Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Yesterday, November 12, both NPR and the BBC reported on Israel returning Syrian fire, first with a warning shot, and then, when Syrian mobile artillery again fired into Israel, with a non-warning firing that, of course, hit its Syrian target.
Here is how NPR dealt with it:
At 12:03 p.m., an NPR reporter informed the national NPR audience that the war of 1973 was "the last time the two [Israsel and Syria]exchanged fire."
The BBC reported the story -- you can still see it up at the BBC website -- this way:
12 November 2012
Syria crisis: Israeli tanks 'hit Syrian units' in Golan
Israel and Syria have not fought since 1973, but remain in a state of war
Israel's military says its tanks have scored "direct hits" on Syrian artillery units after Syrian mortar shells fell near an Israeli army post.
It comes a day after Israel fired warning shots after it said a Syrian shell hit another of its army posts on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
The episode is the most serious between the two countries since the Arab-Israeli war of 1973
So the NPR reporter tells us, with authority, that Israel and Syria last "exchanged fire" in 1973.
And the BBC report tells us that the little exchange over this weekend --- two firings exactly by Israel, one of them a warning shot, and by Syria, three or four artillery shells that are likely to have been the result of incompetence and negligence rather than of deliberate provocation -- "is the most serious between the two countries since the Arab-Israeli war of 1973." And, asserts the BBC reporter urbi et orbi, "Israel and Syria have not fought since 1973."
Alright, I'm going to paraliptically pass over the many many errors and evidences of near-criminal negligence by both the BBC and NPR, over many years, in their coverage of the Arab-Israeli wars, or more accurately, of the without-end Muslim Arab Jihad against the Infidel nation-state of Israel, a Jihad carried out by many means, of which battlefield violence, qital, is only oneiinstrument, and not the most effective. I'm not going to mention, in praeteritio-fashion, about the failure of both the BBC and NPR to ever mention the reason for being of the Mandate for Palestine. I'm not going to discuss their failure to ever mention the Mandates system, or to quote from the Mandate for Palestine itself. Right now is not the moment to discuss the feailure of the BBC and NPR to explain to their audiences what such words as "dhimmi" and "jizyah" mean, or to discuss the duty incumbent on Muslims to engage, directly or indireclty, in Jihad in order to ensure that not this or that bit of land, but the entire world, ultimately comes under the domination of Islam, and rule by Muslims -- the very thing without knowledge of which the Jihad against Israel remains confusing, misunderstood, misinterpreted. And I won't bother to note that the failure, over decades, of the BBC and NPR to explaiin to their audiences about Muslim treaty-making, that is about the Truce Treaty of Hudaibiyya as a model for all subsequent agreements made by Muslims with non-Muslim powers, keeps people from grasping why it was, and why it always will be, that the agreements made by Muslim Arab states with Israel have almost always been broken, in ways large and small, and it is only the deterrent power of Israel's military that keeps the peace, more or less, between Israel and the Musilm Arab states that surround it.
No, I'm only going to mention that when the BBC claims that "Israel and Syria have not fought since 1973" and when NPR claims that Israel and Syria last "excchanged fire" in the 1973 war, both are attempting to express (here connoisseurs will recognize a celebrated review, by A. E. Housman, of S. G. Owen's edition of Persius and Juvenal) the fact that one of the largest air battles in history took place between Israel and Syria in 1982, and that in that battle, 85 Syrian planes were shot down with not a single Israeli loss. And it was that battle that has insured quiet on the Israeli-Syrian front ever since, and it is the memory of that battle that will keep those errant mortar rounds from Syrian artillery from being repeated.
What does NPR, what does the BBC, know about the facts having to do with the history of the Jihad against the Infidel nation-state of Israel by its Muslim Arab neighbors?
Apparently, not very much. Howlers abound.
I've offered you the latest, but my notebook -- and yours too, I suspect -- is brimful with others.
Ignorance of the nature of Jihad and of Islam is not only an obvious threat to Israel, but prevents the formulation of policies -- foreign and domestic -- that adequately reflect an understanding of the ideology of Islam, and the attitudes and beliefs of its adherents.
This can't go on. This can no longer be tolerated. It never should have been.
Posted on 11/13/2012 9:48 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
13 Nov 2012
Hugh, I think I can go one better.
Here, in this report
from the reliably Islamophile / obfuscatory Reuters, as channelled through Australia's ABC and appearing on the ABC's online news portal, is this:
'Israeli forces have fired into Syria in what the military called [note the subliminal hint to the reader that IDF statements should be viewed sceptically - CM] after stray munitions from fighting between Syrian troops and rebels [Reuters; ABC; do you know, 100 %, that these shots were 'stray'? - CM] hit the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. [they could have left the 'Israeli-occupied' bit out; to leave it in, is to endorse the Arab/ Muslim narrative - CM].
But here are the two sentences that made my BS meter explode:
"Israel captured the Golan in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed the strategic plateau (care to explain just how Syria had been using that 'strategic plateau', Reuters? ABC? - CM) in 1981, a move not recognised internationally. In all past peace talks with Israel, Syria has insisted on the Golan's return."
Reuters, and Australia's ABC relaying Reuters, says NOTHING about the hail of fire from Syria into Israel prior to 1967; that the Golan was taken in defensive war, and annexed for the same reasons.
And it gets worse:
'The two countries signed a disengagement agreement in 1974, a year after another Arab-Israeli conflict'...
See that? 'in 1974, a year after another Arab-Israeli conflict'.
What a peculiar circumlocution. How hard would it have been to write: 'in 1974, a year after the 1973 Yom Kippur war'?
Seemingly, the very words '1973' and 'Yom Kippur' stuck in the craw of whoever wrote this particular Reuters report, and whoever at the ABC chose to reproduce it,
If they really wanted their younger readers (those born 1965 and later; and even I, born in 1963, was too young in 1973 to pay much attention to the International News) to understand the history and the strategic situation, something like this would have been good:
"The two countries signed a disengagement agreement in 1974, after the Yom Kippur War of 1973 in which Israel had successfully defended itself against a surprise all-fronts Arab Muslim invasion launched on Judaism's holiest day".