In late April 2025 the BBC News website published a report relating to the commencement of public hearings on a request for an advisory opinion on the topic of UNRWA from the International Court of Justice. As we noted at the time:
“…for well over a year the BBC – including its BBC Verify department – has refrained from conducting any meaningful independent investigation into the topic of the participation of UNRWA employees in the October 7th massacre or the wider issue of UNRWA connections to proscribed terrorist organisations, opting instead to blandly amplify that UN agency’s denials and claims.”
Six months on, that observation still stands.
Readers of a report published on the BBC News website on October 22nd, which is currently headlined “UN’s top court says Israel obliged to allow UN aid into Gaza”, likewise found no independent BBC reporting on the issue that is central to the case that is its subject matter: UNRWA’s lack of neutrality.
Instead, writer David Gritten opted to use the BBC’s usual unhelpful ‘he said-she said’ approach.
“Unrwa – the largest humanitarian organisation in Gaza, with 12,000 Palestinian staff based there – has repeatedly denied Israel’s allegation that it is deeply infiltrated by Hamas, which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US, UK and other countries.
Israel has said that Unrwa staff took part in the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken to Gaza as hostages, and claimed that the agency still employs more than 1,400 “Hamas operatives”.
The UN said last year that it had fired nine of Unrwa’s staff in Gaza after investigators found evidence that they might have been involved in the 7 October attack. Another 10 staff were cleared because of insufficient evidence.
Judge Iwasawa said the information the ICJ received was “not sufficient to establish Unrwa’s lack of neutrality”, and that Israel had “not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of Unrwa employees ‘are members of Hamas… or other terrorist factions'”.”
Gritten did not bother to inform his readers that, as reported by the Times of Israel, on that part of the advisory opinion the ICJ’s vice-president took the view that “the court did not “sufficiently consider” Israel’s arguments that Hamas operatives have infiltrated UNRWA”.
Neither did Gritten clarify that – contrary to the impression given by the headline to his report and the opening paragraph below – “UN aid” has been entering the Gaza Strip and continues to do so under the auspices of other UN bodies such as the World Food Programme, the United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, as well as private organisations.
“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has said Israel has a legal obligation to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip by the UN and its entities to ensure the basic needs of Palestinian civilians there are met.” [emphasis added]
Gritten makes no mention of the relevant fact that, as explained by Dr Brian L. Cox, Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention addresses the topic of diversion of aid:
“Specifically, art. 23 of GC IV establishes the obligations noted above are “subject to the condition that [the HCP] is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing” that the consignments will be diverted from their destination or that control of the area where consignments will be delivered isn’t effective or that “a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy…”.”
The BBC has of course largely avoided the issue of the looting of humanitarian aid – and has even promoted Hamas’ related denials – since the beginning of the war.
Gritten promotes statements from UN officials, including Philippe Lazzarini:
“When asked about the advisory opinion in Geneva, UN Secretary General António Guterres said: “This is a very important decision. And I hope that Israel will abide by it.”
He added that the advisory opinion came at a moment in which the UN was doing everything it could to boost aid deliveries to Gaza and deal with the “tragic situation” there.
Unrwa’s Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini, said the opinion was “unambiguous”.
“With huge amounts of food and other life saving supplies on standby in Egypt and Jordan, Unrwa has the resources and expertise to immediately scale up the humanitarian response in Gaza and help alleviate the suffering of the civilian population,” he wrote on X.”
Gritten does not however inform his readers of Lazzarini’s documented meetings with representatives of assorted terrorist organisations – including after October 7th 2023.
He does however promote the BBC’s chosen – but redundant – narrative concerning famine.
“Before this month’s ceasefire deal took effect, UN-backed global experts had warned that more than 640,000 people were facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that there was an “entirely man-made” famine in Gaza City.
Israel rejected the famine declaration, insisting it was allowing in sufficient food.”
As we have previously observed, the BBC has had over two months in which to explain to its audiences how that August 22nd IPC report was based on extremely problematic methodology and why its claim of famine is unsupported by the data. As we see, rather than making any attempt to provide its audiences with accurate and impartial reporting on that very serious issue, the corporation continues to uncritically promote the IPC’s ‘findings’.
The phrase ‘Israel rejected’ also appears in this report in another context:
“But Israel rejected the ICJ’s opinion as “political” and insisted it would not co-operate with Unrwa, which it has banned. […]
But Israel’s foreign ministry said it categorically rejected the advisory opinion, describing it as “entirely predictable from the outset regarding Unrwa”.
“This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘international law’,” it added.
The ministry also said Israel was fully upholding its obligations under international law and that it would “not co-operate with an organisation that is infested with terror activities”.”
Unless the BBC provides its audiences with the full information needed to understand why “Israel rejected” a famine declaration that did not stand up to scrutiny or why “Israel rejected” an ICJ opinion that fails to adequately acknowledge the links between a UN agency and proscribed terrorist organisations, that phrase becomes nothing more than a gratuitous ticking of the ‘impartiality’ box and part of an attempt to promote narratives instead of providing accurate and impartial information aimed at facilitating audience understanding.
Related Articles:
WHEN WILL THE BBC START REPORTING ACCURATELY AND IMPARTIALLY ON UNRWA?
