Anti-Israel Activists Defend BBC's Intentional Mistranslation of "Jews" to "Israelis" from Arabic

The BBC’s Whitewashing of Antisemitism Sparks Backlash as Defenders Scramble to Justify Mistranslations

The BBC has faced criticism over its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, accused of mistranslating antisemitic rhetoric by replacing explicit references to "Jews" with "Israelis." This has sparked concerns over journalistic integrity and bias in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While BBC defenders claim translation nuances justify these edits, critics argue that such excuses only enable the whitewashing of antisemitism.

Conversely, the BBC’s defenders are doubling down by twisting language and distorting definitions to excuse the journalistic malpractice. By dismissing the significance of these alterations, defenders not only obscure the reality of antisemitic rhetoric but also contribute to a larger pattern of selectively downplaying certain forms of hate speech.

This controversy raises urgent questions about journalistic accountability and the consequences of biased reporting on public perception.

Controversial Mistranslations

The documentary, which purported to provide an inside look at life in Gaza, was exposed for misrepresenting statements that were antisemitic. In one case, a Palestinian woman discussing the events of October 7th said, "We were invading the Jews for the first time," but the BBC's subtitles rendered this as, "First time we invaded Israel – it was always the other way around." In another case, a Palestinian girl praised Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar for "his jihad against the Jews," yet the BBC translated this as "his resistence against Israeli forces."

Such translations have sparked backlash, with critics arguing that they misrepresent the intent and meaning of the original statements. The omission of terms like "jihad" from subtitles further raises concerns about the editorial choices made in presenting this documentary to an international audience.

By altering the language used the BBC engaged in an act of deliberate misrepresentation—one that conceals the antisemitism in parts of Palestinian society. Instead of showing viewers the reality of this hatred, the BBC whitewashed it, shielding its audience from reality.

BBC’s Alleged Lack of Transparency

Further concerns have been raised regarding the affiliations of individuals involved in the documentary. The film’s narrator, 14-year-old Abdullah al-Yazouri, is the son of a senior Hamas official, a fact that was not disclosed to viewers. Additionally, one of the cameramen has publicly praised Hamas and its attacks on Israel. Critics argue that such connections should have been made clear in the interest of transparency.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), among other organizations, has condemned the BBC’s conduct, leading protests outside the network’s headquarters. "The BBC has become a mouthpiece for terror," said CAA CEO Gideon Falter. "It cannot even call terrorism by its name."

BBC Defenders Try to Rewrite the Dictionary

In response to the backlash, some have defended the BBC's translations by arguing that the Arabic word Yahud (which translates directly to "Jews") is sometimes used colloquially to refer to Israelis or Israeli forces.

Abubaker Abed, a journalist, posted: "In the Palestinian culture, we refer to Israeli soldiers as Jews. This is in the Arabic culture. We never mean literally Jews. Also, we have utmost respect for Jews around the globe. Jihad is resistance, which is our right." However, Abed's explanation is contradicted by his own past social media statements, in which he has used the term Yahud in a clearly derogatory and antisemitic context, calling for divine curses upon Jews. This contradiction raises questions about whether such defenses are made in good faith.

Ali Abunimah, director of Electronic Intifada, took a different approach, posting: "It’s not just because ‘Yahud’ is shorter that many Palestinians in Palestine use it as a synonym for ‘Israelis,’ it’s because ‘Israel’ explicitly identifies itself as the ‘Jewish state.’" This argument appears to acknowledge that the term Yahud is being used to refer to Jews as a whole and directly contradicts Abed’s claim that "Yahud" is never meant to literally refer to Jews. Abunimah is essentially arguing that Palestinians are justified in conflating Jews and Israelis because Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.

Abunimah’s defense of the BBC’s mistranslations does more than just excuse antisemitism; it legitimizes it. By justifying the interchangeable use of "Jew" and "Israeli," he not only contradicts Abed’s weak excuse but also reinforces the very antisemitic mindset that the BBC attempted to conceal.

The conflicting justifications from defenders of the BBC's translations highlight the difficulty in maintaining a consistent argument. On one hand, some claim that Yahud is a neutral or military term, while others argue that its usage is justified by Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. These contradictory positions further fuel concerns that the BBC's translations were motivated more by political considerations than linguistic accuracy.

Similarly, other BBC defenders have downplayed the issue by arguing that calls for "jihad" are merely expressions of resistance, deliberately stripping away the religious and militaristic significance of the term. Defining it just a “struggle”.

A Broader Pattern of Bias?

This incident is not the first time the BBC has faced accusations of bias in its reporting on Israel. In 2019, the network was criticized for similarly mistranslating Yahud as "Israelis," a move that was seen as an effort to downplay antisemitic rhetoric in Palestinian discourse.

Jewish advocacy groups have frequently pointed to a pattern of coverage in which Israeli actions are scrutinized while Palestinian extremism is downplayed or excused. Critics argue that the BBC’s editorial decisions contribute to a distorted perception of the conflict, potentially influencing public opinion in a way that lacks balance and fairness.

Why Accuracy Matters

This controversy is more than a matter of translation—it is about the responsibility of media organizations to report events accurately and fairly. If a documentary had featured Israelis using a racial slur against Palestinians, it is unlikely that the BBC would have mistranslated it to soften the language. The selective application of such editorial choices raises concerns about double standards in how hate speech is reported.

Ensuring that translations reflect the original intent of statements is not just a matter of journalistic ethics but also of preventing misinformation from shaping public discourse. The BBC must address these concerns by providing clearer explanations of its translation choices and committing to greater transparency in its editorial decisions.

Moving forward, the network must take steps to ensure that its reporting on such sensitive topics meets the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality.