Flotilla Report: BBC Plumbs the Depths
January 24, 2011 15:31 by Simon Plosker
The Turkel Commisssion of inquiry into the events surrounding the May 31, 2010 Gaza flotilla has published its findings. Some of the main points include:
- The maritime blockade of Gaza complies with international law.
- Israel’s policies towards the Gaza Strip comply with international and humanitarian law.
- The takeover of the Mavi Marmara was carried out in compliance with international law.
- Israeli soldiers only took action in self-defense after being violently attacked by the ship’s passengers and their actions complied with international law.
The BBC’s coverage of the Turkel Report, however, graphically illustrates all that is wrong with its reporting of Israel.
Rather than address the actual findings of the report, which vindicated Israeli actions, the BBC immediately begins by attempting to discredit the report by focusing on Turkish criticisms. The screenshot above is indicative of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias:
- The headline, which sets the tone for the story, is about Turkish criticism and not the findings of the report itself.
- This focus continues in the opening paragraphs of the story, which also highlights a negative quote against Israel from the UN.
- The choice of photo and the accompanying caption – the photo fails to demonstrate any direct link to the story contents while the caption highlights that “one activist was shot four times in the head”.
- The article continues by extensively quoting Turkish PM Erdogan who states: “To my judgment there is no value, nor credibility to this report.”
- As if to drive the point home, the BBC article continues with a well-placed and visible sub-heading ‘Banditry and piracy’
The BBC is notorious not only for what it includes in its reports, but also for the vital context that it omits. Referring to the makeup of the inquiry commission, the article simply states:
The panel of inquiry was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, working alongside five Israeli members and two international observers.
Were the BBC interested in providing relevant context, it would have included the information that those two international observers were:
- Lord David Trimble, the (joint) Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 1998 and a member of Britain’s House of Lords. He won the Nobel for his contribution to achieving peace in Northern Ireland. He served as professor of law at Queen’s University in Belfast. Upon being elected to Parliament in 1990, he left the teaching profession. Lord Trimble became leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and was First Minister of Northern Ireland from 1998 to 2002. He has published numerous articles and books on law.
- Brigadier-General (Ret.) Ken Watkin who served for 33 years in the Canadian army. His last position was Judge Advocate General; in that capacity he served among other things as legal advisor for the Governor General of Canada, the Defense Minister, the Department of National Defense and also supervised the military justice system of the Canadian Forces. Watkin was a legal advisor on the military/civilian board of inquiry investigating Canada’s military actions in Somalia, as the government advisor on inquiries and investigations following the Rwanda genocide in 1994. He received the Maritime Commander’s Commendation and is a member of the Order of Military Merit. Brigadier-General Watkin has published many articles on law, including international humanitarian and civil rights law. He is expected to receive a professorship in international law at the US Army’s Naval War College.
The commission also included two international legal experts from outside Israel. Indeed, Trimble and Watkin publicly stated: “We have no doubt that the Commission is independent.” But since when did this stop the BBC from sowing the seeds of doubt? Instead, readers are treated to an accompanying box of “Analysis” from the BBC’s newest member of its Jerusalem bureau, Jon Donnison, who writes:
The problem Israel is going to face is that many of its critics will see it as a whitewash. This was an Israeli government-commissioned inquiry and people will say it simply wasn’t balanced.
Donnison might wish to consider the role of the media, particularly the BBC, in promoting this view. Donnison adds:
The findings of this report were in stark contrast to the views of 600 pro-Palestinian activists aboard those ships.
Donnison and the article fail to mention that the “600 pro-Palestinian activists” included a number of well-organized and violent members of the Turkish Islamist IHH organization who were fully prepared to assault Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara. Despite the fact that the Israeli commission of inquiry was headed by a supreme court judge and included legal experts and independent observers, Donnison still presents the “views of 600 pro-Palestinian activists” as somehow the equal of the Turkel Report.
Why does the BBC actively cast doubt and aspersions on the credibility of an Israeli inquiry while treating “pro-Palestinian activists” with a moral equivalence, as if they do not have a vested interest and a high level of ideological belief that is pushing their hatred and criticism of Israel. Not to mention that a number of these so-called “activists” were members of the Turkish Islamist IHH organization who came fully prepared to assault IDF soldiers – another piece of context omitted from the BBC report.
CNN’s Mann Can’t Hide His Disappointment
Meanwhile on CNN, Jonathan Mann questions Jerusalem bureau chief Kevin Flower about the Turkel Report. Despite even stating that “some of the soldiers’ own guns were used against them”, Mann can barely hide his exasperation when he asks (00:32 on the video):
What did the inquiry find that exonerated all concerned about the way that this was carried out?
