Complicit Quotes

“Reporters know that, when it comes to Israel, any mistake or wrong word will trigger complaints to their bosses and might cost them their job. Reporters or presenters who cast Israel in a poor light get targeted. The popular LBC presenter Sangita Myska abruptly left the channel after she challenged an Israeli government spokesman, Avi Hyman. There's been speculation that she was sacked as a result of that exchange, although that has been denied by LBC; Myska herself is bound by a non-disclosure agreement.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza

“Indeed it has been painfully clear since October 2023 that those dominating the national conversation on Gaza lack the knowledge to scrutinise Israeli claims. British TV and radio studios are chock full of loudmouth presenters with big salaries but negligible understanding. Experts who have mastered the history of the Israel-Palestine dispute tend to be excluded from public discussion.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza

“Large sections of the media repeated the lies promoted by Israeli and British politicians. Some produced fresh lies of their own. They twisted their reports in favour of the Israeli cause. For a long time, reports of Israeli atrocities appeared either in muted form or not at all. Hamas atrocities were exaggerated or fabricated. Dissident voices were suppressed. Across much of the media spectrum a general implicit consensus emerged: Israelis count and Palestinians don't.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza

“This far-right support for Israel was the culmination of long-term trends. The US-led 'Global War on Terror' had accustomed large numbers of people to think of Muslims as security threats: terrorists, infiltrators, or rapists. British Muslims became the enemy within; a dangerous social element that had to be subjected to special forms of surveillance and control. The far right exploited these fears to its advantage as demonising Islam and Muslims became its primary venture. Again and again the dominant political parties failed to challenge such ideas. At the same time, antisemitism was gradually redefined to mean criticism of Israel rather than animus or discrimination against Jews. This conceptual hijacking allowed the far right to posture as an opponent of antisemitism. And if the far right opposed antisemitism-well, perhaps it wasn't racist after all.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza

“There comes a moment in many people's lives when we adopt a course of action that defines us. Such a moment came to Labour leader and future prime minister Sir Keir Starmer when he joined LBC presenter Nick Ferrari in the studio a few days after October 7. At this point an unknown future stretched ahead. If Israeli politicians were to be believed it would assuredly include one of the most monstrous crimes of the twenty-first century. Israel's defence minister Yoav Gallant had just issued his grim announcement of a complete siege on Gaza: 'No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed'

The Starmer moment can still be witnessed on YouTube. It unfolds when Ferrari asks whether cutting off water and electricity supplies is an appropriate response to the Hamas attacks.

It should have been an easy question. Before entering politics Starmer was an acknowledged expert on international law. He would have known for certain that Israel did not have the right to cut off water and electricity supplies. Collective punishment of a civilian population is a war crime. In that day's reporting, there is no ambiguity.

But when Ferrari pressed: 'A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power? Cutting off water?" Starmer tried to have it both ways by simultaneously standing up for Israel and international law. 'I think Israel does have that right, he affirmed. 'It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law but I don't want to step away from the core principles that Israel has a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility.'

Sir Keir's attempt to argue that Israel had the right to deny water and fuel to Palestinians in Gaza while respecting international law made mockery of the law and of his own professional standing. Gallant's openly stated plan amounted to a grave breach of international law as well as domestic British law. Subject to a pro forma caveat, the leader of the Labour Party was therefore giving the green light to a crime against humanity, as set out in the Rome statute, and enabling whatever atrocities Israel cared to inflict on Gaza's two million inhabitants, one half of whom were children.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza

“The British media for the most part suppressed, played down or castigated the ICJ's momentous decision. The lead item on that evening's BBC News at Ten dealt with the latest of innumerable legal setbacks suffered by US President Donald Trump. There was no mention at all of the ICJ ruling in The Times, often referred to as a paper of record, until page 42 (page 3 of the International Section). No report either in the following day's Sunday Times, though buried in the paper was a denunciation of antisemitism in South Africa, the country that brought the case.”
― Peter Oborne, Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza