the BBC explain the causes of the Temple Mount dispute in their usual biased way

Watch this piece of video, it's 1:44 long.



Shall we give Yolande Knell's report a fisking?

The opening still is of just the Muslim site with a tiny Israeli flag fluttering beneath. Could not an overhead shot that gave a better idea of scale not have been used? A shot like the one shown at 0:45?

Both the historical and the naming explanations  are given Muslim first, Jews second and the accompanying graphic has Islam above Judaism. Some might argue that the older of the two religions should be first.

Yolande Knell starts her modern history with what happened after the 6-Day war of 1967. There's no mention of the position prior to 1948 when Jews lived across Jerusalem or 1948-1967 when the eastern part of Jerusalem was occupied by the Jordanians. The only time ever in history that Jerusalem has been split was in that period 1948-1967. When the Jordanians occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem they stopped Jews from worshipping there and destroyed synagogues. Oddly this is not something that the BBC see fit to tell their viewers.

Yolande Knell tells us that Israel occupied East Jerusalem, might not the above context have been useful?

So the evil apartheid state of Israel ceded control of the holiest site in Judaism to a Jordanian Waqf and agreed to prevent Jews from praying at their holiest site. That seems odd for a country characterised by the BBC as unreasonable, aggressive and expansionary.

What naughty Jews praying at a holy site. The Muslims see Jews praying at their holiest site as provocative? Well cry me a f***ing river, I see a Muslim mosque built on top of the site of the Jewish temple as provocative.

Many Palestinians are suspicious... what a load of bullshit, The Muslims have been trying this line since the 1920s, they know that if they claim that the Jooooos are trying to do something against the Al Aqsa then they will get the support of the Muslim world and the anti-Israel (and often anti-Semitic) West too.

Spot the imagery used for the intifada section. An heroic Palestinian youth throwing a bottle (or rock) and then five Israeli soldiers and a Land Rover. The odds are just so unfair. Imagery is important, it sets the scene and that's just what is being done here.

Yolande Knell then says that 'Most of the recent attacks have been carried out by individuals acting alone'. If 'most' have been then which have not and how does Yolande Knell know that most have not been? Has she not seen the videos encouraging such attacks put out by Fatah and Hamas?

Whilst Yolande Knell wonders what the current situation will become a split screen is shown again. On the left religious Jewish men, maybe praying, on the right weeping Muslim women - once again the image is more important than the words and the BBC know that.