At 02:46, Mann, almost scowling into the camera, appears increasingly frustrated that the Turkel Report has not indicted the IDF on serious charges. He attempts to lead Kevin Flower in that particular direction by expressing shock that the flotilla boarding may not have been “bungled”:
It would seem that the Israeli soldiers were surprised by what they found when they boarded the ship, that some of the violence, maybe all of the deaths could have been avoided. You passed over it briefly but did the commission have anything to say about the planning, about the conduct, the professionalism of the soldiers who actually carried out the raid or whether it was bungled?
Hear Jonathan Mann’s tone of voice and watch his facial expressions betray his feelings over the lack of incriminating evidence against the IDF by clicking on the video below:
Independent Charges a Whitewash
The Independent published a feature article examining the progress of Israeli investigations into incidents surrounding Operation Cast Lead. A highly critical accompanying editorial linked this feature to the Turkel Report, accusing Israel of ‘whitewashing the military’:
Many will feel that the report … only highlights a growing unwillingness on the part of Israel to subject the actions of its military in Gaza and the West Bank to scrutiny.
The Independent is clearly unconcerned with the scope, makeup or rigor demonstrated by an Israel that is fully prepared to carry out thorough investigations into its military actions. Instead, the default position is one of Israeli guilt and responsibility for ‘war crimes’ buttressed by a total and unquestioning reliance on politicized non-governmental organizations as sources of information.
Are the media outlets above interested in finding out the truth about how flotilla organizers, with the tacit support of the Turkish government, allowed a violent incident to take place that led to the deaths of nine people, injuries on both sides and the endangerment of hundreds of passengers?
Or are they interested only in how much blame can be pinned on Israel? If Israel is exonerated then the commission is at guilty of a whitewash. If the commission finds fault then the media can trumpet Israel’s self-flagellation.
Either way the outcome is clear when the media holds to a one-sided narrative of automatic Israeli guilt.
The BBC has plumbed the depths in its coverage of the Turkel Report and has clearly demonstrated its anti-Israel bias. Send your considered comments to the BBC Complaints website. For more on how to navigate the complaints process, click here for our guide on how to make a complaint to the BBC.
Send your considered comments to Jonathan Mann through CNN’s online feedback form.
Send your considered comments to The Independent – letters@independent.co.uk
Further Resources
- Detailed testimony from IDF officers and soldiers, supported by documentation, reveals for the first time the aggressive, brutal fighting
carried out by IHH operatives and their accomplices against Israeli forces aboard the Mavi Marmara, Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center (PDF) - Behind the Headlines – MFA
Waintraub David
1:45 am
Jan 25, 2011
Nothing new.
What do you expect from the BBC, to be imparcial ?
Why they don;t blame Turkey about the chemical killings of the Kurd”s ?
Why don”t they ask China to leave the Tibet alone and give freedom ?
Why don”t give back the english the Malvinas to Argentina ?
Why they don”t blame Hisbollah of the turmoil in Lebanon ?
Why they don”t demand Hamas to stop fire missiles to the civilians in Israel ?
Why Israel MUST fight by the rules and the terrorist don”t ?
They just blame Israel of everything and they call this imparcial news ?
The britts will pay dearly, they have the cancer in home.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
29 
4
Stephen Gash
2:10 am
Jan 25, 2011
David Waintraub
The Falklands are British. They were discovered by Captain Strong and claimed for Britain. They have never belonged to Argentina. Also, the Argentinians first invaded South Georgia, to which they never had a claim.
Anyway, can people confirm that Palestinians have no rights to citizenship in any Muslim country, even to 4th and now 5th generation? Unless by marriage?
We in SIOE have been campaigning for years for the BBC and other Western media to report on the persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim countries. The BBC is just getting around to the Copts in Egypt and Christians in Sudan, where 3.3 million of their number have been genocidally murdered over the last 50 years.
Let’s not forget the Papuan New Guineans and other non-Muslims in what is now Indonesia.
The BBC prefers to focus on Israel. The Western media is not anti-Israel, it is anti-Jewish (I use that term to avoid pedantry about Semites).
Don’t equate the BBC with the British.
BTW don’t say English when you mean British.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
19 
1
Marilyn Chernack
4:51 am
Jan 25, 2011
I am getting tired of your political correctness. Let’s leave this to the JDL. They will see that something gets done about these maggots, their lies and propaganda.
Marilyn Chernack
Proud member of the JDL
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
2
JA Beyer
5:22 am
Jan 25, 2011
Why is it that we think that the world will stand with truth when it is harrassed by threats of murder if they say anything aganist the real world treat, controlled by economics from peoples who use terror to control anyone not following there idicts and stems from the source of true evil in our world.
