The BBC's Middle East Desk don't like being questioned

Further to this story, the BBC have sent me a rather supercilious reply:

Dear Mr MaybeaGoat

This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong - in other words, point-scoring. We were happy to add the label of Egypt to the map, but as we said in our previous reply, it was not out of necessity.

Kind regards

Middle East desk
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/

Do you think they're not happy being questioned?

I have responded by email, but since this particular desk seem incapable of responding to my emails, I will also log another complaint.

Here's my response:

Excuse me but I am not point scoring, I am simply asking why the BBC omitting the label Egypt in 2012 was apologised for by the BBC, calling it 'plain shoddy work for which we apologise' but in 2013 when the same omission on the same map is repeated I am told that the subsequent correction was 'not done out of necessity' and that no apology was required.

Why was the BBC apologetic in 2012 but today I am told that 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong'? Was the BBC wrong to apologise in 2012 or wrong not to apologise now? Was what was 'plain shoddy work' in 2012 deemed acceptable in 2013?

May I remind you of the BBC Charter, Guidelines, Section 1: The BBC's Editorial Values, Editorial Values, 1.2.11 Accountability

'We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them.  Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them.  We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.' 

Regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat

And here is what I wrote on my follow-up complaint, managing to use all available characters:

'Your response to my complaint was 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong - in other words, point-scoring. We were happy to add the label of Egypt to the map, but as we said in our previous reply, it was not out of necessity.'

This response didn't answer my complaint.

I am not point scoring, I am simply asking why the BBC omitting the label Egypt in 2012 was apologised for by the BBC, calling it 'plain shoddy work for which we apologise' but in 2013 when the same omission on the same map is repeated I am told that the subsequent correction was 'not done out of necessity' and that no apology was required.

Why was the BBC apologetic in 2012 but today I am told that 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong'? Was the BBC wrong to apologise in 2012 or wrong not to apologise now? Was what was 'plain shoddy work' in 2012 deemed acceptable in 2013?

May I remind you of the BBC Charter, Guidelines, Section 1: The BBC's Editorial Values, Editorial Values, 1.2.11 Accountability
'We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them.  Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them.  We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.'

Please have the decency to answer my legitimate questions relating to BBC Editorial Values rather than sending me another terse, dismissive response.'

the BBC respond to my complaint

Further to my complaint to the BBC, detailed here, I have had a reply - a very grudging one:

'NewsOnline Complaints  4 Oct (4 days ago)

Dear Mr MaybeaGoat

"Egypt" has been added to the map. The border between Israel and Egypt, and Gaza and Egypt, was clearly visible, even without labelling Egypt, so we do not agree that without labelling Egypt it creates the impression that Egypt is Israeli territory. Nevertheless, for clarity the label has been added.

Kind regards

Middle East desk
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/'

I have responded:

'Thank you for your prompt correction, however I would point out that the last time I pointed out (http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/egypt-doesnt-exist.html) the same error out the BBC apologised, admitting that 'One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'

Was the BBC wrong to apologise for 'plain shoddy work' then or is it now?

Kind regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

The BBC are at it again, trying to hid the fact that Gaza has a border with Egypt as well as Israel

I have previously blogged about the BBC's persistent attempts to hide the fact that Gaza has a border with Egypt, indeed on 5 November 2012 I reported that the BBC had actually apologised:

NewsOnline Complaints to me

Dear Sir,

Sorry not to reply sooner to your complaint.

One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'

Well almost a year on and the BBC have done it again

I have complained and we'll see if the BBC respond...

Apple's New Operating System iOS 7 Doesn't Give Jerusalem A Country

'Why I will not be upgrading to iOS 7 and why my next phone will not be an iPhone-I have no desire to support an anti-Israel enterprise. Do you?'

Full story here http://yidwithlid.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/anti-israel-apples-new-operating-system.html

What's the difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England and the British Isles?

C.G.P. Grey explains and such as @Rulesthewaves would do well to watch and learn.

I know I've posted this video before but it's damned interesting!

Isn't it disgusting how Israel dominates the Middle East

The map that the BBC won't show.

The invisible border

I have had the unfortunate experience of debating Middle East matters on Twitter with someone today. His twitter handle is @kjfella1.

Here's how the conversation went:
 

Unfortunately at this point I think my Palestinian supporting genius blocked me as my reply doesn't appear on his timeline. Here is is though:

Somehow I don't think @kjfella1 is interested in facts.


Here's kjfella1's Twitter bio:

Palestinian American,I write, direct, and am a stand up comic =0 part owner of street wear brand Wealthy Division it varies · wealthydivision.com

Well the 'comic' part seems to fit. I certainly can't take him seriously.

Oh and here's a map for @kjfella1 to peruse...

Do you see the border between Gaza and Egypt or is that just a Zionist plot?

The interesting thing is that even if kjfella1 does see this map, if he's anything like the pro-Palestinians that I have debated with before, he'll still be spouting the same crap tomorrow because facts just aren't relevant.

Oy that's my map

I noted that traffic to my site was down and its because this blog is no longer featuring in the top images for the Google search 'Gaza map'. Oddly the same map that I featured in this article last year still appears in the Google images search but instead of this blog, it links to this blog.

To be fair Durruti's Flames is making a similar point to me regarding the map, but is that really the point?

Here's the map in question...

This map makes a similar visual point

The BBC correct their 'error' but don't apologise

Further to this post re the BBC's regular inability to show Egypt on maps of Gaza's neighbours, I have finally received a response from the BBC.

NewsOnline Complaints	19:34 (13 hours ago)
to me

Dear Mr MaybeaGoat

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have fixed the map on this story to show Egypt.

Kind regards

Middle East desk
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

I wonder how long it will be before I have to point out this same 'error' again?

Here's the new map...

Much more accurate than the old one...

Isn't Google good!

I have had a significant increase in traffic to my site over the past few days and on investigation it seems that the increase was due to one of the maps contained in this article from July last year. That article was about the BBC deliberately misleading people as to the countries that border Gaza. Here's what I wrote then:

'In the BBC article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza'', the BBC include this map

This map makes it seem as though Israel is both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus explaining how Israel has been able to blockade it for some years now. There is of course a problem with this - Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South East is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is...

So why have the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that first map? If the BBC come back and say it was an unfortunate accident due to the scale of the map I will not believe them...'

Coincidentally I raised the same issue just over a week ago. There seems to be a pattern emerging.  In fact on perusing my blog I also found this article from June 2010 that included a different but similarly misleading map, here's the relevant extract:

'The BBC and other media claim that Israel has sealed Gaza off from the outside world. This is a map of Gaza from the BBC website...
Note that both Gaza and Israel are clearly marked. What is not marked is the other country that borders Gaza to its South-West, Egypt. Egypt has a 11km border with Gaza through which as much aid or even trade could pass as Egypt wants. The BBC often claim that Israel 'controls' the crossings into Gaza. If Egypt wanted t open its border to Gaza it could do so but it does not want to. The Egyptians know what sort of government is in power in Gaza and what they want to achieve. Hamas and its colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood want to see the destruction of Israel but their view of Egypt's future is not one that the Egyptian government approve of.'

The BBC's anti-Israel stance is well documented on this blog and others. Their refusal to release the Balen Report and their spending of, so far, around £300,000 on legal argument to keep it secret hardly inspires confidence in their lack of bias. So I hope that people looking for a map of Gaza also found some interesting information re the BBC, Israel and Gaza.

Egypt doesn't exist!

Still the BBC can't name Egypt on a map of Israel and Gaza

This time the article is here.

When just over a year ago I made a similar complaint, the BBC included this in their explanation, Here's that part of my complaint and the relevant part of their response:

'Here's the first map and note the lack of the word Egypt and the way that there is no differentiation between Israel and Egypt in terms of colour as there would be in any normal map (I believe mapmakers usually work to a three colour rule)...

Here is the BBC's latest response, that includes an actual apology:


NewsOnline Complaints to me

Dear Sir,

Sorry not to reply sooner to your complaint.

One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'

So one year on and are the BBC being shoddy or is there an agenda here?

A complaint is on its way to the BBC...

'Complaint title: Deliberate misdirection of readers of article

Complaint description: I note that still the BBC can't name Egypt on a map of Israel and Gaza. On the above link you will see a map. This map makes it seem as though Israel is both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus presumably explaining how Israel has been able to blockade it for some years now. There is of course a problem with this: Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South West is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is... So why have the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that map? Before you tell me that 'The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.' as you did in your first reply to a similar complaint of mine last year, please note that in October last year I received this second reply regarding the same map from NewsOnline Complaints 'Dear Sir, Sorry not to reply sooner to your complaint. One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.' Why is the BBC still using this shoddy map? Why are you trying to mislead people?'

