BBC promotes “illegal settlements” theme yet again

Here is an article from February 4th interviewing two British-born Jews who immigrated to Israel, which – interestingly – did not appear on the Middle East page of the BBC News website, but in its UK section. 

UK Jews 'ocupied land'

The article’s author, Samantha Dalton, does not appear to be a Middle East expert by any stretch of the imagination and so it is interesting to note the obviously pro forma passages in the article which are clearly included in order to meet BBC editorial requirements. 

“Israel occupied the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East War. To Israelis and religious Jews, the West Bank is known by its Biblical name of Judea and Samaria.”

No background is given on the subject of the Six Day War and it is not made clear that the area was part of the original land designated by the League of Nations as the homeland for the Jewish people or that it was conquered and occupied by Jordan for 19 years before the 1967 war. Neither is it made clear that the term “West Bank” was coined by the Jordanian occupier in 1949 or that the area’s original names were in general use until then, appearing, inter alia, in British Mandate and United Nations documents. 

“Successive Israeli governments have built settlements there since 1968, for both strategic and ideological reasons.

Many settlers regard living there as fulfilling God’s will, based on God’s promise in the Bible to give the land to the Jewish people. Currently about 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements.”

Whist some people living in Judea & Samaria may certainly hold such views, the fact that there are also many other residents who do not is not reflected in this article, thus creating a misrepresentative impression. Both the interviewees selected to represent “West Bank Britons” are described in detail as observant Jews and the tone of the article as a whole clearly implies linkage between religious belief and location.

“Settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

This standard BBC insertion fails to reflect the variety of legal opinion on the subject and presents a distorted picture according to which Israel is alone in its view of the subject. The roots of this often repeated BBC mantra can be found in its own interpretation of what it titles “the Geneva Convention”. According to that particular interpretation:

“It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.” “

Neither in that obviously partial BBC interpretation nor in its subsequent and frequent use in numerous articles and reports is any recognition given to the fact that there are other opinions on the subject. For example:

“Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:

(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.

(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. Those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.

(3) Settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants. Moreover, Stone asserted: that “no serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations” [exists]; rather “a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the [local Palestinian] inhabitants since 1967 [has occurred].” “

The article goes on to state that:

“Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have broken down over the issue of settlements. Palestinians demand a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which they want for a future state.”

This subjective account fails to make clear to readers that under the terms of the Oslo Accords, the subjects of Jerusalem, borders and settlements were to be discussed in final status negotiations and that it is the Palestinian Authority’s failure to engage in those negotiations by continually presenting preconditions – even when those preconditions were humoured, as was the case with the 2010 ten-month building freeze –  which has caused a break-down of talks. 

It is very disturbing that the BBC consistently misleads audiences by providing incomplete, inaccurate and partial information on this issue. What is perhaps most absurd about the BBC’s boilerplate insertions into any report relating to the subject of Israeli communities in Judea & Samaria is that the BBC seems determined to prove itself more hard-line on the subject than the Palestinian Authority itself. It is, of course, entirely clear to all those concerned in the peace process that, after territorial exchanges, the large blocs of communities will remain under Israeli control under the terms of any future agreement. 

One of those blocs is the Gush Etzion area, where both the interviewees in this report live – one in Alon Shvut and one in Elazar. The article’s author fails to inform her readers of the fact that some 70,000 dunams of the land comprising Gush Etzion area council (and some areas in the PA-controlled Area A such as Darawshe) was purchased by Jews long before the Jordanian invasion in 1948, with the first community in the area having been established in 1927, but abandoned in 1929 due to the Arab riots. Between 1943 and 1947, four more communities were established in the area, the most well-known being Kfar Etzionwhich was the site of a massacre by British financed, supplied and led Jordanian troops on the day before Israel declared independence – May 13th 1948.

Now that would be an interesting story for the BBC to investigate. 

About these ads

7 comments on “BBC promotes “illegal settlements” theme yet again

  1. In other BBC news, 83-year-old former BBC “It’s a Knockout” comedy game show presenter Stuart Hall, OBE, pleaded not guilty to child sex abuse and rape yesterday in court.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_08/Stuart-Hall-sex-abuse-trial-begins-in-Britain/

    While the corrupt BBC is promoting leftist propagandist historical innacuracies about Israel, Duvidl is considering the history of the late Sir Jimmy Savile’s paedo caravan club operating on BBC premises. We may soon find out if the caravan was used by Stuart Hall, who joined the BBC in 1959, around the same time as the late Sir Jimmy Savile and only eleven years after the founding of the State of Israel. That makes 54 years of BBC-hosted paedophilia.

  2. Oh, and here is another 83-year-old, still alive and kicking – Alastair Milne – former director-general of ther BBC from 1982-87, who joined the BBC in 1954. He is the father of Isra-hating Guardian writer Seumas Milne.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_Milne

    Have the police of the Operation Yewtree investigation into the late Sir Jimmy Savile’s child sex offences asked Alastair any historical questions about the late Sir Jimmy Savile’s paedo caravan club at the BBC?

    • Excellent ‘fisking’ as ever, Hadar. It’s also strange that the BBC never sees fit to investigate the 300 new ‘Arab settlements’ and the fact that many Arabs moved into the ‘West Bank’ from Jordan since 1967. Why aren’t they considered settlers?
      The BBC always assumes that Arabs are the locals and Jews are not, even though Jews have lived in Hebron for instance. continuously since Biblical times and as you say, Jews lived in Gush Etzion BEFORE the Jordanian occupation.

    • “Oh, and here is another 83-year-old, still alive and kicking – Alastair Milne”

      No he died a month ago.
      You will discover this if you click on your own links.

      • Oh dear. Still, the police had since November last year, when the scandal broke, to question him. And there are several younger unquestionably still living former directors general worth a police question or two, namely Sir Michael Checkland, Lord Birt, Greg Dyke, Marky Byford (acting) and Mark Thompson. There are also multifarious former BBC governors and trustees from the late Sir Jimmy’s time, including Lord Patten himself.

        Nevertheless, the reason for Savile’s longevity as a paedophile may be as stated in Duvid’s first link above:

        “Some of the victims said they had reported to the police and authorities the assaults years ago, but most were dismissed, which left British public doubting whether police and officials weren’t somehow involved in it.”

  3. There’s an interesting 45-minute video on YouTube: The Legal Case for Israel in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich discusses Israel from the perspective of international law. Article 49 is included in his comments (around the 37m mark)

    With regard to Article 49, Prof. Kontorovich discusses the manner in which some choose to interpret the word ‘transfer’. In context, the ‘transfer’ mentioned in article 49 is linked to an action undertaken by ‘the occupying forces’ – and this is not applicable to Israel.

    The professor continues by illustrating the knots some tie themselves up in by attempting to interpret Article 49 in its widest sense – i.e. as Israel has not, as an occupying force, transferred a population into the settlement areas then it must be that an individual moving, of his own free will, from one area into another can apparently contravene Article 49. To expand on his point, the professor asks how an individual who takes a bus or the light rail from the Jerusalem bus station to the Kotel can, under this interpretation, avoid contravening Article 49.

    I’d give you a link to the video but my html tags seem sometimes not to work on blogs (seen as spam), but the video is easy to find and, because it is both comprehensive and aimed at the layman, is interesting and easy viewing.

Comments are closed.