2 investigations
Submitted by antarchi on October 31, 2010 - 01:21
UPDATED - latest response
Jane Corbin: The elite Israeli force that seized the Mavi Marmara is training for its next operation. I’ve had unique access to this top secret unit. Naval Commandoe 13 has never been filmed by the media in action before. Israel says these commandoes had to fight for their lives on the ship that night. Turkey accuses Israel of an act of piracy. They called it Operation Sea Breeze, but what these Israeli Naval Commandoes encountered on the Mavi Marmara was anything but a breeze. It caused a storm of international condemnation - but did Israel fall into a trap? And what was the real agenda of some of those people who called themselves ‘peace activists’ aboard the Free Gaza flotilla?
From Death in the Med
A trap... ! Trapped into venturing out into the high seas. Trapped into storming illegally a boat full of 'peace activists' and firing at them with live ammunition. Trapped into killing 9 and injuring hundreds more, although the wily victims - those 'peace activists' - possessed no weapons of their own. Trapped, no doubt, into trapping the Gazans inside their own territory and trapping outside the Gaza borders the necessities they need to survive.
I trapped them into killing me! A wily trap indeed. I took no weapons with me, and made sure to stay in international waters on my own vessel. They fell for it.
But perhaps it all depends on whether you set more store by the UN Fact Finding Mission's investigation, or the BBC's dramatic version, reported breathlessly by Jane Corbin, Special Expert on Making Things Sound Dramatic and putting questions which are quite irrelevant.
The programme can still be viewed here, and a transcript of the breathy Jane is available here.
My letter to her breathlessness:
Dear Jane Corbin
I hope you have found time to read the UN's recent report on the Gaza flotilla. It would seem fairly important for one of the BBC's 'experts on the Middle East' to do so.I wonder how you explain the enormous discrepancies between the UN investigation and your own. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones - I could list many more, but suspect you would not read to the end.
1. The UN investigation devotes about 1/3 of the final report to setting the context and describing the run-up to the events on the night of the 1st June, because they regarded this context as vital in coming to a conclusion about the legality and proportionality of the violence that took place on both sides. Your programme effectively provided no context at all, yet you felt this was enough information for viewers to come to a decision about the rectitude of the actions on both sides.
2. The UN report is unequivocal that there were violations of both international humanitarian law and international human rights law on the part of the Israelis, and none on the side of the flotilla activists. You made no reference at all to these standards in the whole hour of your programme - except to say in your introduction, that Israel stands accused of breaking international law. The standards you appeared to be using - and encouraging viewers to use - were your own.
3. In the single reference to conditions in Gaza, you felt able to say that "Here in Gaza, the problem’s not so much a lack of food or medicine." The UN's report states that: "The Mission has come to the firm conclusion that a humanitarian crisis existed on the 31 May 2010 in Gaza. The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is far too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion. Any denial that this is so cannot be supported on any rational grounds." (paragraph 261)
4. In the space of your relatively short programme, you felt it important to quote the remarks allegedly made by flotilla activists about 9-11 and Auschwitz. The UN report states that 'the Mission is not satisfied that these recordings are authentic, nor has the Government of Israel made this material available to the Mission for appropriate examination. The Mission was given positive evidence that no such statements were made by anyone involved in communications on the flotilla.' (p.110)
5. You claimed authoritatively that 'The question of who shot first remains disputed and unresolved.' The UN report states that 'The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship.' (p.116)
6. Much more important than these discrepancies - although they combined to slant the programme as you felt important - are the facts that you omitted altogether from your report. You failed to mention that "the action of the IDF in intercepting the Mavi Marmara in the circumstances and for the reasons given on the high sea was clearly unlawful." (p.262) - or even to consider the question. Without this fact - and the UN report prefaces many of its conclusions with this consideration, precisely because it is essential to forming a judgement on other issues - you were able to present the case as one of the Israelis defending themselves against the violence of the activists, rather than the activists defending themselves from an illegal attack, as would have been correct.
7. Throughout the whole of your report, we obtained not the merest hint of the following, although the evidence can hardly have been difficult to gather, and could hardly be considered irrelevant to the case: 'The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.' (p.264)
I would appreciate some response, some explanation for the incomplete, partial, factually incorrect and selective nature of your programme - both from yourself, and from those who authorised your programme.
With thanks
EK
Or is it just verbal diarrhoeia.
Dear EK
Thank you for your feedback regarding ‘Panorama – Death in the Med’ as broadcast on 16 August. Please be assured that your concerns were forwarded to the programme’s production team.
We understand the strength of feeling regarding the Israeli Defence Force’s operation against the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. We recognise the complexity of the subject and note its ramifications within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole.
This programme intended to explore the considerable confusion about what actually happened on the Mavi Marmara on the day in question.
Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says the protesters were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims. With several inquiries underway Panorama’s Jane Corbin uncovered important new evidence from both sides in a bid to establish what really happened. [REALLY!!??? Can you name any of it?]
Jane Corbin is a world renowned journalist with twenty years’ experience reporting for ‘Panorama’ and the on-going conflict in the Middle East. She is respected [sic] for her dedicated, [sic] impartial [sic] and balanced [sic] work on both sides of the conflict and approached this subject with the same level of fairness [sic] which she is known for.
We appreciate some viewers were unhappy about the nature of the video and audio footage we showed. We can assure you that enormous care was involved in selecting the footage we showed. During the programme we made it clear that a variety of different sources were shown, some from the Israeli Defence Force, some from the IHH and “culturesofresitance.org” and others from individuals who were onboard the Mavi Marmara on the night in question. The majority of the footage used in the programme is openly available on the internet.
All featured footage was meticulously double and cross checked to verify its accuracy1; any footage of uncertain events during the raid was clearly labelled as such.
Viewers were shown a wide range of opinions and whenever a question of authenticity of footage arose, we made this clear.
We also spoke extensively to the groups and individuals involved in the incident including three Israeli commandos involved in the raid; the head of the IHH - Bulent Yildirim; the Free Gaza Coordinator on board the Mavi Marmara - Lubna Masarwa; three Turkish activists and activist Ken O’Keefe, who were on board the Mavi Marmara on the night in question. We also spoke to Hamas official Dr Ahmed Yousef in Gaza. They were all given sufficient time and a platform to make their points.
The programme made it clear that the flotilla was still in international waters, ninety miles from Gaza. The programme also made it clear that a number of inquiries are ongoing.
We believe the programme was balanced and impartial, going to great lengths to give opposing sides the opportunity to air their views.
We acknowledge the strength of your views regarding this matter, thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
BBC Audience Services
Ollie: You Just Have to look the Lion straight in the eye. Lions are afraid of that. I read it in a book
Stan: But did the lion read the book?
I wrote back asking that they address the questions I had raised, rather than sending out the round robin they had prepared earlier to deal with the deluge of complaints.
Dear EK
Thanks for your further e-mail regarding ‘Panorama – Death in the Med’.
I was sorry to read you felt our previous response did not fully address your concerns.
I can assure you that your comments were forwarded to the ‘Panorama’ production team.
Before going through the detail may I say that I'm obviously sorry you weren't happy with the programme. We stand by the film and defend its fairness, balance and methodology. Jane Corbin has been reporting from the region, including Gaza, for 25 years - most of that time for Panorama. One of her most recent films was a report on Israel's building programme in East Jerusalem - " A Walk in the Park", which is still on our website. Without her reputation for balance on the controversial areas she's covered, it's not likely she'd have been given access to the range of people she was: - from Israeli commandos involved in the raid; to the head of the IHH - Bulent Yildirim; to the Free Gaza Coordinator on board the Mavi Marmara - Lubna Masarwa; to three Turkish activists and others, including Ken O'Keefe, all who were on board the Mavi Marmara on the night in question. As you saw, she also spoke to Hamas official Dr Ahmed Yousef in Gaza.
I must first of all stress that our programme did not set out to explore events on board the Mavi Marmara in the same level of the UN report you refer to. We simply did not have the time or resources to go into the same level of detail given the constraints of a thirty minute programme. We appreciate the comparisons you make between the UN report and the programme, however do not feel they are specifically comparable given this context.
Here are our responses to those questions:
1. Regarding your concerns about the level of detail given to explain the background of the flotilla/raid, again I must stress the programme's objective was to set out what happened on the MM. We made it clear both in commentary and interview that the flotilla's aim was to break the Gaza blockade. We visited Gaza, explained (albeit briefly) the situation there and heard from people like Ken O'Keefe and others about their motivation to break the blockade. Panorama has made a number of highly praised and hard-hitting award winning films about the situation in Gaza and will continue to make films about the Middle East [But did the lion read the book]
My comment:
With all due respect, you did not explain the situation in Gaza (see point 3 in my original letter). Furthermore, you say that your objective was to 'set out what happened...' My question concerned the extent to which it was possible to do this without setting any context - and the question still stands.
Let me give an example: if someone breaks into the house I am living in, and starts shooting my family, it would not be appropriate to file a report which concentrates almost exclusively on the period after the break-in begins, and makes no mention of the reason for the break-in, nor of whether the break-in was justified. 'What happens' is almost never context free, and if we break the context off from our description of events, we have already made a judgement that the context in this case is not important.
The UN fact-finding mission recognised that. Jane Corbin did not. Why not?
2. In relation to the programme’s mention of Israel breaking international or maritime law, again the programme set out to try and explain what happened on the MM, not to pass judgement on the morality of the actions of either the IDF or the IHH activists.
We made it clear that the MM was in international waters and that Turkey and others have accused Israel of committing an act of piracy. As you mentioned, Jeremy Vine stated clearly in his introduction "Israel has been accused of breaking international law". There are two inquiries under way which are looking specifically at the contested legality of the IDF's actions.
Again the programme was thirty minutes long, not an hour as you suggest and therefore could not go into this matter in the detail you refer to.
My comment:
Firstly, it is simply not possible for a programme to be completely neutral, not to 'pass judgement'. In putting the programme together, Jane Corbin made a judgement about which facts were important, and which could be omitted. The UN's judgement about which facts were relevant to building a picture of what happened was different. To deny that the facts chosen by her - or by the UN - are going to shape the judgement of viewers in important ways is just naive. Of course there was a strong message in the film, whether she thought about it consciously or not.
Secondly, I do not see that the question of the legality or otherwise of Israel's acts is necessarily relevant to the morality of the acts: it is simply relevant to the legality. My point is that without any mention of those standards, viewers are only left with Jane Corbin's standards. The international standards would have provided some small measure of objectivity against which viewers could measure Jane Corbin's other selected facts.
My question still stands: why was no mention made of the standards themselves, despite the fact that the legality of the case would not be something the viewers would be likely to know already (unlike my example of the burglar breaking in). To say that one side thinks the law was broken, and the other doesn't is not sufficient.
3. We stand by our conclusion that the Mavi Marmara was fundamentally a political, rather than humanitarian aid mission. I note that the mission statement of the Free Gaza Movement states on its website: "We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation".
This is very much in line with Jane Corbin's script that: "At the end of the day the bid to break the naval blockade wasn’t really about bringing aid to Gaza. It was a political move designed to put pressure on Israel and the international community. The price was high – nine people died but the outcry ensured the flotilla achieved its aim".
My comment:
I don't understand why this is thought to be a response to my question, which asked specifically about the way the Gaza blockade was presented. My question still stands: why was the impression given that there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, when in fact the (real) depth of that crisis - as acknowledged by the UN - was the motivation for the flotilla's existence. The point you address is simply about the method used to break the blockade, not the reason for needing to do so.
4. You refer to the use of the audio tapes in which someone is recorded saying "Go back to Auschwitz". The IDF has not "admitted doctoring" this tape. In fact the IDF has said that it is unsure which of the flotilla's ships sent this message and that the first version of the tape released on to Youtube had had the silences taken out. The IDF later released the full unedited version of the tape. Nonetheless, we accept that there is controversy surrounding these tapes and therefore we clearly pointed this out:
"The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made".
