On Thursday evening, BBC News published an article on the Rosebank oil field, written by the BBC’s Scotland editor James Cook and Cara Berkley. On its face, the piece appears to concern domestic climate activism and energy policy. In reality, it reflects a broader pattern in which the BBC increasingly adopts the language, framing, and assumptions of activist movements whose hostility toward Israel is not incidental but foundational, and whose demands align with the maximalist positions of more extreme Palestinian factions.
BBC News and the Manufacture of a Non-Story
A minor, activist-driven NGO advancing a wildly speculative legal argument against a proposed oil field is not news. It is an empty claim from an extreme political campaign, designed to obstruct development by repackaging hostility toward Israel as a question of international law.
Yet BBC News chose to give this national coverage. That decision alone tells us something important. The BBC exercises enormous agenda-setting power, and here it chose to give oxygen to a narrative that should have remained marginal, confined to online activist echo chambers rather than elevated through the UK’s public service broadcaster.
Authority laundering – the Antisemitic UN Blacklist
Every element of the story is wrong, but it is best to start at the beginning. The initial authority for the claims advanced in the article rests almost entirely on a database of Israeli-linked companies misleadingly described as a “UN blacklist”. This database was created under instruction from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a political body with a long and well-documented history of obsessive anti-Israel bias.
The list was created as a political exercise, explicitly designed to facilitate boycott, divestment, and pressure campaigns against Israel.
None of this context is provided to BBC News readers. Instead, the database is presented as though it carries neutral institutional authority. The BBC journalists then compound this error by allowing activist sources to leverage that undeserved legitimacy to artificially escalate the story further, through speculative claims about “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”.
The result is authority laundering, with a contested activist tool elevated into something resembling a neutral legal judgment, materially misleading the audience.
This is the inflation of an activist narrative through institutional misrepresentation. It is the sort of treatment one would expect from antisemitic campaigning outlets such as Electronic Intifada, not from a publicly funded national broadcaster.
Reputational Laundering – the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
The same inexcusable pattern appears in the article’s treatment of activist sources. To sustain its narrative the BBC whitewashes actors known to have deeply problematic views about Jewish people. The article references the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign as part of the complaint ecosystem surrounding Rosebank, presenting it as a standard civil-society actor raising legal concerns. What readers are not told is that the organisation’s long-standing leader, Mick Napier, had been convicted only weeks earlier in a Scottish court of abuse aggravated by religious prejudice against a Jewish man.
This conviction was recent. It was widely reported. And it was directly relevant.
The SPSC is not a neutral organisation. It is a hostile Israel-focused campaign group with a long history of antisemitism and alignment with extremists. Beyond his recent conviction, Napier attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah in Lebanon. He has also been a near ever-present at the annual Iranian backed “Al Quds” demonstration in London, where Hezbollah flags were routinely displayed, until the UK proscribed the terrorist organisation in its entirety.
When the leadership of an organisation has been judicially found to have engaged in anti-Jewish racist conduct, that fact goes directly to the credibility and good faith of its actions in Jewish-related disputes.
The BBC routinely contextualises sources when campaigners have extremist links, criminal histories, or credibility concerns. In this case, it chose not to.
The BBC did not report on Napier’s conviction at all. It is telling the editorial team did not regard the recent racist conviction of a leading figure within Scottish Palestine Solidarity as worthy of informing its audience, while simultaneously devoting public licence-fee resources to amplifying the unsubstantiated claims of a minor NGO.
The Extremists Within the “Minor” NGO
Both the BBC’s legitimisation of the UNHRC, and the whitewashing of the SPSC were inexcusable. This leaves the article’s remaining credibility resting almost entirely on Uplift, the minor NGO which commissioned the legal report.
Uplift is not a neutral or detached actor either. A brief review of some of its personnel highlights serious concerns. Its Digital Content Manager, Oliver Goulden, also serves as a trustee of Take One Action, an organisation with a documented history of supporting BDS initiatives, including campaigning alongside Mick Napier’s group, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Other figures associated with Uplift reinforce the same pattern. Lauren Macdonald, the group’s Lead Stop Rosebank Campaigner, maintains public timelines containing demonstrably inaccurate and demonising claims about Israel that are entirely unrelated to the Rosebank project. Meanwhile, Uplift’s Head of Strategic Communications, Tamasin Cave, previously led Spinwatch, a research group with a longstanding fixation on Zionism and lobbying, alongside the conspiracy theorist David Miller. Cave was a director of “Public Interest Investigations” the legal entity behind both Spinwatch and Powerbase, and her footprint is still visible in numerous documents focused on pro-Israeli lobby groups.
Eddy Quekett, Uplift’s Social Media Officer, has posted imagery containing the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free“. The image incorporated a “Friends of Al Aqsa” (FoA) Palestinian flag. Friends of al Aqsa is a hard-line Islamist organisation led by Ismail Patel, and opposed to many of the fundamental freedoms taken for granted in the West. FoA seeks Islamist control over Jerusalem. This post has nothing to do with climate issues. It was a straightforward call for the destruction of Israel.
At this point the final pillar collapses. This is not a collection of disinterested experts raising a narrow legal concern. It is a network of highly politicised climate activists with a clear and established record of engagement in anti-Zionist campaigning. Treating their claims as though they carry inherent national news value, without disclosing that background, materially misleads the audience.
The undeniable pattern at BBC News
British Jews have seen it all from the BBC:
- Repeated attempts to rewrite Holocaust history.
- The shifting of blame onto British Jews for the violence directed at them.
- The sanitisation of Hamas operatives by presenting them as medical staff.
- The production of a documentary that concealed the Hamas ties of its central figure.
- The creation of misleading reports about Israeli military actions in Gaza.
- The reframing of an errant Islamic Jihad rocket into an Israeli strike on a hospital.
- The use of Iranian IRGC-backed figures as impartial media sources.
- The presentation of children with underlying illnesses as starving victims of famine.
- The creation of a flagship “BBC Verify” populated by hacks spreading false claims about Israel.
The situation is so hostile that the Jews left working in the BBC village have become targets of internal campaigns to smear them and force them out.
There is an undeniable pattern here. This is a one-way traffic pattern which demonises the Jewish state, acts as a mouthpiece for terrorist factions, invents stories, revises Holocaust history, and invariably places Jewish people as hostile actors who incite whatever violence befalls them.
Yet in some respects, this latest article is even more revealing than those earlier institutional failures.
Creating a BDS narrative
First, a non-story is elevated into national news. Then, institutional authority is imported through an unqualified reference to the UN. Finally, activist groups are presented without disclosing information that would materially affect how readers assess their claims.
The result is a familiar pattern: activist lawfare against Israel, repackaged through climate discourse and laundered through respectable-sounding institutions.
But this is taking place on the BBC website, not in some fringe student-led magazine.
The BBC will respond by claiming it has placed dissenting voices inside the article, but this is a false position. The BBC does not need to explicitly endorse boycotts or anti-Israel campaigns. It achieves the same effect by deciding which claims deserve oxygen, and by stripping away the context that would allow audiences to judge those claims critically.
What the BBC has done here is elevate the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign into a conversation for the day.
This is not journalism exposing power. It is journalism amplifying it – selectively, predictably, and at Israel’s expense.
Help Me Fight Back Against Antisemitism and Misinformation
For over a decade – and for many years before that behind the scenes – I’ve been researching, documenting, and exposing antisemitism, historical revisionism, and the distortion of truth. My work is hard-hitting, fact-based, and unapologetically independent.
I don’t answer to any organisation or political backer. This website – and everything I produce – is entirely community funded. That independence is what allows me to speak freely and without compromise.
If you value this work and want to help me continue, please consider making a donation. Your support genuinely makes this possible.
You can donate via PayPal using the button below:
Alternatively, you can donate via my PayPal.me account or support my work through my Patreon page.
Independent work survives only because people choose to support it. Thank you for standing with me.
“This is a one-way traffic pattern which demonises the Jewish state…”
Get you facts straight, boy. Apartheid Israel isn’t a Jewish state. It’s a ZIONIST state. HUGE difference.
