Trump's decision to sue the BBC followed publication of a detailed secret memo written by Michael Prescott, the establishment's man who oversaw the British Broadcasting Authority from the inside over the past three years and served as an independent consultant to the committee responsible for its journalistic standards. Prescott composed the memo after three years of despair, witnessing the network's refusal to genuinely address consistent coverage bias in four different but related areas – President Trump, race issues, gender matters, and the war in Gaza.

In fact, Prescott documented what any fair-minded person would understand if they watched the network's broadcasts, listened to its radio programs, or browsed one of its many websites, all maintained in multiple languages. The BBC operates as a propaganda channel enslaved to far-left agendas. This is not about one-time "mistakes" or random lapses in judgment but rather consistent, systematic, and deliberate policy – even if not explicitly formulated – to turn the BBC into a propaganda tool.

The findings of Prescott's memo were so clear, and Trump's threat so tangible, that this time even BBC leadership, usually accustomed to arrogantly ignoring everything alleged against them and pretending everything is fine, could not maintain a facade of business as usual. Tim Davie, BBC CEO, and Deborah Turness, the corporation's director of news and current affairs, resigned immediately, but it's doubtful this will change anything. The nature of the rot gripping the BBC can no longer be hidden, and it's highly doubtful whether it can be healed.

"Jews are Satan, not human"

Regarding Israel coverage, the BBC's methods recall the worst antisemites. It's stunning that the organization's leaders are not really ashamed of this. Jonathan Munro, who has served since September 2024 as the BBC's global news director (and as Turness's deputy), was so proud of BBC Arabic's achievements that he defined it as "nearly as credible as Al-Jazeera." You read that right – the man who influences Britain's and the entire world's news coverage character more than others views the Qatari propaganda enterprise as the desired standard and aspires to bring the BBC to it. No wonder Munro's supporters are already promoting his candidacy for the corporation's next CEO position.

Even voices within the corporation admit that BBC Arabic broadcasts, which were subordinate to Munro, are considered – and justly so – the most problematic, making English-language broadcasts appear relatively moderate. In less polite language, BBC Arabic whitewashes Hamas.

Where else can viewers eagerly absorb the worldview of people like Ahmed Algaha, who called Jews "Satan" and explained they are "not human," or like Samar Alzonan, who shared with followers the need "to burn the Jews, as Hitler did"? Algaha appeared on BBC Arabic 522 times. Alzonan received the platform 244 times. They are the current faces of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Propaganda methods don't end with choosing speakers and commentators. Word and term selection is no less effective in achieving the dual goal of blackening Israel and whitewashing those who desire to destroy it. The Jaffa light rail station terrorist attack, during which Arab terrorists murdered seven people and wounded fifteen others, was called a "military operation" in BBC Arabic reports. IDF military operations are presented, in contrast, as genocide and war crimes.

The 12 Druze children killed by Hezbollah's missile strike on the soccer field in Majdal Shams were completely "disappeared" from the report about the barrage broadcast on BBC Arabic. The next day, the propagandists went even further in serving Hezbollah and claimed Israel perhaps even staged the strike.

The situation in BBC broadcasts in other languages is not much different. The propaganda methods are the same methods, perhaps only the degree of brazenness is lower. Israel's demonization has penetrated all systems and taken over its organizational culture, claims N, who has worked at the BBC for 20 years and requests anonymity, fearing she will be swallowed up.

In March 2024, she recounts, she received a frantic call from her direct manager. She was then on sick leave, but he urgently demanded she contact him without delay. What was so urgent? The manager presented N with a screenshot of her Facebook account, showing the post she uploaded immediately when she learned about the Gaza attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The post in question was graphic – a drawing of a tear in the corner of an eye, with the Israeli flag on it.

"The post didn't call for violence, didn't call for revenge over the massacre – only participation in the human grief of the Israeli massacre victims, but the manager demanded I remove it immediately," N describes what happened to her. "I was shocked. Since when is it forbidden for a journalist to cry with innocent victims? I responded that I wasn't violating any editorial guidelines, but he stood his ground and demanded I delete the post." The brazen demand conveyed a clear message – under no circumstances identify with the massacre victims. N didn't want to surrender, but was forced to block the post, one step before its complete deletion, until the matter was clarified. Interestingly, only her Facebook friends could see it from the start, which indicates the severity of the BBC's surveillance of employees.

