BBC succumbs to Israeli lobby, meets with UK gov. over Gaza film
4 Min Read
The government of the United Kingdom held an urgent meeting with the BBC over a Gaza documentary narrated by the child of a Gaza civil servant.
-
This photo shows a BBC sign outside the entrance to the headquarters of the publicly funded media organization in London, July 19, 2017 (AP)
The British government held an urgent meeting with the BBC on Friday regarding a documentary about children's lives in Gaza, which came under intense scrutiny, particularly from the Israeli lobby.
The BBC had long been accused of pro-Israeli bias, with even its internal employees and editors voicing their discontent with the broadcaster's editorial policy, particularly amid the war on Gaza.
Last week, BBC aired a documentary titled "Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone", narrated by the 13-year-old son of a deputy minister in the Gaza government in the Palestinian territory. As a result, the BBC decided to withdraw the documentary following pressure from pro-Israeli advocates, including the Israeli ambassador to the UK, as well as British officials such as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.
The film, which depicted the challenges faced by Palestinian children living under constant threat from Israeli bombardments, was seen by many as a crucial tool in “humanizing” the plight of Gaza's youngest victims.
"Utterly disgraceful" was how Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel described the BBC's decision to air the film, calling for a thorough investigation. It is worth noting that while "Israel" was warmongering in Gaza, Haskel supported dismantling and banning UNRWA, the UN organization providing relief for besieged Palestinian civilians, claiming it was filled with "terrorism".
As a result, the BBC eventually succumbed to the criticism and pulled the documentary.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, after announcing Friday’s meeting with BBC Chair Samir Shah, emphasized the need for a thorough review, stating, "I want assurances that no stone will be left unturned," referring to the broadcaster’s commitment to conduct a full fact-finding review and escalate the matter to its editorial complaints unit.
The broadcaster issued an apology for the documentary late on Thursday, stating that the processes and execution of its production did not meet expectations.
It acknowledged that both the production company and the BBC had made "unacceptable mistakes" that the BBC took full responsibility for.
However, many defended the documentary. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), expressed disappointment over the decision, calling it "a shame" that the documentary was removed under pressure from anti-Palestinian activists who lacked empathy for the suffering in Gaza. He highlighted the film's “valuable insights” into life in the warzone and praised its high-quality production, urging the BBC to reinstate the film.
Declassified lays bare pro-'Israel' bias
The controversy also raised concerns about the BBC’s editorial independence. Richard Sanders, a prominent filmmaker and journalist, described the decision as “cowardly” and warned that yielding to pressure from pro-Israeli lobbyists would set a “dangerous precedent” for the media’s coverage of Palestinian stories.
Earlier, two former BBC journalists told Declassified that the Sky and ITN playbooks were all too familiar, with one describing that after October 7, the systematic prejudice was evident, with the BBC openly "dehumanizing Palestinians across TV, radio, and online output."
One recalled a clear hierarchy of human life in the coverage, with "a deliberate focus on Israelis who lost their lives and hostages, with reporters naming them and developing narratives about them which were very sympathetic and humanizing, yet there was no such treatment for Palestinians."
That journalist described how senior staff's unwritten norms fostered a culture of censorship, saying, "The use of the word genocide is effectively banned, and any contributor who uses this word is immediately shut down."
Away from television, comparable patterns of systematic prejudice may be detected in the British press, at both liberal and conservative publications. A journalist from the right-wing Times daily recalls how language was constantly used to mold understanding. "In all my reports, phrases like ‘since October 2023’ were changed and edited to ‘since the Hamas attacks’."
"I wanted to be dispatched to the Middle East to do some stories that center Palestinians, having had some prior experience doing so. But I was denied, with ‘budgetary constraints’ cited as the reason. I later found out that a reporter who ordinarily covered Ukraine had instead been sent, despite having little experience in the region. They knew I didn’t attend the IDF briefings or regurgitate Israeli talking points like the other Times reporters, so instead let someone else go who would publish all the ‘right things’."
