May 21 2013

Promoted and quoted: the BBC’s preferred Middle East NGOs

A May 16th 2013 article by Yolande Knell entitled “Israel starts process of authorising new West Bank settlements“, which appeared in the Middle East section of the BBC News website, once again promotes the views of the NGO ‘Peace Now’ without any genuine attempt being made (in contradiction of BBC editorial guidelines) to inform readers of that organisation’s political stance.

“It’s legalising illegal action and creating a possibility of more illegal construction. This gives a green light to the illegal establishment of outposts because it shows permission can be sorted out retrospectively,” says Melanie Robbins, a spokeswoman for Peace Now.”

This is the third time in less than ten days that articles appearing on the BBC News website (including another one also written by Knell) have been used as a platform from which to amplify the ‘Peace Now’ agenda on the subject of communities in Judea and Samaria.

The BBC is of course entitled to quote whoever it sees fit, but it is also obliged to adhere to BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality which clearly state that a contributor’s “viewpoint” – i.e. political outlook and motivations – must be made clear to audiences.

“4.4.14

We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made.”

BBC journalists make common practice of quoting or soliciting opinions from the plethora of political NGOs active in Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories, but rarely if ever do they provide audiences with the all-important background information about those NGOs (including political views and aims, funding – often foreign – and in some cases even terror links) which would enable those watching, hearing or reading BBC content to form their own judgements as regards the reliability and impartiality of the information promoted.

A count of the number of instances in which locally operating NGOs were promoted in just the small proportion of BBC content covered by BBC Watch over the last six months – including interviews with or contributions from individuals connected to those NGOs, but not always identified as such by the BBC and NGO-produced content promoted on Twitter by BBC journalists – shows 13 different NGOs being showcased in 24 instances.

Emek Shaveh - here. Gisha – here, here, here, here and here. Addameer – here, here, here, here and here. ACRI – here and here. ICHAD – here. Machsom Watch – here. Adalah – here. PCHR – here. Peace Now – here (2) and here. Yesh Din – here. Rabbis for Human Rights – here. Al Haq – here. Land Research Centre – here.

Looking further afield to foreign-based NGOs and organisations, we find that in the same six month period, the limited amount of BBC coverage of Israel and the Middle East monitored by BBC Watch showcased the views of seven different organisations on twelve different occasions.

Human Rights Watch – here, here, here, here and here. Conflicts Forum – here and here. Amnesty International – here. Avaaz – here. International Solidarity Movement/Free Gaza – here. Stop the War Coalition – here. UNRWA – here.

In the department of political bloggers who have been promoted by the BBC in the past six months we find Ali Abunimah of ‘Electronic Intifada’ and Yuval Ben Ami of ‘+972 Magazine’.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with any or all of the above organisations will be aware, the amplification of their political stances and individual campaigns is not conducive to providing BBC audiences with a balanced and impartial view of the Middle East. That is particularly the case when the relevant information regarding their raison d’etre is often concealed from BBC audiences or when individuals belonging to those organisations are provided with a platform by the BBC without full disclosure of their affiliations.

The continuation of such practices can only further damage the BBC’s already severely battered reputation with regard to accuracy and impartiality in Middle East reporting.

May 20 2013

Checking BBC-propagated untruths about checkpoints

We recently discussed the May 9^th 2013 edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme in which veteran anti-Israel campaigner Ghada Karmi was given more or less free rein to propagate a collection of untruths and defamation. Among Karmi’s many deliberately misleading statements was the following:

“The reality is that life for Palestinian academics is extremely hard. They suffer from under-funding – the universities are under-funded. The universities are closed. They’re prevented from getting to their places of work. Students are prevented from going to their lectures by checkpoints. They are under extremely harsh conditions there.”

As we remarked at the time:

“Karmi’s claim that Palestinian lecturers and students are “prevented” from travelling to universities by checkpoints conveniently whitewashes out of the picture the fact that those checkpoints did not exist before the Palestinian decision to launch a terror war in September 2000.”

Enjoying to no small extent the cooperation of some of the media, anti-Israel campaigners repeatedly try to delegitimize Israel by distorting Israeli counter-terrorism measures such as checkpoints or the anti-terrorist fence as deliberate means to cruelly inconvenience Palestinians instead of measures to protect the Israeli civilian population. That campaigning narrative is aimed at the emotions of Western audiences in particular and relies to a very large extent on its audience’s lack of familiarity with the facts.