Shortly afterward, N encountered a post by her work colleague, a BBC journalist of Syrian origin, who published her photo demonstrating with a PLO flag in hand. "I was outraged and approached the manager asking why I'm forbidden from expressing grief and mourning over Israeli massacre victims, but she's allowed to wave a PLO flag, and no one from the editorial hierarchy asks her to remove the post. How is it that the policy is completely different in the two cases? Of course, I received no answer."

The "objective" journalist's post and her photo with a terror organization flag in hand have not been removed to this very day. "The manager supplied me an 'interesting' excuse for the surprising interest in my post, half a year after it was published," N adds. "It turns out everything began with a public storm after it was discovered that many employees in the Arabic department published and shared praise for the massacre. No measures were taken against them; only cooperation was stopped with two freelancers (one from Lebanon and one from Egypt).

"Instead of making decisions about them, the attack was directed toward a picture of a tear, painted with the Israeli flag. An atmosphere of shock and fear was created indeed, but not for those who praised terror but rather for those who cried over the victims."

What is terror?

Speaking of terror, you can find this term in the BBC's news coverage, but only as long as it's not about Israeli victims. Remember the terrorist attack at the bus station at Ramot Junction in Jerusalem, which claimed the lives of six Israeli citizens? N remembers that day well – she reported for her shift at 2:00 p.m. and couldn't believe her eyes when she saw the headline given to the report about the horrific act.

The headline was "Shooting in east Jerusalem." Not a terrorist attack, not a terror attack, and no mention of the shooters' identity – just shooting, so that the innocent reader, the one who sometimes settles for only reading headlines, wouldn't understand that once again Arabs murdered Jews. N's professional integrity prevented her from staying silent. She wrote to the BBC's organizational chat and demanded that they correct the headline to reflect what actually happened. In response, she received an angry phone call from the manager. What's the idea of raising this issue, especially in the general chat, he fumed, even though the chat was designed precisely for clarifying such issues.

"His response faithfully reflected the atmosphere at the BBC and the managers' aspirations," N explains. "They understand perfectly well that they're distorting reality and creating public opinion directed against Israel, but they want it to pass quietly. They want to minimize as much as possible the traces of bias and therefore seek to prevent any discussion of this matter, while exploiting the managers' power. The purge atmosphere silences employees' questions."

The manager tried to silence N's criticism of the distorted headline by claiming she didn't know the corporation's policy document. This could have been funny if it wasn't sad – because updated editions of this document have sat on N's desk for 20 years, and she knows it inside out.

"BBC's declared policy is indeed not to call a specific person a 'terrorist' as long as he hasn't been convicted of a terror act by a court," N said. "But we, of course, use the term 'terror.' We use it to describe the attacks in Paris, marking exactly a year since their occurrence. We use it to discuss the September 11 attacks in the US. Only in one context are we forbidden from using the term 'terror' – when it's an act by Arabs against Israelis."

N's testimony is shocking. Her superiors censor news reports, whitewash the terrorists' most horrific acts, and seek to shape readers' and viewers' consciousness – all this through deliberate word choice and avoidance of using terms that present PLO, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad murderers in their true light. In the specific case of the Ramot Junction attack, N's unwillingness to stay silent bore fruit, even if partially, after her pressure and after quite a few arguments, they allowed her to replace the word "shooting" in the headline with the word "attack." Using the correct term – "terror attack" – they did not allow.

"I tried to remind my supervisor that this isn't just my personal opinion, and not even just an opinion," N. continued. "According to British law, Hamas is defined as a terror organization, and to the best of my understanding, the BBC must uphold British law. I sent my supervisor the definition of terrorism in British law and asked him to explain to me how one can claim that the actions of the terrorists at Ramot Junction don't match the definition, but I received nothing in response. Only silence."

The translation issue and the way the BBC promotes the Gaza starvation libel are equally infuriating. N. describes how, recently, in one case, this reached the point of absurdity. "Within the BBC, there's a practice whereby one can take a story prepared in one of the departments, then translate it into another language and publish it in another department. Of course, all the BBC Arabic stories about the suffering of Gaza's population are translated and distributed in additional languages, unlike stories about the suffering of Israelis. One of these stories, published recently, was accompanied by a photo of a Gazan girl, behind whom were shelves filled with snacks and sweets. Below the photo, a caption stated that in Gaza, it's difficult to obtain food. In the propaganda fervor, no one noticed that the photograph completely contradicted the caption."

