RSS
Can the BBC Ever Be Trusted Again After Israel-Hamas War?
The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA.
In summarizing its mission as the publicly-funded broadcaster in the United Kingdom, the BBC states it must “provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.”
This involves — the corporation promises — providing accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming that conforms to the highest editorial standards.
The commitment to impartiality is — or should be — what sets the BBC apart from other media organizations that nail their political colors to their mast.
While the BBC has staunchly defended itself against criticism that it has a deep-seated bias against Israel, its critics have pointed to many examples over the years of the broadcaster’s journalists brazenly breaking the corporation’s impartiality guidelines.
But the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7 has seen criticism of the BBC reach a climax amid accusations of an abject failure by the organization to report on the Israel-Hamas war fairly, accurately, and transparently.
Spreading Misinformation
There is an irony in the BBC’s publishing a piece one week after Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel that asked: “Who’s behind Israel-Gaza disinformation and hate online?”
The article, by the corporation’s so-called “disinformation and social media correspondent” Marianna Spring, reported how social media was “awash with false claims, conspiracy theories and hateful content surrounding what’s happening in Israel and Gaza.”
This, Spring warned, was resulting in successful attempts to distort and confuse the online conversation, which “can have serious implications for the international community when it comes to investigating allegations of war crimes, providing aid and figuring out what’s happening where.”
Yet, the BBC itself has been guilty of spreading distortions and false claims about the Israel-Hamas war online.
One of the most damaging was undoubtedly the corporation’s reporting on the Al-Ahli Hospital explosion in Gaza, which saw the BBC print unverified (and later debunked) claims by Hamas-linked officials that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed in an Israeli airstrike at the hospital.
Even as Israel said it was investigating the blast and as facts were still emerging, the corporation doubled down on its misinformation when BBC correspondent Jon Donnison announced live on air that he thought it was most likely that Israel was to blame.
And when conclusive evidence emerged that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket was responsible, the BBC still sought to defend its coverage on the basis that while it made a mistake, it was a “fast-moving story,” where there were “claims and counter-claims” and where its journalists were “reporting in difficult and dangerous conditions.”
.@BBCNews likes to tell us that Israeli videos “cannot be verified.” But they’ve got no problem broadcasting footage featuring a Palestinian who has appeared in multiple videos playing different characters, including one where he fakes his own death. https://t.co/BaGMchjUxn
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 3, 2023
The Obsession With Balance
Balance is important when it comes to the news: outlets have a duty to report both sides of the story.
However, the BBC has been accused of having a fetish with its attempts at balance in its reports on the current war.
But giving equal weighting to claims made by an internationally recognized terrorist group to those of a democratic state such as Israel is simply absurd.
The absurdity of this was perfectly encapsulated in the BBC’s refusal to call Hamas what it actually is — a terrorist organization.
The BBC’s world affairs editor, John Simpson, even defended the decision not to call Hamas terrorists because, “terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn — who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”
While the corporation eventually walked back from its insistence that it would refer to terrorists as “militants” following a considerable backlash — announcing that in future coverage it would make clear that Hamas is a UK-proscribed terrorist organization — the fact that the BBC couldn’t decide who was the good guy and the bad guy between Israel and Hamas speaks volumes.
Another example of the BBC trying to offer “two sides” in a report where none exists was during the IDF’s raid on Al-Shifa Hospital, which for many years has been used as a Hamas command center.
The IDF clearly states it is bringing medical teams & Arabic speakers into Al-Shifa Hospital to help patients.@BBCNews reinterprets it to libel the IDF as *targeting* medical teams & Arabic speakers.
Just how much lower can the BBC go? https://t.co/I9kVy3MC87
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 15, 2023
When the IDF provided real-time evidence of how Hamas had embedded itself within the hospital, the BBC seemed to work overtime to try and undermine and discredit as much of the IDF’s proof as possible.
In one the many instances of its disturbing tendency to give weight to the claims of a bloodthirsty terror group, the BBC’s international editor, Jeremy Bowen, suggested that the caches of weaponry uncovered by Israeli soldiers inside Al-Shifa may have belonged to the hospital security team.
Utterly incredible. @BowenBBC trying to “normalize” the presence of weapons in a Gaza hospital. Anything to avoid acknowledging that Hamas could be using Al Shifa for nefarious means.
Keep going, Jeremy. Maybe you’ll end up on Israel’s favorite satirical comedy show next week. https://t.co/jN3kZ40rPc
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 17, 2023
The BBC is also facing what appears to be growing anger from within its own ranks at how the corporation is covering the Israel-Hamas war.
