Fake News and the War on the BBC
The war on the BBC by Britain’s right-wing press has been a constant for the past thirty years, attempting to threaten and control the public broadcaster to yield to their political agenda.
The paradox about the mass resignation of the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, and the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, over accusations of political bias, is that all that it does is reveal the extent of political control of the BBC. Far from being a left-wing outlet, or even an impartial one, it is an entity wholly consumed by forces of the right.
The allegations in a dossier published by the Telegraph allege BBC Panorama doctored a speech by Trump, making him appear to support the January 6 rioters. The allegations come from the journalist Michael Prescott, who claims he has never been a member of a political party and that his views “do not come with any political agenda” but those claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Prescott is close to Robbie Gibb – the former director of communications under Theresa May – who joined the BBC board after being involved with the launch of the far-right news channel GB News.
Concerns about an apparent conflict of interest were raised when Boris Johnson appointed Prescott to advise Ofcom over its new chair four years ago. Sources told the Guardian newspaper that Robbie Gibb was instrumental in the appointment of Prescott as an adviser to the EGSC (Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee). In fact, Gibb was on the four-person panel that interviewed Prescott for the role.
Behind the scenes, the war on the BBC has been waged by a coterie of politicians and media figures including: Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove and Robbie Gibb. What’s actually happening here, is that these powerful politicians and their allies who control the majority right-wing press in Britain – are incensed that they can’t control the broadcast media and the BBC in the same way they do the print media.
The war on the BBC has been sharpened by two things: the prospect of a charter renewal (review of how the BBC is funded), and the genocide in Gaza. This has now been elevated by political interference from the Trump administration, resulting in yesterday’s debacle.
In a country where the reality behind the scenes is so warped and distorted, it’s worth remembering that Robbie Gibb has been the sole owner and director of the Jewish Chronicle since 2020 – the very same magazine that has long campaigned for a “parliamentary inquiry” into the BBC’s coverage of Jews and Israel (and succeeded).
The specific aim of those organizing to control the BBC is to influence who is appointed the Head of the BBC and who is appointed the head of Ofcom, which is supposed to be the BBC’s regulator. Previously, according to former Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger [How the government captured the BBC]:
“Boris Johnson wanted the roles to go to ex-Fleet Street colleagues who in the past had expressed fervent criticism of the BBC. In his dreams, former Telegraph editor Charles Moore—once fined for refusing to pay the licence fee—was to run the BBC and former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre would, as chair of Ofcom, regulate him and it.”
Rusbridger traces the current war on the BBC to a short-lived free-market thinktank, the New Frontiers Foundation, which was run by one Dominic Cummings. In a blog published by the New Frontiers Foundation back in 2004 it argued: “There are three structural things that the right needs to happen in terms of communications… 1) the undermining of the BBC’s credibility; 2) the creation of a Fox News equivalent / talk radio shows / bloggers etc to shift the centre of gravity; 3) the end of the ban on TV political advertising.”
To a great extent, much of this has already been achieved. As Rusbridger notes: “GB News has, indeed, begun to establish itself as a Fox News equivalent in this country, and has so far barely faced any meaningful sanctions from Ofcom—led by Grade—as it has tested accepted notions of impartiality to breaking point. And the centre of gravity—certainly in terms of how impartiality is widely talked about, if not actually measured—has shifted markedly to the right.”
The whole agenda for attacking the BBC from the right is bewildering and disorienting for those of us who have watched systemic propaganda and distortion, whether it be of the crisis in Palestine or the constitutional question.
The very idea of ‘impartiality’ is at stake, according to Jane Martinson, a professor of journalism at City St George’s: “Leave to one side for now the direct allegations about specific failures of BBC coverage, and the BBC’s own baffling inability or unwillingness to defend itself over the past week. But the row obscures the context that explains what is, at the heart of the matter, a political campaign against the BBC that could act as a textbook example of how to confuse and undermine the kind of journalism that is, at the very least, aiming for impartiality in a sea of spin and distortion.”
Martinson writes [The BBC is facing a coordinated, politically motivated attack. With these resignations, it has given in]: “Prescott stresses he has never been a member of a political party and that his views “do not come with any political agenda” in the introduction to his 8,000-word note. Yet each criticism of BBC coverage comes from the anti-progressive culture-war playbook.”
“For example, he is “shocked” that after an hour-long Panorama documentary dealing with Trump and the January 6 insurgency, there was no “similar, balancing” programme about the Democrat presidential candidate, Kamala Harris. As someone who has spent years dealing with the issue of impartiality told me, this is an entirely wrongheaded and now discredited view of impartiality, the sort of view that led to airtime being given to climate denial.”
We’ve already seen Trump’s attempts to suppress free-thinking, ban books, and curtail language, to an extraordinary extent. This now, is the attempt to reach across the Atlantic and influence and control the media here. Sadly, but not surprisingly, our institutions have proven themselves craven and incapable of resisting such pressures.
The Reality of the BBC on Gaza-Israel
It’s worth remembering, of course, as we try and navigate through all of this disinformation, that the most comprehensive analysis of the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza revealed a systematic pattern: the minimisation of Palestinian suffering and perspectives and the amplification of Israeli narratives, victimisation and emotive stories:
- Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis).
- Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians.
- Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.
- Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).
In fact, the report by the Centre for Media Reporting, revealed “a systematic omission of key historical and contemporary context that has acquired an institutional quality at the BBC. Whether this be overlooking the genocidal rhetoric of Israeli leaders – now referenced in war crimes charges against them – or properly scrutinising Israeli claims and denials in the face of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes, the BBC have simply underreported what is now overwhelmingly being seen as a ‘live-streamed genocide’ and crimes against humanity.” You can read the full report here:
CfMM-report-2023-24-ePDF-Edited.pdf
The collective dissonance required to imagine the BBC as a left-wing propaganda outlet is remarkable. What is required is not the further takeover by the right of a body already overrun with placemen and editorial bias but the complete overhaul of a public broadcaster which has lost any shred of credibility. We need to free the BBC from government control and corporate capture, and in Scotland we need complete control of our own public broadcasting. Those on the left need to defend the concept of public broadcasting while at the same time calling out political bias from the current construct of the state-run broadcasting services.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
I cant see any comments today, but I found this a useful explanation for what is happening. When I block people on social media I often wonder whether I should stay listening so as to better understand what is happening outside my own sphere of thinking. So thanks for that. While being very suspicious of BBC news and comments, it is important that we dont lose another broadcaster to the far right – though I struggle to think of a radio programme that is really worth tuning in to. As for the TV now that a link to ARTE has appeard on my TV screen there’s another worthy option.
Nice breakdown of the current Zionist takeover of the BBC and public Opinion- Lobbying for Zionism on both sides of the Atlantic – Ilan Pape
The best way to deal with the impartiality of the BBC and GB News et al is for everyone to simply turn their TVs off, or even better throw them out. And stop paying that stupid tax as well.
I gave up on the BBC when they accused that Palestinian activist in a wheelchair of throwing rocks at the police at a London demo, repeatedly, even though he had cerebral palsy and couldn’t use his arms. This was after the police dragged him out of his wheelchair in public and across the streets of London. 38,000 complaints to the BBC had no effect. In the end the complaints against the officer in question were dismissed as his behavour “fell within the norms expected of an officer”… or something like that. When was that, 2011?
Not watched the BBC since. Being one of the 7% without a TV helps of course. I thought GB News had gone bankrupt by the way, but there you go.
But yes, I have seen this bizzarre thing where fascists call the BBC communists. WTF? The level of education in this country is beginning to ape that of the US.
I think this is as important:
https://the307.substack.com/p/former-zelenskyy-advisor-confirms
“the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to”
@Mark Bevis, this is Media Lens’ take, which also references the CfMM report:
Inversion Of Reality
“The notion that the BBC is a ‘leftist propaganda machine’ is an exotic, bizarre reversal of reality.”
https://www.medialens.org/2025/inversion-of-reality/
The BBC are guilty, they should Just admit it as most can see it, and we all know that it is deliberately bias at best, and politically motivated and has been for many years, that’s why no one will pay their TV licence. You are finished now, and we need and have already got good independent journalists. So you wont be missed.
