On September 22nd the BBC News website published a report credited to Jacqueline Howard and Mallory Moench titled “Israel orders 45-day closure of Al Jazeera West Bank office”. Relating to events on the same day, that report opens by telling readers that:
“The Israeli military has raided the offices of news broadcaster Al Jazeera in Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank, confiscated its equipment and ordered it to close for an initial period of 45 days.
Armed Israeli soldiers entered the building early on Sunday during a live broadcast.
Israel’s military said a legal opinion and intelligence assessment determined that the offices were being used “to incite terror” and “support terrorist activities”, and that the channel’s broadcasts endanger Israel’s security.”
Later the report states:
“About the closure of the offices, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement that it and Israel Border Police, alongside the civil administration, enforced an order signed by the Commander of the Central Command.
The offices had been sealed and equipment confiscated, the IDF added.”
In addition to those paragraphs portraying and supposedly explaining the Israeli action, readers find comment from Al Jazeera:
“Al Jazeera “vehemently” condemned the closure and “unfounded allegations presented by Israeli authorities to justify these illegal raids”, and called the move an “affront” to press freedom. […]
Viewers watched as the troops handed the closure order to Al Jazeera’s West Bank bureau chief Walid al-Omari, who read it out live on air.
“Targeting journalists this way always aims to erase the truth and prevent people from hearing the truth,” Mr al-Omari said in comments reported by his employer. […]
Al Jazeera decried the “draconian actions” and “oppressive measures”, but said it would not deter the network from covering Gaza and the West Bank.
The news outlet said it would pursue all available legal channels through international legal institutions to protect its rights and journalists, as well as the public’s right to information.”
Unsurprisingly given the BBC’s record of reporting on stories involving Al Jazeera, readers are not informed that it is run by the same state which funds and hosts the Hamas terrorist organisation or that – as the BBC well knows – it is already party to ‘lawfare’ petitions to the ICC.
Howard and Moench have nothing to tell their readers about the documented relations between Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief (who relocated to Qatar in January, where he was visited by a BBC journalist) and the proscribed terrorist organisation which rules the territory. Neither do readers find any information about the Al Jazeera journalists who have been exposed as operatives for terrorist organisations (including the one who held hostages in his home) or the outlet’s long history of promoting and glorifying terrorism.
Readers of this report are also told that:
“The Foreign Press Association said it was “deeply troubled” by the development, which it also said threatened press freedom.
“Restricting foreign reporters and closing news channels signals a shift away from democratic values,” the organisation said.”
By way of background to the story, Howard and Moench tell readers that:
“In April, the Israeli parliament passed a law giving the government power to temporarily close foreign broadcasters considered a threat to national security during the war.
A ban would be in place for a period of 45 days at a time, as seen in Sunday’s raid, and can be renewed.”
BBC audiences are not informed that renewals of those bans are subject to judicial review by a district court. In June of this year, the vice-president of the Tel Aviv district court issued a ruling with which the Foreign Press Association and the BBC are apparently not familiar.
“Judge Yaniv stated that freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media have been recognized by Israel’s Supreme Court as central values in a democratic country, but that the right to freedom of expression, like other constitutional rights, is not absolute. He cited Supreme Court decisions providing that
[d]emocracy recognizes the right of expression . . . of every person; it will do everything to respect this right, but democracy will not allow the use of rights . . . to bring about its self-destruction. Democracy must also be tolerant of the intolerant, but democracy should not allow its tolerance to destroy itself. A constitution is not a prescription for suicide, and citizen rights are not a platform for national annihilation. (Para. 15, citations omitted.)”
In addition:
“Judge Yaniv said that because orders issued under the Foreign Broadcasters Law impact the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, they must rely on “powerful evidence: convincing, clear and unequivocal that the contents that are broadcasted substantially harm state security.” (Para. 21.)
Judge Yaniv found, based on his examination of data from “high quality sources,” including recently gathered information, that Hamas and Al Jazeera have an ongoing close relationship. In addition to the role played by Al Jazeera in inciting Hamas, the channel describes “in real time” the location of Israel Defense Forces operations, thereby endangering IDF soldiers. Al Jazeera also broadcasted instructions on how to hit an Israeli tank, pointing to its weakness points, and explaining how rockets could penetrate the tank’s “three layers of defense.” (Paras. 22-23.)
Given the unique complexity of wartime, Judge Yaniv concluded that a significant harm to state security takes precedence over freedom of expression, because “civil rights are not a platform for national annihilation.” (Para. 36.)”
Like far too many BBC journalists before them, it is clear that Howard and Moench had no intention of providing readers with the relevant background which would enable understanding of this latest story about Al Jazeera. Instead, their report focuses on promoting talking points such as “unfounded allegations”, “press freedom”, “targeting journalists” and “democratic values”.
BBC coverage of the UK media regulator’s 2022 decision to ban the Russian state media channel RT (which had already been banned by the EU) from broadcasting in the UK included analysis from the corporation’s then media editor, Amol Rajan:
“Should liberal democracies ban state propaganda? Such moves may be ineffective: RT is still available online. They may be counter-productive: Ofcom accepts retaliation against the BBC is possible. And if the West is fighting a war for liberal democracy, free speech – while not unconditional – cannot be jettisoned lightly.
Against all that must be weighed the harm of allowing lies to proliferate, and the importance of signalling control over our own public domain.”
Perhaps Mr Rajan could explain to the BBC’s funding public, its journalists and the British Consulate in Jerusalem – why “allowing lies to proliferate” (not to mention the airing an instructional video on how to damage a tank with a proximity charge) causes “harm” when coming from Russian state-backed media but apparently not when the source is the Qatari government financed outlet Al Jazeera.
Related Articles:
MORE BBC AMPLIFICATION OF AL JAZEERA’S ‘TARGETING JOURNALISTS’ FALSEHOOD
BBC NEWS STICKS TO THE NARRATIVE AFTER ‘JOURNALISTS’ EXPOSED
BBC NEWS IGNORES AL JAZEERA JOURNALISTS STORIES
THE BBC, JOURNALISM AND TERRORISM
BBC NEWS AGAIN CIRCLES THE WAGONS IN REPORT ON AL JAZEERA STORY
Rajan is out of his depth on these issues as can be gauged by his statements etc on the BBC Flagship Radio 4 Today program from 6 to 9am
As far as Al Jazeera is concerned it is now bypassing the ban on live broadcasts from Israel on its English TV . The last two days have seen live interviews with Israelis who should be prosecuted for failing to uphold the law, Yossi Balin and Gideon Levy (Ha’aretz)