The BBC has, predictably, "dismiss[ed]" claims that a recent Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla was biased towards Israel.
But its response itself illustrates the crux of the problem:
"Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says they were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims."
That same opposition was proposed throughout the documentary on the flotilla: were the activists terrorists, or were they innocent peace activists? Or, in an alternative formulation,
"But did Israel fall into a trap, and what was the real agenda of some of those people who called themselves ‘peace activists’ on board the Free Gaza flotilla?" [As you watch the film, note how often the "real agenda" of the Israeli military sources Corbin relies upon is called into question]
Or, alternatively: "Self-defence, or excessive force – what really happened that night?"
The documentary sets out to resolve these questions by examining, in a highly selective fashion, what happened on the ship.
But to structure the program in this way is already to accept and propagate Israel's framing of the incident:
- It immediately puts the activists on the defensive, as if they are the ones with a case to answer. The Israeli soldiers, those responsible for killing nine civilians, and those responsible for maintaining the collective punishment of a civilian population, are in effect let off the hook, despite the fact that they can far more plausibly be accused of "terrorism" than the flotilla peace activists.
- Throughout the documentary it is clearly implied that if Israel’s characterisation of what happened on the Mavi Marmara is accurate, then it would be wrong to call the activists "innocent civilians", and vice versa. That is to say, "innocence" and "peace activism" are assumed to be synonymous with "allowing the Israeli military to hijack one’s vessel in international waters without offering up any resistance". In fact, it is commonly accepted that people are allowed to defend themselves, and no one is accusing the activists of rappelling onto an Israeli helicopter and bashing the pilot with a metal bar. Everyone accepts that the violence took place on the Mavi Marmara. The implications of this are left totally unexplored by the Panorama doc, which, like the Israeli government, apparently considers them irrelevant.
- Needless to say, virtually no attention was paid to background to the flotilla, the collective punishment of the population of Gaza, except to minimise its severity (by misleadingly claiming that the problem is not a lack of food and medicine) and to repeat Israel's justification for collective punishment as if it were fact (by stating as fact that the reason Israel prevents concrete and steel from entering Gaza is fear that they might be used for building weapons and bunkers).
The result is a documentary that proceeds entirely on Israel’s terms. Israel’s right to be anywhere near the flotilla in the first place is presupposed. At one point Corbin (the ‘reporter’), speaking to one of the flotilla activists, asks why they chose to defend the ship, knowing that doing so could lead to a "confrontation". Apparently, then, a "confrontation" begins not when armed Israeli soldiers illegally hijack a civilian ship in international waters, but when passengers on that ship attempt to repel them. This echoes the way the BBC typically reports the Israel-Palestine conflict generally: just as a "confrontation" can only be provoked by peace activists, an "escalation" in violence can by definition only be initiated by Palestinians.
The whole documentary, then, is a non-sequitur. It limits itself to answering a question that is, at most, of secondary importance: on the Mavi Marmara itself, what happened, and who fired first? (It leaves the latter question, innuendo aside, unanswered). More salient questions – what right did Israel have to board the boats in the first place? What right does Israel have to terrorise and immiserate a desperate civilian population? etc. – are ignored by the documentary, as they are by Israeli propaganda. Even if every accusation the documentary allows the IDF to level, virtually unchallenged, against the flotilla activists were true, it would change not a jot about the political and moral implications of the incident.
The documentary’s bias is most evident in its choice of topic, but it also manifests itself throughout in everything from the sources used, to the preferred terminology, to what information was provided and what was left out. For instance, right at the beginning of the documentary an Israeli commando is permitted to accuse the activists of being "terrorists" without any interrogation of what "terrorist" could possibly mean in this context. Even if all the Israeli accusations are true, no one is accusing the activists of targeting civilians. How, then, can they be "terrorists"? Jane Corbin doesn’t bother to ask.
