No, BBC, opposing genocide is not "divisive"

The BBC's line of questioning reflects the continued dehumanisation of Palestinians

Green Party leader Zack Polanski put in a very impressive performance on the BBC on Sunday.

There was one question, however, which should be treated as both deeply disturbing - and revealing.

The presenter asked:

You say you want to turn people’s anger into hope, but you’ve also said that you’re going to make an issue of Gaza in the by-election, in an area where there is a large Muslim population, doesn’t that just stir up division?”

Polanski answered it effectively - arguing that polling reflects widespread anger with Britain’s role in the genocide, while emphasising the Greens were championing domestic issues like lowering bills. “At the same time, you can do more than one thing at once,” he said.

But the presenter carried on, asking if he had “any concern about stirring things up”. Polanski emphasised the need for peace, adding: “I don’t think that’s a divisive message. I think that’s a human rights message.”

Let’s just take a moment to consider the implications.

It is, as I continually stress, the consensus of genocide scholars that Israel has committed genocide, including Israeli scholars.

That is the conclusion of an independent UN Commission, and NGOs from Amnesty International to Médecins sans frontières. It’s also the conclusion of various Western governments - such as Spain and Ireland - let alone many nations of the Global South.

At the same time, the International Criminal Court - which Britain is a founding member of - has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The evidence for which could not be overwhelming.

Imagine the thinking behind asking whether opposing British involvement in such a crime is “divisive”? It would be a mistake here to direct the blame at the presenter - because this speaks to institutional rot at the BBC.

It is not possible to square this question with a belief in the equal worth of Palestinian life. If Palestinians were treated as humans, the question of whether opposing their extermination would be considered morally depraved.

It’s worth focusing on: “you’ve also said that you’re going to make an issue of Gaza in the by-election, in an area where there is a large Muslim population, doesn’t that just stir up division?”

“Make an issue of Gaza” means abide by Green Party policy - to oppose British complicity in genocide.

But note that the question emphasises that it stirs up division in the context of the constituency being “an area where there is a large Muslim population”.

What does this mean exactly?

Firstly, the polling shows that there is a massive consensus across British society - and given that only 4 million - out of 69 million - Brits are Muslims, that clearly crosses religious and ethnic lines.

According to YouGov in October, just 12% said they sympathised with Israel the most, less than three times smaller than those who said Palestinians, at 38% - another 17% said both equally.

According to that poll, 57% said Israel’s attack on Gaza wasn’t justified, with just 18% saying it was.

According to another YouGov poll, 57% of Brits support a total arms embargo on Israel, with just 18% opposed. 48% support a trade embargo, with just 20% opposed

And what about the International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity? In June, YouGov “If Benjamin Netanyahu were to travel to the UK, do you think the UK should or should not enforce this arrest warrant?” 65% said yes, just 16% said no.

So what is meant by the BBC line of questioning exactly? Is the implication that the Greens - by opposing a genocide, in line with mainstream public opinion - will somehow rile up Muslims and this will be somehow dangerous? If that isn’t the suggestion, then what else is meant? Does the BBC understand that many viewers will have been left with this impression?

Is it being suggested that drawing attention to the record of the other parties on this great crime is “divisive”? (Clearly, that is the suggestion).

Here is the thing. We should expect our media to treat Palestinians as humans of equal worth. That this somehow seems utopian is profoundly damning of the current reality. That doesn’t mean we shouldn't keep fighting the great journalistic outrage of our time.