It is a national disgrace that the BBC pulled a BAFTA-winning documentary to appease Israel

A powerful documentary called Gaza: Doctors Under Attack has just won the Current Affairs prize at the BAFTAs. It lays bare how Israel has systematically destroyed the healthcare system in Gaza in clear violation of international law. The film features harrowing firsthand accounts from Palestinian doctors and medics, describing attacks on hospitals, and the killing or detention of over 1,700 healthcare workers — actions the filmmakers call “medicide.”

The BBC originally commissioned the film, but refused to broadcast it, hiding behind the usual excuse of “impartiality.” It effectively dismissed the testimony of heroic doctors and the outstanding work of award-winning journalists. The decision came hot on the heels of the BBC pulling another documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, which highlighted the suffering of Palestinian children.

In their BAFTA acceptance speech, the filmmakers called out the BBC’s censorship directly. Presenter Ramita Navai declared: “We refuse to be silenced and censored.” Executive producer Ben De Pear looked straight at the camera and asked the BBC: “Given you dropped the film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”

You won’t be surprised to learn that the BBC did exactly that — they edited out the criticism when they broadcast the ceremony. So not only will the BBC not show you what’s happening to Gaza’s healthcare system, they won’t even show you award-winning journalists calling out their censorship.

If not for Channel 4 picking up the broadcast rights, the programme might never have seen the light of day. The fact another broadcaster could air the documentary that later won a BAFTA makes a mockery of the BBC’s claim of impartiality.

In these Orwellian times, censorship gets rebranded as “impartiality” to give cover to war crimes. The BBC’s job (along with too much of the mainstream media) is to sanitise Israel’s actions, water down the horror, and look the other way when necessary. This is exactly what we’re seeing here.

Impartiality is not about buckling under pressure. It’s not about siding with those who shout the loudest or have the most political influence. It’s not even about a “both-sides” middle ground. It’s about telling the truth without fear or favour. It’s about painting a full and accurate picture so viewers can understand what’s really happening. The BBC decided it was safer not to inform the public at all. It’s cowardice at best and complicity at worst. Either way, it’s a national scandal.

The team behind the Gaza documentary was credible and experienced. It was directed by Karim Shah, presented by journalist Ramita Navai, and executive produced by Ben De Pear (a former Channel 4 News editor). Yet, when the BBC paused production in April 2025, they cited Navai’s public comments describing Israel as a “rogue state” committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

These statements were based on evidence that an award-winning journalist had gathered firsthand, yet they were enough to invalidate her work and the testimony of those brave doctors and medics. The BBC appeared to be looking for an excuse for censorship and they found it.

In June 2025, the BBC announced it would not air Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, following its decision to pull another BBC documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone. The earlier film was broadcast in January 2025, but pulled due to those “impartiality concerns” that always go one way.

When the BBC gets pressure from the establishment, from Zionist lobby groups, or from the right, it crumbles. When pressure comes from the other direction — from those highlighting Palestinian suffering or criticising Israel — it holds firm. Even when the issues involve potential war crimes and breaches of international law, the corporation looks away in the name of political expediency. It seems far more worried about upsetting Israel’s supporters than about the reality faced by people in Gaza. How can this be right?

When serious war crimes and genocide are suspected, erring on the side of caution means speaking out, not staying silent. When the evidence becomes overwhelming and you bury it, you become part of those crimes.

At this point, it is undeniable that the BBC is protecting Israel. Just look at Gary Lineker and others who’ve been punished for speaking up for Palestinian rights. How many have been sacked for defending Israel? I can’t think of any. If this was genuinely about “perception of impartiality,” the BBC would apply the same standards across the board, but it doesn’t.

Let’s go back to the 2019 Panorama episode Is Labour Anti-Semitic? that pushed a narrative that Labour under Corbyn was overrun with antisemitism. Given it was aired during an election period, many perceived it as election interference, but their perception didn’t matter to the BBC. Nor did their evidence.

Critics argued the programme was one-sided. Al Jazeera’s The Labour Files raised serious questions about the BBC’s evidence and approach. The Forde Report described Panorama’s use of certain internal emails as “entirely misleading.” Yet there was no panic at the BBC. No pulling the show. No major corrections or retractions in the name of impartiality. They defended it vigorously, brushed off the complaints, and moved on.

So why the different treatment? Because this was never really about impartiality. It was about picking a side. And time and again, the BBC chooses to side with power, with the establishment, and with Zionism — while marginalising voices that tell the truth.

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.