Indeed, Corbin remains distinctly uncurious throughout her interviews with anonymous Israeli commandos and the head of the Israeli military's internal investigation into the flotilla, Gen. (Ret.) Giora Eiland. Eiland in particular is permitted to speak unchallenged at several points in the film, which indeed promotes a narrative identical to his. You might remember Gen. Eiland as the man who advocates, in any future war in Lebanon, "the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure, and intense suffering among the population". Needless to say, Corbin did not inform Panorama viewers of one of her top source’s history of advocating terrorism. Near the end of the film Corbin states that Israel has set up its own inquiry into the flotilla and that it is cooperating with the UN inquiry. She doesn’t mention Israel’s "poor track record of investigating unlawful killings by its armed forces"; the criticisms that have been levelled at the Israel inquiry (according to Amnesty International, it is "neither independent nor sufficiently transparent"); the serious problems with the structure of the UN inquiry; or Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the UN HRC investigation, whose investigators are far more credible. But then, why would she? That would only serve to call into question Israel’s version of events.
Some other clear instances of bias, by no means exhaustive:
- The programme broadcasts the recording, released by Israel, of the alleged response of some flotilla activists to the warnings issued by Israeli soldiers – "Go back to Auschwitz", etc. Corbin then notes correctly that the authenticity of these recordings has been questioned. But she then proceeds to accept Israel’s claim that they are genuine, saying: "For the Israelis it was a warning sign things wouldn’t go that smoothly" – how could it be, if, as some have claimed, the recordings aren’t authentic?
- Corbin notes that Israel "offered to take the aid to an Israeli port and deliver it to Gaza". The sincerity and significance of this offer is not explored - to do so, some background on the
"humanitarian implosion" of "unprecedented" proportions Israel has imposed on the population of Gaza would have to be provided, something Corbin plainly isn’t prepared to do.
- The film contains lots of innuendo about IHH "Islamists", their offices located in the "most Islamic" part of town, etc. What is Corbin trying to say, exactly? And if it’s so important to stress the "Islamist" and "Islamic" background of many IHH members, why no mention of the Zionist background of the IDF? Similarly, Corbin mentions that IHH has been accused of links to terrorism, a charge IHH "vehemently denies" (BBC ‘balance’: check!). The fact that the Israeli military has been accused of directly perpetrating terrorism – indeed, has been documented doing so, in extensive detail, by multiple internationally respected human rights organisations and UN investigations (Amnesty International, the Goldstone Report, etc.) – goes unmentioned.
- In the film’s brief gesture towards the situation in Gaza, this context is provided: Hamas "refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist" and militants have fired "thousands of rockets" at "civilian targets in Israel". Nothing is said about Israel’s (far more extensive) violence against Palestinians and its refusal - not only in words but in deed – to recognise a Palestinian state in the boundaries allocated to it under international law. Even repeating the "right to exist" canard – as if said "right" actually exists in international law – is to regurgitate Israeli propaganda, especially since Corbin doesn’t mention that Hamas
has repeatedly offered to
end the conflict on the basis of the
international consensus two-state settlement.
- The film obviously made use of footage released to the filmmakers by Israeli authorities. The fact that Israel
seized a great amount of footage from flotilla activists and then released only select, edited parts of it is not mentioned, far less questioned.
Finally, a couple of points. First, the claim (shown in the film) by flotilla activist Ken O’Keefe that the activists used at most "non-lethal force to defend ourselves" was supported, not undermined, by the documentary; and second, the documentary supports the activists’ claims that Israeli forces fired (with "stun grenades") before boarding the boat.
BONUS misplaced question: Nine people were killed – "was it a price worth paying?" – Corbin to Gen. Eiland the Israeli commandos a Free Gaza activist.
BONUS vapid, meaningless conclusion: *reporter’s voice* "The battle of the Med ... isn’t ... over ... yet". UGH, srsly?
BONUS bit that could have been from The Day Today: *grave voice* "[The footage of the Mavi Marmara] shows men wielding bars and hoses"
Published at New Left Project