According to N., the bias against Trump was also blatant and systematic throughout. She particularly remembers a case where they reported on one of his campaign rallies. The report looked like this: Trump spoke, and you could see in his face that he was lying. "I thought our job was to report on events and not to serve as 'facial expression experts' on our own behalf," N. wondered in the BBC journalists' chat. In response, one of the senior figures determined that this was a less formal and legitimate reporting style. Needless to say, no one thought to write in such a style about the Democratic presidential candidate. "Generally, the editorial line was very clear both in numbers and in the degree of sympathy," N. summarized. "There were nine stories about Kamala Harris and two stories about Donald Trump – both negative."

N. is among the few voices among BBC journalists who still dare to rebel occasionally against the line dictated throughout the network. Those who rebel openly undergo harassment and are kicked out, so her rebellion is quiet and invisible – because of fear. In her writing, she continues to describe the October 7 massacre as a "barbaric attack," but readers don't see this: editors always delete the word "barbaric." Those who insist on maintaining journalistic integrity and refuse to accept dictates find themselves fired, N. said, adding that even those who wanted to conduct legal proceedings against the BBC were silenced through financial compensation even before filing lawsuits.

A., a veteran journalist who refused to toe the line and was fired in December 2024, chose the hard path of confronting the BBC in court. A. is willing to reveal he worked on the network's Russian-language broadcasts and was considered an asset to the department, but then new winds began to blow, winds of propaganda. His firing was explained by "the need for cutbacks," except remarkably, according to him, everyone who was cut due to the downsizing belonged to the demonization resisters: journalists who refused to demonize Israel, refused to demonize Trump, and refused to demonize right-wing views in general. Such a coincidence. Everyone who insisted on objective coverage was fired.

We thought BBC Arabic broadcasts had a distinctly anti-Israel approach, but A.'s story illustrates that the infection had spread to other departments as well. In the historic BBC, not everyone was an antisemitic Hamas supporter – not even in the Arabic broadcasts, A. said. Not everyone accepted the new line, which pointed to Israel as the source of all evil, and those who didn't accept it were purged.

The network's Russian broadcasts were the last fortress of objectivity. Even after the rest of the departments fell to the maw of the new political commissars, BBC Russian refrained from libeling Israel. A. explains this both by the identity of the employees, many of whom were Jewish, and by the nature of the target audience for the broadcasts. In any case, since 2019, everything began to change. Veteran employees, including Jews, were pushed out against their will. In their place came new employees who understood perfectly what was required of them to remain in their positions.

"Jenny Norton, the manager of the Russian broadcast, conveys these demands directly at every work meeting," A. testified. "The message is that everything revolves around the suffering of Gaza's residents, and that the guilty parties are the IDF and Netanyahu. Incidentally, she mentions that she saw a 'wonderful report' by an Arab correspondent and that it should be translated. Every such report is, of course, composed entirely of statements by Hamas people, or a story about a Gazan woman whose sons were killed. Middle managers absorb the message and pass it forward. I suggested more than once writing something about the victims in Israel, telling the story of the hostages, and the proposals were effectively rejected with the statement 'yes-yes, we'll write, but later.' As a result, a clear bias was created, and a very clear attitude: for every story or two about suffering on the Israeli side, there are ten stories about suffering on the Gazan side. This creates the background that paints Israel negatively, and all the coverage is affected by the background."

Meanwhile, the BBC leadership did everything to minimize exposure of the October 7 massacre atrocities. Their conduct contradicted every journalistic aspiration, A. argues, if only because this coverage had high ratings. "In the first weeks after the massacre, millions of users read live coverage of what was done by the terrorists in the Gaza border communities, but the editors wanted to stop it. Instead of our coverage, reports taken from the BBC's pro-Palestinian correspondents, like Gazan Rushdi Abualouf, were put on air."

The sacred "balance"

One of the BBC's effective methods for instilling anti-Israel consciousness was tied to the decision to add an editorial addendum to every story about the Gaza war. A. was shocked to discover that the dictated text of the addendum included mention of "Palestine." He and several colleagues rebelled and demanded to avoid it, since, after all, such an entity doesn't actually exist. None of the rebels still works at the BBC. Other parts of the addendum were even more problematic. "It was written there that several hundred Israelis were killed after Hamas people entered the kibbutzim and communities in the border area," A. recalled. "Do you understand that? 'Entered.' You enter a house to visit if they invite you. This is targeted discourse that whitewashes the act. Hamas people didn't enter – they invaded. But we couldn't change the misleading text. At least we succeeded in correcting the number of murdered Israelis to the precise number, instead of 'several hundred.'"