HonestReporting recently revealed that the head of the BBC’s Global Service, Liliane Landor, was forced to address allegations from reporters based in the Middle East that the corporation is biased in favor of Israel.
Yet, rather than robustly challenge staff who threatened to walk out in protest, Landor reportedly promised to set up a special team to handle staff complaints and receive opinions on rectifying harm caused by the alleged pro-Israel bias.
Meanwhile, bosses at the BBC’s London HQ denied permission for journalists to attend a massive march against antisemitism using guidelines that prevent employees from attending demonstrations deemed “controversial.” This despite the BBC having a policy that allows staff to demonstrate in “opposition to racism [which] is a fundamental democratic principle.”
As mentioned, allegations of an anti-Israel bias have dogged the BBC for years.
But the barrage of criticism aimed at the BBC over its coverage of the current Israel-Hamas war has shown that the corporation cannot continue burying its head in the sand where this issue is concerned.
The BBC will lose all credibility if it does not.
The post Can the BBC Ever Be Trusted Again After Israel-Hamas War? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza
Hamas terrorists carry grenade launchers at the funeral of Marwan Issa, a senior Hamas deputy military commander who was killed in an Israeli airstrike during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
The Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza has warned residents not to cooperate with the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, as the terror group seeks to reassert its grip on the enclave amid mounting international pressure to accept a US-brokered ceasefire.
“It is strictly forbidden to deal with, work for, or provide any form of assistance or cover to the American organization (GHF) or its local or foreign agents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday.
“Legal action will be taken against anyone proven to be involved in cooperation with this organization, including the imposition of the maximum penalties stipulated in the applicable national laws,” the statement warns.
The GHF released a statement in response to Hamas’ warnings, saying the organization has delivered millions of meals “safely and without interference.”
“This statement from the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry confirms what we’ve known all along: Hamas is losing control,” the GHF said.
The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.
The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.
Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.
Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.
According to their reports, the organization has delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.
Hamas’s latest threat comes amid growing international pressure to accept a US-backed ceasefire plan proposed by President Donald Trump, which sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions” to finalize a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel has not confirmed this claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump next week in Washington, DC — his third visit in less than six months — as they work to finalize the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.
“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.
Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.
“I am telling you — there will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a speech Wednesday.
For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages — fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.
While the terrorist group said it is “ready and serious” to reach a deal that would end the war, it has yet to accept this latest proposal.
In a statement, the group said it aims to reach an agreement that “guarantees an end to the aggression, the withdrawal [of Israeli forces], and urgent relief for our people in the Gaza Strip.”
According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war — though it remains unclear how many hostages would be freed.
For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas, while the terror group is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
The post Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest
Police block a street as pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to protest British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to proscribe the “Palestine Action” group in the coming weeks, in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy
British lawmakers voted Wednesday to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, following the group’s recent vandalizing of two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in protest of the government’s support for Israel.
Last month, members of the UK-based anti-Israel group Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, a county west of London, and vandalized two Voyager aircraft used for military transport and refueling — the latest in a series of destructive acts carried out by the organization.
Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.
Under British law, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has the authority to ban an organization if it is believed to commit, promote, or otherwise be involved in acts of terrorism.
Passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 385 to 26 in the lower chamber — the House of Commons — the measure is now set to be reviewed by the upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday.
If approved, the ban would take effect within days, making it a crime to belong to or support Palestine Action and placing the group on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Islamic State under UK law.
Palestine Action, which claims that Britain is an “active participant” in the Gaza conflict due to its military support for Israel, condemned the ban as “an unhinged reaction” and announced plans to challenge it in court — similar to the legal challenges currently being mounted by Hamas.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, belonging to a proscribed group is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison or a fine, while wearing clothing or displaying items supporting such a group can lead to up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the recent attack, in which two of its activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft and used crowbars to inflict additional damage.
According to the group, the red paint — also sprayed across the runway — was meant to symbolize “Palestinian bloodshed.” A Palestine Liberation Organization flag was also left at the scene.
On Thursday, local authorities arrested four members of the group, aged between 22 and 35, who were charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
Palestine Action said this latest attack was carried out as a protest against the planes’ role in supporting what the group called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
At the time of the attack, Cooper condemned the group’s actions, stating that their behavior had grown increasingly aggressive and resulted in millions of pounds in damages.
“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton … is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action,” Cooper said in a written statement.
“The UK’s defense enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk,” she continued.
The post UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.
The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.
“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.
GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.
“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”
The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”
The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.
The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”
The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.
The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.