So what are the facts? How many checkpoints actually exist and do they really “prevent” Palestinians from travelling to work or to university?

“The number of checkpoints in the Central Command went from 40 in July 2008 to just 12 in October 2012. Furthermore, these checkpoints are only used some of the time and the frequency of checks is dependent on the security threat at the time.”

Read more about the reality of checkpoints, crossings and movement in this useful fact sheet.

May 20 2013

BBC’s Knell inaccurate on naval blockade of Gaza Strip

An article entitled “Gas finds in east Mediterranean may change strategic balance” by Yolande Knell which appeared in the ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 13^th 2013 is on the whole fairly balanced and accurate.

However, towards the end of the article when Knell discusses gas reserves off the coast of the Gaza Strip, we find the following statement:

“Further south down the coastline of the Levant Basin, the Gaza Marine field, 30km off the coast of the Palestinian territory, has long been known about. In 1999, the Palestinian Authority awarded the exploration licence to British Gas.

However the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has prevented further development of the field. The situation became more complicated when the Islamist group, Hamas, took over by force in 2007, ousting its rivals from the Fatah faction. Israel then tightened its border and naval blockade of Gaza.”

Let’s examine the accuracy of that last sentence first of all. The violent Hamas take-over of Gaza took place between June 5^th and 15^th 2007 and the Palestinian Authority – the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people – was forcefully ejected from power. Following that event, both Egypt and Israel largely closed their borders with the Gaza Strip due to the fact that the body charged with joint security arrangements under the terms of the Oslo Accords – the Palestinian Authority – no longer exercised any control over the territory.

Three months later – on September 19^th 2007 – in light of the escalation of terrorist rocket attacks against Israeli civilians originating in the now Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip – the Israeli government declared Gaza to be ‘hostile territory’.

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip and turned it into hostile territory. This organization engages in hostile activity against the State of Israel and its citizens and bears responsibility for this activity.

In light of the foregoing, it has been decided to adopt the recommendations that have been presented by the security establishment, including the continuation of military and counter-terrorist operations against the terrorist organizations. Additional sanctions will be placed on the Hamas regime in order to restrict the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip and reduce the supply of fuel and electricity. Restrictions will also be placed on the movement of people to and from the Gaza Strip. The sanctions will be enacted following a legal examination, while taking into account both the humanitarian aspects relevant to the Gaza Strip and the intention to avoid a humanitarian crisis.”

However, Knell’s suggestion that the “naval blockade of Gaza” was “tightened” immediately after the 2007 Hamas coup (as any reasonable reader would understand her phrasing) is incorrect because the naval blockade was not put in place until January 2009.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords – willingly signed by the representatives of the Palestinian people – Gaza’s coastal waters remained under Israeli responsibility. The agreements divide those waters into three different zones named K,L and M.

“Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, Zones K and M will be closed areas, in which navigation will be restricted to activity of the Israel Navy.”

Zone L was designated for “fishing, recreation and economic activities”, subject to specific provisions, including the following:

“As part of Israel’s responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, of for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the MC.” [Emphasis added]

Following the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the November 15th 2005 agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (Agreed documents on movement and access from and to Gaza) made no change to the above provisions.

After the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas in 2007, Israel did introduce maritime zones off the coast of the Gaza Strip as part of efforts to reduce arms smuggling into the territory – for example see the Notice to Mariners No. 6/2008 of August 13^th 2008 – but that is not the same thing as a naval blockade (which has a specific legal definition) and hence Knell’s claim of a 2007 tightening of “the naval blockade” is inaccurate.

Is Knell’s wider claim that “the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has prevented further development of the [gas] field” an accurate representation of the situation? Well obviously, had the Palestinians chosen to develop the economy of Gaza Strip after Israel’s 2005 disengagement and had a terrorist organization not overrun the territory, turned it into a terrorist enclave which necessitated the implementation of maritime zones and later the naval blockade and had it not ousted the internationally recognized representatives of the Palestinian people authorized with signing agreements on their behalf, there may have been more opportunity for exploitation of offshore gas resources.

But of course it is much easier just to vaguely lay any blame at Israel’s door rather than to trouble BBC audiences with an exact and detailed account of events for which Palestinians might be perceived to have some responsibility.

May 19 2013

What makes a story newsworthy for the BBC?