After a few months, the instruction came to omit the addendum entirely. Someone was bothered that it reminded how the war in Gaza started, A. argues. Now there's an option to publish anti-Israel reports taken from the BBC Arabic service without mentioning the massacre, without mentioning that Hamas seeks to establish an Arab state over all the territory of the land instead of the State of Israel, and so on. The background for the propaganda campaign was completed: "the suffering of Gazans" and "the crimes of Israel" occupy the entire consciousness space, without Hamas's problematic nature being exposed.

As time passed, the resentment of several veteran employees was completely silenced. The crimes of the Gaza terrorists disappeared. Whenever there was no choice but to report the torture that Israeli hostages endured in Hamas's underground prisons, a special effort was made to "balance" the report with fabricated claims about "terrorists being tortured" in Israeli prisons.

The number of Gazan casualties was reported based on Hamas sources, without explaining what the "Gaza Health Ministry" is or how reliable it might be. The pattern repeated itself again and again: accusations against Israel were aired and spread without verification or reservations, while any information that could portray Hamas and its actions negatively was buried, minimized, or distorted.

A. revealed, "By contrast, when we quoted Prime Minister Netanyahu, editors immediately remarked that we were citing him too often and demanded a special editorial note stating that 'the BBC has no way to verify the statement.' This disclaimer is reserved at the BBC only for Israel's prime minister, and perhaps for Russian officials. When quoting the British prime minister or any other world leader, no one would dream of adding a note undermining the credibility of their words."

Did none of the journalists dare to question this discriminatory directive? "They were told that 'Netanyahu is a controversial figure,' as if he were the only political leader who provokes controversy, as if the British prime minister were not himself controversial. The BBC managers have mastered the art of answering without giving an answer. They created an atmosphere in which anyone who asks questions quickly finds themselves out of the newsroom—just like me."

The BBC did not respond to Israel Hayom's request for comment. Their response will be published if received.

The post Inside the BBC's anti-Israel propaganda machine appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

His wide-ranging interview at Google's California headquarters, reported by the BBC, touched on energy needs, climate targets, UK investment, and AI's effect on jobs, coming as market scrutiny intensifies. Alphabet's shares have doubled in seven months to $3.5 trillion as market confidence in its ability to counter OpenAI grows. A specific focus remains on Alphabet's competition with Nvidia, run by Jensen Huang, which recently hit a $5 trillion valuation, even as analysts question the $1.4 trillion in deals surrounding OpenAI.

Pichai's remarks about "irrationality" echoed Alan Greenspan's 1996 "irrational exuberance" warning during the dotcom boom. Pichai told the BBC the industry can "overshoot" in such cycles. "We can look back at the internet right now. There was clearly a lot of excess investment, but none of us would question whether the internet was profound," he said. "I expect AI to be the same. So I think it's both rational and there are elements of irrationality through a moment like this." His comments follow a similar warning from JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, who told the BBC some AI investments would "probably be lost." Pichai argued Google's "full stack" model provides a better position to handle turbulence.

The BBC noted the tech giant is also expanding its UK footprint, having announced a £5 billion investment in UK AI infrastructure and research in September. Pichai confirmed Alphabet will develop "state-of-the-art" research via its London-based DeepMind unit. He stated for the first time that Google would "over time" "train our models" in the UK, a move ministers believe will secure the UK as an AI "superpower" after the US and China. "We are committed to investing in the UK in a pretty significant way," Pichai said.

However, the Alphabet chief also highlighted the "immense" energy requirements of AI, which the International Energy Agency stated consumed 1.5% of global electricity last year. Pichai, according to the BBC, said action is needed, including in the UK, to scale up energy infrastructure. "You don't want to constrain an economy based on energy, and I think that will have consequences," he warned. He conceded these intensive energy needs mean slippage on the company's 2030 net-zero climate target, stating, "The rate at which we were hoping to make progress will be impacted."

AI's impact on employment will be significant, Pichai told the BBC, labeling it "the most profound technology" humanity has ever addressed. "We will have to work through societal disruptions," he stated, noting it will simultaneously "create new opportunities." He explained, "It will evolve and transition certain jobs, and people will need to adapt," emphasizing that those who adjust to AI "will do better," adding, "It doesn't matter whether you want to be a teacher [or] a doctor. All those professions will be around, but the people who will do well in each of those professions are people who learn how to use these tools."

The post Google chief concedes 'irrationality' in AI boom, warns of impact if bubble bursts appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The dual departures represent a critical juncture for the broadcaster as it enters crucial negotiations with government officials regarding its institutional future and financial structure. British media now faces the challenge of filling two of its most prominent executive positions. BBC chairman Samir Shah is anticipated to apologize for the editorial approach taken with Trump's speech in a Panorama broadcast.