Speak for yourself. I would miss it, a lot.
Good, fair analysis.
And the thing is, Trump clearly did egg on the rioters.
The whole campaign of Trump, Musk, Vance and the rest to undermine GB, is so blatantly imperialist. But who can stop them? If Trump really were successful in suing the BBC for a ‘billion dollars’, it would likely kill off the broadcaster and line his pockets at the people of a foreign country’s expense.
@Niemand, how would any foreigner ‘suing the BBC’ work? Did Mussolini try to sue the BBC? What universal jurisdiction applies? It’s an act of war, not a legal recourse, like the USA’s illegal embargo on Cuba which they enforce on non-USA trade, or murdering fisherfolk. It’s make-believe. It’s sabre-rattling.
Plus, this is exactly what the agencies of the British and USAmerican Empires have always done, smear their enemies, particularly critics. And what the CIA did post-WW2 in Europe was a cultural crimewave we’re still all suffering from. These powers have whole departments to manufacture fake news in foreign jurisdictions.
It amounts to monumental projection, just like a lot of this MAGA nonsense. But, as Jill Stein (3x Green candidate for the USA Presidency) has said, populist leaders in the USA are having a hard time adjusting to their Empire’s slide from top-rung status on the world stage.
Plus the BBC has a Royal Charter, so maybe it’s a case for the Privy Council. But I assume there’s a hidden or implied part to royal charters. Although the hand that feeds the BBC is public licences, the real injunction is: don’t critically wound the Royals. At least, on purpose, without their connivance.
On the other hand, a UN investigation into the BBC’s propaganda role over the years might be interesting. How many times have they obliged Uncle Sam?
Niemand – absolutely correct. Amid all this nonsense let no one forget:
1)Trump did not and has never accepted the result of a democratic election in 2020.
2)Trump contacted election legislators in key marginal states to try to’discover’ votes for himself
3)On 6th January 2021 Trump’s speech tried to pressure the American government to overturn the result of 2020 election.
4)On 6th January a mob of his supporters invaded the congress trying to influence/lynch some elected members. This was on the same day that Trump addressed many of this mob claiming election had been stolen.
5)A congress investigation did find that Trump had questions to answer for his undemocratic actions. This investigation was abandoned after he was elected president in 2024.
In short Trump has shown himself to have no respect for democracy and this should have debarred him from any further involvement with the democratic process. The fact that he is now president has shown up the obvious weaknesses of the much vaunted American constitution.
There was more than enough evidence out there for any reporter to make an open and shut case against Trump without resorting to any fancy tricks.
Trump should be told to get his nose out of British politics and media but the political class are too frightened of him and many in media class are on the same side as him when it comes to democracy and truth telling.
Sounds like the BBC also egged-on protestors who watch the BBC Iplayer in the USA on a VPN.
There was also a Christian input to the early BBC. John Reith of the free Church of Scotland had the following inscription put above Broadcasting House:
“This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting House in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director-General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.”
However, Robin Aitken, in The Noble Liar (2019), concluded that the BBC had since “systematically destroyed the foundational beliefs and practices which informed the lives of previous generations.”
Thank you Stephen, I had not known this. Yes, the lack of moral leadership and moral enquiry is the blight of our times, and is taking humanity to a very dark place.
I’ve been watching a series of Youtube videos by an organist, Ben Maton, AKA “The Salisbury Organist”, and he visits the now rather forlorn and forgotten and empty beauty of the village churches around his part of the world. And the churches are beautiful, and the countryside equally so. They make me incredibly home sick from my distant eerie here in New Zealand. There once was a common thread of humanity that percolated through British society in our common Christian belief. We can be rather dismissive of some of the hypocrisy that accompanied this belief now, but it was a strong social glue that held society together. The Lord of the Manor was there, the common people were there, and they all knelt down to a common higher authority. Once a week they came together, and they even sung from the same hymn book and read from the same prayer book. And as for our hypocrisies, would anyone like to enumerate them, they’d need a whole volume to contain them.
