Ynetnews carried a story last Friday headlined is "Dog sentenced to death by stoning" and here is the first paragraph:
A Jerusalem rabbinical court recently sentenced a wandering dog to death by stoning. The cruel sentence stemmed from the suspicion that the spirit of a famous secular lawyer, who insulted the court's judges 20 years ago, had been transferred into the dog's body.
We finally learn that the head judge denied it--why am I not shocked? "It was ordered by the rabbis because of the grief he had caused the court," he said. "They didn't issue an official ruling, but ordered the children outside to throw stones at him in order to drive him away. They didn't think of it as cruelty to animals, but as an appropriate way to 'get back at' the spirit which entered the poor dog."
As Judeopundit says on his website - So the dog was bothering people and a judge asked neighborhood kids to drive it away? (And "the grief he had caused the court" refers to which incarnation?) Angry Arab just quotes the first paragraph and MondoWeissnik Adam Horowitz leaves out the judge's denial and the subsequent "confirmation." And there you have it: a bunch of people are now walking around thinking a dog got skila (stoning).
True to form the anti-Israel British Medai regurgitate the story with out of context background making a completely non-story into another occasion to bash Israel.
The Telegraph has a whole article on the matter. On the BBC it is the most read story - Jonathan Pollard's request to be present at his father's funeral hardly gets a mention. I should make it clear that there are no stoning sentences in our times in Jewish law. In ancient times an animal such as an Ox which gored could be sentenced to stoning for killing a person and in certain other cases, but there is currently no such thing. Also, the BBC article states "Dogs are often considered impure animals in traditional Judaism" and some of the other articles say something similar. What does it mean? If you refer to a dog as a "beheima tameiah"--an "impure animal"--you are basically stating that dog meat is not kosher. So the claim of an actual stoning "sentence" was highly suspect to begin with and it is being spread by journalists who are, at best, only vaguely aware talking about but obviously have an agenda.
However there is a deeply worrying underlying problem here. The way that this story has been taken way out of context and indeed misrepresented to the British public speaks volumes for how easy the British Media believes it can demean Israel with impunity. The basic facts are wrong and yet there will be no correction or follow-up and another urban myth will be come part of the "case against Israel." As the Argentinean President said further evidence that Britain continues to be a crude colonial power in decline.
UPDATE: Maariv which first ran this story has now apologised [only in Hebrew at this posting] for getting it totally wrong. Unfortunately the damage has been done I do not expect any apology either from the BBC or The Telegraph.