BBC News website passes off anti-Israel hate fest as ‘academic conference’

Tucked away on the ‘Hampshire & Isle of Wight’ regional page in the ‘England’ section of the BBC News website’s UK page is an article published on March 31st 2017 under the headline “‘Chilling repression’ leads to Southampton conference move“.

The BBC website’s visitors are told that:

“An academic conference which raises legal questions about the state of Israel has got under way at the third attempt.

The three-day meeting opened in Cork, Republic of Ireland, after two failed efforts to hold it in Southampton.

The organisers, two professors from the University of Southampton, accused their employer of blocking the event in 2015 and 2016.”

Later on, readers find the following:

“Ahead of the cancelled 2015 conference, the pro-Israel The Zionist Federation UK garnered more than 6,700 signatures opposing its staging, while a counter-petition signed by more than 800 academics urged the university to resist the pressure.

The university said it withdrew permission for the event because “the safety of staff, students and visitors could not be guaranteed”.

A second conference due to be held in 2016 was cancelled when the university imposed conditions including a £25,000 fee to cover policing and security costs.

In April 2016, professors Oren Ben-Dor and Suleiman Sharkh lost a High Court case in which they had argued that the cancellations put “academic freedom” at stake.””

Readers are also provided with quotes from one of the organisers and a link to a nine year-old BBC article by Jeremy Bowen is promoted:

“Prof Sharkh said on Friday there were no demonstrators outside the conference in Cork.

He said the move from Southampton reflected a “chilling repression of academic freedom when it comes to critique of Israeli state policy”.

The conference’s keynote speaker, Prof Richard Falk, has previously said Israel’s actions in the Palestinian Occupied Territories possessed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid.

BBC audiences were not however informed of Richard Falk’s antisemitism, his long record of anti-Israel campaigning, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his support for Hamas and more.

Neither were they told that one of only two pro-Israel speakers at the event (out of around 40) withdrew his participation. 

“Founder and senior editor of Britain Israel Communications and Research Center (BICOM), Professor Alan Johnson, said that he will not be attending the “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Exceptionalism and Responsibility” conference in Cork, Ireland later this month due to controversial author Richard Falk’s participation. […]

“The organizers have issued an invitation to Richard Falk to give a keynote speech… by inviting a speaker who espouses antisemitic conspiracy theories the conference is now objectively an attempt to normalize antisemitism and I cannot attend such an event,” he added.”

So what exactly went on at the event the BBC would have its audiences believe was an “academic conference”?

“The claim that Zionism is based only on “blood and might” and seeks to do away with the “meek” Jew came from the first speaker, Dr. Hatem Bazian, professor of Near Eastern studies at University of California Berkeley. Bazian accused Zionists of adopting “a racist, genocidal and exclusive world view” and claimed they had “embarked on a national project of settler colonialism.” […]

Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, a prominent researcher on the Palestinian right of return, told a hugely supportive audience that the only barrier to such a move was what he described as Israeli “apartheid.” […]

Displaying maps and graphics of population densities in Israel, the civil engineer accused the state of perpetrating “the most comprehensive ethnic cleansing operation in history.”  […]

On the opening day of the conference, Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton and former UN special rapporteur, described the foundation of the state as “the most successful terror campaign in history.” […]

Meanwhile Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky from the London University School of Oriental and African studies provoked major controversy when she used the Nazi term “untermensch,” meaning sub-human in English, when outlining what she alleged were Israel’s “crimes against humanity.””

One of the people who attended the event noted that:

“The words of the Passover Seder were scrolled out on screen to show how the Zionist paranoia and desire to be hated is deeply connected to the Jewish need to have an enemy to sustain its identity.”

And:

“We were told (in a particularly poor “academic paper” even by the standards of this conference) that the end of times were here environmentally and our days were numbered unless we stopped Israel in its tracks. Why you might ask? WARFARE (threatening the whole Middle East – Iraq, Syria) was shouted, followed by “9/11″. This passed without remark. Indeed in the question period, John McGuire, Professor Emeritus from UCC continued the theme of Israel’s involvement in all things nefarious by connecting Shannon Airport, US troops passing through and CIA torture. This opened the floor for Joel Kovel to take the floor again to expand on his 9/11 theories. Did we know that when the towers were burning there were 5 mysterious “painters” cheering in the shadows? Arrested at the time but soon “disappeared off the face of the earth”? “Mossad” was shouted by audience members and “academic ecosocialist” speaker alike. “

Also present at the event was David Collier – see his reports here, here and here.

The three days of defamation and delegitimisation of Israel seen in Cork should come as a surprise to no-one: the event’s activist organisers had made it clear well in advance that their intent was to question the very existence of Israel and their motive political rather than academic.

