"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Let me be clear from the very beginning: the BBC never said
‘One isn’t a jihadist if one just kills Jews’ – though what they did say boils
down to it. I wouldn’t normally stoop to this sort of dishonest headline
tactics – it’s not my style. But the BBC is utterly, outrageously
dishonest in its reporting on Jews and the Jewish state – so I believe they
deserve a taste of their own medicine.
As everybody knows, the BBC stubbornly refused to refer to
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizb’ullah, etc. as ‘terrorists’ – even after
7 October 2023, when they butchered and abducted random civilians in the name
of ‘the cause’. At the time, the Beeb rolled out ‘veteran journalists’
such as John Simpson, who ponderously explained:
“Terrorism is a loaded word . . . It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people . . . who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business . . . The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.”
Except that the BBC did say “terrorist” in their own
voice, when referring to the Manchester Arena bomber and his
purported accomplices. That’s of course different because… err… they didn’t
kill Jews?
The Beeb never referred to the 7 October 2023 massacre
(1,195 people killed) as a ‘terror attack’. But they did so in reference
to other, decidedly smaller incidents: for instance the 2016 attack at Brussels International Airport (32
fatalities) and the 2017 London Bridge attack (8 dead).
But why am I bringing all this up – you might ask – almost
two years after that shameful BBC decision? Because relatively recently
(20 June 2025), I came across a BBC
news item entitled “Jihadists on 200 motorbikes storm Niger army base”.
Why, I wondered, was the BBC referring to Islamist
terrorists storming an army base in Africa as “jihadists”, while
claiming that a much larger attack on civilian communities in Israel was
perpetrated by “militants”?
So I put pen to paper (figuratively, of course: I actually
used a laptop) and sent a complaint to the BBC, asking them to explain that
discrepancy.
No journalistic dinosaur with a God complex was available to
reply to an ignorant pleb like me; but an Assistant Editor at the BBC News
Editorial Standards informed me that
“Hamas is not typically classified as a jihadist group, unlike the Islamic State (IS) group which claimed the attack on the army base in Niger.
IS promotes a violent transnational Islamist ideology, whereas Hamas and PIJ are localised groups whose focus is the Israel-Palestinian conflict, in particular the replacement of Israel with an Islamic state in Palestine.
As such, we feel it is clearer to readers to describe Hamas and PIJ as armed groups rather than jihadist, as their fight is against the Israeli state.”
So there you are: the Palestinian Islamic Jihad aren’t
jihadists – because they only kill Jews. So Saith the BBC.
I briefly wondered whether the Assistant Editor blushed when
arguing that line? ‘Briefly’, because I once again got on my laptop, to
point out to the BBC that the ‘difference’ between “transnational” and “localised”
was cut entirely out of new cloth.
Firstly, because – far from being “localised” – both
Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are merely local branches of
transnational movements.
In its Covenant, Hamas describes itself as
“one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine . . . a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times”
But hey – what does Hamas know? Nothing is true unless
the BBC Saith it.
Fortunately, the BBC – aiming no doubt to enlighten dumb
members of the audience like myself – did saith it. They published an
explanatory article helpfully entitled “What is jihadism?”
That article beats around the bush a lot; but the gist of it
is that “jihadism” consists of two elements:
- An
Islamist ideology;
- Willingness
to employ violence in order to promote it.
The BBC did call
Hamas “Islamist” (albeit very occasionally) in the past. As for
the use of violence… I figured that post 7 October even the Assistant Editor
might find it a bit too embarrassing to argue that point.
But, just to remove any doubt, the BBC explainer also
mentioned that jihadists are not all exactly the same: they “share the basic
aims of advancing Islam, but their priorities can vary”. An example
of such priority is:
“Establishing sovereignty on a territory perceived as occupied or dominated by non-Muslims. The Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (Soldiers of the Pure) is opposed to Indian control of Kashmir, while the Caucasus Emirate wants an Islamic state throughout the "Muslim lands" in the Russian Federation.”
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas are as similar as two terror
outfits can ever be. Despite BBC’s euphemistic description, the former’s
programme goes ‘a bit’ further than just “oppos[ing] Indian control of
Kashmir”; they plan to ‘liberate’ all India and ‘reestablish’ Muslim rule
over it. Sounds familiar?
