WHY HAMAS LOVE BBC CONTENT!
“There is therefore no objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ chronological order of events as your constituent suggests’, said Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s Director of News and Current Affairs.
Fran Unsworth’s words is the BBC response, sent to multiple MPs, to the charge that, in a two-year period, the BBC misreported seven out of eight rocket attacks on Israel’s southern border.
In each report the BBC led with the Israeli military response, rather than the terrorist’s rocket fire.
The details of the attacks were buried in the articles, while the headlines and opening paragraphs referred to the Israeli Defence Force’s (IDF) response and those injured and killed.
The BBC has a responsibility to provide impartial news coverage, and it must also inform and educate its audience.
That audience is estimated to be 96% of the UK population and up to 600 million people worldwide.
Ms. Unsworth’s response demonstrates that the BBC’s interpretation of impartiality, and its responsibility to educate and inform its audience is at odds with the general public’s definition of such matters.
Further, focusing exclusively on the seven misreported attacks on Israel’s southern border, the BBC’s alternative definition of ‘chronological’ perverts the impartial reporting of events.
This approach also explains why Hamas encourages civilians to participate in violence at the border with Israel.
The battleground for Hamas and Fatah isn’t Gaza, it’s the Hague.
The Israeli Army is bigger than the French and British armies …. combined.
It’s impossible for Hamas to defeat Israel militarily.
The Gaza protest and the carnage Hamas, and Fatah, have produced is a continuation of the terrorists’ rocket policy.
To provoke an Israeli military response.
What’s Fatah’s role?
The President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas has starved Gaza of money and fuel.
And Hamas, in a gruesome example of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, has reacted by sending terrorist operatives armed with guns, IEDs, Molotov cocktails, fuel and tyres, to the border with Israel, protected by civilian human shields.
What is the objective? To provoke a confrontation with the IDF, one of the most sophisticated armies in the world. And why?
To create a body count, to have that body count televised around the world and to have western journalists and politicians blame Israel for the carnage.
Hamas are delighted with the BBC’s product and the reaction it produces.
And as they pat themselves on the back, for what they regard as their latest ‘success’, they must wonder whether Lincoln’s observations that you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time, were true!
In May 2018, when a Hamas terrorist official said that 50 of the group’s members (three others were members of Islamic Jihad) were among the 62 people killed on 14 May during border clashes with the IDF, Hamas still avoided the scrutiny it deserved from the BBC, and it has to be said, from many MPs who participated in a statement on Gaza in the House of Commons on 15 May.
Over the last weekend we remembered the sacrifice made by our service men and women to protect our freedoms.
Armed Forces and security services in democratic nations around the world have a duty to protect their citizens, the IDF is no different.
And that brings us to the perverse strategic goals of Mahmoud Abbas: –
- To delegitimise the State of Israel by seeking to take world’s only Jewish state to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for war crimes, and
- To prevent Israel from exercising its sovereign right to defend its people.
Many broadcasters fall into the Hamas narrative trap but the BBC isn’t any old broadcaster, it’s cherished as an exemplar of public service broadcasting.
The BBC allocates a disproportionate amount of time to Israel/Palestinian issues.
Its reporting is demonstrably biased against Israel, and it’s not difficult to understand why when the Head of News & Current Affairs believes that the BBC, not only has a right to rewrite the definition of words, but the right to report its version of events, rather than the facts.