Today’s world makes the 1930 prelude to world war II look like a walk in the park since it is not an enemy which is easy to see, multi faced and comes from what appears to be a disorganized group of terroist instead of a mind set ben on turning everyone into what they are are or have become.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Jacob
6:41 am
Jan 25, 2011
I remember reading long time ago, that an Israeli Information Minister summoned many of
the foreign correspondents to his office to find out the reason why their reports always denigrate Israel and one of them candidly admitted that the PA gave them what to publish or
else….
This being the situation, why are the BBC reporters still allowed to stay in Israel, instead of being sent packing once and for all and let them report from Ramallah or Gaza what the PA and HAMAS feeds them, which they do anyway ??
Same thing with the UN representatives.
Why don’t they stay in Ramallah instead of Israeli hotels ???
I guess people who hate Israel as much as they do, should stay with the people they rent their clothing and pour ashes on their heads for….
But of course, it is OK for the accursed “Political Correctness” of Israel, right ???
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
0
Colin
7:01 am
Jan 25, 2011
We have it from the top BBC insider , Peter Sissons, that the BBC has lost its once proud reputation for impartiality and has become just a broadcaster with a left wing mind set, funded by what one of the comments here describe as a poll tax on TV owners. Utterly disgraceful especially when tainted with anti-Semitism.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
21 
0
Stephen
10:08 am
Jan 25, 2011
I find it interesting how everything is, according to the BBC and its ilk, the fault of Israel. Anything, no matter how outrageous, is believable if it denigrates Israel, which is the new code word for “Jew”.
A terrorist is assassinated, a clueless police inspector blames Israel, and the BBC agrees and fails to report that the “facts” are tissue thin.
Shark attacks in Egypt can only be caused by Israeli trained sharks, an accusation the BBC reports with a serious on-screen face.
Sudan votes to break up, it is the fault of Israel and this baseless accusation gets reported.
Tidal wave in the Philippines and someone accuses Israel of creating it; the BBC simply must report it so therefore it could be a possibility.
A wild claim that Israel is putting aphrodisiacs in candy for Muslim West Bank women, and it is quickly reported as by the BBC, hence becoming fact.
Middle East Muslims claim that Israel’s security fence is a violation of international law, so therefore it must be so, even though it is as legal as the 157 separation WALLS around the world.
Israel is in what the press decided to call “The West Bank”, a name coming from the Jordanian occupation, and the BBC has promoted it as an illegal occupation.
The BBC calls it “Palestinian” land, though the UN has called it “disputed”.
Though standing a few meters away from a swimming pool, or a new shopping mall, or a fully stocked market, the BBC reports how Gaza has no water, supplies, or food.
The BBC states that Israel must return to its 1967 borders, but never gives a recognised reference as to why.
Coptics are murdered in Egypt: it must be people from Gaza, and they did it because of Israel’s occupation, though Israel disengaged years ago.
Arab pre-conditions for negotiations are “reasonable”, but the BBC continues to blame Israel for the stalled talks. Conveniently, the BBC forgets that Israel was following the agreed process but stopped with it saw that the PA had not bothered to even one condition. Must be Israel’s fault.
In Gaza, the population is unemployed. Its Israel’s fault for not giving jobs to the people who are trying to kill Israelis.
Israel asked one pre-condition: recognition. The PA refuses to agree. Difficult to negotiate with someone who refuses to acknowledge you exist. Even so, the BBC finds fault with Israel for making this demand.
In Moscow, the airport is bombed by a Muslim. The BBC reports on the area the terrorist comes from, but leaves out the “Muslim”. Why is that? A claim is made that a child is killed by Israelis and without any evidence the BBC blames Israel. Too bad the child reappeared three days later and quite alive.
For many years, the BBC used Irish reporters in Israel. Its not only English reporters; its BBC reporters. Period.
What about the occupation of Northern Ireland by the British? What about Scottish independence? What about Wales independence? Oh, are these too close to home for the BBC?
I remember when, in the 1960s, four terrorists captured a bus in Israel and threatened to kill everyone inside. The IDF shot and killed three and was a bit rough with the fourth as they dragged him off the bus. The BBC questioned why Israel didn’t try harder to not have to kill the first three, and outrage that the fourth wasn’t, essentially, offered a cup of tea. The BBC hasn’t changed much over the past fifty years.