My comment:
My question still stands: why did you feel it important to include this recording, despite questions about authenticity. Here is an excellent example of a selected 'fact' which will play strongly on viewers' emotions, and help to shape their judgement. The fact that you say afterwards that it may not be authentic will not be likely to alter that strong emotional reaction. In your previous letter to me, you claim that 'enormous care was involved in selecting the footage...' and also that 'All featured footage was meticulously double and cross checked to verify its accuracy'. Can you tell me the nature of the meticulous double and cross checking - because the UN came to an unambiguous conclusion after their checking procedure that there was no positive evidence it was authentic.
5. As far as the programme is concerned, the main organiser and witness to what happened on the ship, Bulent Yildirim twice made it clear that he believed shooting started at the beginning of the operation. There was a clip of him from the night filmed on the deck of the ship saying: ‘At this moment they’re firing non-stop. And every time one of our friends is being injured. They’re firing at us, they’re throwing bombs’. Then Jane Corbin in her interview with him received the response from him ‘…the Israelis had been firing from the start…These people are defending themselves while being fired at’.
Reports from Israeli commandos however, say that the live fire did not begin until they were on deck, and had been fired on by activists. This is also reflected in the programme.
We do not feel this a clear cut issue. There are clearly conflicting accounts over the issue of when and where live fire occurred – I give a number of examples of different accounts below to illustrate this:
For example, in an article Richard Lightbown wrote for the Palestine Chronicle, he states (in reference to Sir Geoffrey Palmer) that: ... We must hope that he is a man able to appreciate that it was not self defence to shoot Cevdet Kiliclar through the forehead from a helicopter before a single Israeli had even started to descend from a helicopter or disembark from a zodiac.
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16196
However, the footage released directly by activists on board filming for Cultures of Resistance shows commandos descending on ropes out of a helicopter towards the top deck. In the same shot, the camera then pans down to Cevdet Kiliclar on the deck below, showing him moving about with his camera after the commandos have descended. (This can be seen at 41 minutes into the film here:
http://www.culturesofresistance.org/gaza-freedom-flotilla)
(Please note the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites)
Cevdet Kiliclar is also seen photographing the wounded at a later point.
One of the witnesses you cite, Muna Shaster, does not actually say firing started before commandos hit the deck in the ref provided. She says: ‘Each boat was surrounded by vessels and a helicopter deployed men in black, armed from head to toe, who asked no questions and killed two Turkish men immediately’.
My comment:
(I did not mention any witnesses: I assume these paragraphs have been lifted from a response to another complainant)
Again, I am struggling to see how this is a response to my specific question, which was not about when the first shot was fired, but about the suggestion made in the film that the activists shot at all. The UN is again unequivocal: no weapons were used by the activists. Where is Jane Corbin's evidence that weapons were used by 'both sides' - and was this 'evidence' also double and cross checked for accuracy?
6. I note you feel the programme should have determined the degree of “unlawfulness” purportedly attributed to either side during the raid. It is not the programme’s role, duty or intention to do so. Again you compare our findings to the UN report; however the UN has legal precedent to do so and accordingly advise on where they feel law relevant to them has been broken.
My comment:
No, I would not necessarily expect the BBC to determine the legality of the actions on each side, but I would expect the BBC to mention the fact that boarding a ship in international waters is legal only in a very small number of instances, and even then the force used must be proportionate. If you do not mention that fact - and this was the purpose of my 6th question, which again you have failed to address - viewers will not be aware that the activists had the right to self-defence. It is quite extraodinary that no mention of this basic fact was made in the course of the whole programme. The overwhelming message was that the Israeli forces needed to protect themselves, not the activists.
We did not seek to pass judgement on the morality or legality of the actions of either the IDF or the IHH activists. We simply sought to explain the raid in a clear, fair and accurate manner and felt we did so.
I hope this goes some way to address your concerns, however if you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation.
My comment:
I shall be doing so. I have no expectation that they will uphold my complaint, but I am interested in the convolutions that BBC staff are able to perform in failing to address the questions posed.
Incidentally, you have also failed to address my 7th point. That question also still stands.
...
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.Regards,
Liam Boyle
Complaints Advisor for News and Current Affairs
BBC Audience Services
- 1. What did you do to double and cross check the audio purportedly from the Marmara, which asked about 9-11 and mentioned Auschwitz? Asked the Israelis if it was authentic?
- antarchi's blog
- Login to post comments