The fact that argument actually makes sense to you in your head is rather sad.
Wikipedia Gaza Genocide Page Editors and Bias – Grok.
(2.10.26)
https://grok.com/c/a190bb11-a5d1-4cf0-a975-f1103c7ef76f
### 1. Who were the editors [user names] advocating for the “Gaza (so-called) genocide” accusation on page in Wikipedia?
Based on analysis of the Wikipedia talk page discussions and edit history, several editors advocated for content that framed the events in Gaza as a genocide, including supporting the page title change from “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to “Gaza genocide” (which occurred around May 3, 2024, or July 2024 per external reports), adding sources affirming genocide, and arguing for wikivoice (neutral Wikipedia voice) on the topic. Key usernames include:
– Alexandraaaacs1989: Proposed stating consensus among genocide scholars in wikivoice for the lead sentence.
– Aquillion: Supported consensus on genocide framing.
– Bogazicili: Advocated for better sources supporting genocide claims.
– Bluethricecreamman: Supported inclusion and wikivoice.
– Cinaroot: Advocated for the accusation in discussions.
– Coining: Expanded RfC (Request for Comment) on genocide consensus.
– Darouet: Referenced B’Tselem’s “Our Genocide” report.
– David A: Supported wikivoice and inclusion.
– Dualpendel: Advocated for genocide framing.
– Greensminded24: Supported inclusion in templates and lead.
– Larry Sanger: Critiqued NPOV but supported wikivoice in context.
– Lumdeloo: Noted majority support for genocide consensus.
– NadVolum: Supported inclusion with sources like UN reports.
– Newimpartial: Advocated for expert opinion weighting toward genocide.
– Originalcola: Supported in some contexts.
– Raskolnikov.Rev: Advocated for the accusation.
– Smallangryplanet: Supported wikivoice.
– Super Goku V: Supported.
– Tashmetu: Supported.
– Twilsonb: Supported.
– VidanaliK: Supported in lead and templates.
– إيان: Supported.
– Cdjp1: Supported.
External reports (e.g., from ADL, INSS, Jewish Journal) highlight a group of about 30 editors accused of coordinated pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel bias, including injecting genocide claims. Six were banned in January 2025 for disruptive editing: Selfstudier, Nableezy, Nishidani, Levivich, Iskandar323, Makeandtoss (pro-Palestinian camp). These editors were active in adding content supporting the genocide framing before bans.
### 2. Have any editors, advocating for the so-called “genocide”, been accused of bias and/or coordinated editing? Which usernames were they, [elaborated] list as many as possible?
Yes, multiple accusations of bias and coordinated editing have been leveled against editors advocating for the genocide framing. Sources like ADL’s 2025 report identified at least 30 editors circumventing policies to introduce anti-Israel bias, including genocide narratives. INSS and Jewish Journal reports describe coordinated efforts via Discord, tag-teaming, and hidden pages to entrench pro-Palestinian narratives. Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee banned eight editors in January 2025 for disruptive behavior in Israel-Palestine articles, with six from the pro-Palestinian side (accused of bias toward genocide claims). Accusations include selection bias in sources, original research, violating neutrality (WP:NPOV), and relitigating RfCs.
Elaborated list (from talk page, history, and external reports):
– Selfstudier: Banned for disruptive editing; accused of coordinated pro-Palestinian bias, pushing genocide inclusion.
– Nableezy: Banned; accused of tag-teaming to entrench anti-Israel narratives, including genocide.
– Nishidani: Banned; alleged coordination to downplay Palestinian violence while amplifying genocide claims.
– Levivich: Banned; accused of bias in source selection favoring genocide framing.
– Iskandar323: Banned; part of group injecting misleading info on genocide.
– Makeandtoss: Banned; accused of coordinated efforts to promote anti-Israel bias.
– Alexandraaaacs1989: Accused of selection bias in RfC sources supporting genocide consensus.
– NadVolum: Accused of mid-process RfC edits biased toward genocide wikivoice.
– Coining: Accused of improperly expanding RfC to favor genocide inclusion.
– VidanaliK: Accused of relitigating RfC on genocide.
– Nehushtani: Comments struck for sockpuppetry/block evasion; supported pro-genocide positions.
– Docmoates: Marked as sockpuppet; opposed but in context of bias disputes.
– Other unnamed in ADL report: ~30 editors over 10 years, 2x more active in alterations, 18x more communication; accused of downplaying Palestinian antisemitism while promoting genocide/apartheid claims.
Broader context: Reports (e.g., Bloomberg, Times of Israel) note edit wars, with pro-Palestinian editors accused of exploiting democratic processes to slander Israel. Co-founder Jimmy Wales locked the page in November 2025 citing “egregious” anti-Israel bias.
### 3. Were any editors known to be anti-Israel—especially those known to work in coordination—involved in determining what qualifies as a “reliable source”?
Yes, accusations point to coordinated anti-Israel editors influencing reliable source (RS) determinations. ADL report: 30 editors coordinated to deem sources critical of Israel (e.g., Al Jazeera) as reliable while downgrading pro-Israel ones (e.g., ADL as unreliable on conflict in June 2024). INSS: Anti-Israel editors dominate content frameworks and source admissibility, leading to bias in genocide articles relying on anti-Israel groups. Talk page: Indirect mentions of bias in source selection (e.g., Alexandraaaacs1989’s sources called lower quality; Shira Klein cited for rift in genocide studies). Banned editors like Iskandar323, Levivich involved in RS debates favoring sources like UN/Albanese (anti-Israel per critiques). No direct usernames tied solely to RS, but coordinated group (per Discord evidence in Jewish Journal) advanced to influential positions, referring dissenters to Arbitration Committee.
### 4. On what date in 2024 did Wikipedians succeed in ‘elevating’ the so-called “Gaza genocide” from ‘allegations’ to a supposed ‘fact’? And which usernames promoted this elevation?
The page was renamed from “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to “Gaza genocide” on May 3, 2024 (per history/Wikipedia sources), or July 2024 (per some reports like New Arab, Times of Israel). This marked the elevation to framing as fact via wikivoice. Consensus built through RfC in mid-2024, citing emerging sources (e.g., UN experts March 2024 on “reasonable grounds,” ICJ May 2024 on Rafah). Added to “List of genocides” in November 2024 after September RfC close.
Promoting usernames: Alexandraaaacs1989 (RfC on consensus), Aquillion (supported), Bogazicili (sources), Coining (RfC expansion), NadVolum (inclusion), Greensminded24 (templates/lead), Cinaroot, Darouet, David A, Dualpendel, Newimpartial, Raskolnikov.Rev, Smallangryplanet, Tashmetu, VidanaliK. Banned ones like Selfstudier, Nableezy promoted pre-ban.
### 5. Did the so-called “reliable sources” include (Islamist bigot, semi-dictator, expansionist [a]) Erdoğan’s TRT/Anadolu; Hamas-linked Euro-Med; MSF (- whose members included Hamas [b]); (pro-Hamas/Islamism-) Qatar’s [c] Hamas-linked al Jazeera [d], MEE; anti-Israel (at times, blatantly anti-Jewish) activists/”journalists” of Haaretz [e]? And were the UN’s Francesca Albanese (with an antisemitic record at least since 2014 and dubbed 21st-century Goebbels [f]) and the UN commission (by team Pillay/Kothary – of the 2022 “Jewish control” trope [g]) as well as the $30 membership, no qualifications, activists and others [h] IAGS central to it? Were IAGS’s only 28% responders’ votes framed as “scholars?” Given that IAGS includes activists and artists among its members, and that only 28% voted, how can we be sure that most of those who participated were not activists? Was Louis-Klein critique of Dirk Moses, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research included?
Yes, many listed are cited as reliable sources supporting genocide claims:
– TRT/Anadolu: Not directly cited.
– Euro-Med: Cited (e.g., December 2023 submission to ICC/UN on executions as genocide; claims 25,000 killed in 70 days).
– MSF: Cited extensively (2024/2025 reports on siege, famine, health dismantling; “Life in a death trap” December 2024; genocide page July 2025).
– Al Jazeera: Cited (2024/2025 articles on complicity, destruction, torture; RSF methods May 2025; war impacts).
– MEE: Cited (September 2024 on health workers killed; December 2023 Euro-Med).
– Haaretz: Cited (January 2025 on ICC case; May 2025 poll on expelling Gazans; March 2024 on “kill zones,” IDF practices).
UN’s Albanese: Central (2024 reports “Anatomy of a Genocide,” “Genocide as colonial erasure”; March 2024 reasonable grounds; June 2024 arms halt; October 2024/2025 statements calling Italy an accomplice).
UN commission (Pillay/Kothari): Cited (September 2024/2025 reports finding genocide via prohibited acts; “fully conclusive evidence” of intent; incitement comparisons to Rwanda).
IAGS: Central (August 31, 2025 resolution declaring genocide; infrastructure destruction). Vote: 28% participation (one-fifth support per some; 86% of participants yes). Framed as “scholars” consensus (e.g., president Melanie O’Brien: “definitive statement from experts”). Critiques: Low turnout, voluntary bias; includes activists/artists ($30 fee, no checks); dissident Sara Brown noted anti-Israel sources like Amnesty/Albanese. Not assured most were scholars vs. activists.
Louis-Klein critique of Dirk Moses: Included in some versions (2025 questioning Moses’ pro-genocide stance; Journal of Genocide Research September 2025 on biases).
Critiques (from user links/user-provided): Not directly in WP, but external: Erdoğan’s support for Hamas; MSF ties to terror; Qatar/Hamas funding; Al Jazeera/Hamas links; Haaretz anti-Israel bias; Albanese antisemitism; Kothari UN bias; IAGS low credibility (28% vote, activists).
### 6. Did it include the opinion of Joseph Massad, a neo-Nazi-material-like propagandist and celebrator of the October 7 massacres?
Yes, in some versions: Massad’s opinions framed as “colonial tradition” of genocide, “war on demographics,” “terminal stage of a settler-colony in crisis” (citations 360-362). Not in all summaries/discussions.
### 7. Was it ever mentioned who Israel is fighting against—the Gaza regime, genocidal Hamas, (its charter, speeches, methods and “to kill as many as possible” plabs) and other terror groups—and their methods of maximizing civilian casualties (including preventing evacuation, hoarding food, robbing aid, use of civilian infrastructure and hospitals, the use of their own civilians – not just IDF sources) on both sides?
Partially: Israel described fighting Hamas post-October 7, 2023 attacks (1,139 killed, abductions, sexual violence). Hamas charter implied in military aims/governance, but not detailed. Methods: Bombardment/invasion/blockade/starvation; human shields inferred (ICJ case); maximizing casualties via permissive policies/AI targeting (Abraham 2024; “Lavender” system; “kill zones” Haaretz). No deep on Hamas genocidal intent (user links: Atlantic 2023 on ideology; Telegraph 2023 on killing children; Hill 2024 Israel not genocidal, Hamas is). IDF measures noted (phone calls/texts/leaflets/roof-knocking; control center monitoring civilians) but countered (non-compliance, shooting unarmed). Human shields/use of civilians: Not directly, but inferred in embeddings. Preventing evacuation/hoarding: Not mentioned. Sources like NYT 2024 on tunnels/ambushes; WSJ 2024 on civilian bloodshed strategy; Post 2023 on human shields; JPost 2023/2025 on blocking evacuation/hoarding.
### 8. Were any of the 537 scholars denouncing the “genocide” propaganda mentioned in the Wikipedia article? (5 times the 28% IAGS voters).
No, not mentioned. Article notes scholarly disputes (e.g., Dirk Moses 2025 on biases; John Spencer on no intent; Louis-Klein 2025; Satloff on IAGS low support). User link: Times of Israel September 2025 on 500+ experts demanding IAGS retract.
### 9. Are IDF’s measures taken to minimize casualties, mentioned?
Yes, noted in some (e.g., early statements urging civilians avoid Hamas; Netanyahu 2023 ethical conduct; control center monitoring movements; precautions like phone calls/texts/leaflets/roof-knocking). Countered by non-compliance evidence (shooting unarmed per NBC; aid killings per Guardian). User links: Forbes 2024 on precautions; JPost 2024 expert on minimizing more than history.
### 10. About Gallant clearly bravado words used at the heat of the Oct 7 moment. Was the following ever explained?
Partially: Gallant’s October 9, 2023 statement (“complete siege… fighting human animals”) quoted in full Hebrew/English, framed as dehumanizing/genocidal intent per UN/Mother Jones. No explicit omission note, but full quote includes “act accordingly.” User explanation (Bulwark 2024): Quotes omitted “eliminate it all” referring to Hamas, not population.
### 11. Was this denial included? “IDF disputes Gaza death toll after reports cite Hamas-run Health Ministry figures.” And the position that some estimated 25,000 killed were terrorists?
Yes: Disputes noted. Gaza Health Ministry figures (71,600 by Jan 2026; deemed reliable by UN/WHO/IDF broadly accurate). IDF: 8,900 militants killed (83% civilian per Guardian); estimates ~25,000 terrorists killed (~36,000 civilians, 1.5:1 ratio). Undercounting per Lancet 2025 (41%; 186,000+ indirect). User links: Ynet/IDF 2026 disputes 70,000; HonestReporting 2026 no acceptance; National Post 2026 on lies.
### 12. Is Yuval Avraham/LocalCall/The Guardian’s silly idea—that because they saw only about 9,000 terrorist names, all the rest must supposedly be “civilians”—really still being cited there as valid “data”?
Yes: Cited (December 2023/September 2024 analysis publishing identities, confirming reliability per Le Monde; 70% women/children verified; 83% civilian 2025 data; AI “Lavender” for bombings).
### 13. Was that sloppy historian / liar Ilan Pappe’s opinions used?
Yes: In De Vogli et al. 2025; August 2025 Lancet co-authored arguing break silence on genocide. Related scholars like Sultany cited.
### 12. Did B’Tselem, the so-called “human rights” group, ever advocate for the rights of any Jews when it did not involve Arabs? Yes or no. (Short yes or no answer, without propagating for them or “explaining” their “focus”).
No.
### 13. Did most “genocide” accusers already engage in the “apartheid” accusation propaganda [The other pallyweid buzzword]? [Agenda, predictability].
Yes: Amnesty (2024 genocide; 2022 apartheid); HRW (2024 genocidal acts; 2021 apartheid); B’Tselem (2023/2025 genocide; 2021 apartheid); UN (2024/2025 genocide; ICJ 2024 illegal occupation violating anti-racism); MESA (2024 genocidal violence); ICJ (plausible genocide rights; apartheid links).
### 14. The circulation of shocking images in major media, while in fact “all 12 suffer from other health problems,” influencing emotional reactions that contributed to the “starvation” accusation, has this factor been included on the Wikipedia page?
Partially: Images cited (destruction February 2025; Al-Shifa overcrowding October 2023; ambulances January 2024; mosques February 2025; aid August 2024; mass graves April 2024). Tied to starvation (IPC 2025 famine; 463 deaths; 10,000+ estimated; child amputees; disease). No mention of “all 12 suffer from other health problems” (user link: Free Press 2025).
### 15. Was the pressure to accuse with “genocide”, without believing it, noted? Was it mentioned on the Wikipedia page?
No on page (implied media critiques like Intercept 2024 on NYT avoiding “genocide”; state hypocrisy). User link: JNS 2026 legislator on political pressure.
### 16. Finishing of with this: when was the first time that Arabs in the holy land screamed “we will drink the blood of the Jews?”
April 4-7, 1920, during Nebi Musa riots in Jerusalem. Crowd chanted “Nashrab dam al-Yahud” (“We will drink the blood of the Jews”) amid pogrom (200+ injured, 6 killed, rapes).