Is the BBC anti Israel and/or antisemitic

[Newbutoldfather]

BBC coverage ‘institutionally hostile’ to Israel, say Jewish groups

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a4aa31e2-0084-4bf4-bb33-b93d02917440?shareToken=e38d95867859d345f297becf90753213

As a secular Jew who recognises that the current Israeli government has made many mistakes and is arguably racist, I still do find the BBC’s coverage to be horribly biased against Israel.

It isn’t just the words they use but the tone they use, the juxtaposition of the words and images, errors off omission, and also the time allocated to either side’s perspective.

As an example, when Nasrallah was killed, there was about 5 minutes about how Israel had killed a major leader of the Axis of Resistance, delivered in a stentorian and sad tone, pictures of mourning Lebanese and lots on whether this wouldn’t push the conflict over the edge (with lots of powerful images of the bombing, crying women etc). There was then a very brief cut to the IDF statement with very little comment.

Both Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen have been accused of antisemitism many many times over the years, but they are knowledgeable, clever and slippery. And, most importantly, very litigious with licence payer’s money. It is very hard to nail them as, as I mentioned above, a lot of it is about juxtaposition, tone and only telling half the story (see link attached).

But maybe I am wrong? I would love to hear others’ opinions. Remember this is about BBC bias only, not your overall view on Israel or the ‘Axis of Resistance’.

In am curious about his as well it seems the BBC still doesn't like the word terrorist. It is important to use this term because there is a n attempt to rewrite the narrative such that Hamas were attacking military outposts and there was collateral damage which is quite absurd.

Like the people who were at a concert on October 7th

Firstly the stats come from the health ministry- they literally count bodies, not investigate the most recent occupation of the deceased.
How would you determine who was a terrorist? The family members themselves don’t even know in many cases. Would you look for a membership card on the body? Would you call a petty civil servant employed by the Hamas regime a terrorist? How about a teacher of a nurse whose pay was channeled through the Hamas administration?What about the many individuals whose bodies were in pieces or burned beyond recognition?
I think that you’re pretty smart and that really your comment is just another way of politely saying “ most of them deserved to die” , part of what has been described as the “slick branding” of Israel as the most injured party in a war.
Furthermore, all major media have acknowledged the tactical achievements of Israel but all are equally baffled at how that translates into any long term gain. They have no option but to just factually describe what occurred. When you look at the enormous craters where whole blocks of apartments stood, the displacement of 1.5 million Lebanese and the loss of life that exceeds that of 7/10, the devastation and lack of strategy are more striking than any clever assassinations.

I agree it is difficult to distinguish between civilian and terrorist but surely the terrorists have arms (weapons)? There are Hamas combatants being killed but Hamas don't release those figures. We know Hamas has around 30000 combatants prior to the war so how many now? OK there is a an information vacuum but do we need to take a Hamas health ministry figures as entirely plausible?

As for the strategic gains for Israel if significant degradation of Hamas and Hezbollah can be achieved you may have set back these groups significantly and also they may find it difficult to recruit as joining may look like a suicide mission. It could be that the balance of power is changed in the middle East and I don't the media should any away from discussing historical shifts in geopolitics.

I do think there has to be an off ramp somewhere but Israel will continue with this war as it is winning in simple military terms.

do we need to take a Hamas health ministry figures as entirely plausible?

No. Definitely no. There is a letter from USA doctors that have been volunteering in Gaza estimating around 120k civilians killed. Hamas 40k. So, it’s quite likely that those killed is much higher than the official numbers provided by Hamas

joining may look like a suicide mission.

its quite likely they’ll be killed regardless.

also, I keep reading comments from you that hamas and hezbollah might be defeated. This is not what it looks like. There keeps being attacks on Israel and IDF coming from Hamas and Hezbollah

from the guardian

Israel’s recent tactical successes, though impressive, have failed to deliver the strategic breakthroughs Netanyahu seeks. Despite destroying parts of Hezbollah’s leadership, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been unable to achieve one of their core objectives: pushing Hezbollah north of the Litani River to secure northern Israel. This failure leaves displaced Israelis unable to return home, as Hezbollah’s presence and capabilities remain intact. In recent days, Hezbollah has sharply escalated its attacks on Israel, striking deeper into Israeli territory and repelling an Israeli ground invasion. An Israeli offensive resultedin the deaths of at least eight IDF soldiers, with reports of a subsequent IDF retreat.

