"drama on the high seas", "commandos storm a ship", "Important new evidence from both sides..."
These are just some of the soundbites used by Jeremy Vine at the outset of the Panorama programme "Death on the Med", which was broadcast on BBC1 on Monday 16th August. The premise was to examine the Israeli raid on the Free Gaza Flotilla at the end of May earlier this year.
Having watched the episode, here are some of my thoughts.
Jane Corbin presented the programme and from the beginning showered Unit 13, the Israeli Naval unit responsible for the attack, with flattering statements like "elite Israeli force".
In everyday use ‘elite’ is a word that has many positive meanings e.g. related words and descriptions would include 'top class', 'the best', 'quality' and so on. Thus the use of the word 'elite' in describing Unit 13 can't be considered impartial but rather a reinforcement of the Israeli perspective of Unit 13 and the subsequent propagation of this Israeli view to the audiences watching at home.
One of the questions put forward by Corbin at the outset is whether Israel was baited? She asks;
"...but did Israel fall into a trap and what was the real agenda of some of those people who call themselves peace activists...."In other words, no one else views them as peace activists. The statement above is particularly interesting as it is clearly an attempt to transfer sympathy to Israel and to apportion blame on the peace activists by planting doubt in the viewers’ minds about their motives.
Corbin's statement might seem like an inquisitive question yet it comes loaded with copious amounts of 'unspeak' i.e. it is a loaded questions and is another example of the story being presented from the Israeli perspective.
"...but did Israel fall into a trap..." and
"what was the real agenda of (the) peace activists..."There are 2 parts to the Corbin's question, as shown above, and both parts cast negative views on the Peace activists. The target outcome, it seems, is to portray Israel as the victim of a sinister plot.
We're barely 10 minutes into the programme and already a solid foundation of Pro-Israel bias has been laid down by Corbin. Viewers are being conditioned to lean towards the Israeli viewpoint as the programme continues.
At this early juncture in the programme one notable absence from her commentary was a key piece of factual information that would have injected some much needed impartiality into the mix. In the opening minutes Corbin failed to mention the
key fact related to this story, the fact that Unit 13 sailed into International Waters and forcibly boarded a ship.
Why is this significant? A few reasons;
- Israel has no jurisdiction in International Waters
- Boarding a vessel, by force, in International Waters is, in simple language, an act of Hijacking or Piracy
- Both Hijacking and Piracy are offensive/aggressive actions i.e. should be viewed as an attack
- When under attack, people are entitled to defend themselves
Another important point of note, was that despite all the arguments being put forward up until this point there was no mention of the Israeli siege of Gaza, commonly referred to as blockade of Gaza.
The siege of Gaza is an act which is illegal under International Law and is indiscriminately applied to all of Gaza's civilians as an act of collective punishment by Israel.
Further into the programme we come across yet more Israeli narrative being aired, this time by an official of the Israeli Military who states that;
"...under these kind of circumstances.....the results are surprisingly low..."The "results" that he refers to are the 9 people who were murdered by Unit 13. I guess the message that the representative was trying to convey is that we should all be very thankful to Unit 13 that they only murdered 9 people.
By presenting this argument, not only did it give airtime to Israeli spin but also painted a picture in the viewers minds that the Israeli navy showed restraint during its attack i.e. more sympathy and more PR points being stacked up in Israel's favour.
At long last Corbin finally addresses the siege of Gaza in her own words. She comments that the Mavi Marmara left Istanbul;
"...to break the Israeli Naval Blockade of Gaza and bring aid to the Palestinians..."This is a particularly misleading comment as it implies that Israel is only blockading Gaza from the Sea when in actual fact Israel is subjecting Gaza to an indiscriminate land, sea and air siege in breach of International law. This is yet more evidence of the programme makers intention to limit how much negative news they show about Israel.
When Corbin is shown in Gaza she narrates that;
"...here in Gaza, the problem is not so much the lack of food or medicine..."Your eyes are not deceiving you, she really did say that whilst showing a video clip of Gaza accompanied by sinister music.
I guess if that argument is true then
this report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, posted by the BBC news website no less, which talks about Gazans dependence on food aid amongst other things must be complete rubbish.
Not only does Corbin's flippant remark completely disregard the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza but also portrays a negative image of the territory through the use of a sinister soundtrack in the background interlaced with images of bearded men and fully veiled women.
Corbin wastes no time in homing in on Hamas and its refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist. This is accompanied by;
"...militants have fired thousands of rockets at civilians (in Israel) in the last few years..."What she fails to tell viewers is how many fatalities these rockets have caused on the Israeli side. This is significant because to an uninformed person, hearing this for the first time may give the impression that casualties on the Israeli side must also run into the thousands. Thankfully they do not.
Corbin makes no mention whatsoever of Israel's brutal war on Gaza, its use of white phosphorous in built up areas in breach of international law and the fact that it's bombardment left more than 1,000 people in Gaza dead including at least 430 children.
