1. Former Sunday Times journalist Michael Prescott produced a memo on the BBC that rehashes debunked pro-Israeli claims. It is surprising therefore that the BBC is taking it seriously.
Four comments on Prescott's memo: 🧵
Four comments on Prescott's memo: 🧵
2. FIRST, Prescott rehashes the debunked pro-Israeli claim that in mid 2024 the UN lowered or halved the number of women and children killed in Gaza. 
3. Yet as the UN confirmed and media outlets like Newsweek and Al-Jazeera double-checked. This was simply incorrect and a misrepresentation. Here is Aljazeera report of UN comments: aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/14…
4. Thus Prescott is asking the BBC to repeat and promote falsehoods. Here is Newsweek fact-check newsweek.com/fact-check-did…
5. Moreover it is surprising that this debunked claim is being used after the recent revelation of an Israeli leaked document that showed that more than 80 percent of those killed by Israel were civilians theguardian.com/world/ng-inter…
6. SECOND falsehood is related to reporting on mass graves in near hospitals. Prescott faults BBC coverage for relying on Palestinian rescue teams and first-responders
7. But mass graves were reported also by the UN International Commission of Inquiry (Oct 2024), which corroborated the health authorities' report with a witness who was involved in exhuming the bodies. ohchr.org/en/press-relea…
8. Prescott says that the likely explanation for the mass graves is benign rather than suggesting Israeli war crimes. But the UN Commission of Inquiry report on healthcare facilities in October 2024 contradicts this benign explanation ohchr.org/en/press-relea…
9. The @hrw report in March 2025 also contradicts the likely explanation offered by Prescott: hrw.org/news/2025/03/2…
10. see also: "@pchrgaza received eyewitness testimonies confirming that the IOF conducted summary executions of dozens of civilians, including medical personnel, and left many patients to die due to the lack of medical care and the spread of epidemics" pchrgaza.org/wp-content/upl…
11. THIRD, another claim regarding Nasser hospital by Prescott is that the BBC should have covered Israeli "evidence" on Nasser hospital that would make it a legitimate military target.
12. The obvious problem with repeating Israeli "evidence" is that it is not credible. As UN Human Rights office made clear in its report on systematic attacks on hospitals (published December 2024) ohchr.org/sites/default/…
13. Then-ICC prosecutor Andrew Hayley expressed similar skepticism in Dec 2024: "Claims of Hamas fighters in Gaza hospitals have been exaggerated, says senior ICC prosecutor" theguardian.com/law/2024/dec/1…
14. Media outlets like the @AP and @WashPost showed that Israeli arguments against hospitals are unsubstantiated or not credible, see apnews.com/world-news/sti… and washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/…
16. FOUR, another debunked pro-Israeli claim is the use of former American president of the @CIJ_ICJ comments on what the ICJ ruled regarding genocide in January 2024.
17. It is important to remember that the former judge is one judge out of 16 judges. And the technical language should not obscure the fact that the court found that there is a risk of genocide and hence there is a need to issue provisional measures to protect Palestinians.
18. Here is a thread on this from last year
https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1783909929067196651
19. The technical language that the court uses is "plausibility of rights". But as @Alonso_GD explained "putting the right not to be genocided plausibly at risk" is not really different from "there is a plausible case of genocide"
https://x.com/Alonso_GD/status/1783782911596007442
20. And as @JaninaDill explained "there is only "a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide" if someone is plausibly threatening that right."
https://x.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
