What are the concerns regarding how Western media covers the Israel-Palestine conflict? Why was the BBC compelled to acknowledge that it provided inaccurate information to its audience? Journalist Işın Eliçin explores the depiction of the ongoing Israel-Palestine violence in Western media.
Işın Eliçin / NewsLab Turkey
As a journalist covering and analyzing world events for Turkish readers, I was asked to write an article for NewsLabTurkey about how the ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine, since October 7th, has been portrayed in Western media.
For many years, Western mainstream media outlets have increasingly produced news that aligns with the official ideology and propaganda of the Israeli state (and the unwavering support it receives from the U.S.), starting from the first Intifada. There are numerous academic studies on this topic. In this article, I will focus on examples from my own experience at the British broadcasting organization BBC, where I worked from 1997 to 1999 and received training in the ethical standards of the profession.
First and foremost, I want to emphasize a fundamental criterion that I hope readers and viewers can use as a kind of litmus test not only for the Israel-Palestine issue but for any conflict around the world with political and social relevance. Dear readers, you would likely agree that in war, conflict, or any form of violence, individuals “do not die,” they are “killed.” In other words, every act of violence, murder, massacre, and crime must have a perpetrator. If the perpetrator is hidden, you should know that there is either censorship or, at best, unconscious, often conscious self-censorship, along with a biased attitude towards the matter. A selected example from BBC’s October 9th report illustrates this, like the following post:
“According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 500 people have died in Gaza following Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes. Since Hamas initiated the attacks on Saturday, more than 700 people have been killed in Israel.”
BBC News received around 1500 complaints from the public on the 10th day of the events. Approximately half of these complaints accused the organization of being pro-Israel, and the other half accused it of taking an anti-Israel stance. In responding to these criticisms, the organization seems to have struggled to strike a balance and explicitly points to Hamas as the open perpetrator:
“BBC News has provided our global audiences with coverage and first-hand testimony of the atrocities committed by Hamas, and the suffering (Who is responsible for the suffering?) in Gaza. We have made clear the devastating human cost to civilians living in Israel and Gaza, and the unprecedented nature of what has happened. The huge loss of civilian life on both sides makes this a shocking and difficult story to cover. We have reported on the atrocities committed by Hamas in their assault on Israel and have heard many accounts from survivors of these attacks and family members of the victims, reflecting the trauma they are suffering. On the ground in Gaza our teams have reported on the rising death toll (Why not saying having killed? ) from Israeli airstrikes and the unfolding (“Did it emerge spontaneously?”) humanitarian crisis, as rockets destroy buildings, power and water supplies are cut and thousands try to move out of the way of danger. (Why is it described as dangerous? Could it be because the Israeli army was preparing for a ground operation?)”
In the BBC and other Western channels I could watch, hosts consistently asked their first question to Palestinian guests, civilians, academics, politicians, and representatives of the Palestinian Authority whether they condemned Hamas. However, no Israeli guests were ever asked if they condemned Binyamin Netanyahu’s mass punishment methods and siege on the civilian population in Gaza. Certainly, a question like, “Do you condemn the killing of women and children, regardless of their race, religion, or which side they’re on?” is legitimate. However, even with such a formulation, it’s doubtful that Israeli and Palestinian guests on these shows would receive equal treatment.
The concept of a “terrorist organization” is a label applied by different governments and international organizations. While Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by some countries, it is regarded differently by others. The classification of an organization as a terrorist group can be a nuanced and politically sensitive matter, and it frequently varies from one nation to another. It’s worth emphasizing that different governments and entities may hold varying perspectives on whether to categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization.
The background of this double standard approach lies in a flawed equivalence or a “standing equidistant from both sides” logic that conceals the massive power asymmetry between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people. However, they are not equal. Western media seems almost obsessed with blaming the victim, the occupied, the colonized, and the besieged. While Palestinians are asked to condemn alleged crimes committed by other Palestinians, even a politician belonging to Israel’s ruling party is not asked to condemn alleged crimes committed by the Israeli government. In this context, you can watch or read how the Palestinian Authority’s (not Hamas) representative in the UK, Husam Zomlot, challenged the perspective of Israel and persistently tried to condemn Hamas while confronting BBC presenter Lewis Vaughan Jones and the channel’s double standard broadcasting approach.
On October 7th, the National Security Council spokesperson, Adrienne Watson, stated that the United States “clearly condemned ‘unprovoked’ attacks by Hamas terrorists on Israeli civilians.” The killing of Israeli, Palestinian, or any other civilians should always be condemned. However, Watson’s use of the word “unprovoked” is a tool of obfuscation and not by any means a coincidence. From what I can observe, it seems that many BBC and other Western media organizations use this word choice for the comfort it provides in their reporting. The question of “What is provocation?” is not being questioned. It appears that the actions of the numerous settlers who stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque on October 5th (some reports estimated around 800 individuals) are not considered a provocation. Also, it seems that the killing of 248 Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers between January 1 and October 4 of this year does not fall within the scope of provocation. Moreover, the denial of Palestinian human rights for decades, as if being forcibly displaced from their lands was not enough, is definitely beyond consideration. In this context, Zomlot’s response to the BBC presenter is also important:
“You bring us here whenever it is the Israelis who are killed. Did you bring me here when many Palestinians in the West Bank [were killed], more than 200 over the last few months? Do you invite me when there are such Israeli provocations in Jerusalem and elsewhere? Because what Israelis have seen, which we started by saying tragic, the last 48 hours the Palestinians saw every day for the last 50 years. You know the situation in Gaza, you have just described it. This is the biggest open-air prison those people, two million, have been taken hostage by Israel for the last 16 years. So, I am saying this, just to say perhaps this is about time we abandon this very dangerous rhetoric, this framework and we start giving people the real ugly truth sometimes.”
By obscuring the fact that Israel exercises ultimate control over the lives of 5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, this discourse that lays the blame for all the violence on Palestinians is indeed dangerous. It is dangerous because it legitimizes the use of openly racist and discriminatory language, and with this language, it opens the door to actions that could escalate to genocide if not challenged. Israel’s President Isaac Herzog is able to say the following, in part due to this discourse: “The responsibility for (the killing of Israeli civilians on October 7th) lies with the entire population. The claim that civilians were unaware and uninvolved in the incident is not true. It is absolutely untrue.”
International humanitarian law prohibits punishing people for actions they did not commit. Herzog says that civilians will also be punished for Hamas’ actions. Nearly half of the people in Gaza are children, so those being punished are due to the actions of adult combatants. International law is very clear on this. Collective punishment is illegal. In part, to cover their own deadly mistakes and shame, the government of Israel, which has applied unprecedented violence to a vulnerable and imprisoned population in this context, is committing war crimes by claiming that they are “waging war against human beings.” They seek support to “destroy everything” in Gaza. Let’s underline that these are not just words said for the sake of saying them; these words determine the decisions, policies, and actions of the decision-makers. (Could they be unaware of how close they come to the language used by the Nazi regime to demonize Jews as they prepared for the Holocaust?) Such language, conveyed by journalists without being challenged or questioned, paves the way for crimes against humanity and legitimizes genocide. Ignoring the impact of such rhetoric on policies by Washington and other Western capitals means giving Israel a free hand. Mishal Husain, a BBC radio employee, fulfilled her journalistic duty by challenging the UK Defense Secretary on giving a carte blanche to Israel, even if it meant departing from the institution’s general line.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants in Gaza are indeed committing war crimes by indiscriminately firing rockets at Israeli towns and cities. It’s clear that directly targeting civilians constitutes a war crime, and this is widely recognized. However, the Israeli government, with the assistance of the media, uses various tactics to obfuscate this situation. One of these tactics is giving warnings to the civilian population to evacuate in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. But even here, it’s essential for journalists to be vigilant and informed. For a warning to be effective, the timing and the ability of civilians to leave the area must be considered. If they are not given sufficient time, the warning is not legally considered effective. Moreover, civilians who cannot or choose not to leave the area do not automatically become legitimate targets. They still need to be protected under international humanitarian law. Therefore, even after warnings have been issued, the Israeli Defense Forces are obligated to take all possible measures to protect civilians and their property in what is known as the evacuation zone in the northern part of Gaza. I have not witnessed the sharing of such information or the questioning of official decisions based on this information in broadcasts by the BBC or other Western organizations.
