BBC film exposes falsehoods in two previous reports

Two months ago, on March 18th, BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme aired an item which included an interview presented by host Nick Robinson as follows:

Robinson: “The United Nations has said that over a year of weekly protests at the border with Gaza [sic] 193 Palestinians have been killed and more than 26 thousand injured. Among them is Dr Tarek Loubani, a Canadian Palestinian associate professor at the University of Western Ontario.”

Loubani: “I’d like to say that I was doing something heroic when I got shot but I wasn’t. I was standing. It was quiet, there was nothing else happening on the field. I was just loitering, talking to some of my colleagues. I was marked clearly in greens and had been on the field for a few hours so it was obvious to the soldiers, who were very close to us, exactly what we were doing. And I did not expect that I would be targeted. Up until that point it had been six weeks with no injuries of medics. All of a sudden I heard a loud bang and felt an incredible pain in my legs and found myself on the ground. The paramedic who rescued me, Musa Abuhassanin, Musa was killed an hour later when he was shot in the chest.”

As was noted here at the time, BBC audiences had previously heard that story from Tarek Loubani in an article that appeared on the BBC News website in May 2018 and which included a link to his blog.

“Dr Loubani, an emergency physician who practises in London, Ontario, and at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza, said in a blog post that one paramedic was killed and several others were wounded on Monday as Israeli troops opened fire during the protests.”

As was noted here on both those occasions:

“…a photograph of Captain Musa Abuhassanin also appeared on a poster released by Hamas showing some of its members killed on May 14th [2018].”

The ‘paramedic’ identified by Hamas in that poster as a member of its internal security apparatus turned up again in BBC Two’s recent film titled ‘One Day in Gaza’.

At 29:50 the film showed an interview with Musa Abuhassanin’s mother who told how, on May 14th 2018, she was taken by bus along with others from her local mosque to an “unofficial protest site” near the border which was “near a graveyard” and “right next to a Hamas military training area”.

31:18 “Four paramedics were dispatched to the area…one of them was Aintisar’s son, Musa. […] Musa was a paramedic in Gaza’s civil defence force – part of the Hamas ministry of the interior.”

Viewers heard an account of events at that site which contrasts sharply to that already given twice to BBC audiences by Tarek Loubani.

33:00: “Eyewitnesses say at least two armed Palestinians stood aside from the crowd and began firing on Israeli soldiers.”

A member of the IDF interviewed concerning the same incident spoke of fifteen to twenty shooters and viewers saw real time footage of shooting and IED explosions.

36:14: “Twenty-one people were killed at the graveyard that afternoon. At least eight of them were alleged [sic] members of al Qassam brigades, the military wing of Hamas. Two of them were children. No Israelis were hurt. The Hamas leadership denies they sanctioned a military operation that day but admits that Palestinians opened fire.”

55:02: “The paramedic Musa Abuhassanin was one of the dead claimed by Hamas. Palestinians say [sic] that like most of the dead, he had nothing to do with the organisation’s armed wing and was posing no threat to Israel when he was shot.”

According to the Twitter feed of the film’s producer Olly Lambert, he did his filming in the Gaza Strip in December 2018 at the same time that the ‘Today’ programme’s Mishal Husain was there.

Surely then the BBC should have realised by late December that the account of the incident it had promoted in May 2018 (and which is still available online) according to which the IDF opened fire without provocation was inaccurate and that the paramedic who appeared in Tarek Loubani’s story was actually a member of Hamas.

Nevertheless, three months after Lambert had filmed his interviews in the Gaza Strip, the BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme once again provided an unchallenged platform for Tarek Loubani’s activist propaganda.

Related Articles:

BBC again amplifies Gaza claims from political activist medic

Former ISM activist medic reappears in BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ show

BBC Two’s ‘One Day in Gaza’ adheres to existing BBC practice

Advertisements

BBC Two’s ‘One Day in Gaza’ adheres to existing BBC practice

The BBC programme ‘One Day in Gaza’ which was aired on BBC Two on May 13th and on PBS in the US the following day has come under criticism from many commentators due to its mistranslation on at least five separate occasions of the Arabic word ‘Yahud’ – Jew – as ‘Israeli’. As the Jewish News reported:

“The BBC has been accused of “playing down” antisemitism after the Arabic word for Jew was mistranslated to Israeli in the English subtitles for a documentary on Gaza border clashes. […]

Among the Palestinian protesters interviewed, 24-year-old Bader Saleh said in Arabic: “I’m not one for fighting or burning tyres, but when I went I was convinced by it.

“The revolutionary songs, they excite you, they encourage you to rip a Jew’s head off.”

But the English translation of Saleh’s remarks offered by the BBC refers to an “Israeli”, not a “Jew”.

This was just one of at least five instances of the Arabic word for “Jew” (Yahud) being mistranslated to “Israeli” in the subtitles.”

The BBC has responded to the criticism as follows:

“A BBC spokesperson said: “We sought expert advice on the translation before broadcast and we believe the translation of ‘Yehudi’ as ‘Israeli’ in this documentary is both accurate and true to the speakers’ intentions.””

As regular readers will know, the issue of the BBC translating the word ‘Yahud’ as ‘Israeli’ is far from new. When it arose in a report by Jon Donnison in 2013 the then BBC Trust responded to a complaint concerning the mistranslation with the ruling:

“that it was not the case that only a literal translation would have met audience expectation for due accuracy.

that no interpretation of the editorial guidelines requires content producers to make direct word-for-word translations without also taking account of relevant context.”

