BBC documentary - children of Gaza

[SmokeRingsOfMyMind]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/feb/17/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-review-these-incredible-children-offer-a-sliver-of-hope

Did anyone see this last night? Heartbreaking and enraging in equal measure.

Property and land are 2 different things, but if they weren’t, do you think the Jews that were removed from Gaza by Israel should’ve been able to stay?

Apparently not.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/05/nine-unrwa-staff-members-may-have-been-involved-in-7-october-attack

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/investigation-completed-allegations-unrwa-staff-participation-7-october

Just seen the coverage around the scandal over this documentary. Absolutely shocking. Damage has been done and can’t be undone.

Why when it comes to Jews is it ALWAYS retrospective apologies rather than, I dunno, just not doing it in the first place?

How about an actual British hostage saying she was held at UNWRA facilities? or does “believe women” not count when it comes to Jews?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj91ygv803xo

Their relationship with Hamas
The fact American billionaires are considered refugees
The anti Semitic text books given to children in Gaza?

UNWRA is an absolute disgrace

Bullshit, the only other person I can think of who’s bombed hospitals is Putin, hospitals containing civilians are never legitimate targets but maybe Israel’s dystopian AI targeting system disagrees like you, it lacking a heart or compassion

If hospitals or any civilian infrastructure are used for acts considered "harmful to the enemy" then they can be targeted.
So the onus is on Hamas not to hide within civilian infrastructure, and not to launch rockets from said infrastructure.

Unwra have over 30,000 staff

That’s all right then. 🙄

9 out of 30,000???

Yes employees of an anti semitic organisation were involved in anti semitic terror but there’s nothing to see here there were only 9 god stop making a big deal 🙄

What do people think about the BBC statement on the documentary and the acknowledgement of the serious flaws involved in its making?

The terrorist captors may have been trying to keep her safer there. She and they may have been disguised.

I think it would have been nicer if they didn’t film the son of a terrorist as part of their biased programme making and sorry doesn’t really cut it.

I've created a new thread specifically about this. So far surprisingly quiet from certain posters!

????

Ah thanks I will have a look!

Name changed😉

The whole affair is a stinking mess. But I give the BBC some credit for speed and openness in its review so far. They don’t seem to have shirked anything.

I continue to believe in the BBC as the best we’ll ever do for properly funded TV news and current affairs. But they’ll have to have a thorough examination of editorial checks and oversight.

I hope this doesn’t spark the sort of vandalism of the BBC that Blair went in for after the Hutton Report on the dodgy dossier story. I’ve never met anyone who thought that report was right.

I just checked Gary Lineker's twitter account and he hasn't commented either.

I don't get it, what did they think was going to happen? You're not allowed to work with Hamas. It's not something you can just wave away because you don't like the guy who pointed out it was Hamas they were working with.

Although there seems to be a move on this thread to excuse other people working with Hamas too. 🤦‍♀️

Rummly the BBC wouldn't have done anything if it hadn't been for an independent journalist to call them out. The BBC needs shaking up and go back to thorough editorial processes.

Yes, I accept that. But I think that’s a reason for review and repair, not destruction.

I think they'll have sought a bit of legal advice on how to word it to minimise legal consequences, but there's not really much getting around that BBC money went to the production company to make this and ended up in a bank account of a Hamas minister's family, thus putting licence fee payers' money in the hands of a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

If the production company were paying the family, they will have known who the family was. While an agriculture minister post might not be a military post, it is a ministerial post in government. Generally speaking, ministerial posts in most countries are considered leadership positions and representative of the government. In the UK, if people in ministerial posts wish to disagree with the government on important matters, they're expected to resign from their ministerial post. This isn't the equivalent of an entry level civil administrative job or being paid by the government for a maintenance position.

I'm actually really angry with this. There are thousands of Palestinian children whose stories are going untold, and thousands of Palestinian families destroyed by this conflict. Parents left unable to bury their children or have any trace of them to mourn. Children left orphaned and with traumatic amputations. Babies dying of hypothermia and preventable illness. The production company could have insisted on helping them speak, giving a platform to them. Instead, there is now no way the documentary can retain credibility in the eyes of many, and this will likely prevent further efforts to genuinely tell the stories of the children of Gaza as well as reducing people's willingness to consider accounts coming out of Gaza.

This isn't amplifying their voices. Through their actions and inactions, the production company and the BBC have contributed to the silencing of Palestinian voices.

Oh, and they gave licence fee payers' money to Hamas. Who are a proscribed terrorist organisation. I'm not surprised the production company isn't commenting - they'll be lawyering up.

So, I think a lot of us should be rather annoyed with them. If I paid a licence fee, I'd cancel it. I don't, so I can't.

Great post, @Scirocco , agree with every word.

I agree.

@Wildflowers99
Yes clearly property and land are different but you are missing the point that there are laws covering ownership of both. And not not sure how this relates to the rest of your post.

Anyway- the land in Gaza was annexed by Israel by force in 1967 and was never recognised as being part of Israel legally by international law, a bit like its other occupied Palestinian land.

So Israel was giving back land that it didn’t legally own in the eyes of international community.