BBC Gaza stance unjustified

I believe the BBC's decision not to broadcast a humanitarian aid appeal for the stricken people of Gaza to be totally unjustified. I have read the explanation by Mark Thomson, DG of the BBC, where he makes two justifications for the refusal - the first being that there is no guarantee of aid getting through and thus the public may be squandering money. Well surely the answer to that is to insist that the problems of delivery are explained in the appeal and to let the public make up its own mind. So that is a pretty trite one, I believe, and easily overcome.

The more significant issue is the BBC's insistence that it could compromise impartiality. How? Surely the news pictures of Gaza are evidence in themselves that terrible devastation has been wrought on an already impoverished area and that hundreds have been killed and injured. I really cannot understand this stance unless the Israeli government (and possibly the US?) has been applying pressure and claiming that such an appeal is a political move.



To air an appeal which simply states the facts of human need is not taking sides in a war. I would hope that if Tel Aviv was shelled causing wholesale destruction, and the Israelis needed help, we would not shirk from a humanitarian appeal for them too.

The British government is certainly not the problem as it has been trying to get the BBC to change its mind, and indeed all its rivals who, at first, took the same stance have decided to broadcast it. I am guessing that the BBC will, eventually, concede that it has lost the so-called moral high ground on this and give in.

The sooner the better. The more TV exposure such an appeal has, the more effective it will be - and these people are in desperate straits. They need help now.