So I got on my laptop again and wrote all this to the
BBC. But when the Assistant Editor came back to me, his answer was an
exercise in ‘logical’ contortionism and dishonest obfuscation – causing me to
immediately escalate to the highest stage of BBC complaints consideration: the
mighty Executive Complaints Unit (ECU).
The Assistant Editor’s response started with the inimitable
BBC brand of arrogance:
“We appreciate that it remains your view that Hamas should be called Jihadists. However we remain of the view that the reasoning outlined in your complaint does not amount to compelling evidence for changing our approach.”
But why not – I hear you crying? How can an article
published by the BBC itself “not amount to compelling evidence” for the BBC?
Well, the respondent pointed out that the BBC explainer I quoted from did
not mention Hamas. It didn’t, of course – and nor did it mention most of
the other Islamist terror groups. The article was entitled “What is
jihadism?”; not ‘An Exhaustive List of Jihadist Groups’.
The BBC guy went on to school me in the intricacies of
Islamic theology:
“the term itself is rooted in the Quran and often used interchangeably to mean ‘fight’, ‘struggle’, or ‘resistance’, appearing widely in the rhetoric of militant and political movements - including some that are not overtly religious.”
In my letter to the ECU, I once more referred to the Hamas
Covenant:
“Art. 7 . . . refers to ‘the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.’ Art. 8: ‘Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes’. Article 13 [states]: ‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,’ and goes on to disparage diplomacy as “all a waste of time and vain endeavors”
Which part of that, I asked, refers to non-violent
jihad? And which part is “not overtly religious”?
Next, the Assistant Editor asserted that there were “a
number of fundamental differences in approach” between Hamas and “organisations
like so-called Islamic State”. Which is why, he went on to claim, the
latter “not only disdain Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, but have openly
labelled them ‘apostates’, declaring them legitimate targets for violence.”
To further school me in the facts of life, the good Editor
added links to two articles (one of them by the BBC) explaining the differences
between Hamas, Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.
But, as I pointed out to the ECU, this was
“Another irrelevant ‘argument’: that Hamas, the PIJ, IS & Al-Qaeda are all jihadists needs not imply that they are identical in every respect. The SNP, Alternative für Deutschland, the Catalonian Nationalist Party, Israel’s Jewish Power & the PLO are all nationalist movements – but that doesn’t mean they’re identical or in agreement.
Neither of the two articles linked [in the Assistant Editor’s response] claims that Hamas & PIJ aren’t jihadist; they merely point out the differences between various jihadist groups. One may find articles pointing out the many differences between sharks and mackerel; sharks may even feed on mackerel – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t all fish!
While the IS disdains Hamas, they’re also at odds with Al-Qaeda – yet the BBC does not use this to claim that the latter aren’t ‘jihadists’. In fact, both sources cited [by the Assistant Editor] refer to ‘rival jihadists’. Like other extremists (especially religious extremists), jihadists are factional: they view deviations from the ‘pure’ ideology not just as erroneous, but heretical.”
The Assistant Editor’s letter concluded:
“We can therefore only reiterate that we feel it is clearer to readers to describe Hamas and PIJ as armed groups rather than jihadist.”
I told ECU that this
“is illogical. There are many types of ‘armed groups’ in the world. The term gives the audience zero information: post-7 October 2023, most of the audience already knows that they’re ‘armed’.
This is like calling Trotskyism and Leninism ‘political ideologies’: true, but not informative. Surely it’d be much more edifying to call them both – despite their differences/rivalry – ‘communist ideologies’?”
I also pointed out that, since the BBC did publish an
article explaining the differences between Hamas, IS and Al-Qaeda, there was
little risk that the audience might be misled into thinking they were all
exactly the same.
But the BBC would have none of it.
ECU’s response came signed by… a former Assistant Editor,
who had gradually risen through the ranks. He wrote:
“Having read carefully through the correspondence to date I am not sure there is much to be gained from continuing a relatively academic argument over which definition most closely fits Hamas as an organisation. There will always be debates over how to characterise Hamas – just as there were over IS. The question for a broadcaster like the BBC is less whether there can be a definitive answer to such a question, and more what is the best means to convey the similarities and differences between the different groups in a way that allows audiences to understand their motives, ideologies and background.”
You got that, plebs? Calling Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad “armed groups” rather than “jihadist groups” is
more likely to allow “audiences to understand their motives, ideologies and
background”!
So Saith the BBC. Or, in ECU’s charming language
“This letter represents the final word of the BBC and general complaints of this kind do not usually fall within Ofcom’s remit. But you can contact them if you wish.”
No, it’s not just extreme, disgusting arrogance that
permeates that letter – but also intellectual dishonesty and ill-faith.
And it’s far from being a one-off case. When it comes
to Jews, the BBC applies a different ‘logic’, a unique reading of its own
Editorial Guidelines and a distinct way of doing things.
The son of a Hamas minister was employed to narrate a BBC documentary on the war in Gaza. 'We didn't know!' claimed the BBC brass, after the boys identity was discovered by a pro-Israel researcher equipped with... a laptop. |
When it comes to Jews, the BBC ‘hears anti-Muslim
slurs’ that nobody else does. When it comes to Jews, the BBC pays Hamas families to push Hamas propaganda (as if
they wouldn’t do it for free; and as if BBC’s own journalists don’t promote it
enough!) When it comes to Jews, the BBC sees only the most evil of
intentions – and smuggle in the ruminations of its ‘International Editor’ as
facts.
BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen: "I've been accused of anti-Semitism [sic!] more times than I have hot dinners..." One of those many times was when Bowen accused Israeli PM Netanyahu of "play[ing] the holocaust card" by acknowledging survivor Elie Wiesel in the audience. |
When it comes to Jews – and only when it comes to Jews – the
BBC behaves like Völkischer Beobachter, subjecting its audience to a constant
stream of antisemitic ‘news’.
Sure, the BBC will say that they ‘cover the war in
Gaza’. But – leaving aside the biased content – which other war did they
cover in the same relentless, obsessive way? The war in Ukraine (one
million casualties and counting, seven million refugees)? How about the
war in Syria (500,000 killed, 12 million displaced)?
The BBC has quoted ad nauseam the Hamas ‘report’ of people
who died “as a result of malnutrition” in Gaza (circa 200 since 7
October 2023); but when is the last time you read or heard on the BBC about
Sudan’s Zamzam refugee camp, where 1 child died every 2 hours?
The BBC is, of course, not the only media outlet that
actively promotes antisemitism; it’s just that the others don’t do it on my
dime. In the UK, anyone watching a live broadcast has to pay the ‘licence
fee’. This applies to watching any live channel, through any means
(aerial, satellite dish, internet…) and on any device (TV set, computer,
smartphone…) The licence fee is used to fund the BBC but not any other
media outlet (so, if you watch live on the internet a TV channel from Zambia or
a YouTube broadcast from Burma – you must pay a licence fee to the BBC!)
Not paying it constitutes a criminal offence; it will result in a hefty fine –
if not a prison term; and it goes on your criminal record potentially
preventing you, for instance, from being employed as a teacher, a social
worker, etc.
But even if you don’t watch any live broadcasts, being a UK
income taxpayer means that some of your money goes to fund this ‘national
treasure’. You may never use the service – but you’ve got to pay for it.
Not that paying gives one any influence over what the BBC
says, does, over whom they employ and promote, etc. You may believe that BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen is a talentless piece of dead wood
who should at best be working for The Whispering Hedge Weekly (circulation: 15
and growing); but you are still required to fund part of his c. £260,000 per
annum salary!
![]() |
BBC's 'Diplomatic' Correspondent, posted on X on 8 October 2023. |
The BBC’s only raison d'être is being a ‘public’ news
outlet. This means that, in return for receiving public funds (while its
‘commercial’ competitors have to work hard to scrape a living), the BBC is
supposed to work in the public interest, according to strict rules ensuring
accuracy and impartiality – not to mention integrity.
Except it doesn’t. It’s all a disgusting sham.
Let’s start with the hierarchy: the BBC is led by a Board
whose Chair is – in practice – appointed by the sitting Prime Minister.
The other Board members are appointed either by His Majesty’s Government or by
the BBC itself.
In turn, the Board appoints the Director-General, who
appoints the Directors/Executive Officers. The Director of News &
Current Affairs then appoints the Editors.
