The British media’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza

The British media’s complicity in Israel’s slaughter in Gaza
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
7 December 2023

Printed in full by Jadaliyya, on October 24 Rami Ruhayem, a BBC correspondent based in Beirut, sent an extraordinary email to BBC Director General Tim Davie, raising “the gravest possible concerns” about the corporation’s post October 7 coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“It appears to me that information that is highly significant and relevant is either entirely missing or not being given due prominence in coverage,” Ruhayem argued. “This includes expert opinion that Israel’s action could amount to genocide, evidence in support of that opinion, and historical context without which the public cannot form a basic understanding of the unfolding events.”

On October 18 over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies signed an open letter warning “about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces” in Gaza. The next day the UN experts group noted “there is… a risk of genocide against the Palestinian people.” And then on October 31 the Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights resigned in protest, arguing Israel’s actions against Palestinians are “a text-book case of genocide.”

Ruhayem also reasoned that while the Hamas terror attacks were a major news event, it doesn’t mean history started on October 7. “We should incorporate into our coverage an accurate, balanced, fair, and truthful representation of the reality leading up to that moment,” he urged, highlighting three terms usually omitted from BBC coverage: “apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism.”

Ruhayem concluded his brave challenge by noting “this is not about mistakes here and there, or even about systematic bias in favour of Israel. The question now is a question of complicity.”

Unsurprisingly the BBC hasn’t reported on the email, and from what I can tell neither has the UK national press, except for The Times.

However, it seems Ruhayem is far from alone at the BBC. Al Jazeera recently reported it had received a letter from eight UK-based journalists employed by the BBC, making similar complaints. They highlight double standards of the BBC’s coverage of Palestinian and Ukrainian civilians, and how terms such as “massacre” and “atrocity” have been “reserved only for Hamas”. They also criticise how Palestinian guests are repeatedly asked to “condemn Hamas”, with Israeli officials rarely, if ever, asked to condemn the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how high the death toll in Gaza.

Depressingly, all of this closely echoes the findings of Bad News From Israel, the Glasgow Media Group’s study of UK news coverage of the conflict published nearly 20 years ago. Referring to key historical events in the conflict – 1948 and 1967 – they conclude “Television news has largely denied its audiences an account” of the conflict’s history “and in doing so has both confused viewers and reduced the understanding of the actions of those involved.” They note, for example, “Many in our audience samples did not even understand that there was a military occupation or that it was widely seen as illegal.” The research also found there was an emphasis on Israeli casualties by television news – both in the amount of coverage and the language used – despite there being a greater number of Palestinian casualties. “In our samples of news content, words such as ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold-blood killing’ and ‘lynching’ were used by journalists to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians/Arabs.”

Though it has published some important reports about the assault on Gaza, The Guardian’s coverage has also routinely exhibited a pro-Israel, pro US-UK bias. For example, Guardian journalists have repeatedly stated the “conflict began on 7 October”. And the White House’s press office was no doubt thrilled by the liberal paper’s October 16 front page headline: US In Last Ditch Effort To Reduce Impact Of Israeli Assault On Gaza. In contrast, the Times of Israel reported on October 30 “The Pentagon continues to provide weapons shipments almost on a daily basis to Israel.” The story quoted Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh: “We are not putting any limits on how Israel uses weapons.”

The Guardian also gave the UK government the benefit of the doubt when it reported, on October 13, that Britain was sending surveillance aircraft, Royal Navy ships and 100 Royal Marines to the eastern Mediterranean. Why? “To support Israel and help prevent any sudden escalation of fighting in the Middle East,” Defence and Security Editor Dan Sabbagh explained. No doubt many readers were surprised to learn Gaza was no longer in the Middle East.

It gets worse. In a November 23 article The Guardian reported the Israeli hostages about to be released were “women and children”, while the Palestinian prisoners being released were “women and people aged 18 and younger” (a correction has since been made).

More broadly, from what I can tell none of the UK national media – except for the Morning Star – has deemed Declassified UK’s recent exclusive highlighting a huge increase in UK flights from the UK military base in Cyprus to Israel after October 7 to be newsworthy.

What explains the UK media’s coverage of the conflict? It’s worth remembering the media, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, tends to follow the UK government’s narrative and framing, with critical reporting largely limited to criticisms made by the parliamentary opposition. And we know the UK government, itself subservient to pro-Israel US foreign policy, has long had a close and supportive relationship with Israel, with deep military, intelligence and commercial ties between the two countries.

In addition, the evidence suggests a relatively powerful pro-Israel lobby has an impact on UK politics. According to the programme makers of the 2009 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups”. Likewise, Declassified UK recently revealed “Some 13 of the 31 members of Labour’s shadow cabinet have received donations from a prominent pro-Israel lobby group [Labour Friends of Israel] or individual funder [pro-Israel business tycoon Sir Trevor Chinn]”.

In his published diaries, Alan Duncan, de facto deputy foreign minister from 2016-19, recounts telling Simon McDonald, then Head of the UK diplomatic service, “The CFI and the Israelis think they control the Foreign Office. And they do!’”

