BBC and gaza

on their refusal to air the Gaza fundraising appeal

Dear Helen Boaden, and others

I am writing to express my disgust at the BBC's unbalanced coverage of the Gaza conflict - culminating in your decision to ensure that the DEC fundraising effort for the victims in Gaza is less successful than it needs to be.

You say you are concerned to protect your impartiality, but your coverage throughout the 3 week massacre has been inaccurate, incomplete and highly partial. You have failed to set the news in any historical or political context: mention of the illegal occupation has been almost non-existent, and you have barely touched on the worst excesses of the humanitarian crisis, the severity of the blockade, the disproportionality of violence, use of illegal weapons and accusations of Israeli war crimes from respected international organisations. Anyone who did not bother to consult other sources would be unaware of the importance of these neglected points - and yet, surely, they are fundamental to any 'impartial' representation of the conflict.

You have invariably referred to members of Hamas using emotive terms such as 'militants' and have not applied the same term to those on the Israeli side; you have downplayed civilian casualties in Gaza by equating these with 'women and children', accepting the Israeli line that 'men are militants'; you have adopted the Israeli explanation for the 21 day massacre - to stop rocket fire - without explaining that the rocket fire had been stopped by Hamas during the 6 month truce; you have failed to make it clear that the Israeli 'incursion' into Gaza on the 4th November - and killing of 6 Palestinians - was the moment when the truce broke down, and that Israel had anyway failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire in continuing the blockade; you have failed to explain that Hamas offered a further ceasefire, even after the Israeli incursion, to which Israel refused to respond; you have been slower than almost any other media outlet to acknowledge the use of white phosphorus - although the pictures you broadcast from the very start were clear evidence that this was the case.

You have represented the Israeli aggression throughout as an act of self-defence but as far as I am aware, have not applied this term to the actions of Palestinian fighters; you have filed sympathetic and emotional reports from Sderot and other towns hit by rocket fire, and have not matched this proportionately either in terms of numbers, or in terms of emotional impact, with reports from Gaza. You have mentioned that your reporters are not allowed into Gaza, but with nothing like the outrage and persistency that you apply in reports about Zimbabwe; your reports about attacks on Gaza also lack the moral condemnation which you reserve for war crimes carried out by the BBC's official enemies (Russia, Serbia, and 'terrorists'). You regularly allow Israeli spokespersons to put their side of the story and do not do the same for the other side. Your interviewers almost invariably fail to mention the points I have made above or to challenge the Israeli line in any significant way.

And now you refuse to air a humanitarian appeal for a people who have been occupied, terrorised, blockaded, forced from their homes, collectively punished, and finally subjected to a 3 week assault from one of the world's foremost military powers. You refuse to do so despite the fact that people will suffer still further, will die as a direct consequence of your failure, and through no fault of their own.

I do not want a standard reply to this complaint, where you point me towards 3 or 4 articles which deal with some of the points I have made. I have followed the BBC coverage closely and I have followed other coverage. I have also spoken to many people who rely on the BBC almost exclusively, and their ignorance of some of the fundamental issues is shocking, and evidence that you are not getting important aspects of the conflict across to readers / viewers - even if that was your intention. The points I have included above are just some of the ways that your partiality is made plain; your refusal to help the Gazan population is the most blatant example and the reasons you give for the refusal are risible.

'One reason was a concern about whether aid raised by the appeal could actually be delivered on the ground', says your Director General. But since when has the BBC been an expert on whether aid can be delivered on the ground? The experts say it can in this case, and it is neither your business nor within your competence to dispute that.

'The humanitarian issues... are contentious' - whatever that may mean. But since when has it been a criterion of helping people in dire need that the cause of their suffering is not 'contentious'? It was, after all, highly contentious in the case of Kosovo, and yet you put out an appeal (which was both politically and emotionally charged).

And since when, irrespective of 'who started it', has it been more important to be 'impartial' in responding to cases of collective punishment, severe violations of international law, than to alleviate the suffering those crimes have brought about? That is not what is demanded by the Geneva Conventions, and it was certainly not a consideration when the world agreed to international human rights standards 60 years ago, in the wake of the Nazi holocaust.

Words cannot express my anger and disgust. I have now cancelled my licence fee and will use the refund for 3 unused quarters to send to the Gaza victims.

antarchi