Back in July 2016, we discussed two items of BBC content — audio and written — which were produced by the Beirut-based BBC journalist Rami Ruhayem to mark the 10h anniversary of the Second Lebanon War.

As we noted at the time:

…if conflict between Israel and Hizballah did break out again, BBC audiences would obviously be seriously lacking the background information crucial to their understanding of that event because reports like these two from Rami Ruhayem fail to provide them with information concerning relevant issues such as the failure of UN SC resolution 1701 to achieve its aims, the rearming of Hizballah and its use of communities in southern Lebanon as human shields and Iran’s patronage of the terror organisation which the BBC refuses even to describe in accurate terminology.

Two and a half weeks after Hamas launched its October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel and perpetrated unprecedented atrocities, Rami Ruhayem wrote an email to the BBC Director General, Tim Davie, which opened as follows:

Dear Tim,

I am writing to raise the gravest possible concerns about the coverage of the BBC, especially on English outlets, of the current fighting between Israel and Palestinian factions.

It appears to me that information that is highly significant and relevant is either entirely missing or not being given due prominence in coverage.

This includes expert opinion that Israel’s actions 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.

There are also indications that the BBC is—implicitly at least—treating Israeli lives as more worthy than Palestinian lives, and reinforcing Israeli war propaganda.

As was reported at the time by the Jewish Chronicle:

A BBC correspondent has emailed staff across the corporation to argue that they should be using the terms “settler-colonialism” and “ethnic cleansing” in their coverage of Israel.

The letter, which has been shared widely with the broadcaster’s international staff, claims that the broadcaster may be “reinforcing Israeli propaganda meant to dehumanise the Palestinians” as the Jewish state commits “genocide”. […]

He wrote: “There is a lot more to be said, but these are the broad headlines. This is not about mistakes here and there, or even about systemic bias in favour of Israel. The question now is a question of complicity. It is a matter of public interest to rectify this with the utmost urgency.”

The corporation should use the terms “apartheid, ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism” in its reporting, he added, and warned of a “flood of incitement” against Palestinians.

The theme of “complicity” also appears in Ruhayem’s pinned Tweet: a twelve-part post that he wrote just 10 days after the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians.

On May 1, 2024, Rami Ruhayem wrote a follow-up email to the BBC Director General, which included the following:

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that the BBC may have been withholding vital information from the public, contributing to incitement against Palestinians, and spreading and reinforcing Israeli war propaganda.

As was the case in both his 2016 reports, Ruhayem also mentioned the “Dahiya doctrine” in that second email:

Another crucial piece of context for our purpose is the so-called Dahiya Doctrine, an Israeli military doctrine that was articulated in the wake of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, and put into practice later in Gaza. In the words of Gadi Eisenkot, at the time head of the Israeli Northern Command and currently a member of the war cabinet:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. . . . We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. . . . This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.”

A report which was published on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page on November 7, 2024, includes the following:

During the last war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, Israel flattened neighbourhoods in Dahieh, and two years later, revealed a military strategy drawn from that experience – what came to be known as the Dahieh Doctrine.

It was first articulated by then-Maj Gen Gadi Eizenkot in 2008 when he was head of the Israeli military’s Northern Command. This doctrine – as it came to be known – called for applying “disproportionate force” against civilian areas where Israel believes it is attacked from, with the goal of pressuring the people of Lebanon to turn on Hezbollah to undermine support for it.

‘From our perspective, these are military bases…,” he said at the time. “Harming the population is the only means of restraining [Hassan] Nasrallah,” he said, referring to the then-leader of Hezbollah. Nasrallah was killed in an air strike in Dahieh in September 2024.

Readers will probably not be surprised to learn that the report in question — headlined “What is Israel’s strategy in targeting Hezbollah’s civilian network?” — was written by Rami Ruhayem.

Ruhayem opens that report with descriptions of the pre-announced Israeli strikes conducted in October against an organisation involved in Hezbollah terror financing. As was reported by the Times of Israel at the time: [emphasis added]

Most of the strikes targeted branches of Al-Qard Al-Hassan, an unlicensed gray-market bank seen as one of the group’s main sources of cash. […]

Al-Qard al-Hassan, which is sanctioned by the US Treasury Department, has more than 30 branches across Lebanon, including 15 in densely populated parts of central Beirut and its suburbs.

In May 2021 the US Treasury Department described Al-Qard al-Hassan (AQAH – founded in the early 1980s) as Heznollah’s “financial firm,” stating:

While AQAH purports to serve the Lebanese people, in practice it illicitly moves funds through shell accounts and facilitators, exposing Lebanese financial institutions to possible sanctions.  AQAH masquerades as a non-governmental organization (NGO) under the cover of a Ministry of Interior-granted NGO license, providing services characteristic of a bank in support of Hizballah while evading proper licensing and regulatory supervision.  By hoarding hard currency that is desperately needed by the Lebanese economy, AQAH allows Hizballah to build its own support base and compromise the stability of the Lebanese state.  AQAH has taken on a more prominent role in Hizballah’s financial infrastructure over the years, and designated Hizballah-linked entities and individuals have evaded sanctions and maintained bank accounts by re-registering them in the names of senior AQAH officials, including under the names of certain individuals being designated today.

In December 2020, AQAH was hacked and as was noted by FDD:

The hacked documents show that among the AQAH account holders are established and alleged Hezbollah money launderers and financiers with extensive business interests, especially in Africa.

Rami Ruhayem’s description of that organisation, however, tells BBC audiences that:

Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association (AQAH), a charity that offers interest-free microloans, had grown in prominence over the past decade amid US sanctions and the collapse of Lebanon’s banking sector. […]

Israel says AQAH finances Hezbollah’s military activities – a claim denied by the group, which says it has no role beyond offering small, interest-free loans to ordinary Lebanese, in line with Islamic law’s prohibition on charging interest.

Ruhayem’s journalistic curiosity clearly does not extend to finding out why AQAH’s account holders include Iranian organizations, companies and media organisations, as well as the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Such investigative journalism would of course only distract from the main purpose of his article, which is to persuade BBC audiences that Hezbollah’s social system has nothing to do with its military activities and therefore any attacks on elements of that system are illegal:

From an international humanitarian law perspective, experts say AQAH is not a lawful military target regardless of Israel’s claims that it plays a role in financing Hezbollah.

“International humanitarian law does not permit attacks on the economic or financial infrastructure of an adversary, even if they indirectly sustain its military activities,” according to Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism.

Mr Saul said the bombing “obliterates the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives” and “opens the door to ‘total war’ against civilian populations”.

Ruhayem, of course, refrains from informing his readers that the supposedly impartial “expert” Ben Saul has a long record of anti-Israel activism, or that since February, Saul been campaigning to prevent arms exports to Israel.

Neither did Ruhayem bother to clarify that his other “expert” contributor — Amal Saad — is a long-time Hezbollah apologist.

Rami Ruhayem’s efforts to persuade BBC audiences that “Israel is targeting the civilian population that is supportive of Hezbollah” and “striking that population in areas far removed from combat” should surprise no-one. Ruhayem, after all, publicly made his partisan position perfectly clear over a year ago and has repeated it since.

What should raise questions is the fact that despite Ruhayem’s openly anti-Israel position, his BBC managers — who are supposedly committed to the provision accurate and impartial news reporting — have twice in a period of three weeks considered it appropriate to publish his claims of “parallels between Israel’s onslaught in Lebanon and its year-long military campaign in Gaza” and his promotion of the talking point that the “civilian network” of a designated terrorist organisation is uninvolved in the conflict that organisation chose to initiate.

Hadar Sela is the co-editor of CAMERA UK — an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.

The post The BBC Is Letting an Anti-Israel Journalist Report on Lebanon first appeared on Algemeiner.com.