No BBC reports on Israeli medical aid for wounded Syrians


Golan Heights

Readers will no doubt remember the BBC’s somewhat bizarre take on the subject of a group of seven wounded Syrians (one of whom remains hospitalized) treated in an Israeli hospital in February. Since then, Israel has provided medical help to several more Syrian citizens. 

On March 30th a seriously wounded man was treated by Israeli army medics at the border fence and then evacuated to hospital in Haifa. The previous week a group of wounded people arrived at the border fence where most were treated on the spot, but two had to be evacuated to hospitals in Israel due to the severity of their wounds. One man – suffering from a gunshot wound to the head – later died whilst in hospital. The week before that, two people with shrapnel injuries – from a larger group of wounded who reached the border – were evacuated to a hospital in Haifa whilst the rest were treated on site. 

The IDF has now set up a field hospital in the north of the Golan Heights in order to provide medical care for the increasing numbers of Syrians seeking Israeli help.

So far, the BBC has shown no interest in reporting this story. 


15 comments on “No BBC reports on Israeli medical aid for wounded Syrians

  1. I’m shocked.

    I was certain they would report, in tones of horror, about Israeli medical staff who had wantonly murdered a Syrian as he lay helpless in his hospital bed. Probably for his organs, doncha know.

    (I know this is April 1, but I’m only joking a tiny bit.)

  2. Hadar. Could you possibly interview some of the wonderful medical team at the field hospital and post some photos for BBC Watchers, or alternatively, post a link to an Israeli news story about these magnificent medics.

    • PS. Duvidl has already read, with interest, the somewhat long-distance story and photos from YNet, which you have linked to.

  3. I no longer follow BBC. I also ignore the rest of the MSM. So: A question. Is BBC, today in 2013, any more biased against Israel than say, the New York Times, MSNBC or the other liberal media.

    • With respect, Ethan, I think you miss the point. The publicly-funded BBC is formally obligated by the terms of its Charter to report objectively. Those other outlets have no such obligation, save a moral one.

      • Thankyou Daphne. As an American I often forget BBC is a tax supported network. I must remember that it’s more like our PBS. Which is also very left and biased.

        • Except that PBS have pledge drives and nobody is obliged to support it if they don’t want to.

          Whereas in Britain, if you own a TV, you MUST pay the TV licence fee, which goes to fund the Beeb.

          • And thankyou. It makes me even happier to be on this side of the pond.
            My only concern is the US lefties keep pushing the UK agenda. Takes 15-20 years to get here.

          • Ah, but when you get to 75 years old it’s free! I have only one more monthly payment, after which I cannot complain “as a licence payer” just as a “free-licence holder”! It will save me 145GBP annually.

          • No need to be so merciful by rounding down the licence fee figure, Saba. It it 145.50 pounds. Think of all those fifty pences funding Jeremy Bowen’s taxi fares.

  4. Im sure it will become a news story when a rabid lib/lab MP/Peer points out that the field hospital is only there to harvest organs

Comments are closed.