Another concept conducive to concealing war crimes is the “right to self-defense,” which is often not deemed deserving for Palestinians. In response to a host who claimed that Israel uses the “right to self-defense” against terrorists by subjecting a population of 2 million people in Gaza to continuous bombardment and depriving them of their basic necessities, Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, provides a instructive response:
“Are you really saying this without any shame? Do you genuinely believe it’s possible to uproot a terrorist organization deeply embedded within a population that has been deprived of their most basic rights through military operations? Has such a thing ever been seen in history? Is it credible to say that a country’s leaders cut off food, electricity, water, and all the essential needs of the civilian population to target militants? I’m sorry, but such lies cannot go unanswered, and telling yourself this lie leads to wrong policies. If someone were to tell me that the weekend activities of militants were a legitimate response to years of occupation, I would say no, you are wrong. You have drifted away from humanity and reality. And if anyone were to tell me that what Israel is doing in Gaza today is a legitimate response to what happened over the weekend, my response would be exactly the same.”
Marwan Bishara, an Al Jazeera commentator, criticizes the double standards of US and European leaders when it comes to the “right to self-defense” as follows:
“In the eyes of the West, it seems, Israel has a “duty” to defend its people, but the Palestinians don’t have the right to protect themselves as if they are people of a lesser god! Israel seemingly also has a right to defend and even expand its occupation and apartheid regime, but the Palestinians have no right to express their frustration or struggle for freedom and justice after seven decades of dispossession, oppression and siege. For European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “Russia’s attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes. Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity … are acts of pure terror.” But Israel doing the same against Palestinians in Gaza is legitimate self-defense! That’s the very embodiment of hypocrisy and double standard.”
Bishara issues another significant warning that I have not yet heard from BBC commentators:
“Above all else, the hysterical comparisons between Hamas’s operation on Saturday and 9/11 are reckless and utterly dangerous, for they serve to manufacture the case for a wider war, as we witnessed prior to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretences. Such comparisons help demonise Palestinian leaders and dehumanise Palestinian people, paving the way for a genocidal war, starting in Gaza. To be sure, demonising other leaders is ugly politics, but dehumanising a whole people, is racism, pure and simple.”
If we return to the BBC, over the weekend, the BBC described the protests held across various parts of England to criticize the policies of the Israeli government and show support for Palestinians as “Demonstrations to support Hamas” to their viewers. Since Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, this description was a subtle way of criminalizing the protests. Fortunately, in the UK, democracy works reasonably well, and when people criticize an institution established for public benefit using their own funds, they can achieve results. As a result of the complaints and corrections it received, the BBC had to admit that describing the protests as “support for Hamas” did not reflect the truth and misled the viewers.
When it comes to the BBC and other Western institutions, the pressure they face to align with the policies of the Israeli state is indeed a topic worthy of a separate article. One of the primary reasons for this alignment is the fear of being labeled as “anti-Semitic.” Representatives, friends, and supporters of the Israeli state exert significant pressure and maintain effective lobbying efforts to prevent open and honest public discussions of their policies. This pressure extends not only to journalists but also to politicians, academics, and businesspeople, affecting nearly everyone.
Critiquing the occupation, drawing parallels with the apartheid regime in South Africa, or criticizing the use of state violence by the Israeli government comes at a heavy cost, including the risk of job loss, exclusion from media appearances, and being targeted in smear campaigns.
In Turkey, we feel comfortable discussing the Palestinian issue as long as it aligns with the government’s stance. In fact, some segments of the mainstream media in Turkey promote anti-Semitism and engage in openly racist publications. On the other hand, I must mention that some of my colleagues who diverge from the mainstream may fall short in questioning the Israeli state’s policies. This could be related to their reactions to Hamas and its ideology, or they may have developed a one-sided perspective due to their visits to the region as guests of the Israeli state.