The BBC news website stands accused by its own journalists of systematic pro-Israel bias.
Tomorrow, my detailed investigation based on the testimonies of 12 BBC journalists is published by @DropSiteNews.
And here's the story that started the investigation off.
You know how Israel says it isn't blocking aid into Gaza & the problem is the distribution of the aid once it enters Gaza?
Hani Mahmoud reports that Israeli drones targeted people who were organising & securing the delivery of humanitarian trucks. 16 people were killed
"Excuse me Alan, you always interrupt people because you're a below. Please be quiet. Of course you don't want to hear that Israel is committing war crimes. You bring up the fact that the ICC could go after the U.S. for committing war crimes. Well guess what? They should be. Jonathan, I would be upset if I were you, because you've been implicated in two war crimes. You lied about Al Shifa hospital and you defended Yoav Gallant’s starvation order.”
The BBC, which has been downplaying – or more usually ignoring – Israeli atrocities in Gaza every day for 13 months, dedicates 2 minutes of its hour-long lunchtime news to the ICC issuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu for committing crimes against humanity.
Those two minutes are from their Jerusalem correspondent, explaining why Netanyahu and Israelis will disagree. That's it.
Nothing on the diplomatic significance.
Nothing on how this will strengthen the genocide case against Israel at the World Court.
Nothing from international law experts.
Nothing on how embarrassing this is for Israel's patrons like the UK and US.
And nothing, of course, on how it leaves western politicians – and media like the BBC – dangerously exposed for their complicity in the genocide.
Blackrock was created out of its parent company Blackstone. Vanguard and State Street are their biggest institutional shareholders. These corporations have replaced democracies. Our political class no longer work for us. They work for them. They're owned by them.
All of this is culpable, by the way. Everyone understands this is a genocide and every time they hand propagandists for mass murder a platform, they are incriminating themselves in a way that precludes future accountability. They are making themselves complicit.
I am kind of in awe at the Guardian giving Rachel a column to explain what actually happened and - because they are such awesome, ball-gargling cowards - balancing it out by giving Joseph Goebbels here right of reply. Is cheering for genocide good or bad? Let’s hear both sides.
🚨1/ This New York Times piece is wild. Let's go through it.
Firstly, the lede is an emphasis that attacks in Amsterdam were based on antisemitism, yet it cites no evidence of this, but DOES cite evidence of anti-Arab chants.
A year late, the Guardian finally concedes it's ok to use to use the term ‘genocide’ about Gaza.
My latest article, on the paper's mendacious concession, can be read here: https://t.co/7nKzAZR8TE
The kind of lunatic fash conspiracy stuff you would have found only on the wackiest far right message boards and blogs in the 2000s, now slap bang in the mainstream from senior MPs, on the news stand in Tesco.
SCOOP: Guardian editor Katharine Viner personally intervened to block a piece by a preeminent Palestinian author for describing Gaza as "the holocaust of our time". Meanwhile staff claim they are subject to a "double standard" on Israel & Palestine: https://t.co/oXy31RouNs
Are the public wrong to have declining trust in increasingly overtly lying leaders. Of course they are not wrong, the lying has been more brazen leader by leader. They are correct.
"This is not a humanitarian crisis, Kate, and I'm going to say it very clearly for your viewers to hear: This is genocide [...] Media agencies will have reckon with their major role in the genocide." -- Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan to CNN