BBC Refusal to air Gaza appeal in contrary with fundamental laws of civilisation

Dear Editor and Readers,

Undoubtedly you have learnt about the recent BBC refusal to air a TV spot about a Gaza aid appeal

See also

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/26/gaza-israel-palestinians-bbc

Their main argument was referring to their ''impartiality'' in the conflict

Not only this argument makes no sense, since in that case, never an aid appeal for any civilian population in a war-zone should be aired, fundamentally the refusal is contrary with the universal laws of civilisation

Under P/S you'll see my reaction, which I have sent to the BBC


Kind greetings
Up to a free Palestine!!

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam
The Netherlands

P/S


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


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-170109

 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