Excellent piece Mike. Thank goodness for a sensible view rather than the tosh from most of the papers. Who, as someone said recently, would have course love to see the back of the BBC. Always trust a person by their motives.
Regarding bias, I am always struck by the fact that accusations of bias against the BBC seem to come from ALL sides. So the BEEB must be doing something right!
Keep up the good work!
This is classic behaviour of the far-right. It’s not enough that they own or control most of the media that people consume.
Nothing that they don’t fully control can be allowed to exist. Dissent can not be tolerated (for the simple reason that logic and facts will always undermine the absurdity, lies and fantasy at the heart of all far-right projects). The Emperor has no clothes, but no-one shall be able to say this.
You even see it here in miniature. Where far-right commentators appear regularly to spout their drivel. Not content to play in their own far-right sandpits, they feel an urge to vandalise any platform that is not owned/sanctioned by their billionaire, playboy man-babies. It infuriates them that progressive discourse is still happening somewhere.
Good article that highlights the long history of the seige of the BBC by far-right operators. Thanks.
Thanks Mike, Exceptionally good introduction to the incestuous relationship between the BBC and power in the UK, which of course, because that power is itself ever more right wing and anti-democratic, comes to distort the BBC even more as well. But for those calling for the BBC to go, be careful what you wish for, that’s exactly what your political and moral enemies would love you to do. It’s called throwing the baby out with the bathwater when all that is needed is reform of its structure and oversight. One thing that separates the UK from the US is that the UK has UK institutions that are not branch offices of US corporations or political patronage, if you get rid of the BBC, and indeed the monarchy, you might as well just sign up to be the US’s fifty-first state, you’re not far off that anyway. Well, sorry, fifty-second state, Israel is the fifty-first.
You are right to urge caution to those who ‘want rid’ of the BBC.
The far-right won’t abolish it. The brand is far too valuable and trusted. Instead they will own and control it. Using it as another magaphone to enable their hateful march into darkness for us all.
(Just noticed I typo’d “magaphone”, but that seems appropriate, so I’ll leave it as is)
It’s a genuine worry, though I am not convinced they would get away with that.
Though there are some genuine biases within BBC News, biases proven by proper academic analysis, these are rare as it is actually very difficult to show such a thing as it requires a very major sweep of data that has to be carefully analysed. Anecdotal stuff counts for virtually nothing. The reason I say that, is it is very easy to focus in on something you don’t like e.g. the way an interviewer is questioning someone you agree with and approve of and shout ‘bias!’, and then completely ignore or even cheer on the same approach to someone you do not agree with and disapprove of.
The one thing that gets to me about the BBC coverage of politics (and actually the vast majority of the media, of all sorts), is not bias but the relentless focus on spectacle over substance. The author M. John Harrison (who I greatly admire), wrote this on his blog recently which sums up this frustration:
‘what we can learn from listening to Radio 4
Politics controls the spectacle by making itself the spectacle. We vote not for the winner, but for the tournament, the psychodrama of the struggle to win played out & analysed move by move in public. Politics, supported by its commentators with their insistent quacky voices, markets not its ideas or intentions but the minute-by-minute narrative of its own inner workings and techniques. It is like an advert that sells being an advert. Meanwhile, the material infrastructure of the country steadily falls apart. Actually, I am so fucked off by this I could spit.’
The political editor of the BBC, , no less, Chris Mason, is the epitome of these ‘commentators’ – he focusses relentlessly on the spectacle of politics, whilst also saying absolutely nothing of value, over and over again. He is utterly useless. Where I would slightly differ from M. John is I am not sure politics controls the spectacle, but the commentators and their relentless obsession with the minutiae and trying to catch people out, expose their feet of clay and literally demand that they account for every move, comment, email, when someone said / precisely knew about something etc. etc., in order to undermine their credibility, and stuff the actual important policy substance. It leaves me in the unfashionable position of having sympathy with the politicians, even if I have no truck with their politics.
