Entropy retweeted
Just in: the BBC has replied to complaints about Newsnight's interview with Bernie Sanders.
Sanders called for "no more military aid for the extremist government in Israel". Victoria Derbyshire answered on Israel's behalf:
- "Okay. The Israeli government would deny that they are extremist."
The BBC's whole defence is one sentence:
"We reject the suggestion that highlighting the fact that the Israeli government would dispute Mr Sanders' description was inappropriate."
Nobody made that suggestion.
Complainants asked why Newsnight supplied Israel's denial and left out what Israel's own ministers have said:
Yoav Gallant announcing a complete siege of Gaza and saying "We are fighting human animals", and Bezalel Smotrich saying it might be "justified and moral" to let two million Gazans die of hunger until the hostages were returned. The BBC mentions neither.
It calls Israel's denial "the fact". It was a guess: Israel "would" dispute it. Complainants asked whether the BBC had a statement from the Israeli government or whether the presenter supplied the denial herself. The BBC does not say.
In the BBC's own account, the only answer to that denial came from Sanders: "what they've done to the Palestinian people, in my view, is genocidal." The BBC spoke for Israel and left its guest to answer alone.
The reply then declares the interview "accurate, duly impartial" and answers none of the questions complainants asked:
• Why have many Israeli talking points gone unchallenged, with no interjection on what Palestinians say?
• What editorial judgement made the denial necessary at that moment?
• Was it a response from the Israeli government, or one the presenter anticipated?
• How was the denial tested against Israeli officials' documented statements, and what other BBC coverage does the BBC rely on for due impartiality?
• Will Newsnight review whether presenters apply the same scrutiny when they put Israeli denials to guests?
• Why doesn't due impartiality extend to what Israel's leaders have said, including the words of Netanyahu and Herzog put to the International Court of Justice as evidence of genocidal intent?
If the BBC is going to speak for Israel's government, it owes viewers that government's own words too.
If you complained and are unhappy with the reply, log in to your NewsCord account, paste the BBC's reply and we will file your Stage 1b complaint for you.
You need your BBC case number (it starts CAS-) and the email address you complained from: newscord.org/account/campaig…
The BBC consistently interrupts every guest that criticises Israel with a defence on their behalf: “Israel would say [insert genocide justification here]”
They say they do this for “transparency” and “due impartiality”.
If they were honest about that, they would also add the other things Israel themselves have said.
Allow us to demonstrate:
1. “Israel would say [genocide justification] although Isaac Herzog, Israel’s President did say on 12 October 2023 ‘It is an entire nation out there that is responsible’”
2. “Israel would say [genocide justification]. Netanyahu did also say in a letter to his soldiers on November 2023 that Gaza is a ‘holy war of total annihilation’”
3. “Israel would say [genocide justification]. On 9 October 2023, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant also said ‘We are fighting against human animals.’”
4. “Israel Katz, the Energy Minister on 13 October 2023, did say that Gaza's civilians would ‘not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.’”
5. “Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister in August 2024 said starving two million people “might be just and moral until they return the hostages.’”
The BBC has consistently hidden behind “transparency” and “due impartiality” to defend Israel at every opportunity.
But their cherry-picking of what they say after “Israel says”, is telling of just how opaque and partial they are.
“Israel says” is not inherently bad, if one actually says what Israel says.
Entropy retweeted
It's important this performative video is met with the scorn that it deserves.
Silence would be unacceptable.
But it's actually worse to have Labour making sad videos whilst continuing to arm a genocide and arrest those who protest. It should be beneath contempt.
Entropy retweeted
Of course she has.
The British state is being handed over to a bunch of racist fascist profiteers
Entropy retweeted
108,00 signatures and rising, so the government has wheeled out Ed Miliband to make a few fake sympathetic tweets. Don't listen. We have to hold the government's feet to the fire.
Keep signing here: petition.parliament.uk/petit…
Entropy retweeted
🇺🇸Pete Hegseth: "We didn't start this war. Iran started this war 47 years ago. We didn't start it. They did."
🇮🇷Abbas Araghchi 🔥: "Shut up. How many missiles have we fired on US soil in those 47 years? Zero 💪
How many of your leaders were killed or injured by Iran? Zero💪
The war started when you started bombing us." 🔥
Araghchi is a strategic genius 👏
Entropy retweeted
Just a reminder that you are not going crazy.
The BBC is absurdly biased against Palestinians.
The BBC Israel Would Say Files. The full results are in for both broadcast and articles.
Analysis of 267 broadcast interviews between October 2023 and October 2026:
- BBC presenters put Israel's case, in Israel's name, to guests criticising Israel's conduct in Gaza in 252 separate interviews.
- They put the Palestinian case, in its name, to guests defending Israel's conduct in 15.
- To better portray this disparity, our compilation of the BBC defending Israel in their own words now runs at 48 mins 12 secs. Our compilation of the BBC defending Palestinians in their own words runs at 2 mins 38 secs.
- The plainest form, “Israel would say”, was put to critics in 75 interviews. “Palestinians [or any Palestinian group] would say” was put to defenders in 4.
- 10 of the 15 Palestinian cases came in the first six weeks after 7 October 2023, and 5 in the three years after. Presenters were still putting Israel's case to critics in 2026.
- The above point suggests an editorial shift to stop conveying what Palestinians are saying, but to continue conveying what "Israel would say".
Analysis of 1,618 written articles, from October 2023 to October 2026:
- When an article reported criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza, the BBC added Israel's position 49% of the time (1,771 of 3,648 claims).
- When an article reported Israel's claims, the BBC added a Palestinian or UN position 38% of the time (914 of 2,431). A Palestinian position alone: 25%.
- Put the two official sides side by side. When the authorities in Gaza made a claim against Israel, the BBC added Israel's position 58% of the time (334 of 575). When Israel's government or army made a claim, the BBC added a Palestinian or UN position 39% of the time (855 of 2,165).
- Article by article: 71% of the articles reporting criticism of Israel gave Israel's position at least once. 53% of the articles reporting Israel's claims gave a Palestinian or UN position.
- In other words, in almost half of the articles where Israel makes a claim, it goes completely uncontested.
The full report, including every single broadcast and article in the corpus, can be found here, completely free of charge: newscord.org/editorials/bbc-…
Entropy retweeted
Being Jewish isn't a choice.
Being a Zionist is.
As logic dictates, you can't be born into a political ideology.
Being born brown isn't a choice, and as we all know, not being Muslim doesn't protect brown people from Islamophobic attacks.
Entropy retweeted
From Dennis Skinner.
This is lovely from Dennis Skinner on Jeremy Corbyn. It just hits the spot exactly, I think.
Dennis Skinner on Jeremy Corbyn:
"I don't think Corbyn's the best leader ever. I appreciate that he's not the best at appealing to a lot of demographics. he's crap with soundbites; not good at speaking straight to camera. Better in real situations with real people. I appreciate that he's not got a great deal of, what would you call it, zing. I don't agree with him on everything by any means.
Still, you know something I know? If Labour lose the election, Jeremy Corbyn will probably go back to being a local MP. He'll carry on holding speakers up for people at meetings, and helping people with their chairs, and thanking people for making the sandwiches.
He'll carry on having talks and doing constituency surgeries and attending debates and asking questions and campaigning on various issues and staying behind to carry on talking about stuff with ordinary people after the event's finished. If he weren't the leader now, he'd be campaigning on behalf of the party. He'd be standing at the back helping.
He's not going to swan off to a career of after-dinner speaking and corporate events and non-executive directorships and consultancies. He's not going to edit the Evening Standard. It's not his personal ambition that's brought him here.
He wasn't ever that keen on being a leader. The only reason he stood when he did was that, to paraphrase another Labour front-bencher, every other remaining left-wing MP in the party had already stood as the token socialist candidate in a previous leadership election, and it was basically his turn.
