Gatestone Institute: A Hundred Days after Gaza's October 7 attack

 

    Sir William Shawcross's much delayed and now recent report on "Prevent" - the British Government anti-radicalisation programme - which has documented the failure of efforts at integration and the degree of risk residing within Muslim extremism has secured this disturbing knowledge its place on the public record.

    In a climate of Israelophobia, where moral compasses go haywire, Hamas is not being held to account. Under the guise of "human interest", the BBC repeatedly broadcasts prurient details of injuries to individual children in Gaza. Why? It is designed to shock and anger the listener and to demonize Israel; and it leaves those implications unspoken, hence deniable.

    Predictably, the BBC has presented international law as superior to national law and the International Court of Justice as a higher court than any national court. Neither is true. The former Director of BBC Television asks, "When do individual errors add up to something more? When do 'mistakes' become a clear pattern of institutional bias? These are questions the BBC must answer when it comes to its reporting of Israel's conflict with the terrorist group Hamas." He then lists nine other cases of gross error since 7/10 where the bias has been always the same, namely anti-Israel. "...Is the BBC just unlucky that this keeps happening? The answer is no."

    Hamas has nowhere to hide under Geneva 4. Its crimes are war crimes of the highest order. The ICJ's interim ruling is vexatious and, while unable to make an objective finding, tarnishes that Court by implying that Israel might in the future commit "genocide" when there is neither evidence of intention nor a community which meets the criteria to be victims of genocide. The same day as its ruling, evidence arrived that UNRWA on which in part it had relied had itself now been discredited by evidence of its operatives' involvement in 7/10. This is the latest form of Holocaust denial.

    It is a matter of moral and legal judgment about how a country with high moral standards wages war against a terrorist enemy that has none. The framework for such an assessment has not been satisfactorily spelled out.