Despite that, I very much do not want to get rid of the BBC. Its output is vast and deep, with current affairs just one part, and even there much of its output is good especially with investigative programmes, analysis and holding institutions to account. It is actually the day-today, 24 hour news stuff that I think can be poor and superficial and slapdash. Chris Morris’s ‘The Day Today’ still sums up the stupidity of some of that.
I sometimes think people think the BBC should be there primarily to hold government to account. I am not convinced by this. Yes that is part of its role for sure, but it is also simply a vehicle to disseminate government policy / information. It is part of its remit and not without value and importance. The BBC is not a State broadcaster, but it is an Establishment one, and this is not something that is going to change unless it becomes something really quite different – the licence fee is sanctioned by government and this makes for an uneasy relationship. Stewart Lee described the BBC as ‘cuckolded’ which is harsh but makes sense. I do not have an easy answer to how to change this, assuming we do not simply want it funded by ads (I don’t). Subscriptions? But then you are beholden to an inevitably selective group. Personally, I do not have a problem with paying the licence fee, but I know many do and at some point the funding model is going to have to change / be modified.
What no one is mentioning, probably because we are all of a certain age, is that far less younger viewers watch terrestrial tv including BBC output and pay the licence fee these days. . It is therefore very possible that this form of national public broadcasting will wither over next 10-15 years regardless of broadcasters or politicians.
I can also see a time in not to distant future when all the tv news & radio channels will lose viewers and influence in a similar way to the falling sales we are observing with national newspapers. Indeed there is a strong case for arguing that it is the tv news channels who are helping the national newspapers having more influence on public opinion than they would otherwise in 2025.
Whether this will leave a better informed public is open to debate.
Yeah John, this is a very good point. The viewing figures for terrestrial tv for younger people is astonishingly low.
@John, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Ofcom produce a lot of statistics and analysis:
“Looking specifically at young adults aged 16-24, 50% of their viewing of BBC content was via BBC iPlayer, the highest proportion of BVoD [Broadcast Video on Demand] among all broadcasters.”
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/multi-sector/media-nations/2025/media-nations-2025-uk-report.pdf?v=401287
There are category overlaps too, as BBC content may be viewed on YouTube (etc), old and new, officially or otherwise. Viewers may not actually be aware they are watching BBC content. Which remains strong in the young children category, partly due to the dangerously unmoderated content on some other sites.
“However, with changing viewing habits, particularly among younger audiences, broadcasters have increasingly recognised that VSPs [video-sharing platforms] such as YouTube are important for reaching audiences that are no longer engaging with traditional broadcast or BVoD services. What was once treated as a secondary promotional outlet is now viewed as a key distribution channel to reach the widest possible audience in the UK.”
The influence of BBC content goes much further (and of course the BBC imports content from elsewhere and is itself influenced by external sources). In some senses, the BBC has set international standard templates for documentaries and so forth. As a technological innovator and accessibility trendsetter, the BBC has a mixed record, I guess. It may be outsourcing more and more these days (say, subtitling). BBC podcasts and streaming music are in the mix too. BBC World Service, once a formal and explicit organ of British official foreign policy, is supposed to be independent now, if you want to believe that. BBC commercial arms are possibly more tentacular than the British public is generally aware of. The BBC back catalogue may still have considerable worth (although as licence-fee payers have funded it, I’m not sure exactly why they have to pay twice for it, unless this is for storage and curation — which has something of a history in the BBC).
The BBC of course tends to be the channel-complex Brits rely on in emergencies. We may be getting more of them. Of course, the BBC might create a few of its own.
It is a question of who do you trust. The BBC have been distorting the truth ever since they were created. They are our masters voice, alternative online news sources are showing how distorted the BBC’s version of events really are.
They are/were in a privileged position, funded by the licence fee and have been found wanting…. again.
I wouldn’t trust the BBC to tell me what day it is and stopped paying my licence fee shortly after the independence referendum.
