BBC reporting of the attacks on Iran contrasts with how the corporation covers the Gaza conflict. On Gaza, it repeatedly complains that journalists are forbidden entry to the area by Israel. This then becomes an excuse for repeating uncritically every line of Hamas and the UN agencies.
In the case of Iran, the BBC reminds audiences that it is not allowed there, but does not criticise Iran for this. Instead, it concentrates on reporting from Israel, where it tries to make as much of the war damage as possible.
This leads to a severe imbalance of reporting and analysis. In Israel, there is no chance whatever that the democracy will fall apart. In Iran, there is a serious possibility that the autocratic regime will collapse and its leaders flee or die. In global power politics, this is arguably the biggest news story since the end of the Cold War.
Yet the BBC muffles the plight of Iran and sets up a sort of moral equivalence in which the two countries “trade blows”. It does not remind us that Israel attacked because it is the policy of Iran to destroy it and it has nearly reached the nuclear capacity to do so. Nor does it mention that most of the Iranian attacks target civilians, whereas none of the Israeli ones do. Its reporting also gives the impression that the effect of Iranian bombing of Israel is devastating. It is horrible all right but, so far at least, largely ineffective.
The BBC even blames the Israeli government that its citizens are bombed, although it fails to find Israeli victims who endorse this line. Signing off from the scene of an Iranian raid on Bat Yam this morning on the Today programme, Anna Foster complained not about the Iranian raids whose effects she had just seen with her own eyes, but about “what has been a dangerous and provocative raid on Iran”.
The BBC’s next trick will be to acclaim “peace moves”. It would be beyond satire, but not beyond possibility, that it promotes an offer of talks sponsored by President Putin, slyly endorsed by President Trump.
Britain owes a huge debt to Israel and Ukraine
Western powers, particularly the United States, are often criticised for protecting Israel. In Britain, with the rise of Muslim influence in the Labour Party, large protest marches allege this against the government of the day.
Sir Keir Starmer is clearly frightened. As leader of the Opposition, he got off to a good start. In response to the Hamas atrocities of October 7 2023, he immediately supported Israel’s right to self-defence, facing down internal critics. As Prime Minister, however, he has bent with his party’s wind, as his pro-Gaza MPs rebel. Now the Government backs sanctions against two Israeli cabinet ministers, restricts arms sales to Israel and encourages the idea that Benjamin Netanyahu should be indicted by the International Criminal Court.
After Israel attacked Iran last week, Britain’s reaction expressed this weakness. Although sending aircraft to the region, the Government would not say whether we were providing our previous air-force protection for Israel against Iranian raids. Sir Keir implicitly criticised Israel, calling for “a return to diplomacy”.
This is hypocritical. Britain has rightly developed a close intelligence relationship with Israel, having a common interest in state and non-state Islamist terrorist threats. Yet publicly it gives Israel no credit. Because of our increasing hostility, there is evidence that Israel no longer trusts us not to leak secrets and may cut us out of them.
Even more important is the obvious fact that Iran’s possession of an atomic bomb would be extremely dangerous to the region and to the world. Western allied attempts over many years to prevent this by negotiation have failed. Iran has proved incapable of acting in good faith. Its regime is a constant threat to peace.
Israel warned of this for decades. Last week, it finally acted, with astonishing accuracy, against a vast range of Iranian installations and individuals. As a result, the extremist theocracy trembles. It may fall.
So Israel has protected the West, more than the other way round. Even the United States, by far Israel’s most important friend, has equivocated. President Trump, as if it has little to do with him, says “Both sides may have to fight it out.” Britain has rendered itself almost completely irrelevant.
On the other side, Russia, which backs Iran, has done less than nothing for peace, and has lost power in Syria. The great powers have looked small.
Only the small power – Israel – has acted on the grand scale required. If it succeeds, it will have altered the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of moderate regimes and in the whole world against Russia, China (which also backs Iran) and Islamist extremism. It gets precious few thanks.
There is an analogy here. We in the West, particularly Britain, pride ourselves on training Ukraine to fight against the Russian invasion. Our contribution has certainly been helpful. But increasingly, Ukraine, like Israel, has led the way in ingenious technological development, notably with drones. Both countries have innovated brilliantly under the pressure of war. Ukraine, like Israel, is protecting the West from the advance of our enemies. We should let its armed services train ours.
The wisdom is that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. We seem to have contracted out our vigilance to the two nations which are ready to fight for their lives. We should be much more grateful, and much more helpful.
