The fact that the BBC would almost certainly defend the construction of the interview with @ZackPolanski and suggest that @Jo_Coburn 's comments dont raise any concerns about her impartiality when a BBC journalist says much about how the notion of impartiality is interpreted. Regarding the interview with @ZackPolanski, a telling moment is where @bbclaurak asks him do you think it is for the Green Party to tell Jewish people what Zionism means? The underpinning premises here are a) that it is for the Jewish people to define Zionism b) they are of one voice in how they define it. Palestinians , by implication, should have no stake in how an ideology and movement that has led to their dispossession is understood. The whole framing of the interview and the subsequent intervention by @Jo_Coburn is that the motion is offensive because it is defining Zionisim as racist and most Jews are Zionists. Most Palestinians are anti zionist but calling them racist for opposing Zionism is not deemed controversial and offensive. The BBC has not run interview after interview to discuss the "controversial " statements by @chiefrabbi when he regularly frames anti zionism in this way. But this should not be a question of differing opinions and the right to express them . It should be about the facts of history and how they are discussed and presented. It is a fact of history that 750k plus Palestinians were forced from their land between 1947 and 1949. It is a fact of history that successive Israeli Governments have enacted laws and policies which authoritative bodies including the ICJ have described as racist against Palestinians, and meeting the definition of apartheid. Zack correctly says that no state has a right to exist. He is expressing a legal fact but this is presented as nonsensical. But why is it that this need to protect a state's right to exist only arises in relation to Israel. If a politician condemns the character of the state of Iran or calls for regime change are they asked, " do you accept that Iran has a right to exist?" If someone advocates for Scottish independence are they asked " but what about Britain's right to exist?" @Jo_Coburn states that she is a Zionist and that the Green motion, and by implication anti zionism as a political belief , is offensive and racist. She is undoubtedly a journalist who would vigorously defend her credibility as impartial. So the clear implication is that expressing such views is not to be partial in any controversial way. It must be seen as akin to saying I am a democrat...I support free speech....in other words accepted political norms that are rejected only by extremists. Zionism is morally good. Antizionism is extremist. One can express this and remain impartial. Discussing the racist character of the state of Israel is extremist as is suggesting it has committed a genocide. Such statements can be allowed ( the BBC of course believes in free speech) but only if they are vigorously challenged. This is why the BBC has never devoted airtime to a detailed analysis of the reports by the ICJ , Amnesty, HRW and many others that find Israel guilty of apartheid. That would be controversial and possibly endorsing racism. This is why the BBC felt it OK to livestream Israel's defence of the charge of genocide in front of the ICJ but not cover South Africa's case being presented. So no one should question whether Jo Coburn's now publicly declared Zionist views raise questions about her impartiality. But imagine..God forbid... the reaction if she'd said "Im an anti Zionist Jew and support the motion" .