BBC -- Subtle Indoctrination of the Inexperienced Viewer

Once again, the BBC fail to portray an accurate depiction of the intensification between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip.

In doing so, the BBC are subtly indoctrinating the minds of its viewers through implicit suggestion that Israel is the aggressor, almost randomly targeting Gaza. The BBC crucially fails to put the situation in historical context.

A brief example -- the BBC persistently refer to "Israel's attacks" on a "Palestinian militant group." First, Israel is responding to unfaltering attacks, amounting to more than 6,300 rockets and mortars on Israeli citizens, since Israel left Gaza in 2005. Second, the 'militant group' are Hamas. Not a militant group in terms of a unified national army, but, an internationally recognised terrorist organisation who have taken control of the Gaza strip. On Saturday, Hamas re-declared war on Israel and proclaimed their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Israel has been forced to respond so as to protect the lives of civilians, by way of targeting Hamas leaders through directed airstrikes and seeking to avoid danger to as many Palestinian and Israeli civilians as possible.

An innocent bystander relying on the BBC for information might have assumed that the BBC's lack of coverage in Gaza over recent months had been the result of a successful ceasefire. But, those who ventured beyond the BBC will be are aware this was unfortunately not the case. While a cease-fire officially existed between Israel and Hamas, for the past six months, it was in fact one-sided. Israel showed enormous restraint not to respond to the barrage of Hamas fired rockets from Gaza during that period. During the ceasefire, Hamas continued to expand its rocket range from 20 km to 40 km and as a result, can now target 2,500 Israeli civilians. In 2008 alone, more than 3000 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza into Southern Israel. Recently, over 150 rockets were landing each day.

Our innocent viewer will assume that as soon as the ceasefire ended, Israel attacked Gaza. Indeed, the BBC report that Hamas blame Israel for the sea-change. This too, is untrue. Since the end of the Gaza ceasefire only 9 days ago, Hamas launched a further 190 rockets against Israeli civilians. Israel however, continued to show restraint and, as a gesture of good will, allowed approximately 90 trucks of medicine and goods including 500,000 litres of fuel and 200 tonnes of natural gas, into Gaza. At the same time, Israel continued talks with Egypt seeking to negotiate and secure peace.

The BBC fail to mention how Hamas have thanked Israel for a) uprooting over 9,000 Israeli civilians and removing all presence from Gaza in 2005 in an effort to achieve peace and, b) allowing the extra supplies on Friday. Since 2005, Hamas have launched more than 3,500 rockets and mortars into Israel and claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attempts in the region. In response to Friday's generosity, Hamas fired more than 40 rockets into Israeli cities and vowed to continue the attack against Israel, on Saturday. The result? Hamas threatens the lives of 250,000 Israelis who live in range of Gaza fired rockets. Israel has had to order residents in the south of the country to remain in bomb shelters while Israel attempts to secure the region.

BBC coverage of the events in Gaza portrays Israel as causing humanitarian crises by refusing supplies into Gaza. In reality, Israel was providing almost 4000 trucks of aid a month to Gaza, along with fuel and electricity despite the ongoing attacks on Israel. Abdel Shaafi, director the United Nations Development Programme in Gaza, has denied that there is a humanitarian crisis. In December, he told Canada's Globe and Mail, that, "This is not a humanitarian crisis... It's an economic crisis, a political crisis, but it's not a humanitarian crisis. People aren't starving."

So, how has Israel responded to Hamas's renewed promise and upsurge of rocket attacks? In response to the daily targeting and killing of its civilians, Israel has targeted terrorists and terrorist infrastructure only, seeking to avoid harming Palestinian civilians. Sadly, however, Hamas leaders deliberately hide in densely civilian areas -- putting Palestinian civilians at risk. By using Palestinians as human shields, Iran-backed terrorists are causing the loss of lives on both sides.

Knowing this information, our no-longer naive bystander might be confused. Why does the BBC portray Israel in a negative light for protecting her civilians? Beats me! USA President-elect, Barack Obama stated on a recent visit to Israel, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing." (Ravid, Barack 'Obama in Sderot: Nuclear Iran would be game-changing', Haaretz, July 23, 2008). No responsible government would watch in silence as its citizens were under constant attack.

Given the onslaught of rockets into Israel from Gaza, what is Israel to do to protect her citizens? What would Gordon Brown do if rockets were fired from Edinburgh onto Manchester, putting at risk the lives of innocent civilians living in Manchester on a daily basis? When will the terrorists, Hamas, stop the rocket fire so that both Israelis and Palestinians can have a better future?

Comments

[Sharke]

Excellent post. Israel has every right to defend itself and the situation is entirely the fault of Hamas. Simply put, if Hamas stopped deliberately and explicitly targeting innocent civilians in attacks that serve no strategic purpose and cannot possibly be described as "self defense," then Israel would not have dropped one bomb on Gaza. This is a fundamental truth which the BBC cannot bring itself to get across in its reporting.

Those who blindly perceive the BBC's reporting as "objective" - perhaps confused by the once great reputation the organization *used* to have - should realize that it is generally conceded that the BBC is politically, ideologically and culturally biased from root to branch. Many long time BBC veterans now admit this. For a daily account of the shocking bias on display from the Beeb, visit the "Biased BBC" blog which does a fine job of documenting some of the most glaring stuff.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

[ABG1]

It’s hard to tell whether your post is more patronising or naive. In a world full of greys and hard to determine facts you have all the confident assurance of a fox news broadcaster. (Your dream job?). Newsflash - its not a fact because you believe it.

Your article would be more entertaining if you answered your own ludicrous question. To take the Israeli response I’m guessing you’d assume Gordon Brown would blockade and level Edinburgh using F16s? Terrorist infrastructure (including police stations cunning placed in the community) would have to go. But it’s OK to kill civilians as long as you say you don’t want to.

Is that how the UK handled the terrorism it endured from Ireland?
No. (Oops! US readers will struggle to understand that, because the IRA were freedom fighters in the US weren’t they? Imagine that when they killed innocent people and blew stuff up they were “bad guys”.) If the UK had acted in the past 20 years as Israel now does, Ireland would be a smoking wasteland filled with refugees and hatred. Just like the Gaza strip. And the IRA would be the heroes of the Irish people and they all would look at doing anything they could to destroy the evil Brits.
So with the greatest of respect, thanks for your “expert” opinions on how to handle terrorism but perhaps you need to study history and not law. I’ll take the BBC’s factual reporting over an opinionated internet “expert” thanks.

[RightsAtty]

Amen. Well said. I have great respect for the BBC generally, but on the topic of Israel and Palestine they succumb to the same British prejudices that led to so many British officers serving with the Arab legion. It's the "Lawrence of Arabia" fascination with all things Arab and the long-time latent upper class British anti-semitism. It would be nice if the people who bemoan Jewish settlements in the West Bank would read a little history. The League of Nations granted Britain trusteeship over Palestine with the express purpose of providing for a "Jewish National Homeland". Britain then took over half of the Palestine trusteeship and created an Arab state for Palestinian arabs, which it called Transjordan, now Jordan. Instead of using the remaining third for a Jewish state, it washed its hands of the reason and turned the problem over to the UN, which further partitioned that third of Palestine into a small Jewish and larger Arab second Palestinian state. The Arabs refused the deal. The rest is history.

[chaos4700]

Total racist claptrap. The Arab people haven't "put a spell" on anybody. The fact is, there is a UN mandate that solves this. The Arab countries have resolved to uphold it; Israel is now the obstruction to peace.

[jeannie35]

I have extreme difficulty accepting criticism of BBC coverage. I view many TV news outlets, including BBC, and also voraciously take in many web news org.'s. I only wish American media would learn from BBC coverage. On Israel: If what you write is true, then why is Israel not allowing journalists to go into Gaza? Israel is cutting off the press because they fear accurate reporting. Hamas' tactics are indeed abhorrent; however, it must also be judged in the context of Israel's actions. Israel is not the innocent actor you are portraying. Israel continues with the spread of new settlements inside the West Bank into Palestinian territory. These new settlements only serve as a continuously aggressive affirmation to Palestinian thought that Israel intends to take complete control of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel needs to stop with the illegal settlements deep inside Palestinian territory. Only then can a path toward solution be commenced.

[RobinSeattle]

So what is the BBC's beef with Israel? Still haven't gotten over the bombing of the King David hotel by Menachem Begin and his buddies in the Irgun in 1946?

[oceanlover]

As an American journalist who has worked extensively for the BBC for well over 25 years now, you make a point that many of us recognize, have dealt with for decades, and know as fact. Thanks for the post Hannah. Well done.

[rainbowblue]

You are so right, afterall Israel looked after those in the Gaza Strip so well that there must have been no reason why they needed to break down the blocks and flood into Egypt to get supplies earlier this year. I guess all I have read about underpowered hospitals and 80% unemployment was just propaganda.

The time for defending Israel is gone. This was an incrediable over reaction, an air strike to a couple of (low powered, inaccurate) missile strikes. Israel just inflicted more Palestian deaths than Hammas could hope to achieve on Israel. Modern nations do not work this way. A proper response would have been a military crackdown where the rockets were coming from and arrests of those who carried out the attacks. Ulitmately though, violence breeds violence, and soon we will hear about another round of suicide bombings. The best way for Israel to stop the violence is to free up the restrictions a bit on the Palestians and to redouble efforts on peace. It's the only way to make Hammas yesturday's news.

[Realist]

Well stated. It seems modern civilized nations in the west believe 400 eyes for an eye is just force, which clearly is the position of Israel and the United States manifest through its action and non-action respectively.