BBC reporting of the attacks on Iran contrasts with how the corporation covers the Gaza conflict. On Gaza, it repeatedly complains that journalists are forbidden entry to the area by Israel. This then becomes an excuse for repeating uncritically every line of Hamas and the UN agencies.
In the case of Iran, the BBC reminds audiences that it is not allowed there, but does not criticise Iran for this. Instead, it concentrates on reporting from Israel, where it tries to make as much of the war damage as possible.
This leads to a severe imbalance of reporting and analysis. In Israel, there is no chance whatever that the democracy will fall apart. In Iran, there is a serious possibility that the autocratic regime will collapse and its leaders flee or die. In global power politics, this is arguably the biggest news story since the end of the Cold War.
Yet the BBC muffles the plight of Iran and sets up a sort of moral equivalence in which the two countries “trade blows”. It does not remind us that Israel attacked because it is the policy of Iran to destroy it and it has nearly reached the nuclear capacity to do so. Nor does it mention that most of the Iranian attacks target civilians, whereas none of the Israeli ones do. Its reporting also gives the impression that the effect of Iranian bombing of Israel is devastating. It is horrible all right but, so far at least, largely ineffective.
The BBC even blames the Israeli government that its citizens are bombed, although it fails to find Israeli victims who endorse this line. Signing off from the scene of an Iranian raid on Bat Yam this morning on the Today programme, Anna Foster complained not about the Iranian raids whose effects she had just seen with her own eyes, but about “what has been a dangerous and provocative raid on Iran”.
The BBC’s next trick will be to acclaim “peace moves”. It would be beyond satire, but not beyond possibility, that it promotes an offer of talks sponsored by President Putin, slyly endorsed by President Trump.
Britain owes a huge debt to Israel and Ukraine
Western powers, particularly the United States, are often criticised for protecting Israel. In Britain, with the rise of Muslim influence in the Labour Party, large protest marches allege this against the government of the day.
Sir Keir Starmer is clearly frightened. As leader of the Opposition, he got off to a good start. In response to the Hamas atrocities of October 7 2023, he immediately supported Israel’s right to self-defence, facing down internal critics. As Prime Minister, however, he has bent with his party’s wind, as his pro-Gaza MPs rebel. Now the Government backs sanctions against two Israeli cabinet ministers, restricts arms sales to Israel and encourages the idea that Benjamin Netanyahu should be indicted by the International Criminal Court.
After Israel attacked Iran last week, Britain’s reaction expressed this weakness. Although sending aircraft to the region, the Government would not say whether we were providing our previous air-force protection for Israel against Iranian raids. Sir Keir implicitly criticised Israel, calling for “a return to diplomacy”.
This is hypocritical. Britain has rightly developed a close intelligence relationship with Israel, having a common interest in state and non-state Islamist terrorist threats. Yet publicly it gives Israel no credit. Because of our increasing hostility, there is evidence that Israel no longer trusts us not to leak secrets and may cut us out of them.
Even more important is the obvious fact that Iran’s possession of an atomic bomb would be extremely dangerous to the region and to the world. Western allied attempts over many years to prevent this by negotiation have failed. Iran has proved incapable of acting in good faith. Its regime is a constant threat to peace.
Israel warned of this for decades. Last week, it finally acted, with astonishing accuracy, against a vast range of Iranian installations and individuals. As a result, the extremist theocracy trembles. It may fall.
So Israel has protected the West, more than the other way round. Even the United States, by far Israel’s most important friend, has equivocated. President Trump, as if it has little to do with him, says “Both sides may have to fight it out.” Britain has rendered itself almost completely irrelevant.
On the other side, Russia, which backs Iran, has done less than nothing for peace, and has lost power in Syria. The great powers have looked small.
Only the small power – Israel – has acted on the grand scale required. If it succeeds, it will have altered the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of moderate regimes and in the whole world against Russia, China (which also backs Iran) and Islamist extremism. It gets precious few thanks.
There is an analogy here. We in the West, particularly Britain, pride ourselves on training Ukraine to fight against the Russian invasion. Our contribution has certainly been helpful. But increasingly, Ukraine, like Israel, has led the way in ingenious technological development, notably with drones. Both countries have innovated brilliantly under the pressure of war. Ukraine, like Israel, is protecting the West from the advance of our enemies. We should let its armed services train ours.
The wisdom is that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. We seem to have contracted out our vigilance to the two nations which are ready to fight for their lives. We should be much more grateful, and much more helpful.