Oh dear Apple, not good at all

It would seem that Apple's ios6 mapping app is not only not as good as Google Maps but also not fit for purpose. Towns are missing, long defunct shops have reappeared, lakes have disappeared, airport runways are rather bumpy, the list is a long one. Here's a few examples.

Where's the lake in Hyderabad ?

Tarsdorf is actually about 3 km (~2 miles) away from Fucking.

Search for Manchester United Football Club and Apple shows you Sale United Football Club, a community team for ages five and above.

Basingstoke wasn't quite so rural the last time that I was there.

For more try this Tumblr site

The BBC update their report and use 'that map' again

Further to my previous post, the BBC have updated their report as below:

'Gaza Strip: Israeli strikes 'kill six militants'

At least six Palestinians have been killed in two Israeli strikes in Gaza against what Israel says were militants preparing rocket and bomb attacks.
Palestinians said three were killed by Israeli fire in the north of the strip on Thursday morning. Israel said they were planting a bomb near its fence.

Hours earlier, an air strike in central Gaza killed three militants who Israel said were set to fire rockets.

There has been a spate of rocket attacks and air strikes in recent days.

In the latest incident, Israel said it had fired at a "terrorist squad that was planting an explosive device". A Gaza health ministry official, Ashraf al-Qudra, said those killed were civilians, the AFP news agency reports.
It came hours after another strike which Israel said "targeted a terrorist squad... involved in previous rocket launches at communities located in southern Israel".

Witnesses said the air strike hit a car in which four people were travelling near the Bureij refugee camp.

Palestinian medical officials and witnesses confirmed that three militants had been killed in that attack.

A fourth man was critically injured, a health ministry spokesman told the BBC.

There has been an increase in cross-border rocket fire by Palestinian militants in recent days, though without causing casualties.

Israel says it holds the Hamas movement which runs Gaza responsible for all attacks emanating from Gaza, even if it is other militant groups carrying them out.'

My two favourite parts of that report, favourite as in typical of the BBC's anti-Israel agenda? First the wording  'There has been an increase in cross-border rocket fire by Palestinian militants in recent days, though without causing casualties.' As though the rocket firing can be discounted as nobody has been injured. The fact that the Jewish residents of Sderot have 15 seconds to flee into bomb shelters when the sirens sound, that Israel has built shelters and the iron-dome protection system to try and ensure that Israelis are not killed or injured by Hamas terrorist rockets is not deemed worthy of comment.

The second interesting aspect of that report is the map which looks rather similar to the one I complained about and got an apology from the BBC for (see here). This time the BBC have managed to show Egypt in a different colour from Israel and Gaza but not to identify Egypt by name. Also rather oddly Gaza and Israel are shown in the same colour, are the BBC incapable of having the usual three colours on their maps? This time the map does stray below the border between Israel & Gaza which is an improvement but again Egypt is not named. The intent is clearly to portray Gaza as dominated by Israel and to hide the fact that Egypt has a border with Gaza and thus any Israeli blockade can only be maintained with the cooperation (or even support) of Egypt.

I detest the BBC.

Why can't Israel just give up land to the Palestinians?

Why can't Israel just give up land to the Palestinians? Is a cry I often hear, land for peace... Israel has done this so often that it's just not credible to claim that they just need to cede land for peace.

Israel's very size at creation was a result of losing land. The first map below shows the land promised to Israel as the Jewish National Home in Palestine as demarcated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention. The second map shows the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders to form Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan, later Jordan, is the Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is the Jewish homeland.

I know that I covered this story before and I no doubt will again but the story needs telling again and again as the BBC and other media tell such a distorted story of the modern history and geography of the middle east.

Tackling inconsistencies in the BBC's responses to a complaint

Further to this piece I have written to the BBC asking how they explain the two widely differing answers to my original complaint.

'Thank you for your reply and for the admission that there was something very wrong with the first map. I still do not see why the second map could not have been either larger in size or of a smaller scale to show the true border situation but I guess that is something that we will not agree on.

