Is the BBC biased against Israel ?

What are you on about? BBC stands with Israel.
As Israel escalates its war throughout the Middle East, Western media amplifies its psychological warfare against us.
Established media organisations, such as the BBC, are using the language of their reporting as a tool against audiences, similar to how Israel used primitive technology against the population of Lebanon.
Detonating pagers and walkie-talkies injured thousands of Lebanese last week. Similarly, the media coverage is distorting Western audiences' ability to comprehend the reasons behind Israel's perilous escalation of tensions across the region.
Terms such as "audacious," "escalation," and "targets" have transformed into instruments of obfuscation rather than clarification—and for good reasons. Israel's acts are evidently unlawful, horrible, and murderous. Language serves as a tool to obscure reality.
The media narrative asserts that Israel is conducting attacks on Lebanon to halt Hezbollah's rocket fire and facilitate the return of residents to Israel's northernmost neighborhoods. In the more direct Orwellian terminology employed by Israeli officials to characterize this atrocity: Israel must "escalate to de-escalate.".
Lebanese people are suffering the greatest toll, with around 550 killed on the first day of Israel's air onslaught. Numerous tens of thousands have been forcibly displaced—subjected to ethnic cleansing—from the region of southern Lebanon.
What is the reason? Israel claims that Hezbollah has concealed its stockpile of rockets within residential structures. Consequently, such residences must be demolished. Strangely, Hezbollah appears to have overlooked the large rocky terrain in southern Lebanon that could provide a safer and more logical concealment for its weapons.
If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The same narrative is employed to rationalize the genocide in Gaza. Then, the media blindly repeated Israeli false claims about Gaza's destruction in an effort to "eradicate Hamas."
Approximately 2.3 million Palestinians were compelled to evacuate their homes for their own safety, despite Israel killing them in those "safe zones.".
At that time, as now, the media exposed us to Israeli CGI-generated propaganda videos depicting alleged underground "command and control centers" supposedly located beneath hospitals and other vital facilities that Israel aimed to obliterate.
The media are mindlessly disseminating absurd Israeli propaganda videos depicting Hezbollah rockets concealed in Lebanese homes.
Graphs depicting "cross-border attacks" since 7 October of the previous year—when Hamas momentarily emerged from the concentration camp imposed by Israel on Gaza—indicate the falsehood of Israel's claim that its bombardment of Lebanon aims to "stop the Hezbollah rocket fire."
Out of 9,600 cross-border attacks, Israel was responsible for 7,845, accounting for four-fifths, and began doing so on 7 October itself. In early September, Israel intensified its assaults on Lebanon while Hezbollah significantly decreased its rocket fire.
The graphs fail to illustrate the unbalanced nature of those exchanges.
Hezbollah rockets inflicted significantly less damage on Israel compared to Israel's extensive and more potent arsenal of bombs and missiles.
By the third week of September, Israel had killed almost 750 Lebanese, in contrast to 33 Israelis. The disparity is now even more pronounced.
Nevertheless, the Western media has not characterized Hezbollah's attacks as its ''right to defend itself"—a right that is consistently emphasized for Israel.
Why has the emphasis been on Israel's necessity to "stop" Hezbollah's limited and predominantly non-lethal rockets rather than Lebanon's need to stop Israel’s more plentiful and far more lethal Israeli bombs?
However, Israel is primarily concerned that Western audiences remain unaware of other, more credible explanations for Hezbollah's rocket attacks over the past year, as well as the conditions necessary to make it stop. The western media are effectively aiding Israel in concealing those causes from public scrutiny.
Hezbollah has consistently stated that its rocket attacks would cease once Israel withdraws from Gaza and stops the genocide of tens of thousands of Palestinians, as it is required to do under international law.
In two separate decisions, the International Court of Justice (ICC) has ruled that Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and an act of aggression against the Palestinian populace that must cease, and has determined that a "plausible" case exists suggesting that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza.
Although no one at the BBC or elsewhere would acknowledge it, Hezbollah is, in fact, significantly more aligned with maintaining international law than Western nations like the United States, Germany, and Britain, all of whom are complicit in arming and sustaining Israel's "plausible" genocide.
Western media's failure to offer substantial context for Hezbollah's conduct allows Israel's self-serving narrative to dominate: it posits that Hezbollah—and potentially all "Arabs"—are motivated solely by an irrational, antisemitic urge to kill Jews in Israel.
The inference is that Lebanon merits whatever consequences it faces from Israel.
On Monday's evening news, BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen helpfully oiled that particular wheel through describing Hezbollah in the following terms:

"Fighting Israel is in their DNA, why they exist."

Let's ignore Bowen's amalgamation of Hezbollah's military wing with its political and welfare arms, which mirrors the British government's Israel-centric viewpoint in classifying the entire movement as "a terrorist organization."
Do Hezbollah's lawmakers, along with the public workers, police officers, physicians, teachers, and administrators it hires to manage Lebanon's institutions—referred to by media as the "state within a state"—exist solely to "fight Israel"? Is that really the only reason for their existence?
However, even if we disregard all civilians associated with Hezbollah and concentrate solely on its military faction, is Bowen's characterization impartial, equitable, or even precise?
Hezbollah is not motivated by mere bloodlust to "fight Israel," as suggested by the BBC's Middle East expert. For numerous Lebanese, it serves to safeguard their nation from an Israeli military that has intrusively engaged in its affairs for decades, predating the existence of Hezbollah.
Israel has repeatedly invaded Lebanon, perpetrated egregious massacres such as those at Sabra and Shatilla, occupied southern Lebanon for nearly two decades, bombarded its infrastructure, interfered in its politics, contaminated its territory with cluster munitions, and conducted relentless aggressive flights by fighter jets, violating Lebanese airspace non-stop all that time.
Many Lebanese civilians believe Hezbollah was established to provide a genuine military force to expel the Israeli occupation army, which it successfully accomplished in 2000, and to avert any recurrence of such an occupation.
Its purpose is to deter Israel from further intervention in Lebanon, analogous to Hamas's objective of imposing a price for Israel's otherwise profitable oppression of Palestinians under occupation.
If Bowen genuinely perceives this reductive reasoning regarding Hezbollah as just, he needs to maintain consistency and characterize Israel's military in a comparable manner. Do the Israel Defense Forces exist only to "fight its Arab neighbors?"
Numerous plausible motivations for Israel's assault on Lebanon exist that are unrelated to "ending the rocket fire," yet these remain unaddressed by the BBC and other Western media outlets.
Israel stands to benefit significantly from broadening its violent conflict in Gaza to encompass the larger region.
The new war effectively diverts attention from Israel's inability to achieve its stated objective of "eliminating Hamas" in Gaza, as well as its war crimes, coinciding with reports that the ICC is poised to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. In the prevailing atmosphere of militaristic fervor, their warrants may scarcely be acknowledged.
The profound and escalating misery in Gaza has completely vanished from media coverage.
The regional war is effectively alleviating the—admittedly minimal—pressure on Netanyahu from Western supporters to cease the violence in Gaza.
Netanyahu cannot afford to relent in his war mongering, as any steps towards a ceasefire could jeopardize his coalition's stability, potentially lead to his removal from power, and expedite his corruption prosecution, increasing the probability of his incarceration.
The escalating war has rekindled support for Netanyahu and his administration at a moment when it was under increasing internal pressure, particularly from the families of Israeli captives in Gaza, to pursue a ceasefire.
Fervent support for a subsequent campaign of extensive violence, this time against Lebanon, has overshadowed the discourse surrounding a ceasefire in Gaza.
Israel's instigation of a regional war involving not only Hezbollah but also Iran would compel Washington to intensify its engagement in a region where it has been gradually attempting to delegate its substantial military presence to other entities, particularly in the Gulf.
The US would need to not only escalate its military support for Israel's actions but also participate directly in the slaughter.
Israel seeks to transform its war into a U.S. one, anticipating that American influence will compel other regional actors, particularly the Gulf states, to align with Israel's efforts.
Contrary to the justification of "stopping the rockets" provided by Israel and reiterated by Western media, all other reasons are evidently not defensive. They suggest that Israel is conducting a war of aggression. This is exactly why they are neither mentioned nor able to be mentioned by the Western media.
That was the context missing as Israel escalated tensions significantly in Lebanon by detonating pagers and walkie-talkies, killing dozens of people, including two children, and maiming thousands.
Alistair Crooke, a former British diplomat in Beirut, has noted that the individuals utilizing these outdated gadgets were not elite Hezbollah fighters, as the western media has followed Israel in suggesting.
A significant number of individuals who suffered the loss of hands and eyes were civilians employed in emergency and civil service positions for Hezbollah's "state within a state": administrators, medical personnel, teachers, and law enforcement officers.
Booby-trapping mobile devices is a blatant violation of international law, so it qualifies as a war crime. This is evident from the statement made by former CIA director Leon Panetta:

"I don’t think there’s any question it’s a form of terrorism."

This implied that the media encountered a challenging responsibility in reporting on what constituted an act of state terrorism, establishing a daunting precedent: that the electronic devices we frequently handle or carry can be converted into explosives to do harm.
That is not a trivial concern. Panetta cautioned that Israel has unleashed a formidable force and asked nations to seek a means of reversing this trajectory. Without curbs on the weaponization of electronic devices, he noted:

"It is the battlefield of the future."

Had any other state inflicted such monstrous, nightmarish devastation--What if this had occurred when a target was airborne in an aircraft?--The shock and disgust would have been instant and profound.
However, the Western media uniformly responded to Israel's egregious act of terrorism not with revulsion but with veiled adoration. As if reading from a script, western outlets settled on exactly the same term to describe Israel’s move: it was "audacious."
Similar to its right-wing rivals, the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper passionately detailed what it described as a "careful planned", "sophisticated" and "audacious" operation by Israel to injure thousands of Lebanese.
The BBC followed suit. Bowen once more supported Israel, praising its terrorism as a "tactical triumph" and "the sort of spectacular coup you would read about in a thriller.".
The BBC has demonstrated the weaponization of words to obscure Israel's transgressions in Lebanon, as it previously did in Gaza.
During the BBC News at Ten on Monday, following Israel's extensive bombing campaign initiated days after it detonated pagers throughout Lebanon, the host presented this evaluation:

"Nearly 500 people are killed after heavy Israeli bombardment of Hebollah targets."

The following day, its website adopted the same approach. A BBC headline effectively addressed its own question:

"Where did Israeli strikes on Hezbollah hit yesterday?"

During Wednesday evening's news, BBC correspondent Anna Foster, reporting from Beirut, casually remarked that Israel had "hit more than 2,000 Hezbollah targets." She stated that the bombardment had obliterated "rocket launchers, weapons storage sites, and other infrastructure." All unsubstantiated Israeli claims are regarded as truths.
She observed that Hezbollah was targeting "civilian and military sites."
The BBC, in its reporting, has consistently echoed Israel's belief that every entity Israel targets is intrinsically a Hezbollah "target." Israel's claims serve as sufficient evidence.
If that were the case, why have Israeli bombs killed so many Lebanese women and children, mirroring Israel's slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children in Gaza over the past year?
Is it possible that Israel is indiscriminately assaulting southern Lebanon to instill fear in its residents and make them flee, thereby facilitating ethnic cleansing, similar to its previous actions in Gaza? Could this explain why at least 90,000 Lebanese are believed to have evacuated their communities so far?
Is it possible that Israel's claim regarding Hezbollah concealing weapons within residential structures in southern Lebanon is as self-serving and deceitful as its prior false claim that every hospital, institution, and mosque in Gaza housed a Hamas command and control center beneath them?
Is it possible Israel's false claim that Hezbollah, akin to Hamas, has transformed its civilian populace into "human shields" is a one-size-fits-all excuse, designed to obfuscate the very genocidal war crimes the World Court has put Israel on trial for?
Specifically, why do western media agencies such as the BBC find it so implausible that any of these options merit consideration?
During Monday night's news, Bowen seemed to evaluate the wisdom of Israel's actions while also promoting its favorite talking point:

"Israel effectively is gambling. What it is hoping is that by doing what it’s doing it will coerce Hezbollah to stop firing into Israel. I think that is probably unlikely. It means Israel will have to continue escalating."

