Author Archives: Sue

While we have been occupied with election business, the BBC’s delegitimisation of Israel carries on relentlessly. But they disguise the bias as best they can, because they know they’re being watched.
There have been several seemingly trivial examples over the last few weeks.

On the open thread, Pounce and David Preiser mention the BBC’s initial silence over Hamas’s bulldozing of Palestinian homes. (They weren’t the only ones who didn’t like the story) Then, when it came, at last, to the BBC’s attention, Pounce noted the contrasting treatment given to similar stories – where the guilty party are Palestinians, and where the villains were Israelis.

The report that deals with Israel’s ‘transgression’ is presented through the words of notoriously anti-Israel campaigners Human Rights Watch. By repeating HRW’s allegations appended by “the report said,” the BBC are able to cram in all the emotive language they want, including, for good measure, our old friend the tally of deaths in Operation Cast Lead.

In subtle but significant contrast, ill-concealed sympathy for Hamas seeps into the belated report that they couldn’t ignore any longer. Mitigating statements from Hamas are included, as well as gratuitous mentions of Israel’s misdemeanours and incursions into Gaza.

Later, on the same open thread, Deegee draws our attention to this BBC story about commemorating the ‘Nakba’ which the BBC is usually keen to elaborate on. (You rarely see or hear anything on the BBC about the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands that occurred at the time.)

The emotive language in the opening paragraph gives Mills and Boon a run for their money. The article continues in that vein, till the last sentence of the paragraph headed ‘Both right’ jolts you out of your somnambulence. “When the war broke out ….”

You know, as wars do. All by themselves.

These seemingly insignificant examples are part of a very much bigger whole. Added together, such things, and there are more than fifty years’ worth, amount to the delegitimisation that we have now.

In universities, in trade unions, at dinner parties, in the broadcasting fraternity, everyone has been educated by the BBC, and everyone agrees that Israel is beyond the pale, and everyone is outraged.

For half a story, you can rely on the BBC. But you won’t necessarily know that it’s only half.

Partly it’s a result of dumbing down. For the missing bits you have to read things like this fascinating article and the comments below it, about antisemitism, the creation of Israel, and the grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, cross posted on CiF Watch. Without this quality of information, how can anyone get anywhere near making a balanced judgement?

We don’t get anything of such depth from the BBC, on either side of the divide. But even something superficial and glib, BBC style, would be a start; if it was just, purely and simply, even-handed and unbiased.

Recently some of us linked to a comprehensive study of the BBC’s institutional hostility to Israel and its biased reporting of the I/P conflict. It mentions much of what we’ve been highlighting here for yonks, and includes a systematic analysis of emotive partisan terms and references. They submitted it to the BBC, and awaited a response. So far all that has materialised is a rejection, conveyed indirectly, via the Jewish Chronicle.

The BBC is impartial, so it ignores pressure groups.

“It’s not uncommon to hear these sorts of findings from pressure groups but our role is to provide independent reporting and analysis of all perspectives of a story, so our audiences can make sense of what’s going on themselves.
The independent panel set up by our board of governors found no deliberate or systematic bias in the BBC coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”

By labelling every individual and organisation that supports Israel a pressure group, the BBC absolves itself from having to look into any complaints about its reporting, or anything at all that happens to be brought up in Israel’s defence.

It doesn’t, however, consider the pro Palestinian, anti-Israel NGOs that shelter under the protection of Human Rights or charitable status pressure groups, no matter how partisan they obviously are.
If audiences are to be expected to make sense of anything, they must be given the whole story. But the BBC thinks of one side as independent reporting and the other as propaganda.

A response to another separate complaint contained the following:

“We’re committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists. Our Corporation’s Charter and Agreement allows us independence from political pressure and the licence fee gives us independence from advertising, shareholder or other commercial interests. Impartiality forms the cornerstone of BBC News and Current Affairs and we’ve nothing to gain by weighting our coverage in political terms or by allowing influence from any other outside body.”

…but maybe much to lose from not allowing influence from other outside bodies?

I suspect they really believe all of the above. If they don’t, they really really want to. They believe in their own righteousness, even when it means turning reason on its head.

From the BBC’s perspective, Israel has been delegitimised, (mainly by the BBC itself), till it’s a given that it’s just plain wrong.

Heinz meanz beanz, and Impartiality meanz Israel is wrong.

The BBC has remained silent over the frightening behaviour of Manchester Students from Action Palestine who attacked the deputy Israeli Ambassador Talya Lador-Fresher the other day as she tried to leave the university after giving a political science lecture.

Students are renowned for their passionate advocacy of of democracy, and they regard it as their democratic right to violently attack a speaker from a democratic country in alleged support of a regime in which free speech is non existent.

The BBC has spent decades whipping up the public into the sort of righteous indignation against Israel that could only have been achieved by withholding half the story, and continually suppressing the notion that there IS another half.

This display of ignorance and immaturity may only be a small part of the bigger story that is being ignored by the BBC, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Gestalt.

The BBC has been announcing this non-event several times today. So it can’t be Manchester itself that isn’t newsworthy.