The issue arose again in July 2015 in a film made by Lyse Doucet.

“A BBC documentary has substituted the word “Israelis” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinians, its maker has admitted. […]

The BBC’s chief international correspondent said that Gazan translators had advised her that Palestinian children interviewed on the programme who refer to “the Jews” actually meant Israelis.”

Later the same month, another programme translated the word ‘Yahud’ as ‘soldiers’ but complaints concerning both those programmes were dismissed and the 2013 ruling was cited.  

Around the same time the BBC demonstrated that its choice of translation depends on the speaker in a report concerning a British Conservative party candidate in which audiences were given an accurate translation of the word ‘Yahud’.

However, that repeated mistranslation is far from the only problematic issue in the film ‘One Day in Gaza’.

1) As has been repeatedly noted here ever since the BBC began covering the ‘Great Return March’ fourteen months ago, audiences have never been properly informed of the background to that agitprop and the BBC has repeatedly downplayed the role of Hamas and other terror groups in its organisation and execution. As we reported here over two weeks before the first day of rioting at the border fence:

“The organizers got a green light from Hamas and the PIJ for the march. “The great return march” Facebook page posted a statement from Issam Adwan, head of Hamas’ department of refugee affairs, who emphasized the necessity and importance of the event. He said it was part of the “resistance” and that it was no less important than the “armed struggle.” He also said that the Land Day march would be only the opening move of a comprehensive global operation. […]

Talal Abu Zarifa, senior figure in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), said the Palestinian organizations had agreed on activities that would be consistent with the objectives of “the great return march.” […] He added that the organizations had agreed to continue mass recruitment, to make Israel responsible [for what happens] and realize the “right of return”.” [emphasis added]

Over a month before this BBC programme was aired the ITIC had published a report on the organisation of the ‘Great Return March’ in which it noted that:

“Hamas quickly took over the reins and took control of the return marches, even before the first march took place, on March 30, 2018.”

Nevertheless, this BBC film misled audiences with the repeated claim that the events were organised by a “grassroots” movement and that terror factions only joined in later on.

01:02 “But in the Palestinian Gaza Strip a grassroots movement planned a different response.”

25:23: “Trump’s announcement that he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem had been the catalyst for peaceful protests at the fence. Organised by a grassroots movement, at first they weren’t aligned with any political or armed groups.”

26:01: “As the protests grew more popular leaders of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both regarded by Israel as terrorist organisations, started touring the sites and rallying the crowds.”

2) In common with the BBC’s editorial policy over the past year, this film repeatedly described the ‘Great Return March’ as “peaceful demonstrations” and “protests” despite the fact that violent rioting has characterised the events since their outset.

3) Also in line with much previous BBC coverage, this programme gave viewers a distorted account of events which completely ignores the relevant ‘Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act’ passed by the US Congress in 1995.

00:42: “After President Trump’s controversial decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the Middle East braced itself for violence.”

4) As is often seen in BBC coverage of the Gaza Strip, this programme repeatedly referred to the health authority in the Gaza Strip without clarifying that it is run by Hamas – one of the organisers of the violent rioting.

40:46: “…Gaza’s health ministry reported that 37 Palestinians had been killed…”

5) The film’s presentation of the topic of Palestinian refugees was simplistic with no challenge presented to claims of “a legal right of return”, no mention of the context of the invasion of the new Israeli state by Arab countries which led to the creation of a refugee population and no reference to the controversial issue of hereditary refugee status.

03:19: “In Gaza 70% of the people are refugees. Their towns and villages lie beyond the fence.”

14:32: “70% of people in Gaza are descendants of refugees – Palestinians who fled or were forced to flee their land when Israel was created in 1948 and captured territory in the war of ’67. Palestinians across the Middle East have long held that they have a legal right of return to what they see as their homeland.”

6) Despite repeated references from interviewees to ‘occupation’, at no point were viewers informed that Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip fourteen years ago and that the territory is not ‘occupied’.

37:03: “We’re a politicised people because we’re under occupation.”

7) The film gave viewers a distorted view of how Hamas came to control the Gaza Strip.

06:18: “In 2006 Hamas was elected to power in Gaza and then expelled its rivals.”

The January 2006 election of course did not apply to the Gaza Strip alone – Hamas actually won 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Eighteen months later it took over the Gaza Strip in a violent coup.

8) The film went on to give a misleading portrayal of Israeli counter terrorism measures. which failed to clarify that restrictions on the import of goods apply solely to dual-use items which can be used for terrorism purposes.

“In response Israel tightened its blockade on the region citing security concerns and strictly controlling all movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip. Today the economy is in freefall. More than half of Gaza’s two million inhabitants live in poverty and rely on aid. And they’re prevented from leaving what is one of the most densely populated regions on earth.”

Audiences heard nothing whatsoever of the terror attacks which led to Israel’s declaration of the Gaza Strip as hostile territory in September 2007 and no mention was made of the measures – including border closure – imposed by Egypt.

9) Having been told (09:39) that Hamas is “seen in the West as a terrorist organisation”, viewers later saw a Hamas leader claim that:

27:11 “…it is unfair to describe an organisation resisting occupation as ‘terrorist’. The world needs to reconsider these classifications.”

The film again made no effort to explain to viewers that the Gaza Strip is not occupied and that the speaker was in fact referring to Israel as a whole. Neither was it sufficiently clarified that what was previously described (09:39) as Hamas’ “history of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against the Jewish state” puts it squarely under the ‘working definition’ of terrorism used by the BBC in the past.

10) As readers no doubt recall, after the events of May 14th 2018 Hamas claimed that fifty of the 62 people killed on that day belonged to its organisation and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed three of the dead. That clearly relevant Hamas claim was however only communicated to viewers almost at the end of the film.

01:59: “That day would end with at least 60 Palestinians dead or dying and almost three thousand injured.”

54:29: “By the end of the 14th of May 2018 at least 60 Palestinians were dead or dying and over 2,700 were injured. One Israeli was hurt. Hamas later claimed more than 50 of the dead as their own.”

11) Significantly, the film’s closing moments referred to a “UN investigation” into the events with no clarification of the fact that the report concerned was commissioned by the notoriously biased UNHRC.

12) At 50:50 viewers were shown a sequence of footage purporting to depict what was described by one participant in the rioting as follows:

“…the drone came and started dropping gas.”

Although audiences heard additional references to “gas” together with images of people vomiting and convulsing, they were not informed (as they had been earlier at 22:09 in relation to a different event) that the substance was tear gas and were hence likely to go away with inaccurate impressions concerning its nature.

Towards the end of this film audiences saw a Hamas official give a view of the events of May 14th 2018 which sums up Hamas’ overall strategy concerning the ‘Great Return March’.

56:14: “We didn’t expect the occupation to kill so many people, but we always said: if the occupation does that, then it will embarrass itself in front of the world and show its true face.”

Even before the ‘Great Return March’ events began their organisers described their aim as being to stage events “that the whole world and media outlets would watch”. As we see, the BBC’s latest contribution to that PR campaign by Hamas and additional terror factions in the Gaza Strip comes in the form of this hour-long film by Olly Lambert which – despite the promotional claim that it “reveals extraordinary new details of what happened” – actually did nothing of the sort but stayed well within the boundaries of existing BBC framing of this story.

Related Articles:

BBC Trust ESC rules: no requirement to translate accurately

BBC doubles down on its creative translation of ‘Yahud’

BBC does know how to translate ‘Yahud’ – when it is said in the UK

Hamas agitprop requires BBC journalists to brush up on UN resolution

British connections to upcoming Gaza agitprop ignored by BBC News

The BBC’s ‘Great Return March’ great disappearing act

 

BBC’s Bateman promotes false equivalence with Gaza report

The May 11th edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ was titled “Airstrikes and Sirens”. As listeners would soon learn, the word ‘airstrikes’ refers to the Gaza Strip and the word ‘sirens’ (rather than ‘rocket attacks’) refers to Israel. A photograph depicting damage at an unnamed site in the Gaza Strip was used to illustrate the programme’s web page.

The synopsis to the programme’s lead report by Tom Bateman reads as follows:  

“In Israel and Gaza, Tom Bateman hears how rocket and air strikes are ruining lives. With no end to the conflict in sight, what has the impact of the latest violence been?”

Presenter Kate Adie introduced the item (from 00:31 here) using the standard BBC euphemism for terrorists.

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Adie: “But first, a ceasefire between Israel and militants in the Gaza Strip has been holding, after one of the worst flare-ups in recent years. Two days of fighting erupted after a Palestinian sniper shot and wounded two Israeli soldiers at the perimeter fence. In the intense military exchanges that followed, at least 25 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed. Our Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman has been hearing from some of those caught up in it.”

Four days before this programme was aired the ITIC had published a report showing that the majority of the Palestinians killed were terrorist operatives or members of terrorist organisations. The BBC chose to ignore that information, instead creating a false sense of equivalence between the Israelis killed in attacks targeting civilians and the Palestinian terror operatives killed in attacks on terror related targets.

Bateman opened his report with an emotive description of events at one site in the north of the Gaza Strip.

Bateman: “When Rafat Nasser [phonetic] ran into his apartment block he feared the worst. Masonry dust rained down in the darkness. The building, in a packed neighbourhood of the northern Gaza Strip, had partially collapsed. In the wreckage he looked hard and shouted out. There, among the rubble calling back, were his two teenage daughters Amira and Yaara [phonetic]. They were covered in debris, grey and unrecognisable, but they were alive. Rafat told me the block had just been targeted by an Israeli war plane. Its missiles struck the fifth floor, he said, completely destroying two apartments. Outside, Anas Abu Jidiyan [phonetic] raced to the scene. His uncle and aunt and their eleven-year-old son lived on the fifth floor. Anas used his bare hands to search through the rubble. He found the boy’s body lying in the street. He said it wasn’t until the morning after that other people found the remains of the child’s parents. ‘It is hard to describe’ says Anas – and he speaks more slowly – ‘that’s why we pray that no-one else will have to experience what we are going through’.”

While Bateman refrained from providing the name of the building and its exact location, we can obviously conclude that he is referring to a strike in northern Gaza in which a couple and their 11-year-old son were killed. The ITIC’s report includes casualties answering that description.

Photo credit: ITIC

“Talal Atiya Muhammad Abu al-Jadyan, 46, killed in an attack on the Sheikh Zaeid Towers in the northern Gaza Strip (al-Quds, May 6, 2019). The PFLP issued a mourning notice for him, indicating he was member of the organization (PFLP website, May 6, 2019). […]

Abd al-Rahman Talal Atiya Abu al-Jadyan, 12, killed in an attack in the northern Gaza Strip (Ashraf al-Qidra’s Facebook page, May 5, 2019). Son of Talal Atiya Muhammad Abu al Jadyan, PFLP member, who was also killed.

Raghda Muhammad Mahmoud Abu al-Jadyan, 40 (Ashraf al-Qidra’s Facebook page, May 6, 2019). Wife of Talal Atiya Muhammad Abu al-Jadyan, PFLP member.”

In other words the man described by Bateman merely as the “uncle” of one of his interviewees was in fact a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group.

Bateman however went on to tick the ‘impartiality’ box using the BBC’s classic ‘Israel says’ qualification and dutifully avoiding the word terrorist.

Bateman: “Israel said it targeted only legitimate military sites in Gaza. There were more than 300 strikes over the two days. Buildings were levelled, usually after being emptied. Where targets were residential blocks the army said this was because they were being used for militant activity. The escalation was sparked when two Israeli soldiers were shot and wounded, apparently by a gunman from Islamic Jihad. The militant group has been growing more audacious in Gaza, with a new leader seeking perhaps to carve out an even more hard-line image against that of the dominant force there, Hamas. At the funerals of the two militants killed by Israel in response there was a wave of anger and a barrage of rockets.”

Listeners were then given a misleading time frame for the rocket attacks by Palestinian terrorists which have been a regular occurrence for almost two decades, with Bateman claiming that the latest barrage was “fired at Israel” rather than at civilians.

Bateman: “The scream of the air-raid sirens in southern Israeli towns has become frequent in the last year. In the city of Ashdod I met Ephraim Cohen who lives in a six-storey block in a busy ultra-orthodox Jewish neighbourhood. ‘Look’ he said, showing me the blown-out window in his children’s room ‘how can kids grow up like this?’. Glass cracked underfoot as we walked through his ruined flat. Some 700 rockets were fired at Israel over the two days. Ashdod is about 20 miles north of the Gaza Strip. Ephraim described hurrying his children into the shelter. They sat inside reciting psalms as the sirens wailed. Six alarms went off and they sang more loudly each time. After the final one, he said, they chanted at the highest pitch and then there was a huge blast. A neighbour – 21-year-old Pinchas Pashwazman – had tried to run from the building to shelter. He was hit by shrapnel and killed. ‘Forget the politicians’ urged Ephraim ‘they are full of slogans’. ‘We just want results’ he said, ‘an end to this’.”

Failing to mention that in addition to the homes of civilians the terrorists also struck a hospital treating many of those injured in the attacks, educational facilities and a synagogue, Bateman returned to his main topic – Gaza – but avoided telling listeners why the general population there has “no shelters”.

Bateman: “In Gaza you can almost become numb to the cycle of destruction. The Israeli air strikes when they get close send shockwaves through surrounding buildings and create a feeling of total vulnerability. The drones buzz incessantly in the sky, searching out targets. There are no air-raid sirens or shelters for ordinary residents of Gaza; only the militants, it is said, can escape to their underground bunkers.”

Bateman then returned to his usual practice of describing the ‘Great Return March’ violent rioting as “protests”. He failed to clarify that what he described as “a series of…flare-ups” have in fact been exclusively the result of the decision by Gaza Strip based terrorists to attack Israeli civilians with military grade projectiles.

Bateman: “I have been in and out of the Strip over the past year as one story of Palestinian protests at the fence evolved into another; a series of ever more intense military flare-ups. While Israel and Hamas exchanged blows, they have also exchanged demands. Israel wants quiet. Hamas wants the blockade eased. These are old enemies: they don’t talk. So the head of Egyptian intelligence tries to broker calm one day and cash from Qatar via Israel to help relieve Gaza’s appalling poverty the next. The situation feels as desperate as it is lethal and there are few realistic political solutions on the horizon. Some say Islamic Jihad calculated that Israel wouldn’t go to war in the days leading up to the Eurovision Song Contest being held in Tel Aviv. So the moment was chosen to extract maximum concessions.”

Failing to mention the fact that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is backed by Iran and choosing to ignore statements and threats made by its leader days before his report was broadcast, Bateman went on to tell listeners of ‘ominous’ warnings from Israel’s prime minister.

Bateman: “The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned ominously that Israel’s campaign is not over. Few can feel optimistic. Rafat Nasser, struggling to find work, told me he had taken out a mortgage to buy his apartment in Gaza. Now he no longer has a home but he still has the loan to repay. In Ashdod I asked Ephraim Cohen, in his wrecked apartment, whether the ceasefire would hold. ‘It will hold’ he told me. ‘It will hold when the messiah comes’.”

Tom Bateman’s main messaging in this report was obviously a false sense of equivalence between events in Israel and events in the Gaza Strip. That was achieved by the use of euphemisms such as “flare-ups” and avoiding the fact that all the recent rounds of conflict have been sparked by rocket attacks by terror groups in the Gaza Strip. In addition Bateman failed to adequately clarify to listeners that while Israel targets terror related sites in its response to rocket attacks, the Palestinian terrorists’ rocket attacks are aimed at civilian targets. Moreover, he failed to inform BBC audiences that while all four Israeli victims of the latest round of conflict were civilians, some 74% of those killed in the Gaza Strip were members of terror factions.

 

 

Newsbeat continues the BBC’s Eurovision framing

As was noted here recently:

“…those following Eurovision Song Contest news on the BBC News website over the past three months could hardly have avoided those repeated promotions of the demand for boycott of the event by BDS campaign supporting ‘stars’.

However, when on April 30th a letter denouncing that proposed boycott was published by more than 100 people from the entertainment industry, no coverage was to be found on the BBC News website’s ‘Entertainment and Arts’ page or under the ‘Eurovision Song Contest’ tag.”

