See all BBC News transcripts on Youtube

Speaker 1

00:08

Hello, I'm Maryam Moshiri. It's time now for your Questions Answered. Over the next 15 minutes, we'll be answering questions that you've sent in about the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has now entered its fourth day. This drone video shows the scale of destruction reaped across the Gaza Strip over the past few days.

Speaker 1

00:26

Israel's army claims to have hit a further 200 Hamas targets in overnight bombing. Israel has ordered a total blockade of Gaza, cutting off food, water and supplies. The UN Human Rights Chief says the siege is illegal under international law, while the World Health Organization is calling for the establishment of a humanitarian corridor. Well to answer your questions I'm joined now by the BBC's Middle East analyst Sebastian Asher and joining us from Jerusalem is BBC correspondent formerly based in Gaza John Donison.

Speaker 1

00:57

Hello to you both and thank you to you both for joining us today. Sebastian let me start with you We have a question from Alimu Jalloh in Guinea. They say, why is the United States supporting Israel with all the killing done in Gaza?

Speaker 2

01:10

It's a very understandable question. It's 1 that many people ask from all around the world. I think in this particular instance at the moment, the US is certainly not alone in this because of what Hamas has done, because of the atrocities that have been carried out.

Speaker 2

01:22

At the moment, it's being seen by most governments, certainly most Western governments. To be honest, a lot of Arab governments and so on around the world as a terrorist act. That will change almost inevitably as the siege on Gaza grows. But a wider context of that is the US has essentially, yes, it gives huge financial support to Israel.

Speaker 2

01:45

It gives almost $4 billion. Most of that goes in military hardware, most of which comes from US companies. It vetoes motions, resolutions at the UN Security Council, which criticize Israel. Now, the US itself, as governments change, essentially has stayed pretty much the same position.

Speaker 2

02:05

It sees itself and it tries to present itself as an even-handed mediator in the conflict and essentially adhering to the idea that a two-state solution is what is needed. Under President Trump, it changed slightly but with President Biden, it's gone back to that. But from the Palestinian perspective, they believe that that just isn't the case, that it isn't even handed, that it is essentially so closely allied with Israel, not just in terms of a support that it gives, but also in a political sense. The US as a democracy sees, and I think most American citizens see, Israel as the only functioning democracy similar to the US in the Middle East.

Speaker 2

02:45

They see it as a force for good for that reason. Of course, there's a large Jewish population as well in the US, which has a big say in elections. And very few politicians want to say anything that goes against what they have to say. So I mean, I think that the US has to some extent tried hard to get a solution to the conflict.

Speaker 2

03:08

There have been several instances, I mean, back in 2003 was the closest that it's come to the two-state solution. Talks have stalled, but there is this sense, and I think it's a very understandable sense, not just from the Palestinians but more widely, that its finger is far more weighted towards the Israeli side and the Palestinian side, despite the fact that it will condemn some of what Israel does. And most recently, with the current far-right, relatively far-right Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu, there's been some of the strongest criticism so far from the US of an Israeli government but at the moment that is all an abeyance, at the moment the US would be 100% behind Israel.

Speaker 1

03:47

Sebastian, thanks for that. John, let me ask you a question put to us from Carol Fenton. And she says, what would it take for Hamas to stop trying to annihilate the whole of Israel?

Speaker 1

03:58

What compromise would be enough? How can peace be achieved without mutual understanding and respect for both sides?

Speaker 3

04:06

I don't think it can. And I think that's why there has been this intractable conflict now for decades and decades. And I think Gaza is important because until some sort of compromise, as you say, can be reached with Hamas in Gaza, you are never going to have peace in the Middle East.

Speaker 3

04:29

And I think at some point over the last decades, when there continues to be this talk from Western countries, the United States, Britain, the EU, of the goal being a two-state solution. But Hamas, Because so many countries regard Hamas as a terrorist organization who they're not prepared to talk to, not part of the discussions, it was always fanciful, really, to think that there could be a two-state solution until Hamas were part of that deal. And they have not really suggested that they were ready to accept the existence of Israel as a state alongside a possible future Palestinian state. That's been nuanced at times over the years, but essentially Hamas says it wants the land between the river Jordan and the sea, so all of what was historically Palestine.

Speaker 1

05:28

It's interesting what John said there, Sebastian. I want to ask you about this. I've had a lot of emails about this from people.

Speaker 1

05:35

The terrorist organization Hamas, why is it that news organizations like the BBC, like ITV, like Sky, like a number of other organizations do not use the term terrorist when describing Hamas militants?

Speaker 2

05:48

I think it's, I mean, there are a number of reasons. I think 1 of the reasons is that when you are broadcasting to a world audience, you want your perceptions, the way that you are dealing with the story, not to look as if you are taking any particular side and calling a group a terrorist group, will always look that way. And people will always be demanding for this cause or that cause that it's called terrorist or that it's not called terrorist.

Speaker 2

06:17

So I think the BBC feels that the best way that it can maintain a sense of some form of objectivity of not looking partial is to do that. I think it becomes difficult when there are acts, atrocities that are carried out. I mean, I think the way that is often found around that by organizations like the BBC is to speak of acts of terror or to have the voices of people who are denouncing it as terrorism, but not itself using that term. But yes, it comes under criticism.

Speaker 2

06:47

I'm sure you and I, John, as well, I mean, we have these discussions, both professionally but also personally, a great deal of the time. And from the Palestinian perspective, I mean, again, many Palestinians just would, I mean, they would feel, I think, if we described Hamas as a terrorist group, they would feel that that was, in a sense, a kind of total rebuff to them. I mean, they see it as a resistance movement. And they would see, I think, it as being like the U.S.

Speaker 2

07:17

That would no longer be even-handed if we took that stance.

Speaker 1

07:20

Let me ask you another question, Sebastian. This is from Marigold Robbins in France. And Marigold says, the US and Europe defend Ukraine.

Speaker 1

07:28

Why are they not defending Palestine?

Speaker 2

07:32

Well, I mean, there's more nuance to that question, isn't there? I mean, without getting deeply into Ukraine, I mean Ukraine was a situation that suddenly erupted. What we're talking about and what John was talking about there is a situation between Israel and Palestine that has been going on for decades and it has you know it has shifted in its balance time and time again.

Speaker 2

07:51

Ukraine was at least at the start, almost clearly from most perspectives, an invasion by Russia that Ukraine was resisting. And I think that clarity at that moment made it simpler for governments to respond in that way, whereas the issue between the Palestinians and the Israelis is 1 which is so embedded in so many different phases that it's harder for governments to come out with such a black and white position. But you can't gainsay the fact that the European Union, the UK, the US, all of these countries do provide financial support to the Palestinians and have done. I mean, the US has been, although again, it blows hot and cold, has been 1 of the main supporters financially of the UN aid agencies, which essentially keep the Palestinians going as much as that is achieved, both in Gaza and in the occupied West Bank.

Speaker 2

08:47

So, I mean, I think with all of these things, it's a very boring answer. But there is a great deal of nuance to this. And I think we as journalists have to try and stay with that as much as possible, rather than just going with the main thrust of a story at 1 particular moment, and try and stay as true to that as possible, and try to make an audience care about that aspect of the story rather than just immediately go 1 side or the other. I don't know what John thinks about that.

Speaker 2

09:15

JOHN HALAMKARTH

Speaker 3

09:16

TAYLOR Well, it's interesting. I covered 2 short wars in Gaza when I was based there in 2012 and then I came back in 2014. And 1 of the things that struck me was, For example, the United States provides a lot of the military support to Israel that causes so much of the destruction in Gaza.

Speaker 3

09:39

And at the same time, you know, a lot of the EU, Britain, France, et cetera, offers a lot of support to Israel in dealing with Hamas in Gaza, but then it is also those same countries who support Israel who are then having to pay time and time again for the reconstruction in Gaza. And it was a really depressing situation, I suppose, that what there was a sort of pattern of every 2, 3 years, there is another war in Gaza, and things will get rebuilt, and then things will get destroyed again. And I think what Israel has said this time is they want to – well, both sides actually. Hamas has said they want an end to the status quo.

Speaker 3

10:27

They want to change the dynamic. And I think Israel now in its retaliation feels that it wants to do the same and change that status quo in its favour.

Speaker 1

10:36

John, thanks for that. Sebastian, we had another question here from Damien Armstrong in Staffordshire saying, why is financing to military aid required and needed by Israel, a relatively rich country against the Palestinians?

Speaker 2

10:48

Well, I mean, it's not simply against the Palestinians. I mean, the military support that's given to Israel is meant to defend it against all potential threats. I mean, from an Israeli perspective, we've heard from the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for years and years that he sees Iran as the major threat.

Speaker 2

11:03

And that's a view that is shared not just by the US and much of the West, but also increasingly by a lot of Arab countries. But it's a very valid question. And it's actually a question that has been raised within Israel quite regularly, that it's almost, I mean, it's different voices, obviously, and for different reasons, and perhaps for their own political motivations, but bring up this in a sense, why should Israel be beholden? It's a rich country, essentially.

Speaker 2

11:29

It's a country that is extremely developed. Why does it need $3.8 billion from the US? And does that make it just a satellite of the US? And I think that that is an issue that, at the moment, again, will be put in abeyance a bit because we're seeing the US actually offering more military support to Israel in this particular situation.

Speaker 2

11:53

And also, they're bringing warships to the region. So again, I mean, these issues which really need to be looked at very, very seriously and with a long view, all the

Speaker 3

12:04

decisions that

Speaker 2

12:06

have been made which actually affect the long-term future in terms of support for Israel, the billions of dollars. I mean there's lots of criticism inside the US, why are we sending almost $4 billion to a country that's rich when we have huge problems in the US that need to be addressed? Several billion dollars of that could surely be more usefully spent in the US.

Speaker 1

12:28

Let's take you very briefly, both of you, to live pictures coming in to us from Gaza. I just want to update people on what the latest lines are before we move on. We of course have had the Israeli forces saying that they have targeted 200 Hamas targets overnight and they are continuing to target Hamas targets through the day.

Speaker 1

12:49

Our correspondent on the ground Rushdie describing it as like an earthquake, the damage done by these bombs and air missiles being thrown from Israel. This is a scene live in Gaza for those of you watching now. Sebastian, let me ask you another question from a viewer. This is an anonymous viewer, and they say, I'm an avid viewer of BBC News Channel.

Speaker 1

13:11

I, like many others, are concerned about the war Hamas has engaged on Israel. My question is, although Hamas instigated this war against Israel by breaching its borders, is it fair, or could it even be a war crime that Israel has stopped food, medicines, and fuel getting into Gaza? And that is an anonymous question.

Speaker 2

13:30

Well, this is a story actually that we've been dealing with just now. The UN Human Rights Chief, Ilker Turk, has just issued a statement in the past hour saying that to have a siege like this of a civilian population is against international law. It's a breach of international law.

Speaker 2

13:46

He hasn't quite put it as a war crime, but it, I mean, saying very, very strongly that this is something that is not acceptable under international law. And, you know, I mean, The rhetoric we're hearing from Israel, and I mean, John, obviously, is very much across that as well, is so much against that at the moment. I mean, it's so strong. I mean, you're hearing both from politicians and the people that they want.

Speaker 2

14:16

There's an appetite for this total destruction of Gaza. So in that context, I mean this sense that a siege of Gaza, this denial of food, this denial of water, and remember it's already under blockade, has been under blockade for 17 years. There's already huge, I mean the water situation is absolutely dire in Gaza. The electricity situation, all of these are already sufficiently bad for Gaza to be described as 1 of the poorest places in the world, 1 of the places where the conditions of life are pretty much at their worst.

Speaker 2

14:49

So what is really happening with Israel is it's just tightening that squeeze rather than bringing a siege from nowhere. But the way things are at the moment, the dynamic we're looking at doesn't look like these sorts of warnings from the international community, from the UN, are going to be heeded by Israel. Certainly not now. Generally, again, John can follow this, that there has been this recurring pattern where Israel hits Gaza hard.

Speaker 2

15:17

And then after several weeks, sometimes months, the international outrage over the numbers of civilians who are being killed reaches such a point that Israel feels that it has to end its operation. I think under these conditions, after what's happened on Saturday in the last couple of days, I think we aren't necessarily expecting that to happen anytime soon.

Speaker 1

15:42

John, what's your take on it, having spent obviously a good amount of time in Gaza, what kind of an impact is this total blockade having?

Speaker 3

15:51

Well, 1 thing I would say, just adding to what Sebastian was saying there, is this is on a completely different magnitude of the wars, the escalations in violence that we've seen in the past. I was just looking back in 2009 there were 13 Israelis killed in that short war. In 2012 I think it was 6 Israelis.

Speaker 3

16:12

Here we're talking more than 900 and potentially up to 150 hostages taken. So Israel is feeling it has the right, frankly, to do whatever it wants. And I don't think it's going to listen to the UN Human Rights Chief. I don't think it's going to listen to UNICEF.

Speaker 3

16:32

I think it feels that it will have the backing of its public to do everything it wants. I

Speaker 2

16:37

mean, you

Speaker 3

16:37

go to the blockade, which, as Sebastian says, has been in place in some form from Israel and also Egypt to the south for 17 years. And certainly when I was there, and the last time I was kind of regularly going into Gaza was in 2013, it was bad. There were periods when I was living there where virtually half the food you were getting coming into Gaza was coming through tunnels.

Speaker 3

17:03

You know, you'd open a can of Coke and it was covered with dust on the top, coming in from tunnels from Egypt. At times, those restrictions have eased and Israel has let more stuff in and more exports out. But the big thing I think that is important is that about half of Gaza's population is under 18. It's a very, very young population.

Speaker 3

17:27

And there are many, many people in Gaza who have never left. So they've never met an Israeli. So there's no interaction between the 2 sides, no understanding of the other side's perspective. And I think that is what is really, really difficult to overcome.

Speaker 1

18:00

Of Gaza City. Bye bye.