BBC torn to shreds by lawyer live on air for 'utterly morally repugnant' allegation
![BBC](https://www.gbnews.com/media-library/bbc.webp?id=50288149&width=1200&height=800&quality=90&coordinates=4%2C0%2C4%2C0)
The BBC has been torn to shreds live-on-air by a lawyer who accused presenter Katya Adler of presenting an "utterly morally repugnant" angle
BBC
The BBC has been torn to shreds live-on-air by a lawyer who accused presenter Katya Adler of presenting an "utterly morally repugnant" angle
The BBC has been torn to shreds live-on-air by a lawyer who accused presenter Katya Adler of presenting an "utterly morally repugnant" angle.
She accused Adler of "reprehensible moral equivalence", after the presenter said that humanitarian charities have accused Israel of punishing civilians for the actions of Hamas.
Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel earlier this month, killing civilians and taking hundreds hostage.
UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust Legal Director Natasha Hausdorff responded to Adler's comment, saying: "It’s flatly not borne out by the facts on the ground.
"If these aid organisations are invested in the interests of Gaza’s civilians they should devote their resources to the evacuation of them to the south, which Hamas has been seeking to hamper, with reports of it bombing fleeing civilians.
"The allegation that you have raised, Katya, is a reprehensible moral equivalence.
"It is utterly morally repugnant. It also attaches to the question of proportionality in international law - that is, about comparing casualty figures, and that is also not correct."
She added: "Every strike that Israel takes, every military action, is weighed up, it is analysed, to make sure that according to international law the anticipated collateral damage - the harm to civilians - is proportionate to the military aims of the strike, a strike that is militarily necessary and legitimately targets terrorist infrastructure, so these suggestions of collective punishment are morally reprehensible libel."
The BBC has faced criticism for its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, primarily due to its failure to label Hamas a terrorist organisation, despite it being proscribed as one by the UK Government.
The Government defines Hamas as a "single terrorist organisation". But the BBC referred to it as a "militant" group, describing the invasion as a "militant" attack.
Speaking just days after Hamas' attack on Israel, Rishi Sunak questioned the broadcaster's choice of language.
The PM said: "This is not a time for equivocation, we should call it out for what it is."
"We have included contributors who have condemned the attackers as terrorists and we have reported that Hamas is designated as a terrorist group by many Western governments, including the UK."
The BBC's editorial guidelines recommend avoiding the use of "emotive" language when reporting on Middle East events.
It suggests the use of words such as "militants", "attacker" or "gunman", instead of "terrorists".
Last week, it changed its position on the issue, choosing to describe the group as a terror organisation.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Israel has launched an assault on Gaza since the attacks from Hamas.
The Palestinian health ministry said more than 5,000 people have been killed in the region in the last two weeks.