Social justice dictates that the more powerful party, Israel in this case, must negotiate and find a way to deal with the Palestinians. Settlements since 1967 has not helped. Israel does whatever it wants on its journey toward taking what it decides is hers.

Zionists who are Christian must come to understand how antithetical the whole movement is to Christianity. Don't forget, there are still a few Arab Christians living there who are also suffering.

Zionism is a failed political movement, be it Christian Zionists, Arab Zionists, or Jewish Zionists. The United States government has to get out from under AIPAC and thankfully many of the evangelicals will go out the door with Bush. Unfortunately, the neo cons are still all over the place spitting their zionist blather on the MSM while Hillary and Obama have already made their position clear. NOW THAT IS CHANGE WE CAN ALL BELIEVE IN!

[david louis]

I'm pleased to see someone is finally alerting the public to the bias and inaccuracies of BBC reporting. Indeed I believe a significant number of the commentators below have been misled over the years by one-sided reports in the media which has led to many false allegations in the comments below. Hamas have been firing rockets at Israeli citizens for months. In Sderot, it is not right that children playing in parks and learning in schools have 15 seconds to run into shelters when the rocket siren rings. It is extremely odd that the BBC does not believe that Israel should be taking steps to save the lives of her citizens from terrorist attacks. Thankfully reports such as this one exist to tell the public what is really going on.

[IndependentAllways]

I am sorry but I have lived half a lifetime in Europe and the quality of the BBC and other European news outlets I only wish the US media would atleast aspire to achieve. I do believe you have it the wrong way around.

The US media is absolutely horrible when it comes to objective reporting. The only reporting
on world affairs I can bear is Christianne Amampour and Fareed Zakaria. The rest don't know what they are talking about.

[Dystopic]

All this pain for a country that has little natural beauty, no natural resources and is basically a pile of bloody rocks

[Bod intheUK]

Utter tripe!

I can watch the early evening news from ABC here (on the BBC), CBS (on Murdochs SKY) as well as FOX News 24/7. I would strongly advise anyone to simply download a daily terrestrial network news broadcast from the BBC (try Newsnight from thebox.net), and compare it to the news your networks provide. You may be shocked.

The quality of BBC & independent news in the UK is superb in comparison to anything you can get in the states. The issues are covered with intelligence & nuance unavailable on US Networks. The middle east is reported in far more depth & is reported continually - not just when trouble kicks-off. This gives an informed viewership in advance, who wont tolerate your preferred mode of news as an arm of anti-arab propaganda.

[RobinSeattle]

Too bad what happened to the London Times, though. Used to be probably the world's greatest newspaper. And then Rupert came and that was all she wrote.

[JohnKelly]

Who cares if one side says they do not intentionally target civilians. That means nothing if they keeping killing civilians. This is propaganda used to mask the horribly imbalanced kill ratio. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

How shallow can we get? Do you think the families of victims care if they were intentionally targeted? Would that be more or less comforting for them in their grief?

John

[Vickster]

So how do you feel about Hamas using Palestinian civilians as "human shields"?

The Israeli government may not be blameless, but at least they don't use their civilians as "human shields", nor do they deliberately target Palestinian civilians.

[JohnKelly]

I think using human shields is a crime against humanity...as is bombing neighborhoods in Gaza. If you decry human shields and think that bombs and missiles are somehow more noble, think again. As for your last remark, I responded to that in the post above: Who cares if they say that they do not target civilians? They are killing civilians and the knew that they would! No moral high ground there.

John

[blp]

But what the hell, right?

Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

[blp]

Hannah Fisher, you describe Hamas as

'...an internationally recognised terrorist organisation who have taken control of the Gaza strip.'

'Taken control'? Without in any way wishing to endorse these anti-Jewish terrorists, can I just make it perfectly clear to your readers that Hamas were democratically elected? Who's 'subtly indoctrinating' who here, Hannah?

You go on to say:

'Israel's policy in Gaza is to target Hamas leaders, unfortunately they hide themselves in densely populated areas.'

This is a pure Alice in Wonderland defense. They do not hide themselves in these areas, they live in them. Here's what Yediot Aharonot, Israel's biggest selling newspaper, had to say, approvingly it seems, about these surgical attacks on Hamas leaders who happened to be surrounded by innocent civilians:

"the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed"

The number, lest we're in any doubt, being at least 300 dead and thousands injured. Among the sites targeted with pinpoint accuracy to hit Hamas leaders hidden among the civilians were a passing out parade of ordinary police officers.

[yappnmutt]

the fact remains that israel would have complied with international(the same people responsible for the creation of israel) requests to honor the 1967 borders as part of a two state solution if the usa applied the pressure to comply. by extension, this outrageous operation is done in my name. to paraphrase a favorite refrain, never again will i support israel until palistine is given the right to exist.