A Western journalist working in Israel once remarked to this writer that the reason so many of the foreign media’s reports from the country seem so similar is that a not insignificant number of them are written in the bar of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem where journalists share stories and experiences. He wasn’t entirely joking.

Reports such as the one appearing on the BBC News website’s Middle East page on May 13^th entitled “Israeli PM Netanyahu drops costly in-flight bedroom“, with its uncanny resemblance to – and reliance upon the same sources as – a Guardian article of the previous day, certainly do nothing to dispel that impression.

The Guardian report stated:

“Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper, Sima Kadmon said: “We thought that nothing could surprise us anymore when it came to the Netanyahus’ personal behaviour. Well, we thought wrong. It turns out that King Bibi and Queen Sara are entitled to do everything … The double bed that was installed on the plane cost the Israeli public, which is buckling under the weight of the austerity measures, half a million shekels. Is there no shame?” “

The BBC article stated:

” “Bibi is king, and in a monarchy, when the king and queen fly, price is no object,” said political commentator Sima Kadmon, referring to Mr Netanyahu by his nickname, in Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper Yediot Ahranot [sic].”

Both articles are based upon an item broadcast by Israel’s Channel 10 news on May 10^th. Of course this domestic Israeli story has absolutely no relevance for the overwhelming majority of BBC audience members and quite why it was deemed newsworthy by the BBC News website’s editors is unclear – beyond its pandering to the obsession with all things casting Israel in a less than flattering light.

That impression is reinforced when one takes a quick look at some of the other events which occurred in the region around the same time and which the BBC elected to ignore. For example, on the same evening as Channel 10 broke its in-flight bed story, two Palestinians were reportedly injured when gunmen opened fire on a PA police station near Hebron. Several hours later five others were injured in a separate incident in the same area, with the clashes being attributed to the shooting of a woman a few days previously.

“Sair has witnessed clashes since Palestinian police officers accidentally shot and killed a woman in the town on Wednesday night.
Police officers opened fire at a fugitive’s vehicle and accidentally killed his wife, 30-year-old Khalida Kawazba. A security source told Ma’an that police had ordered the woman’s husband Nawwaf Kawazba to stop, but he instead accelerated, “forcing police to open fire.”
After the shooting, angry residents hurled Molotov cocktails and stones at PA police, who used tear gas to disperse the clashes.”

The BBC has made no attempt whatsoever to report these incidents. Another newsworthy story ignored by the BBC came to light on May 8^th. In the village of Husan – located in the Bethlehem governorate of the Palestinian Authority – an IDF operation to clear the village’s farmlands of old Jordanian land mines began.

“The Palestinian side is supporting and encouraging this project,” said Lieutenant Colonel Eyal Zeevi, who heads the Bethlehem Coordination and Liaison Administration. “This project has two goals: First, to eliminate ongoing danger to human life, and ensure that all mines have been cleared. Second, to return the land to its rightful owners, for the use of the village as a community.”

Also last week – and also ignored by the BBC – Israeli doctors at the Wolfson Medical Centre in Holon successfully operated on a four year-old Syrian child with a life-threatening heart condition as part of the ‘Save a Child’s Heart‘ project and with Israeli government co-ordination.

One might have thought that at least some of those stories would be as newsworthy as an in-flight bed, but apparently that is not the case according to BBC priorities.

May 19 2013

Beyond the BBC mantra on ‘international law’

BBC Watch readers will not need to be reminded of the mantra repeatedly and incessantly promoted by the BBC according to which:

”Under international law all of the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal.”

Of course that simplistic, politicised statement glosses over a multitude of differing opinions and factors, many of which are touched upon in this video from Shalom TV in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University provides interesting food for thought.

May 18 2013

Salafist quoted in BBC rejection of complaint supports Jihad in Syria

Readers will no doubt remember our recent publication of the reply from the BBC News website’s Middle East desk received by a reader in response to a complaint concerning Ahmed Maher’s article of May 1^st 2013 in which he claimed that he could not find video evidence of Tunisian Islamists threatening Tunisian Jews.

The BBC reply based its dismissal of the complaint upon statements procured by BBC Arabic’s Ahmed Maher from one Sheikh Bashir bin Hassan.

“I spoke to Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan, one of the most prominent Salafi, Wahabi sheikhs in post-revolution Tunisian, and asked him again about two things: the chants and the protest in front of the Tunis synagogue. He said: ‘The chants were not aimed at the Tunisian Jews; make no mistake. It was directed at Israel because Israel is a very sensitive issue in the Muslim world. Our Prophet Muhammad asked us to take good care and protect non-Muslims living in our countries like Christians and Jews.’