And here's the thing: his apparent lack of charisma notwithstanding (and what is this charisma that apparently Tim Farron and Theresa May possess? It's like nothing I've ever seen described using that term before), he's the exact opposite of what everyone seems to agree they're sick of in politicians.
The meaningless soundbites and stock phrases and glib dog-whistle oversimplifications don't sit naturally with him. He's better at sitting down calmly and talking about things like a grown-up. He's visibly irritated when interviewers push him to answer stupid, meaningless or leading questions, and, to me, that irritation seems remarkably restrained considering that I'd probably be unable to put up with such bollocks without flying into an expletive-laden rant.
He reminds me of a Scandinavian politician, and that's nothing but a compliment. Politicians aren't supposed to be evangelists or salespeople; they're supposed to be people of substance, not just a mass of superficially appealing tics, right? Right?
In short, he's a real human person, like you get in real life, not whatever kind of thing most politicians are where you just cannot imagine them existing in any normal situation alongside real people without getting punched in the face.
I've seen people like him, working in various capacities, usually doing something socially responsible, sometimes voluntary. They help. They support. They sympathise. They don't usually get to the top of organisations because they're not naturally competitive.
And here he is, in a position he probably never expected to be in, and his expression is, for me, the right one: he's grim; a touch uncertain; perhaps somewhat daunted. Quite right too. Anyone who's not daunted by the prospect of being Prime Minister shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the job.
I want whoever leads the country to feel the responsibility as keenly as possible. The Prime Minister is the servant of millions of masters, not the master of millions of servants, as Theresa May seems to think she is. It's a horrible job, but if nobody else is going to do it, he'll have to.
Because someone's got to. You can't just stand there and do nothing. You have to try to help; to do what you can. That's what he's like. And if the election's lost as the last two were, he'll go back to helping in whatever other ways are available. And if he loses his seat (which he won't), he'll go and try to help somewhere else.
The fact that this man is considered unelectable when the alternatives are as they are is itself an indictment of our society. The UK needs to be careful who they shake hands with."
[Jonathan Connell]
Entropy retweeted
He knew GCHQ were involved
He knew the SAS were advising
He knew that RAF spy planes were used
He knew the BBC were spreading misinformation
He knew the Palestinian population were being eradicated
Starmer is a Genocidaire, without qualification
And Burnham is participating, too
We launched this petition 2 weeks ago.
Now, we are just 2,000 signatures away from forcing a debate in Parliament.
Will you be one of 100,000 who helped exposed the truth of Britain’s complicity in genocide?
petition.parliament.uk/petit…
Entropy retweeted
The images of kids submerged in freezing floodwater, in flimsy tents that won't survive another winter, make me SICK.
I think of Primo Levi’s words that every European learns by heart at school - only to forget when entering politics or diplomacy.
The shame of our time.
Entropy retweeted
Zionist claim: “Zionism rescued Jews.”
The historical record shows the opposite.
When a shipload of Jewish refugees on the Danube River were refused permission to disembark anywhere, Henry Montor, the leader of the UJA explained that they could not be allowed to sail to the Holy Land because “Palestine cannot be flooded with … old people or with undesirables” (Feb. 1, 1940).
Source @voiceofrabbis @authenttorahjew
Entropy retweeted
Decorated journalist Peter Oborne says UK officials need to be brought to justice over their crimes in Gaza
He specifically names David Cameron, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer. Referring to the International Criminal Court Act 2001
Entropy retweeted
hey @grok, concise, no spin.
Gilbert Bigio, a billionaire sanctioned for supporting a military coup in Haiti and financially enabling armed gangs terrorizing and destabilizing the country.
his name appears in the Pandora Papers, exposing offshore fortunes hidden in tax havens.
also exposed: business transactions linking him to Jeffrey Epstein’s estate.
his empire built a private port later identified in a UN report among illicit weapons trafficking routes.
for over 20 YEARS, he represented a foreign country as honorary consul.
@grok,
1. which country did he represent?
2. what was his religious background?
@grok, country and religion only
Entropy retweeted
When we first started this project some years ago, we only knew a couple of people, one of them was @RabbiJeffx - (back then he ran under a different name) He found us when our account was still small, and was always asking how he can help. He was one of he few people out there that had an euqal level of shock and alarm at what Israel was doing to children.
Over the years we watched him morph into one of the most entertaining accounts on X, which provided much needed comic relief to hundreds of thousands of people during these dark times. His account has become an unstoppable force of nature, and no amount of platform banning is able to stop him.
What people don't know about Jeff is how nice of a guy he is. Under all that humor and parody is a man with strong set of morals who is on a singular mission to punish those who commit crimes against children. We could not wish for better allies in this fight.
May god bless him on his mission.
Entropy retweeted
We want the UK Government to launch an inquiry into any British involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza.
This petition is so close to the 100,000 needed to be considered for a debate in Parliament.
Please sign & share - let's get it over the line!
petition.parliament.uk/petit…
Entropy retweeted
It's official. 100,000 people have signed our petition for an inquiry into the UK's role in genocide. Thank you to everyone who signed & shared.
Parliament must now make time for a debate. We are not going away until we get this inquiry. We want the truth, and we want justice.
Entropy retweeted
Perhaps the most heartless BBC interruption in this compilation is this one:
Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam Policy Lead for Palestine, explains how his family in Gaza have never been allowed to leave Gaza, and how Israel is besieging the Strip and causing mass displacement.
The BBC: "I'm sorry this is obviously very personal, difficult situation for you and your family, and as you would understand as well, Israel would say well, they can't live next door to Hamas."
There is nothing journalistic about this. There is no world where that is a rational, humane response.
The presenters and journalists at the BBC are reading off a strict script where they have to staunchly defend the apartheid entity at all costs.
They have weaponised the term "impartiality", which is what they cite when they launder propaganda. But as we've proven, this "impartiality" has only worked one way.
They interject much less when they platform genocide deniers, and have never volunteered the other things that "Israel says", such as the genocidal statements from Netanyahu, Gallant, Katz, Smotrich and Herzog.
It’s hard to grasp the BBC’s systematic attempt to launder Israeli propaganda until you see the sheer scale of it. Here's a compilation of them doing it at 2x speed.
The latest was on Newsnight on 4 November. When Bernie Sanders called Israel’s government extremist, Victoria Derbyshire answered for it: “And the Israeli government would deny that they are extremists.”
As this video shows, BBC presenters repeatedly do this as guests describe Israel’s crimes: “Israel would say.” “Israel would deny.” “They would reject that.”
We counted 70 of these denials and justifications in 52 aired interviews. The BBC calls this impartiality. But in not one of those 52 did a presenter raise any of these words from Israel’s own leaders:
- “We are fighting human animals.” Yoav Gallant, 9 October 2023
- “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Isaac Herzog, 12 October 2023
- “They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.” Israel Katz, 13 October 2023
- “Remember what Amalek did to you.” Benjamin Netanyahu, 3 November 2023
- Starving two million people in Gaza until the hostages came back might be “justified and moral”. Bezalel Smotrich, 5 August 2024
On 10 October 2023, Tahani Mustafa told the BBC that Israeli forces were not distinguishing civilians from fighters. The presenter replied: “They would reject that.” Mustafa then had to bring up Gallant’s “human animals” herself. The BBC supplied the denial. The guest had to supply Israel’s own words.
That is cherry-picking. The Royal Charter requires the BBC to be impartial, and the public pays for it through the licence fee. In these interviews, it handed its audience Israel’s denials and left out its leaders’ own words, during a genocide streamed live to the world.
We have archived the BBC’s coverage for three years, and we are now counting all of it: 50,000 video clips and many more written excerpts.
We are calling this first part: "BBC: The Would Say Files".
Handing Israel its denials is only one of the ways the BBC launders Israeli propaganda, so we will count every other technique too. Over the next few weeks, we will announce each milestone as we complete the report.
These are the first results, with every clip, quote and source: newscord.org/editorials/bbc-…