On Israel, the BBC seems incapable of getting the simplest thing right
The BBC has a tried and tested playbook when it comes to managing a crisis. Prioritise reputation over transparency, announce a review that reduces the heat and hope that the storm eventually blows over.
It is now two months since the broadcast of the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, which was quickly revealed to feature the son of a Hamas minister whose family received payment for his participation.
This journalistic debacle highlighted many failures in the corporation's due diligence and accuracy when it comes to the Israel-Hamas war. Not least among these was the spotlight thrown on the BBC's decade-long policy of mistranslating the word Yahud as Israelis rather than Jews.
The word Yahud is consistently translated from Arabic into English in dictionary sources as Jew, but when it came to its reporting of the Middle East the BBC decided it knew better.
On five occasions in the documentary, the BBC altered the meaning of Yahud, masking the racist nature of its use. In one instance, the translation of an interviewee who praised Hamas's genocidal leader Yahya Sinwar for 'jihad against the Jews' was altered to fighting 'Israeli forces'.
In doing so, the BBC whitewashed the racist meaning of statements by Palestinians, as if British people should not be allowed to make up their own minds about racist intent.
Anti-Semitism was 'triaged' by the broadcaster to make it more palatable and Palestinian interviewees more sympathetic, with attention deflected towards Israel. This really matters because to understand the Israel-Hamas war, the genocidal ambitions of Hamas and its supporters must be confronted head-on.
When Hamas terrorists attacked families on October 7 their intention was not to kill Israelis. It was to kill Jews whether they were men, women, grandmothers or tiny babies. By failing to transparently translate the word Jews when used by Palestinians, the BBC has been withholding crucial information on a conflict driven by the well-documented racism of Hamas and its supporters in Gaza.
While an investigation looks into the many editorial failings in the documentary, the BBC pledged to address the translation question separately. It is not clear why two months later there has been no decision on such a clear-cut issue.
There is no doubt that the Arabic dictionary definition of Yahud is Jew. Speak to experts and they will tell you the same. A veteran Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explains: 'When I speak to Palestinians and they say 'Yahud' I will write it in English as 'Jew'. This is the accurate translation. If the BBC or any other media organisation are subtitling it as 'Israeli' they are misleading viewers.'
This mistranslation has deep roots at the BBC, where the rightful concerns of the Jewish community have been ignored for many years.
The issue goes back to 2013 when a concerned licence-fee payer complained to the BBC about the mistranslation of Yahud but was met by a wall of corporate intransigence. On this occasion as on many others, the BBC's complaints' system operated primarily to defend the broadcaster rather than transparently deal with the issue at hand. In making this ruling, the BBC institutionalised a decade-long journalistic policy, which meant that the racist meaning of statements by Palestinians could be hidden from public view.
This mistranslation is symptomatic of much wider problems in the BBC's reporting of Israel. Not for the first time did the BBC ignore racism because its target was Jewish people. Not for the first time did the BBC defend a serious failing in its Middle East coverage because it was more concerned about its reputation than factual accuracy. Not for the first time did members of the Jewish community approach the BBC with reasoned arguments but find themselves ignored by the institution.
It is not surprising that so many British Jews have deep concerns about the BBC's reporting on Israel when crucial issues of accuracy like this have been left uncorrected by the corporation for over a decade.
For too long, the BBC has not taken issues of anti-Semitism as seriously as other forms of racism. The time for fundamental change is now, and there is no better place to start than on the Yahud question. Only a clear-cut translation as Jew can be accurate.
The question for the BBC's director general Tim Davie is simple: who knows better when it comes to translation – the BBC or the dictionary?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Daily T: BBC chief should resign over Glastonbury hate chant, says Israeli minister
When rapper Bob Vylan led chants of 'death to the IDF' at Glastonbury Festival over the weekend, the BBC did not cut away but instead continued to broadcast the event live. Now the PM has demanded an explanation, with the Tories' Chris Philp even suggesting the national broadcaster itself should be prosecuted. Israel's deputy foreign minister Sharren Haskel tells Camilla and Tim that the BBC's reaction has been 'pathetic' and that director general Tim Davie should consider resigning. Plus, the Government has been forced into its latest climbdown after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kybosh its benefits bill. But former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan-Smith tells The Daily T that the Government's welfare reforms don't go nearly far enough.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Israel launches waves of Gaza airstrikes after new displacement orders
Israel ramped up its offensive in Gaza on Monday, with new displacement orders sending tens of thousands of people fleeing the north of the devastated territory and waves of airstrikes killing about 60 Palestinians, according to local officials and medical staff. The violence in Gaza came as a senior adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, was due to arrive in Washington for talks on a new ceasefire, a day after President Trump called in a social media post for deal to end the 20-month long war and free 50 hostages held by Hamas. Ron Dermer, the strategic affairs minister and a close confidant of Netanyahu, is expected to meet senior US officials to discuss ongoing indirect negotiations with Hamas, the aftermath of Israel's war against Iran and the possibility of regional diplomatic deals. An Israeli government spokesperson told reporters on Monday that Netanyahu was working to end the war in Gaza 'as soon as possible' through the release of the hostages (of whom more than half are thought to be dead), and the defeat of Hamas. The new 'evacuation orders' warned of impending assaults around densely populated Gaza City and told Palestinians to head south to overcrowded coastal zones, where there are few facilities and limited water. About 80% of Gaza is now covered by such orders or controlled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The orders also warned that the IDF planned to advance into the centre of Gaza City to fight Hamas militants based there. On Monday, Israeli tanks and infantry pushed into the Zeitoun neighbourhood on the eastern edge of Gaza City and shelled several areas in the north, while aircraft bombed at least four schools after ordering hundreds of families sheltering inside to leave, residents said. 'Explosions never stopped; they bombed schools and homes. It felt like earthquakes,' said Salah, 60, a father of five children, from Gaza City. 'In the news we hear a ceasefire is near, on the ground we see death and we hear explosions.' In mid-afternoon, an airstrike hit a crowded cafe on the shore in Gaza City, killing at least 22 people, including women, children and a local journalist. The IDF said it struck militant targets in northern Gaza, including command and control centres, after taking steps to mitigate the risk of harming civilians. Analysts have detected changes in the rhetoric of senior Israeli officials in recent days, which may suggest a new ceasefire is now being considered. Throughout the conflict, Israeli attacks have intensified at key moments in negotiations. Israeli officials have said one aim of Israel's latest offensive, which was launched in May after the breakdown of a two-month ceasefire in March, was to seize territory that could later be given up during talks as a 'bargaining chip'. On Friday, Eyal Zamir, the IDF chief of staff, said the offensive was close to having achieved its goals. Netanyahu has also reinforced his political position within Israel and so is better placed to ignore threats by rightwing coalition allies to withdraw support in the event of a deal with Hamas. A deal remains difficult though, officials close to the negotiations said, with both Israel and Hamas sticking to previous incompatible positions. Hamas is demanding that Israel agrees to a definitive end to the war and is refusing to disarm. Israel refuses Hamas demands to withdraw entirely from Gaza and says it will end its campaign only when the militant organisation has given up its weapons and its leaders have agreed to leave the territory. Yair Lapid, the Israeli opposition leader, on Monday added his voice to those in Israel calling for an end to the war in Gaza. 'There is no longer any benefit for the State of Israel from continuing the war in Gaza. Only damage on the security, political and economic level,' Lapid told a meeting of parliamentarians. 'The army has no more objectives in Gaza.' A public opinion poll published the day after Tuesday's ceasefire with Iran by public broadcaster Kan showed that nearly two-thirds of respondents wanted the Gaza war to end. The result was in line with dozens of similar polls in recent months. Israel's military has suffered significant casualties this month, which has added to the public pressure for a deal. Nasser hospital in Khan Younis said on Monday it received the bodies of 11 people who were shot while returning from an aid site associated with the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund in southern Gaza, Ten others were killed at a United Nations aid warehouse in northern Gaza, according to the health ministry. The Israeli military acknowledged on Monday that Palestinian civilians were harmed as they sought food from distribution centres in Gaza and other locations, saying that instructions had been issued to forces following 'lessons learned'. Food, fuel and other basics are scarce in Gaza, with distributions by the GHF coming nowhere close to meeting the needs of 2.3 million people. Israel says Hamas steals aid to finance military and other operations. The group denies that accusation and aid agencies say their monitoring systems are robust. The war began when Hamas-led militants attacked into southern Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza. Israel's subsequent military assault has killed more than 56,500 Palestinians, mostly civilians, displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population and reduced much of the territory to rubble. AFP and Reuters contributed reporting
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK's sale of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel is lawful, high court rules
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful, London's high court has ruled. The ruling after more than 20 months of litigation will be a relief to ministers who feared that if the court declared the UK sale of F-35 parts illegal, British involvement in the highly lucrative Lockheed Martin F-35 consortium would be put at risk. In a 72-page comprehensive ruling Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said they had rejected all the grounds of challenge to a Labour government decision in September to suspend 30 arms export licences to Israel but to continue to sell F-35 parts to Israel via a global supply pool. The government argued that disruption to the F-35 supply chain would weaken the west and Nato at an acutely sensitive moment. The UK provides about 16% of the parts for the F-35s, and the court was told in closed session that the Lockheed Martin global pool was not structured to permit the UK to insist its parts were withheld from Israel F-35s. The judges ruled that the 'acutely sensitive and political issue' was 'a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts'. The case had been brought by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and Global Legal Action Network (Glan), supported by Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Amnesty International. The judges said: 'The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.' The court rejected all 13 grounds for complaint mounted by Al-Haq's lawyers, and in so doing moved to protect ministers from judicial review based on their international law obligations. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) called the judgment cowardly, after the court determined that it had no clear jurisdiction to rule on UK compliance with international law obligations if the law was not incorporated into UK law. Despite the ruling, the case has revealed serious weaknesses of the UK arms export regime and the case ministers have mounted in parliament to justify F-35 sales. In parliament ministers have held that it is only for a competent international court, and not politicians, to assess the existence of a genocide. But in pleadings in court, lawyers revealed that in July 2024 the government had assessed there was no serious risk of a genocide occurring in Gaza, and claimed not to have seen evidence that women and children were deliberately targeted in Gaza. The case also revealed that in assessing whether the Israeli Defense Forces had acted disproportionately, one of the key tests of a breach of IHL, the government evidential requirements were set impossibly high. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion By September 2024, when Israel, according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry, had killed 40,000 Palestinians and launched over tens of thousands of airstrikes on Gaza, the government had examined just 413 of these individual incidents – and of those it found only one possible violation of international law. That possible breach was the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024 that killed seven foreign aid workers. This means the government had not found any possible breach of IHL in respect of any incident that killed exclusively Palestinians. Al-Haq argued in court that ministers should not have focused solely on the potential Israeli justifications for a specific bombings, but also looked at the overall pattern to gather a sense of proportionality. Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan, said: 'The judges declined to review the defendant's genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.' Sara Husseini, of the British Palestinian Committee, said: 'Now the courts have kicked the issue back to the ministers, it is a matter for MPs and the electorate to hold the government to account.' Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, said: 'Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left the Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law, despite the government and the court acknowledging that there is a serious risk that UK equipment might be used to facilitate or carry out atrocities against them. The atrocities we are witnessing in Gaza are precisely because governments don't think the rules should apply to them.'
