BBC WS isolates narrative from context in another Gaza Corona report

As we have previously documented (see ‘related articles’ below), in the past couple of weeks the BBC provided its audiences with preemptive reporting on the topic of Coronavirus in the Gaza Strip and reports on the first two cases diagnosed there.

On March 26th seven additional cases were confirmed and the final item in that day’s afternoon edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour’ was billed as follows in the synopsis:

“And will Gaza’s health care system be able to stem the spread of the virus?”

Presenter James Menendez introduced the report (from 48:41 here) using a novel euphemism to describe a terrorist organisation and promoting talking points already seen in earlier reports.

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

Menendez: “Covid 19’s shown its power to overwhelm well-funded health systems in the richest countries. How much greater the risk then when those medical services are weak to begin with and when people are packed into spaces in which calls for social distancing or self-isolation are all but futile. Gaza is the tiny strip of land between Israel and Egypt into which 2 million Palestinians are crammed under the governance of the internationally shunned Hamas movement. Matthias Schmale is the Gaza operations director of UNRWA – the UN agency for Palestinian refugees – and he’s been talking to my colleague Tim Franks.”

Schmale: “Overnight another 7 cases were announced, bringing the total to nine.”

Franks: “Right and do you know where these infections originated from?”

Schmale: “The official line from the Ministry of Health is that the original two cases came from outside. They were two Palestinians who’d been in Pakistan and then were put into quarantine. And the latest seven announced last night are guards, security people at this quarantine. So, you know, it’s a bit a border line because they didn’t travel but they contracted it from there other two inside the quarantine area.”

Franks: “Right and I guess that’s particularly concerning is once you get into local transmission.”

Schmale: “I’ve been saying now for several days we need to treat this as if it is a full outbreak. You know, we don’t have the luxury to speculate. And so as UN we are working as if there is a full outbreak locally.”

Listeners were not told that UNRWA had suspended food distribution two days earlier.

Franks: “Well you say you need to treat it as if it’s a full outbreak; Gaza has particular challenges, to put it euphemistically. How difficult is it to try and contain this virus for you?”

Schmale: “The biggest challenge really is that it is so overcrowded and that standards of living – particularly in the refugee camps; 1.4 million people in Gaza of the 2 million living here are refugees, many of whom live in overcrowded camps, so it’s very common to have six, eight or even ten people living in a room or two. And so to do social distancing in those kinds of circumstances – or isolation when once that becomes necessary – is almost impossible to imagine. So that’s one big challenge.”

Of course Tim Franks did not ask Matthias Schmale to explain to listeners why there are still refugee camps in the Gaza Strip nearly fifteen years after Israel’s disengagement from the territory and he refrained from providing BBC audiences with the highly relevant context of UNRWA’s deliberate perpetuation of hereditary refugee status for millions of people living under Palestinian control.  

Schmale: “The other big challenge is that the hospitalisation sector is completely in meltdown. Now what I’ve been told is we have at maximum 60 ICU beds. Out of every hundred people who get ill, five at least on average would need ICU so you can do the math. As soon as more than 1,500 people are ill, they won’t be able to cope. So we are really worried about that, not to mention then the many mild and medium cases that we would have that would have no place to go to.”

Franks did not ask Schmale for the source of that claim that 5% of Covid 19 patients would need ICU treatment. This model, for example, estimates that 2% of patients would need ICU treatment and 1% would require a ventilator. Neither did he bother to enquire how the fact that the Gaza Strip has a relatively young population (the median age is around 18 years) in comparison with many countries would affect the demands placed on the healthcare system.

Franks: “The next question inevitably is what can be done about it?”

Schmale: “We’ve been working for days now as UN including UNRWA – the organisation I work for looking after Palestine refugees – at high speed and try and contain it, you know, and that’s about public health messaging, as difficult as it is to try and respect the guidance from the World Health Organisation about personal hygiene, about social distance at least one or two meters apart. That needs to hold and we’re trying to do that. We are trying to work with the authorities to actually impose a curfew. We think that’s now essential, you know. We don’t – as some colleagues have expressed – want to end up like places like Italy where maybe some those decision were taken too late. And so what we’re trying to do is hope for the best that there won’t be lots of people getting ill but preparing for the worst. And there will be clear limitations as to what we can do if there indeed is a full-scale outbreak in terms of many people getting sick.”

Menendez: “Matthias Schmale, the Gaza operations director of UNRWA – that’s the UN agency for Palestinian refugees – talking about the situation there.”

As we see the BBC continues to promote long-standing talking points concerning the Gaza Strip in its coverage of the Coronavirus pandemic. Notably though, audiences have yet to hear about Hamas’ prioritisation of terror over public services for more than a decade, the Palestinian Authority’s responsibility for the shortage of medicines and equipment in hospitals in the Gaza Strip or the part played by Israel in delivering testing kits and medical supplies to the territory.  

Those omissions suggest that BBC journalists are less interested in informing audiences of the realities of the situation than they are in promoting a long since adopted narrative.

Related Articles:

BBC re-promotes the usual Gaza narratives in multiple Coronavirus reports

Mapping BBC messaging on Gaza and Corona

BBC Radio 4 spreads inaccurate Gaza healthcare canard

Hamas announcement puts a BBC narrative into perspective

Earlier this week the Times of Israel reported that:

“The Hamas-run Health Ministry has urged Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to avoid travel abroad as the coronavirus continues to spread around the world.

No cases of the virus have been reported in Gaza, where more than 2 million people live, including many in densely populated neighborhoods.

“We call on citizens to not depart the Gaza Strip — unless totally necessary — in order to preserve their well-being,” the ministry said in a statement on Saturday. […]

The ministry also said that all persons returning to Gaza via the Rafah crossing would be required to quarantine themselves in their homes for two weeks.”

That announcement may come as something of a surprise to those accustomed to the BBC’s cross-platform portrayal of the topic of travel to and from the Gaza Strip – including that sourced from Hamas officials.

“Those in Gaza have great difficulty in travelling at all. There are only two crossings out: Rafah and Erez, controlled by Egyptian and Israeli authorities respectively.” (BBC Culture, September 2019)

“… we are under siege, we can’t…we can’t leave Gaza, you know. You need to wait one year if you decide to leave to study or to attend a festival outside of Gaza. So they need their rights.” (BBC World Service radio, August 2019)

 “…it’s just another reminder of how wrong it is that we can’t travel. It’s, you know, it’s unjust.” (BBC Radio 4, August 2019)

“…many young people, I mean, have simply never left Gaza. There’s huge restrictions on freedom of movement. I mean some people you talk to describe it as like living in an open-air prison.” (BBC Radio 1, May 2019)

“It’s not easy because Gaza’s like prison. It’s closed from all sides. The gates of Gaza are controlled by the occupation.” (BBC World Service radio, BBC News channel, BBC World News, May 2019)

“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.” (BBC Two, May 2019)

As has been noted here before, at the Erez crossing into Israel:

“Every day an average of 1,000 Gazan residents enter Israel through Erez Crossing. The vast majority of these people are those in need of medical treatment, but it also includes businessmen, industry professionals, students, individuals going to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and others.”

The Gaza Strip of course also has a border with Egypt and the territory’s other pedestrian crossing into a neighbouring country is located on that border. The Rafah crossing into Egypt has been mostly open since November 2017 and last May Ha’aretz reported that:

“According to data compiled by aid agencies affiliated with the United Nations, 60,907 Palestinians left Gaza via Egypt in 2018…”

While travel to and from the Gaza Strip may certainly not be straightforward, the Hamas-run health ministry’s announcement clearly shows the BBC’s standard portrayal of the subject to be partial and misleading. 

BBC WS radio fails to adhere to new editorial guidelines in partisan ‘Great Return March’ report

h/t ED

The closing item in the July 25th edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour’ was introduced by presenter Tim Franks (from 45:03 here) as follows:

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

Franks: “The Israeli army has instructed its snipers to shoot at the ankles of Palestinian protesters on the Gaza border in an effort to reduce deaths. A senior Israeli officer said that the policy of shooting above the knees had led to many being killed. The health authorities in Gaza say that nearly 300 Palestinians have died on the border since the weekly protests began more than a year ago. Over twenty thousand people have been injured. The demonstrations have seen Palestinians massing and marching towards the barrier that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel. We’ve spent the day trying – and failing – to get an interview or even a statement from the Israeli army.”

As we see, almost sixteen months on the BBC is still inaccurately portraying the ‘Great Return March’ violent rioting as “protests” and “demonstrations” and the participants as “protesters”, while concealing the hundreds of incidents such as shooting attacks, IED attacks, grenade attacks, petrol bomb attacks, arson attacks and infiltration attempts which have taken place during those so-called “protests”.  

The fact that around 80% of the fatalities have been shown to have links to terrorist organisations continues to be ignored by the BBC, as does the fact that the “health authorities” it quotes are part of the same terrorist organisation facilitating, organising and financing the violent rioting. Franks made no effort to clarify that more than half of the 20,000 people he described as injured actually suffered temporarily from tear gas inhalation. Neither did his description of IDF “policy” give listeners an accurate account: the actual rules of engagement include firing at the lower half of the body – not just “above the knees” as claimed by Franks.

Franks then introduced the one and only interviewee heard throughout the entire seven minute and 42 second item.

Franks: “Nadav Weiman is a former member of the Israeli Defence Forces. Indeed he was with the special forces sniper team that operated in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He’s now with the advocacy group ‘Breaking the Silence’. What does he make of the news that there’d been a change in the rules of engagement?”

The new BBC editorial guidelines which came into force ten days before this item was aired include the following:

“4.3.12 We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.” [emphasis added]

Nevertheless, listeners were told nothing about the highly relevant topic of the political agenda and funding of what Franks blandly described as an “advocacy group” without explaining what it ‘advocates’ for and why. Neither were they told anything of the former Nahal reconnaissance unit soldier’s own record of reliability before the item continued on a less than ideal phone line, in less than ideal English.  

Weiman: “I think it’s quite crazy that for at least a year and three or four months since the right of return marches started to happen and we sent our snipers to stop them, we at ‘Breaking the Silence’ and other organisation and international organisation questioned about those rules of engagement; shooting at unarmed protesters approaching the fence. And everybody in Israel and the IDF told that we have to do it for security, it’s a necessity. And then suddenly this message comes out – barely talked about in Israel – it means one thing: that the IDF admits that the rules of engagement that IDF snipers got on the Gaza Strip border were wrong, were wrong, were absolutely wrong. And it means that we have over 100 Palestinian families that lost their loved ones and the IDF’s answer to that is that we made a mistake. And we have almost the same number of IDF snipers nineteen, twenty years old that they have that image in their head of that bullet hitting that Palestinian man because shooting in Gaza like happen in the last year or so, it’s 60, 70, 80 meters, it is midday. And when a sniper shoot at that kind of a distance in midday you see everything. You see the impact.”

The ‘Great Return March’ events did not just ‘start to happen’: they were planned in advance by a collection of terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip and others but Franks made no effort to clarify that to audiences or to challenge the misleading and inaccurate portrayal of the participants as “unarmed protesters”. Weiman’s claim that the story is “barely talked about in Israel” is worth noting because Franks expanded on that claim later in the item.

Franks: “But are you saying that at that sort of range…because I imagine that hitting a target below the knee, particularly one that might well be moving, is difficult and if you are fearing that you’re needing to use that level of force because there is some sort of imminent danger, presumably that just is considerably more tricky than aiming at a – to put it crudely – a greater body area.”

Weiman: “Yes and no because first of all, you know, [in] sniping course and in the army they tell you that a legitimate target is an armed [unintelligible] soldier, an armed Palestinian militant. But then our soldiers are getting a command that the legitimate target is an unarmed man or woman or child approaching the fence. And it’s not endangering Israel: it’s endangering our control over the Palestinian territories and within it the Gaza Strip. First of all that’s confusing and a moving target; yes it’s hard but again those kinds of conditions – midday – it is not that hard for a professional sniper. Me and my team when we shot people in our army service it was 400, 500 meters. That kind of a distance midday with the bullet that you have as a sniper that has a lot more gunpowder, that does a lot more damage, it means that the bullet goes right through the man that you’re shooting at. The entry wound would be like a centimetre but the exit wound would be the size of a fist. So yes, when you shoot to the legs of a man standing 60 meters away from you the injury is very severe and I’m guessing that’s why the IDF changed the rules of engagement. And again stopping a human being so close to you – this is an unarmed protester – so again, live ammunition is the last resort, not the first one.”

