Astrid Essed30 januari 2009 – 04:08

Geachte lezers van Indymedia Belgie,

Uiteraard bent u op de hoogte van de recentelijke BBC weigering tot het uitzenden van een TV spotje in verband met hulp aan Gaza

Zie ook:

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF27012009_127

Haar belangrijkste argumentatie hiervoor is de handhaving van haar ''onpartijdigheid'' in het conflict
Naar mijn mening snijdt een dergelijke argumentatie in het geheel geen hout
Hieruit voortvloeiende zou namelijk ieder TV spotje, dat appeleert aan hulp aan de burgerbevolking in een oorlogsgebied zoals bijvoorbeeld Darfur of Congo om diezelfde reden geweigerd moeten worden

Belangrijker acht ik echter het feit, dat een dergelijke weigering door haar afzijdigheid van de humanitaire ramp in Gaza, een schending is van de fundamentele beschavingsregels

Om hiertegen te protesteren heb ik de BBC een reactie toegezonden, die u in onderstaande kunt lezen

Vriendelijke groeten

Astrid Essed
Amsterdam

A ''Motivatie'' BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/bbc_and_the_gaza_appeal.ht...

B

Mijn reactie

BBC
HALL OF SHAME
REFUSAL OF BROADCASTING IS NOT ''IMPARTIALITY'', BUT A DENIAL OF THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF CIVILISATION

Dear Mr Thompson and the BBC Staff,,

According to my opinion, the BBC refusal to broadcast the DEC appeal for humanitarian help for Gaza, is a shameless denial of the universal humanitarian values, on which civilisation is based.

Access for help-organisations to Gaza

I can be short about your practical argument of no access to the suffering Gazan civilian population, which is invalid, since the access is the problem of all humanitarian help-organisations, the International Red Cross included
Therefore it is not to the BBC, but to the public for deciding whether to donate or not

''Impartiality''

However, the most important is your fundamental objection, that your impartiality is at stake

I quote your reaction

''The danger for the BBC is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story. ''

Your socalled ''political'' argument is invalid, since a political point of view is not at stake, but merely the humanitarian disaster of a civilian population
According to your line of thinking, no broadcasting could ever be done in any war-area, where the civilian population is victim, like Darfur, Congo etc

You know full well, that apart from ''taking sides'', the humanitarian disaster is caused by a kind of warfare, which violates International Humanitarian Law, demanding a strict distinction between combatants [military and fighters] and non-combatants [civilians]

This is applicable to ALL CONFLICTSPARTIES and not ''political'' at all

See International Humanitarian Law:

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/668BF8

In this case however, the Gazan civilian population has been subjected to Israeli indiscriminate atracks with phosphorusbombs, which led to 1300 dead and more than 5000 wounded

Thousands of people are homeless

See the Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/weapons-interview-17010...

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-update-250109!OpenDocument

Hospitals have a lack of medicines by the continuing israeli blockade on Gaza

See the Red Cross:

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-news-270109

Red Cross helpers were denied access to Gaza, ambulances were shoot at

As you have seen, my point of view is supported by the NEUTRAL International Red Cross

Mr Thompson, therefore a political point of view is not at stake here, nor the ''impartiality'' of the BBC, since it concerns the need of the civilian population, who always must be protected against the consequences of war, whether they are Palestinians or Israeli

So with your socalled ''impartiality'', you are closing your eyes for a civilian population in need, which means a support de facto, to the Israeli military attacks on Gaza

I hope you can live with that choice

Sincerely

Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands