Last week the BBC ran a story about a young man with Down’s syndrome in Gaza who was they said was mauled and ‘left to die’ by the IDF.
How does the BBC know this story is true? Because the mother told them it was.
Digging into the story unravelled the truth – and it is as shocking, as it is extreme. The BBC not only provided cover for Hamas – whitewashing a terrorist family – putting a highly distorted and edited narrative online – and blaming the death of a Hamas human shield on Israel – the BBC journos then deliberately butchered an IDF statement to make sure the truth was never told.
The problematic journo
My first real suspicions about the article were raised by the involvement of BBC Journalist Haneen Abdeen. She was one of the three journalists involved in creating the article and the only native Arabic speaker. These situations create a massive agency problem for the BBC, and one that they apparently remain oblivious to. The other two journalists (Fergal Keane and Alice Doyard) become dependent on the integrity and motivations of a single Palestinian journalist – and this skews the output in favour of an anti-Israel position from the beginning. Abdeen has even run and promoted anti-Israel events – so she can hardly be considered an impartial journalist. Abdeen also has form, and in November she was the Arabic speaking BBC Journalist that helped put together an entirely fake story (100% junk) that platformed a terrorist supporter and promoted a bunch of lies about trapped young footballers.
Her involvement as the lead Arabic speaker suggests that the BBC never honestly sought evidence to rigorously challenge the story they promoted.
The witnesses and probable cause
Mohammed Bahr had Down’s syndrome. His family home was in a combat zone and was raided by the IDF on the 2/3 July.
The first mention of Mohammed online comes from his brother Mekael at 8pm on July 3. He was not a witness – but he tells the story of the IDF arresting his two brothers (Adam and Saif) at a family home in the east of Al-Shujaia neighbourhood near Gaza City. Only after letting us know about his arrested brothers, and telling us his mother, sisters, and other ‘women of the family’ were there – does he tell us that another brother, Mohammed, was injured by a dog. This post is accompanied by pictures of his brothers and another image of Mohammed sitting alone by a bed.
But here is the thing. The person who introduced Mohammed to the world – Mekael Bahr- works for Islamic Jihad. He is a journo at their TV station, ‘Palestine Today’. He is a paid terrorist-supporting propagandist. Here is Mekael given VIP press treatment at the 29th anniversary celebration of the Islamic Jihad. He posted the footage on his Instagram. alongside hashtags praising ‘Jihad’.
Then there is the face of the BBC article, the mother Nabeel Al Yazji. Nabeel was a witness to what happened. I tracked down her FB account. It turns out her husband was killed in 2002 and buried in Hamas colours:
The BBC article even ackowledges she is a widow (did they not bother to check)? Which means the BBC’s key witness was the wife of a Hamas terrorist. The third key voice was a sister, ‘Sarah’. She was also in the home and a witness to the event. Her timeline is FULL of glorification of violence, murderous terrorism and the adoration of Hamas officials.
We are told of two brothers who were arrested in the house by the IDF (Saif and Adam). The Facebook timeline of one of them, Adam, carries numerous images of weapons. And this is him on the right in this image:
All this immediately creates TWO massive problems with the BBC article
- Context. There was ample information available online to show that this house, this family, would rightly be considered a family of terrorists. There was EVERY reason to treat this house as a military target – and the use of dogs as a way of mitigating risk – becomes a clear and obvious military strategy. The article implies (lying through omission) that the IDF randomly used dogs against a peaceful civilian family. This is a false image and in the circumstances it is a highly misleading and demonising one.
- Nobody is denying Mohammed was bitten by a dog – but the details and the narrative of the event and what followed are dependent on the honesty of the witnesses. This is a family that literally works with Islamic Jihad propaganda channels and has a history of supporting Hamas and providing fighters for the ’cause’. How can the BBC rely at all on what they are being told?
Narrative issues
There are so many holes in the family’s story that it becomes clear the BBC did not challenge or fact-check the story at all.
For example – we know two brothers were arrested when the soldiers entered. We also know other family members were present in the house. If a dog was mauling at Mohammed – why did nobody try to stop the dog attacking their brother, or mention that they tried to do so? There were at least two grown and physically able men present and according to the mother’s testimony on the 6th July there were SEVENTEEN people in the house.
