We were pleased to host a talk last month by the author and journalist Peter Oborne about his new book Complicit: Britain’s role in the Destruction of Gaza. A detailed and hard-hitting review has been published by the British Palestine Project and is a recommended read. It amplifies the severe criticism of the BBC for its many failings in its reporting and in particular, never inviting acknowledged Jewish experts to be interviewed and almost completely failing to report on the hundreds of RAF flights which have taken place over Gaza the purpose of which is unclear.
It is also extremely critical of the British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and contrasts his activities as a human rights lawyer and his highly questionable support for Israel now. Other parts of our media come in for criticism as well.
Talk to the Salisbury group about his new book ‘Complicit’
January 2026
The Amnesty International Salisbury Group invited the noted journalist and author Peter Oborne to speak about his recently published book* ‘Complicit: Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza’ which describes in detail the extent to which British governments and media have supported the Israeli government presentation of events in Gaza since the massacre in October 2023. The event, held in the Methodist Church, was very well attended, with an audience of around 80. Following his presentation there was an opportunity for the audience to ask questions. Thirty copies of his book quickly sold out.
Asked about the motivation for writing the book, Mr Oborne (on the right of the picture) said that the drive came to him while in Nablus in October 23, as a continuation of his previous work as a political journalist and critic of lying in politics and the pro-Israel lobby. He noted that the former prime minister Rishi Sunak had declared unequivocal support for Israel, and the current prime minister Sir Keir Starmer notoriously agreed that the Israelis ‘had the right to deny fuel and water to the Gazans’. This brought them into an alliance with the far right and right wing media.
The role of the United States as a factor was considered. This has affected the language that is used in the conflict. Sir Keir Starmer, it was noted, was a human rights lawyer, and a Corbynite [reference to Jeremy Corbyn, a previous leader of the Labour Party], who changed as soon as he became leader.
Asked how influential the Conservative Friends of Israel were, Mr. Oborne noted that as MPs they must be compromised and should not be part of the debate if receiving funding from them (Note: the Salisbury MP Mr. John Glen is a member of this group). The funding is significant and amount to around half a million pounds by some estimates. He observed that during the committee stage of a related bill, only pro-Israeli MPs were called.
Media bias
The discussion moved on to the question of misrepresentation of events in the media. The claim that Hamas had ‘beheaded babies’ was reported as fact in the Daily Mail and the Times, and such stories were used as a justification for deliberate targeting by the IDF. In general, war has always led to misreporting historically: the first casualty in war is truth. Lurid stories of baby killings were repeated in the Independent (!) and the Daily Express and repeated by the Israeli Ambassador and other politicians.
Q: how many babies were killed and beheaded? A: Two were killed, none beheaded. In his book Peter Oborne quotes research by the Israeli paper Haaretz which revealed one had been shot through a door and a second infant had died after delivery by Caesarean section and the mother had died as well. Terrible events but not the mass killing of babies which the British media had swallowed whole.
Even the BBC and broadsheet newspapers were guilty of misreporting, sometimes by omission rather than commission. In his book, Oborne describes the BBC’s coverage as ‘a reporting disaster and a moral calamity‘ (p51)
For example, no mention was ever made of the “Dahiya doctrine” of military destruction of civilian entities. The doctrine itself calls for the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in order to induce suffering and severe distress throughout the targeted population. By targeting indiscriminately, the IDF hopes to deter further military attacks against Israel, destroy its enemies, as well as influence the population to oust the militants seen as the primary target. This seems to contradict Israeli claims of targeting actions against Hamas not civilians, a claim endlessly repeated by the media.
Why did British media consistently misreport events in the Gaza war Peter was asked? The fear of being called anti-Semitic is a factor in bias among reporters. The Israel lobby will respond immediately to critical comment and not all journalists recognize the rules of the game. The IDF will regularly challenge reporting of actual events. With most newspapers being pro-Israel, it is easier to report from that angle.
Israel accused UNRWA of employing and harbouring Hamas terrorists among its 17,000 staff. As a result, the British government immediately withdrew its support. UNWRA was the largest agency operating in Gaza and by closing their warehouses and distribution work it had a devastating effect on the lives of those living there. In the past few days, their HQ was demolished by Israel, and, although the UK reinstated its connection, the myth of Hamas involvement was never rejected.
