How is forced starvation allowed?

[Tinycatnoise]

The top story in the BBC right now is the starvation of Gazans by Israel. The images are horrifying and not dissimilar to seeing those images of concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I cried seeing those and am crying now. I am sure someone will claim antisemitism because of this statement, but anyone looking at these images of starving children would agree.

How is this still going on? I feel like we are watching a genocide take place that the world has turning a blind eye to. The daily shooting by Israel of people trying to get aid too is just barbaric. If nothing is being done to stop this, what is the next horror that will unfold in the world that people will just accept?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9xkx7vnmxo

Aleppo in Syria for one.

Trigger warning- image of very thin child, taken by Gaza soup kitchen:

www.instagram.com/p/DMrW7NZtC8t/?igsh=cDdheWVwdDU0aGx3

Boris did, they mentioned well-documented findings from politically neutral medical and humanitarian sources like the WHO, UN, and Médecins Sans Frontières

https://x.com/EyeonPalestine/status/1949769774298206707/photo/1

This is their open letter on it from early July. They are willing to take the risk

130 global leaders of news and press freedom organisations call on world leaders, governments, and international institutions to act immediately to ensure journalists from outside Gaza are given immediate, independent access to the territory.

The call was made in a letter coordinated by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters without Borders (RSF).

After 20 months of almost complete exclusion of international media from Gaza, the letter also demands the protection of Palestinian journalists currently reporting under siege in the territory.

Open letter from media and press freedom organisations on Gaza access

We, the undersigned, call for immediate, independent, and unrestricted international media access to Gaza and for full protection of journalists who continue to report under siege.

For 20 months, the Israeli authorities have refused to grant journalists outside of Gaza independent access to the Palestinian territory – a situation that is without precedent in modern warfare. Local journalists, those best positioned to tell the truth, face displacement and starvation. To date, nearly 200 journalists have been killed by the Israeli military. Many more have been injured and face constant threats to their lives for doing their jobs: bearing witness. This is a direct attack on press freedom and the right to information.

We understand the inherent risks in reporting from war zones. These are risks that many of our organizations have taken over decades in order to investigate, document developments as they occur, and understand the impacts of war.

At this pivotal moment, with renewed military action and efforts to resume the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, it is vital that Israel open Gaza’s borders for international journalists to be able to report freely and that Israel abides by its international obligations to protect journalists as civilians.

We call on world leaders, governments, and international institutions to act immediately to ensure this.

Signed by:

Actualite.cd, Patient Ligodi, Founder (Democratic Republic of Congo)
Agence France-Presse, Phil Chetwynd, Global News Director (France)
Agência Pública, Natália Viana, Executive Director (Brazil)
Al Araby Al Jadeed, Hussam Kanafani, Director of Media Sector
Al Jazeera Center of Public Liberties & Human Rights, Sami Alhaj, Director (Qatar)
Al-Masdar Online, Ali al-Faqih, CEO (Yemen)
Alternative Press Syndicate (Lebanon)
Amazônia Real, Kátia Brasil, Director (Brazil)
Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), Rawan Daman, Director General
ARTICLE 19
Asia Pacific Report, David Robie, Editor (New Zealand)
Associated Press, Julie Pace, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President (USA)
Association of Foreign Press Correspondents, Nancy Prager-Kamel, Chair (USA)
Bahrain Press Association (Bahrain)
Birama Konaré, Director General, Joliba (Mali)
BirGun Daily, Yasar Aydin, News Coordinator (Turkey)
Brecha, Betania Núñez, Journalistic Director (Uruguay)
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Deborah Turness, CEO, BBC News (UK)
Bulatlat, Ronalyn V. Olea, Editor-in-Chief (Philippines)
CamboJA, Nop Vy, Executive Director (Cambodia)
Casbah Tribune, Khaled Drareni, Editorial Director (Algeria)
Cedar Centre for Legal Studies (CCLS) (Lebanon)
Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), Milka Tadić Mijović, Editor-in-Chief
Churchill Otieno, Executive Director, Eastern Africa Editors Society & President, Africa Editors Forum (Kenya)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Jodie Ginsberg, CEO
Community Peacemaker Teams (CPT) (Iraqi Kurdistan)
Confidencial.digital, Carlos F. Chamorro, Director (Nicaragua, in exile)
Connectas, Carlos Eduardo Huertas, Director (The Americas)
Daraj Media, Hazem al Amin, Editor-in-Chief, Alia Ibrahim, CEO and Diana Moukalled, Managing Editor (Lebanon)
Dawn newspaper, Zaffar Abbas, Editor (Pakistan)
De Último Minuto, Hector Romero, Director (Dominican Republic)
Delfino.CR, Diego Delfino Machín, Director (Costa Rica)
Deník Referendum, Jakub Patocka, Editor in chief and publisher,
Digital Radio-télévision DRTV, William Mouko Zinika Toung-Hou, Assistant Director of Information (Congo-Brazzaville)
Droub, Murtada Ahmed Mahmoud Koko, General Director (Sudan)
Efecto Cocuyo, Luz Mely Reyes, Director (Venezuela)
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) (Egypt)
El Ciudadano, Javier Pineda, Director (Chile)
El Diario de Hoy, Óscar Picardo Joao, Editorial Director (Salvador)
El Espectador, Fidel Cano Correa, Director (Colombia)
El Faro, Carlos Dada, Co-founder and Director (El Salvador)
El Mostrador, Héctor Cossio, Director (Chile)
El Sol de México, Martha Citlali Ramos, National Editorial Director (Mexico)
El Universal, David Aponte, Directeur général éditorial (Mexico)
elDiarioAR, Delfina Torres Cabreros, Journalistic Director (Argentina)
ENASS, Salaheddine Lemaizi, Director (Morocco)
Équipe Média, Mohamed Mayara, General Coordinator (Western Sahara)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary
European Broadcasting Union, Liz Corbin, Director of News
Eyewitness Media Group, Patrick Mayoyo, Director Editorial Innovations
Financial Times, Roula Khalaf, Editor (UK)
Forbidden Stories, Laurent Richard, Founder (France)
Foreign Press Association, Deborah Bonetti, Director (London)
Foreign Press Association, the board (Israel and the Palestinian Territories)
Foundation for Investigative Journalism – FIJ, Fisayo Soyombo, Founder and Editor (Nigeria)
France 24, Vanessa Burggraf, Director (France)
Free Press Unlimited, Ruth Kronenburg, Executive Director
Front Page Africa, Rodney Sieh, Editor in Chief and Editor (Liberia)
GabonClic.info, Randy Karl Louba, Director, (Gabon)
Geneva Health Files, Priti Patnaik, Founder
Geo News, Azhar Abbas, Managing Editor (Pakistan)
Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN), Emilia Diaz-Struck, Executive Director
Global Reporting Centre, Sharon Nadeem, Producer and Head of Partnerships
Guineematin.com, Nouhou Baldé, Founder and administrator, (Guinea)
Haaretz, Aluf Benn, Editor in Chief (Israel)
7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Nadim Nashif, Executive Director (Palestine\Israel)
Hildebrandt en sus trece, César Hildebrandt, Director, (Peru)
HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement, Mostafa Fouad, Executive Director
Independent Television News, Rachel Corp, Chief Executive (UK)
Inkyfada, Malek Khadhraoui, Director of publication (Tunisia)
International News Safety Institute (INSI), Elena Cosentino, Director (UK)
International Press Institute (IPI), Scott Griffen, Executive Director
IWACU, Abbas Mbazumutima, Editor in Chief (Burundi)
Klix.ba, Semir Hambo, Editor in Chief (Bosnia-Herzegovina)
L’Alternative, Ferdinand Ayité, Publishing Director (Togo)
L’Événement, Moussa Aksar, Publishing Director (Niger)
La Voix de Djibouti, Mahamoud Djama, Publishing Director (Djibouti)
Le Jour, Haman Mana, Publication Director, (Cameroun)
Le Monde, Jérôme Fenoglio, Director (France)
Le Reporter, Aimé Kobo Nabaloum, Publishing Director (Burkina Faso)
Le Temps, Madeleine von Holzen, Editor-in-Chief ((Switzerland)
Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) (Lebanon)
Luat Khoa, Trinh Huu Long, Editor-in-Chief (Vietnam)
Mada Masr, Lina Atallah, CEO (Egypt)
Mail & Guardian, Luke Feltham, Acting Editor-in-Chief (South Africa)
Malaysiakini, RK Anand, Executive Editor (Malaysia)
Mekong Review, Kirsten Han, Managing Editor (Singapore)
MediaTown, Ashraf Mashrawi, Director (Palestine)
MENA Rights Group (Switzerland)
Mizzima Media, Soe Myint, Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief (Myanmar)
Mullithivu Press Club – Kanapathipillai Kumanan, Photojournalist and Convener (Sri Lanka)
Muwatin Media Network, Mohammed Al-Fazari, CEO & Editor in Chief (UK)
Monte Carlo Doualiya (MCD), Souad Al-Tayeb, Director (France)
National Public Radio (NPR) Edith Chapin, SVP & Editor in Chief (USA)
New Bloom Magazine, Brian Hioe, Founding Editor (Taïwan)
Nord Sud Quotidien, Raoul Hounsounou, Publishing Director (Benin)
OC Media, Mariam Nikuradze, Co-founder and Co-director (Georgia)
Organización Editorial Mexicana, Martha C. Ramos Sosa, Directora General Editorial (México)
People Daily, Emeka Mayaka Gekara, Managing Editor (Kenya)
Photon Media, Shirley Ka Lai Leung, CEO (Hong Kong)
Plan V, Juan Carlos Calderón, Director (Equador)
Prachatai, Mutita Chuachang, Executive Editor (Thailand)
Premium Times, Musikilu Mojeed, Editor-in-Chief/Chief Operating Officer (Nigeria)
Pressafrik, Ibrahima Lissa Faye, Publishing Director (Senegal)
Prospect Magazine, Alan Rusbridger, Editor (UK)
Pulitzer Center, Marina Walker Guevara, Executive Editor (USA)
Rádio Ecclesia, Gaudêncio Yakuleingue, Directeur (Angola)
Radio Universidad de Chile, Patricio López, Director, (Chile)
Radio France Internationale (RFI), Jean-Marc Four, Director (France)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Thibaut Bruttin, Director General
Rory Peck Trust, Jon Williams, Executive Director (UK)
SMEX (Lebanon)
SMN24MEDIA, Kamal Siriwardana, Director News (Sri Lanka)
Society of Professional Journalists, Caroline Hendrie, Executive Director (USA)
Stabroek News, Anand Persaud, Director (Guyana)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, SCM (Syria)
Taz – die tageszeitung, Barbara Junge, Editor in Chief (Germany)
Tempo Digital, Wahyu Dhyatmika, Chief Executive Officer (Indonesia)
The Globe and Mail & President, World Editors Forum – (WAN-IFRA), David Walmsley, Editor-in-Chief, (Canada)
The Independent, Geordie Greig, Editor-in-Chief (UK)
The Intercept Brasil, Andrew Fishman, President & Co-Founder (Brazil)
The Legal Agenda (Lebanon)
The Magnet, Larry Moonze, Editor (Zambia)
The Nairobi Law Monthly, Mbugua Ng’ang’a, Editor-in-Chief (Kenya)
The New Arab, Hussam Kanafani, Director of Media Sector
The Point, Pap Saine, Publishing Director, (Gambia)
The Reckoning Project, Janine di Giovanni, CEO
The Shift, Caroline Muscat, Founder (Malta)
The Wire, Seema Chishti, Editor (India)
The World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), Vincent Peyrègne, CEO, Andrew Heslop, Executive Director Press Freedom,
TV Slovenia, Ksenija Horvat, Director (Slovenia)
Twala.info, Lyas Hallas, Publication Director (Algeria)
Unnu.news, Lkhagvatseren Batbayar, Editor-in-Chief (Mongolia)
Vikalpa – Sampath Samarakoon, Editor (Sri Lanka)
Wattan Media Network, Muamar Orabi, Director General (Palestine)
Woz – die Wochenzeitung, Florian Keller, Daniela Janser, Kaspar Surber, Editorial Board (Switzerland)