“Regarding the Tunis synagogue video, Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan said it was ‘misleading because it was taken out of context. The protest was not against the Tunisian Jews but rather it was in support of Salafists and other Islamist forces in Egypt. The protesters were heading towards the Egyptian embassy in Tunis and they stopped for moments in front of the synagogue to express their anger at the Zionist entity’s policies’.”

As we remarked at the time:

“Get it? According to the BBC, if Tunisian Islamists (and presumably any elsewhere too) chant “Killing the Jews is a duty” or “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud” or ”the army of Mohammed will return”, then local Jews have nothing whatsoever to worry about because in fact they are not referring to them – or indeed to Jews at all – but to Israel, which should apparently be perfectly understandable. And the BBC website’s Middle East desk is quite sure of that because a prominent Salafist – who obviously thinks it unremarkable to chant hate speech relating to “the Zionist entity’s policies” in front of a synagogue in Tunisia – told them so.”

In another recent report by Ahmed Maher (“Syria conflict: Why did my Tunisian son join the rebels?“, May 15^th 2013, filmed version here) we learn that Maher’s reliance upon – and amplification of – the opinions of the Saudi Arabia-educated Sheikh was not a one-off event. We also gain further insight into the views of the man the BBC News website’s Middle East desk apparently considers a quotable authority.

“Many imams, like Sheikh Bashir bin Hassan, endorse jihad in Syria openly and are proud of what they see as the “heroic acts of the young jihadists”.

“They are on a humanitarian mission. The West insists on associating jihad and Salafism to terrorism, which is not true,” Sheikh Bashir told me in an interview inside a mosque in the town of Masakin, 200km (124 miles) south of Tunis.

For Sheikh Bashir, it is justifiable for Sunni Muslims to take arms against the Assad forces, who belong to a Shia sect, to protect oppressed fellow Sunnis – a stance that reflects the sectarian overtone of the conflict.

And he accuses the West of double standards.

“Let’s imagine that the British government decided to attack a county with scud missiles to stamp out a peaceful rebellion. Europeans would be watching entire families being slaughtered day in day out. What would the young do? They would flock in droves to England to protect the oppressed.” “

BBC licence fee payers will no doubt be very interested to know that the BBC considers it acceptable to judge the merits of a complaint on the basis of the opinions of a man who not only subscribes to the inherently antisemitic Wahhabi ideology, but is also openly supportive of jihadist violence.

May 17 2013

An interesting use of the word ‘missiles’ by the BBC

The BBC News website’s Middle East page included two items on the same subject on May 17th. A written article entitled “Ultra-Orthodox Jews in mass protest against Israel army draft” was accompanied by a filmed television news report titled “Ultra-Orthodox Jews protest at forced military service plan“.

Why the BBC considers this internal Israeli issue worthy of so much coverage is not clear, but the two articles are interesting in that they show something of the BBC’s monochrome grasp of the subject of the many varied religious streams in Israel.

The narration accompanying the filmed report states:

“Ultra-Orthodox Jews are currently exempt from military service on religious grounds. They say it would harm their way of life. But it’s an issue which causes tension between them and Israel’s secular majority.”

The majority of viewers watching that report would remain unaware of the fact that many religiously observant Israelis of various streams do serve in the Israeli army, including some ‘Ultra-Orthodox’ – or as they are better termed Haredi – Jews. Viewers – as well as readers of the written article – were not informed that the protest was organized by the anti-Zionist ‘Eda Haredit’ stream or that a counter protest by another Orthodox group – ‘Haredim L’Achdut Israel‘ (Haredim for Israeli Unity) – also took place at the same time.

Rather oddly – given both that the BBC does not usually bother to report on details of the attire of protesters in other countries and that it would in fact be newsworthy only if the people present were not wearing their everyday dress – the written article states:

“At least 15,000 men, all dressed in the black coats and hats traditionally worn by Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews, crowded into the streets around the military’s recruitment office, in the Haredi neighbourhood of Mekor Barukh on Thursday night.”

But the article’s outstanding feature is its use of one very interesting word.

“Violence erupted as some threw missiles at police and set rubbish bins on fire.”