No doubt Duncan was exaggerating for effect but a similar influence can be seen on media reporting. As one senior editor from a major BBC news programme revealed to Professor Greg Philo of the Glasgow Media Group: “We wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis.”

What all this means is that just like with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the public simply cannot trust the media to provide accurate, critical or historically contextual coverage of the war on Gaza.

And just like with Iraq, a huge chasm has opened up between the public and the establishment. So while BBC Today Programme presenter Amol Rajan recently let it slip that “as broadcasters we generally err on the side… of trying not to give too much airtime to protests”, hundreds of thousands of people marched for a ceasefire in London on November 12. This huge demonstration seems to reflect broader public opinion, with an October YouGov poll of Britons finding 76% of respondents also backed a ceasefire.

We know the Israeli government is hyper aware of global public opinion. Asked on November 13 what the “diplomatic window” for the military campaign in Gaza is, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen answered “two or three weeks”, according to the Times of Israel. As the BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen explains, Israel has two clocks. “One is military: how long do they need before they accomplish their military objectives? The other is diplomatic: how long does Israel hold legitimacy to carry out that operation before its allies say, ‘you’ve killed enough people, civilians, you need to stop now please.’”

The huge protest marches, train station sit-ins, school walkouts, tens of thousands of letters sent to MPs and direct action by groups including Palestine Action, Fossil Free London and Parents For Palestine are no doubt already influencing the decision-making of the UK political and media elite. The task now is to maintain and increase this popular pressure so the government is forced to shift away from backing Israel’s mass slaughter in Gaza.

Follow Ian on X @IanJSinclair.

List of experts and organisations describing Israel’s attack on Gaza as genocide, or warning there is a serious risk of genocide

List of experts and organisations describing Israel’s attack on Gaza as genocide, or warning there is a serious risk of genocide
by Ian Sinclair
21 December 2023

“…the assault on Gaza can also be understood in other terms: as a textbook case of genocide unfolding in front of our eyes. I say this as a scholar of genocide, who has spent many years writing about Israeli mass violence against Palestinians” – Raz Segal, an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide, 13 October 2023.

“As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” – 790 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, 15 October 2023.

‘There is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in the occupied Gaza Strip. In their public statements and speeches, Israeli officials have used dehumanizing language, describing Palestinians in Gaza as “human animals.” They have also been unequivocal in the goal of maximum harm, stating that the “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy” using “fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known”’ – US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, 18 October 2023.

“We are sounding the alarm: There is an ongoing campaign by Israel resulting in crimes against humanity in Gaza. Considering statements made by Israeli political leaders and their allies, accompanied by military action in Gaza and escalation of arrests and killing in the West Bank, there is also a risk of genocide against the Palestine people” – United Nations Experts (seven Special Rapporteurs), 19 October 2023.

“A text-book case of genocide” – Craig Mokhiber, Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 28 October 2023.

“As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening…  in justifying the assault, Israeli leaders and generals have made terrifying pronouncements that indicate a genocidal intent… My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action” – Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, 10 November 2023.

“Given the high threshold to establish a case of genocide under the UN convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (December 1948), particularly because of the requirement to prove an ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,’ it is remarkable… that much evidence points to the crime of genocide in Israel’s attack on Gaza after October 7, 2023” – Dr John Cox, Director of the Center for Holocaust, Genocide & Human Rights Studies, UNC Charlotte, Dr Victoria Sanford, Professor of Anthropology, Lehman College, and Dr Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Wake Forest University, 13 November 2023.

“Many of us already raised the alarm about the risk of genocide in Gaza. We are deeply disturbed by the failure of governments to heed our call and to achieve an immediate ceasefire. We are also profoundly concerned about the support of certain governments for Israel’s strategy of warfare against the besieged population of Gaza, and the failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide” – 41 United Nations Experts, 16 November 2023.

“I’ve warned three times [about] the risk that Israel might be committing the crime of genocide in Gaza… there has been calls to flatten Gaza, to erase Gaza from Earth, and to kill the Gazans because they are ‘also responsible for what Hamas has done’ and there is no distinction here between civilians and militants” – Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian Territories, 20 November 2023.

‘Slaughter of civilians on such an industrial scale may well have taken Israel to the verge of committing genocide, “the crime of all crimes”.’ – Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, 6 December 2023.

“We, scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, feel compelled to warn of the danger of genocide in Israel’s attack on Gaza” – 60 scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence, 9 December 2023.

“The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) recognises that Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people constitute an unfolding genocide. States and individuals who provide assistance to Israel are hereby rendering themselves complicit.” – International Federation for Human Rights, 12 December 2023.

“As public health and humanitarian professionals, we the authors state emphatically that the grave risk of genocide against the Palestinian people warrants immediate—and now overdue—action” – six public health and humanitarian professionals, 18 December 2023.

“Genocidal intent is assumed to be the most difficult element to prove, but Israelis in charge of prosecuting this conflict have made a plethora of statements that easily prove the requisite intent to ‘destroy in whole or in part’ the Palestinian population in Gaza” – Susan Akram, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Boston University, 29 December 2023.