The BBC are essentially the British Establishment Broadcasting Company which is why they are both at heart anti independence for Scotland or Wales and are pro monarchy. Their claim to impartiality falls flat on its face when you assess it on these subjects as studies have shown. I would also add their treatment of Jeremy Corbyn to that list of failures of impartiality in journalism. I do add that Sky News is no better than BBC in this respect.
The other problem is they try to fly the flag of impartiality rather than report facts where it suits the establishment/ governing party. I would cite how they gave so much airtime to climate change deniers who were not experts in field (eg Nigel Lawson) when experts in field (climate change scientists) were nearly universal in agreement that climate change was a scientific fact. Another example is reporting of Gaza where Palestinian voices (& dissenting Jewish voices) are far less broadcasted than Israeli government voices and the highlighting of Israeli deaths is exaggerated compared to reporting of Palestinian deaths. Peter Osborne has documented this in his recent book ‘Complicit’.
The outcome for the BBC is that when the powerful come after them they have previously marginalised voices who could come to their support.
But they changed their policy on climate change reporting once they realised that ‘balance’ had become skewed and made it clear they had done so. And do we have actual evidence they give more voice to Israeli spokes people, and those who support them than Palestinians, and have wrongly emphasised death figures? I listen to BBC radio very regularly and do not think this true at all. And what about the people who claim the exact opposite?
People saying things like ‘I wouldn’t trust the BBC to tell me what day it is’, is all great knockabout stuff. And complete nonsense.
“And do we have actual evidence they give more voice to Israeli spokes people”
Yes, see:
https://www.medialens.org/2025/inversion-of-reality/
Thanks to SleepingDog for the link
Climate change – ‘they changed once they realised it was skewed’. This is hardly a ringing defence of how they reported this subject. This disparity was being widely highlighted before BBC corrected their mistake.This is an example of how they deferred to people in power rather than being factual and informative. Their initial attitude was to give non expert opinion formers (eg Nigel Lawson) as much credence as scientists who studied the subject. Why? – you wouldn’t give Nigel Lawson as much credibility over neurosurgery as you would a specialist surgeon in the subject.
Re Gaza – 1)studies have shown that equivalently far more time is given pro rata to reporting Israeli casualties and hostages than Palestinian casualties. Reporting of Israeli casualties/hostages tends to be personalised whereas Palestinians casualties tend to be reported as a figure.
2)Israeli spokesmen are given far more airtime than Palestinian spokesmen. Recognised experts in field that may take a Palestinian viewpoint are effectively banned from BBC eg William Dalrymple, Ilan Pappe etc
3)Everytime an interviewee mentions the word genocide they are rebuked by BBC interviewer even though the majority of experts in genocide consider that it is an accurate description as it has met 4/5 criteria for genocide. The UN and Amnesty International also describe it as a genocide.
Niemand I would encourage you to watch other channels to help broaden your knowledge on what is happening. I would contend from watching and listening to a breadth of media that Al Jazeera tends to be more pro Palestinian, BBC, Sky and GB News adopt a more pro Israeli approach and Channel 4 News are the closest broadcaster to take a neutral approach.
If you wish to broaden your knowledge of Gaza and UK role I would recommend as a starting point the recently published book ‘Complicit’ by Peter Oborne who is hardly anybody’s idea of a radical leftist.
Studies have also shown that reporting of 2014 independence referendum was biased towards No viewpoint. This was to be expected as BBC are an important part of British establishment.
Lastly despite what I have written I still enjoy some BBC output especially wildlife programmes and have no truck with Trump’s attempt to strong arm it.
@John, I broadly agree with your comment but subtle shifts can happen from time to time in the BBC and William Dalrymple made an appearance in the very recent documentary series Empire with David Olusoga:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002hytf
Thanks SD but this does raise the question as to why he is not asked his views on Gaza as the origins of this conflict are related to British occupation of Palestine I have observed his comments on Gaza and history of Palestine conflict via other media sources and they couldn’t be described as either unreasonable or pro Hamas.