On May 12th an article by Steve Holden and Daniel Rosney of ‘Newsbeat’ appeared in the ‘Features’ section of the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page and on the website’s ‘Newsbeat’ and ‘Entertainment & Arts’ pages under the title “Eurovision Tel Aviv 2019: Why the song contest is bigger than ever”.

Linking to the same article produced by BBC Music reporter Mark Savage on January 30th that has already been recycled on the BBC News website at least four times, Holden and Rosney told readers that:

“Eurovision rules say acts need to be strictly non-political during their performances, but Tel Aviv is proving a controversial host because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some stars have called for the contest to be moved from Israel, while others want countries and contestants to pull out completely.

Hatari, who say they entered the competition because they want to shed light on political aspects of Israel, admit their stance “is a contradictory one”.

“A contest like Eurovision was founded in the spirit of peace and unity,” singer Matthias Haraldsson tells Newsbeat.

“We find it absurd to host it in a country marred by conflict and disunity. Allowing that narrative to go on unchallenged would be a shame.”

The band insist they’ll stick to the strict Eurovision rules by not making any political statement during their performance.”

Yet again audiences found the BBC framing this story using trite clichés, context-free quotes and amplification of the call to boycott Israel without any explanation of the political background to that campaign. And yet again opinions dissenting from that BBC framing were not given equal weight.

The following day, May 13th, the BBC News website’s ‘Newsbeat’ page posted a video of Holden interviewing the Icelandic Eurovision contestants titled “Hatari: The Icelandic band bringing BDSM to Eurovision” which included more simplistic political messaging.

“Speaking to Newsbeat before leaving for Tel Aviv, Hatari said the competition was founded in the spirit of “peace and unity”, and that they’re “conflicted” about performing in Israel due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The majority of that video (1:10 minutes out of 1:57) was given over to politicisation of the subject matter.

00:27 Holden: “How do you guys feel about participating in Israel because obviously you’ve got your own thoughts on it?”

Band member: “We feel conflicted of course. Our stance is a contradictory one. But obviously we feel that a contest like Eurovision which is founded in the spirit of peace and unity, we find it absurd to host it in a country that’s marred by conflict and disunity.”

BBC: “Eurovision bosses insist that the contest should never be political.”

Holden: “In terms of the performance lots has been said about whether you will or will not protest on stage.”

Band member: “We can’t be political on stage so we will do our performance as planned, as it has been rehearsed. But we will try to use this agenda-setting influence that comes – that comes with anything that catches the public eye really – to put the discussion where it belongs and we want to support all kinds of groups that fight for the Palestinian human rights.”

Holden: “Do you see the Eurovision as a joke?”

Band member: “No. We see it as a dead-serious medium to reach the masses and a political arena.”

Once again it is clear that the BBC is a lot less interested in the music and the contest itself than it is in promoting specific political messaging about the host country.

Related Articles:

BBC News Eurovision BDS report follows the usual template

BBC Radio Ulster audiences hear that ‘Israel should be wiped off the map’

BBC News website ignores counter call to boycott it repeatedly promoted

 

More Eurovision boycott promotion on BBC Radio 5 live

The May 12th edition of the BBC Radio 5 live show hosted by Peter Allen and Caroline Barker included an item (from 01:52:58 here) relating to the Eurovision Song Contest being held in Tel Aviv this week.

Barker introduced “Dr Peter Webb who’s professor of contemporary music at the University of West of England” and they discussed the chances of the UK entry to the competition with Peter Webb concluding:

Webb: “I think we will do pretty awkwardly in a, you know, pretty, you know, sort of controversial Eurovision this year.” [emphasis added]

Shortly afterwards Caroline Barker demonstrated that the framing of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest in trite, one-dimensional political terms along with context-free amplification of the related BDS campaign is not confined to the BBC News website. [emphasis added]

01:55:39 Barker: “There’s also an extra political dimension this year because of course it’s being hosted in Israel and some calls for a boycott – although we understand Madonna is performing?”

Webb: “Yeah, I mean I think that, you know, there’s a lot of controversy because…ehm…as it’s the Eurovision Song Contest and it’s being used by…ehm…the Israeli government in, you know, its foreign affairs department have set up a very strong…eh…kind of, you know, make Israel seem, you know, a very, you know, a very…a good place to go and they’re using Eurovision advertising around Eurovision to put that message across, ignoring the kind of political situation in the Gaza [sic], the Palestinian situation and, you know, musicians are – I think rightlysuggesting it should be boycotted. Ahm…but at the same time, you know, the difference between boycotting an event like this and musicians actually going to play to people in Israel…ah…because obviously the Israeli population is just as diverse and divided as any country and there’s a lot of different political opinion within the country about the Palestinian question. So…ehm…you know, Radiohead, Nick Cave have gone to play there and they, you know, that is a slightly different issue to this I think.”

Barker: “I guess so. In Eurovision circles it’s, yeah, different rules at times.”

For years we have documented on these pages how the BBC has serially failed to provide an accurate and impartial portrayal of the aims and agenda of the BDS campaign – even as it has frequently provided that campaign and some of its supporters with free PR. Moreover, in August 2015, we learned that the BBC considers the provision of such crucial background information “not our role“.

So while there is nothing novel about the BBC providing context-free amplification for BDS campaigns while actively refraining from informing audiences that what that campaign ultimately seeks to achieve is the end of Israel as the Jewish state, that editorial policy is now being seen again across the board in coverage of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest.