The omission of Israeli aggression and the depiction that Israel is on the receiving end of thousands of rockets is yet more evidence of the programme shamelessly drumming up support & sympathy for Israel and portraying it as the victim in the conflict.
The viewers are denied key facts from the region which would cast an altogether different, significantly darker, light on Israel.
Corbin then turns her focus to Turkey and explicitly mentions that the Turkish Government and Turkish Charities support Hamas, yet fails to mention that Turkey has full diplomatic relations with Israel including deep military ties. By mentioning support for Hamas the objective is clearly to make the Turks guilty by association i.e. Corbin's arguments can be stacked up as follows;
- Hamas denies Israel's right to exist
- Hamas fires thousands of rockets at civilians in Israel
- The Turkish Government and Turkish charities support Hamas
Corbin follows a very clear and structured method to ensure that the role of the Turkish Charities and by extension the Free Gaza Flotilla is saddled with as much negative baggage as possible, all the while Israel is talked up so that the viewers are left in no doubt as to who the bad guys are in this whole episode.
The focus now turns to the charity that organised the Free Gaza Flotilla, the Turkish Humanitarian organisation
IHH.
Corbin tells viewers that;
"The IHH invited fellow Islamists from the Arab World"This is the first time that religion is mentioned in the programme and one wonders what relevance it has to the story? Perhaps the intention is to portray to the viewers that this was a bunch of Muslims on a boat and term "Islamist" and its mass use in the media implies extremism. She's already posed the question earlier about the real motive so now viewers can start piecing together her arguments and conclude that a group of sinister, conspiring Hamas loving Turkish Muslims on a boat set out to trap Israel.
Other than interviewing former US Marine turned peace activist
Ken O'Keefe, Corbin fails to mention that the passengers aboard the ship included many people from diverse, religious & ethnic backgrounds and even included an Israeli MP!
A video clip is shown with the Head of IHH making a speech aboard the flotilla in which Corbin alleges that he turned up the rhetoric. This is because the subtitles on screen allegedly show him saying that they will defeat the Israeli commandos and that if they board the ship they will throw them off and humiliate them.
This clearly implies to the viewers at home that this was all pre-planned and that the activists wanted a confrontation.
The alternative and correct view, confirmed by the head of the IHH, is that the speech is a statement that the activists will resist any attempted hijacking of their vessel by the Israelis..
That doesn't seem unreasonable, it just shows a man stating his intent that
if attacked he has the right to defend himself.
Corbin then turns her focus to member of Unit 13, she narrates how they have successfully seized ships carrying arms to Hamas. This statement serves 2 purposes, first it reconfirms the argument presented earlier that Hamas is firing thousands of rockets into Israel. Secondly, the fact that Unit 13 has successfully seized weapons is designed to show viewers that they're doing the right thing.
A video clip is shown to viewers, which shows activists cutting metal bars from the railings of the ship and putting on gas masks. The impression that's being created is that the activists came prepared to fight. A more likely explanation could be that the activists knew that the Israelis would attempt a hijacking and thus came prepared to protect themselves from aggression.
The first helicopter to hover over the Mavi Marmara is described as containing soldiers armed with
"non lethal weapons" i.e. the Israelis weren't there to kill. This is yet more narrative to show the Israelis in a positive light.
A member of Unit 13 called Captain R is shown giving a graphic account of the injuries sustained by him, he also adds that he was being beaten accompanied with cries of
"Allahu Akbar" i.e. the Muslims were beating me to death.
Corbin is then shown sitting across from the head of the IHH showing him the Israeli footage of peace activists attacking unit 13, she challenges him by saying;
"this is not passive resistance, this is fighting"This is very interesting because at no point in the programme did she challenge the Israeli Military official or any member of Unit 13 about why they attacked a vessel in International Waters where they had no jurisdiction?
Instead all of the focus and effort is being put into making the aggressor (Israel) out to be the victim and the victim (Free Gaza Flotilla) to be the instigator and agent provocateur. I don't think that even Fox news is capable of such bias!
In the closing part of the programme Corbin tours a warehous in Gaza which contains the cargo from the Flotilla. She is show walking around Motability scooters and boxes of medicine, about which she states that;
"I found that two thirds of medicine was out of date.....the bid wasn't about bringing aid to Gaza it was a political move...the outcry (over the Israeli raid) ensured that the flotilla achieved it's aim"By stating the above Corbin presents "evidence" to the viewers at home that the question posed at the outset regarding the motives of the peace activists and trapping Israel was indeed true.
And so with the concluding comments of the programme she wraps up what is without doubt the most biased programme that I have ever had the displeasure of watching on the beeb.
UK readers need to consider that they fund the BBC's existence and their TV licence fee is being used to produce programmes like this, which may have well have been produced by the Mark Regev Broadcasting Corporation.
The programme is available to view on BBC iplayer for those who wish to sit through 30 minutes of garbage, but if you feel that my summary above has given you enough then it's time to lodge your complaint.
You can call the BBC on 03700 100212 or email
panorama.reply@bbc.co.uk or fill in an
online form.
