Last week I ran an exclusive which exposed blatant antisemitism in a live BBC News interview with a Jerusalem based Rabbi. When faced with the undeniable evidence of inexcusable bias that was presented – the BBC has actually apologised to the Rabbi concerned.
Sometimes it is right to accept an apology and move on. This is not one of those times. The BBC apology for ambushing the Rabbi is not sincere – and only came about because I caught them cold. The Jewish community should not be fooled for a single second, and we need to make sure this worthless gesture is not treated as anything more than a meaningless attempt to fool and mislead the victims of the BBC’s ongoing and institutionalised anti-Jewish racism.
Forcing the BBC into a corner
I want to start with a positive message. I have been battling against those spreading antisemitism for far longer than I care to remember. Wins of any type – even small ones – are welcome. My research did just force the BBC into making an apology and that is a good way for me to start 2025. Even if the apology does not even begin to address the key issues and should not be accepted – it still shows that fighting for what is right can move mountains. Every one of us can make a difference and every single blow that we land matters.
It wasn’t the interview itself that forced the BBC into a corner. It was the difference in the way the three interviews were handled. That was the case the BBC could not explain away. If we had simply waved the harsh treatment the Rabbi received under the nose of the BBC it probably would have been met by the usual mealy mouthed BBC response. What was different here – was the hunting down of the other two interviews (the Reverend and the Imam) and exposing the different way those two had been treated. From that point on – the BBC position was indefensible.
The reason the apology should be rejected
The reason the apology should be rejected is simple. The BBC apology is a tick box exercise for the BBC – who have no choice but to apologise on this particular issue. Why? Because we caught the BBC red-handed and forced them into a corner.
What did the BBC actually admit to? The discriminatory treatment is being explained away by the BBC as a slight misstep that is easily corrected. As if one person (in this case probably presenter Ben Brown), made a small mistake in focus. In the apology the BBC stated the interview should have been ‘less about politics and a little more about Chanukah’. That is nonsense and does not address the key issues at all. The real question here is WHY the interview with the Rabbi was approached so differently from the interviews of the Imam and Reverend?
It is important to remember just how blatant the discrimination was. The interviews with the Imam and the Reverend were both headed by sympathetic videos. The Rabbi had none. The images that accompanied the first two interviews were respectful and religious – the Rabbi got images of tanks. This is without even referencing the aggressive line of questioning or the 2:1 nature of the whole setup – with two Palestinians being given airtime, against just one Israeli.
Which means this was not just about the presenter or questions raised during the interview. The BBC’s anti-Jewish discrimination was a team effort. Ben Brown (the anchor) wasn’t the producer of the program. He also had nothing to do with the first interview. It would be a big mistake just to point the finger at Ben Brown (and an equally big mistake to whitewash him).
What about those responsible for putting together the photos. Or the planning producer who probably set up a lot of the questions in advance. What about the programme editor? Who decided that there would be no sympathetic video at the start?
There are several people involved here – and not ONE OF THEM saw a problem. In fact, as the problem became amplified as each piece of the bias added to the next (no sympathetic video, hostile photos, aggressive questions) – it seems that every step of the way the BBC’s anti-Jewish mindset played its part.
They say that ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. It is also true that it takes a pack of antisemites for the BBC to ambush a Rabbi during a live interview. This was a team effort.
Which means that until the BBC strips down the interview and begins to analyse the anti-Israel groupthink that has infested its entire news supply chain – it cannot even begin to address the decay in its news gathering process. A downward spiral that has left the BBC acting as a Hamas propaganda mouthpiece more times that any of us care to remember (just a few examples from my own research 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13).
This is not about a misstep.
It is about the total loss of the BBC’s moral compass. A result of the cancer spread by a toxic network of newsgatherers (the BBCs locally based runners, fixers, journos in the Middle East) who happily present IRGC funded journalists as reliable sources – while the hierarchy in London remain completely asleep at the wheel. This is about an internal decay that has turned the BBC into the biggest spreader of antisemitism in the UK. About the growing development of a hostile workplace environment that is actually turning on its own Jews. About how an entire BBC team could interview three faith leaders and yet not a single one of them noticed a problem with the way the Rabbi was being singled out for special treatment.
