
‘Heads will roll': BBC reckons with bias accusations over Israel and Palestine coverage
When the BBC's director general, Tim Davie, held a virtual town hall meeting with staff this month, most assumed it would be dominated by disputes over pay and redundancies.
When the questions came in, however, the top query to the boss was clear: why was the corporation refusing to show a long-awaited documentary about medics in Gaza?
The answer most desired by staff was in relation to delays in broadcasting Gaza: Doctors Under Attack. They wanted to know why it had been shelved while an investigation took place into another documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, which was pulled from the iPlayer earlier this year after it emerged its child narrator is the son of a Hamas official.
'The lack of transparency over these decisions is hugely concerning,' Davie was told. Another staffer asked: 'Are you aware this [delay] has negatively impacted the BBC's reputation and ability to tell Palestine stories?'
A third question seen by the Guardian went further. 'I'm often confronted about the BBC being a propaganda machine and biased about Gaza,' it said. 'I love my job, but sometimes I can't tell anyone I work here for fear of arguments. What can be done about this?'
It went on: 'I know I am not alone in feeling this way and believe my question will resonate with colleagues across the corporation.'
Davie fielded the questions, saying no one should be falling out with friends and family members in defence of the BBC's coverage of the conflict, and admitting the editorial decisions involved in covering Gaza were 'as tough as it gets'.
Since that event, the BBC has completely axed the medics documentary, causing further anger. Channel 4 announced this weekend that it would air the documentary on Wednesday night.
Meanwhile, executives are braced for the findings from its internal inquiry into the making of Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone. It is expected in the coming weeks and will bring internal and external criticism from those who accuse the BBC of an anti-Israel bias. 'Deputy heads will roll,' said one industry figure closely watching the outcome.
The corporation came in for renewed criticism from both sides this weekend for livestreaming a Glastonbury festival performance of the rap punk duo Bob Vylan, where chants of 'Death, death to the IDF' were heard, and opting not to livestream a performance by the band Kneecap, one of whom has been charged with a terror offence for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a gig in November.
Long before that all-staff session, BBC bosses were acutely aware of the fraught atmosphere in Broadcasting House over Gaza coverage. Just weeks earlier, Davie had decided to end Gary Lineker's tenure at the BBC after the Match of the Day presenter reposted a social media video appearing to refer to Jewish people as rats – an antisemitic slur used by the Nazis. It led to accusations of an anti-Israel bias.
The episode left some Jewish staff saying they felt betrayed, with one accusing their bosses of doing the 'bare minimum of damage limitation'. Some now focus on BBC Arabic. One staffer said it operated 'in its own way when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian conflict' and that contributors had been found making 'opinionated postings on social media'. Two BBC employees said the service needed to be reformed.
A BBC source said BBC Arabic's journalists had 'decades of extensive knowledge and experience in covering the region' and that any mistakes made were corrected. They added that appropriate action was taken against anyone breaking the BBC's social media guidance.
The former BBC director of television Danny Cohen, who has made repeated allegations of anti-Israel bias against his former employer, said there was a wider issue at the corporation. 'This left-of-centre structural bias in the BBC newsroom informs a lot of the journalism,' he said. 'Amongst younger journalists it seems to be a particular problem when it comes to anti-Israel bias.'
The incidents have resulted in uncomfortable internal claims of both anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias. More unrest followed the corporation's decision to sever its ties with Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, stating that broadcasting it 'risked creating a perception of partiality'. It handed ownership back to its independent producer, Basement Films.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
The Guardian has been told the BBC suggested editorial changes that Basement deemed unnecessary, but the working relationship had been good during the production process. Once the investigation was launched into the production of Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, however, the medics documentary was shelved until that was completed.
This outraged its supporters inside and outside the BBC, who accuse Davie of making an unnecessary and panicked call, rather than relying on the editorial judgments of the teams involved. BBC insiders said it was right to delay the documentary because it could conceivably be affected by recommendations stemming from the investigation into a similar programme.
BBC figures insisted they had been trying to find a way to publish at least parts of the medics documentary in news coverage, though the nature of those talks is disputed. Even in mid-May, Basement Films was already saying publicly that it was 'doubtful' the BBC would release the programme – a prediction that proved correct.
