The BBC’s report on the ‘Breaking the Silence’ testimonies of IDF soldiers describing the commission of serious war crimes during Operation Cast Lead is pretty representative of its output on the topic: there’s nothing outrageous, but there is nonetheless a systematic bias that underplays or ignores the most serious accusations levelled against Israel, juxtaposes Palestinian and Israeli claims without citing other credible sources (which typically overwhelmingly support the Palestinian case), and presents Israeli claims without serious challenge.
Here’s my complaint:
From: [Me]
To: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
CC: steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk; malcolm.balen@bbc.co.uk
Subject: Complaint about ‘Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza’ article
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:45:28 +0100
- The article states that:
“Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.”
That’s true, but they also corroborate allegations by human rights organisations of willful killings of civilians and destruction of civilian property. Isn’t this worth mentioning?
- The article gives Israel’s account of the reasons for the operation:
“Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.”
No alternative explanation for the operation is presented, and neither are relevant facts that might cast doubt upon Israel’s stated rationale (e.g. the fact that Hamas had adhered to the June ceasefire for months despite Israel’s refusal to lift the siege, and that it was openly calling for another ceasefire on the same terms). As a result Israel’s claim about the objectives of ‘Operation Cast Lead’ is left to stand unchallenged.
- The article states:
“Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.”
That’s correct, although the Israeli casualty figure you give includes four deaths from ‘friendly fire’, which should be noted. The juxtaposition of the claims of Palestinian rights groups with those of the Israeli government is repeated in the ‘DIFFERENT DEATH TOLLS’ fact box:
“Palestinians killed during Israeli military offensive in Gaza, 27 Dec to 18 Jan – Palestinian claims followed by Israelis claims:
Total dead: 1,434 / 1,166Fighters: 235 / 710-870Non-combatants: 906 / 295-460Women: 121 / 49Children under 16: 288 / 89″
“Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including some 300 children, and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, including more than 115 women and some 85 men aged over 50 during the 22-day Operation “Cast Lead”…
The Israeli army has put the death toll at 1200 and maintains that most of those killed were not civilians but it has failed to provide any lists or any information indicating on what they base their figures.” [2]
- The article states:
“An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.”
It fails to mention that IDF investigations have long been criticised by multiple human rights organisation as being blatantly unfair and partial. To pick just one example, Human Rights Watch reported:
“The Israeli military’s findings about the conduct of its forces in Gaza, announced on April 22, lack credibility and confirm the need for an impartial international inquiry into alleged violations by both Israel and Hamas…
‘The investigative results make clear that the Israeli military will not objectively monitor itself,’ said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. ‘The conclusions are an apparent attempt to mask violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces in Gaza. Only an impartial inquiry will provide a measure of redress for the civilians who were killed unlawfully.’” [3]
Surely such information must be provided if readers are to be able to evaluate the significance of Israel’s inquiries for themselves?
best wishes,
[JamieSW]
_____
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8149464.stm
[2] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/021/2009/en/9543003e-8282-4a1c-b4c9-bfc4743dc131/mde150212009eng.html
[3] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/23/israelgaza-israeli-military-investigation-not-credible
Response from BBC:
From: newsonline@bbc.co.uk
Subject: (No Subject)
Date: 17 July 2009 16:06:46
Dear ,
Thanks for your email regarding this report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8149464.stm
Taking your points one at a time:
- We used the words “indiscriminate and disproportionate” at this point in the report because these are categories used to judge the conduct of war under international law. We go into the detail of particular actions later in the report and the reports linked off it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151611.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151336.stm
- In an article that details a range of alleged war crimes committed by the Israeli military it is fair and reasonable to give the official Israeli reasons for launching the war. We have covered in other articles the various arguments about who broke the ceasefire and how.
- The question of the death tolls is a vexed one – especially the balance of civilians to militants. We covered the Amnesty International report in detail. As I understand it, their figures depend on an analysis of figures that had previously been provided by the Palestinian human rights groups. Again it is fair to represent the Israeli account.