Davie informed staff in a message that he maintained the "unswerving and unanimous support" of the BBC's board and chairman Samir Shah throughout the controversy, The Guardian noted. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the current accusations influenced his decision. "Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable," Davie stated.

The post BBC leadership resigns amid bias allegations over Trump, Gaza coverage appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Yale University's School of Medicine analyzed satellite imagery revealing piles of bodies and massive pools of blood clearly visible from orbit. These findings came after experts told The Guardian that RSF agents executed more than 2,000 civilians following the group's capture of El Fasher from Sudanese army forces after an eight-month siege.

"We saw many of our relatives being slaughtered," said a man who lost contact with his family in El Fasher, speaking to the BBC. He recounted how the militia gathered people together before shooting them one by one and said communication was completely cut off with all of North Darfur.

Rebel factions declared control of the Sudanese army's last position in western Darfur. Simultaneously, video evidence of men and women killed in gruesome scenes fueled global concerns about ethnic massacres across the region.

Sudan's civil war, which erupted in April 2023 between army forces under Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan and RSF troops led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo ("Hemedti"), has since killed tens of thousands, displaced twelve million, and left half the nation facing starvation – a tragedy the UN calls the world's worst humanitarian disaster.

The post Horror from space: Sudan's hidden massacre appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The performances were broadcast live on the BBC network, where officials decided not to interrupt them – despite the incendiary and violent content. Monday, the British network published an official apology statement and announced it would examine different conduct in similar cases in the future.

"Millions of people tuned in to enjoy Glastonbury this weekend across the BBC's output but one performance within our live-streams included comments that were deeply offensive. The BBC respects freedom of expression, but stands firmly against incitement to violence. The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves. We welcome Glastonbury's condemnation of the performance," the network stated.

"The performance was part of a live stream of the West Holts stage on BBC iPlayer. The judgment on Saturday to issue a warning on screen while streaming online was in line with our editorial guidelines. In addition, we took the decision not to make the performance available on demand. The team were dealing with a live situation but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen," the statement continued. "In light of this weekend, we will look at our guidance around live events so we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air."

Sunday, festival organizers also published condemnation of the events that occurred on stage. In their published statement, they wrote, "Glastonbury Festival was created in 1970 as a place for people to come together and rejoice in music, the arts and the best of human endeavour. As a festival, we stand against all forms of war and terrorism. We will always believe in – and actively campaign for – hope, unity, peace and love. With almost 4,000 performances at Glastonbury 2025, there will inevitably be artists and speakers appearing on our stages whose views we do not share, and a performer's presence here should never be seen as a tacit endorsement of their opinions and beliefs. However, we are appalled by the statements made from the West Holts stage by Bob Vylan yesterday. Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the Festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bob Vylan (@bobbyvylan)

 Bob Vylan took to Instagram to respond to the backlash, writing, "As I lay in bed this morning, my phone buzzing non stop, inundated with messages of both support and hatred, I listen to my daughter typing out loud as she fills out a school survey asking for her feedback on the current state of her school dinners. She expressed that she would like healthier meals, more options and dishes inspired by other parts of the world. Listening to her voice her opinions on a matter that she cares about and affects her daily, reminds me that we may not be doomed after all. Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place. As we grow older and our fire possibly starts to dim under the suffocation of adult life and all its responsibilities, it is incredibly important that we encourage and inspire future generations to pick up the torch that was passed to us. Let us display to them loudly and visibly the right thing to do when we want and need change. Let them see us marching in the streets, campaigning on ground level, organising online and shouting about it on any and every stage that we are offered. Today it is a change in school dinners, tomorrow it is a change in foreign policy." He captioned the post, "I said what I said."

The post BBC apologizes for Glastonbury; Bob Vylan: I said what I said appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The United Nations has issued a correction regarding a widely circulated claim that 14,000 babies in Gaza faced death within 48 hours, clarifying that this figure actually represents potential deaths from malnutrition over the course of a full year.

The erroneous statement, which first aired on BBC Radio 4's Today programme and subsequently spread across national media outlets and even reached parliamentary discussions, was later identified by the Jewish Chronicle as a misinterpretation of a humanitarian assessment projecting malnutrition cases in children aged six months to five years throughout a 12-month timeframe.

Tom Fletcher, the UN's humanitarian chief, originally stated on BBC Radio 4's Today program "There are 14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them." Fletcher mentioned the presence of "strong teams on the ground" working in medical facilities and schools, though the Jewish Chronicle reports he provided no additional specifics about these operations.