To be honest, there are a few organisations I previously assumed would have made an effort to report wars neutrally - for example the UN & the BBC - who have shown way more bias than I would have expected in this one.

How this war has been reported is educational when you read from lots of different sources.

It will be to prevent military info being released. We've all seen the rubble for months now aerial footage would not reveal more.

Yet it does not say 'if abducted and held hostage we absolutely will not call upon the IDF to assist' does it?

Understanding risks is one thing. Expecting others to rescue you is another.

'If we all know about the flatten of Gaza, why then ban filming? unless there is far more to see??'

Military positions, bases, equipment, personnel.

No aerial filming over a warzone is not a new thing, even Bowen should know this. I doubt the IDF are worried about photos of piles of rubble.

Are you referring to November 2024, when over 100 BBC staff members signed an open letter accusing the organisation of biased reporting in favour of Israel and lacking impartiality in its coverage of Gaza…?

Or the BBC’s decision not to air the documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, with some former journalists arguing that the choice reflected editorial cowardice and avoidance of critical perspectives…?

Or maybe the report by the Asserson Group- which analyzed BBC’s coverage and found instances where Palestinian perspectives were underrepresented, and Israeli actions were portrayed with more context and nuance?

That journalist was obviously embedded with Syrian Government forces. I doubt they would have let him wander on his own.

I disagree with the Battle of Aleppo being the same or even similar to the Gaza War as a large amount of the Aleppo population had the opportunity to flee before the siege, they weren’t deliberately used as human shields as a general rule, civilian infrastructure for military purposes was not used as has been in Gaza and there wasn’t the tunnel network and widespread use of booby traps the IDF have had to contend with either.

That’s why Israel so often dismisses or attacks respected news outlets and international organisations like the UN, the World Health Organization and the International Court of Justice. According to them Israel is the only one telling the truth and the only one acting in self-defence whilst everyone else is biased.

But many of these institutions were founded after World War II to help prevent future atrocities. The UN, for example, played a big role in establishing Israel in the first place, as part of an outpouring of sympathy to ensure Jewish safety after the Holocaust. So it’s quite striking (and frustrating) to see those same institutions being accused of anti-Israel bias just for doing their job whether that's reporting on civilian deaths, investigating potential war crimes, or providing emergency aid.

In wars organisations like WHO and UNRWA are often the only ones getting help to children and families. So it's deeply worrying when their work is undermined or politicised and it saddens me terribly that Isarel should have come to this point in it's development that it thinks it's advances it's long term aims.

Clearly over 130 press organisations know and understand what they are calling for. They have stated the refusal to grant journalists independent access is –
a situation that is without precedent in modern warfare. Why do you think you know better?

No I'm referring to things like the way the BBC don't refer to Hamas as terrorists & the way they report things Hamas say as if they are a reliable source. Interesting article in the Spectator yesterday (unfortunately behind a paywall)

The leaked email that blows apart the BBC’s impartiality claims over Gaza

A leaked internal email from a BBC executive editor reveals that the Corporation has issued prescriptive instructions to staff on how to cover the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The memo, titled ‘Covering the food crisis in Gaza’, amounts to a top-down editorial diktat that discards impartiality, elevates one side of a deeply contested narrative, and imposes a specific anti-Israel legal-political framing as settled fact. The existence of this email is a telling sign of how the Corporation works to ensure its journalists stick to its own ideological angles.

The email, which was sent to BBC staff on Friday, begins by declaring that ‘the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant’ and instructs staff that ‘we should say’ the current distribution system ‘doesn’t work’. It explicitly favours a particular explanation of suffering in Gaza: one that blames the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The BBC – which declined to comment on the email – appears content to accept casualty figures and starvation claims from Hamas-linked bodies or sympathetic NGOs as definitive, while dismissing or omitting Israeli data and counterclaims. The email directs staff to reference ‘mounting evidence’ of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-leaked-email-that-blows-apart-the-bbcs-impartiality-claims-over-gaza/

No I think they are referring to the fact that the BBCs reporting doesn't align with their opinion of the conflict therefore there is no other conclusion to reach except they must be biased against Israel.

They wouldn’t lift a finger to rescue them or even shed a tear if they believed those individuals had knowingly put themselves in harm’s way. That’s one of Rumsfeld’s known knowns. And even by conservative estimates, at least 20,000 Hamas fighters are still active in Gaza fighters who know the terrain intimately, every ruin and tunnel, with knowledge that only they possess.

In that context, journalists hardly pose a genuine security threat to the IDF. The deeper issue may be something else entirely: on some level, Israel appears ashamed of what has unfolded and fears the world seeing it through truly objective eyes.

By most reasonable assessments, this war has already failed in achieving the goal Netanyahu declared at the outset the destruction of Hamas. At this stage, it increasingly resembles an exercise in inhumane revenge and collective punishment rather than a strategic military campaign and one that serves only to keep him in power rather than face justice.

Exact numbers are impossible to confirm, given the lack of transparency.
Many sources now believe Hamas has regained much of its force through recruitment, replenishing fighters lost during intense conflict.
As a result, current estimates suggest 20,000 to 40,000 fighters remain in Gaza, with a central tendency between 30,000 and 35,000.
Despite battlefield losses, Hamas continues to operate via guerrilla tactics, including tunnel-based operations and hit-and-run attacks

It’s worth keeping in mind that The Spectator is an openly partisan publication with a long-standing pro-Israel editorial stance.

As for the BBC- they’re following long-standing editorial guidance not to use the word “terrorist” without attribution, not just for Hamas, but for any group, because it’s a loaded, subjective term. That policy has been in place for decades- including in coverage of IRA, Taliban, or Israeli settler violence.

Re: sources, the BBC has cited both Hamas-run ministries and Israeli sources, like the IDF or COGAT, often in the same reports. The accusation that they “accept Hamas figures uncritically” doesn’t quite hold up when you actually track their coverage over time.

And on the leaked email- it’s also worth asking: if there’s “mounting evidence” of famine and aid breakdowns coming from multiple independent orgs (like the UN, WFP, MSF, and HRW), is it really biased to report it plainly? Especially when children are dying of malnutrition?

