Paul Danahar is the BBC Middle East editor and the subject of part 3 of this series, which I will wind up tomorrow. When the son of Danahar’s BBC Gaza colleague Jihad Masharawi was killed at the outset of Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense this past November, Danahar all but accused Israel of murder. Via his Twitter account @pdanahar, Danahar tweeted his reaction to young Masharawi’s death: “Questioned [sic] asked here is: if Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month) how did Jihad’s son get killed?”
Yet Danahar’s own photo of Masharawi’s house after it was hit by the munition that killed Masharawi’s son (above) strongly suggests that no Israeli munition did the damage. On the contrary, it suggests that an errant Hamas rocket killed Masharawi’s son. I asked Danahar via Twitter at the time on what basis he identified the munition as Israeli. He never responded.
Now that the advance version of a UN report has suggested that a Hamas rocket killed Masharawi’s son, Danahar seems to have lost interest in determining how Jihad’s son got killed. Danahar has confined himself to this disingenuous tweet:
UN disputes details of strike on colleagues house in Gaza. IDF briefed at time it was them & were targeting militant http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21749527 …
Reply to @pdanahar
The point here — and I do have a point — is that Danahar, the BBC, and other mainstream media outlets including the Washington Post made themselves supporting players in a monumental example of Terrorist Theater. They turned the death of young Masharawi and Israel’s alleged culpability into an international sensation. If only these media giants had the least interest in understanding the use to which they have been put or keeping it from happening again.
One commenter replied to Danahar’s tweet:
19 hrs Jay Lampert Jay Lampert @MortChristenson
@pdanahar UN isn’t quite disputing it. They are correcting it fairly clearly. The fogs of war have lifted & the truth is clearer.Jay Lampert Jay Lampert @MortChristenson
@pdanahar that’s a pretty crappy “correction” there Paul.
I thought I might be able to elicit a response from Danahar. I certainly wanted to do so. I replied to his tweet:
17 hrs Scott Johnson Scott Johnson @scottwjohnson
@pdanahar Your own tweeted photo at the time showed the damage looked like a Hamas rocket, not an Israeli missile. #chump
And again:
17 hrs Scott Johnson Scott Johnson @scottwjohnson
@pdanahar I asked you via Twitter at the time why you identified the munition as Israeli. You never responded. #chump
And one more time:
17 hrs Scott Johnson Scott Johnson @scottwjohnson
@pdanahar Why can’t you admit you were had (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know any better)? #chump
So far Danahar is exercising his right to remain silent.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.