Last month we documented the BBC’s inaccurate presentation of legislation concerning UNRWA which had been passed by the Knesset in 2024:
“In his written report Sudworth also tells readers that:
“Israel’s action comes in the wake of a controversial law passed last year which banned Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem. […]
The law, passed in January 2025, severing all state contact with the refugee agency, had already been making itself felt.”
In fact the Knesset passed two laws relating to UNRWA in October 2024 which came into effect on January 30th 2025.”
BBC REPORTING ON UNRWA AS EVER AVOIDS THE ISSUES
CAMERA UK submitted a complaint on that matter which was rejected by the BBC three days later: [emphasis in bold in the original]
“You wrote to us to point out that Israel’s Knesset has passed two laws against Unrwa. One bans Unrwa from operating in Israel and East Jerusalem. The other severs ties between Israel and Unrwa.
You said that in this article we imply that the Knesset had passed only one law against Unrwa.
However, the article describes the first of the laws in this sentence:
Israel’s action comes in the wake of a controversial law passed last year which banned Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem.
Please note that we said in this sentence that this law was passed last year.
It report [sic] describes the second of the laws in this passage:
Unrwa has been under increasing pressure from the Israeli authorities. The law, passed in January 2025, severing all state contact with the refugee agency, had already been making itself felt.
Please note that we said in this sentence that this law was passed in January 2025.
Therefore, we are clearly referring to two separate laws – passed at two separate times – and not to one law.
You said: “please correct accordingly”. However, no correction is needed.”
CAMERA UK therefore submitted a Stage 1b complaint in which we pointed out that:
“The response received is inaccurate and unsatisfactory.
The BBC report concerned was published in January 2026, meaning that “last year” would be understood by readers to mean 2025.
The two laws concerned were in fact both passed on October 29th 2024 – rather than in 2025 – as the BBC itself reported at the time:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cpqd9lr80p8t“
On February 13th we received a response informing us that the report had been amended.
“On looking again at your complaint, we take your point that the two laws to which we referred in this report were passed on the same day in October 2024. We have amended the report accordingly. We have also made an amendment to make it clearer to readers that we are referring in this report to two separate laws passed in the Knesset about Unrwa.
One sentence in the report used to read:
Israel’s action comes in the wake of a controversial law passed last year which banned Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem.
It now reads:
Israel’s action comes in the wake of a controversial law passed in October 2024 which banned Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem.
Another sentence used to read:
The law, passed in January 2024, severing all state contact with the refugee agency, had already been making itself felt.
It now reads:
A second law, also passed in October 2024, severing all state contact with the refugee agency, had already been making itself felt.
We have also added this note to the end of the text:
Correction 9 February 2026: This article originally said that the law banning Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem was passed last year. It was passed in October 2024, as we reported at the time, and the article has been amended accordingly. We have also made clear that a second bill severing all state contact with Unrwa was passed on the same day as the first bill, as we reported at the time.
Thank you for drawing this to our attention. Mistakes like this should not happen and are usually picked up by senior editors, but in a busy newsroom I am afraid sometimes errors occur and we aim to rectify these as quickly as possible, as we have done here.”
The amendments made 21 days after the report’s original appearance can be seen here and the footnote reads as follows:
When a Stage 1a complaint is dismissed without adequate examination of the issue and a Stage 1b complaint has to be submitted as a result, the BBC cannot possibly claim to have addressed the issue “as quickly as possible”.