Which is why the entire Jewish community needs to tell the BBC to stuff the apology.
Help me fight back against the antisemitism and the lies
My research is unique and hard hitting.
I battle back against those who seek to revise history, demonise Israel – and I expose antisemitism wherever it is found. I fight when others don’t. The results speak for themselves and for ten years (a lot more anonymously) I have been exposing hate and creating headlines.
Please help If you can, consider making a donation. Your support makes it all possible.
You can make PayPal donations using the donate button below.
Or by using my Paypal.,me account.
If you wish to provide regular monthly support you can also do this via my Patreon page
Every contribution is truly appreciated
Does anyone at the BoD or JLC read your pieces and get to fully understand the situation?
Thanks Len. They absolutely get read by many at both. They are also not single minded bodies (there are good people at both). But there is also an issue that most of the UK British leadership certainly do not fully understand the situation.
Fantastic work David and I absolutely agree that the apology should be rejected. Is the CAA aware of this work? They are insistent in their work to get reparations and changes made. This is such a clear example that it’s tremendously valuable. Thank you.
Excellent piece David.
It’s a pity that this is the type of obscene anti-Jewish broadcasting that we have to begin the year with. At least you are there to research and reveal the biases of the ‘dear old BBC’
I’m also glad to see more people describing the anti-Jewish Antisemitic rhetoric for what it is; pure anti-Jewish bigotry. Just using the term Antisemitism has the legions of Jew haters in paroxysms of orgiastic delight as they say that they can’t be Antisemitic because the Palestinians are also semites
Amazing work ,thankyou David
Fantastic job, David.
“the (BBC) hierarchy in London remain completely asleep at the wheel.” You are too kind to them.
I think they know exactly what they are doing!
Have to agree. BBC now claiming Hamas have “shared” with them the list of hostages to be released.
It reminds me of BBC Radio’s trick on the Today programme in the early 90s, when they’d let someone like Ashrawi rant on while very aggressively questioning Israeli academics whose command of spoken English was nowhere near as good. It was a set-up, and selection of interviewees, as you write, is not down to the interviewer alone. This time, the team would have been larger. But is it a matter of “until” the BBC begins to analyse the anti-Israel groupthink, or is the smokescreen of an apology there to deflect attention from a BBC culture of which someone there is aware but feels it cannot afford to correct?
I’m appalled that this matter was not dealt with in an appropriate way. The BBC should have specifically put on a follow program and have shown how despicable their behaviour was and how they misrepresented the impartiality of journalism. They then should have said in particular how they were embarrassed as to how they treated the Rabbi in comparison to the other two parties and how they showed biased video against the Rabbi vs what they showed for the other two parties. I’m totally disgusted.
Thanks to Zionists and people like you David, the word “antisemitism” has lost much of its meaning and is now just another ad hoc word to be used when two people disagree. Doesn’t mean much when it’s used so freely.
Bless old Brucie. The number of times he’s come here over the years using names that make him sound like a Jew. He must really want to be one.
The term Antisemitism has lost a lot of Its meaning because anti-Jewish Antisemitic bigots who ‘love’ the Palestinians say that they can’t be Antisemitic because their ‘darling’ Palestinians are also semitic.
The idea of your claim is both pusilanous and mendacious
This “I can’t be antisemitic because Arabs are Semites” was first used by Hitler’s ally[1] Ahmad Shukeiri in the 1960s. He who propagated for the Nazis,[2] testified on his book that furing WW2 they (all) celebrated and prayed for Hitler,[3] justified the Holocaust in 1946 [4] and as a genocidal leader of PLO, “predicted” in June 1967 that no Jew will survive…[5]
___
NOTES:
[1]. https://books.google.com/books?id=3Yah_o9r5V4C&pg=SL1-PA456&dq=#v=snippet&q=%22Shukairy%22%20%22worked%20for%20the%20Nazis%22&f=false ,
https://books.google.com/books?id=0nacFQ7dBJIC&pg=SL1-PA525#v=onepage&q=%22worked%20with%20the%20Nazis%22&f=false ,
https://books.google.com/books?id=ijg4AQAAMAAJ&pg=SL1-PA5735&dq=#v=snippet&q=%22all%20out%20for%20Hitler%22&f=false .
[2].
https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/djnews/djn.1967.02.03.001/9 .
[3].
https://books.google.com/books?id=pJkH06fTLD8C&pg=PA189
[4].
https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/bbh/1946/07/12/01/article/47
[5].
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sjw0ndicq
I had wanted to assume it was willful ignorance, but it’s far worse than that- it’s deliberate. Without allies like you, I’d hate to imagine how out of control they’d be. Thank you for all that you do.
Gideon Sylvester fell in to the cart because of his ego.
I knew him in his hay days in the UK. he was Rabbi of Radlett United Synagogue and became full of his own importance , so when interviewed by the BBC he thought of himself and could have stopped the interview
This isn’t about the Rabbi, it’s about the the BBC saying an interview is about a particular subject, but then not even discussing the subject during the interview. It’s also about this interview being part of a series interviewing a priest and an imam as well, and treating the Rabbi totally differently than the other two.
This is not about the people involved, rather it’s about BBC bias against Israel and Jews
Fighting pallywood lies since 1929.
The following is Britain’s fight. 1930.
____
06 May 1930 – WHY BRITAIN STAYS IN PALESTINE. – Trove
Newspapers & Gazettes Browse Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, WA : 1916 – 1938). Tue 6 May 1930. Page 2
Western Argus. 06 May 1930 – “WHY BRITAIN STAYS IN PALESTINE.”
The terrible murders and outrages in Palestine last August with the slaughter of harmless women and children, and the burning and destruction of property caused a wave of horror and disgust throughout the world.
The British Goverment, taking the only course possible, appointed a Committee of Investigation into the cause of the outrages; but long before it had a chance to make its report the campaign re-opened in Britain for the Government either to throw up the Palestine Mandate.
or for the nation to go back on its pledged word ahd abandon its policy of giving facilities to the Jews to re-establish themselves in their ancestral homeland.
The actual facts, therefore, should be presented.
[…]
* It has been said that the Arabs are “not out against the Jews, but against the predominance of the Zionist Jews.” The fact is that of the 130 Jews who were slaughtered in the riots last August, 65 of them had nothing whatever to do with the
Zionist colonies, but were members of families who had been settled in Palestine before the Balfour Declaration was made.
Indeed, all who know Palestine, and are honest, admit that, if every Zionist Jew left the country; it would be the turn of the Christians next.
* Again, ‘it is said’ that the Arabs are practically unrepresented in the administration.
This is untrue. The senior ranks of the civil service in Palestine there are 299 Christians, including Arab Christians, 187 Moslems and only 68 Jews.
In the junior service the figures are 1220 Christians, 1025 Moslems and 699 Jews.
* Then it is said that the greater part of the revenue of the country is being spent on furthering the aims of the Zionists and to the detriment of the Arab population.
The fact is that the Jews contribute 42 per cent of the revenue and taxation, and receive little financial aid from the
Government.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/34497311
“fascista francesca alabanese”.
Human Rights Expert:
‘Francesca Albanese is the 21st-century Joseph Goebbels’.
Professor Anne Bayefsky of Touro University and Human Rights Voices speaks with Arutz Sheva about the appeal by UN officials against the US bill imposing sanctions on the ICC.
Gary Willig.
Jan 13, 2025.
[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/402220 ]
1.16.25.
Orna Neutra was asked this morning about the high price Israel pays for the Gaza deal, releasing terrorists with blood on their hands. She replied, it is a very high price, but we [are a society that] care and stick for each other.
Gaza regime brags of using its people as shields.
__
Senior Hamas Official Khalil Al-Hayya Upon Signing Ceasefire Agreement: October 7 Will Continue To Be A Source Of Pride; Our People Served As An ‘Impenetrable Shield’ For The Resistance; Israel’s Supporters Will Be Punished, Even If It Takes Time.
Memri, January 16, 2025.
There is a very important aspect overlooked, vis-a-vis Islamist genocidal caliphate seeking: “Palestine” regime ‘Hamas.’ As evident by its media: heavily linked Hamas-Al Jazeera (as well as via its propaganda through ‘TheNewArab’ and ‘MiddleEastEye’), Qatar, acting as ceasefire negotiator, has its strong interest in Hamas still standing. Ideologically and strategically.