The BBC's poor handling of Gaza films – and the constraints on debate
But these contortions point to a problem that goes far beyond the BBC. It reflects the constraints on any meaningful debate about Israel's response to the atrocities of 7 October and its subsequent behaviour in Gaza and on the West Bank, the results of which are shaping up to be one of the worst humanitarian disasters of this century. Nowhere does this resistance to discussion seem more apparent than at the Board of Deputies of British Jews. When 36 of its members expressed their concern about Gaza in a letter to the Financial Times, five were suspended and the rest were censured.
What neither the BBC nor the Board of Deputies can ignore is that the decades-old protected status of Israel is fragmenting. Awkward questions have to be asked. The BBC must not let fear of giving offence stifle coverage. Peter GrimsdaleFormer BBC executive and Channel 4 religion commissioner
The BBC said that it would not broadcast a film on the treatment of doctors in Gaza because of concerns that it may create 'a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect' (Channel 4 to show BBC-commissioned documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, 28 June).
This highlights the issue with the BBC that I have struggled with for many years. Reporting the truth, where it has been verified by reliable sources, is not partial. Giving a counterpoint that has not been so verified is partial.
This is why Palestinian lives are not universally valued. Because every time someone stands up for them, there is a counterpoint that makes it sound antisemitic to have valued a Palestinian life.Alexandra LucasLondon
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Wimbledon umpire takes action after player complains of ‘dangerous' spectator
Security at Wimbledon is 'absolutely critical', the tournament's operations director has said, after a player raised concerns about a spectator during the championship's first day. During her match on Monday, the world No 33, Yulia Putintseva, raised security concerns to the umpire about a spectator whom she described as 'crazy' and 'dangerous' and asked for them to be ejected. 'Take him out, because maybe he has a knife and he will attack after, I don't know,' Putintseva said to the umpire during her match against Amanda Anisimova. Wimbledon's operations director, Michelle Dite, said on Tuesday that if players had any concerns, they 'absolutely' should be brought to light. 'We would rather know about these things, and that is what happened yesterday, and the chair umpire then had some really good communication as planned,' said Dite, adding that it was not a stalking incident. A person present at the match told the Athletic that the spectator at issue had been speaking in Russian about the war in Ukraine. Putintseva, who was born in Russia, changed to represent Kazakhstan in 2012. A Wimbledon spokesperson declined to say if the spectator was ejected. 'Security was in the area. The issue was dealt with,' he said. The incident is the latest surrounding security measures after a man who was given a restraining order in Dubai in February for stalking Emma Raducanu was blocked from buying tickets for the championships this month in the public ballot. Dite said: 'Protocols were followed. The matter was dealt with.' On Tuesday morning, more than 10,000 spectators queued outside the grounds with fans and umbrellas to watch British players including Jack Draper, a top contender for the men's singles championship. On Monday, more than 13,000 people entered the grounds after queueing in the heat, some overnight, as opening-day attendance jumped to 42,756 from 40,514 last year. Protesters on the ground's outskirts called for a boycott of Wimbledon's banking partner, Barclays, over ties to Israel's war on Gaza. Temperatures on Tuesday reached 34.2C (93.6F) by early afternoon, as spectators frequently sought shade and were encouraged to hydrate after a woman collapsed while watching a match on Monday. Dite, discussing the incident on Monday during which Carlos Alcaraz interrupted play to hand a struggling spectator a bottle of water, thanked the returning Wimbledon champion for his support and acknowledged there had been a delay in the medical response. 'Yes, it did take a while, but this lady had fainted, so it needed to be managed very carefully. I know there was a bit of delay but we all work very hard,' said Dite. 'It takes a while sometimes to just assess the situation,' she added. 'And thanks to Carlos for his support for going to get some water.' Daniel Evans was the first British player to go through to the second round of Wimbledon on Tuesday after defeating Jay Clarke in an all-British clash. Draper eased into the second round after his opponent Sebastian Baez retired injured, while wildcard Jack Pinnington Jones completed a straight-sets victory over Tomás Etcheverry. Six Britons – Clarke, Heather Watson, Johannus Monday, Jodie Burrage, George Loffhagen and Francesca Jones – suffered first-round exits.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza
Donald Trump has said Israel has agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, and is urging Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. The US president announced the development ahead of hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks at the White House next week. He has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to work out a ceasefire and hostage agreement to end the war. "My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War," Mr Trump wrote on social media - adding that Qatari and Egyptian officials would deliver the final proposal. "I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better - IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE." Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment. For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families - this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times. The key question - will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire? At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: "Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position - Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock." The source added: "Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate." The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump - which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to - may just amount to Israel's already-established position. We don't know the details and conditions attached to Israel's proposals. Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel's jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don't know the answers to any of these questions, except one. We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It's all about domestic politics. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu's coalition. If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days - which domestically he can sell as just a pause - then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer. It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu's corruption trial to be scrapped. Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The royal gravy train must be halted
The news that the royal train is to be retired to a museum by 2027 was the public relations equivalent of a tethered goat: an enticing morsel designed to distract attention from less palatable aspects of the royal finances. Faced with the royal family's booming income at a time of hardship for many Britons, officials who guard the royal image clearly decided something had to be offered up. Consigning the train's nine carriages to history was an obvious choice, a painless sacrifice. Costing some £1 million to maintain annually, it was rarely used, enjoying just two outings last year, costing £78,000. It will come as news to most taxpayers that such an extraordinary vehicle still exists, and that they have been shelling out seven figures for it to mainly languish in the sidings. But the royal financials released this week are concerning for the information they do not contain. • King Charles net worth — Sunday Times Rich List 2025 Two sets of figures were released, one relating to the monarchy as a whole, and another to the income of the Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall. In contrast to the rest of government, where balancing books is a neuralgic issue, the royal finances are in rude health. Since 2011, when David Cameron concocted a ludicrously generous funding formula for the sovereign grant, the annual payment to the monarchy, its value has soared. From £31 million in 2013 it will be £132 million in each of the next two years. Even when money for the £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace is subtracted there will still be tens of millions left to fund royal operations. The sovereign grant formula is bizarre. Some 260 years ago, George III surrendered the earnings from the crown's hereditary lands in return for a stipend. Those assets became the Crown Estate which, despite its name, has nothing to do with the monarchy. Under the Cameron arrangement the grant is calculated at 10 per cent of Crown Estate profits, with a 2 per cent temporary uplift for the palace works. Licence earnings for offshore wind farms on the estate-owned seabed have seen profits rocket to over £1 billion. This is a temporary boost for the estate but not for the royals. The 2011 agreement includes a 'gold ratchet' that means the grant can stay the same or go up, but not fall. Together with his £27 million income from the Duchy of Lancaster the King is well provided for. Even though the palace knows the Crown Estate is a national, not a royal, asset it persists with the fiction that it is. Supposedly, its surrender in the 18th century is still providing a net gain for the public. A spokesman said this week: 'The sum surrendered by the King is far greater than the sum returned as the sovereign grant, and thus there is no additional burden on taxpayers.' To this fantasy is added the secrecy of Prince William over the tax he pays on income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Once public, the amount is now simply described as the 'highest rate'. The duchy is a 'private estate with a commercial imperative'. That means a company, surely? Yet it pays no corporation tax or CGT. It also makes charities, schools and the NHS pay for using premises. William's desire to be a champion for the underprivileged is undermined by this profiteering. Just like the Crown Estate, the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are national assets, not 'private' ones. It is time for the government to consolidate all three into a National Estate and pay working royals simple stipends while maintaining royal infrastructure. The gravy train must end.