Some supportive figures worry the saga has shown the BBC has lost confidence in producing such programmes. 'The BBC has, in my view, performed strongly in coverage of the Middle East and I do not believe it is institutionally biased,' said Roger Mosey, the former head of BBC television news. 'It has highly skilled journalists who do the very best they can in an area where access is restricted and where the actions of both sides can be heavily contested.
'That said, it is clearly a problem that the BBC has not been able to deliver satisfactory long-form TV documentaries on conditions in Gaza. The editorial complexities are real, but equally it's a subject that must be reported in current affairs films.'
This is disputed by the BBC, with insiders pointing to award-winning documentaries, such as Life and Death in Gaza, and Gaza 101, as well as the podcast Finding Freedom in the Water: Gaza's Swimming Teacher.
BBC figures point out internal complaints come from both directions, with two recent reports each claiming to prove bias either against Israel or Palestinians. Senior journalists say many problems stem from Israel's refusal to grant international journalists access to Gaza.
'More broadly, we strongly reject the notion – levelled from different sides of this conflict – that we are pro or anti any position,' a BBC source said.
There is no let-up for the corporation. The forthcoming publication of its investigation into Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone will be followed by a 'thematic review' into its Middle East coverage. Both will ensure attention from all sides continues to focus on the corporation's approach.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Post-apocalyptic': medical staff struggle as gangs fight over aid supplies in Gaza
For the beleaguered staff of Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, one new casualty brought into the emergency department last week posed a particular challenge. He had been wounded moments earlier in the southern Gaza city while fighting in a battle between rival armed gangs over hundreds of valuable sacks of flours stripped from aid convoys and, within an hour of his arrival, men with assault rifles had invaded the hospital. They roughed up medical staff, smashed equipment and set fire to vehicles. Other armed men soon arrived and automatic gunfire reverberated around the sprawling hospital compound, already battered bysuccessive Israeli strikes close by or on its buildings. There was worse to come. Soon another force joined the shooting, dispatched by the interior ministry in Gaza, long a bastion of Hamas, to restore order. There was now a new gun battle, which only ended when the opposing gunmen from the two duelling gangs fled. Overhead, throughout the fighting, Israeli drones flew by. The incident, described to the Guardian by medical staff and local residents, was a microcosm of the new violence and anarchy in Gaza after almost 21 months of war. 'You have [these] gangs fighting and the Israeli airstrikes or troops shooting people, and Hamas still there, while there are miles and miles of ruins where desperate people are cooking on fires and living in tents and very hungry,' one humanitarian official said. 'It's like some kind of post-apocalyptic sci-fi film.' The war in Gaza was triggered by a surprise attack launched by Hamas militants into southern Israel in October 2023, which led to the killing of 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the abducton of 251, 50 of whom remain in the territory. So far, the Israeli offensive has killed more than 56,500 Palestinians, mostly civilians, displaced most of the 2.3 million population and reduced much of Gaza to rubble. In recent months, more armed actors have joined the fighting, and a fierce struggle for power and influence has intensified even as the Israeli offensive continues. These now include various other militant factions, a dozen armed militias representing major local families or clans, new coalitions organised by independent community leaders, and criminal gangs empowered by the deepening anarchy. The result is that Gaza is fragmenting into individual fiefdoms. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) holds much of the territory, including a wide 'buffer zone' cleared of buildings along the territory's perimeter and a swath of the south along the border with Egypt, where it works closely with the Popular Forces, a new militia run by a former convict and smuggler called Yasser Abu Shabab. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has confirmed that Israel provides weapons to clans that oppose Hamas. Abu Shabab, who denies getting support from Israel or contacts with the Israeli army, also controls territory along Gaza's eastern perimeter near the main entry point from Israel – though the militia's influence there is contested by several armed local families. The chaos has encouraged other traditionally important families and clans to assert their control over much of the rest of south and central Gaza. In the north, Hamas remains a force in Gaza City and the shattered neighbourhoods of Jabaliya and Shujaiya. Though the Islamist militant organisation's military capabilities are now much reduced and most of its veteran leaders have been killed by Israel, many civilian technocrats remain in their posts in key ministries, and other officials, operating secretly, run neighbourhood administrations. 'They're hiding because they are being instantly hit by [Israeli] planes but they appear here and there, organising queues in front of bakeries, protecting aid trucks, or punishing criminals,' said a 57-year-old construction worker in Gaza City. 'They're not like before the war, but they exist.' Hamas and its paramilitary police forces have clashed with criminal gangs too – as shown by the firefight at Nasser hospital. 'All the people in Khan Younis are blaming [the fighters] for spoiling the hospital and have asked them to apologise,' said a senior medical official at the hospital. The police have also been repeatedly targeted by the IDF. Several members of the Sahm force, set up by Hamas to crack down on looters, profiteers and thieves, were killed last week in an Israeli airstrike on Deir al-Balah, a central town, which also killed about a dozen civilians. The IDF denied reports from witnesses that the police were distributing aid seized from looters when attacked. Stocks of aid built up during the two-month ceasefire early this year ran out during the subsequent 11 weeks when Israel allowed nothing into Gaza. 'The shortage is completely artificial and it means [aid] is the most valuable commodity now, so basically if you've got guns and you can get aid, you can use it to get money and power, and so that's causing a lot of the violence,' said one aid official, pointing out that a single 25kg sack of flour can sell for up to $500. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Community leaders and heads of powerful families in Gaza say their aims are simply to serve the population. 'The clans came … to form a stance to prevent the aggressors and the thieves from stealing the food that belongs to our people,' Abu Salman Al Moghani, a community leader, said, after gunmen from the Supreme Tribal Committee in Gaza guarded one aid convoy that entered last week. In recent weeks, the UN and other agencies have been allowed to bring in about 70 trucks a day. Most carry flour for Gaza's community kitchens but are usually stopped by barricades made of concrete blocks and then stripped of their cargoes, sometimes by armed gangs but most often by desperate civilians who gather in massive numbers at points the convoys are expected to pass. 'The scenes are appalling. You have 50 trucks, spread over two kilometres, and there are 50,000 on the road trying to get the flour,' said another aid official in Gaza. Many civilians are killed as they try to reach aid distribution hubs, opened last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a secretive US- and Israel-backed private organisation. The GHF said on Sunday that it has safely delivered more than 51m meals despite 'a highly volatile environment'. Statistics from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirm ministry of health counts of more than 500 deaths from live fire on those seeking aid by Israeli forces in recent weeks, as well as a small number in clashes between looters. A report by Haaretz last week quoted multiple Israeli soldiers describing orders to fire at civilians. The report revealed the IDF has launched an investigation into potential war crimes. An officer quoted in the report told the newspaper about the growing chaos in Gaza. 'I'm stationed there, and even I no longer know who's shooting at whom,' he said. Reuters contributed to this report


The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What if the world's religions aren't competing but rather one unfolding truth?
I was born in Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when religion became the architecture of public life. But it was precisely this fusion of faith and power that forced my family to flee. We were persecuted not for breaking laws but for belonging to a minority religious community, the Bahá'ís – a persecution that continues today. This experience taught me how religion can be used to exclude, to dehumanise, to dominate. But it also taught me that ignoring religion is not the answer. More than 80% of the world's population identifies with a religion. Yet in many parts of the world – especially in the west – religion is treated as a private matter, something best kept out of polite conversation, or at worst, a source of division and danger. We live in a paradox: a deeply religious world that increasingly doesn't know how to talk about religion. This silence isn't neutral. It creates a kind of cultural illiteracy – especially at a time when religion continues to shape geopolitics, social movements and personal lives, from the rise of religious nationalism to faith-based responses to humanitarian crises. And in places like the United States, it's becoming even more central to public discourse, often with high political stakes. So how do we talk about religion in a world that needs moral clarity but fears moral language? One idea that has helped me reframe how we talk about religion comes from my own faith – the Bahá'í concept of progressive revelation. It teaches that the world's major religions are expressions of the same spiritual reality, revealed at different times to meet the evolving needs of humanity. They are not rival ideologies but chapters in a single story. Not different truths but different reflections of one truth. Imagine if we approached religion not as a set of camps to defend or oppose but as a shared inheritance. What if we stopped asking which one is right and started asking what they're trying to show us – about justice, humility, forgiveness, the soul and the sacredness of life? This shift – from debating difference to seeking shared meaning – isn't just theoretical. I've seen it work. In refugee communities in the Middle East, I witnessed how grassroots interfaith efforts helped displaced people from opposing religious backgrounds begin to heal. In one camp in Jordan, Christian and Muslim women began cooking together during Ramadan and Easter, eventually hosting communal feasts for the wider community. These weren't institutional programs but quiet acts of dignity and repair – rooted in faith and in the will to see the human behind the label. In my doctoral research on Syrian religious-minority refugees in Berlin, I found that secular integration policies