RSS
News at Ten warns “Many will find his comments abhorrent” as Khalil al-Hayya deplores attacks on Israeli civilians, urges a ceasefire and seems ready for a two-state solution
The BBC no longer bothers to hide the fact that its news service acts as nothing more than the British state’s willing propaganda channel.
Last night on the News at Ten, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen secured a rare interview with Hamas’s deputy political chief, Khalil al-Hayya.
Anchor Clive Myrie introduced the segment by warning: “Many will find his comments abhorrent.” But the only person making abhorrent assertions was Myrie himself, observing that, in the interview, the Hamas leader “claims the Palestinian people have faced violence at the hands of Israel for several decades”.
No, Clive. The world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, as well as every major human rights organisation, has concluded that Israel’s belligerent military occupation of the Palestinians’ territory is illegal and violent – not as a claim, but as an indisputable fact.
Israel’s refusal to recognise a Palestinian state and allow Palestinians self-determination; Israel’s building of hundreds of illegal settlements on Palestinian land and the transfer of Israeli Jews, often militia groups, into those settlements; Israel’s 17-year siege of Gaza; and Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people to force them to submit to these indignities, are all forms of structural violence. Again, that is not a claim. It is how international law judges what Israel has done and is doing.
Next, Myrie required Bowen to justify at length why the BBC was allowing a Hamas political leader – not a military leader – to be given air time. Note, al-Hayya’s boss, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated by Israel while he was involved in negotiations to bring about a ceasefire. Like some kind of gangster, Israel murdered the man on the other side of the table it was supposed to be talking to.
The BBC provided none of that as context, of course, for its interview. It was too busy placating Israel and the British government by issuing apologies and warnings before it offered a rare insight into Hamas’ side of the story.
So what did al-Hayya say that was so “abhorrent”? Here are the main points al-Hayya raised in the interview – you can listen to his precise wording via this link – under Bowen’s mainly hostile questioning:
- Hamas launched its attack on October 7 because the world had forgotten about Gaza even as Israel was slowly strangling the tiny territory to death through its 17-year siege. Hamas wanted to put Gaza back on the international community’s radar, and had decided it could do so only through military action.
- Hamas fighters had been told not to target Israeli civilians on October 7, only Israeli occupation soldiers. Hamas does not endorse harming civilians. However, there were failings by individuals in sticking to that plan.
- Israel, not Hamas, is the party responsible for destroying Gaza as evidenced through its bombardments of schools, shelters and hospitals. Hamas’ killing of 1,200 people could not be used to justify Israel killing more than 50,000 people in Gaza. Israel is “motivated by the lust to destroy”.
- The accusation that Hamas uses the people of Gaza as “human shields” is not true. “They [Israel] destroyed mosques on the heads of their owners when there were no fighters. They destroyed houses and high-rise buildings when no one was in them… It is all Israeli propaganda.”
- Netanyahu is the one obstructing a ceasefire. Even if Hamas surrendered today, Gaza’s next generation would take up the struggle because the Palestinian people want their freedom and have a legitimate right to resist the occupation. “People need to understand that Israel wants to burn the whole region.”
- The Palestinians need a state and self-determination, and the Palestinian refugees a right to return to their homeland, if the region is ever to calm down.
- It is Israel trying to eliminate the Palestinian people, not the Palestinians destroying Israel. “Give us our rights, give us a fully sovereign Palestinian state… Israel does not recognise a one-state solution or a two-state solution. Israel rejects it all.”
- [Responding to a question about whether he considers himself a terrorist] “I’m seeking freedom and defending my people. To the occupation, we are all terrorists – the leaders, the women and the children. You heard what Israeli leaders called us: we are all animals.”
Now, one can debate whether al-Hayya’s statements are accurate or truthful, or whether he is being sincere. But nothing at all he says here can be viewed as “abhorrent” – unless you are shilling for Israel. He deplores attacks on civilians, he accuses Israel of bringing about Gaza’s destruction, he blames Netanyahu for blocking a ceasefire, and he appears to be ready to settle for a two-state solution, though he doesn’t believe Israel will agree to it.
In fact, his comments are far, far more moderate and far less inflammatory than statements regularly made by Netanyahu and most of the Israeli political and military leadership. Netanyahu, remember, is being sought by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, while the country he leads is on trial for what its sister court, the ICJ, considers a “plausible genocide” Netanyahu has incited and overseen. Not that the BBC ever mentions either fact.
And yet the state broadcaster never prefaces remarks from Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders – such as the self-declared fascist finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich – with any kind of warning, let alone one that many viewers may find their remarks “abhorrent”.
And while we are at it, if al-Hayya’s remarks are the yardstick, how was Keir Starmer’s comment that Israel had a right to deprive Palestinian civilians of food, water and fuel – that is, to collectively punish them by starving them to death – not also deemed “abhorrent” by the BBC?
