ZIONIST BBC PANORAMA-'DEATH IN THE MED'

NOVANEWS

Complain to the BBC – Death in the Med

BBC Panorama (16/8/2010) claimed to show ‘what really happened’ aboard the Mavi Marmara on the night of 31 May 2010.
However, it was an extremely biased piece of reporting which portrayed the activists on board as violent terrorists who set out to attack Israeli soldiers.
Watch the programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00thr24
Complain >>

  • Online: BBC complaints link: Follow the link and fill out the online form: https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
  • Ring: BBC complaint line number: 03700 100 212 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              03700 100 212      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
  • Email: [email protected]
  • Write: BBC Panorama, MC4A1, Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ.

Please write to the BBC asking the following questions:

  • Why was Israel’s ‘right’ to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?
  • Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel’s siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.
  • Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the ‘thousands of rockets’ fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.
  • Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed – shot from a helicopter – before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.
  • Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?
  • Why were the autopsy reports – which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can’t constitute self-defence – not used, or even mentioned?
  • Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists – which led to nine deaths?
  • Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word ‘terrorists’ to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandoes. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandoes, when these ‘terrorists’ were so willing to attack?
  • Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
  • Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain’s deck? 

Further points you can make to the BBC:
Israel’s ‘right’ to board the ship is presumed throughout the programme:

  • At no point during the programme does Jane Corbin question Israel’s decision to board the ship, or its right to do so. It is assumed as a given that this was an accepted course of action.
  • However, Israeli forces boarded the ship while it was in international waters. This is mentioned only once, almost in passing. There is no examination during the programme about the illegality of this, or any reference to maritime law which clearly marks Israel’s boarding of the ship as illegal. If this had been established at the start, the entire premise of the programme might have been different.
  • Jane Corbin states more than once that the activists’ readiness to defend their ship ‘could lead to confrontation’. She therefore questions the right to defence. In balance, she should also question the right of Israel to attack but fails to do so. Surely Israel’s readiness to board a ship in international waters, its commandoes armed and ready to use their weapons, could also lead confrontation?
  • If Israel’s intentions in boarding the ship were peaceful, why did the commandoes board in the early hours of the morning, in the dark, instead of during daylight hours? Israel’s motives in its choice of timing warranted questioning, but the time of the attack wasn’t even mentioned.

The programme continually questions why the activists were ‘really’ going to Gaza, but fails to thoroughly examine this point:

  • Israel’s siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN, and UN Resolution 1866 calls for its immediate end, but at no point during the programme was the illegality of the siege mentioned. Again, the assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade are questioned.
  • If the blockade of Gaza by Israel has been declared illegal by the UN, then Israel’s actions in stopping and boarding an international ship sailing to Gaza would also be illegal. The ship would have a right to sail to Gaza, but this point was not examined by the programme. As mentioned before, the BBC assumed, without question, that Israel had a right to board the boat.
  • Jane Corbin stated that ‘thousands of rockets’ have been fired from Gaza into Israel. She did not state over what time period. She glaringly omitted to mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people, including women and children. Nor did she mention Israel’s continuous shelling of Gaza, which in July 2010 caused three civilian deaths and scores of injuries. Might the relief of the people of Gaza from Israeli siege and attack have been justifiably cited as a possible motivation for those on board the ships?

The programme makes a mockery of itself when describing the ‘weaponry’ used by either side:

  • The activists are described as having bars, hoses, one chain, stones, junk and chairs.
  • There are no details about the number of Israeli soldiers, helicopters and warships used.
  • However, Jane Corbin states that the commandoes were armed with ‘non-lethal weapons. However, each man carried a pistol’. In BBC language, is a pistol really a ‘non-lethal’ weapon?
  • She doesn’t feel the need to point out that the activists were armed with non-lethal weapons, and, in addition, were not carrying pistols.
  • There are constant comments by the Israeli soldiers that they thought the activists wanted to ‘finish us off’ and ‘kill us all’. Apart from the obvious point, again not examined, that this would be impossible with chairs and junk, it was once more assumed by the BBC that the activists were the aggressors while Israeli commandoes only fired in self-defence, despite the fact they had boarded the ship in international waters – surely an attack and act of aggression in itself?

Jane Corbin talks about IHH recruiting ‘fellow Islamists’ to join them on board and states that the organisation’s headquarters are in the ‘most Islamic area of Istanbul’

  • What is the relevance of the second comment? Where is her evidence for making it?
  • Why is she giving the aid flotilla a religious context when it had none? Again, she presents no evidence of the recruitment of ‘fellow Islamists’.
  • She does not mention that were other boats in the flotilla, from a variety of countries, including Ireland, all of which were violently attacked by Israel despite putting up no resistance. Nor does she state that there were people of many nationalities and different religions on board the Mavi Marmara, including European and US Parliamentarians and dignitaries. They were going to address a humanitarian need.

Other questions to ask:

  • Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed – shot from a helicopter – before any Israeli had even landed on the deck.
  • Why were the autopsy reports – which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can’t constitute self-defence – not used, or even mentioned?
  • Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
  • Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain’s deck?

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *