a merely grim blockade

Submitted by antarchi on October 30, 2010 - 18:26

UPDATED - with ECU finding (and response)

2 months on, and several letters later, the BBC is still determined not to tell us that the Gaza blockade may be a crime against humanity - ie one of these:

Article 7, 1 (k) ... inhumane acts ... intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

It is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions - and definitely couldn't violate this bit:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

4th Geneva Convention, Article 33

And it is not a war crime:

Article 8, 2 b xxv: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

Rome Statute

In the BBC's view, the important thing about the siege, the label that deserves official attribution to UN officials is that the siege is grim and deteriorating.

Ah, grim. We grin and bear grim things: they cannot be crimes.
In the name of balance, the BBC is also kind enough to tell us that the blockade has been 'referred to' as collective punishment - widely. What constitutes collective punishment, whether it is regarded as a war crime, how 'widely' it has been referred to as such, and whether the width extends to the UN officials mentioned in the next sentence - we are not told. We are told that Israel says there is no problem.

Those 'wide' references have in fact been made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Rights, the head of UNRWA in Gaza, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and now - even - the EU. Not important, apparently.

Original letter:

Dear Heather Sharp

The online page on the blockade at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7545636.stm has the following information:

'Amnesty International has dubbed the blockade "collective punishment" resulting in a "humanitarian crisis"; UN officials have described the situation as "grim", "deteriorating" and a "medieval siege", but Israel says there are no shortages in Gaza, pointing to the aid it allows in.'

Can you tell me why you refer only to 'UN officials' and the 3 descriptions of 'grim, deteriorating and a medieval siege'? I ask because the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has referred to the "almost unanimous international view that the continued blockade of Gaza is both inhumane and illegal."; and she has also said that "This is in direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must end now." The UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory (Richard Falk) has referred to the Gaza siege as a "policy of collective punishment", and has said that this constitutes "a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention"

Would it not be more appropriate to include one or other of these quotes, rather than the 3 descriptive words you have quoted, and to name the 'UN officials'? A claim of a violation of international law by the highest ranking UN officials in the highest ranking UN body responsible for human rights is surely a relevant contribution in the context of Israeli claims that 'there are no shortages in Gaza'.

Thank you for your attention

EK

top

Some sort of reply from the beeb:

29th June

Dear Ms Keen,

The paragraph you refer to has been changed to: UN officials and Amnesty International have dubbed the blockade "collective punishment" resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis. The blockade has been compared with a "medieval siege". But Israel says there are no shortages in Gaza, pointing to the aid it allows in.

Regards and thanks,

Tarik Kafala

Nothing happened to the page, so I followed up again. On the 5th August I was told:

Dear [*],

Sorry not to reply sooner regarding the part of this complaint that concerns the BBC News website.

The changes I promised you was made. It is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10338374. As you can see from the date stamp the changes were made on 21 June. The confusion lies in the fact that we have two versions of the same page, due to a technical and design re-launch of the BBC News website. I did not go back and correct the old or archived version that [*] is referring to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm. I have done so now.

The changes I have made are not precisely, word for word, as promised. They do though reflect the detail and spirit of your complaint. Essentially, the published text does not refer to Amnesty International because I do not particularly want to privilege one human rights group, and all the detail we need can be attributed directly to the UN.

Regards and thanks,

Tarik Kafala

top

The changes he made did nothing but replace the reference to Amnesty International with the words 'widely described'. We are told that the siege is widely described as collective punishment - ie. not by anyone in particular. And we are told that the UN thinks it is grim. Draw your own conclusions.

Dear Tarik
thank you for letting me know about one of the 3 complaints submitted by me in June. I have still not received a response to the complaint about reporting of the flotilla, submitted on the 1st June - other than a generic reply which does not address the concerns I raised. If you are also dealing with this complaint, can you let me know how many more weeks or months I will have to wait?

As far as the changes you have made to the page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10338374 are concerned, I do not regard the wording as satisfactory, although I understand and respect your reasons for not mentioning Amnesty International specifically. You have the following:

The blockade has been widely described as "collective punishment" resulting in a humanitarian crisis; UN officials have described the situation as "grim", "deteriorating" and a "medieval siege", but Israel says there are no shortages in Gaza, pointing to the aid it allows in.

The point about my complaint was that the label 'collective punishment' , 'crime against humanity' and 'violation of international law' have been made not just 'widely' - which could mean anything - but by international bodies and organisations responsible for human rights at the highest level. These are very significant charges, particularly when made by such relatively cautious individuals as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Why then are they not mentioned, and why will you not attribute the 'collective punishment' label to the High Commissioner, or to the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Rights, or the head of UNRWA, or or to the ICRC, or to the EU, or at the very least, to the 'UN officials' you mention elsewhere in the paragraph? Do you not agree that the information is important to readers in assessing the truth of Israel's claim that 'there are no shortages in Gaza'? Do you not think it is misleading to mention the collective punishment claim in the first sentence, and then to talk about UN officials regarding the siege as (merely) grim, deteriorating and a medieval siege?

Of course, now that the page is safely tucked away and out of the public mind, my objections are partly academic: the BBC successfully managed to keep these serious charges by serious individuals out of sight until the drama was over. But at least for the sake of accuracy, I think the page still needs amending to reflect the fact that the charge of collective punishment is not merely another point of view, to be 'balanced' by the traditional 'Israel claims...' clause.

thank you for your attention. If I do not hear back regarding this complaint, or the one submitted on the 1st June by early next week, I will forward to the ECU.

[*]

top

Complaint submitted to the ECU

Response to their letter of acknowledgement that they will consider the claim - see attached file:

Dear Colin Tregear,
Many thanks for your response, and for addressing my other concerns. I shall follow those up separately.

In relation to the summary of my complaint that you propose to consider, I don't know whether my original letters will also be included within your review. If not, I would like to add the following points of clarification:

1. The Gaza siege has been described by senior UN officials, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as collective punishment. BBC readers are perhaps unlikely to be aware that collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and an international war crime. The ICRC has also described the blockade as a violation of international humanitarian law, collective punishment and a war crime.

These are very, very serious charges, and deserve to be reported, in a fairly prominent way. Such charges from such senior officials are rare. The BBC has not represented them.

2. The formulation on the website carries the implication that although these charges have been made, UN officials have not (necessarily) associated themselves with them, instead using the lesser descriptions of 'grim' and 'deteriorating'. The paragraph quoted gives the impression that there are 3 'points of view':

a) that the siege amounts to collective punishment (unattributed charge)
b) that it is 'grim and deteriorating' (UN 'officials', though which officials, is not reported)
c) That there are no shortages (Israel)

3. If possible, I would also like you to measure my complaint against the guidelines on coverage of conflict. In particular, the following seems relevant:

Our reports should normally make it clear where information has come from, particularly in the face of conflicting claims. We must label sources of information and material from third parties.

Thank you again for your attention

EK

top

ECU Finding....

See attached file (pdf), and make sense of the garbage if you can.

An extract:


My response:

Dear Colin Tregear

Thank you for your response to my complaint at the end of August. I had thought to take the complaint further, but on reflection, I realise the futility of doing so. Someone at the BBC is clearly determined that the Gaza blockade should not be referred to as a crime against humanity - ie one of these:

Article 7, 1 (k) ... inhumane acts ... intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

(Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

It should not be referred to as a violation of the Geneva Conventions - for example, of Article 33:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

(4th Geneva Convention, Article 33)

And it should not be referred to as a war crime:

Article 8, 2 b xxv: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(Rome Statute)

And that, despite the fact that all these accusations have been made by UN level bodies and individuals, all of whom are generally extremely cautious about the claims they make.

Why won't the BBC report these very specific accusations, although there is no doubt that the public has a right to know, and (mostly) does not know? Would it be detrimental to this article, or to objectivity / impartiality if the claims were included in their specific form? And would the BBC report such accusations if they were levelled, for example, at Iran, or North Korea?

As far as the last question is concerned: almost certainly.

The twists and turns of your response were, if I may say so, fascinating. The only point they served to clarify for me was that the complaint needed to be denied, and any references to war crimes, crimes against humanity or the Geneva Conventions needed to be kept away.

I wonder what you really believe in your own mind.

With thanks
EK

top