Again Franks made no effort to challenge the myth of the “unarmed protester” and neither did he bother to clarify to listeners that Israel does not “control” the Gaza Strip because a complete withdrawal was carried out fourteen years ago.

Franks: “We’ve heard though earlier this year, even before this came out, from the head of the Israeli military’s southern command, the man who’s in charge of the area that includes the Gaza border, Major General Herzi Halevi, saying he wishes that there were, as he put it, better non-lethal weapons which he could use in order to secure the boundary, the border, with Gaza. He says he doesn’t have those and although you say that some of the people who’ve been hit are unarmed protesters, I imagine that one of the arguments that’s been used is that just in the  great crush of people who were moving towards the separation zone between Israel and Gaza, there is a fear that they could provide cover for others who do have more lethal intent.”

Franks is referring to remarks made by Maj Gen Herzi Halevi in May of this year. He did not however bother to inform audiences of additional statements made by the officer at the time.

“Halevi said the Israel Defense Forces maintains strict rules of engagement for soldiers, requiring approval of senior commanders before a shot can be fired, and performs investigations into every bullet fired.

“We don’t have results on every bullet because of the tough conditions [on the border],” he said, referring to the thick smoke, masses of people and general confusion.

“But we have not — I’m not saying not yet, I’m saying not — found even one incident of a soldier [just] deciding to shoot into the crowd, even on tough days,” Halevi said.

According to Halevi, the IDF has made use of the less-lethal weapons already at its disposal, contacted foreign countries to look into purchasing their equipment and attempted to develop new tools to respond to the riots.

These included rubber bullets, which were found to have an insufficient range; a foul-smelling spray known as the Skunk, which didn’t work well in the open fields along the border; and most recently a truck with a high-powered speaker to be used against rioters, which has not been found to be sufficiently effective.

The tear gas, which Israel continues to use along the border, is found to often be ineffective as the breeze coming from the Mediterranean blows it back into Israel.”

That information – as well as the knowledge that Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – would have helped listeners put Weiman’s subsequent claims into their correct context.

Weiman: “I’ve got to say Herzi Halevi is right. An army has [a] couple of tools in its toolbox and it’s basically violent intimidation – that’s a military occupation. This is what it means. So my criticism is not against the IDF; it’s against the policy of our government. Governments for the past 52 years decided to control the Gaza Strip by military force which means basically that you don’t have a military solution to a political problem. The IDF is not equipped to stop the protests on the fence. The IDF is equipped to be a stand up army when needs to which means the solution to these kinds of problems is not supposed to be in Herzi Halevi hands. It’s supposed to be in the hand of our government and the people of Israel that’s giving the mandate to that kind of a government. And I’ve got to say that the IDF actually has other tools that they can do. You know we have a siege on Gaza since 2007. You know we are giving IDF soldiers the order to take those firearms and to go over there but there are other non-lethal means in the hands of the IDF.”

Franks did not bother to clarify to listeners that there is no such thing as “a siege” on the Gaza Strip before he went on to pick up on a claim made by Weiman near the beginning of the interview.

Franks: “This change in the rules of engagement came out a few days ago from the military reporter for Israel’s public radio station, Carmela Menashe. It didn’t get a huge amount of take-up and only belatedly did it get really any kind of attention as far as I’m aware in the Israeli media. I wonder how far that suggests to you that, I mean, although you’ve been speaking very passionately about it, whether this really registers across much of Israel.”

Carmela Menashe Tweeted about that story on July 22nd. On the same day the same information appeared in reports at Ma’ariv, Channel 13 and others following what appears to have been a tour for military journalists of a counter-terrorism training facility. The Jerusalem Post published similar report on July 25th. Channel 13 correspondent Or Heller reported that a senior officer responsible for training snipers deployed to the border with the Gaza Strip told the journalists that in relation to the conclusions drawn from investigations into the incidents along the Gaza border:

“Their [the snipers’] aim is not to kill but to wound and so one of the conclusions reached was about the direction of fire – in the beginning we told the snipers to shoot at the leg and when we saw that could result in death we told them to shoot under the knee. Later on we refined the order to hit the ankle.”

In other words, not only is this item’s claim of a change to the rules of engagement somewhat exaggerated – a more accurate description would be a refinement of orders in relation to a specific location within the general framework of the rules of engagement – but Franks’ claim that the story was not widely reported and only “belatedly” got attention in the Israeli media is completely inaccurate.

Weiman then went on to give an inaccurate portrayal of Israeli society and the Israeli media: in fact barely a day goes by without multiple media reports concerning the Gaza Strip.

Weiman: “After so much time people in Israel are not interested in what is happening over there because Gaza used to be and now and will be our back yard that Israelis don’t want to listen what is going on over there. And I think that the fact that you are interviewing me at the moment is important, you know, because we’re not talking about it in Israel. The international audience should hear about it as well. I wish the journalists inside Israel would do the same thing because this is a burning issue on the table of our government and the responsibility lies on the shoulder of every Israeli about what we’re sending our kids to do over there, our soldiers to do over there. And I’ve got to say it doesn’t really shock me that it didn’t reach the media in Israel because Gaza is such a volatile issue [in] the Israeli society that a lot of people prefer not to touch it.”

Franks closed that long item with yet another totally unsatisfactory portrayal of the political NGO ‘Breaking the Silence’.

Franks: “Nadav Weiman, formerly with the Israeli Defence Forces, eh…now with the advocacy group ‘Breaking the Silence’.”

Although the BBC has regularly provided platforms to ‘Breaking the Silence’ in the past, given Franks’ adoption of its PR talking points, his failure to challenge any of Weiman’s inaccuracies and falsehoods and the absence of any mention whatsoever of the words ‘Hamas’ and ‘terrorism’ throughout, one can only wonder whether this sympathetic interview was the result of the BBC contacting that political NGO or the other way round. Either way, BBC World Service radio listeners heard a totally partisan item replete with crucial omission which actively misled them on the topic of the ‘Great Return March’ and more. 