The Jewish Chronicle reported Fletcher characterized the arrival of trucks this week as "a drop in the ocean," adding that the humanitarian supplies had not yet reached civilians in need. However, upon examination of the actual Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Partnership report, the Jewish Chronicle found that the 14,000 figure referred to children at risk of "severe malnutrition" by March 2025, not by the end of this week as initially suggested.

Later that same day, the Jewish Chronicle noted that BBC News published a correction to Fletcher's assertion, buried within an article discussing how Gaza aid was failing to reach the population. A separate UN representative also declined to repeat the original claim and offered a correction during a press briefing, according to the Jewish Chronicle.

When asked for clarification, the Jewish Chronicle reports that Fletcher's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) provided this statement: "We are pointing to the imperative of getting supplies in to save an estimated 14,000 babies suffering from severe acute malnutrition in Gaza. We need to get the supplies in as soon as possible, ideally within the next 48 hours." The Jewish Chronicle points out that the IPC report distinguishes between severe and acute malnutrition, with the 14,000 figure specifically referring to the former category.

By the time this correction emerged, the Jewish Chronicle found that the inaccurate claim had already spread extensively through UK and global media channels and was cited as factual by nine Members of Parliament during a House of Commons debate the previous day.

This correction comes amid intensifying international pressure on Israel to increase humanitarian aid flow into Gaza as Israeli military operations against Hamas escalate, alongside widespread warnings about hunger conditions in the region, the Jewish Chronicle reports.

The Jewish Chronicle reveals that the United Kingdom announced Monday it would suspend trade negotiations with Israel over what it termed "morally unjustifiable" escalation in Gaza. Foreign Secretary David Lammy described Israel's actions as "monstrous" and stated: "We have suspended negotiations with this Israeli government on a new free trade agreement."

Lammy further explained that the UK is reviewing its cooperation with the Israeli administration, saying, "The Netanyahu government's actions have made this necessary," according to reporting by the Jewish Chronicle.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told Parliament that the "horrific situation in Gaza" is "utterly intolerable," adding, "We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve," the Jewish Chronicle reports. The government also summoned Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely to the Foreign Office.

The Jewish Chronicle notes that the European Union is taking similar measures, with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas announcing a review of an EU-Israel trade agreement in response to the situation in Gaza. Kallas told reporters, "The aid that Israel has allowed in is of course welcomed, but it's a drop in the ocean. Aid must flow immediately without obstruction and at scale."

According to the Jewish Chronicle, approximately 93 trucks carrying humanitarian supplies – including flour, baby food, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical drugs – were permitted to enter Gaza on Tuesday.

Israeli officials have denied allegations of food shortages in Gaza and insisted that instances of starvation result from Hamas withholding supplies from civilian populations, not from Israeli actions.

The post BBC, UN admit misleading in '14,000 Gaza babies' claim appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The British Broadcasting Corporation "whitewashed" and covered up jihadist and antisemitic expressions from Gazan Hamas supporters in its controversial documentary "Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone," according to an investigation published Tuesday in the British Telegraph.

According to the Telegraph and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), throughout the film, the words "Jew" or "Jewish" were translated as "Israel," "Israeli forces," or removed from subtitles – in at least five different instances. This way, antisemitic statements against Jews would sound like statements against Israel. An interviewee who praised Yahya Sinwar, former Hamas leader, for "jihad against the Jews," was also mistranslated, as if he was "fighting Israeli forces."

This is the second time within a week that the film, intended to reflect Palestinian life during wartime, has sparked public criticism. Previously, it was revealed that one of the main interviewees is 14-year-old Abdullah al-Yazouri, son of Hamas' deputy agriculture minister. Al-Yazouri was presented in the film without proper disclosure of his family connections.

Following al-Yazouri's appearance, the British opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch from the Conservative Party, approached BBC Director General Tim Davie demanding to check whether the network transferred money to Hamas, and even threatened to lead a move to cancel the television license fee responsible for funding the broadcasting corporation. Following the interview with the Hamas senior official's son, the broadcasting authority removed the film from its website and published an apology.

During the film, a Gazan woman is seen fleeing from areas captured by the IDF in the Strip. She responds to the cameraman's question "What's happening?" saying: "The Jews invaded our area." However, in the subtitles, she is quoted as if she said: "The Israeli army invaded our area."

In another scene, a child explains that he left home because of the bombings. "The Jews came, destroyed us, Hamas and the Jews," was translated in the subtitles to "Israelis destroyed everything, and so did Hamas."

