In what way can appealing for funds to help people in a humanitarian disaster by seen as taking sides?

[Nantucket]

The BBC's stance on this seems very weak to me.

I agree thier impartiality is crucial, but how would an appeal for help for poeple in crisis compromise that?

Which 'side' doesn't want help for people in Gaza that they could be seen to be upsetting?

Surely they have run appeals for support for humanitarian disasters following a war situation before? This is a genuine quesion I can't think of one right now.

How do I complain to the BBC? Anyone want to join me?

"The thinness of the BBC's case was exposed by Ms Thomson's claim that it had refused to carry aid appeals before, for Lebanon and Afghanistan. In neither case were those appeals made by the DEC; the fact that a committee of 13 aid agencies is able to agree an appeal ought to be testimony to the degree of consensus that the humanitarian crisis is above politics."
from The Independent today

So it seems they weren't DEC appeals?

Has it refused DEC appeals before? The information on this seesm rather sketchy.

The world is not only NOT allowed to oppose Israel or even criticise it (because we all know that means you are anti-Semite and/or racist) but we are NOT even allowed to help their victims after they are bombed back to the stone age.

Didn't you know?

I am glad to see the BBC welcoming Jonathan Ross back into the fold with open arms though. Nice to get your priorities right. We DO want to see/hear overpaid navel gazing twats who make abusive comments to all and sundry. We DO NOT want to see/hear about children having phosphorous shells dropped on them so that their limbs and eyes are burned out of existence.

Well said Donnie.

And just how much publicity has the appeal received by not broadcasting the advert? Tony Benn was even encouraged on the Today programme to highlight ways in which listeners could donate . I think in the circumstances the BBC are winning both ways - appearing to be impartial and ensuring maximum publicity. They're more clever then we give them credit for at times.

Disagree totally. This is not a humanitarian crisis, this is a war. Let's be honest about it. It's not an earthquake, a flood or anything not man made.

I agree with the BBC totally.

OneLIeIn - I am sickened by your callous disregard for human suffering.

The DEC has made appeals for victims of other wars - for example in Sri Lanka.

Hundreds of innocent people have been have been killed, mutilated and bereaved. The infrastructure has been destoyed. The hospitals that remain are full to overflowing and lacking in basic medicines.

We could debate for years about who is to blame. But I don't think many decent, sane people would say that the babies and young children who have been burned and blasted to bits in any way "deserve" this.

If Israel had suuffred similar carnage, I would have no problem whatsoever with the BBC broadcasting appeals for charitable donations. In fact, I would probably donate.

And meant to add, that to me this decision has shown, quite clearly, whose "side" the BBC is on.

There is no similar appeal for Israeli victims because there hasn't been such widespread destruction and carnage.

ScarletLily, I think this is complex and I really have tried to see both sides of the coin.

I guess its a case of when an institution run by the country and paid for by the people should advertise for funds or not. In the case of terrorism, so Iraq, Afghanistan? In the case of civil war? In the case of war?

I don't think the BBC should advertise in any of the above cases at all. DEC has access to lots of other ways and means.

Ok, I'm going to be very shallow here, but this is what I am going to do. Boycott watching all progarmes on the BBC apart from Eastenders.

*programmes

Just heard Mark Thomas (Thomson?), Dir Gen of the BBC anyway, saying in an extended interview with John Humphrys on the Today programme that they plan to continue highlight the appeal at every given opportunity throughout the day(s) but not actually broadcast the stand alone advert - best of both worlds - win/win for the BBC.

I think the BBC has to take this position

I don't see how it cannot

"this is not a humanitarian crisis it's a war" oh, so if you're made homeless or hospitalised because of acts of men your situation is neither a crisis nor of humanitarian concern? you are less deserving of assistance than if made homeless or hospitalised by an earthquake? last time I looked the world had moved on from the idea of victims of war somehow being undeserving and/or the problem of the "side" to which they "belong". the law that regulates war is called international humanitarian law and it is about limiting the humanitarian consequence of war on the civilians who had nothing to do with the war.

"there hasn't been a situation like in Sudan with (non combat) people fleeing to refugee camps which then need support" erm...that's because there's nowhere for them to flee to. oh and in case you hadn;t realised most of them they already live in refugee camps.

[apologies for my methodology - there are several comments on here that I just have to respond to - mainly because they are factually barmy - and I'm doing them one at a time]

the bbc has aired other DEC appeals, incluing Sudan and DRC. It has also refused to air appeals including Lebanon in 2006.

Arab countries already give huge amount of humanitarian support to Palestinans - and have done for years.

DRC was not blatant genocide with only one side at fault. the conflict in DRC is one of the most complex conflicts of recent years with many many "sides" - which is partly why it has proved so intractable. I think you might be getting your African conflicts confused.

sky have now joined the bbc in saying they won't broadcast the appeal.

And pmsl at whoever said they were going to boycott bbc programmes except eastenders. And that will achieve what exactly? the only way people could actually boycott the bbc would be to get rid of their televisions thus not having to pay a licence fee. The bbc isn't actually affected by people boycotting their programmes..

and, if you hadn;t guessed, my own take on this is that I am utterly enraged at the very idea that broadcasting on appeal for help could be interpreted as partial. If it's partial to help the thousands of civilians - including children - in need of shelter, medical treatment, food, what does that imply of the Israelis?

In doing this the BBC have lost their impartiality. They have clearly decided that there are sides on this and they have chosen which side to be on!

It is no longer about the citizens of Gaza and the help they need, the BBC have blurred the edges and have made it a political issue.

My gut feeling is that BBC should have decided to air the appeal (they have aired appeals related to other war-torn places, like Darfur).

HOWEVER, I am very disturbed at the way the Beeb seems to be getting bullied into airing it (especially the proposed Commons motion), that is All Wrong.