However, in his "analysis," Bowen, like the rest of the Western media, was also weaponizing the language of "conflict" to obscure Israel's probable objectives. What did the BBC editor specifically mean by "escalating?"
The word is metamorphosing in disturbing ways.
Once "escalation" was consistently employed in a negative context regarding Israel's regional adversaries. Israel would strike with overwhelming force.
Only when an Arab state or group retaliated, typically in fairly limited ways, did western politicians and media suddenly become concerned about a "dangerous escalation."
The rationale was obvious: the killings of Arabs due to Israeli military force were commonplace; it constituted the ambient reality of the Middle East. However, if Israel experienced retaliation or encountered threats of repercussions, then concerns over "escalation" were entirely justified. Arabs escalated, Israel responded or retaliated.
However, the BBC is currently expanding the use of "escalation" in innovative ways to obscure Israel's crimes.
The media cannot ignore the undeniable fact that numerous civilians in Gaza and Lebanon are being killed for no apparent reason. To conceal these crimes, a euphemism is required.
In Bowen's updated phrase, "Israeli escalation" actually refers to "massacring civilians," "terrorizing civilians within their communities," or "destroying their homes," or maybe all three. “Escalation” appears more rational than the reality it conceals.
On Tuesday’s News at Ten, Orla Guerin, reporting from Tyre, emphasized this novel application, stemming from Israel’s absurd claim that it must "escalate to de-escalate.".
Initially, she emphasized Israel's primary argument, stating:

"Hezbollah managed to fire 300 rockets across the border—the very thing that Israel wanted to stop."

Notice: not what Israel says or claims it wants to stop. Guerin allows no possibility that Israel’s professed war aim might conceal other, less wholesome agendas.
Hezbollah's DNA, remember, is "fighting Israel." Israel's DNA, apparently, is trying to stop rockets and safeguard its people from Lebanese aggression.
In the looking-glass world created by the BBC, the protagonists are those perpetrating a "plausible" genocide. Those who resist genocide are the antagonists.
Guerin stated that Hezbollah opted not to deploy its larger, longer-range, precision-guided missiles, which can strike any location in Israel.
She concluded:

"It seems that still Hezbollah does not want an all-out war. Its sponsor Iran does not want an all-out war and has been saying so. The question is: can a way be found to avoid this escalation getting even worse?"

The term "escalation" reappeared. Once again, this indicated, upon removing the deliberate obscurity around it, the peril that Israel will kill additional Lebanese civilians, despite Hezbollah and Iran exhibiting considerable restraint in avoiding Israel's escalating provocation.
In Beirut, Anna Foster reiterated the same point. She posed the following question to reporter Paul Adams in Jerusalem:

"Israel has said that part of the idea behind this latest escalation is to enable people in the north to return to their homes. Is it likely to achieve that?"

Could she have articulated her message more clearly? Israel's "idea" was to intensify actions aimed at exterminating and ethnically cleansing the Lebanese populace in southern Lebanon so Israelis could return to their colonies. The only thing that mattered was whether its "idea" would be effective.
Adams' reply, similar to Guerin's, was telling. He was bewildered by Hezbollah's unusual restraint, as "fighting Israel" is intrinsic to its DNA. He proposed that there were only two plausible explanations: either Israel had obliterated the majority of Hezbollah's arsenal, "or because they [Hezbollah] are holding back for some reason.".
The phrase "for some reason" represents the extent to which BBC commentary attempts to understand the perspectives of Lebanon and Hezbollah.
By Wednesday’s News at Ten, Adams was present at the border between Israel and Lebanon.
The BBC, in collaboration with the Israeli military, began preparing its audience for the anticipated massacre of Lebanese civilians during an Israeli ground attack. The footage, likely provided by the Israeli military, showed General Herzi Halevi informing his men of an invasion of villages in Lebanon, which "Hezbollah has prepared as large military outposts."
In other words, Halevi warned that the Israeli army would soon act in Lebanon like it did in Gaza, disregarding the presence of civilians and perceiving the area only as "large military outposts." The Israeli army would regard men, women, and children as legitimate military targets.
Adams refrained from making a cautionary comment or elaborating on the implications of the general's views for his listeners. Instead, Adams once again restated Israel's pretext for mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon as an objective fact. The ground invasion's “purpose is clear: to allow civilians to return to border communities evacuated a year ago.”.
Subsequently, Adams proceeded to Kiryat Shmona, one of Israel's nearly empty border communities. Doron Spielman, an Israeli military spin doctor, informed Adams:

"The only way these people [residents of Kiryat Shmona] are ever going to come back home is if Hezbollah is nowhere even close to where they can shoot at them again."

