Mavi Marmara survivor questions UK complicity

“Some of the things that I find disturbing now, more than the scenes of blood, and the massacre itself are, I happen to live in the Finchley area. And sometimes, when I was looking at the soldiers on the boat, pointing their guns at me, I was thinking, do any of you have dual passports? Do any of you live just down the road from me?”







Laura Stuart, veteran of almost all the road convoys to Gaza and of course a fellow-voyager and survivor of mine on the Mavi Marmara, has this to say about the reality of walking in a free society, off the field of conflict. By omission at least, the UK Government may be complicit in covering over the implications of the attack

Panorama "Death" - the final stretch

The saga grinds to an end at last:
The Editorial Standards Committee (the “Committee”) has ratified (i.e. approved) its finding for the nineteen appeals on Death in the Med, and publishes it today, Tuesday 19th April. Perhaps not a great surprise after the convoluted business of the complaints procedure: only 3 points were conceded. Below is a summary of the report, with one of the rejections, of probably the most justified complaint, about that fake recording, which I myself had pointed out had been in one breath accepted by the programme both as a fake and as a warning.


CONFIDENTIAL (EMBARGOED UNTIL PUBLICATION)

Summary
The Programme
At its meeting on 17 March 2011 the Editorial Standards Committee (the “Committee”)
considered together appeals from 19 complainants in relation to Death in the Med, a programme in the weekly current affairs series Panorama. Death in the Med was broadcast on 16 August 2010 on BBC One. It relates to the boarding at sea by Israeli commandos of the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla attempting to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Nine activists on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship in the flotilla, were killed and more than 50 passengers and nine Israeli soldiers were injured.

The Committee’s Finding
The consolidated appeal raised 51 points of issue; the Committee upheld three of those points (two in relation to accuracy and one in relation to impartiality) but decided not to uphold the remaining 48 points. Despite finding three instances where the Editorial Guidelines had been breached the Committee nonetheless concluded that, in tackling this highly divisive subject, Death in the Med had achieved due impartiality and due accuracy overall.
The Committee regrets any breaches of the Editorial Guidelines and apologises for them on behalf of the BBC. Whilst it expects the BBC to consider seriously any lessons to be learnt in respect of its findings, the Committee wishes to make it clear that it commends the BBC for having tackled this most controversial of issues. In the Committee’s view, the programme was an original, illuminating and well-researched piece of journalism. The Committee remarked it is unlikely that a current affairs programme such as this, covering such a contentious issue, would be found to be entirely flawless if it were subjected to the level of deconstruction and analysis that Death in the Med has undergone. However, the BBC is committed to the highest journalistic standards, and programme-makers must be prepared to face the most rigorous scrutiny when covering such contentious issues.
To summarise, with regard to the three upheld matters, the Committee concluded:
• In the absence of clear video footage of anyone being shot, material from the preliminary autopsy reports would have given a broader picture and added to the programme’s description of how the activists died. The Committee decided the information about the volume and nature of the gunshot wounds detailed in the preliminary autopsy reports gave a fuller picture of the manner in which the Israelis killed nine people and the level of force deployed by the Israeli commandos. The inclusion of some reference to the preliminary autopsy findings would have enabled the programme to achieve due accuracy as required by the Editorial Guidelines.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that in this respect the programme had breached the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy (Point S).
• As regards the treatment of casualties by the Israelis, the imagery and the accompanying script line (“The Israelis evacuated the badly wounded to hospital”) would have left viewers with the impression that the badly wounded were all promptly and appropriately cared for. The Committee noted that, although not proven, there are detailed allegations of mistreatment of at least some of the casualties. The Committee decided that to achieve impartiality on the issue the programme was required to verify that the Israelis took proper care of the badly wounded. In the absence of such confirmation the programme was obliged to reflect the views of those who allege that the Israelis mistreated some of them. The Editorial Guidelines on impartiality provide that we must ensure we avoid “an imbalance of views on controversial subjects”. Accordingly, the Committee decided that in this respect the programme had breached the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality (Point AI).
• The programme accurately described some of the aid on board the flotilla (mobility scooters, hospital beds and medicines, two thirds of which the reporter said she had found to be out of date). However, the facts show that this was just a tiny proportion of a consignment which had consistedof thousands of tons of aid, including large quantities of much-needed building materials. As a result, the Committee concluded that the programme was not clear and precise in its presentation of the full extent of the aid on board the flotilla. Accordingly, the Committee decided there had been a breach of the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy (Point AR).


Point AB – regarding the allegation that the programme used an audio recording which the Israelis admit had been doctored; the impression left by the script was that the programme accepted the Israeli version of events

122. Relevant Script
The Committee noted that the relevant script for point AB was as follows:
Commentary: The Israelis released what they said was the radio response from the flotilla. Part of it was defiant and abusive.
Israel Military Recording: Shut up – go back to Auschwitz... We’re helping Arabs going against the US. Don’t forget 9/11 guys...
Commentary: The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.
For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly.

123. Context
The Committee noted that on 31 May 2010, (less than 24 hours after the Mavi Marmara was boarded by Israeli commandos) the IDF released 1’05” of video footage in which an Israeli naval officer is heard and seen issuing a warning to the Mavi Marmara not to enter the area under Israeli blockade; the abusive comments above do not feature in the footage.
The Committee noted that on 4 June 2010 the IDF released a 27” audio recording of what it said was a radio transmission between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla in which unidentified voices are heard making the anti-Semitic comments featured above. The picture accompanying the audio was a freeze frame image from the 31 May video. The subtitled audio was new material of the same officer speaking to another ship in the flotilla, the Defney.

The Committee noted that on 5 June 2010, after questions were raised as to the authenticity of the 4 June recording, the IDF released what it said was a clarification/correction:
“The audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. We have now uploaded the entire segment of 5 minutes and 58 seconds in which the exchange took place and the comments were made.
“This transmission had originally cited the Mavi Marmara ship as being the source of these remarks, however, due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified.”

124. Allegation
The Committee noted the complainants said:
“(The reporter) stated that the comments were controversial. She did not accurately state that the flotilla organisers deny that they were ever made, merely that they had not heard them.”
“The voice in the recording was of someone apparently from around mid-America, cowboy country... despite admitting that the Israelis had given up trying to pass this off as genuine, (the reporter) goes on to say, ‘For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly’. If we accept that the recording was a fake, we cannot in the same breath allege that it would have been perceived as a warning.”
“This (the commentary) is tacit acceptance of the Israeli story ... since this could only be a warning to the Israelis if the transmission had been made. This in turn reflects a bias in ... reporting.”

125. BBC Response
The Committee noted that the programme responded:
“The IDF stand by the actual verbal content of the tape.
“The script accurately reflected what the Israeli’s had released in the statement:
‘The Israelis released what they said was the radio response from the flotilla. Part of it was defiant and abusive.’
“We accept that there is controversy surrounding these tapes and therefore we clearly pointed this out:
‘The recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy. The flotilla’s organisers insist they did not hear these comments being made.’
“The press release issued by the Free Gaza Movement at the time – June 6 2010, said:
‘According to our Captain of Challenger 1, Denis Healey, a man with 25 years of experience on the sea, there would be no way that anyone could communicate with each other without the entire fleet hearing the exchange…
“there was no exchange like this by anyone on any boat during the entire time I was piloting the boat” said Denis.’
“The programme script accurately reflected the FGM’s (Free Gaza Movement) denial.
“We were told by the Israelis that the range of the radio/audio meant that it came from the flotilla. They could not confirm from which ship but were clear it came from somewhere in the flotilla.”
The Committee noted the ECU’s response:
“(the reporter) assured me that she was conscious of the general tenor of what the Free Gaza Movement and other activists were saying about the VHF recording and as a result of her research and interviews (both on and off the record) concluded that the debate centred around the question of whether activists would have heard the comments. This seems to me reasonable since it is possible that the comments could have been made from a VHF transmitter and not been picked up by some of the other craft in the area.
“I don’t accept that the wording used by (the reporter) gave the impression she tacitly agreed with the IDF version that the comments were genuine. Her comment could, I suggest, equally be seen as a straightforward summary of what the Israelis said to her to support their view that the activists intended to provoke a confrontation with Israel.”

126. Consideration
The Committee considered three separate issues:
• Did the programme use material that the IDF had admitted was doctored without telling the audience?
• Should the script have stated that the organisers deny the statements were made?
• Did the wording in the script suggest the programme’s “tacit acceptance” of the recording’s authenticity?
The Committee noted that the first issue relates to some confusion as to which audio recording the clarification on 5 June related. The IDF website states the 5 June clarification was to the release of the 4 June recording, and was unrelated to the 31 May release. As the quote from the IDF website demonstrates, the IDF did not “admit” the 4 June release had been doctored; the clarification explained it had been edited for clarity.
The Committee noted that the discussion about this tape has focussed on the activists’ denial that the comments were ever made. The activists base their certainty that it is a fraud on the claim that the voices did not match those of any of the Captains (and it was only they and Huwaid Arraf, Chair of the Free Gaza Movement) who had access to the radios), and that no-one heard the comments.
The Committee noted that (if it is accepted the comments were made) it is not known from which ship the comments originated, and the ECU argues that it is possible that comments made from one transmitter would not necessarily be picked up by all the craft in the flotilla. The ECU concluded therefore that the programme accurately reported that the organisers insist they did not hear the comments because it was not possible for the organisers to state with certainty that the comments were not made.

127. The Committee’s Decision
The Committee considered whether the BBC had complied with the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy. The Editorial Guidelines note that accuracy “is often more than a question of getting the facts right”. The Guidelines include the statement that “All the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth”. In addition, if an issue is controversial, the Guidelines say relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.
The Committee decided the programme accurately reflected the content of the audio recording. The Committee did not accept the complainants’ argument that the audio recording had been proven to be fake, neither did the Committee find any evidence that Israel had said it was. The Committee considered that the programme had taken care to reflect fairly that which it could corroborate, i.e. that the flotilla organisers claim they did not hear the statements being made. The Committee decided the evidential base for the claim that the recording was a fake was not so strong that it obliged the programme to report that allegation too. The Committee considered the programme achieved due impartiality and due accuracy in stating the “recording’s authenticity has provoked controversy”.
Next the Committee considered whether, despite reporting the organisers’ denial that the comments were made and also reflecting that the authenticity had provoked controversy, the sentence below nevertheless implied the programme accepted the recording was genuine:
“For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly.”
The Committee noted that the programme had made it clear that there was more than one view as to whether the radio transmission had been made. The programme makers
explained the Israeli point of view (i.e. that the audio recording was a radio response from the flotilla) and also the view of the flotilla’s organisers (i.e. that they did not hear the comments in the audio recording being made). As mentioned above, the programme specifically stated that the recording’s authenticity provoked controversy.
The Committee acknowledged a complainant’s argument that the statement “For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly” was a tacit acceptance of the Israeli story. However, the Committee decided that this statement could also be interpreted as a summary of the Israeli position as described to the reporter rather than a tacit acceptance of the Israeli story. The Committee noted that the issue of whether or not the audio recording was a radio response from the flotilla was a controversial issue. The Committee concluded that Panorama had weighed the information and opinions available to them and had scripted accordingly. As a result, the Committee concluded that this was duly accurate based on the available information and opinions.
The Committee then tested the same sentence for impartiality. The Committee decided that the programme presented both the views of the Israelis and the views of the flotilla’s organisers regarding the authenticity of the audio recording. The Committee decided that the viewer would have understood from the section overall: that the Israelis claimed that the audio recording came from the flotilla; that the flotilla organisers denied hearing the comments in the audio recording being made; and that whether or not the audio recording was actually a radio response from the flotilla is disputed. The Committee concluded that the overall treatment of this issue was duly accurate and duly impartial. Nevertheless, the Committee agreed that programme makers should be reminded that when an issue is in dispute, it is extremely important in scripting to minimise the possibility of some viewers concluding that the programme has accepted a particular point of view.
Finding: Not Upheld

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2011/death_in_med.pdf

Return of the Mavi Marmara

Huge crowds welcomed the bullet-holed Mavi Marmara and Turkey repeated its demands for Israeli 'apologies', as the world's news media including, of course, the BBC, looked elsewhere:

http://youtu.be/yE2r54_965Q

The return of the Mavi Marmara

Faiz Ahmed witnessed the Mavi Marmara's return to a hero's welcome at Istanbul's Sarayburnu port late last month.

The Mavi Marmara returned to a hero's welcome at Istanbul's Sarayburnu port late last month. Docking at its port of departure for the first time since its fateful voyage began seven months ago, it is perhaps the most celebrated of humanitarian relief vessels that set sail to carry foodstuffs, medicine, school materials and other household supplies to the Gaza Strip in defiance of Israel's siege in May 2010.

To be sure, the craft itself was a sight to see. Palestinian and Turkish flags adorned the ship's decks in fraternal tandem, the Bosphorus' coastal breeze causing them to flutter spiritedly in a splendid sea of red, white and green. Brave slogans of solidarity with the oppressed in Palestine -- painted in Arabic, Turkish and Hebrew across its sides -- boldly identified the former ferry liner's peaceful but defiant international relief mission. Meanwhile on shore, cheering crowds of thousands amassed in excitement, gathering from an arm's length of the ship to several blocks down the harbor. Children sat on shoulders of parents and siblings, scrunching tightly to secure a better view.
Yet for anyone familiar with what transpired on the Mavi Marmara's decks hardly one week after departing from Istanbul last May -- when Israeli commandoes stormed the ship, killing nine humanitarian volunteers -- it goes without saying that the hero's welcome was not only for the ship. When news reporters referred to the vessel in Turkish and Arabic as "heroic," even "holy," they were in fact referring to the specific humanitarian mission it represented.

Furkan Doğan, Necdet Yıldırım, Cevdet Kılıçlar, Ali Haydar Bengi, Cengiz Akyür, Fahri Yaldız, Cengiz Songür, Çetin Topçuloğlu and İbrahim Bilgen -- these are the names of the nine aid workers killed in cold blood by Israeli soldiers. And here are the facts: as stated in the UN's international fact-finding mission report published on 27 September 2010, at least five of the victims were shot in the head, two at close range as they lay injured. The 56-page report states unequivocally that "the killing of at least six of the passengers" was "consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution" ("Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission," UN Human Rights Council, 27 September 2010). A forensic examination led by Turkish Attorney-General Mustafa Ercan identified some 250 bullet holes in the ship, with many painted or plastered over by Israeli authorities ("Mavi Marmara'da 250 mermi izi çikti," Turkish Radikal, 11 August 2010). This was not self-defense by any stretch of the imagination.

Beyond their numbers and nationalities, large placards with photos and biographies of those laid to rest were posted near the ship, providing viewers with a bit more of their humanity to reflect upon: "married with seven children," "in April he answered 75 out of 80 questions correctly on his university entrance exam," "his dream was to become a doctor," "a soccer champion," "ever-cheerful," "always coming to the aid of others."

For some, scenes from Sunday's reception also evoked unmistakable imagery and symbolism. Towering minarets from the city's mosques ornamented Istanbul's hilly panorama. Topkapi Palace, the home and administrative quarters of former Ottoman sultans, rests atop a nearby hill, overlooking the entire Sarayburnu port. A gigantic Turkish standard streamed from a prominent flagstaff nearby. Speeches in Arabic and English, but mostly Turkish, blasted Israeli policies intrepidly. Some news pundits may well have described the symbolism of a rising Turkey, rebuffed by the European Union, and reasserting its longstanding historical influence in the region.

But let no one be deceived -- this was not a Turkish political rally. As evident in the diverse cast of speakers and supporters in attendance, this was an international coalition of humanitarians, standing up for Palestine, and against injustice, wherever it may be. In addition to Istanbul-dwellers and Turks from across the country, including family members of those killed, among the thousands in attendance were guests from around the world, including Israelis and Americans against Israel's occupation, representing a plurality of backgrounds, nationalities and faiths. "Muslims, Jews, Christians and non-believers," as one Israeli speaker put it, proudly stood to salute and honor the ship's return. And its continuing mission.

Less inspiring has been the foreign news coverage outside the region. US news coverage on the reception was minimal, or nonexistent. CNN failed to post even a single report of the reception on its webpage. Incredibly, the BBC's lone relevant headline the day of the reception read: "Turkey wants to repair ties with Israel," thereby marginalizing Ankara's staunch demands for an apology and compensation, and its unwavering call to lift the inhumane siege of Gaza. The few European news agencies that did cover the reception seem to be obsessed with one question: will Israel apologize for its "mishandling" of the raid in international waters? Cynics would say not a chance. After all, has any Israeli government apologized for massacres it has previously perpetuated on innocent men, women and children? In Deir Yassin and numerous villages throughout Palestine in 1948, in Lebanon in 1982, in Jenin in 2002 and Gaza in 2009, just to begin a long list? More recently, is Israel really interested in easing the unspeakable siege of Gaza that has refused entry of household items such as crayons, pasta, fruit juice, and children's shoes? Or is it a useful way to "punish" Palestinians when they vote the wrong way?

Others opt to view the issue in a broader light. Apology or no apology from the Government of Israel, the return of the Mavi Marmara was a historic moment here in Turkey, the region and the world. The journey of the Mavi Marmara marked one of the most well-documented and well-publicized demonstrations of civil disobedience by an international coalition of civilians since the anti-apartheid movement. It may well represent a turning point in global indignation at Israeli policies against the Palestinians -- a process that has already accelerated in Europe, though less rapidly in the United States -- again not dissimilar from the nascent solidarity movements against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s, the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and Jim Crow in the United States during the 1950s and '60s. Each began as a trickle of "activists" and intellectuals of conscience, eventually growing to an immense and unstoppable wave of global public opinion.

Certainly, the Israeli government should apologize for its woeful and brutal raid of the Mavi Marmara, offering compensation to the families of victims killed and the humanitarian organizations and individuals whose vessels and equipment were damaged. And the confiscated personal belongings of the passengers should be returned, to say the least. But more significantly, what happened on the Mavi Marmara has inspired countless numbers to continue, or join anew, the emerging tide of global public opinion speaking out for justice in Palestine. This includes a growing number of Jews in Israel, the United States and worldwide who refuse to sanction the crimes of a state that defiles their noble religious traditions and claims to act in their name. It is this undeniable authority of global public opinion, the world's only true superpower in the long-run, that can overcome any arsenal of high-tech weapons that the Israeli army may hurl in its way.

True, Israel will continue to impose incalculable suffering on Palestinians struggling to cope before any genuine change comes to light. Yet one thing is sure: business as usual in occupied Palestine can be no more. In a powerful invitation to all to see for themselves the nature of Israeli "self-defense," Turkish authorities again opened the Mavi Marmara for visitors to board its decks and examine the blood stains, bullet holes and, most poignantly, the exact locations where the nine civilians were slain. Through such educational measures and the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, the Israeli government will be forced to abandon its inhumane siege of Gaza, and brutal occupation of Palestine in general. This growing tide, more than anything else, is the lasting symbol of the Mavi Marmara's return to a hero's welcome in Istanbul last Sunday.

Faiz Ahmed is a doctoral candidate in the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley. He is currently in Turkey conducting dissertation research.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11713.shtml

BBC Bias: Let's twist again, like we did last summer

For those of us determined enough to keep up our attack on the BBC for its hair-raisingly Zionistic look at the attack on the Freedom Flotilla there will be in our files a 'stage three' letter referring to the entire body of complaints being treated as one and being looked at by an 'independent' editorial 'advisor', whose paper will be distributed to the complainants and the BBC Executive to give all a further opportunity for comment before it is distributed to the "Committee", whose finding will be 'ratified' by the BBC Trust in April 2011 and then published.

I'd say baroque is a good enough metaphor. I've listened to one or two sessions of the United Nations, and in fact, their deliberations sound very like this. If they lead to anything at all it tends to be an agreement to set up a sub-committee. In such lumbering scenarios, the so-called Palestine 'peace process' grinds ever onwards while the destruction of the country leaps ahead.

One of my fellow-complainants has written an excellent response to the BBC's latest:

Sir,

I would refer to the 'consolidated appeal' procedure which Michael Fadda, Editorial Assistant to the BBC Trust, has described in his email of 3rd December. This was in response to Richard Lightbown’s complaint of 24th August that the Panorama programme, Death on the Med', was biased and lacking in impartiality. The procedure described by Mr Fadda is Byzantine and the process so drawn out as to make any final BBC decision, apparently due in April, meaningless.

It has become increasingly clear that the programme was a whitewash of the truth and represents a nadir of the consistent bias displayed by the BBC in its reporting of the Palestine/Israel situation.

This lack of impartiality was confirmed by John Pilger who told us on the Today programme (on 10/12/10) that the BBC had failed to report the UNHRC report on the Mavi Marmara affair on its main news channels – censorship by omission.

The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was released on 27/9/10. It is revealing and damning and should have been the subject of much publicity; it shows conclusively that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered ‘execution-style by Israeli commandos’.

The report states that both activists and journalists on board the flotilla were treated in a cruel and inhuman way and confirms that cameras, laptops, mobiles, passports, credit cards and cash were stolen by the IDF. As John Pilger stated, war crimes were found to have been committed and the report recommends that there is a clear case for prosecution for wilful killing etc – *see extracts from the report shown below.

This Mission report gives unquestionable evidence that ‘Death on the Med’ was a travesty of truth. The BBC should now make an unreserved apology and offer the resignation of the Director General. Under the watch of the current DG the BBC has increasingly shown bias and lack of impartiality in their reporting of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. The BBC appears to be in thrall to Israel – as is much of the American media – it is understood that the UN Mission report did not appear in any US media whatsoever.

The Israeli military and its government have again behaved in flagrant contravention of the Geneva Conventions and should be regarded as a rogue state. For the UK to seek to protect members of the Israeli government from international law procedures – as they are attempting to do on 13th December by tampering with Universal Jurisdiction – makes them complicit in Israel’s serial wrongdoing, as does also the moral support they give in avowing that they are ‘Friends of Israel’

The UK government would be well advised to read the attached UN Mission report, and then to rethink that friendship and their whole policy towards the Middle East.

Ted from Liverpool

Open letter to the people of Israel

Journalist Lauren Booth was on the first Free Gaza voyage and stayed to work in Gaza after the boats left. Her heartfelt letter to the people of Israel should be read and seen by everyone who hopes for peace in the Middle East, including those for whom "peace" means "greater Israel". This video realisation of her words was designed and produced by the Free Gaza movement.

The Independent - a suitable case for scepticism?

How independent is the Independent? When this young upstart began publication in 1986, it was too easy to dismiss it with the response,”No such thing” - although it has had periods when it did, indeed, look independent. My kind of independent, of course, slightly leftwards. Five years after its birth it imploded and went off the radar for a while, but rallied.

Now, though, with the kind of issue that either polarises or unifies, as the Israeli attack on the Peace Flotilla, the Indie’s true colours have been exposed.

Efforts by Tony Greenstein and a multitude of friends to place an advert condemning the BBC for its highly partial Panorama programme about the attack have been met with, first, a Jack Straw-style fog of constructive inactivity; then a kaliedoscope of legalese cant. The Guardian is also fidgety about attacking Auntie Beeb, but at least they put it in writing. As of today, Sunday 12th, the plan is to place the advert in the leftwing weeklies. And be damned!

Sat 11 September 2010

Dear Friends,

I was rung up yesterday by the Independent's libel lawyer, who I believe is Janet Youngson, and we had a completely fruitless conversation in which she made every type of objection possible. As you can see from my letter there is no point in pursuing this any further.

I will therefore submit it to the New Statesman, Spectator and left press as the majority of signatories have agreed.

It has been interesting seeing how the free press operates and how it is able to hide behind legal mystification. Note the contrast between the Indie's legal opinion, which it was not prepared to put down in writing, and that of the Guardian.

Would people do their best to spread this far and wide, Media Lens and any other outlets. A number of suggestions have been made by people.

best wishes

Tony

Saturday, 11 September 2010

Imogen Haddon
Managing Editor
The Independent and The Independent on Sunday

Dear Ms Haddon,

I was rung up by your libel lawyer, Janet Youngson I believe her name is, yesterday regarding the advert we tried placing with the Independent on 19th August concerning the BBC’s coverage of the attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I assumed, after our recent correspondence, that she would be able to give me a list of specific points which you had problems with, in order that we could hopefully agree to any amendments or alterations deemed necessary to enable you to run the ad.