What does interest me is this. You have apologised for the first map, for which I gracefully thank you. However on 17 August a reply from the same group email address addressed my complaint about the first map like this:
'Thank you for your e-mail and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.'

Why did the first responder so answer my complaint if you believe the map was 'plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'? 

How can the BBC send two such different responses to the same complaint?

Which response from the BBC should I accept as being the BBC's actual view on this matter?


Kind regards

NotaSheep maybeaGoat'

I await a response, or maybe two!

The BBC apologise!

On 6 July I complained to the BBC about their publishing of two maps that deliberately mislead people about Gaza's borders.

Here's the first map and note the lack of the word Egypt and the way that there is no differentiation between Israel and Egypt in terms of colour as there would be in any normal map (I believe mapmakers usually work to a three colour rule)...

Here is the BBC's latest response, that includes an actual apology:

NewsOnline Complaints to me

Dear Sir,

Sorry not to reply sooner to your complaint.

One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.

On the second map http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14051618 there is no space to mark Egypt. Our standard maps of this kind are made by journalists using a map making programme - size of frame and the options for labelling are limited. While Egypt is not marked, for lack of space, it is in a different colour to Israel, so there is no impression of Israel surrounding Gaza.

Best regards,

Middle East desk
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

The story is not quite as simple as that, so here's the full chronology:

On 17 August the BBC responded thus:

'NewsOnline Complaints to me
 
Mr Goat,
Thank you for your e-mail and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.
The same applies to the second map, which illustrates a story about Israel and Lebanon. This map also does not name Saudi Arabia, which is also not mentioned in the report. In a story about England we might show an appropriate map, but it might not be necessary to name Scotland and Wales if they were not relevant to that particular report.
...

Best wishes,

BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml '

 

*****************************************************

{Title:} Mr  
{First Name:} NotaSheep  
{Last Name:} MaybeaGoat
{Under 13:} No
{Email:} notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com
{Postcode:}
{Location:} England
{Phone:}

{Feedback Type:} I would like to... Make a complaint
{Summary:} Deliberate misdirection of readers of article
{URL:} http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536
{Complaint:} On 6 July I complained about the deliberate misdirection of
readers of the above article.
'In the BBC article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central
Gaza'', the BBC include a map. This map makes it seem as though Israel is
both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus explaining how Israel has been able to
 blockade it for some years now. There is of course a problem with this:
Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South
East is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is... So why have
 the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that first map?'
A day later you published another map in this article -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14051618 - and yet again the map
 missed off any reference to Egypt.
I can see no excuse for this deliberately misleading of the public. I can
also not see why I have yet to receive a response to my original complaint.

{Reply:} Yes

I replied with this:

Thank you for your response but I am sorry I do not, as they say, buy it.

The first map shows the borders of Gaza just to the point where Gaza ends. If the map went any further south then it would have to show the border between Israel and Egypt. Contrary to your claim in your email ' the map would have included Egypt' - the map does include Egypt, it is just that you choose not to denote that country. This is important as the BBC do often seem to try to spread the narrative that Israel controls entry to and exit from Gaza when in fact there is a long land border between Gaza and Egypt, the very border that you chose not to show on that map.

Your comparison with the omission of Saudi Arabia from the second map is a red herring as that country is more than one border away from the scene of the story.

Two maps; both not mentioning Egypt, a country that borders Gaza; not that someone relying on the BBC for their facts would see that.

...

Regards

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat


PS: I am not Mr Goat, I am Mr MaybeaGoat

Over two months after the last reply, three plus months after the original complaint, the BBC have responded seemingly to the original complaint(?), and there's an apology in there:

NewsOnline Complaints to me

Dear Sir,

Sorry not to reply sooner to your complaint.

One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is
plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.

On the second map http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14051618
there is no space to mark Egypt. Our standard maps of this kind are made
by journalists using a map making programme - size of frame and the
options for labelling are limited. While Egypt is not marked, for lack
of space, it is in a different colour to Israel, so there is no
impression of Israel surrounding Gaza.

Best regards,

Middle East desk
BBC News website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml


-----Original Message-----
From: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com
[mailto:notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 August 2011 09:59
To: NewsOnline Complaints
Subject: Complaint Reply Required




{Title:} Mr

{First Name:} NotaSheep

{Last Name:} MaybeaGoat

{Under 13:} No

{Email:} notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com

{Postcode:}

{Location:} England

{Phone:}


{Feedback Type:} I would like to... Make a complaint

{Summary:} Deliberate misdirection of readers of article

{URL:} http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536

{Complaint:} On 6 July I complained about the deliberate misdirection of
readers of the above article.
'In the BBC article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in
central Gaza'', the BBC include a map. This map makes it seem as though
Israel is both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus explaining how Israel
has been able to  blockade it for some years now. There is of course a
problem with this:
Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the
South East is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is...
So why have  the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that first map?'

A day later you published another map in this article -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14051618 - and yet again the
map  missed off any reference to Egypt.

I can see no excuse for this deliberately misleading of the public. I
can also not see why I have yet to receive a response to my original
complaint.

{Reply:} Yes


{Previous Contact:} Yes

{Related To Previous Contact:} Yes

{Reason For Return Contact:} noResponse 

So on 17 August the BBC push this line:

'Thank you for your e-mail and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. The first map is not intended to be an accurate geographic or political representation but to show the location of Gaza and where this particular incident happened. Had Egypt been involved in any way in this story, the map would have included Egypt.'

But in October the BBC admit that:

'One of the maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536 is
plain shoddy work, for which we apologise. It should mark Egypt.'

The explanation for the state of the second map also differs between the two replies. Why the discrepancies? I will be asking the question...

At least the BBC are consistent

Yesterday I blogged about the BBC's deliberate misrepresentation of which countries border Gaza, here's the relevant map that does not identify Egypt as the country bordering Gaza to the south west.

Today I notice in this article the same omission.

Why do the BBC not like to show the fact that Egypt borders Gaza on their maps of the Middle East? Are they trying to further their narrative of a bullying Israel dominating the immediate area, even though that is at variance with the facts. Here's a map of the Arab World showing how large Israel really is...

Deliberate BBC misinformation re Israel & Gaza?

In case you missed the ending of my last post, I thought that I would emphasise the point here.

In the BBC article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza'', the BBC include this map

This map makes it seem as though Israel is both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus explaining how Israel has been able to blockade it for some years now. There is of course a problem with this - Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South West is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is...

So why have the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that first map? If the BBC come back and say it was an unfortunate accident due to the scale of the map I will not believe them...


A complaint has been lodged...

'Complaint type: BBC News
Location: England
What is your complaint about: BBC News Online
Address of the page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14035536
Complaint category: Bias
Complaint summary: Deliberate misdirection of readers of article
Full complaint: In the BBC article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza'', the BBC include a map. This map makes it seem as though Israel is both enormous and surrounds Gaza thus explaining how Israel has been able to blockade it for some years now. There is of course a problem with this: Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South East is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is... So why have the BBC omitted the word Egypt from that first map?
Receive a reply: Yes
Contacted us before: Yes
Complaint related to previous contact: No
Title: Mr
First name: NotaSheep
Surname: MaybeaGoat
Email address: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com
Under 13: No'

More on the BBC's story of 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza''

I have been busy all day but have just returned to the BBC's article headlined 'Israel forces 'kill two militants in central Gaza''. It's a more fascinating piece now than it was this morning, not because of any changes but because more than ten hours after it was put up it still reads very oddly. Here's the article as it reads, with my comments in italics.

'Israeli forces have killed two Palestinians and wounded another in the central Gaza Strip, Palestinian medics and Israeli sources say.
A bare statement of fact although if the Palestinian sources are identified as 'medics' why are the Israeli sources so identified?

The incident took place near the border fence with Israel after a two-month lull in violence along the border.
Has there been a ceasefire or a 'lull'? How often has the 'lull' been broken? What actions preceded the lull? After 10 hours surely some more meat could be added to this story.

Israeli military sources said the army had targeted militants who were trying to fire rockets into Israel.
Did the Israeli army say they had targeted 'militants' or did they say 'terrorists'? See my earlier complaint for why this is an example of the BBC breaking its own editorial guidelines.

They seem to be the first deaths since an unofficial April ceasefire between Israel and most Gaza militant groups.
Would a mention of the Fogel family who were massacred in their sleep by Palestinian terrorists in March not be in order here, a s a reminder of which side are the aggressors?

"Two people were killed and one was injured in an artillery shelling east of the al-Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip," emergency services spokesman Adham Abu Selmiya told the AFP news agency.
Did the 'emergency services spokesman' not identify who these people were, or what organisation they worked for?

Those who were killed are believed to be from a small militant groups sometimes called Salafist jihadis, says the BBC's Jon Donnison in Gaza.
Would a description of what these groups want and/or believe in be in order? Who says these people are Salafist jihadis? Could Jon Donnison not provide a bit more detail after ten or more hours?

Salafists did not sign up to the ceasefire but since then, Hamas - which governs in Gaza - has reined in smaller militant groups, our correspondent adds.'
Why did the Salfist jihadis not sign up to the ceasefire? How does anyone sign up to an 'unofficial ceasefire' anyway, for that is what we were told it was a few paragraphs previously? If Hamas has reined in the smaller 'militant groups' (I presume militant is the BBC's preferred word) and the BBC seems to want to give them credit for that, then what happened here?

Why is this article so sparse so many hours after it first appeared? Am I being cynical in assuming that if there had been some negative news to reflect on Israel, for example unarmed civilians or children killed that the article would have been expanded to include tales (and maybe pictures) of the weeping wives and/or mothers but as these were 'militants'/terrorists that were killed the BBC will just let this story wither away.

Finally, there is the map that the BBC choose to illustrate the article with...

It is incredible how the BBC can make Israel look so enormous and also as if it surrounds Gaza, thus being able to blockade it for all these years.

There is just one problem with this - Israel does not surround Gaza. The country that borders Gaza to the South East is Egypt not Israel, that is where the Rafah Crossing is...

So why the omission of the word Egypt from that first map?

How big should the Jewish National Home (Israel) be?

It was only after World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference(1), that the name "Palestine" was applied to a clearly defined piece of territory - the area which today comprises Israel and Jordan. It was agreed that "Palestine" was to become a League of Nations Mandate, entrusted to Great Britain. Under the terms of the Mandate, Britain's principal obligation was to facilitate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, which pledged "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people."(2) No territorial restrictions whatsoever - neither east nor west of the Jordan River were placed on the Jewish National Home. In fact, the Mandate stipulated that Britain was to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land."(3)

The British however split the land promised to the "Jewish People" and gave approximately  78% to create Transjordan.

Nevertheless, in July 1922, the British divided Palestine into two administrative districts. Note the black line on the map. Jews would be permitted only west of the black line. To the east, in what became known as "Transjordan", the British installed a Hashemite ruler named Abdullah, who had been expelled from the Arabian peninsula.(1) By making this division, the British reduced the area available for the Jewish National Home to only 22% of the entire area of Palestine.

Jordan is the land that the Palestinians should live in and that has been accepted by many in the past. Do remember that back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

As I have said before the late 1940s were a time of great population transfers in Eastern Europe, between India and Pakistan and elsewhere and yet only in Israel/Palestine are the displaced still considered refugees. In 1948 over a million Hindus fled Pakistan and a similar number of Muslims left India for Pakistan. Both populations were absorbed by their new countries. In the same region, large population transfers happened when Bangladesh was created. Likewise ethnic Germans were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe had to assimilate in Germany, whilst Hungarian refugees from Czechoslovakia and other places found sanctuary in Hungary, Ukrainians who were expelled from Poland found sanctuary in Ukraine, and so on. In the Middle East 750,000 Jews were expelled form their homes in Arab countries and were absorbed into Israel. Why were the 'Palestinians' not absorbed into Jordan, Syria, Egypt & The Lebanon? The Palestinians talk about the 'right of return' and their right to live in their ancestral homes again. Does the same right exist for the Jews forced to flee Iraq, Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries? The value of the assets these Jews left behind has been valued at today's prices at around $300 billion. A US based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel.

So why did the Arab countries not absorb the Palestinian refugees? In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which stated thus:

'The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.'

So the Palestinian refugees are not permanent refugees because of Israel's actions but because of a decision taken by the Arab League. Thus the accepted narrative that heaps blame on Israel because it expelled the refugees is actually not true.


Having  lost 78% of what was promised to the Jewish people for a homeland and now existing on a sliver of land surrounded by far larger Muslim countries why should Israel be further reduced in size? Do you realise how small Israel is? Why should the Jews not be allowed to keep one small portion of the land they were promised in the Balfour Declaration?

Maps and side text is from The Jewish Agency's maps and Iris.