So much for ‘checks and balances’. There is nothing in
that recruitment process that truly guarantees BBC’s independence – let alone
impartiality and diversity of opinion!
As for ‘public interest’: before 2017, the BBC was
‘regulated’ by the BBC Trust, which was supposed to represent the licence
payers. But in 2017, a new Royal Charter dismantled the Trust, replacing
it with the Board and giving the Government more power over the BBC. As
for the licence payers, they are now represented by… nobody in particular.
At the time, the change was spun as an improvement in BBC
accountability, as the complaints process was referred to Ofcom – the industry
regulator (before 2017, the BBC was outside Ofcom’s jurisdiction).
But that was no improvement – it’s just another lie.
Here’s why:
- Ofcom
considers complaints only once the BBC Complaints process has been
exhausted (i.e., once ECU has issued a final response rejecting the
complaint). But the BBC process is long, tiresome and demoralising.
Complainants either give up or avoid it altogether. In 2023-2024, no
less than 2,709 BBC-related complaints were submitted to Ofcom. But
only 153 (less than 6%) had completed BBC’s own complaints process – the
others were generally dismissed by Ofcom with no consideration.
- Ofcom
considers complaints according with its own Broadcasting Code, as opposed
to BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The Broadcasting Code is applicable equally
to all broadcasters, meaning that – despite being funded by the public –
the BBC is not held to higher standards. Since 2017, Ofcom received
no less than 7,133 complaints about BBC bias; only 29 (0.4%) were upheld.
- Ofcom’s
jurisdiction extends only to BBC audio-visual content. It does not
encompass articles and news items published on BBC websites, mobile apps
and social media. These remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the BBC, which is left to ‘regulate itself’. Of course, increasingly
people read news on websites and apps, rather than watching live TV or
listening to the radio.
- Ofcom
is woefully underfunded and understaffed. While its budget and headcount
have increased gradually, its workload has grown massively. The
number of BBC-related complaints has grown 20-fold since 2017; those
specifically about BBC bias have tripled in the past 3 years. But
the BBC is far from being Ofcom’s main headache: in 2023, the UK
Parliament adopted the Online Safety Act, which brought a huge expansion
of Ofcom’s role. In addition to its already broad role (further
expanded in 2017) Ofcom is now UK’s online safety regulator – covering
search engines, social media, user-to-user services, online risks,
disinformation and misinformation, algorithmic transparency, as well as
assuming responsibility for promoting ‘digital literacy’ among the 69 million-strong
British populace.
I mentioned the BBC Editorial Complaints. These are
written by… the BBC, of course. There is usually a consultation, but the
BBC does not have to hold one; nor does it have to take on board anything that
the consultation brings up.
Such a consultation took place in 2024-2025. But you’d
be forgiven for not having heard about it: despite considerable efforts, I
could not find anything on the BBC News website announcing this ‘public’
event. So – in practice – the BBC also gets to decide who is consulted…
The Guidelines are a long and prolix document – the latest
version runs to 448 pages. One can read there whatever one wishes to read
– and the BBC does! For instance, Paragraph 2.4.7 says
“Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.”
Not a BBC original contribution, but a fundamental
principle of ethical journalism.
But just a little further on, another Paragraph (2.4.12)
states:
“Presenters, reporters, correspondents and on-air editors . . . may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience…”
In practice, I found many instances where BBC “[p]resenters,
reporters, correspondents and on-air editors” failed to “clearly
distinguish [opinion] from fact.”
Invariably, those assessing my complaints claimed that they
were expressing not “opinions,” but “professional judgements,” which
they “may” do.
I responded by pointing out that, by definition (see here, here, here),
“judgements” are opinions, albeit considered ones. And that the
paragraph that permitted such opinions to be expressed did not remove the
obligation to distinguish them from fact.
But, of course, it did not help. The BBC responded as
follows:
“You say ‘Judgements are opinions’. We would say that judgements are sound conclusions which are rooted in evidence.”
That’s it: the BBC writes its own rules; it interprets rules
as it wishes; it assesses complaints against itself as it pleases; and it
changes the meaning of the English language at its own convenience. The
national anthem should really be called ‘God save the BBC’!