Related Articles:

Breaking the Silence and the British Media (CAMERA)

Breaking the Silence gets failing grade in Channel 10’s fact-check  (CAMERA)

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

 

Weekend long read

1) The ITIC has published its initial findings concerning the “Identities of the Palestinians killed in the most recent round of escalation”.

“Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the ministry of health in the Gaza Strip, reported that during the escalation of May 4-6, 2019, 27 Palestinians were killed. As usual, he did not give details about their identities and the list he issued contains terrorist operatives as well as civilians, with no distinction between them. An initial examination carried out by the ITIC revealed that during the IDF attacks, 23 Palestinians were killed whose names were included in the list issued by the ministry of health. Of the 23 fatalities, at least 17 (about 74%) were terrorist operatives or members of the terrorist organizations. The terrorist operatives killed belonged to the military wings of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) (eight) and Hamas (two). Some were members of Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Six were apparently civilians who were near the targets and operatives when they were attacked.”

2) At the Fathom Journal Izabella Tabarovsky discusses “Soviet Anti-Zionism and Contemporary Left Antisemitism”.

“One of the lessons that the late Soviet anti-Zionist campaign teaches is that anti-Zionism and antisemitism have historically been deeply and, possibly, inextricably intertwined. True to their ideological tenets, the Soviets never attacked the Jews in purely racist terms. Accused of antisemitism, they indignantly claimed that they were simply anti-Zionist. But wherever and whenever they employed anti-Zionism for their political purposes, antisemitism blossomed. […]

Today, as some of the leading opinion-makers on the left are seeking to build consensus around the idea that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not the same, understanding this history is vitally important.”

3) CAMERA’s Sean Durns has written a backgrounder on the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade.

“In the realm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, certain claims are often taken at face value. Chief among them is that Fatah, the movement that dominates the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), is “secular” and “moderate.” Yet, this is overstated. For proof, one only need look at Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (AAMB), a terror group that has been particularly active in carrying out attacks against Israel from Gaza.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades emerged from the Tanzim faction during the Second Intifada (2000-05). A profile by the European Council on Foreign Relations noted that the Brigades formed from “a loose network of military groups associated with Fatah” many of them “activists from the Balata refugee camp.””

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign – frequently quoted, promoted and mainstreamed by the BBC – has been the topic of an investigation by the Evening Standard.

“PSC says it fights racism and is the largest  organisation in the UK dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights.

However, close inspection of local PSC branches across the country reveals activists are sharing anti-Semitic cartoons of Jews and conspiracy theories about Israel controlling the world.

A Standard investigation found such images as a cartoon comparing Israeli Jews with white power neo-Nazis, an ugly caricature of a Jew sowing hand grenades in a field, and an image of Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu bathing in Palestinian blood posing with Adolf Hitler.”

 

 

 

 

BBC radio stations promote Hamas ‘health ministry’ propaganda

Just after 9 p.m. UK time on the evening of May 4th BBC World Service radio aired an edition of the programme ‘Newshour’ which led (from 00:11 here) with a report described on its webpage as “Three dead in Gaza as Israel retaliates after a serious escalation of Palestinian rocket attacks which cause injuries in Israel”.

Both presenter Julian Marshall and reporter Tom Bateman initially refrained from telling listeners who was responsible for the rocket fire against Israeli civilians and promoted a sense of false equivalence.  

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

Marshall: “There’s been a serious outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. There’ve been fatalities and injuries after scores of rockets were fired from Gaza and Israel responded with airstrikes and tank fire. I heard more from the BBC’s Tom Bateman in Jerusalem.”

Predictably, Bateman avoided the use of the word terror throughout his report, even inaccurately claiming that the IDF describes its targets “as militants sites”.

Bateman: “Well on Saturday morning there was a barrage of rockets that were unleashed from the Gaza Strip into Israel. At that stage around 90 rockets according to the Israeli military. Many of those were shot down – dozens according to the Israelis – but that salvo went on for hours. As Israel responded with tank and air strikes across the Gaza Strip, now there’s been a day of heavy exchanges of fire and this evening the Palestinian ministry of health said that a 14-month-old girl was killed in an air strike in the east of the Gaza Strip. Now the Israeli military has said that it has no information on that but it says that it only targets…ah…what it describes as militant sites in the Gaza Strip. Before that a 22-year-old man killed in an Israeli air strike in the north of the Strip. While those rocket salvos continued, some hit homes in towns in southern Israel and there were 2 people wounded, one of them seriously: an 80-year-old woman who was hit by shrapnel.”

As usual Bateman failed to inform listeners that by the “Palestinian ministry of health” he in fact means the same terrorist organisation launching those rockets at civilian targets. Three quarters of an hour before Bateman’s report was aired an IDF spokesman had already noted that “According to indications, the infant and her mother were killed as a result of terrorist activities […] and not as a result of an Israeli raid” and as we see, Bateman was obviously aware that the Hamas claim he chose to promote may be less than watertight. Neither had he apparently bothered to clarify whether or not the “22-year-old man killed” was in fact part of a rocket-launching squad.

Marshall: “I mean clearly any loss of life, any casualties are to be regretted but with so many rockets fired, Tom, it does seem that there was a relatively low loss of life.”

Rather than explaining to listeners how Israelis defend themselves in such circumstances, Bateman went on to promote the bizarre notion that rocket attacks by Gaza Strip based terror groups are a relatively recent phenomenon and one that “we’ve become used to”.

Bateman: “These exchanges of fire have been something we’ve become used to over the last year. And they have varied in their magnitude. There have been serious casualties in the past, others have taken place with fewer casualties and what we’ve seen I think in the previous exchanges of fire like this is that rockets might be fired in the periphery of the Gaza Strip, in southern Israel, not going further afield and Israel responding largely with strikes on Hamas militant sites that have been evacuated. Things have become more serious with this turn of events and it follows what happened on Friday which was a Palestinian sniper shooting at 2 Israeli soldiers during these weekly protests that have been taking place at the Gaza perimeter fence. Those two soldiers were wounded. Israel then responded by hitting a Hamas militant post, killing two of those militants. A further two Palestinians were then killed by Israeli fire in the protests. Already by Friday night there was a fairly serious escalation and that was then followed, as I say, by the barrage of rockets from Gaza on Saturday morning.”

Marshall: “Has any group in Gaza said that they carried out…ehm…some or all of these attacks?”

Bateman went on to uncritically amplify a Hamas statement.

Bateman: “Hamas is the militant group that controls the Strip and it was clear from the outset…they said that they would respond to what they described as the aggression by Israel yesterday that led to the deaths of two of its militants. But the other significant group in the Strip is Islamic Jihad; another smaller militant group that is thought to be behind some of the recent fire from Gaza in the recent months towards Israel. As things stand at the moment it looks as though these hostilities are going to continue despite the ongoing attempts by the United Nations and also by Egyptian intelligence to try and broker a calm between the two sides. And those efforts have been going on for many months but what we see at intervals like this is how quickly and easily that can be shattered.”

Three hours later listeners to BBC Radio 4’s ‘Midnight News’ heard another report from Bateman. By that time COGAT had also clarified that the child and the person initially mistakenly described as her mother had been killed by a shortfall rocket fired by Gaza Strip based terrorists. Nevertheless, Radio 4 listeners were told that:

[00:30] Newsreader: “A mother and her baby have died after Israeli forces launched attacks on the Gaza Strip in response to hundreds of rockets being fired by Palestinian militants.”

[07:46] Newsreader: “Israel says around 200 rockets have been fired into the south of the country from Gaza by Palestinian militants, wounding two people. Israel launched air strikes and tank fire in response. Palestinian officials said four people including a mother and her baby were killed. Israel has closed both crossings into Gaza. Our Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman reports from Jerusalem.”

Bateman: “Air raid sirens sounded in southern Israeli towns as a barrage of rockets was fired from Gaza. Israel shot down dozens of them before [sic] its tanks and war planes targeted militant sites in the Strip. This evening the Palestinian health ministry said a 14-month-old girl was killed in an airstrike. A 22-year-old Palestinian man died in a separate strike earlier. During hours of rocket fire two Israelis – one of them an 80-year-old woman – were injured after being hit by shrapnel. This latest flare-up follows months of tensions between Israel and Gaza based militants who demand an easing of the crippling blockade which Israel says is needed to stop weapons getting in. Israel demands calm on the boundary after more than a year of Palestinian protests at the perimeter fence. The rocket salvo coincided with the funerals of two Hamas militants killed yesterday in an Israeli air strike: retaliation – Israel said – for the wounding of two Israeli soldiers who were shot by a Palestinian gunman. It marks yet another ratcheting-up of hostilities, despite repeated attempts by Egypt and the United Nations to broker a longer-term truce.”

Once again Bateman failed to clarify that “the Palestinian health ministry” is in fact controlled by the Hamas terrorist organisation and listeners heard nothing about the shortfall rocket or the circumstances in which the other two of the “four people” were killed.

“In addition, the ministry said two Palestinian men were killed in Israeli strikes Saturday: Imad Muhammad Nasir, 22, and Khaled Mohammed Abu Qliq 25.

The latter was reportedly killed in an airstrike as he and several other men were launching rockets at Israel.”

Yet again too we see Bateman conforming to BBC editorial policy by euphemistically describing violent rioting during which IEDs were thrown, infiltrations attempted and a sniper fired at Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border as “protests”.

Given the BBC’s previous experiences of jumping to insufficiently verified conclusions regarding the circumstances of the deaths of small children and women in the Gaza Strip, one would have thought that lessons would have been learned and caution – especially in relation to claims from a terrorist organisation hiding behind a ‘health ministry’ mask – would be applied.

Obviously that is not the case.

Related Articles:

BBC News again promotes false claims concerning death of Gaza baby

BBC ignores removal of Gaza baby from casualty list

BBC continues to disregard developments in Gaza baby story

Revisiting a five year-old BBC story 

After effects: BBC accuracy failure used to promote hate

After effects 2 : BBC accuracy failure again used to promote hatred

After effects 3: BBC accuracy failure still being used against Israel

 

 

 

BBC News again promotes false claims concerning death of Gaza baby

Some four hours after terrorists in the Gaza Strip began launching an intense barrage of rocket attacks on southern Israeli communities on the morning of May 4th the BBC News website posted a fifty-second long filmed report titled “Dozens of rockets launched into Israel” on its Middle East page.

Using the passive voice to describe rocket fire and the active voice to describe the subsequent response, the video told viewers that: [emphasis added]

“Dozens of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. Explosions could be seen in the sky above Ashkelon in Israel. Israel responded with air strikes and tank fire on Gaza City. The Gaza authorities said one Palestinian had been killed. On Friday two Hamas militants were killed after two Israeli soldiers were injured by gunfire on Gaza’s border.”

In contrast to the BBC’s claim, the Israeli responses, including tank fire, were not aimed at “Gaza City” but at military targets belonging to Hamas’ ‘Qassam’ brigades and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. As usual the BBC did not bother to inform its audiences that “the Gaza authorities” are in fact one and the same as the organisation responsible for the missile fire against Israeli civilians. The people euphemistically described by the BBC as “militants” were in fact confirmed by Hamas as being members of its so-called ‘military wing’.  

Roughly twelve hours later, in the early hours of May 5th, that video was taken down and another uploaded to the same URL.

Titled “Hundreds of rockets launched from Gaza into Israel” the video tells BBC audiences that: [emphasis added]

“Palestinian militants have launched hundreds of rockets into Israel following violence at the Gaza-Israel border on Friday. Israel responded with dozens of air strikes on Gaza which continued into Saturday evening. Israel’s missile defence system intercepted many of the rockets. But several hit Israeli homes causing damage and injuries. Israel said it was striking at Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant targets. Several Palestinians were killed and injured with a baby among those killed, officials in Gaza said. Four Palestinians, including two militants, were killed on Friday after two Israeli soldiers were injured by gunfire on Gaza’s border.”

