UN, by which the mandate area of Palestine lying west of the Jordan river would be partitioned to provide a state for the Arabs then living in this area, and also one for the Jews then living in this area.(Note: the area to the east of the river had already been given to the Arab Hashmite king, Abdullah, as the state ‘Transjordan’, later Jordan)
          The partition plan was just a PLAN, a PROPOSAL for peace: it could have no legal basis unless it was agreed upon and ratified.
          The Jews in the remaining mandate area accepted the proposal, but the Arabs rejected it. Therefore, the plan was dead in the water: it was not ratified, and never had any legal standing.

          Therefore, the whole of the mandate area west of the river legally remained one contiguous area, with no sub-boundaries. It was legally in this state when the Jews declared statehood, and the UN voted to accept it. No internal boundaries to this area were stated as part of either the declaration of statehood, or as part of the UN acceptance process. The W/B was therefore, however briefly, and maybe only by a UN oversight, legally Israel’s, and remained so despite that fact Jordan captured it just a few days later in the aforementioned 1948 War of Independence.

          However, that’s not all: let’s go back a bit further. In 1914 the region known as Palestine, ON WHICH NO NATION STATE HAD EVER EXISTESD SINCE THE PREVIOUS JEWISH NATIONS OF JUDEA AND ISRAEL, was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans entered WW1 on the side of the Germans, and during the course of this war, were defeated by the allies, assisted by the Arab revolt. The WW1 hostilities in the Middle East officially ended on 30 October 1918, and the region known as Palestine fell under mandate control to the British. On 2nd Nov 1917, the then UK Foreign Secretary, AJ Balfour, wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild, stating that the British Govt. was in ‘..favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…’ – known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour declaration, and made the adoption of it a legal requirement. The Declaration was also incorporated into the wording of the Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920) and also the wording of the Mandate for Palestine, which was a was a “legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem” (quote taken from Wiki). Nothing was said in any of these documents that limited the proposed Jewish National Home to the any specific areas within this region, and nothing was written that excluded the West Bank.

          In short, there are many LEGAL AND BINDING documents, and other pertinent circumstances, that would indicate an Israeli claim on the West Bank, but nothing LEGAL AND BINDING as yet, as far as I’m aware, that indicates the ersatz Palestinians own this land. If the land is Israel’s, there’s no occupation. If the land is merely disputed, there’s no occupation. In which case, the clause of 4th Geneva Convention to which you referred above, does not apply.

          Only if and where the land is and was definitely legally the Palestinians, is there currently any occupation. If you can show me that binding legislation, then I’ll cede on this. However, even then, in terms of the 4th Geneva Convention, and the clause “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population”: if I move voluntarily to France, my country certainly hasn’t deported me – and I don’t honestly believe it has ‘transferred’ me – I’ve transferred myself!

          • Bravo! Hair-splitting of the highest quality. You’ve raised it to the status of high art. Any paltry justification for murder and mayhem.


          • By the way, the only two states to recognise Jordan’s illegal occupation were the UK and Pakistan.

            Go figure, or better still Pratt de Ville, just go.

          • Semantics and nit-picking. No real grasp of the issues at stake here. Still you no when the insults start to fly the arguments over. Well done Bio.


          • Yorkie, There is an absolute prohibition on the acquisition of land by war under international law.

            Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory are considered illegal as they were built in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

          • Well said. Unfortunately your wasting your breath as Israel doesn’t understand the concept of International Law. Prime mover in the ‘make it up as you go along’ tendency


        • Israel is also a signatory to the Geneva’Move the Goalposts’ agreement and  also the ‘Make it up as you go Along’ Oslo agreement. So why would they give a monkee’s about No.49?


          • So how come you guys never complain about the deaths of thousand in places like Mali, Chad, Rawanda, Burma among others. But let Israel/Israelis defend themselves and their the criminals. So, Jew hater, you go to hell. I.m interested if more readers think like you, or me.

          • What does that last sentence mean? What do you know about what I complain about? I complain about everything! I would probably complain about hell.


  3. “Micky Rosenfeld, a spokesman for Israeli police, said ……”

    This isn’t a Reuters report of the incident it is a Reuters report of what the Israeli police said….yyyyyaaaawwwwwnnn

    • And now the police version of events is beginning to change and might I say unravel. Only turkeys voting for Christmas would take what the IDF say at face value. Historically not only do occupation forces seek to brutalise and humiliate their victims. They also have a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth. But I forgot! This is the most moral army in the world!


      • Spratty dear boy, interesting analogy. One might also argue that only anti-Semites voting for the Holocaust would have so much hatred of the State of Israel. Are you sure your real name isn’t Jeremy Bowen?

        • I don’t think you should use the Holocaust to make a point in this context. Firstly it is in bad taste. Secondly the problems facing Israel pre-date the actual Holocaust And thirdly,who is Jeremy Bowen?


      • If you want to claim the IDF are lying, you need to link to, or at least explain, your justification for this accusation. Otherwise your post is just another of your worthless, hate-driven rants.

          • I don’t like turkey much. Does that mean I should vote for Christmas, ‘cos I don’t much like them, or should vote against it, ‘cos I don’t want to have to eat them? Ooh, the dilema!!
            Hence the aforementioned abstenance on such referenda.

  4. Last week, Israeli security forces shot dead a Palestinian man armed with an axe in the northern West Bank.

    The BBC also fail to mention that the man attacked Israeli security personnel with the axe after ramming their vehicle and overturning it. One of the Israelis was wounded by the axe (not a toy axe).

    The BBC and Bias by Omission; it’s what they do!

  5. Biodegradable – good to see you around these parts!

    Typical BBC. No doubt if confronted the BBC would simply say they couched the statement in those terms in the interests of brevity. But they could still be brief and accurate thus:

    Last week, Israeli security forces shot dead a Palestinian man who attacked them with an axe in the northern West Bank.

  6. The wording of the article has been improved quite a bit:

    An Israeli border guard has shot dead a Palestinian teenager, whom police said threatened a colleague with what turned out to be a fake gun, in the West Bank city of Hebron.

    So the Israeli plural has become singular and the youth’s intent made clear. Also clarified is the fact that it was only realised later that the gun was fake.

    Police said the youth had attacked the guard and aimed the ‘pistol’ at him, before being shot dead.

    Strange though that spokesman Micky Rosenfeld has now become the anonymous police. What possible reason could there be for that change?

  7. While it is true that the strapline “Israeli troops have shot dead a Palestinian teenager carrying a fake gun in the West Bank city of Hebron.” is dotorting – he wasn’t just “carrying”, how would you have re-written the headline using the same or lower character count:

    “Hebron ‘fake gun’ teenager killed by Israeli troops””

    • “Palestinian, 17, shot after pulling fake gun on troops in Hebron, West Bank”?

      Shorter, more accurate and more informative. Maybe I should write headlines for the BBC instead of their current subeditor?

    • I’d take your point, fcallen, were it not for the fact that these headlines generally put the Israelis in a negative light while giving the Palestinians a free ride.

      Hebron ‘fake gun’ teenager killed by Israeli troops

      Note how it’s weighted: as mentioned above, the teenager was not killed by troops but by a single border policewoman. And why mention Israeli? Hebron makes it clear where this happened.

      Note that the Middle East home page, like others, is constantly updated. The propagandist trick here is to hammer away at Israel using as many negatives as possible in a few words with repercussions for the BBC highly unlikely since there is no longer a link to that page and the only way to keep a record of it is to take a screen shot, as was done here.

      Here’s an alternative:

      Hebron teen wielding fake gun killed by border guard

      Spot the difference? The language is more neutral.

      Israeli troops shoot dead a Palestinian teenager carrying a fake gun near a holy site in the West Bank city of Hebron.

      Carrying is a specific term related to guns, and indicates that the gun is holstered, even hidden.