often failed to account for the central role religion played in people's sense of identity, belonging and healing. Integration thrived not when religion was ignored but when it was engaged – through interfaith dialogue, shared spiritual spaces or recognition of religious holidays. These approaches didn't erase difference. They helped people move forward together. Religion became less of a dividing line and more of a connective thread. Even here, in my suburban neighbourhood in Aotearoa New Zealand, I see glimpses of this every week. On our street families come from Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Bahá'í and other diverse backgrounds. Every Friday afternoon I host a simple class for the children of the neighbourhood. We sing, tell stories and explore themes like kindness, truthfulness and the nobility of the human spirit. It's a space for the children to discover their spiritual identity and their capacity to contribute to the world around them. Over time this has quietly knit our community together. Parents, too, have found connection – not through sameness but through a shared desire for their children to grow into just and compassionate human beings. This idea – that spiritual truth unfolds over time – has changed how I live. It's shaped how I raise my children, how I relate to neighbours of different beliefs and how I engage in public life. It helps me stay curious instead of defensive and to approach others not through fixed categories but with an openness to what we might learn from one another. And that's the heart of it, really: moral imagination – the ability to see not just what is but what could be. It invites us to ask new kinds of questions: What does it mean to live a meaningful life? How do we hold both reverence and reason in the same hand? What truths do our traditions carry that the world still needs? What happens when we stop talking about religion and start listening with it? These are not easy questions. But they matter. While secular frameworks offer many tools, they often fall short of naming the deepest yearnings of the human spirit. And while religion has been misused, it can also be reclaimed – as a source of clarity, compassion and shared purpose. Recognising the wisdom in religion doesn't mean denying the harm it's caused. It means telling the full story – separating faith from fanaticism and choosing not silence but better language: language rooted in humility, inquiry and hope. We don't need less religion in public life. We need better ways of talking about it – ways that allow both believers and non-believers to engage meaningfully, with honesty and depth. Maybe it starts with a simple shift. What if the world's religions are not competing claims but reflections of one unfolding truth? What if, beneath all our differences, there's just one story being told in many tongues? If we believed that, we might stop asking who is right –and start asking what's possible. And maybe then, we'd finally begin to build the world we all long to live in. Dr Kat Eghdamian is a human rights expert, writer and adviser on religion, ethics and social justice. With experience working across multiple continents, she explores how faith and moral frameworks shape identity and society


Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The stunning number of Democrats who would not fight for America in a war revealed
In the aftermath of a historic U.S. bombing campaign in the Middle East, a new Daily Mail poll reveals a stark partisan divide on who's willing to answer the call of duty. Republicans are far more likely to say they'd enlist than their Democratic counterparts, according to a new poll of J.L Partners of 1,025 registered voters taken between June 24 - 25. The margin of error was 3.1 percent. The survey found 41 percent of Democrats would enlist if the U.S. were involved in an active war to defend American interests, with 40 percent of Democrats responding they would not enlist. Republicans, meanwhile, were much more willing to join the armed forces. According to the poll results, 57 percent of Republicans would enlist while 21 percent say they would not. Independents were the least likely to join a U.S. war effort, with 42 percent responding that they'd oppose enlisting, while just 30 percent said they would. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced this month that the U.S. military hit its recruiting goals earlier than expected this year The U.S. does not have a shortage of those who wish to enlist, however. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced this month that the U.S. military hit its recruiting goals earlier than expected this year, signing over 61,000 future soldiers to contracts. That number is 10 percent higher than the target of 55,000 recruits for all of FY2024, according to the Army. The branch hit its recruitment goal four months earlier than expected, a milestone celebrated by Hegseth, who has championed returning a 'warrior ethos' to the Pentagon. The likelihood of Americans wanting to enlist changes depending on race, too, the survey found. Black military-aged men are the most likely to enlist in the U.S. military should a conflict break out. According to the poll, 58 percent would sign up while just 27 percent would decline. Asian and Latino Americans are the least likely to opt to go to war. Among Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, just 17 percent responded that they would enlist, while 36 percent said they would not and 47 percent said they are unsure. Meanwhile, 43 percent of Latino respondents indicated they would not enlist, making them the least likely to join a U.S. war effort. Taking into account all military-aged men in the U.S.- usually those between the ages of 17 and 41 - just four in ten responded that they would enlist, the poll found.