Leading article: Weakness in the face of suffering
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
It is easy to criticise the BBC, but that does not mean that it is always wrong to do so. The corporation's refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal for aid to Gaza was a mistake. The Independent on Sunday is proud to carry the appeal on behalf of the group of 13 reputable charities.
We accept that the intentions of Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, were honourable. Concerned to protect its reputation for impartiality, the BBC wanted to avoid "appearing to support one side rather than the other" in the Gaza conflict, as Caroline Thomson, the corporation's chief operating officer, said yesterday.
This is a weak-minded interpretation of the BBC's duty of impartiality. The corporation seems to think it can avoid the charge of bias if it does nothing.
Does the BBC have so little confidence in its reporting that it believes it can be undermined by its providing airtime for a charitable appeal for humanitarian aid? It has come to something when normally cautious government ministers condemn the BBC for being afraid of offending the Israeli government. Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, was clear, principled and right. "The British public can distinguish between humanitarian aid and partiality in a conflict," he said yesterday. And he pointed out that if broadcasting the appeal might imply disapproval of Israel, not showing it might imply that Palestinian suffering did not count.
The thinness of the BBC's case was exposed by Ms Thomson's claim that it had refused to carry aid appeals before, for Lebanon and Afghanistan. In neither case were those appeals made by the DEC; the fact that a committee of 13 aid agencies is able to agree an appeal ought to be testimony to the degree of consensus that the humanitarian crisis is above politics.
The BBC has difficult decisions to make, as a public service broadcaster reporting on an asymmetrical conflict. But it is precisely because those decisions are difficult that the BBC should have resisted Israeli government propaganda.
The Israeli government and its supporters sometimes respond to justifiable criticism by accusing its accusers of anti-Semitism. It would be only human if senior BBC executives responded by deciding that offending such vociferous critics is simply not worth the trouble. A cursory glance at internet blogs will confirm that the BBC was frequently accused of being anti-Israel during the Gaza operation, and often of giving comfort to anti-Semites.
Sir Gerald Kaufman, the Labour MP, caused a stir this month when he pointed this out in the Commons: "The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."
So, is the BBC guilty of falling for this form of moral extortion? On this occasion, the corporation does seem to have taken its sensitivity to this charge to the defensive extreme, by avoiding something that could wrongly be interpreted as a criticism of the Israeli government.
This newspaper is as forthright in its condemnation of the Israeli assault on Gaza as it is in its condemnation of anti-Semitism. We support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. Our argument is that the Gaza operation was reckless as to civilian casualties. Arguably, as we investigate in an article today, Israel's government is guilty of much worse. The number of civilian deaths was not only foreseeable and excessive, but counter-productive. It has eroded international support for Israel and hardened Palestinian support for terrorism.
The way the Israeli government has sought to defend its action has made matters worse. As Dominic Waghorn, Middle East correspondent for Sky News, writes today, the refusal to allow journalists into the combat zone fuels the suspicion that the Israeli Defence Force had something to hide.
None of the judgements about the wisdom or morality of the military action – or about whose side one is on – should make any difference to the gross asymmetry of the suffering left behind. It is a basic law of war that combatants should not impede humanitarian assistance for non-combatants. To facilitate such assistance cannot therefore be to "take sides" in a conflict.
The suggestion that any expression of compassion for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is to side with terrorists and anti-Semites is an unworthy one. It was spineless of the BBC to fall for it.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
And why don't you push for aid to Africa and the poorest parts of South America and some of Asia, where there are people who are far more poor than Palestinians are?
Rabbi Y Rosen, Director, Tsomet Institute, in 'Haaretz'
"In our political argument abroad we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily. If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs.
David Ben Gurion, founder and first prime minister of Israel, and perpetrator of the Qibya Massacre of civilians
"We must use terror, assassination, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population? - Israel Koenig, 'The Koenig Memorandum'
Maj. Gen. G Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, has gone as far as to say that Israel failed in 2006 because it fought the wrong enemy Hezbollah rather than Lebanon itself. "The only good thing that happened in the last war was the relative damage caused to Lebanon's population," he said. "The destruction of thousands of homes of 'innocents' preserved some of Israel's deterrent power. The only way to prevent another war is to make it clear that should one break out, Lebanon may be razed to the ground." There were over a 1000 deaths, mostly civilians, over 250 children.
"Let's hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space" - Moshe Dayan, 'Israel's Sacred Terrorism'
"We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, OUP, 1985.
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." -- Golda Meir, The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.
"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan."
Yitzhak Rabin (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983) "Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." Menachem Begin
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations." Yitzhak Shamir Nov 1990.
"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple." -- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." Benyamin Netanyahu, Hotam, November 24, 1989
"The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." - Ariel Sharon, Nov 15, 1998
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." -- Ariel Sharon, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Ma
in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom".He argued that Jewish emancipation in the 19th century resulting from German liberalism had allowed the Jews to control German finance and industry.
However European Jews are mainly Ashkenazi/ Khazarian jews.
Arthur Koestler (himself a jew) in the tthirteenth tribe" explains this very well
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/koestle
There is the other branch of European Jews - Sephardim - descendants Jews who lived in Spain (in Hebrew Sepharad) until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the the Mediterranean,Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. They spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino, and preserved their own traditions and religious rites.The number of Sephardim isestimated at about half million.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZd3vR6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXfD7uH2
The last thing you are, Sir, is reasonable.
Arabs have enough money - from oil
The problem is their religion, the religion of "peace"
Because right now Gaza is in dire straights. It was already suffering a humanitarian crisis prior to Israel's latest military attack due to the long standing Israeli blockade of the country. With the recent pulverising of the country and people, that humanitarian disaster has multiplied significantly. In the view of DEC, which represents 13 experienced and respected charities, the people of GAZA desperately need our help, and they need it now.
Given that their neighbour Israel is unlikely to provide this, and sadly that our own government is also reticent to provide the millions in aid needed, it's rest on the shoulders of these charities and those people willing to contribute money to help alleviate this humanitarian crisis to provide some aid. When the BBC decides not to air an appeal for political reasons - the only time it has ever refused to broadcast an appeal recommnded by DEC - (it doesn't want to offend the pro Israel lobby), then right minded people are of course outraged and will react.
Talking outrage, it's sad to see someone such as your self so lacking in human compassion and feeling that you think it's right the peope of GAZA continue to suffer as a direct result of Israels policy of oppression and aggression rather than receive this aid. Time to look deep into your soul and seek redemption from whatever god you believe in.
You miss the point completely. Most of the people writing here against Israeli aggression were or are against the totally stupid wars we're involved in in Iraq and Afganistan. I was part of the 1 million people who marched in London on the eve of the Iraq war to oppose it, one of many demonstrations that took place throughout the U.K. I, like many others, continue to be a strong critic of our actions and continued presence in those countries. Unfortunately we live in a flawed democracy that allows our leaders get away with these crimes. However, it doesn't make their actions right, just as it doesn't make Israel's recent murder spree right either.
This issue ought to be looke at by the House of Common and House of Lords.
1) The BBC impartial ? How is one to interpret the past eleven years of extravagant support for the Labour Government ? Notions of impartiality are rather canted when applied to that organisation.
2) As regards Israel's right to exist, if that is what it is always clamoring about, no right-minded person entertains the slightest doubt about it. However, from the start of Israeli nationhood the right to exist has been at Palestinian expense. From the Zionist point of view this is understandable; they are, in their own eyes, Jehovah's Chosen People and Palestine, according to them, is the Promised Land. Neolithic twaddle if you like - but, for the Zionists, Jehovah's writ takes precedence over any other Near or Middle Eastern Stone-Age fiction. In addition, criticism of the Israel's murderous activities against Palestine's indigenous people has, since 1946, always been rather muted because of the unimaginable suffering visited upon European Jews during the Nazi Holocaust: the rest of us have been tainted with guilt by association - the most remarkable propaganda coup ever achieved by the Jewish lobby. But it is wearing a bit thin and their bloody-minded savagery against women and children in Gaza must, if there is any justice in the world, be called to account.
His difficulty is compounded by the widely held belief - in the US - that constant conflict in the Middle East is the precursor of Christ's second coming.
This whackey belief is based on that whackiest book in the bible: the Book of Revelation.
It's always puzzled me that "Semites" - as we are now able to call them without fear of mixing them up with Ayrabs - have gone along with this notion, since Christ's arrival in the White House holds out the prospect of Rapture solely for a group of right wing, er, 'Christians' who will be swept up to heaven.
There's nothing in it for the rest of us, Semitic or otherwise.
Clearly the tutelage of Israel extends well beyond the snug BBC frontline that have witnessed the phosphorus light show that is Gaza, with a mixture of curiosity and awe.
It is hardly surprising, given the backgrounds of the various bit players involved. As John Sentamu observed, the action of the BBC is partial. To Israel.
God help the children of Gaza.
Such words of wisdom and yet this newspaper is not quite as forthright in its condemnation of a government who also targets innocent civilians, and at the same time uses its own civilian population as a shield. I am in no way defending the actions of the Israeli government or the IDF in their attack on Gaza, but I fail to see how HAMAS can walk away from this horrendous event without the same condemnation. The leaders of HAMAS knew exactly what they were doing when they targeted Israeli civilians and used their own citizens as human shields. They are every bit as guilty as the Israelis are for the carnage that has been left in Gaza. They have seriously failed in their duty to protect the people who elected them into power. In fact, their actions have been every bit as CRIMINAL as those who ordered the Israeli offensive and those who carried it out.
Maybe if THIS newspaper, and the rest of the media was as FORTHRIGHT in its condemnation of the actions of BOTH sides, thousands of Palestinians would not be dead or injured. Gaza would not look like Dresden.
So please, your "expression of compassion for the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza..." comes a little late. It might not mean that you side with Terrorists, however, your silence towards the leaders of HAMAS gives them a 'carte blanche'. Your lack of criticism towards them and their actions makes you a tool of their propaganda, and as such, makes you every bit as guilty for the suffering of those children we see.
Israel is guilty of killing and maiming Palestinian civilians and so too are HAMAS, please do not forget that the next time you feel the need to be FORTHRIGHT in your condemnations. It is just as evil to provoke a fight and then hide behind your children as it is to attack the child in order to get to the person doing the provoking.
If the BBC can be accused of falling for Israel's moral extortion, then you can be accused of falling for HAMAS' sentimental extortion!
Lets get real and point the finger at both sides of this conflict instead of trying to justify the actions of one side over the other. Maybe that way we can bring an end to the suffering of all those who are involved in this despicable mess!!!
Around the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq the BBC put out an excellent radio series 'Spinning to Win' hosted by Robin Lustig on how governments have always tried to manipulate the media at times of war. The Gaza war adds a new chapter to this, and I hope the BBC will carry some programming investigating Gaza media coverage, including its own, as have Channel 4 and now the main Sky reporter on Gaza have done.
And yes the BBC should collectively hold their heads in shame because of their stance on the DEC appeal - ironically almost all of their staff clearly are deeply ashamed and mortified by what has been done in their names by Thomson and Thompson who should do the decent thing and resign forthwith.
These two have even posted their rantings on topics that had nothing to do with the Gaza/Israel
For example I found them commenting in identical words on
Johann Hari: Is the US about to treat the rest of the world better? article and pointed out that it was off-topic and justicero went into a childlike "its Bolivia its Bolivia its Bolivia" rant.
It's pointless correcting/questioning/arguing against their comments - they have been told gy GIYUS to ruin any discussions that may criticize the Zionist regime.The quotes from the bible and anti Arab/muslim stuff will start. Justcero also has a dislike for the British and this newspapeer - I did invite him to got elsewhere more to his liking but here he is back again
I have tried to get information about how many complaints the BBC have had about their reporting on Gaza but found it impossible. (If anyone has any links to where I can get this please let me know).
The manipulation by the use of charges of Anti-Semitism is a known tactic (GIYUS is set up to help Israel's supporters to do this - you'll find them commenting on this article). The BBC aren't alone in feeling this pressure (try commenting on the Guardian for example and use a combination of keywords like "Jews" "zionism" "Anti-semitism" "AIPAC" "Nazi-Germany" in a critique of Isreal and moderators will remove the comments with the explanation that it offends Jews).
By Contrast the Palestinians (by extension Arabs and Muslims) have not been afforded any such protection from blatantly sweeping offensive remarks.
The clear legitimacy of the Palestinian case - supported UN resolutions, Israeli land grabs, illegal blockades and restrictions on their own territory - are never given the airing as they would expose Israel as the guilty party.
This perpetuates the myth of Israel's victim status and "justifies" the elimination of Palestinians as a legitimate ethnic group.To do this the Israeli narrative is to de-humanise them - having no human virtues (using their children as human shields is a charge). Using Phosphorus and (alleged) depleted Uranium shells and cluster bombs on Civilians and especially children is abhorrent but Israel's spokespersons always take the inhumanity out of their statements and justify the action.
Impartiality does not supercede humanity - if it does then it sets a dangerous decline into barbarity as it would mean that if I came across a person who had been stabbed by another I would not call an ambulance as I did not know the reason he was stabbed and it would be unfair on the stabber for me to help him.
The last sentence
"The suggestion that any expression of compassion for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is to side with terrorists and anti-Semites is an unworthy one. It was spineless of the BBC to fall for it."
nearly sums it up - to add to it - to do this to placate or get advantages from the perpetrators of this suffering is disgusting.