“The UN’s top court has ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza, but stopped short of telling it to halt the war… South Africa had asked the court to order Israel to stop military action straight away pending a decision on whether Israel has committed genocide… The ICJ found it did have jurisdiction on the matter, and decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage.” – International Court of Justice, 26 January 2024.

The biggest crime you’ve never heard of

The biggest crime you’ve never heard of
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
29 May 2015

They must have known, mustn’t they? How could they not? Perhaps they chose not to know? With the world commemorating the 70^th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi-run death camps the question of what ordinary Germans knew (and did) about the genocide their government was perpetrating has once again been in the news.

Of course, the assumption behind much of the coverage of the liberation of Belsen and other camps is that we, living enlightened lives in contemporary Britain, are lucky to live in a society where horrendous crimes do not happen. And if they did, they would be quickly reported by our free and stroppy media and quickly halted.

But what if our own government has been responsible for genocide-level suffering, without the media raising the alarm and therefore leaving the general public in a state of ignorance? What would this say about our political class? What would it say about the media? And what would it say about us?

Unfortunately this isn’t a hypothetical debate but the cold, brutal reality.

To understand this distressing fact we need to return to February 1991 when the US-led coalition kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, which it had illegally invaded in August 1990. According to John Hoskins, a Canadian doctor leading a Harvard study team, the US-led air assault “effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq – electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and healthcare”. Purportedly to compel Saddam Hussein’s government to give up its Weapons of Mass Destruction, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, which lasted until the 2003 invasion. The sanctions regime was enforced by the US and UK who took the toughest line on compliance.

“No country had ever been subjected to more comprehensive economic sanctions by the United Nations than Iraq”, notes Hans von Sponeck, the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, in his 2006 book A Different Kind Of War. “Communicable diseases in the 1980s not considered public health hazards, such as measles, polio, cholera, typhoid, marasmus and kwashiorkor, reappeared on epidemic scales.” In 1999 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died because of a lack of medication, food or safe water supplies.

To counter some of the worst effects of sanctions, in 1996 the UN set up the Oil-For-Food Programme, which allowed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food, medicine and other goods. However, the programme was far from adequate. “At no time during the years of comprehensive economic sanctions were there adequate resources to meet minimum needs for human physical or mental survival either before, or during, the Oil-For-Food Programme”, von Sponeck notes in his book. In 1998/99, each Iraqi received a food allocation of $49 – 27 cents a day – for a six month period. In contrast, the dogs the UN used to help de-mine Iraq each received a food allocation of $160.

In protest at what seventy members of the US congress called “infanticide masquerading as policy”, Denis Halliday, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq who ran the sanctions regime, resigned in 1998. Noting the sanctions were causing the deaths of up to 5,000 children a month, Halliday bluntly stated “We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.” Speaking to journalist John Pilger, Halliday later explained “I was instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.”

Halliday’s successor, von Sponeck, resigned in protest two years later, asking in his resignation letter “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?” Later he told Pilger “I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable”.

Making a hat-trick, Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN World Food Program in Iraq, resigned two days after Von Sponeck, describing the sanctions regime as “a true humanitarian tragedy.”

With a few honourable exceptions such as Pilger, Tony Benn and George Galloway, the response of the British political class and media was to either to ignore or dismiss the fact sanctions were killing Iraqis on a mass scale. According to the media watchdog Media Lens, in 2003 Halliday was mentioned in just 2 of the 12,366 Guardian and Observer articles mentioning Iraq. Von Sponeck was mentioned a grand total of 5 times in the same year. Von Sponeck’s book on the sanctions has never been reviewed in the British press, and has been mentioned just once – by the veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk.

Echoing the denials of New Labour ministers such as Peter Hain and Robin Cook, in 2002 Observer Editor Roger Alton responded to a reader challenging him about the sanctions, stating “It’s saddam who’s killing all the bloody children, not sanctions. Sorry”. The highly respected Middle East specialist Professor Fred Halliday was equally dismissive, rubbishing “claims that Iraq still lacks the means to provide a basic supply of food” in a book review in the Independent in 1999.

The governing elite, assisted by a pliant media and the silence of much of academia, have carried out a magic trick of epic, sinister proportions: in a world of 24-hour news culture they have effectively managed to bury the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a direct result of British foreign policy. The lack of coverage, concern or discussion today about the sanctions shows how shockingly successful they have been in this endeavour.

As Harold Pinter sarcastically noted in his Nobel Peace Prize speech: “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”

No conspiracy is needed. “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban”, writer George Orwell argued in his censored preface to Animal Farm. He provides two reasons for thought control in democratic society: first, the owners of the British press, socially, politically and economically part of the governing elite, “have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.” And second, he explains that “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it”.

As always, it’s up to those who care about the lives of people regardless of their nationality or skin colour, who care about truth, who take their responsibility as world citizens seriously, to raise their voice and remember this moral and historical outrage.