Related Articles:

BBC’s Peter Allen: “Israel always wreaks its revenge”

BBC News website ignores counter call to boycott it repeatedly promoted

BBC Music promotes falsehoods and BDS campaign website

BBC Music again covers a BDS story without explaining that campaign’s agenda

More mainstreaming of BDS on BBC Radio 5 live

One to watch on BBC Two

Tonight – May 13th – at 9 p.m. UK time, BBC Two will air a programme titled “One Day in Gaza”.

“Film marking a year since one of the deadliest days of violence in the Gaza Strip for a generation. Made by award-winning documentary maker Olly Lambert, One Day in Gaza examines, moment by moment, what happened on that fateful day.

14 May 2018 started as a day of mass protest at Gaza’s border with Israel, and would end as one of the most deadly days in Gaza for a generation. For weeks, Palestinians had been protesting along the border fence, but tensions were running particularly high due to the opening of the new United States embassy to Israel in Jerusalem – the controversial step ordered by Donald Trump. As Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and other senior US officials gathered in Jerusalem to inaugurate the new embassy, tens of thousands of Palestinians gathered at sites along the Gaza border, barely 40 miles away. As the sun set that day, over 60 Palestinians were dead or dying, and over two thousand lay injured, many by live ammunition.

Drawing on more than 120 hours of archive footage filmed on both sides of the border that day – including exclusive videos released by both Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that dominates Gaza, and the Israel Defense Forces, this film reveals the complex reality and human toll of the day, and asks who is to blame for the bloodshed. It also features exclusive interviews with senior commanders and intelligence officers from the Israel Defense Forces, as well as political leaders of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, another militant group, and civilians who were present on both sides of the border. What really happened that day? Israel said its troops only opened fire in self-defence or on people using the protests as cover for an armed infiltration, while Palestinians and human rights groups have accused Israeli troops of using excessive force against unarmed civilians who posed no threat. This 60-minute film reveals extraordinary new details of what happened.”

The programme will apparently also be broadcast the following day (May 14th) on PBS in the United States.

Related Articles:

The BBC’s ‘Great Return March’ great disappearing act

Findings of the ITIC’s examination of the identity of Palestinians killed in the events of the “Great Return March”  (ITIC)

BBC WS radio’s ‘context’: falsehoods about counter terrorism measures

BBC coverage of last week’s escalation of violence during which terror groups in the Gaza Strip fired 690 rockets at civilian communities in Israel included an item aired in the May 5th afternoon edition of the BBC World Service programme ‘Newshour’, hosted by James Menendez.

The item (from 00:10 here) commenced with analysis from Alan Johnston who referred to a “deal” brokered by the Egyptians to bring an end to the previous exacerbation in March which he described as including:

“…easing of the blockade which Israel imposes on Gaza – the blockade that cripples economic and many other aspects of life in Gaza…”

Making no effort to inform listeners why that blockade was put in place or how Palestinian Authority actions and Hamas’ prioritisation of terrorism over civilian well-being have contributed to the current state of affairs in the Gaza Strip, Johnston went on to amplify the narrative promoted by Gaza Strip based terror groups.

“Hamas and the Islamic Jihad militants in Gaza are unhappy with the Israelis for not implementing that…their side of the deal. That’s the Palestinian Gazan view of the situation.”

Johnston’s contribution ended there, with listeners hearing nothing at all about the Israeli “view of the situation” – including the rocket fire days earlier (unreported by the BBC) which brought about a reduction of the fishing zone or the fact that Israel disputes the claims made by Gaza Strip terror groups concerning the delay of transfer of cash from Qatar.

With that one-sided framing in place, Menendez introduced another ‘analyst’ at 04:08.

Menendez: “Well Tareq Baconi is an analyst with the non-profit International Crisis Group. He’s based in Ramallah in the West Bank. He’s also the author of ‘Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance’. Why does he think the violence has flared up again now?”

Despite the BBC having editorial guidelines which stipulate that audiences should be informed of the “particular viewpoint” of contributors, listeners were told nothing of the International Crisis Group’s (ICG) record, agenda and fundingincluding its receipt of donations from Qatar which are obviously relevant to the story, given that country’s history of support for Hamas.

Neither were listeners informed that Tareq Baconi – formerly a Policy Fellow with Al Shabaka – has repeatedly made his own position on Hamas clear, including in his book:

“Hamas rules Gaza and the lives of the two million Palestinians who live there. Demonized in media and policy debates, various accusations and critical assumptions have been used to justify extreme military action against Hamas. The reality of Hamas is, of course, far more complex. Neither a democratic political party nor a terrorist group, Hamas is a multifaceted liberation organization, one rooted in the nationalist claims of the Palestinian people.” [emphasis added]

Obviously that information would have been critical in helping audiences reach informed opinions about the one-sided talking points they were about to hear but rather than providing it, the BBC chose to present Baconi’s contribution as impartial analysis. Like Johnston, Baconi presented just one explanation for the “quite dire” situation in the Gaza Strip, erasing Hamas terrorism and inter-factional Palestinian disputes from the picture.

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Baconi: “I think the cause is that there are fundamental demands that the Palestinians in Gaza are requesting that Israel abide by – namely the humanitarian suffering and the economic situation in Gaza – and by virtue of the blockade the situation in Gaza continues to be quite dire. So often these escalations are ways for the Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip to pressure Israel into abiding by its side of ceasefire agreements. We can pinpoint the specific reason for this latest escalation. There are several things that are happening. The Eurovision contest is happening next week and we’re coming up to milestones and anniversaries that are quite full of emotion for Palestinians: Nakba of course on May 15 which is the same day that Israel celebrates its Independence Day. And domestically within Israel Netanyahu is currently in discussions to form a new coalition government.”

Menendez: “I mean is there any reason to think from the Palestinian point of view that doing this will bring that relief that they want, that at the moment they have any greater leverage – because it doesn’t look like it, does it?”

Listeners heard nothing about the context to the counter-terrorism measure which is the blockade and they were wrongly led to believe both that Israel has made agreements with “the factions in Gaza” and that the terms of understandings in fact brokered by third parties “never translates into action”.

Baconi: “Well the issue that we need to remember here is that Israel has historically – certainly over the course of the last decade since the blockade was first imposed on the Gaza Strip but definitely over the course of the past year or so – it has shown that it only really responds to force. It has reinforced that message time and again. It’s only when Hamas and other factions fire rockets at Israel that Israel countenances taking any measures that might relieve the suffering in the Gaza Strip. Even though every kind of ceasefire agreement between Israel and the factions in Gaza have been predicated on the simple understanding that there will be calm in Israel’s southern communities if the situation in the Gaza Strip changes, that never translates into action so while Hamas and other factions do restrain any kind of activity from the Gaza Strip, Israel never responds by meeting its obligations under a ceasefire. So really whether or not Hamas has more of a chance now is unclear but that’s sort of beside the point because it’s unclear what other measures Hamas has. If the Gaza Strip isn’t a source of rocket fire, it’s forgotten from Israel’s perspective and the collective punishment of two million Palestinians sort of becomes acceptable or forgotten.”

Menendez had nothing to say about Baconi’s promotion of the “collective punishment” myth but went on to describe terror groups that launch military-grade rockets at civilians as “militants”.

Menendez: “Is there a danger then, if the Palestinian militants feel that they’ve got nothing to lose at this stage, that we could be on the brink of another big conflagration as we saw, what, in 2014?”

Baconi: “Absolutely. I think that’s always a danger. I think neither Hamas nor Israel wants an escalation which is what’s so ironic about this dynamic. The dynamic keeps repeating itself every few months but neither party necessarily wants an escalation. Hamas certainly; it rightly believes that any escalation will be hugely destructive for the Gaza Strip in terms of the loss of life – certainly civilian life – but also in terms of infrastructure and the destruction that we’ve seen Israel unleash over the Gaza Strip repeatedly in the past. The Gaza Strip is already according to the UN close to being uninhabitable. Another military assault by Israel would be devastating. And in return, Israel certainly doesn’t want an escalation because Netanyahu is quite…in a quite sensitive position in his own coalition discussions. However, having said that, even though no party wants an escalation, the dynamic is such that neither party is willing to pay the political will to get out of this dynamic and here I shouldn’t actually equate both parties. The political will here rests with Israel as the stronger party and the enforcer of the blockade. The only thing that can change fundamentally this dynamic is for the blockade to be lifted and for the Gaza Strip to be dealt with as a political reality, not as a humanitarian reality.”

Menendez: “But don’t the rocket attacks just play into Israel’s hands in the sense it proves to the Israeli government that the blockade has to continue because it needs to put the squeeze on people who are firing rockets at their civilian centres?”

Baconi: “This is obviously not to justify the use of rockets: rockets in the form that Hamas is using them is a war crime because they are indiscriminate and they fall on civilians and combatants in an indiscriminate manner. But nonetheless, one needs to understand the drivers of these forms of activities and seeing the rocket fire as a response to the blockade is fundamental here. The blockade is itself an act of violence that is indiscriminately treating two million Palestinians – the vast majority of whom are youth and refugees – under collective punishment. So the idea that Israel has imposed the blockade because of the rockets is false, actually. The blockade has been imposed on the Gaza Strip in many ways since before Hamas was even created. The fundamental issue in Gaza is the fact that it’s [a] Palestinian political issue that Israel doesn’t need to or doesn’t want to address.”

Menendez made no effort whatsoever to challenge Baconi’s inversion of the facts and whitewashing of terrorism. Listeners were not told that the Gaza Strip was designated ‘hostile territory’ by Israel over two years after Israel’s disengagement from the territory and following over 2,000 rocket attacks by Gaza Strip based terrorists in which 14 Israelis were killed.

The item was closed by Menendez at that point but listeners to the evening edition of ‘Newshour’ on the same day heard a slightly different version of the same interview with Baconi which was presented by Menendez (from 00:11 here) as “the context for this sudden escalation of fighting”.

In other words, BBC World Service radio’s idea of “context” that would aid audiences to understand the story was falsehoods concerning the counter-terrorism blockade from a known Hamas apologist representing an inadequately introduced political NGO.

Related Articles:

Islamic Jihad unravels BBC amplification of Hamas claim

BBC News recycles past inaccuracies and invents new ones

BBC radio stations promote Hamas ‘health ministry’ propaganda

BBC News reporting on rocket attacks marred by inaccuracy and omission

BBC News again promotes false claims concerning death of Gaza baby

 

 

 

 

BBC News website gets lost in (bad) translation

On May 10th the BBC News website published a report titled “Israel probes Golan Heights mass vulture poisoning”.

Towards the end of the article readers found the following:

“The Golan Heights are home to a range of wildlife, including types of birds of prey, although the vulture population of the Israeli-occupied part has dropped precipitously over the past 20 years.

Many have been poisoned, allegedly by local farmers whose herds are threatened by the birds, Israeli news website Walla says.” [emphasis added]

Anyone with even minimal understanding would know that vultures are scavengers and do not pose any threat whatsoever to livestock such as the beef cattle and sheep that are raised in the Golan Heights.

Obviously then no fact-checking was done before that statement was printed but did it actually come, as claimed, from the “Israeli news website Walla”?

By the time this BBC article was published Walla had posted one report on the story in which the writer, Eli Ashkenazi, states:

הסיבה המרכזית להיעלמות הנשרים מרמת הגולן היא הרעלות לא חוקיות שנעשות בעיקר על ידי מגדלי בקר המנסים לפגוע בטורפים הפוגעים בעדריהם

 “The main reason for the disappearance of vultures from the Golan Heights is illegal poisoning done mainly by cattle ranchers trying to hurt predators which harm their herds.”

In the Golan Heights, those predators are mainly wolves

In other words a combination of bad translation and failure to check facts led to the BBC misinforming its audiences even on this straightforward story. So much for “news that you can trust”.

Related Articles:

BBC gives amplification to Middle Eastern conspiracy theories

BBC News coverage of terrorism in Israel – April 2019

The Israel Security Agency’s report on terror attacks (Hebrew) during April 2019 shows that throughout the month a total of 126 incidents took place: 88 in Judea & Samaria, 12 in Jerusalem and 26 in the Gaza Strip sector.

In Judea & Samaria and Jerusalem the agency recorded 70 attacks with petrol bombs, twenty-one attacks using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), three stabbing attacks, two shooting attacks and four arson attacks.

Incidents recorded in the Gaza Strip sector included 4 attacks with petrol bombs, three attacks using IEDs, six attacks using improvised grenades and three separate incidents of rocket launches.

There were no fatalities or injuries as a result of terror attacks throughout the month.

The BBC News website did not report on any of the incidents which took place during April.

Since the beginning of the year the BBC News website has reported 4.9% of the Palestinian terror attacks that have taken place and 66% of the total fatalities.

Related Articles:

BBC News coverage of terrorism in Israel – March 2019

BBC News coverage of terrorism in Israel – February 2019

Summary of BBC News website portrayal of Israel and the Palestinians – April 2019

BBC News recycles past inaccuracies and invents new ones

On the morning of May 5th the BBC News website published an article titled “Gaza conflict: Rocket barrage and Israeli strikes intensify” which replaced its previous report on the same story.

Most of the article’s ten versions include a sub-section titled “How does the flare-up in violence compare?” in which readers are told that:

“It is the one of the most surges [sic] in violence since the conflict of July and August 2014.

In that year, Israel launched a ground offensive on Gaza following the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers.”

That erroneous portrayal of the lead-up to Operation Protective Edge has been promoted by the BBC on numerous occasions in the past. It misleads audiences because the BBC has completely airbrushed from view the hundreds of missiles launched at civilian targets in Israel between the date of the kidnappings – June 12th 2014 – and the commencement of Operation Protective Edge on July 8th. It was of course that surge in missile fire which was the reason for Israel’s military action, with the later discovery of dozens of cross-border tunnels prompting the subsequent ground operation. The military operation could have been avoided had Hamas elected to take advantage of the ample opportunities it was given to stop the missile fire before July 8th, but the terrorist organisation chose not to do so.  

The sub-section continues:

“The conflict resulted in the death of 67 Israeli soldiers. Hamas and its allies launched more than 4,500 rocket strikes that killed six civilians in Israel.

On the Palestinian side, 2,251 people, including 1,462 civilians, were killed in the seven-week conflict, according to the UN.”

That portrayal is also not new to BBC content. As has been noted here in the past the source of those Palestinian casualty figures attributed by the BBC to “the UN” is in fact the controversial report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council more than a month before the conflict ended (originally headed by William Schabas) that was published in June 2015. 

A close look at that report’s methodology shows that the Hamas-run “Ministry of Health in Gaza” is one source of the report’s data, together with the UNOCHA “Protection Cluster”. As has been noted here previously, that “Protection Cluster” includes political NGOs, some of which also have a financial relationship with UNOCHA.

As we see, nearly five years on from the 2014 conflict the BBC is still amplifying casualty figures and debatable civilian/combatant casualty ratios supplied by Hamas and NGOs involved in ‘lawfare’ campaigning against Israel that were funneled through a UN agency and subsequently promoted in a controversial and biased UNHRC report. Moreover, there is no evidence of the BBC having ever independently verified the civilian/combatant casualty ratios which it continues to promote.

The article continues: [emphasis added]

“Since then, Palestinian militants have continued to carry out sporadic strikes on Israel.

In a previous wave this year, in March, several rockets were fired into southern Israel, triggering raids on Gaza by the Israeli air force. No fatalities were reported on either side.

In early April a ceasefire was brokered by Egypt, but Hamas and allied militant groups later accused Israel of violating its terms.”

In 2018 there were 1,119 rocket and mortar shell hits in Israeli territory but the BBC failed to report 55% of the incidents it now portrays as “sporadic”. What the BBC describes as “several rockets” – i.e. “more than two but not many” – fired in March 2019 was in fact a barrage of over 60 projectiles and eight additional incidents took place during the same month.

As we see the ‘background’ provided to BBC audiences in this article fails to meet any reasonable definition of accurate and impartial reporting and problematic mantras from past years are simply recycled without adequate fact checking.

Related Articles:

BBC News continues to promote dubiously sourced Gaza statistics

BBC yet again erases terrorist missile fire which led to summer conflict

BBC radio stations promote Hamas ‘health ministry’ propaganda

BBC News reporting on rocket attacks marred by inaccuracy and omission

BBC News again promotes false claims concerning death of Gaza baby