Ms Youngson immediately made it clear that she was unable to provide a list of objections because, in her own words, she had marked nearly every paragraph as requiring changes. I told her that I was happy, for example, to make it clear that it was in our opinion that the Israeli Military’s ‘Go Back to Auschwitz’ clip, that was uncritically broadcast by the BBC, was a fake rather than simply stating it as such. Ms Youngson’s response was that that changed nothing. It was equally defamatory, she said, to say that ‘in our opinion you are a murderer’.

There is however a difference, as there usually is, with such broad brush analogies. The Israeli navy commandos did murder 9 unarmed peace activists in international waters, most shot at close quarters to the head. Likewise the ‘Auschwitz’ clip contained no background sounds or noise, like the other clips the IOF broadcast, so it could have been recorded by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This was, of course, after the Israeli military had withdrawn their claim that it came from the Mavi Marmara. Ms Youngson’s response was that in a libel case the defendant has to prove their assertion, which is true, but this is on the balance of probability. Questions such as Israel’s confiscation of film and recording equipment would, in itself, have enabled powerful inferences to be drawn. I would have been prepared to make it clear that the BBC did not knowingly broadcast a faked tape, though it use of such was clearly grossly negligent, but this too wasn’t acceptable.

Ms Youngson also had problems with the statement that ‘Throughout its coverage the BBC broadcast uncritically Israel’s own film “evidence” of their commandos being attacked, when it was fully aware that this had edited out the initial lethal attack.’‘ Yet this is an established fact. Ms Youngson’s response was that the BBC often show people’s home video clips! Well yes, but this wasn’t a home or mobile movie but a carefully edited IDF clip which excluded the original attack on the ships.

Her next objection was that I couldn’t prove that the BBC had done this everywhere, including on its Arabic World Service broadcasts. This is true. I don’t have the resources monitor the BBC world-wide. Nor is it necessary since the advert is being placed in a British newspaper. However I offered to change this to BBC News 24, but this was also unacceptable.

What Ms Youngson was really seeking was nothing less than a wholesale rewriting of the advert, the effect of which would have been to make it so innocuous that it would no longer have been our views that were expressed. It also transpired that Ms Youngson had worked at the BBC as a lawyer, because she kept referring to how the BBC worked internally.

We also approached the Guardian to run the advert, but decided for other reasons against this. Their legal department also had objections and, as the e-mail below demonstrates, they had no difficulty outlining what they were. Their objections related solely to a minor rewording of the allegation that the tape which was broadcast was faked and that the IDF had admitted it was not from the MM.

What made the conversation with Ms Youngson even more surreal was that she admitted the BBC would not sue for libel. The idea that the Israeli military would sue, when they are keen to avoid subjecting any of their claims to an independent inquiry, is absurd. Ms Youngson also stated that if another newspaper printed the advert then she’d have no or fewer problems about running it, even though the fact that another publication prints something libellous is no defence to a libel action.

It became clear to me that despite her claims to be speaking as a libel lawyer, Ms Youngson’s and therefore the Independent’s objections to the advert, were political not legal. We could not criticise the BBC’s coverage unless we could prove everything according to the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test and in any event we were ascribing a motive to their slanted coverage, namely that it was deliberate, whereas I was quite happy to accept that they have been biased for so long, on the Palestinian and other questions, that it is almost subconscious.

The reason that Ms Youngson and the Independent could not supply a list of specific objections was that it objected to the advert in toto but did not feel able to say this. It is clear that any legal concerns were a smokescreen for political objections. I pointed out repeatedly that what we were saying was covered by provisions relating to ‘fair comment’ in libel law, which she did not seem able to take on board. I then decided that there was no point in continuing the conversation and terminated the call.

The advert which we have unsuccessfully tried to place with you was no more than a paid for Op-Ed. There was nothing defamatory about it at all. The objections to it were political not legal. I would have expected the Independent of all papers to have resisted the temptation to engage in such absurd self-censorship. Clearly I was wrong.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

From: Jennifer Melmore
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Thu, 9 September, 2010 12:33:27
Subject: Re: Proposed advert

Hi Tony

Legal have just got back to me and said that we'll only be able to run your ad if you can make a few changes to the copy, as detailed below:

'In the 2nd paragraph ("In return, the BBC broadcast what amounted...") the advertiser would need to change the sentance "The BBC even broadcast a clearly faked clip, purporting to come from the Flotilla" to something that doesn't go as far as saying it was faked. Also the sentance " Even the IDF admitted on June 5th that this had been ‘edited’ and was not from the MM. http://tinyurl.com/2dvq6ph " would have to be changed as the IDF has apprently not said that the broadcast in question didn't come from the MM, just that it wasn't possible to tell which ship in particular it had come from.'

Please let me know what you think,

All the best,

Jennifer

Jennifer Melmore
Client Account Manager

Also: see Tony Greenstein's blog. at http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2010/09/jane-corbin-bbcs-prostitute-of-airwaves.html

BBC Bias: Is Jane Corbin leaning too far?

BBC bias: the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
By Anthony Lawson
Copyright © Redress Information & Analysis.


Documentary maker Anthony Lawson argues, in a remarkably dispassionate 15-minute video critique of BBC Panorama's 'Death on the Med', that the BBC's "biased and often untruthful treatment of Israel's worst atrocity since Operation Cast Lead should trigger a public enquiry about who is really in charge of one of the most influential broadcasters on the planet". Well, okay; calling the attack on the Freedom Flotilla the worst atrocity since Cast Lead is a little overstated. Jane Corbin may or may not an active supporter of Israel but she certainly looks a little less than unequivocal. Her reputation as an unbiased reporter is seriously compromised; and she, and indeed the BBC ("Nation shall speak peace unto nation"), are sidelined in a world where the truth flows everywhere and the lies of politicians, the press and the police are only as good as rusty old sieves.



Read more, at:
http://www.redress.cc/global/alawson20100911

The People rise up against the BBC

By the time the previous entry was posted, plans were under way for crowds to take to the streets of London and Bristol, attacking the craven BBC, on Sunday 22nd and Saturday 21st August respectively. Any googling of the BBC website on this very subject will only produce a link to archive footage of the Vietnam War demo, London 1968 - worth seeing, for what has changed (the police being replaced with armed riot troops) and what has not - the attacks on US imperialism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7424415.stm

BBC covers for the Israeli Flotilla attack

A beautiful gift from the BBC by Ken O'Keefe

If you haven't seen it, look for BBC Panorama’s"Death in the Med" program online, you will be treated to first class propaganda as only the BBC can deliver.

I am one of the passengers/witnesses interviewed for this program and I am very much aware of BBC's role in justifying war and covering up Israeli crimes.

I am in no way naive about this; to the contrary my motivation for the interview lay largely in the all too likely opportunity to expose the BBC. A relevant job considering the BBC's role in the slaughter of over one million Iraqi's, a direct role by virtue of the war they justified. BBC from start to present, justifying Iraq, a massive war crime and crime against humanity based entirely on lies (propagated intensely by the BBC).

The British Broadcasting Corporation, synonymous with millions of orphans and refugees and countless lives destroyed in Iraq, beating the drums of war without pause, the ultimate prostitutes of propaganda.

With this understanding I solicited an agreement with the BBC producers, in return for my interview the program would include the fact that we disarmed, captured and ultimately released three Israeli commandos (after giving them medical attention no less).

That was the deal, a deal I made with an audio recorder in service.ttp://www.facebook.com/1worldcitizen#!/video/video.php?v=1440199638883

And yes the poor Israeli commandos were beaten, just as any invader in any capable persons home would be beaten. I take no issue with that fact.

But truth be told, the commandos we captured should thank us for their lives. I ask the Israeli's, British and American people specifically, if your home was invaded, your family being murdered, would you be willing to disarm, completely control, and then set a murderer of your family free???

You can lie to yourself if you like, bury that head right down deep in the sand, but that ship was our home, and we were all brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles, united, a family, engaged in a most righteous cause, with the vast majority of the planet behind us. The primary beneficiary of our mission, over 800,000 innocent children.

For those lost in a pit of ignorance and indoctrination, those currently stripped of all reason, absent of conscience, duped and hoodwinked, I know you very well because I was once you, a US Marine robot volunteering to kill or be killed. I see my past self in the Zionist who has no capacity at this moment to think, for in that state it is all about regurgitation, independent thought is but a possibility. For you I maintain no hate, for nobody actually, rather it is pity, pity for you that you sacrifice the greatest gift of all, the gift of humanity.

And so it is that the BBC, absent of integrity, contemptuous of humanity, attempts in this program to turn disarmed, helpless Israeli commandos into heroic self-rescuing commandos who managed to Superman their way out of a circle of well over 100 very motivated men whose brothers lay murdered with multiple gunshot wounds. That is what we call a bald-faced lie. Big time lie, in your face lie, you in the audience are a bunch of drooling idiots lie.

Returning from the Zionist alternate universe, we held in our power the fate of three boy commandos who may well have been murderers on that night. Think about that, under these circumstances, we let them go. That is what we call preserving life.

It is not that BBC does not know the truth, there are literally hundreds of witnesses and overflowing facts to reveal it; it is simply BBC's slavish duty to produce a Zionist storyline of illusions and deceptions. And the story goes that we are the aggressors, “terrorists”, “extremists” and killers. Only in this context can the poor Israeli commandos be victims. How is it possible to dominate and control commandos simply to let them go if we are killers? Answer, it isn't. And that is precisely why Panorama blatantly lied.

Ah but the irony, the kind of irony that always provides me a smile from the inside out, the irony of these lies being big, beautiful gifts. In all sincerity, thank you BBC.

The BBC says there is doubt as to who fired first. There is no doubt at all who shot who and when to the hundreds of us on the Mavi Marmara and other ships. The Israelis have said we shot at them, well where are their gunshot wounds? And even if you have gunshot wounds, how do we know you did not shoot yourselves? Exactly like you did in "Operation Cast Lead"?

Returning once again from the Zionist alternate universe, the Israeli military attacked in international waters and murdered within the first five minutes of the attack. The attack resulting in scores of gunshot wounds and death in rapid succession. Blood spilling all over the ship. In that environment I took possession of a 9mm pistol that I removed from one of the commandos... and I emptied it of the (real) bullets. Other weapons were seized by other brothers and thrown into the sea, one of which was an assault rifle.

Yet when others and myself had the power to end life, and believe me it was as simple as release the safety, point, shoot, over. Instead we preserved life, by taking those weapons away from established killers, we prevented them from killing more. We literally saved our lives and their lives. That is what we call cold, hard facts.

We could have taken out at least three of them, but we did not. Nope, we let them go.

The BBC mentions that we were in international waters at the very end of the story, as if this were an insignificant fact. The fact that Israel stole all the footage that it could, footage that undoubtedly shows them firing 4 bullets to the head of the 19-year-old American passenger, Furkan Dogan. No problem. Executing people at close range, no worries. The fact that the blockade itself is illegal, nah, don't mention that. 800,000 plus children in Gaza, malnourished, anemic, traumatised... not important.

I would need to review this program many times over to identify every poisoned tactic that the BBC employed in order to do what they do so well, justify murder and war.

Nevertheless BBC's perversion of the truth will elevate the cause of justice immensely, delegitimizing itself in such grand fashion was indeed a great big gift.

Hats off to ya BBC!

Ken O'Keefe

Website: http://www.alohapalestine.com

Originally published at http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com

Israelis poisoned Flotilla activists' property

The latest evidence of Israel's dishonesty and thuggery comes via a letter sent by IHH to interested embassies. It describes what happened after international pressure forced the return of some of the stolen Flotilla property:

"The Israeli security forces confiscated the properties of all volunteers, smashed and searched them on the boat many times and finally shipped some of the properties to Turkey with the same airplane. [carrying the activists] The following is the detail of shipment of the properties to Turkey and delivery to their owners.

The properties shipped with Turkish Airlines aircrafts were brought to the Forensic Medicine Institute the same night and were exhibited here by and under the supervision of police. Since the affected volunteers who were brought to Turkey with a charter flight of the Turkish Airlines were also taken to the Institute, they picked up their belongings there. Unclaimed properties were handed to the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation and taken to the foundation’s warehouse by IHH officials.

Warehouse personnel gave the volunteers who came by the warehouse and identified their belongings, and registered the delivery. However, the volunteers who identified their belongings at the Forensic Medicine Institute and at the foundation’s warehouse stated they found the properties to be in a quite different condition than when they were confiscated. The properties were delivered to Turkey as trashed, emptied, packed with some other stuff or smashed. They were found to be soiled, bedraggled. There are suitcases among the baggage that contains broken or smashed camera, video camera, and notebook computers, none of them functional.

When the properties were brought to the Forensic Medicine Institute, their condition was recorded by lawyers and a copy of the records was submitted by lawyers of the affected volunteers to be included in the investigation file in Turkey.

The IHH personnel at the warehouse were affected by strange and unidentifiable scent coming from the baggage and had to see a doctor because of symptoms like nausea, vomiting, itching, coughing, etc. The doctors advised them to stay away from the baggage and ventilate the venue frequently."

Bristol Council condemns Israel - on film

Fortunately for posterity, Bristol City Council's ground-breaking decision on taking action against Israel was captured on camera:

Bristol Sanctions from sartorius on Vimeo.

UPDATE: 12 July 2010: Steve Comer, Liberal Democrat City Councillor for Eastville, circulated the text of the Council motion to the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors, and Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine in the hope that some other Councils might also want to consider debating the issue.

Bristol City Council to dis-invest from Israel

One of the positive results of the Flotilla to Gaza has already surfaced. Bristol, England, has voted to disassociate itself from Israeli companies and financial institutions and will encourage the councils of other cities to follow its lead. Below is part of the story in the Bristol Evening Post, and it's followed by the Post's address, if you want to comment where it counts.

Condemnation over Gaza attack
BRISTOL City Council has voted to condemn Israel for the Gaza convoy incident that saw nine human rights activists killed.
Members called for the Government to "hold Israel to account for this illegal action" and to impose sanctions on the country until it "complies with international law and ceases perpetrating human rights abuses".
Two Bristol men were aboard the Freedom Flotilla of ships when the Israeli military opened fire on May 31. One of them, Cliff Hanley, spoke in support of the motion before last night's council debate.
He was joined by a number of pro-Palestinian protesters outside the council chamber, who want a boycott of all Israeli goods and companies in Bristol.

Mr Hanley said: "We question the morality of the council having money invested in Israeli banks or investment funds where it gains interest derived in any way over 60 years of ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the brutal starvation and slaughter of the people in Gaza."
Proposing the motion, Lib Dem councillor John Kiely (Easton) compared life in Gaza to Bristol during the Blitz.
The Conservatives put forward an alternative motion, with what they described as "less emotive language" and calling for Israel to "exercise restraint".
The amendment failed and while the Conservatives voted against the Lib Dem motion, the majority of the council approved it.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Condemnation-Gaza-attack/article-2361116-detail/article.html