The BBC recently announced it will not air a commercial asking for aid money to be sent to Hamas. In response - as you can imagine, shoes were thrown at the BBC, and all sorts of claims of 'human rights violations' were screamed about.
The BBC is a cesspool of anti-Israel sentiment, yet it happened to do one right thing in refusing to air a call for funding Hamas. That's about the only thing to say. This action does not mean the BBC suddenly has become a pro-Israel institution.
The reality is that the "appeal for aid" was an appeal to fund Hamas, and nothing less. The BBC, for once, decided it has principles (I know, shocking!) and does not want to air an ad requesting funds to go to a jihadist terror organization.
Anyone who thinks this is a "human rights violation" or that the BBC is being unfair should ask themselves why exactly appeals for aid to Hamas should be aired on the BBC. I will ask a follow up: should the BBC air appeals to aid for Al Queda? At what point do they have even a minimal responsibility to protect the public? Or should the BBC air every terrorist propoganda video on earth, and/or every video on earth calling for aid to terror organizations?
Given the history of the BBC's craven capitulation to jihad, I expect they will cave on this soon, and air a commercial asking for aid to be sent to Hamas. I find the whole thing pathetic, that people have the shocking gall to believe this renders the BBC somehow biased in favor of Israel. The reality is that this means is that the BBC has at least a tiny vestige of principles left, but nothing more. It should be a given that it is wrong to air an appeal to aid a jihadist terror organization.
As an aside, here is a link to an article which discusses money from a UK Islamic 'aid' society going to Hamas.
UPDATE: This is a must read article which details exactly why the BBC is right - for once - in its refusal to air the disgusting "appeal to aid" for Hamas.
Here is an excerpt:
Who adjudicates on which victims to support via such charitable aid - and according to whose political morality? Why did the BBC not launch an appeal for the victims of collateral damage during Nato's bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign? And had it done so, would it have given money to ethnic Serbs as well as to Kosovars and Bosnian Muslims, all of whom were “cleansed” during the Balkan wars of that decade? What about the victims of insurgencies and counter- insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya or Georgia? Or Israeli victims of the next Hamas suicide attack? Indeed, what about the Palestinian victims of Hamas's hideous human rights abuses, still so shamefully under-reported by the British media as a whole?
And who are these supposedly impartial charities who are attacking Mr Thompson's (albeit belated) attempt to uphold the Corporation's traditional standards? While groups such as the British Red Cross and Christian Aid are generally impartial in other areas of the world, that cannot be said to apply to their role in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, where they regularly view the conflict through a deeply partisan lens.
In the months prior to the decision by Hamas to end the six-month ceasefire and resume rocket attacks, these charities issued a flood of one- sided denunciations aimed at Israel. Their campaign repeated tendentious and often highly inaccurate terms such as “collective punishment” and “violation of international law”. On March 6, 2008, CARE International, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam (among others) published a widely quoted report under the headline “The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion”. The authors did not bother to hide their political bias against Israel, repeating standard Palestinian political rhetoric and including claims that Israeli policy “constitutes a collective punishment against ordinary men, women and children” and is “illegal under international humanitarian law”.