I receive the BBC World News at home in Canada. When I watch articles regarding my country, I scratch my head and ask, “Who are these morons?” But it is, after all, the BBC. It must be right!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
24 
0
Tony
10:20 am
Jan 25, 2011
I have over and over,again written to these media’s demanding a reply to their Incredibly Biased and Unprofessional Journalisme cncerning Israel, and What is generally happening in the Middle East,, And NOT ONE ANSWER have I recieved. The BBC, CNN and the Likes,,, Feel that they have IMMUNITY to Spread such Biased reportings and still get away with it,,,
Just seeing their reporters ,such as Jonathan Mann ,use such “Expressions” when they deal with Israel, shows us their true feelings on the matter.
The Bombing of the church in Egypt recieved The Minimum amount of Couverage ,,CNN and the BBC, seem to ignore the fact that Maybe these Terrorists do in fact come from Gaza,,and are being used ,because nobody would believe that “such EVIL” came from there.
Most BBC and CNN reporters ,Go straight to Gaza and the Westbank to get their Couverage The Hamas is there ready and willing to feed them with all the LIES and Propoganda theses Rediculous Journalists are willing to Take in.
The BBC Has Become the The Leader of “BLOODY BAD COMMUNICATION”
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
Jonathan Reinhold
1:04 pm
Jan 25, 2011
Interestingly enough, Jonathan Mann interviewed Yassir Arafat in Tunisia in 1990 or 91.
Arafat claimed that he has proof of the fact that Israel wants to destroy the Islamic holy places and build the third temple.
One of his aides walked on to the set carrying the “proof;” A large poster showing modern Jerusalem with a photo montage of the second Temple on the temple mount.
This was his proof. The problem is that it was an ADVERTISEMENT for a diamond company that had just opened a branch in Jerusalem.
I called CNN and also sent them the ad, but there was no response.
The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
12 
0
Jonathan Bar-Gur
1:29 pm
Jan 25, 2011
Dear Sir/s
I am a Geologist and a Lawyer. Having spent several years in the UK studying and lecturing International Law of the Sea it is clear that Mr Donnison and the Editor will do well to go and study the subject in one of the erudite centres in the UK . I suggest the two should travel to Cambridge and ask experts there what do they think about any finding of the world renowned and authority – now deceased – Prof S Rosen and his knowledge in The International Law of the Sea. The Turks whom I know and have either studied or been involved in working with Prof. Rosen know a thing or two about the greatness of the man. IMr Donnison’s opinions are sheer nonsense based on ignorance. Yours sincerely JBG
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Jonathan Bar-Gur
2:01 pm
Jan 25, 2011
To those who mention the Falkland Islands :
Britain’s claim to the Islands is based on what is known in International Law as Historical Rights. An Island in Law is a mass of earth surounded by water but it must be inhabitted by people. Britain claims that the island were bought from the spaniards but more important is the fact that most of the inhabitants of the Falklands are from Scottish decent. The Historical Rights are based precisely on this point. A rock surounded by water is not an island. The episode of how Britain obtained 200miles EEZ around Rockall is a good example for that. You land two people from the RAF leave them on the rock with their meteorolgical instruments and the rock becomes an Island. ! If Israel would have done it the BBC would have called it a New Settlement ! The historical Rights claim is valid in the case of the Falklands. However, Argentina’s claim is also justified by what is known in Law as the Natural Prolongation of the Mainland. The Falklands geologically are indeed precisely that. hence the two sides are correct in their claims. However, it is a fact that these issues ought to be solved by negotiations and not wars. Britain for various reasons avoids such negotiations. But Britain is always the first one to jump and preach others how to behave. Yet not a single word from the BBC about the British duplicity. Charity begins at home !!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
12 
0
Tico Titao
3:24 pm
Jan 25, 2011
Only until Israel starts advertising on CNN, BBC, Sky News, etc., will the rhetoric of the anchor people in the TV stations change. For the moment most of the advertisements are paid by Arab organizations… (Some pay and some obey).
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Stephen Gash
7:16 pm
Jan 25, 2011
Jonathan Bar-Gur
To reiterate the BBC is not Britain. You would be right to equate David Cameron with Britain as he is Prime Minister and he talks bilge most of the time, not least his observation about Gaza.
I’m not getting into the history of the Falklands, but they never belonged to Argentina. Britain avoids negotiations about the Falklands because the people who live there do not want to be part of Argentina. If anything they have the right to self-determination.