I agree The Spectator has a pro Israel stance - still we refer to many different media sources on here don't we, including Al Jazeera etc.

But still - a leaked email from the BBC says what it says no matter who exposes the leak. I posted it so people can make up their own mind whether it shows BBC lack of impartiality or not. Personally, I think it does show a problem with impartiality where journalists are told what to say and even what to think re what is important & what is irrelevant.

Disgusting isn't it. Doesn't matter what the spectator supports this email is from the BBC. No wonder Jeremy Bowen spouts such crap.

Yes- a leaked email is worth looking at regardless of where it’s published.

But I notice you haven’t addressed the actual substance of what I wrote, particularly the final question:

if multiple independent organisations- the UN, WFP, MSF, HRW- are all reporting mounting evidence of starvation and aid system collapse, is it really a sign of BBC bias to reflect that in their coverage? Or just responsible reporting?

All media outlets, including the BBC, use editorial framing. I have friends in journalism, and they’ve been open about being given angles or narratives to work within. That’s not necessarily about ideological bias- it’s how newsrooms work, especially under pressure in humanitarian crises.

Having read the email-
If accurate, this does suggest editorial bias- though not necessarily that the BBC is “pro-Hamas” or “anti-Israel,” but that it’s actively shaping the humanitarian narrative in a particular way, possibly to emphasise suffering and minimise political complexity. But it’s not necessarily a sign of anti-Israel bias. Some might argue it’s the opposite- correcting for historic under-reporting of Palestinian suffering (see my list upthread).

What stands out is how quickly some shout “bias” when Palestinian suffering is centred but stay quiet when Israeli military briefings are repeated uncritically, or when entire contexts are stripped away. The real question isn’t whether the BBC is being too sympathetic to Palestinians- it’s why basic reporting on starvation and mass displacement feels threatening enough to be framed as bias at all.

These three statements are all factually supported and widely accepted by international legal and humanitarian bodies-

• The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution has been widely reported by the UN and NGOs as failing to meet the scale and needs of the crisis.

• Counting aid trucks is meaningless if the aid doesn’t effectively reach people—this is a standard humanitarian concern.

• And legally, Israel is considered the occupying power in Gaza by the UN and international law because of its control over borders, airspace, and movement.

@Wedonttalkaboutboris And on the leaked email- it’s also worth asking: if there’s “mounting evidence” of famine and aid breakdowns coming from multiple independent orgs (like the UN, WFP, MSF, and HRW), is it really biased to report it plainly? Especially when children are dying of malnutrition?

I'm not denying that there is mounting evidence of famine and malnutrition in Gaza. This should be reported and it is being reported.

But yes, the BBC can still be a biased organisation if they don't report the facts without bias. In my opinion staff should not be told that ‘the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant’ or told what they should say.

The email directs staff to reference ‘mounting evidence’ of starvation and deaths around aid centres, yet makes no mention of Hamas operatives looting convoys, obstructing access, or even firing on civilians attempting to collect food – allegations which have been made publicly by Israel and backed at times by video and eyewitness testimony.

They should refer to Hamas as the proscribed terrorists they are in the UK and not appear to accept them as a reputable source of information. It's fair enough if individual journalists want to write articles that are critical of Israel but there should be more attempt at balancing this with criticism of Hamas.

As I said,

the BBC are following long-standing editorial guidance not to use the word “terrorist” without attribution, not just for Hamas, but for any group, because it’s a loaded, subjective term. That policy has been in place for decades- including in coverage of IRA, Taliban, or Israeli settler violence.

Re: sources, the BBC has cited both Hamas-run ministries and Israeli sources, like the IDF or COGAT, often in the same reports. The accusation that they “accept Hamas figures uncritically” doesn’t quite hold up when you actually track their coverage over time.

I know that is their argument about not using the word "terrorist" to describe ...well... terrorist groups. But they aren't very critical of Hamas in any way that I have seen. Not calling them terrorists just adds to the general impression that the BBC prefer to think of Hamas as freedom fighters or something, which is not something I agree with.

I have tracked their coverage over time and I do consider them biased. Not the most biased media organisation though, not by a long way. Overall, I still consider them one of the more reputable sources (low bar).

We've gone down a side track - possibly time to get back to the subject of the thread?

Don’t worry- this one’s short enough to manage:

Reporting on mass starvation does not equal supporting Hamas. They have reported on Hamas atrocities. But the urgency right now is that children are dying of hunger

The BBC’s language policy has been consistent for decades.

If that feels biased, maybe the facts are just uncomfortable.