“This conference will be the first of its kind and constitutes a ground-breaking historical event on the road towards justice and enduring peace in historic Palestine. It is unique because, while most attention today is directed at Israel’s actions in the 1967 Occupied Territories, the conference seeks to expand the debate surrounding the nature of the State of Israel and the legal and political reality within it.

The conference will raise questions that link the suffering in historic Palestine to the manner of Israel’s foundation and its nature. It aims to generate a debate on legitimacy, exceptionalism and responsibility under international law as provoked by the nature of the Israeli state. It will also examine how international law could be deployed, expanded, and even re-imagined, in order to achieve peace and reconciliation based on justice.”

Nevertheless, the BBC News website elected to inaccurately pass off a patently political event as an “academic conference”, to portray delegitimisation and defamation of Israel and Jews as “critique of Israeli state policy”, to depict Richard Falk as a benign academic and to steer audiences towards the view that the event’s organisers suffer “chilling repression”.  

How all that got past the supposed BBC editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality is anyone’s guess.

Related Articles:

BBC News erases identity of authors of UN ‘apartheid’ report

Frequent BBC favourite Falk in the news

Hidden Agenda at Southampton University?  (UK Media Watch) 

BBC’s ME Editor gives unchallenged amplification to Palestinian defamation

In late April BBC television audiences saw a report by Yolande Knell which gave entirely unchallenged amplification to defamatory falsehoods concerning Israel and Israelis from the families of Palestinian terrorists. An audio report by the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme on May 4th (from 02:39:47 here) indicates that Knell’s report was not an isolated case of lapsed editorial judgement.Today 4 5

Presenter Sarah Montague introduces the report as follows:

“Tension is rising once again between Israelis and Palestinians. Seemingly random attacks by Palestinians on Israelis continue. Israel continues to expand settlements for Jews in the occupied territories that contravene international law. There are no peace talks and no attempt is being made to revive them. Our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen reports from Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

In addition to making no effort to meet BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality by informing audiences of the existence of legal opinions which contradict the view that settlements “contravene international law”, Montague fails to tell them that just last month the Israeli prime minister attempted to “revive” talks by inviting the PA president to Jerusalem.

Bowen’s report opens with a recording of the voice of a girl who was prevented from carrying out a stabbing attack in Karmei Tzur on February 9th – a story not covered by the BBC at the time.

“You can hear how young Dima al Wawi is in her voice. She’s a 12 year-old Palestinian schoolgirl sitting with her parents in the kitchen, engrossed in Facebook. But instead of checking out her friends, she’s looking at video of her arrest. Dima has only recently been released from an Israeli jail. She served 75 days of a four-month sentence for planning to stab an Israeli at a Jewish settlement. She was arrested near her home in Halhoul on the west Bank. Dima didn’t get close to any Israelis as security guards stopped her.”

Apparently Bowen does not count the security guard himself as Israeli. Listeners then hear a voice-over of al Wawi speaking:

“The settlers saw me and stopped me. They made me lie on the ground, tied my wrists with plastic handcuffs and they stepped on my back.”

Bowen goes on:

“She pleaded guilty but now she says she was innocent and bullied into confessing. Twice her parents said she was questioned without a lawyer present.”

Voice-over: “I [unintelligible] we’re young kids. It’s sad that they do this to us. We’re oppressed. What I know is that I’m from Palestine. I don’t know about politics.”Knife al Wawi

Had the BBC covered the story at the time, Bowen would perhaps know about the knife found in al Wawi’s possession. After listeners hear the sound of a siren, Bowen continues – severely downplaying the number of terror attacks which have taken place during the last seven months. [emphasis added]

“Israelis are nervous. Since October last year Palestinians – mostly armed with knives – have launched dozens of attacks.  A Palestinian exploded a bomb on a bus in Jerusalem last month. For Israelis that revived horrific memories of bus attacks that killed hundreds in the last Palestinian uprising. I’ve come to Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital which is the main hospital in Jerusalem and here one of the victims is still being treated. She’s a girl called Eden Dadon…eh…15 years old, very badly burned in the bus attack and I’m here with Eden’s older sister Shiran. When you’re walking down the street or if you go somewhere and you see a Palestinian person – I mean, what do you think?”

Listeners are not informed that Eden and Shiran Dadon’s mother was also injured in the same attack either before or after they hear the following voice-over.

“I think why are they so evil? Why are they so bad? Why can’t we live in peace? These are wars that we’ve been living with for years and we’ll never find a resolution to them because they hate us. We hate them – it’s mutual. But the difference between us is they’re the ones who come to attack.”