Did I say “assesses complaints against itself”?
The BBC’s 3-stage Editorial Complaints process isn’t fit for purpose.
It’s another sham.
The BBC is obliged (by the Royal Charter and the Framework
Agreement) to publish “a framework for handling and resolving complaints”.
That’s another
document (52 additional pages I had to read). Only instead of dealing
with how the BBC should perform the “handling and resolving [of]
complaints,” the “framework” is primarily concerned with what the
complainants need to do: complain in a certain way and not another; within a
certain time period; include all the required details etc. etc. What the
Editorial Complaints Procedure does not say is how the BBC should investigate
those complaints. Besides a few woolly formulations (e.g. “we aim to…”),
there is no requirement for the complaints personnel to be independent; no
obligation of fairness and impartiality; no commitment to investigate beyond
‘giving consideration’.
The BBC only commits to respond within a certain time
period, ‘unless it requires longer’ (one of my complaints required more than 18
months to be… rejected by the ECU). At any point, it can decide to
amalgamate hundreds of complaints together and provide one boilerplate response
to everybody; it can decide not to investigate a complaint for a variety of
reasons; it can even ban complainants if – in the opinion of the BBC, of
course! – they complain too much, raise trivial, irrelevant or groundless
points, are unduly persistent (“pressing the point”), or God-forbid use “abusive
language”. The banned complainants still have to pay the licence fee,
of course!
As we have seen, complaint adjudicators are colleagues of
those complained about, who use the first person plural (”we”) to defend
the BBC from criticism and accountability. The Framework promises “an
initial response” at Stage 1a and “a response from or on behalf of a BBC
manager or a member of the editorial team” at Stage 1b. This would
suggest to a reasonable person that the 1b adjudicator should be higher up the
hierarchy, compared to 1a. But the BBC claims that there is no such
obligation, and in practice the same person might respond at 1a and 1b; or one
may receive an anonymous response; or a response from someone who isn’t “a
BBC manager or a member of the editorial team” and does not state “on
behalf of” whom they respond...
Stage 2 (and last) is the pompously named Executive
Complaints Unit (ECU). Naïve persons might take ‘unit’ to mean a group of
people discussing, debating and making collective decisions. But that’s
just more deceit: in practice ‘ECU’ is just one person scratching their head,
deciding and responding.
At each stage, the BBC is supposedly required “to give an
explanation for any decision about a complaint“. But that’s often
ignored, with some responses particularly curt and dismissive.
Finally, even on the exceedingly rare occasions when a
complaint is upheld (usually because it’s so blindingly obvious, that the
adjudicators can’t possibly wriggle out of it), the BBC isn’t required to do
anything beyond applying a minimal correction to the offending news item (which
by then may be many months old, forever buried in some godforsaken corner of
the BBC News website!)
As a ‘public’ media outlet, the BBC is supposed to hold up
the flag of ethical, quality journalism, resisting the temptations of both
‘commercial’ sensationalism and political activism. It does exactly the
opposite: it competes with Al-Jazeera in providing shamelessly skewed, biased
content.
The BBC has turned malignant. And, as usual with such
things – Jews are the canary in the coal mine. These days, the BBC is one
of the main promoters of antisemitic prejudice. It is only a matter of
time before its insidious but incessant propaganda – which is already
responsible for additional suffering in the Middle East – will cause bloodshed
in this country. UK Government – be warned, or be damned!
Another excellent article Noru. Just one minor criticism. You refer somewhere in the article to Jeremy Bowen as the former international editor of the BBC. To the best of my knowledge, he's the current international editor.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Geoff! Well spotted re Bowen. Freudian slip, I'm afraid! I've removed the 'former'.
DeleteThanks for your perseverence. The BBC has a hateful line and will stick to it - never mind the fact that the very name of Hamas is an acronym which explains what they are: al-Herekat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya , i.e. The Movement for the Islamic Uprising.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lucille. You are right about the meaning of 'Hamas', though 'muqawama' means 'resistance'. The BBC would no doubt reply that 'Islamic' does not mean 'jihadist'. But, as mentioned, they themselves defined 'jihadist' as Islamist ideology + violent means. Hamas clearly presents both these characteristics.
Delete