Yesterday an innocent young woman from the UK, Hannah Bladon, was brutally murdered by a terrorist in Jerusalem. Yet reading the article tucked away in the “Middle East” section of the BBC website, one would find it difficult to realise that this is what actually happened.
The headline states, “Jerusalem stabbing: Tributes paid to Hannah Bladon.” This is in contrast to the terror attack a few weeks ago in London which the BBC reported as, “London attack: Four dead in Westminster terror attack.” In London (outside of Israel) when a terrorist, inspired by the incitement of militant Islam, murders innocents, it’s a “terror attack.” In Israel, where innocents are murdered by a terrorist, inspired by the incitement of militant Islam the word “terror” is nowhere to be seen in the headline, or indeed the entire article. There was just a “Jerusalem Stabbing” not a “terror attack.”
The BBC article continues, “Birmingham University student Hannah Bladon was killed on a tram in Jerusalem on Good Friday…a 57-year-old Palestinian man was detained at the scene.” I wonder why? Why isn’t he described as the alleged terrorist or the alleged murderer? The Times of Israel stated clearly, “British exchange student murdered in a terror attack in Jerusalem on Friday.”
Why did the Israeli policeman quoted in the article use the excuse that the terrorist was “mentally disturbed.” Does that imply that every brainwashed murdering terrorist is “mentally disturbed?” It reminds me of the old black humour of the Jerusalem residents of pre ’67 Jerusalem. Whenever a Jordanian soldier would open fire on innocent civilians from the Old City walls he would be referred to as the “Meshuga HaToran” (The mentally disturbed lunatic on duty”) as there was invariably a press communiqué issued that the soldier who opened fire was “mentally disturbed.” Indeed, the recently released former Jordanian soldier Ahmad Dakamseh who killed seven Israeli school girls twenty years ago was also described as “mentally disturbed.” This did not impact on his hero’s welcome and being feted by the national Jordanian media upon his release. Indeed, Dakamseh showed no remorse during interviews with Jordanian media. He said his opinion of Israelis had not changed and he added: ‘As for my position on the Zionists, you all know…what I did 20 years ago.’ Perhaps these monsters see killing a Jew as a free pass to get into “paradise”. Crazy? Yes. But to say that they are mentally ill is an insult to the millions who have mental illness and do not murder.
Why doesn’t the BBC call a terrorist a terrorist if the attack occurs within Israel but only if the attack occurs outside Israel? Why doesn’t the BBC realise that all terror, wherever it happens, from London, to New York, to Sydney, to Cairo, to Jerusalem stems from the same source, incitement by fanatical militant Islam to go out murder “non believers” in order to establish a pan-Muslim caliphate? Why does the BBC have double standards in the language it uses to describe terror attacks inside Israel? Why are the reports sanitised of the words “terror,” “terrorist” or indeed the word “murder?”
The BBC’s policy of reporting terror attacks with a different lexicon if they occur inside Israel is a prime example of the double standard utilised by vast swaths of the international media towards Israel and may even contribute somehow to the pseudo-legitimisation of these terror attacks themselves.