What becomes ever harder to deny is that the BBC isn’t reporting what is happening in the Middle East. It is aggressively framing it in such a way as to present Israel as the victim of events, and thereby assist it in carrying out a genocide in Gaza and beginning a second slaughter in Lebanon.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Starmer’s attitude is that of a partisan Zionist. Probably none of the voting base of Labour share this Zionism. It’s very mysterious. Arguably the pro war attitude of Clement Attlee in 1939 wasn’t shared by then Labour voters either. It’s Jews.
The UK has been (((occupied territory))) for over 300 years. The BBC has become what Margaret Thatcher envisioned it to be – a government propaganda organ.
russia should start a campaign around the world, to have the bbc banned as state sponsored propaganda, just as rt has been attacked. i guess they have too much commitment to free speech, to stoop down to their level.
Worst of all, the BBC and the outrageous salaries of their presstitutes are paid by British taxpayers.
With their taxes they have anti British, anti-white , anti Christian propaganda all year round, they ahve pro-immigration propaganda, lgbt pedophile propaganda (how many Jimmy saville at the BBC), they have Mi5/6 propaganda and or course heavy pro-Jewish and zionist propaganda.
This is a lot to swallow when you foot the bill!
The BBC should be sold at public auction, all their pathetic presstitutes fired, then the British citizens should buy it, everyone getting a small part without any majority stakeholder, then the public should choose who they want to give them actual news, not zionist, globalist, marxist propaganda or fake news.
Now, the gentleman from Hamas said something very important: ” Netanyahu is the one obstructing a ceasefire”.
It means that one guy, only one guy blocks everything. It also means that if this guy is removed, then peace will happen right after.
This should give the Resistance some deep thoughts, how to get rid of Netanyah should become their first task.
Given that Bowen has been called an antisemite, it was interesting to see even he get exasperated by the responses this fool Khalil al-Hayya was making, who just klept repeating Hams talking points.
It’s worth noting that in June 2004, not much more than a year after the Iraq war started Mark Thompson was appointed DG. He is infamous for his decision to cancel a charity appeal for Gaza following the devastating at the time but now seemingly tame bombardment of Gaza in 2008/9. His justification was that such an appeal was “political” because Israel had done the damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies#2009:_Refusal_to_broadcast_Gaza_DEC_Appeal
Due to the still total metal barrier between associating the Israel lobby, neocons and the war in Iraq, few would bring up how his appointment seemed to be designed to try and stop Americans having access over the internet to a prominent English language news source on the Iraq war. (As pathetic as the BBC’s coverage of the war was, sometimes people got things through and it was far better than US networks)
Thompson’s wife is Jewish, the daughter of Nobel prize winner Baruch Samuel (Though he typically went by “Barry”) Blumberg an Orthodox Jew from NYC. Which is to say we can presume she is a Zionist. Is she also a Queen Esther character, bending Mr. Thompson towards, albeit what has become a very monetary, status and professional profitable path of being a tool for Israel?
In 2005 he made an incredible journey to Israel to seemingly promise to a foreign government to be nicer to them!
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12767497.To_my_mind_and__it_appears__to_millions_of_others__the_BBC_is_increasingly_biased_towards_Israel_in_this_conflict
BBC chief holds peace talks in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharon
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/bbc-chief-holds-peace-talks-in-jerusalem-with-ariel-sharon-330003.html
The next day the veteran correspondent, Orla Guerin was exiled to South Africa. She has since returned. Somebody tried to FoI the minutes of his meeting with Sharon. Sadly they must have been “lost” or never been taken. (By the BBC, no doubt the Israelis took them)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mark_thompson_trip_to_israel_for/response/18404/attach/html/3/RFI20090237%20final%20response.pdf.html
It’s also notable that for his services rendered to Israel he got appointed to the ultimate hasbara channel in the West, CNN.
He was appointed in August 2023 and, incredibly, he took office on October 9th 2023. There have been significant complaints of his pro-Israel bias which even makes traditional CNN bias (Wolf Blitzer used to be the chief IDF propagandist in the US) pale by comparison.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-israel-bias
I was wondering where that trope started, it seems to be everywhere in Western media, any time anyone reported the figures it was always prefaced with “from the Hamas-controlled health ministry”.
Of course we can also mention BBC anchor Martine Croxall who bore a true face of horror when forced to report (A day late) on the footage of Israeli soldiers throwing bodies (Unclear if they were already dead or their murders were being captured) off roofs in Jenin. She seemed not offended or appalled, she seemed scared to report the news. While a clip of the report appeared on the BBC news YouTube channel for a brief time, it was removed without justification only hours later. Who was she scared of? Was somebody talking in her ear? Was there a massive fight behind the scenes?
She is clearly scared of even reporting on this, watch the footage.
The BBC should be folded up and all it’s employees fired, it’s long past lived its usefulness. It’s archives, should be put in the care of the national archives, as it has produced a lot of good material in the past and it should all be available online.
Starmer’s wife is Jewish, we expected his behaviour
An succinct explanation of the HBD obsession with Jews as the rightful master race.