Alternative scenarios:
- The terrorist brothers were hiding and had left Mohammed as a human shield
- Mohammed was not with the family, but abandoned and alone elsewhere in the house
If either of these are true – then the entire account of the family ‘witnessing’ the attack itself may well be false.
The IDF claim that after treating Mohammed for his wounds – they soon left the house because of intense fighting elsewhere that killed a soldier and wounded others. We can fact-check this – and we find there was a soldier killed on 3rd July in Shejiyah – where this episode took place (a brutal reminder there is a deadly war taking place around the soldiers involved). This means the IDF treated Mohammed and left the house the same day. Why did it take A WHOLE WEEK before the family tried to get to him? This is an obvious question. Did the BBC ask it? And if not, why not?
The BBC lies and whitewash
It is clear that the BBC did not bother to check anything, but it gets worse – they even IGNORED the evidence they did have. Part of the family contradictions were around where Mohammed was bitten. Firstly, the family said Mohammed was bitten on the hand (arm). Then it evolved to the chest. In an interview on the 6th the family then claimed he was also bitten on the face. The BBC carries the accusation about a bite to the chest in the article – even though it is CLEAR from footage the BBC has seen (we have both viewed the same footage provided by the brother Gabriel) – Mohammed was not bitten in the chest. The BBC is ignoring its own evidence.
It gets worse. Through Israeli channels I have managed to obtain the entire statement the IDF handed to the BBC. It contains a detailed account of what happened. The BBC carefully selected a few bits to support their story – but completely ignored other parts of the IDF response which gave added detail and provided important context. For example – the IDF told the BBC that terrorists had been identified INSIDE THE HOUSE.
This is the extract from the IDF statement – that provides vitally important detail was deliberately omitted by the BBC. Why did the BBC choose to conceal this?
“Inside one of the buildings, the canine detected terrorists and bit an individual.”
Given the clear evidence above and the IDF statement – it is fair to sumise Mohammed was being used as a human shield by terrorists from his own family. Yet the BBC has whitewashed all this out.
We know the IDF treated Mohammed. On July 4 Mohammed’s sister Nour (a witness) tells us that the IDF had put Mohammed on a stretcher and brought a doctor to tend to his wounds. From a July 5 post from another sister (not a witness) Jalnar – we learn that they took Mohammed to the bathroom.
What we do know is true from the evidence:
- The house was a valid military target
- Mohammed was bitten
- Mohammed was treated
- The family was evicted
- There was a battle nearby in which a soldier was killed
- The soldiers left
- Mohammed died
Everything else the BBC provide is a narrative put in place by a terrorist family – and the BBC has deliberately chosen to conceal important parts of the story – leaving nothing but a demonising narrative.
The invisible and lonely Mohammed
The BBC also approaches the story with a mindset of a modern progressive Western family. Attitudes towards children with special needs have improved beyond recognition over the last few decades. This is not true in the Arab world – and yet the BBC accepts the ‘loving family’ as a vital ingredient of the story they tell. It is known that Arab (especially Islamist) societies can consider these children as an embarrassment to be locked away. As it was swallowing the mother’s story whole – did the BBC look through the available evidence online?
After July 3rd these are the few images that the family shared on FB. In all of them Mohammed is alone.
Why are there no images of Mohammed with the mother, brother or sisters? Not one?
These images struck me as odd, so I tried to obtain an image of Mohammed as part of a wider family circle (at a family gathering of ANY type). I tracked down the family members. So I had access to social media timelines belonging to the mother Nabeela, brothers (Mikael, Adam, Saif, Gabriel and Jad), and sisters (Nour, Sarah, and Jalnar). I had other social media accounts such as an Instagram accounts for Sarah. (sister) and TikTok accounts from Mikael (brother).There is even a community page for the Bahar clan – the’ Bahar Family Association’.
Some profiles are open, some are closed but collectively 1000s of posts and 1000s of images were accessible covering a timespan of over a decade. I searched for a single reference of their brother Mohammed PRIOR to July 2 2024. An image, a reference – anything.
I did not find a single thing. Not a mention or photo.
I did find this. Posted by Jad, a brother of Mohammed. What brother of someone with Down’s syndrome would mock someone who is affected?
All this led to suspicions that perhaps it was the family who deserted Mohammed. But I am not here to build a narrative of my own – I am only here to point out the unacceptable – unchecked – and unverified material promoted by BBC
I did everything I could to try to get an image from the family. I contacted the elder brother – Gabriel. He was unable to give me a single recent photo of Mohammed with the family. He did give me the number for Sarah (sister). I reached out to her to and she responded. She told me she would try to dig up family pictures of Mohammed.
I waited. Sarah was friendly and the following day she sent me a run of photos of Mohammed as a child. I then reminded her I was explicitly looking for any photo of Mohammed as an ADULT surrounded by his family.
I am now experiencing radio silence. It appears that is a difficult thing for the family to provide.
Whatever the truth about Mohammed’s treatment by his own family – this should not be used to deflect attention away from the real problem here. BBC journalists are acting as if they are seasoned activists commissioned by Electronic Intifada. And from the evidence presented above it is clear some BBC journalists are not just failing to challenge Hamas propaganda before they promote it – but they are also deliberately withholding information in order to spread a non-factual, misleading and demonising image of the Jewish state.
Help support the fight against antisemitism.
My research is unique and hard hitting.
I battle back against those who seek to revise history, demonise Israel – and I expose antisemitism wherever it is found. I fight when others don’t. The results speak for themselves and for ten years I have been exposing hate and creating headlines.
Please help If you can, consider making a donation. Your help makes it all possible.
You can make PayPal donations using the donate button below.
Or by using my Paypal.,me account.
If you wish to provide regular monthly support you can also do this via my Patreon page
Every contribution is truly appreciated
Excellent as always David. Very thorough journalism. If not already this report should be in the in-tray of the BBC’s DG.
I record every bbc newscast to go through their “reports” about Israel. They are beyond guilty of nearly every journalistic ethic: mistruths, half truths, blaring “omissions” and carefully “excised” bits of the nearly non existent information they provide from the Israeli sources…a fancy but of editing in order to get the desired effect. Anything from or about Israel is generally prefaced by “Israel ‘claims’…” (the subtle nuance being that it is simply a claim rather than a fact) as opposed to the preface given to anything given by or on behalf of Hamas or its “Health Ministry” (both known prevarications) ”According to…”, which tends to lend BBC credence to whatever has been said. I then register formal complaints to the BBC via their website. They no longer bother to respond. I may be remembering incorrectly, but when the BBC “reporter on the scene” when the rocket exploded at the first hospital in Gaza, immediately on air stated “It could only have been Israel.” As we know, an investigation debunked this claim on all levels: whose rocket, actually in the car park – not the Hospital itself; “death toll”. But the damage was done…no retraction (which they were forced to do) could unplant the seed that had been planted in people’s minds.And as I recall, that kicked off the endless worldwide anti Israel protests that we now live with daily. They may well have started eventually but they, as I recall, erupted as a direct result of that BBC “reporter’s misinformation.
Another strong post David which builds up the ever growing body of evidence that the BBC is not an impartial reporter of events relating to Jews or Israel.
Those of us with sons and daughters currently in harms way whilst defending our country know the all too familiar reality of the households of the peace loving Gazans and their freely elected representatives. Months of house to house searches have revealed that almost every dwelling has a concealed storage area housing light and heavy weapons from pistols to RPGs and mortar shells. These are the homes of the same innocents that cheered with joy as Israeli women and children were dragged bloodied and bruised though Gazan streets on 7/10; the same blameless souls that stamped and spat on elderly women hostages, took celebratory photos and handed out sweets to their friends and neighbours. That we continue to put our soldiers at risk to ensure the safety of people who avow our destruction is quite mystifying and is probably a first in the history of war.
Thanks David and Marsha.
The article itself raises questions from the first sentences. A person who “He didn’t know how to eat, drink, or change his clothes” and “found movement difficult”, not only went to some school in Gaza (I doubt such schools exist), but was also able to understand the concept of being bullied there, and then consoled by his family. He is also described as speaking in essentially single words, but then speaks in an appropriate sentence at the time of stress and pain.