Once again no effort was made to inform viewers of the fact that “officials in Gaza” in fact means the terror group Hamas. That omission is especially relevant because, in contrast to the impression given in the BBC’s video, the baby concerned was not killed as a result of Israeli actions but by a short-fall rocket fired by one of the Gaza Strip based terror factions.

Moreover, we can determine that the BBC knows that because in a written report published on the BBC News website on May 4th we find the following:

“One Israeli was killed by shrapnel, while Israeli fire killed four Palestinians, including a mother and her baby daughter, Gaza officials say.

However, Israel said the mother and baby were killed by a Palestinian rocket that fell short of its target.”

An additional article published on the morning of May 5th states:

“But Hamas, which controls Gaza, says a total of four Palestinians have been killed.

It says the dead include a woman and her 14-month-old daughter. But Israel says the mother and baby may have been killed by a Palestinian rocket that fell short of its target.”

Notably, despite multiple complaints from BBC Watch, the BBC has still not corrected false claims concerning the death of another baby girl in the Gaza Strip which it broadcast and published a year ago.

BBC Watch has written to the BBC News website regarding this inaccurate and misleading video.

Related Articles:

BBC ignores removal of Gaza baby from casualty list

BBC continues to disregard developments in Gaza baby story

Revisiting a five year-old BBC story 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC Radio 4 portrayal of the ‘Great Return March’ anniversary – part two

As documented in part one of this post, listeners to the BBC’s domestic station Radio 4 had been prepared in advance for what the corporation apparently believed was going to be a major news event on Saturday, March 30th with a ‘Today’ programme report from Gaza the previous day by the BBC Jerusalem bureau’s Tom Bateman.

Listeners to the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘PM’ on March 28th had also heard Bateman reporting from the Gaza Strip and that item (from 46:20 here) included the following:

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

Bateman: “And inside Gaza itself, a sense of anticipation about the coming protests that will take place on Saturday marking a year since these weekly protests have taken place at the perimeter fence.”

Thus BBC audiences once again got a dose of the corporation’s framing of the ‘Great Return March’ agitprop as “protests” rather than events organised, facilitated and executed by a coalition of terror organisations that have regularly included violent rioting, serious attacks and infiltrations into Israeli territory.

The March 30th edition of BBC Radio 4’s 1 p.m. news bulletin included an item introduced by newsreader Neil Sleat (from 07:46 here) thus:

Sleat: “Thousands of Palestinian protesters have massed on the boundary between Gaza and Israel to mark a year since the start of weekly demonstrations there. Palestinians have been throwing stones and Israeli forces using tear gas to stop them approaching the border fence. Our correspondent Yolande Knell is there.”

Knell: “Across a wind-swept field here lies a wire fence and beyond it there’s a large crowd at one of the Gaza protest sites gathered around a Palestinian flag.  Israeli soldiers have been firing volleys of tear gas to drive demonstrators back. A military spokesman says Palestinians have been throwing stones and petrol bombs and there have been some attempts to breach the fence. Israel says it only opens fire to stop people crossing into its territory and protect its citizens. This is a serious test for the efforts of Egyptian negotiators who’ve been trying to broker calm between Israel and Hamas after an escalation in tensions earlier this week when Palestinian militants fired rockets at Israel and Israel’s air force struck dozens of sites in Gaza. Already this anniversary was due at a sensitive time: just over a week before an Israeli election and after recent economic unrest in Gaza which has put pressure on Hamas.”

In other words, even when the BBC knows that participants have been throwing petrol bombs and trying to infiltrate Israeli territory, it still portrays the events as “demonstrations” and those participants as “protesters”.

The same was the case when part of that report from the BBC Jerusalem bureau’s Yolande Knell was recycled in a later news bulletin aired during the ‘PM’ programme (from 02:18 here):

Newsreader: “Tens of thousands of Palestinians are demonstrating along the boundary fence between Gaza and Israel to mark the first anniversary of weekly protests there. Three people are reported to have been killed, one before the start of the mass rally. Over the past year nearly 200 Palestinians have been shot dead by Israeli troops while one Israeli soldier has died. Yolande Knell reports from southern Israel.”

Knell: “Israeli soldiers have been firing volleys of tear gas to drive demonstrators back. A military spokesman says Palestinians have been throwing stones and petrol bombs and there have been some attempts to breach the fence. Israel says it only opens fire to stop people crossing into its territory and protect its citizens. This is a serious test for the efforts of Egyptian negotiators who’ve been trying to broker calm between Israel and Hamas after an escalation in tensions earlier this week when Palestinian militants fired rockets at Israel and Israel’s air force struck dozens of sites in Gaza.”

Listeners to BBC Radio 4’s ‘Six O’Clock News’ on March 30th heard the newsreader give the following headline at the top of the programme.

“Palestinian health officials say at least two demonstrators have died in clashes with Israeli forces on the anniversary of weekly protests on the Gaza border.”

The item itself (from 05:34 here) was presented as follows, with no mention of the fact that “health officials in Gaza” actually means the terror group Hamas.

“Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been taking part in protests along the boundary between the Gaza Strip and Israel. They’ve been throwing stones and petrol bombs and attempting to breach the perimeter fence. Israeli forces have used live ammunition and tear gas. Health officials in Gaza say three protesters have been killed. The demonstrations are marking the first anniversary of weekly protests at the border. From Gaza our Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman has sent this report.”

Bateman: “That’s live fire as the Israeli snipers are aiming towards a group of people that just got right up at the fence. Some appear to be trying to climb it. At the biggest protest site east of Gaza City, Palestinians turned up in their thousands. Most gathered near the smoothie vans and fruit sellers hundreds of meters from the fence. But others got close to it, burning tyres and throwing rocks and petrol bombs. From the other side Israeli troops responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition. One of the demonstrators, Bahaa Abu Shamala, said Palestinians were highlighting their historical dispossession and calling for an end to the blockade which Israel says it imposes for security reasons.”

Abu Shamala: “We are here in Gaza. We are oppressed people. We want to feed our children. We want to get rid of this huge trauma that we suffered from the siege that Israel imposed against us for more than 12 years.”

Israel of course does not impose a ‘siege’ on the Gaza Strip at all but Bateman had nothing to say about his interviewee’s promotion of Hamas favoured terminology and made no effort to inform listeners of the years of Hamas terror which have made counter-terrorism measures including the blockade necessary.

Once again failing to inform listeners that some 80% of those killed at ‘Great Return March’ events in the past year have been shown to have links to terror groups, Bateman went on:

Bateman: “In the past year nearly 200 Palestinians have been shot dead by Israeli troops at the fence. An Israeli soldier was killed by a Palestinian sniper last summer. The Israeli army spokesman is Jonathan Conricus.”

Lt. Col. Conricus: “This has after all been a year of thousands of rioters trying to breach into Israel using different types of violence. We’ve had grenades, IEDs, Molotov cocktails. We’ve even had live fire.”

In other words, the only mention of the violent nature of the year-long events heard by Radio 4 listeners throughout eleven hours of broadcasting came from an Israeli official.  

Bateman: “This week’s build-up to the first anniversary saw a significant military flare-up between Israel and Hamas which largely controls the protests in Gaza. Israel is 10 days away from a general election in which security is a major issue. There have been intensive efforts brokered by Egypt to prevent tensions at the boundary slipping out of control. It seems to have largely succeeded for now, despite today’s casualties.”

Although the BBC sent Tom Bateman to the Gaza Strip and Yolande Knell to southern Israel to cover the March 30th events, audiences once again did not hear a word from or about the residents of Israeli communities close to the border fence who have been severely affected by the ‘Great Return March’ violence throughout the past year. Neither were listeners informed that Hamas had ordered schools closed and a general strike on March 30th in order to boost participation in the event.

One year on, the BBC’s across the board and inflexible editorial approach to this story continues to promote the monochrome framing which – while flouting the corporation’s public purpose obligations – denies audiences vital context and information.

Related Articles:

BBC Radio 4 portrayal of the ‘Great Return March’ anniversary – part one

BBC News sticks to year-old formula of reporting on ‘Great Return March’

More context-free BBC reporting on Gaza health services

 

 

 

 

 

BBC Radio 4 portrayal of the ‘Great Return March’ anniversary – part one

Listeners to the BBC’s domestic station Radio 4 had been prepared in advance for what the corporation apparently believed was going to be a major news event on Saturday, March 30th.

The March 29th edition of BBC Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme ‘Today’ included a pre-emptive report (from 1:14:55 here) by Jerusalem correspondent Tom Bateman which utilised the standard framing of the ‘Great Return March’ to which BBC audiences have been exposed for an entire year.

That framing includes:

  • Erasing the fact that around 80% of those killed during the violent rioting at the border have been shown to be affiliated with various terror organisations – primarily Hamas.
  • Erasing or downplaying the violent nature of the events by failing to provide audiences with a representative view of the number of attacks using firebombs, IEDs, grenades and guns, the number of border infiltrations and the number of rockets and mortars launched throughout the past year. As of March 29th 2019, BBC audiences had heard nothing whatsoever about the use of airborne explosive devices or the activities of Hamas’ so-called ‘night confusion/disturbance units’.
  • Erasing or downplaying the violent nature of the events by uniformly describing them as ‘protests’, ‘demonstrations’ or ‘rallies’.
  • Failing to provide adequate context concerning the stated aims of the events including ‘right of returnand lifting of counter-terrorism measures.
  • Erasing or downplaying Hamas’ role in initiating, facilitating, organising, financing, executing and controlling the events and euphemising terrorists as ‘militants’.
  • Citing casualty figures provided by “health officials” without clarifying that they are part of the same terror group that organises the violent rioting.

Listeners heard presenter John Humphrys introduce the item: [emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Humphrys: “Tomorrow marks a year since Palestinians began protesting at Gaza’s fence with Israel. Hamas – the militant group that runs the Gaza Strip – is marking the anniversary calling for a million-person march at the fence.”

Audiences then heard an audio version of Bateman’s context-free report from a clinic in Gaza City which included the following:

Bateman: “22-year-old Iyyad who was shot at Gaza’s perimeter fence last May. He tells me he nearly lost his leg. He’s been coming here to the clinic for months to learn to walk again. Some seven thousand Palestinians have been injured by Israeli bullets in the last year. More than 190 have been killed. An Israeli soldier was shot dead by a Palestinian gunman last summer. As tomorrow’s anniversary looms, tensions have been ratcheting up.”

Bateman did not bother to clarify what his interviewee was doing at the time he was shot and while citing numbers of Palestinian casualties, erased both the terror affiliations of most of those killed and the violence in which they were participating from audience view.

That formula was again evident the next day in two news bulletins aired during the March 30th edition of ‘Today’. At 05:48 listeners were told by newsreader Chris Aldridge that:

“Thousands of Palestinians are gathering along the Israel-Gaza border to mark the start of weekly protests a year ago. Israeli forces have killed nearly 200 Palestinian demonstrators during that time while one Israeli soldier has died and a Palestinian is reported to have been shot dead this morning. The leader of Hamas, which controls Gaza, has called for a million people to join today’s action.”

In an additional news bulletin at 1:06:35 Aldridge told audiences:

“Thousands of Palestinians are gathering along the Israel-Gaza border to mark the start of weekly protests a year ago. Israeli forces have killed nearly 200 Palestinian demonstrators during that time and a Palestinian is reported to have been shot dead this morning.”

Audiences were not told that the man “shot dead this morning” was participating in violent rioting at the time and was apparently a member of the so-called ‘night disturbance units’ active along the border fence during darkness. Aldridge’s claim that “Palestinians are gathering” was shown to be premature in a third item aired at 1:57:30 which was introduced by presenter Nick Robinson.

Robinson: “All this week we’ve been hearing about the mounting tension ahead of the first anniversary of protests at the border between Gaza and Israel. There’s reports this morning that Israeli fire has killed a Palestinian man at that border. Tom Bateman is our Middle East correspondent. What do we know Tom?”

Bateman: “Well we know that a 20-year-old man has died already this morning. That was announced by the ministry of health here in Gaza. The circumstances are unclear. We don’t know if it was at one of the protest sites. It doesn’t appear to have been actually and it was very early in the morning. But already it adds to the tension and in the next hour or so after noon prayers there will be thousands of Palestinians who’ll make their way in buses and on foot to five protest sites at the perimeter fence with Gaza. On the other side of the fence the Israeli military build-up…ah…has led to there being around 200 snipers positioned all around the fence and three extra brigades of Israeli forces there.”

Robinson: “The Palestinians who go know the risk they take. The Israelis know the condemnation they will get if they open fire. Nothing seems to change.”

Bateman: “Well this will certainly be I think the biggest protest in months because of that first anniversary. The protests have actually…the numbers have really been dwindling over the weeks as they began a year ago, leaving a sort of hard-core of protesters who were going once a week. But I think the sense in Gaza is that people want to go to the fence to demonstrate. Now Hamas have called for these to be peaceful after some intensive negotiations…ah…indirect negotiations between the two sides. That of course remains to be seen. Israel is saying it is prepared for any eventuality with that build-up of troops. It comes at a time of elections in Israel – a very sensitive moment – and I think we’ll see as we enter the afternoon just how…just how that tension continues, just how it mounts and the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said they are prepared for any eventualities.”

Listeners were then told that the upcoming Israeli election is a two-horse race.

Robinson: “Tom Bateman our Middle East correspondent thank you very much indeed. Yes, that election between the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and against the former military chief Benny Gantz is in just a few days.”

As we see listeners to the ‘Today’ programme heard a one-sided and highly sanitised portrayal of the ‘Great Return March’ which adhered to the editorial policies that have been in evidence throughout the past twelve months. In part two of this post we will see whether Radio 4’s subsequent programmes throughout the day provided audiences with a more comprehensive picture.

 

BBC News sticks to year-old formula of reporting on ‘Great Return March’

The BBC News website’s March 30th report on the day’s incidents at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip adhered to the formula seen in coverage of similar events throughout the past year.

Headlined “Gaza protests: Thousands mark ‘Great Return’ anniversary” the BBC’s framing of the story was evident in the use of the words ‘demonstrated’, ‘demonstrators’, ‘demonstrations’, ‘protests’, ‘protesters’ and ‘protest’ no fewer than nineteen times in the 564-word report’s text, headline, sub-headings, links and photo captions. A BBC News Tweet promoting the article also used the term ‘rallies’.

The article opened: [emphasis added]

“Tens of thousands of Palestinians have demonstrated in Gaza to mark the anniversary of the start of weekly protests on the boundary with Israel.

Demonstrators threw stones and burned tyres, with Israeli troops using tear-gas and live rounds in response.”

Readers had to go down to paragraph nine to discover that participants threw more than “stones”.

“The IDF said explosive devices had been thrown over the border fence and Israeli forces had responded with “riot dispersal means” and live bullets.”

As usual the BBC quoted “health officials “without bothering to inform readers that they belong to the same terror organisation that organised the event.

“Three protesters died in the clashes, Palestinian officials say, with another killed earlier on Saturday.”

“Three Palestinian protesters, all teenage boys, have been killed and more than 300 have been wounded, Palestinian health officials say.

The health officials say another man was shot dead by Israeli troops close to the fence overnight.”

Readers were not told that the person “killed earlier on Saturday” had, as reported by the Times of Israel, been taking part in rioting at the border at the time.

“Early Saturday, Mohammed Saad, 21, was killed by Israeli army fire east of Gaza City near the perimeter fence, Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry said, adding he was hit by shrapnel in the head.

A Gaza hospital worker, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media, said Saad was a member of the so-called “night disturbance unit.” Such groups routinely burn tires, flash laser lights and detonate explosives near the fence at night to distract soldiers and disturb residents of nearby Israeli communities.”

Neither were BBC audiences informed that the majority of those described as wounded were, according to the quoted “health officials”, affected by tear gas.

As has been the case throughout the past twelve months, the BBC avoided explaining the aim of the Palestinian demand for ‘right of return’ to readers while once again promoting the notion of “ancestral homes” and Palestinian refugees in a location ruled by Palestinians.

“The protests back the declared right of Palestinian refugees to return to ancestral homes in what is now Israel.”

As has repeatedly been the case since late February, the BBC uncritically amplified claims made in a UNHRC report.

“At least 189 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were killed between March and December 2018, the UN says.

A UN inquiry says Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes during the protest marches – a charge Israel rejects.”

“A commission of inquiry was set up by the UN Human Rights Council.

Thirty-five of the 189 Palestinian fatalities were children, three were clearly marked paramedics and two were clearly marked journalists, the commission found.

The inquiry found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers had shot at children, medics and journalists, even though they were clearly recognisable as such.

Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. One Israeli soldier was killed on a protest day but outside the protest sites, the commission said.

Unless undertaken lawfully in self-defence, intentionally shooting a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime.”

While failing to adequately clarify Hamas’ role in initiating, organising, funding and executing the ‘Great Return March’ events, the BBC did make a brief opaque reference to the terror group’s ability to control the level of violence according to its interests.

“Hamas had said it would try to keep the crowds a safe distance from the fence, with Egyptian and UN mediators trying to prevent further escalation.

The clashes were limited in scope and fears of a large number of deaths have not materialised. The protests quietened in the evening.”

BBC audiences were not informed that Hamas had ordered schools closed and a general strike on March 30th in order to boost participation in the event.

Hamas was misleadingly portrayed in this report as being designated only by Israel.

“The Israeli government designates Hamas a terrorist group which it says has been seeking to use the protests as a cover to cross into its territory and carry out attacks.”

The violent coup in which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 was erased from audience view.

“This day of protests is a serious test of the fragile calm between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that runs the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip, says the BBC’s Yolande Knell in Jerusalem.”

The terror group’s operatives were, as usual, portrayed by the BBC as “militants”.

“They came after a tense week in which Palestinian militants fired rockets at Israel and Israel’s air force struck dozens of sites in Gaza.”

One year on, the BBC’s reporting on this story has not improved at all and it continues to promote the same jaded themes and euphemisms while denying audiences vital context. A year ago the organisers of this agitprop stated that its aim is to create photo-ops which – in their words – “the whole world and media outlets would watch” and the BBC has played its part in ensuring that would be the case.

Related Articles:

Mapping changes in BBC reporting of Palestinian demand for ‘right of return’

BBC News website unquestioningly amplifies UNHRC’s report