What did he mean? Adams neither sought clarification nor exhibited concern. The goal was clear: to facilitate the return of Kiryat Shmona's residents, hundreds of thousands of people in southern Lebanon must undergo ethnic cleansing, become homeless and landless, and have their homes destroyed.
That is what Israel means by "escalation."
There was no time on Wednesday’s News at Ten for reporting further on the recent bloodshed in both south Lebanon and Gaza, which might potentially incite a regional conflict, as the BBC prioritized more pressing issues.
The program allocated roughly 10 minutes of its half-hour duration to reliving the events of 7 October of the previous year, when Hamas launched an incursion on to southern Israel colonies for one day.
It showcased unprecedented extended footage from a new documentary depicting Hamas' attack on the Nova rave adjacent to the Gaza concentration camp. That day, hundreds of Israeli partygoers lost their lives.
It is a story we have encountered and reheard endlessly over the past year. For months, the one day of attack carried out by Hamas—alongside some fabricated claims, such as "beheading babies" and executing "mass rapes"—was repeatedly daily, presumably in the interests of supposed "balance" as Gaza endured days, weeks, months, and now nearly a year of relentless death, anguish, and suffering.
On a day when Israeli "escalations" slaughtered Lebanese women and children, the BBC prompted viewers to overlook this tragedy and consider what transpired on October 7.
Undoubtedly, Israel could not have been more delighted had it been put in charge of setting the BBC’s news schedule itself.
A BBC representative addressed these criticisms in a brief reply:

"The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards and reports without fear or favour. "This conflict is a challenging and polarising story to cover. We listen carefully to feedback and are committed to providing impartial reporting for audiences in the UK and across the world."

Nonetheless, I could have authored entire volumes dissecting the BBC's recent assault over the past few days against its viewers' critical faculties—its incessant facilitation of the trajectory toward mass killing, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. One piece can merely graze the surface of the media's falsehoods, omissions, deceptions, and misdirections.
However, one additional one should be noted.
On Tuesday, Sarah Smith was in New York covering the "international" aspect, namely how the White House was addressing issues as the world teeters on the edge of a regional conflict that may rapidly escalate into a global or nuclear war.
Remember, Israel is fundamentally a product of Western colonial intervention in the Middle East, serving as a Western outpost and currently as Washington's primary client state.
President Joe Biden, assuming this frail and confused man remains competent to govern the country, could terminate Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon instantly. He just needs to decline the dispatch of US weaponry, which is responsible for the ensuing death and devastation, and inform his European partners that they should follow suit.
However, the BBC does not mention this because it would remind viewers of the true perpetrators of the Gaza genocide and Lebanon's indiscriminate destruction.
Instead, Smith's role was to feign knowledge of Biden's deepest thoughts and ensure viewers that his goals were wholly honorable and benevolent.
She stated:

“President Biden really dearly wanted to try and achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the hostages before he left office.”

Our minds have been thoroughly conditioned by continuous Western propaganda, leading us to neither laugh nor react with outrage when this juvenile fabrication of geopolitics is portrayed as serious news reporting.
Israel is not alone in waging war in the region. To secure the approval of Western populations, or at least to mitigate dissent, we must subdue our critical faculties with the same intensity that Israeli bombs are demolishing the residences of Palestinians and Lebanese, and dismembering their bodies.
To cease the violence, we must abandon the narrative constructed by our media—a narrative that serves only a small Western elite profiting from perpetual war and resource theft.
We must awaken from the illusionary existence that has sedated us throughout our lives in order to stop the violence.