Questions from the floor
Questions from the floor included the makeup of the IDF (the Israeli national army, but one with a substantial number of foreign volunteers) and the influence of Israel had over the USA and UK policy. He thought some but is was not overwhelming. In answer to a question, Mr. Oborne praised Mrs. Thatcher for her support of international law, something not sustained today, We are being let down by politicians, but some who have been supportive of the Palestinian cause were named along with alternative media. Asked about President Trump’s “Board of Peace”, it was considered to be not a serious venture, not least because there is still no genuine ceasefire.
On the question of whether the political classes will be held to account, the speaker’s view was that if not, then might would be right. If the International Court of Justice concludes that genocide has taken place, British politicians may be liable – although, since the Attorney-General was a government appointment he would have to take the case up and this is unlikely to happen. The possibility remains that other countries might decide to prosecute.
Mr. Oborne was thanked for coming to Salisbury and discussing his book.
As we wait to see what the government brings forward to replace the Human Rights Act it seeks to repeal, a book was recently published which is recommended to all those who believe in human rights and – despite its faults – that the HRA is a major step forward in granting rights to its citizens. The book is called On Fantasy Island* by Conor Gearty who, amongst other things, is professor of Human Rights Law and Director of the Institute of Public Affairs at LSE. He has written several other books including the Struggle for Civil Liberties (2000)
The HRA has come under sustained attack in the media particularly but not exclusively at the tabloid end of the market with regular stories of criminals and terrorists escaping justice because of it. Positive aspects of the Act including use by the media themselves to protect sources, seldom get a hearing. A recent example from the Daily Mail gives a flavour of the type of reporting which is common at that end of the media market:
Folly of human rights luvvies: As actors fight plans to axe Human Rights Act, how thousands of foreign convicts use it to stay in Britain
Number of foreign offenders on UK’s streets has spiralled to a record high
Includes killers, rapists and paedophiles who have avoided deportation
Left-wing luvvies lining up to oppose plans to scrap the Human Rights Act
Benedict Cumberbatch and Vanessa Redgrave condemn Tory proposals
25 June [accessed 31 October 2016]
Conor Gearty methodically discussed the history of rights in the UK and tackles head on some of the absurdities regularly reported in papers like the Mail and the Sun. Myths abound and include the case of Abu Qatada; the murderer of Philip Lawrence outside the school and Denis Nilsen’s request to access pornography and write a book. In each case, the HRA is in the frame when it was either irrelevant or the event complained of was not going to happen anyway. Perhaps the most famous instance was the absurd statement by Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference in 2011 about a Bolivian student who could not be deported because of a cat. ‘I’m not making this up’ she said: problem was she did make it up and had grossly exaggerated a small part of the case.
The government – now led by Theresa May – is apparently preparing a British Bill of Rights. Gearty discusses this and says:
…attentions shifted to the Human Rights Act. Here we find uppermost the fantasies that drove the much of the first part of this book – you cannot change a law for the better if it has never been what it you have claimed it to be in the first place. (p189f)
He sets the context of hostility to the Act in terms of a deadly combination of the nostalgic and the negative. For a country which until the recent past, ruled a large part of the world and whose power and influence was supreme, we now have to form partnerships and accept that our writ no longer runs as it once did. Strasbourg is just one of the elements of this. Nostalgic because were we not the inventors of common law so who are these overseas people interfering in our law making? The role of the media is discussed and a fuller account of the media’s role in ‘monstering‘ the HRA is provided by Adam Wagner of RightsInfo.
Human rights offer a route to a society where all are equal before the law and where each of us has a chance to engage in political activity on a level playing field if we so wish.
Several years have gone by since the Conservatives announced their desire to abolish the act and we are still waiting to see what happens. The new Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has reaffirmed that and of course Theresa May is now prime minister. We wait and see … Our Local MP, John Glen, is on record in the Salisbury Journal as someone who agrees with abolition so we wait and see when the time comes.
Amnesty in Salisbury & South Wiltshire 