Of course there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the use of the word ‘missiles’ to mean “an object thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance” – in this case stones. However, as those who regularly watch or read BBC output will be aware, that word is not the BBC’s usual term of choice when describing the actions of Palestinian stone-throwers, or even the firing of military-grade rockets at Israeli civilians.

May 17 2013

BBC’s Davies describes new Golan fence as ‘controversial’

The ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website included an item by the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Wyre Davies on May 12^th entitled “Israel prepares for the worst as tensions over Syria grow“.

In that piece, readers once again see the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hizballah described in cartoonish terms as Israel’s “arch-enemy in southern Lebanon” and once again the writer manages to produce an entire article based around the subject of Israeli responses to weapons transfers to Hizballah via Syria without explaining the all-important underlying UN Security Council resolution 1701.

Davies’ main theme in this feature is that Israel is preparing itself for another round of conflict with Hizballah – an assertion which will not be news to anyone with even a basic familiarity with the Middle East.

“It is obvious as well, that not just the municipality of Haifa but the Israeli government and the higher echelons of the army are getting ready for the possibility if not the probability of another conflict in the north.”

However, Davies appears to have swallowed the same dubious claims regarding the Iron Dome missile defence system as promoted by his colleagues Kevin Connolly and Jonathan Marcus in recent weeks.

“Driving out of Haifa, newly installed batteries of the much vaunted Iron Dome anti-missile defence system are visible in fields to the north of the city.

After the system was successfully used in last year’s Gaza conflict, it should provide added security for Haifa and other northern towns in the event of another conflict, even though there is still a debate about how effective the system – developed in Israel and financed by the United States – actually is.”

Later on in the article comes this rather curious statement:

“Although all of the intelligence and military assessments concur that the greatest immediate threat to Israel still comes from the north and Hezbollah, in recent weeks and months there has also been a great deal of concern and attention focused on the eastern frontier.”

That analysis suggests that Davies has not entirely grasped the fact that whilst Hizballah’s traditional stomping ground is indeed southern Lebanon (to the north of Israel), its record of activity abroad and its involvement in the Syrian civil war indicate that it is by no means confined to that geographical location. The Lebanese website Naharnet reported earlier in the week that Hizballah has been involved in the recent fierce fighting in the Dara’a area in southern Syria – close to the borders with both Jordan and Israel – and other reports suggest that the terror organisation’s presence in that region has, with Iranian prompting, received Bashar Assad’s blessing.

Meanwhile, on the morning of May 15^th, mortars from Syria landed in the area of Mount Hermon in the northern Golan Heights, with the fire later being claimed by an Islamist group operating in Syria. On the same day a New Zealander serving with UNTSO was abducted from an observation post in the Golan, apparently together with two others, but released after a few hours. In southern Lebanon a UNIFIL post was overrun with three soldiers also briefly kidnapped and equipment and ammunition stolen. None of the above incidents has so far been reported by the BBC. (Also unreported was missile fire on the same day on Israel’s southern area of Eshkol.)

The repeated incidents of abductions of UN personnel in the Golan Heights have already had a detrimental effect upon peace-keeping activities along that border (one imagines much to the delight – if not intent – of the assorted Islamist groups located in the area) and an alleged recent EU statement suggests that the same could apply to the Lebanese – Israeli frontier. Ironically, during a visit to Lebanon on May 13^th, the UN Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping saw fit to whitewash the long-standing failure of his organisation to implement UN SC 1701 which has led to the current situation in which Hizballah is able to threaten regional stability on several fronts.

“In his remarks, Mr. Ladsous commended Israel and Lebanon for their continued commitment to the cessation of hostilities and the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese group Hizbollah, and calls for respect for the Blue Line, the disarming of all militias in Lebanon, and an end to arms smuggling in the area.”

Towards the end of Davies’ article we find another bizarre statement:

“Israel’s response to the fighting and upheaval on the Syrian side of the plateau has been spectacular if controversial.

A massive new 3m (10ft) high fence has been built in almost no time along the entire length of the de-facto border and Israel’s military presence has been visibly stepped up in the region.”

What exactly Davies thinks is “spectacular” or “controversial” about replacing a forty year-old rusty fence with a new one in light of the appearance of armed Al Qaeda-affiliated groups on its other side is – to this writer at least – something of a mystery.

And for as long as the BBC continues with its practice of selective reporting of events on Israel’s northern and eastern borders – as well as those on its southern one with the Gaza Strip – BBC audiences will also remain mystified with regard to the dynamics at work in cooking up the next round of conflict – from whichever direction it may come.

May 16 2013

BBC sensationalises routine obligatory inquiry

A dramatic headline appearing on the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 14th announced “ICC launches inquiry into Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla“.

However, the full facts behind the story make the event distinctly less dramatic and sensational than portrayed in that headline.

The BBC report opens:

“The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched a preliminary inquiry into an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla which left nine Turkish activists dead.

ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said it would establish whether there were grounds for a full investigation.”

The fact is that – as stated in the press release issued by the Office of the Prosecutor to which the BBC article links – such an inquiry is routine and indeed required in the event of any referral, as explained here.

“Finally, a plea to the media: please do not overstate the importance of the OTP’s “decision” to open a preliminary examination into the attack on the flotilla. As the ICC’s press release notes, the OTP is required to conduct such an examination into every state referral, regardless of merit. I have no doubt that the OTP takes state referrals more seriously than referrals from individuals and human-rights groups. But that does not mean, nor does it even suggest, that the OTP will decide to open a formal investigation into the flotilla attack. Indeed, for all the reasons mentioned in this post, I think that is exceedingly unlikely.”

The BBC article continues:

“The move follows a request from the Comoros islands, in which one of the vessels was registered.”

The article initially omits any mention of the fact that the request was filed by Turkish lawyers Ramazan (Ramadan) Ariturk and Cihat (Jihad) Gokdemir (who also represent the Mavi Marmara ‘victims’) from the Istanbul-based law firm Elmadag on behalf of Comoros, by Power of Attorney. Only half way through the BBC report do readers learn of “a Turkish law firm acting on behalf of the government of the Union of the Comoros”.

The report also fails to mention that whilst the vessel concerned – the Mavi Marmara – was indeed registered in Comoros at the time of the incident in which some of its passengers attacked Israeli soldiers trying to board the ship in order to prevent it from breaching a legal naval blockade, that registration only took place on May 22^nd 2010 – just over a week before the incident occurred – and that the ship was, and still is, owned by the IHH with its registration having been transferred back to Turkey in August 2011.

The BBC article once again promotes the PR myth of the 2010 flotilla as an “aid” mission whilst concurrently touching on its real aim:

“The boats were trying to transport aid supplies to Gaza in May 2010.

The Free Gaza Flotilla, which had more than 600 pro-Palestinian activists aboard several ships, was trying to break Israel’s naval blockade.”

In addition, the report heavily airbrushes the events initiated by passengers aboard the ship which led to the eventual deaths of nine.

“The activists were killed when Israeli commandos boarded the lead flotilla vessel, Mavi Marmara.”

The article also includes the deliberately disingenuous use of the phrase “Israel says” in its description of the naval blockade: the smuggling of arms to Hamas by sea is a well-known fact.

“Israel says the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons and ammunition being smuggled to the Gaza Strip, which has been governed by the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas since 2007.”

BBC audiences’ understanding of the significance – or rather, lack of it – of this latest Turkish move would of course have been better served by clear, accurate and impartial reporting on the subject. Instead, the BBC succumbed to sensationalism which was only marginally pipped at the post by the IHH itself.

May 16 2013

Media industry recognises BBC Gaza correspondent’s creativity

The BBC’s Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison was this week the winner of second place in the category “Radio Journalism of the Year” in the Sony Radio Academy Awards.

According to one of his BBC Jerusalem Bureau colleagues, the award was given for his “brilliant, balanced & brave coverage of Gaza”.

According to the description on the Sony Radio Academy Awards website:

“The Sony Radio Academy Awards, now in their 31st year, are without doubt the most prestigious awards in the radio industry’s calendar and the only event that brings the entire sector together to celebrate outstanding content and creativity.”

“Creativity” is certainly one way of describing the passing off a photograph taken in Syria as having been shot in Gaza. Even more “creative” and “outstanding” was Donnison’s portrayal of the death of the child of a BBC colleague as the result of Israeli actions without any proof of that assertion and when in fact the tragic incident was later shown to have been caused by a terrorist missile fired from inside Gaza itself.

Readers may perhaps not be surprised to learn that of the eight members of the Sony Radio Academy Awards selection committee, three are current BBC employees (here, here and here) and two are former BBC employees.

The media industry of course does itself no favours in the eyes of the general public by rewarding the failure to adhere to basic standards of accuracy, impartiality, honesty and – above all – self-criticism.

Follow “BBC Watch”