The BBC has reached a new low. It has tumbled further down the well of moral relativism. This week, it will broadcast a new documentary about Hamas’s massacre at the Nova music festival on 7 October last year. But according to the doc’s director, the version the Beeb is showing ‘won’t describe Hamas as terrorists’. If this is true, if the BBC can’t even park its weird aversion to calling Hamas terrorists when it is airing a film about Hamas’s butchery of the young at a festival in the desert, then that shames Britain.
We Will Dance Again tells the story of what the pogromists of Hamas did when they happened upon the Nova festival in the Negev desert during their invasion of Israel on 7 October 2023. Combining harrowing testimony from survivors with graphic footage of Hamas’s barbarism, it paints a grim picture of arguably the worst event of the pogrom: 364 people were slaughtered at Nova. Yet according to the director, Yariv Mozer, one thing will be missing from the version us Brits will see: the T-word.
In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter on ‘what they kept’ and ‘what they cut’ from their disturbing film, Mozer says ‘the version [the BBC will] air won’t describe Hamas as terrorists’. Hinting at his irritation at this alleged omission, Mozer says ‘it was a price I was willing to pay so that the British public will be able to see these atrocities’. Then Brits can decide for themselves, he says, ‘if this is a terrorist organisation or not’. Some of us have already decided, of course. The BBC might be reluctant to call the mass murderers of Jews ‘terrorists’, but others are more than happy to do so.
It is not clear from the interview with Mozer if the BBC explicitly instructed him to take out the word terrorist, or if Mozer and his team pre-empted the Beeb’s odd concern about that word and decided to take it out themselves for an easier life. The Jerusalem Post assumes it’s the former: the BBC ‘told director’ to ‘not describe Hamas as “terrorists”’, it says. Yet even if it’s the latter, even if there are tellers of Israelis’ stories out there who get the vibe that you shouldn’t call Hamas ‘terrorists’ if you want to appear on the BBC, then that’s still epically embarrassing for Britain.
If this was self-censorship, it’s understandable. After all, for the past year, ever since Hamas visited its racist terror on Israel, the BBC has been pathologically resistant to calling Hamas ‘terrorists’. Even though that’s what they are. There was a storm in the aftermath of the pogrom over the BBC’s linguistic cowardice. Just four days after the pogrom, Beeb big gun John Simpson offered a thin explanation for the corporation’s dodging of the T-word. ‘We don’t take sides’, he said. ‘We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”.’
You don’t? You could have fooled me. The BBC ‘takes sides’ on every culture clash of the modern era, from Brexit (which it hates) to environmentalism (which it loves). As to not ‘talking about “terrorists”’ – explain, then, your references to ‘far-right terrorism’ and your wondering out loud if even incels are representative of a ‘far-right terrorist ideology’. The Beeb does talk about terrorists. Just not where Hamas is concerned. To some of us, its failure to say ‘terrorist’ even in the wake of the worst act of fascistic violence against the Jews since the Holocaust spoke less to its imaginary uber-neutrality than to its kneejerk Israelophobia. It didn’t want to be seen slamming Israel’s haters too hard. That really was it.
David Cameron, then the foreign secretary, rebuked the Beeb. Call them terrorists, he said, because ‘they are terrorists’. The BBC relented, ever so slightly, promising it would call Hamas a proscribed terrorist organisation ‘where possible’. It hardly ever did, though. According to a recent study of the BBC’s output in the four months after the pogrom, it used the terms ‘proscribed’, ‘designated’ or ‘recognised’ terror group for Hamas just 409 out of the 12,459 times it mentioned them. Seriously, what is happening here? What is this bitter unwillingness to call a terrorist a terrorist?
And now, reportedly, even a film on Hamas’s most evil act of terrorism won’t say the word ‘terrorism’, either because the BBC didn’t want it to or the filmmakers presumed the BBC wouldn’t want it to. One year after 364 young Jews were murdered by anti-Semitic terrorists – yes, terrorists – Britain’s public broadcaster won’t call their killers by their proper name. You couldn’t ask for better proof of how Israelophobia rots the brain and warps the soul.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter on ‘what they kept’ and ‘what they cut’ from their disturbing film, Mozer says ‘the version [the BBC will] air won’t describe Hamas as terrorists’. Hinting at his irritation at this alleged omission, Mozer says ‘it was a price I was willing to pay so that the British public will be able to see these atrocities’. Then Brits can decide for themselves, he says, ‘if this is a terrorist organisation or not’. Some of us have already decided, of course. The BBC might be reluctant to call the mass murderers of Jews ‘terrorists’, but others are more than happy to do so.
It is not clear from the interview with Mozer if the BBC explicitly instructed him to take out the word terrorist, or if Mozer and his team pre-empted the Beeb’s odd concern about that word and decided to take it out themselves for an easier life. The Jerusalem Post assumes it’s the former: the BBC ‘told director’ to ‘not describe Hamas as “terrorists”’, it says. Yet even if it’s the latter, even if there are tellers of Israelis’ stories out there who get the vibe that you shouldn’t call Hamas ‘terrorists’ if you want to appear on the BBC, then that’s still epically embarrassing for Britain.
If this was self-censorship, it’s understandable. After all, for the past year, ever since Hamas visited its racist terror on Israel, the BBC has been pathologically resistant to calling Hamas ‘terrorists’. Even though that’s what they are. There was a storm in the aftermath of the pogrom over the BBC’s linguistic cowardice. Just four days after the pogrom, Beeb big gun John Simpson offered a thin explanation for the corporation’s dodging of the T-word. ‘We don’t take sides’, he said. ‘We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”.’
You don’t? You could have fooled me. The BBC ‘takes sides’ on every culture clash of the modern era, from Brexit (which it hates) to environmentalism (which it loves). As to not ‘talking about “terrorists”’ – explain, then, your references to ‘far-right terrorism’ and your wondering out loud if even incels are representative of a ‘far-right terrorist ideology’. The Beeb does talk about terrorists. Just not where Hamas is concerned. To some of us, its failure to say ‘terrorist’ even in the wake of the worst act of fascistic violence against the Jews since the Holocaust spoke less to its imaginary uber-neutrality than to its kneejerk Israelophobia. It didn’t want to be seen slamming Israel’s haters too hard. That really was it.
David Cameron, then the foreign secretary, rebuked the Beeb. Call them terrorists, he said, because ‘they are terrorists’. The BBC relented, ever so slightly, promising it would call Hamas a proscribed terrorist organisation ‘where possible’. It hardly ever did, though. According to a recent study of the BBC’s output in the four months after the pogrom, it used the terms ‘proscribed’, ‘designated’ or ‘recognised’ terror group for Hamas just 409 out of the 12,459 times it mentioned them. Seriously, what is happening here? What is this bitter unwillingness to call a terrorist a terrorist?
And now, reportedly, even a film on Hamas’s most evil act of terrorism won’t say the word ‘terrorism’, either because the BBC didn’t want it to or the filmmakers presumed the BBC wouldn’t want it to. One year after 364 young Jews were murdered by anti-Semitic terrorists – yes, terrorists – Britain’s public broadcaster won’t call their killers by their proper name. You couldn’t ask for better proof of how Israelophobia rots the brain and warps the soul.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and blogs regularly on Spiked where this article was sourced.
6 comments:
When it is understood that Israel applies the label "terrorist" to practically anyone at all who opposes Jewish interests in any substantial way (along with "antisemite" and its variants), and the words use is not based on any objective standard of behaviour (if it was, then, due to not only to Jews in the Levant inventing and perfecting the kind of terrorism that has been prominent since the early 20th century, but also to manufacturing and distributing explosives-laden devices among a population and blowing them up, they'd have to call themselves "terrorists"), then it is irrelevant whether or not anyone calls Hamas "terrorists."
I suppose the concern is that, if Hamas are not dismissed as "terrorists," then the argument starts to form that Hamas are just the representatives of a people brutalised and mistreated by Jews for decades, and that it is always only a matter of time before the occasional violent outburst directed towards the misanthropic Jews who lord it over them.
“The way of terror is the only way open to the Palestinians to fight for their future. The way of terror is the only way for them to remind Israel, the Arab states and the world, of their existence. They have no other way. Israel has taught them this. If they don't use violence, everyone will forget about them, and then a little later, only through terrorism will they be remembered. Only through terrorism will they possibly attain something. One thing is certain, if they put down their weapons, they are doomed.”- Israeli journalist Gideon Levy.
The worst change, according to Levy, is that Israel has lost its humanity. “Everything is acceptable,” Levy tells Hedges as he describes the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the brutal killing of prisoners, the censorship at the hands of the state and the overall indifference to it all.
“There is practically only one camp in Israel, the camp which supports apartheid and occupation,” Levy says.
There isn’t even any room left for empathy of the innocent victims in Gaza, according to Levy. Teachers have been subject to interrogation and termination because they “express[ed] empathy with the children of Gaza, with the victims of Gaza. Even this is not legitimate anymore in Israeli society 2024,” Levy contends.
Although the horrors following October 7 are devastatingly unprecedented, Levy asserts that this entire catastrophe was years in the making and the meaningless gestures of advocating for a two-state solution, for example, will perpetuate it further.
I love the O'NEILL column . Reminds us there is another point of view to Madame Blavatsky, Chloe and the Kakarikis ( the parrots???) et al.
I have no idea who is right or wrong. I suspect it is all shades of grey.
Or perhaps the British should be the apologists in all this hideous mess.
Anonymous 7.25 suggests the British should be the apologists in all this hideous mess. Does he mean Balfour who thought up the idea of a Jewish homeland, or subsequent British Governments that used their Mandate to block Jewish immigration. I suppose if we were being honest, we should actually blame the Muslims for their conquest of Jerusalem in 638CE, or perhaps the Romans for destroying the Jewish homeland in 66CE, or perhaps the Assyrians for their conquest of Israel in 597BCE. Perhaps we should understand that at long last the Jews have decided to stand up for themselves, whatever the rest of the world thinks.
".....at long last the Jews have decided to stand up for themselves, whatever the rest of the world thinks" By stealing their neighbours land and water !!There fixed that for you!
When it comes to stealing land the neighbours taught the Israelis all they need to know, starting with the invasion of Israeli lands by Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq on 15 May 1949. Land which was granted to Israel by virtue of International law after the end of the British Mandate and more specifically had already been mostly purchased by from the locals by Jewish immigrants. And that's before the attempt by those neighbours to steal Israeli land during the 6 day war in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. So don't preach to me about Israel stealing land, particularly given that they returned most of the land they captured in those wars, including Gaza, which as it turned out was not such a good idea.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.