Meanwhile, Hamas continues to demonstrate its resilience in Gaza, regularly launchingattacks on Israeli forces. As a former Israeli general recently admitted that Hamas had retaken towns within “15 minutes” of Israeli withdrawals, underscoring the group’s enduring strength and the limits of Israel’s tactical gains in securing lasting control.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/04/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-conflict

@mids2019 the ministry figures increasingly look to be underestimates.

@EasterIssland ,

The number of killed is not indicative of who is right or which side is more ethical.

Terrorists don’t care about civilians and I am sure even you wouldn’t deny that both Hamas and Hezbollah use human shields. I don’t think anyone can explain why Hezbollah had a meeting in a reinforced bunker under a residential building in Beirut without accepting that the people above them were merely, to them, shields.

The reality is that if you attack civilians in a country with superior military technology , as Hamas did (they were deliberately targeted, not in any sense collateral damage), you are going to suffer more damage long term however ethically Israel fought back. Look at 9/11 and the repercussions to Al Qa’eda and the Afghanistan for sheltering and arming them.

No country wants a ‘fair’ fight with equal casualties on both sides and nor should they. As Iran themselves said, they are more ‘resilient’ than Israel due to their huge population and massive surface area. Israel doesn’t have that luxury with a tiny population and surface area.

I think asking about the end game is the right question and, probably the only thing we will agree on is favouring a permanent two state solution, with both Israelis and Palestinians safe within their borders and able to live life with freedom and aspirations.

I think the vast majority of the Arab world would now be happy to coexist with Israel. Most have moved on from the 1940s, but Iran and her sponsored terrorists haven’t. Sadly, Iran was one of the first countries to recognise Israel prior to 1978 and had a thriving Jewish community within it.

I do think that the route to the two state solution is regime change in Iran from within, caused by economic and military weakness. This would also be far better for the Iranians themselves, most of whom hate the theocratic rule that they have to live in.

And I still find the description of 07/10 as an ‘offensive’ caused by years of unrest to be offensive and biased language.

If you are sitting on the other side of this fence to me, how would you like the illegal Jewish settlers harassing peaceful West Bank Palestinian farmers described as an ‘offensive’ and justified in terms of some kind of long term struggle?

@Newbutoldfather I agree that the language used was offensive. A terrorist attack should be called a terrorist attack.

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint#/Complaint

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

These two links may be helpful?

@Scirocco I agree that the language used was offensive. A terrorist attack should be called a terrorist attack.

And herein lies the problem. How do you define a terrorist attack?

It might be hard to define a terrorist attack but an attack that aims elicit terror in a wider population is a pretty good starting point. You don’t need a definition to tell you that a brutal attack on a civilian population--innocent villagers and festival goers, children , elderly, sexual violence and other gratuitous violence of many kinds, looting and degrading treatment of all sorts, abduction, psychological torture- why would you need a definition to know that 7/10 was an appalling terrorist attack? A “terrorist attack” conjures up a single car bomb, not loss of life on this scale.I think the BBC report assumes that this is what normal people think and places the event in context that Hamas started it against the background of the more longstanding conflict.There no real single word in the English language that can describe a terror attack like 7/10.

@Kindatired ,

No media organisation had the slightest problem of describing 9/11 as a terrorist attack, despite 5,000 odd lives lost.

It’s quite simple, it’s an attack by terrorists. Hamas is designated a terrorist group by lots of governments including UK. The BBC is an embarrassment

@Newbutoldfather Fair enough. But 7/10 was not on the scale of the terrorist attacks that had been happening since the last episode of war

Whatever labels are applied to whatever action, and yes I agree they can be applied in a way that aims to construct a narrative that dismiss or justify harm, and that’s important. I think the main thing we should focus on is the level of harm caused and the factors that led to that.