Bowen then goes to meet the family of the perpetrators of another attack which was not reported by the BBC when it took place at Qalandiya checkpoint on April 27th.Knives Qalandiya attack 27 4

“Back in the ’90s when the peace process started there was a sense of hope that things might get better but now there is nothing like that. In fact here on the West Bank there’s a lot of anger. I’m in Bidu – a Palestinian village – and the village is close to Jerusalem as the crow flies but actually it’s a world away. Most of the Palestinians who live here can’t travel to Jerusalem – to the holy city – because of Israel’s security regulations.”

Bowen of course neglects to remind listeners that those “security regulations” came into being because of Palestinian terrorism. Like Yolande Knell before him, he then goes on to amplify unsupported claims and blatant falsehoods from family members of attackers. [all emphasis added]

“Mourners gathered at the house of the Taha family. They were angry because Israeli private security guards had shot dead Ibrahim Taha aged 16 and his sister Maram who was 23 at a checkpoint into north Jerusalem. Maram allegedly threw a knife at the police. The family say they were both innocent – shot in cold blood by trigger-happy guards. Tahri [phonetic] Taha said her brother and sister didn’t have a chance.”

Voice-over: “They’re used to this. It’s normal for them. They kill us. They kill innocent children in cold blood. Our martyrs are in heaven – that’s enough for us. They’re used to this. It’s in their blood. They want to get rid of us in any way. They have a law: whenever they see an Arab their policy is to kill them. Killing is their policy – even old people and kids.”

Bowen: “Her uncle Abdallah joined in.”

Listeners then hear a man speaking in Arabic – including the words ‘al Yahud’ – the Jews. Bowen paraphrases his words as follows:

“He’s gesturing at the moment, saying if you scratch your head, they’ll kill you. If you just pick something off the ground, they’ll kill you. If you pick the phone out of your pocket, they’ll kill you.”

Jeremy Bowen of course knows full well that the claims made by both those interviewees are gross falsehoods. He does not however tell his listeners that but instead confines himself to saying:

“The Israeli government says that’s untrue. That Palestinians attack Israelis because they’ve been taught to hate them from childhood.”

Making no attempt whatsoever to inform BBC audiences on the very relevant issue of incitement, Bowen moves seamlessly on to showcase his next interviewee.

“Some Israelis disagree. One of them is Yehuda Shaul. He leads a group of former soldiers from the Israeli Defense Forces – the IDF. They campaign against the occupation in a group called ‘Breaking the Silence’.”

Shaul: “We believe the occupation is morally indefensible. We believe the occupation is morally unacceptable. We believe that it’s destroying the morality of the IDF. It’s destroying the morality of Israeli society. It’s destroying the professionalism of the IDF. Armies are not designed to rule an occupation for 50 years over millions of people. And we believe that ultimately in the long term, it destroys the strategic and security standing of Israel in the region. That’s why we’re against the occupation.”

Bowen does not bother to remind Radio 4 listeners of the fact that the ‘occupation’ came about because Jordan – itself the occupier of Judea & Samaria and sections of Jerusalem at the time – chose to join Egypt, Syria and various other forces in what was intended to be a war of annihilation against Israel.

Bowen: “We were in Hebron; a major flash point. When Jewish settlers spotted Yehuda Shaul they swore at him and called him a traitor.”

No context concerning the record, methodology – and foreign funding – of ‘Breaking the Silence’ is provided to audiences. Bowen then closes his report:

“The atmosphere between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank – including East Jerusalem – is more combustible than it’s been since the end of the second Palestinian uprising over a decade ago. History has shown that neither side can decisively beat the other. One day they might be able to make a peace deal. If not they face the slow drip of hate and the certainty of more killing.”

So what did licence fee payers get from this report? In addition to the one-sided promotion of a political NGO and trite slogans such as ‘occupation’ and ‘international law’ without any context or balance, they heard the generous amplification of blatantly false and defamatory claims bordering on the blood libel from Palestinians which went unchallenged in any serious fashion by Jeremy Bowen.

That genre of material is of course amply available to anyone with access to the internet and – rather than jumping on that already overcrowded bandwagon – the BBC with its remit of enhancing “UK audiences’ awareness and understanding of international issues” should obviously be helping audiences to look beyond such flagrant propaganda.

Given the proliferation of uninformed commentary from UK politicians and public officials of late, that remit carries particular importance and the fact that even the man in charge of the BBC’s Middle East related content fails to meet it clearly indicates a serious problem. 

BBC WS WHYS initiates discussion of the apartheid trope, moderation fails

The August 18th edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘World Have Your Say’ included an item about “the Israeli columnist who’s decided it’s time to call Israel an ‘apartheid’ society”. We will be discussing that programme in a future article but in this one we will take a look at the related post on the ‘World Have Your Say’ Facebook account on the same day.

As a reminder – the BBC uses social media and discussion boards as part of its interpretation of the public purpose remit titled ‘Global Outlook’, according to which it will “[e]nable individuals to participate in the global debate on significant international issues”.

“BBC Trust: “The BBC should inform conversation and debate, providing forums where its international audiences can debate issues they find important.””

The WHYS Facebook post the following question:”Apartheid”: right or wrong word?

WHYS FB main

Obviously anticipating the type of offensive comments not infrequently seen when Israel-related topics appear on such BBC discussion boards (see examples in the related articles below), the first comment on that post was posted by WHYS itself:

WHYS FB warning

Below are examples of some of the comments the WHYS moderators apparently did not consider “abusive or inappropriate” seeing as they were left standing on the thread.

WHYS FB c1

WHYS FB c10

WHYS FB c11

WHYS FB c12

‘Powerful’ and ‘influential’ Jews:

WHYS FB c13

WHYS FB c14

WHYS FB c15

‘Ethnic cleansing’:

WHYS FB c16

Promoting the elimination of Israel:

WHYS FB c17

Nazi analogy:

WHYS FB c18

WHYS FB c19

WHYS FB c20

‘Jews are pigs’:

WHYS FB c3

WHYS FB C4

WHYS FB c5

Special demands of the BBC’s Jewish journalists:

WHYS FB c6

Nazi analogy:

WHYS FB c7

Nazi analogy:

WHYS FB c9

Once again we see that defamatory falsehoods, racial abuse and antisemitic tropes pass BBC ‘moderation’ with no problem at all. Perhaps the BBC would like to explain to its funding public how that can be considered as contributing to its mission of ‘informing conversation and debate’. 

Related Articles:

BBC WS WHYS Facebook moderation fails again

Nazi analogies and ‘apartheid’ defamation on BBC World ‘Have Your Say’ Facebook account

BBC’s WHYS promotes Gaza interviewee with a penchant for antisemitic imagery

Antisemitism on BBC WS ‘World Have Your Say’ Facebook page

Antisemitic comments (again) on BBC WHYS Facebook post… about show on antisemitism

 

BBC News website promotes the anti-Israel defamation of a fringe racist group

Here’s an item with absolutely no news value which the BBC News website’s editors obviously wanted to make very sure that audiences did not miss.

An article titled “Holocaust survivors condemn Israel’s Gaza ‘genocide’” from the evening of August 23rd is basically nothing more than a collection of selected quotes from a statement put out by the small, extremist fringe group IJAN and reproduced (presumably in return for payment) in several newspapers.  Not only was that ‘article’ promoted in two separate locations on the website’s Middle East page, but a link to the statement was also placed in the day’s main article titled “Gaza conflict: Mahmoud Abbas urges fresh talks in Egypt“.

“In a separate development, more than 300 Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and descendants of survivors have issued a public statement condemning Israel’s action in Gaza.”

Holocaust survivors story on ME pge

IJAN’s raison d’être is its opposition to the existence of the world’s one and only Jewish state.  Its methodology includes the adoption of the halo of Holocaust survival as a means of conscripting supposed authority and moral superiority to its claims and statements. At the same time, it uses Holocaust inversion such as the example in this latest statement which – as reflected and promoted in the BBC’s headline – seeks to equate Israel with Nazi Germany by falsely claiming that it is carrying out “genocide”.

The BBC’s dismal record on recognizing and reporting antisemitism means that it comes as no surprise to find that two points which should be perfectly obvious to BBC editors unfortunately require clarification.

The denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination – as promoted by IJAN – is antisemitism even if it comes from people with some connection to Holocaust survival.

“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

The use of Nazi analogies is also antisemitism.Holocaust survivors story header

“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The BBC knows full well that no “genocide” of the Palestinian people is taking place in Gaza or anywhere else and yet it promotes that defamatory falsehood both in its headline and in the body of its article (and no: the use of punctuation does not mitigate that editorial decision) without bothering to inform readers that the allegation has no basis.

“More than 300 Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and descendants of survivors have issued a public statement condemning Israel’s “genocide” of the Palestinian people in Gaza.”

Had a small, fringe racist organisation from, say, the far-Right of the British political map put an equivalent advert in a paper falsely accusing a certain ethnic or religious group of non-existent crimes against humanity we would (one trusts) be unlikely to see the BBC promoting and amplifying such defamatory incitement without comment or clarification of the inaccurate nature of the allegation.

“If we broadcast anything that harms the reputation of an individual, a group, or an organisation we may be sued for defamation. The risk exists whether the defamatory statements are scripted or spoken off the cuff. Subject to the defence of innocent dissemination (the “live defence”), the BBC can be liable, as broadcaster, regardless of who makes the defamatory comments.”

But when what is probably perceived as a far-Left racist organisation makes defamatory anti-Israel statements, the BBC News website promotes them with gusto. Whoever made that miserable editorial decision must be brought to account.