I agree with you own observation that Scots are plundering troublemakers. I’m English not British.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
1
Jonathan Bar-Gur
7:59 pm
Jan 25, 2011
Dear Mr Gash
Argentina has the same rights to the falklands as does Britain as I have explained. As I suggest you read what I wrote again. Weheter you like it or not the BBC is indeed some sort of a voice for Britain. British Broadcasting…. Its countries which sign the international treaties not individuals. As such and as far as the International Law of the Sea is concerned The UK is the signatory to UNCLOS . This treaty does not distinguish between Scotland N Ireland Wales or England. International Law is not Rugby.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
robert richmond
8:08 pm
Jan 25, 2011
dear sir,
the way too answer the bbc,and the british media is to remind them that britain is
responseable for the troubles in the middle-east.the balfor treaty was swept under the
carpet,as soon as britain got controll of the ottoman,empire.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
5 
0
Phil H
2:13 pm
Jan 26, 2011
It amazes me that the BBC have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians. If they did, they would pursue the truth and inform the world about the true plight of the Palestinians and that their best chance for statehood and recognition lies with full cooperation with Israel.
Palestinians are victims of a series of wars waged by neighbouring Arab countries. All these wars were won by Israel.
Just as Japan and Germany did after WW2, the Arab States and the Palestinians have to concede defeat and recognise fully and whole heartedly the legitimacy of Israel, and move on towards rebuilding their lives. Palestinians are being manipulated by the Arab States who made them refugees in the first place and most of the world and media are taken by the falsehoods pushed by those Arab States.
At this time, in the Middle East region, Israel is the Palestinians only real hope for a decent future – until media such as the BBC do not assist in highlighting this to the Palestinians, their future is very bleak indeed.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Teddy Bear
7:17 pm
Jan 26, 2011
Good assessment Phil.
One can also add that history has always shown that any attempt to appease evil forces has always resulted ultimately in greater loss of life and misery.
This itself highlights the stupidity of the BBC agenda as well as those politicians worldwide, mostly directed by their left-wing media, who think they can continue to ignore the real threat of a militant and extremist Islam.
Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
Mike Knowles
3:05 pm
Jan 26, 2011
Just want to say I saw the report.
I’m English,middle class and middle aged not the protesting kind but would quite happily join a protest over left wing bias at the BBC.I might even storm a barrier or two that seems to do the trick in grabbing media attention.
Any takers on organising such a protest ?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
4 
0
Teddy Bear
7:38 pm
Jan 26, 2011
If it was only that simple Mike.
‘Grabbing media attention’ relies on the general media to give it that attention. So unless it was a MAJOR demonstration that couldn’t be ignored, it is more likely that only the right wing media, like the Daily Mail for example, giving any to it. Since the majority of readers there are already aware of the left-wing bias of the BBC, it’s converting the converted.
If the demonstration negatively affects the general public then the group is perceived as such, which defeats the object of the exercise. So the goal first of all is to convince the general public to take action, much like the poll tax demonstrations in the 80′s.
There are several sites that do raise awareness and affect perception to some extent, and I would say over the last few years awareness of BBC bias has increased together with the dissatisfaction of it. I would say any contributions you can make there for the time being might be the best way forward.
Biased BBC – The Forum = http://biasedbbc.proboards.com/index.cgi
Biased BBC Blog = http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Anti TVL (How to not pay your licence fee) = http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
BBC antwortet auf Beschwerden zur Flotilla-Untersuchung « Medien BackSpin
11:07 pm
Jan 28, 2011
[...] möchte auch der BBC dafür danken, dass sie sich selbst ein noch tieferes Loch nach der Kritik von HonestReporting an ihrer voreingenommenen Berichterstattung gegraben hatte. Einer unserer [...]
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream – heplev
12:03 am
Jan 31, 2011
[...] des Murmelschiff-Vorfalls als „Freiheitsflotte 2“ vor Gaza auftauchen. – Die BBC muss natürlich auch kräftig auf Israel eindreschen. Sie beginnt die [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
THE BBC CUT PANTS DOWN IN THE GAZA FLOTILLA INCIDENT COVERAGE: DELIBERATE ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS | lys-dor.com
9:18 pm
Feb 08, 2011
[...] flotilla-report-bbc-plumbs-the-depths Cette entrée a été publiée dans Anti-Israel Bashing, Counter-Jihad, avec comme mot(s)-clef(s) BBC, Gaza Flotilla, Gaza Strip, Israel, Mavi Marmara, Turkel Commission, Turkey. Vous pouvez la mettre en favoris avec ce permalien. ← ADDENDUM ON ‘IRANIUM’ MOVIE: FINALLY SHOWN IN OTTAWA LAST SUNDAY [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Flotilla Report: BBC Plumbs the Depths | Honest Reporting
12:07 pm
Feb 13, 2012
[...] Read HonestReporting’s latest communique: “Flotilla Report: BBC Plumbs the Depths” [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0