On September 2nd a report was published on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page under the headline “UK suspends some arms exports to Israel”. While the original version of that report did not include any comment on the story, the version currently appearing online – credited to Joshua Nevett and James Landale – does, in particular on the topic of whether the UK’s move goes far enough. [emphasis added]
“Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the UK would be suspending 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel, affecting equipment such as parts for fighter jets, helicopters and drones.
An Israeli minister told the BBC that the decision sent the “wrong message” and was “disappointing”, but human rights group Amnesty International UK called the suspension “too limited”. […]
Chief executive of Amnesty International UK, Sacha Deshmukh, criticised the restrictions as “too limited and riddled with loopholes”.
The non-profit organisation has continuously called for a ceasefire and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
“Today’s decision means that while ministers apparently accept that Israel may be committing war crimes in Gaza, [the government] is nevertheless continuing to risk complicity in war crimes, apartheid – and possible genocide – by Israeli forces in Gaza,” he said.”
As we see, Amnesty International UK is described only as a “human rights group” and a “non-profit organisation”. Despite BBC editorial guidelines concerning ‘Contributors’ Affiliations’, readers are told nothing of Amnesty International’s long record of anti-Israel campaigning, including by means of lawfare, or the fact that AI renewed its call for “a comprehensive arms embargo” on Israel just two weeks after Hamas’ October 7th 2023 invasion and massacre.
Clearly the ability of readers to be able to put Amnesty International’s criticism into appropriate context is hindered by the BBC’s failure to meet its own editorial guidelines.
Similarly, readers are told that:
“Already the government’s critics are saying the suspension has not gone far enough.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran said her party would “carefully scrutinise” the details of the announcement, “including those export licences which the government has not suspended”.
“We are concerned that the decision is made solely on risk of use in Gaza and not the West Bank,” she added.
Green MP Ellie Chowns asked why so many licences were exempt from the suspension.
“I am very concerned that the government is not consistently applying the principle that there is a clear risk of UK licensed weapons being used in breach of international humanitarian law,” she said.”
Once again, readers’ understanding would have been enhanced were they informed that Layla Moran is a member of the advisory board of an organisation called the ‘International Centre of Justice for Palestinians’ (ICJP ) which uses lawfare to delegitimise Israel.
Prior to the July UK election, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign launched a project titled “Vote Palestine 2024”.
The PSC later published a list of parliamentary candidates who had endorsed its six demands.
That PSC announcement includes the following:
“The Green Party of England and Wales was the political party with by far the most candidates to support all six of PSC’s demands – with 304 candidates scoring top marks. Among the high profile Green candidates to do so are the party’s current co-leader and Bristol Central candidate Carla Denyer, former party co-leader and Brighton Pavilion candidate Sian Berry, and North Herefordshire candidate Ellie Chowns.”
BBC audiences were however told nothing at all about that relevant background to the quoted statement from a “Green MP”.
Another British MP who scored “top marks” with the PSC is Zarah Sultana:
“As for the two big parties, 22 Labour candidates agreed to all six of the positions set out by PSC. Among the Labour candidates to commit to them are key figures on the left of the party, including Andy McDonald, Apsana Begum, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Cat Smith, Dianne Abbott, John McDonnell, Nadia Whittome, Richard Burgon and Zarah Sultana.”
Zarah Sultana is quoted in another BBC report on the same topic which was published on September 3rd, originally under the headline “’Shameful’ of UK to suspend some arms sales – Netanyahu”. The version of that report currently appearing online is titled “UK defends partial Israel arm sales ban” and is credited to Hafsa Khalil.
With no mention made of Sultana’s having signed up to the PSC’s campaign, readers are told that:
“Zarah Sultana, who is currently sitting as an independent MP after being suspended from the Labour Party, has called for an end to all arms sales to Israel.
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, the MP for Coventry South described the F35 jets as “the most lethal in the world”.”
Moreover, Khalil also quotes the Palestine Solidarity Campaign itself but fails to inform readers about its “affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints” (including the fact that it has been one of the main organisers of anti-Israel demonstrations in the UK for almost a year) as required by BBC editorial guidelines.
“The Palestine Solidarity Campaign said the move was “welcome but inadequate”, and said it would continue to push for the government to “apply the principles of international law” to all export licenses.”
Khalil’s report recycles Amnesty International’s talking points, once again without any information provided concerning its record of anti-Israel campaigning.
“Human rights group Amnesty International UK said the measures were “too limited”. […]
Amnesty International UK accused the government of “gesture politics”, given less than 10% of arms export licences were suspended.
The charity’s chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, said the restrictions were “too limited and riddled with loopholes”.
“[The] decision means that while ministers apparently accept that Israel may be committing war crimes in Gaza, [the government] is nevertheless continuing to risk complicity in war crimes, apartheid – and possible genocide – by Israeli forces in Gaza,” he said.
The non-profit organisation has continuously called for a ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza.”
Another view of the story promoted in later versions of the report comes from regular BBC contributor Husam Zomlot:
“…Husam Zomlot, the Palestinians’ top envoy to the UK, called the partial ban an “important first step” to the UK’s fulfilment of its “legal obligations under domestic and international law”. […]
In a statement, Mr Zomlot said that the Palestinian Mission to the UK would “continue working” with the UK government towards a “full arms embargo”.”
An additional opinion on the story which Hafsa Khalil considered worthy of promotion is that of Lord Peter Ricketts, who appeared on BBC domestic radio on the same day.
“Former national arms advisor Lord Peter Ricketts told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the government’s decision was “long overdue”.
Lord Ricketts told the BBC in April following an Israeli strike that killed seven aid workers that the UK should stop selling arms to Israel, claiming there was “abundant evidence” that obligations on civilian safety were not being fulfilled.
In his latest interview with the BBC, he said: “There comes a point when the legal advice is so clear the government has an obligation to follow it.””
Despite her promotion of that quote, Khalil has nothing to tell readers about alternative views of the clarity of that “legal advice”. Neither does she clarify that Ricketts did not bother to wait for the results of investigations into the April 1st incident in which WCK workers were killed in the Gaza Strip before commencing a media campaign calling for the UK to halt arms sales to Israel.
The presentation of differing viewpoints is of course an important part of reporting any story. However, for that reporting to be impartial it is necessary – as the BBC’s editorial guidelines on that topic recognise – to ensure that audiences are made aware of relevant context.
Portraying an NGO which campaigns against the country that is the topic of these reports as merely a “non-profit” and a “human rights group”, or failing to disclose the affiliation of an MP with an organisation that files politically motivated lawsuits against that country, obviously compromises the ability of audiences to understand the context to and the reasons behind the viewpoints the BBC finds fit to promote.
