In parallel to the military conflict in Gaza, a fierce political contest is again taking place between the Palestinian and Israeli narratives, and heads of organizations that claim to promote charitable objectives are the generals and lieutenants in this “humanitarian” war.
In this context, the BBC – which is generally locked in to the Palestinian narrative – surprised both supporters and critics by rightly rejecting requests to broadcast noble appeals on behalf of the victims in Gaza.
While many aid groups are impartial in other areas of the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict creates a highly charged partisan framework that overwhelms the neutrality expected of charitable organizations. Their focus is exclusively on Palestinian victims, while Israeli casualties from more than 800 rocket attacks during this three-week war (after 6,000 such attacks were launched from Gaza in the preceding eight years) have been erased from this biased image.
BBC director general Mark Thompson understood that “humanitarian issues – the suffering and distress of civilians and combatants on both sides of the conflict, the debate about who is responsible for causing it and what should be done about it – are both at the heart of the story and contentious.”
In contrast to appeals following natural disasters, such as tsunamis and floods, this is a political disaster, and an appeal for Palestinians alone would “be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story,” Thompson wrote on the BBC’s website in explaining the broadcaster’s decision not to air the appeal. (Similarly, the BBC does not accept appeals on behalf of aid to one side or another in other areas of political violence, such as Sri Lanka, Georgia or the Balkans.)
Indeed, for many years, many of the groups claiming to promote humanitarian agendas have been important players in the emotive political debate over narratives and responsibility. Moral claims that accuse Israel of horrendous war crimes, and present Palestinians only as victims are used to justify academic and commercial boycotts, and such campaigns are an integral part of the conflict. Their claims of neutrality, morality and apolitical objectives are disingenuous.
NGO Monitor has reported that in the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these organizations issued a flood of one-sided denunciations aimed at Israel. This campaign repeated tendentious (and often highly inaccurate) terms such as “collective punishment,” violation of international law, etc.
For example, on March 6, 2008, a group including CARE International, Oxfam; and Save the Children published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A humanitarian implosion.” The authors didn’t hide their bias, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric, including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law.” The report was wrong on many counts, including allegations regarding the availability of food and basic necessities, which were contradicted by World Bank and World Health Organization information. The fact that Hamas chose to pursue war with Israel – including the enormous cost of building thousands of rockets designed to kill – rather than the welfare of its people was a dirty little secret that was never stated in these reports.
During the three-week war, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and others were extremely active in the ideological campaign that highlighted Palestinians as victims and Israelis as aggressors. Their press statements included language that reinforced this narrative, demanding that the “international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law.” This ideological bias absolves the Hamas leadership for responsibility in the confrontation that they sought and in which they have declared a victory.
In this framework, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a plea in support of the charities and in opposition to the BBC’s position: “By declining their request, the BBC has already taken sides and forsaken impartiality.” But common moral sense – which is admittedly in short supply – supports the BBC’s position. The aid groups and self-proclaimed guardians of human rights are the ones that have forsaken impartiality and sided with Hamas in its war to against Israel.