Later, a scene shows a doctor amputating a child's arm. The medic is quoted as saying: "Look what the Israelis are doing to the children of Gaza." However, he never actually used the word "Israeli" according to the translation by CAMERA.

When a girl observes Iranian missiles fired toward Israel in October, the subtitles state: "We are used to seeing flashes of lightning in the sky. But now it's real missiles. We're happy that for once the rockets aren't falling on us." In reality, she says: "At first, when we would see these [flashes], they would be flares, by the way. From the Jews. But now they turned out to be [real] missiles."

A minute later, a woman is interviewed about Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7. She is quoted as if she said: "This is the first time we invaded Israel – it was always the other way round." In fact, she says: "We were invading the Jews for the first time."

Toward the end of the film, a woman shows photos of Sinwar during his assassination. In the subtitles, she is quoted as if she said: "His face was covered and his weapon was ready, prepared for battle." The CAMERA translation reveals that she actually said he was "ready for jihad." She is quoted in the subtitles: "The video shows he was fighting and resisting Israeli forces. He wasn't hiding." But in reality, she says: "Sinwar engaged in resistance in jihad against the Jews. Not underground."

BBC removed references to 'Jews' and 'jihad' in Gaza documentary pic.twitter.com/WHFRgoHOYC

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) February 25, 2025

  Melanie Dawes, CEO of Ofcom (the UK's communications regulatory body), noted that the BBC is dealing with "some really important questions," adding that the organization is watching closely what happens, conducting several conversations with the corporation, and will wait for its response before deciding whether to take action or not.

Alex Hearn from Labour Against Antisemitism said that the mistranslation of the word "Jew" to "Israeli" is a continuation of "the BBC's sympathetic coverage of Hamas." "In so doing, the BBC have sanitized views expressed about Sinwar, orchestrator of the Hamas massacre, and instead presented a more acceptable version for a Western audience," he said. He added: "It is this whitewashing that keeps viewers ill-informed about the nature of Hamas, and promotes sympathy for their deadly ideology. This documentary signifies the institutional failure behind the BBC's reporting of the Israel-Hamas conflict."

Campaign Against Antisemitism, an organization that exposes and counters antisemitism, called the documentary a "Hamas propaganda film" and accused the BBC of "providing a megaphone for Hamas claims."

Orly Goldschmidt, from the Israeli Embassy in Britain, further accused the corporation of "intentional mistranslation," describing it as a "sinister and misleading policy of the BBC." According to her, the translation was "not only false and deeply offensive, but it also excuses racism" and "does not allow viewers to see how children, and Palestinians at large, have been taught to hate Jews from a very young age." She added that omitting the word "jihad downplays the threat of terrorism that Israelis face on a daily basis," and that the issue of mistranslation "reflects a very serious and systematic issue, which has taken root at the BBC, with regards to its anti-Israel bias."

A spokesperson for the corporation did not respond to the Telegraph and CAMERA's translation check, but said, "The film features important stories we think should be told – those of the experiences of children in Gaza. There have been continuing questions raised about the programme and, in the light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company. The programme will not be available on iPlayer while this is taking place."

The post Lost in translation? BBC edits Hamas to be more palatable appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a letter to BBC Director General Tim Davie, Badenoch raised concerns about the BBC2 documentary "Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone," which featured narration by the son of a Hamas official, Daily Mail reported. "It is now clear to me that you should commission a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic BBC bias against Israel," Badenoch wrote in the letter.

The BBC was forced to apologize after revelations that the documentary's child narrator Abdullah was the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who serves as deputy minister of Hamas's agriculture ministry, Daily Mail reported. While the BBC initially defended the program, documents revealed the corporation maintained regular involvement in its production.

"How could any program from there be commissioned without comprehensive work by the BBC to ensure that presenters or participants were – as far as possible – not linked to that appalling regime?" Badenoch asked in her letter to Davie, according to the Daily Mail.

The BBC removed the documentary from its iPlayer service following demands from 45 prominent Jewish figures in television, film and media. The corporation acknowledged the "family connections of the film's narrator" and announced plans to add text identifying Abdullah as the son of a Hamas government official before any re-transmission.

Badenoch said it was "profoundly troubling" that the BBC called the movie an 'invaluable testament' to the war and noted that "surely it should have been immediately apparent that the program was fundamentally flawed." She stressed that "an investigation must consider allegations of potential collusion with Hamas, and the possibility of payment to Hamas officials.'

Badenoch warned that Conservative Party support for the BBC's license fee funding model, which continues through 2027, could be at risk without "serious action" addressing these concerns. The BBC is understood to be conducting "further due diligence" on the documentary's production process, Daily Mail reported.

Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the culture commiottee, indicated MPs will question BBC leadership about the documentary, according to Daily Mail. A BBC board meeting this week is expected to address the controversy.

The controversy emerges amid broader scrutiny of the BBC's coverage of the conflict, with Badenoch citing concerns about what she termed "systemic and institutional bias against Israel" in the corporation's reporting.

The post Did BBC use taxpayer money to fund Hamas documentary? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Syria's new de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, declared in an exclusive BBC interview that his war-torn nation no longer poses a threat to neighboring countries or Western nations, marking a significant shift in tone from the country's new leadership.

In the interview conducted in Damascus, al-Sharaa emphasized the need to lift international sanctions, arguing that the measures were designed to target the previous regime. "The victim and the oppressor should not be treated in the same way," he said.

Al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, led the recent offensive that overthrew Bashar Assad's government less than two weeks ago and heads the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant force in the rebel alliance. He now seeks to distance his organization from its designation as a terrorist group by the UN, US, EU, and UK.

Al-Sharaa directly addressed concerns about his group's past connections to al-Qaeda, which it separated from in 2016. He insisted that HTS does not target civilians and portrayed his organization as a victim of the Assad regime's actions.

Al-Sharaa rejected comparisons between his vision for Syria and Afghanistan's governance model, emphasizing Syria's distinct cultural traditions. He pointed to education initiatives in rebel-held territories, stating, "The percentage of women in universities is more than 60%" in Idlib province, which has been under rebel control since 2011.

When questioned about specific policies, the BBC reports that al-Sharaa deferred to future legal processes, saying that the "Syrian committee of legal experts" would write a constitution that all leaders would need to follow.

The interview showed al-Sharaa in civilian clothes, appearing relaxed as he attempted to reassure those skeptical about his group's break from its extremist past. Many Syrians remain unconvinced, and the actions of Syria's new rulers in the next few months will indicate the kind of country they want Syria to be – and the way they want to rule it.

The post Al-Julani rules out Afghan model for Syria appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A damning new report, drawing heavily on research from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), has uncovered "systematic bias against Israel" in the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. The comprehensive analysis, authored by former BBC Television director Danny Cohen, alleges that the British broadcaster's reporting has "fuelled anti-Jewish hate" and "seriously damaged the BBC's reputation."

The comprehensive analysis, authored by former BBC Television director Danny Cohen, examined 11 months of BBC coverage across television, radio, online, and social media platforms. The study paints a picture of a news organization repeatedly falling short of its own editorial standards, particularly in its reporting on the conflict that erupted after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Among the most striking examples cited was the BBC's initial response to the Hamas assault. As terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians, the BBC's website led with a headline about Israeli "revenge attacks," a framing that Cohen's report argues set the tone for subsequent coverage.

The study also highlights the BBC's controversial decision to initially avoid describing Hamas as terrorists, citing editorial guidelines. This stance drew widespread criticism and was partially reversed, but only after significant public pressure.

Throughout the conflict, the report alleges, BBC reporting on casualty figures in Gaza often failed to provide crucial context. Numbers were frequently cited from Hamas-controlled sources without adequate clarification that these figures included both civilians and terrorists.

Particularly concerning, according to the analysis, was the performance of BBC Arabic. The service was forced to issue corrections to its output at a rate of once every 48 hours during the first five months of the conflict. Several BBC Arabic journalists were also investigated for social media posts that appeared to celebrate the Oct. 7 attack.

The report doesn't shy away from addressing high-profile missteps, such as the BBC's misreporting of an International Court of Justice ruling. The broadcaster incorrectly stated that the court had found Israel's actions "plausible" as genocide when no such determination had been made.

Perhaps most troubling are the concerns raised by Jewish BBC staff and contributors about the broadcaster's coverage and internal culture. Over 200 employees signed a letter cataloging "extensive broadcasting mistakes" and urging an investigation, a request that BBC leadership declined to pursue.

Cohen, who led BBC Television from 2013 to 2015, acknowledges the challenges of reporting from war zones. However, he concludes that "it is clear there is systematic bias against Israel across all BBC platforms, with the vast majority of that bias pointing in the same direction."

The British broadcaster has previously defended its coverage as impartial and in line with editorial guidelines. This report, however, is likely to intensify scrutiny of the public broadcaster's Middle East reporting practices and may prompt calls for a broader review of its editorial processes.

The post BBC's coverage of Israel-Gaza war shows persistent anti-Israel bias, CAMERA report finds appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.