- When we reported the IDF investigation findings, we reported the criticism of the investigations. Also, the Breaking the Silence allegations provide a very powerful repudiation of the official IDF investigations.
Best regards,
Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News Website
My response:
To: newsonline@bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Date: 17 July 2009 17:25:12
Hi Tarik,
Many thanks for the response. I’ll address each of your points in turn:
“We used the words “indiscriminate and disproportionate” at this point in the report because these are categories used to judge the conduct of war under international law. We go into the detail of particular actions later in the report and the reports linked off it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151611.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151336.stm“
I don’t have any problem with those two articles. That the article I wrote in about contains links to them does not, however, make up for its own lack of balance, particularly when it was (when I checked, at any rate) the most prominent of the three on the BBC website.
Deliberate killings of civilians are also a recognised, and prohibited, phenomena under international law, distinct from both ‘proportionality’ and ‘discrimination’ [1]. The Breaking the Silence testimonies indicate that some soldiers willfully killed Palestinian civilians. That this corroborates allegations of willful killings, as well as of “indiscriminate and disproportionate” killings, by human rights organisations should have been mentioned.
“In an article that details a range of alleged war crimes committed by the Israeli military it is fair and reasonable to give the official Israeli reasons for launching the war. We have covered in other articles the various arguments about who broke the ceasefire and how.”
I have no problem with giving the official Israeli reasons for launching the war. I do have a problem with presenting them unchallenged, which this article did. There is much controversy about the objectives behind ‘Cast Lead’, and there are plenty of facts that undermine Israel’s stated justifications (e.g. Hamas’s willingness to adhere to a ceasefire). In this context it’s not ‘balanced’ to present only one side of the story.
“The question of the death tolls is a vexed one – especially the balance of civilians to militants. We covered the Amnesty International report in detail. As I understand it, their figures depend on an analysis of figures that had previously been provided by the Palestinian human rights groups. Again it is fair to represent the Israeli account.”
Once again, I have no problem with presenting the Israeli account. My point was that by merely juxtaposing the Israeli and Palestinian accounts, you ignore the fact, and readers are left unaware of the fact, that the Palestinian version has been widely corroborated and supported by independent, internationally-respected organisations like Amnesty International.
Also, my understanding is that the Hamas administration in Gaza has its own figures for the death toll [2]. Wouldn’t those be the more appropriate source to contrast with the Israeli government’s figures? Then the reports of independent organisations like the PCHR, Al Mezan and AI could be cited as well, giving a much more balanced picture overall: the views of both governments and of independent human rights organisations would be represented.
“When we reported the IDF investigation findings, we reported the criticism of the investigations. Also, the Breaking the Silence allegations provide a very powerful repudiation of the official IDF investigations.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t find this repeated defence of ‘we have reported so-and-so elsewhere’ very convincing. I’m talking about this article. That you may have presented criticisms of the IDF’s internal inquiry in the past does not change the fact that this article offers the conclusions of the IDF without any explicit challenge. It would have required only an extra line or two to include HRW’s observation about the partiality and bias of IDF inquiries, for example. As it is, readers who did not read or who don’t remember your previous articles on the topic will be left ignorant of the fact that virtually no-one outside the Israeli government considers internal IDF inquiries to be anything more than a farce.
best,
[JamieSW].
______
[1] http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/willful-killing.html. Here’s the Red Cross:
“From these principles more specific rules were developed, such as the prohibition of direct attacks against civilians or the civilian population as such or against civilian objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks and the obligation to take precautionary measures with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.” http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_conduct_of_hostilities?OpenDocument
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Media | 3 Comments
Tags: BBC, bias, Cast Lead, complaint, Gaza, IDF, Tarik Kafala
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
I don’t usually get a reply, but still – let’s them know we’re on to ‘em. The factbox I was talking about has now been replaced with a box of Paul Wood not saying anything.
Love it dude!
Bravo! Nice one!