      Wielding is obviously a far more appropriate description here, but then the BBC would have to take the word (gasp) of the Israelis. It seldom does, consistently casting doubt on whatever the Israelis say when in fact it’s the Palestinians who engage in Pallywood distortions and propaganda.

  8. “Palestinian adolescent carrying toy gun shot by Israeli soldier in Hebron’s Old City” seems more accurate. This is probably why this is how the Israeli press described it – speaking of an adolescent carrying a TOY GUN:,7340,L-4319188,00.html

      • You are effectivel arguing against yourself here Nat. Spot the difference between carrying, waving and pulling.

        The BBC would have you believe that the border guard shot the youth because he had a holstered gun – anyway that’s the language they used to describe the incident.

        Judging from your comments here, you’d be happy to believe it.

        • I believe that what the BBC says is more credible than what Tsahal’s spokesperson says.

          One if an independant media investigation facts, the other a communication person in charge of shedding a good light on the army.

          • The BBC is always going to be more credible than some spokesperson for the IDF for the simple reason they appear to value life itself. Whereas the IDF specialises in death.


          • sprattyville is correct. One of the IDF’s task to remove the kind of shit sprattyville is adoring and the BBC values life itself in most cases. The exception is when the subject is the life of Jews.

          • Wonderful use of the English language. It’s not clear what it is you agree with,could you possibly elaborate? I really don’t think I have advocated any harm to anyone. Criticism yes. Perhaps you could explain how you got that impression.


  9. Just a thought here, NAT. You state you’d believe “that what the BBC says is more credible than…” I’ve lost faith in the BBC entirely. Especially as, albeit off-topic, they diliberately set-out to lie to the British public. Then spends tens of thousands of taxes (ie licence fee) to keep it from them. I give you 28 gate. Google it

      • There are some things the BBC doesn’t report at all regarding Israel – it’s called Bias by Omission, or in others words failing to give context.

        • You fail to see the bigger context. You should check out the Paul Newman movie ‘Cool Hand Luke’. You might see what it is you are up against.


          • you’re truly relentless. in any war there are victors and there are losers. arabs have lost every battle in this protracted conflict, and if you deny that the “innocent” people are being used as political pawns to achieve what will be, at best, the ephemeral “Palestinian” state, then i think it is you who lacks objectivity. the offers have been made and rejected. it’s one thing if you hate jews and love the haters of jews; but i think your position would be more worthy of appreciation if you admitted it instead of unyieldingly trying to make points with distortions and obfuscations. for every instance in which you claim the IDF has lied, I can send you 20 independently VERIFIABLE lies from Arab media. there is no occupation any more than california is occupied mexican territory, or mexico is occupied meshica territory, or peru occupied inca terroritory, or vietnam occupied hmong territory. that said, you’d be a great reporter for ma’an! if you need a reference, I’d be glad to put in a good word for you!

          • You can’t see the wood for the trees. Your living in the past. I’m not interested in Israel’s glorious victories.I’m not interested that they beat the Arabs. It’s the here and now which is important. When Israel decides to act we end up with ‘shooting fish in a barrel’. Every single Palestinian prisoner ( they are all prisoners) has more courage in his little finger than the entire UDF and its apologists put together. What a shower of cowardly bullies they are! A month has passed and the rockets are silent. But still the Israeli appetite for killing and maiming continues.On and on with no let up for over 64 years.


          • Been reading your posts now for a couple of days. I can only conclude that if the Arabs/Palestinians were the ones doing the but kicking you would be cheering.
            I’ve dealt with Jew haters like you all my life. Happy to say Jews no longer go quietly to their deaths. It must be terrible to be so full of hate.

          • Keep reading. You might learn something. Next time the IDF kill a Palestinian child in self-defence or by accident or ‘carefully’. Have a look at what Simon Peres said about the death of a child. Try to keep a straight face.


        • There are big lies and little ones. IDF lies are very big,BBC lies not so big. So morally IDF has some catching up to do. I suppose we will have to wait a bit longer.


  10. Pingback: Selective BBC reporting from Hebron | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.