Rachel Riley has blasted the BBC for failing to label Hamas a terrorist group.
Since the attack on Israel earlier this month, which prompted Israel to declare war, the national broadcaster has been questioned several times over its choice to label Hamas a violent group.
In nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Japan, Hamas is listed as a terrorist group.
Rachel, 37, of Countdown, has now joined the increasing number of individuals putting pressure on the BBC to rethink its attitude.
Rachel, who is Jewish, has been recognised for her work battling antisemitism throughout the years, but she has also faced threats in the past.
This week, she came on Newsnight to address the ongoing Israel-Hamas crisis, where she spoke about the situation while simultaneously criticising anchor Kirsty Wark’s employers.
During the conversation, Kirsty, 68, mentioned the October Declaration, an open letter signed by over 58,000 individuals, including politicians, artists, and celebrities, urging the media to label Hamas terrorists.
She said: ‘Do you think that the October declaration in a way was a way to find solidarity? And that’s what’s behind the declaration for the people to come together and express their feelings?’
Rachel didn’t hold back when it came time to respond.
‘It is finding solidarity and it is expressing disgust at organisations like the BBC,’ she began.
The host interjected to clarify that information was ‘unverified’ after revealing specifics of a case in which a pregnant lady was mutilated by Hamas.
However, her guest fired back: ‘You haven’t seen it. I know many people have seen it. These videos are in existence.
‘There are countless others and countless other examples that journalists sat through the other day to prove this exists because of such denial.
‘And organisations like the BBC refused to call these terrorists “terrorists”. It is grotesque.’
She continued: ‘It is indefensible, and it allows obfuscation it allows people to claim they are freedom fighters. It is just indefensible, and it is fuelling anti-Jewish hatred in this country.’
Rachel also compared supporting Hamas to supporting the Taliban in support of Afghans in the interview.
Her comments followed the question: ‘Do you accept that people who support the Palestinians and feel strongly about their plight have a right to march and have a right to freedom of speech in this situation?’
She replied: ‘Of course everyone has a right to freedom of speech. They don’t have a right to support terrorism.
‘Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation in the UK. It’s designated by most Western Governments, most decent governments, so to support Hamas is illegal against the Counter Terrorism Act.
‘Supporting Hamas in support of the Palestinian people is equivalent to supporting the Taliban in support of Afghans.
She continued: ‘It’s incompatible with their freedom, with being able to live their lives peacefully, which is well, what any decent person on the planet wants.’
However, Wark was quick to interject, adding: ‘In a way, what I would say to that as well is, of course, that many Palestinians do not support Hamas.’
In recent weeks, the BBC has been questioned by prominent figures such as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who stated that the murder of men, women, and children in cold blood constituted ‘terrorism by Hamas that has to be called out as such’.
In a statement the BBC board later defended its wording, saying the organisation had ‘given careful consideration’ to all aspects of reporting, including its language.
‘The BBC is editorially independent; our role is to explain precisely what is happening so that the public can make their own judgements. Our longstanding position, including during previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, has been that we do not use the term “terrorist” without attribution, in line with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines,’ they wrote.
According to the BBC’s rules, reporting on potential terrorist activities “should be timely and responsible, keeping in mind our requirement for due accuracy and impartiality.”
It also adds that the term “terrorist” might “be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.”
