May 22 2013

BBC report on shootings in Golan parrots Assad propaganda

An article entitled “Syria and Israel in exchange of fire” appeared on the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 21^st2013.

If readers of the article were expecting to find out what actually happened in this latest incident, they would be disappointed. The report presents the story in terms of conflicting claims – and yet again undiluted Syrian regime propaganda is presented to readers without any effort having been made on the part of the BBC to verify its claims.

Neither the headline nor the leading paragraph makes the chronology of events clear.

“Israeli and Syrian forces have exchanged fire across the ceasefire line in the occupied Golan Heights.”

Only in the second paragraph do readers learn that the Israeli fire was a response to Syrian actions.

“Israel returned fire after one of its military vehicles was hit by shots from Syria, Israel’s defence forces say. Media reports say no-one was hurt.”

However, what this report does not state is that the attack which prompted the Israeli response was in fact the third such incident of cross-border shooting in the same location in three consecutive days.

“IDF Spokesperson’s Unit reported Tuesday that gunfire from Syria hit an IDF unit in the Golan Heights, as had occurred on the two previous nights. No injuries were reported, but a patrol jeep was damaged.

The IDF retaliated by firing a Tamuz missile that destroyed the post from which the shots were fired.

The IDF estimated that due to a recurring pattern of gunfire from the same Syrian area, directed at the same Israeli target and executed at roughly the same time at night, the gunfire was not the result of unintentional overspill and decided therefore to fire back.”

The BBC report, however, omits the fact that repeated shootings took place at the same location and depersonalises their targets.

“Syria and Israel have traded fire a number of times in recent weeks.”

“Syrian gunfire has hit the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in two previous incidents this week, without causing injury. There have been sporadic exchanges of fire between the two sides in recent months.”

What the BBC terms “sporadic exchanges of fire” are in fact twelve recorded incidents in the past three months: an average of one a week.

Repeating claims made in an official statement by the Syrian Armed Forces broadcast on Syrian state TV, the BBC report states:

“Syria says it destroyed an Israeli vehicle which it says crossed the ceasefire line into territory its forces control.”

“A statement from the Syrian army said it had “destroyed an Israeli vehicle with everything that it had in it”. The statement said the vehicle was shot after it crossed the ceasefire line and headed towards the rebel-held village of Bir Ajam.

It warned that any attempts to violate its sovereignty would be “met with immediate and firm retaliation”.”

There is, of course, no evidence to back up those claims. The three consecutive bouts of gunfire were shot at Israeli soldiers travelling in a vehicle carrying out a routine patrol (which would be familiar to the Syrian army units in the area) along the Israeli side of the border fence.

The fact that the BBC uncritically parrots the Syrian propaganda to its readers without making any attempt to confirm the accuracy of its claims does not represent impartiality, but a failure to meet BBC editorial standards of accuracy.

Also interesting is the fact that the BBC report fails to point out to readers the significance of this official Syrian claim of responsibility for the cross border attack – the first time such an admission has been made since the beginning of the civil war in Syria.

Ironically – given the BBC’s blind rush to promote the Assad regime’s propaganda just days ago – the report states:

“Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has previously accused Israel of aiding the rebels, but has not provided substantive evidence.”

The article includes the observation:

“Syrian shells have hit Israeli positions on the Golan Heights, though it is unclear whether they were aimed at rebels in border areas, and Israel has returned fire.”

In order for that sentence to be accurate, its last part would have to read “and Israel has on some occasions returned fire” and its first part would refrain from the use of the word “positions” – which suggests exclusively military targets – whereas in fact a significant proportion of the mortar shells fired from Syria have been directed towards civilian communities.

Under the definition of “public purposes“, the BBC pledges the following:

“BBC viewers, listeners and users can rely on the BBC to provide internationally respected news services to audiences around the world and they can expect the BBC to keep them in touch with what is going on in the world, giving insight into the way people live in other countries.”

It defines its priorities as being:

“Build a global understanding of international issues:
a) Provide international news broadcasting of the highest quality.
b) Enable individuals to participate in the global debate on significant international issues.

Enhance UK audiences’ awareness and understanding of international issues.”

The blind promotion of the propaganda of a ruthless dictatorship without any effort being made to verify its claims, and without any attempt to engage in critical thinking, does not serve the purpose of building “understanding of international issues” – quite the opposite in fact. If BBC audiences are interested in reading the Assad regime’s propaganda, they can do so on its official state news websites. From the BBC, licence fee payers expect journalism which will help them look beyond that propaganda.

May 21 2013

Promoted and quoted: the BBC’s preferred Middle East NGOs

A May 16th 2013 article by Yolande Knell entitled “Israel starts process of authorising new West Bank settlements“, which appeared in the Middle East section of the BBC News website, once again promotes the views of the NGO ‘Peace Now’ without any genuine attempt being made (in contradiction of BBC editorial guidelines) to inform readers of that organisation’s political stance.

“It’s legalising illegal action and creating a possibility of more illegal construction. This gives a green light to the illegal establishment of outposts because it shows permission can be sorted out retrospectively,” says Melanie Robbins, a spokeswoman for Peace Now.”

This is the third time in less than ten days that articles appearing on the BBC News website (including another one also written by Knell) have been used as a platform from which to amplify the ‘Peace Now’ agenda on the subject of communities in Judea and Samaria.

The BBC is of course entitled to quote whoever it sees fit, but it is also obliged to adhere to BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality which clearly state that a contributor’s “viewpoint” – i.e. political outlook and motivations – must be made clear to audiences.

“4.4.14

We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made.”

BBC journalists make common practice of quoting or soliciting opinions from the plethora of political NGOs active in Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories, but rarely if ever do they provide audiences with the all-important background information about those NGOs (including political views and aims, funding – often foreign – and in some cases even terror links) which would enable those watching, hearing or reading BBC content to form their own judgements as regards the reliability and impartiality of the information promoted.

A count of the number of instances in which locally operating NGOs were promoted in just the small proportion of BBC content covered by BBC Watch over the last six months – including interviews with or contributions from individuals connected to those NGOs, but not always identified as such by the BBC and NGO-produced content promoted on Twitter by BBC journalists – shows 13 different NGOs being showcased in 24 instances.

Emek Shaveh - here. Gisha – here, here, here, here and here. Addameer – here, here, here, here and here. ACRI – here and here. ICHAD – here. Machsom Watch – here. Adalah – here. PCHR – here. Peace Now – here (2) and here. Yesh Din – here. Rabbis for Human Rights – here. Al Haq – here. Land Research Centre – here.

Looking further afield to foreign-based NGOs and organisations, we find that in the same six month period, the limited amount of BBC coverage of Israel and the Middle East monitored by BBC Watch showcased the views of seven different organisations on twelve different occasions.

Human Rights Watch – here, here, here, here and here. Conflicts Forum – here and here. Amnesty International – here. Avaaz – here. International Solidarity Movement/Free Gaza – here. Stop the War Coalition – here. UNRWA – here.

In the department of political bloggers who have been promoted by the BBC in the past six months we find Ali Abunimah of ‘Electronic Intifada’ and Yuval Ben Ami of ‘+972 Magazine’.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with any or all of the above organisations will be aware, the amplification of their political stances and individual campaigns is not conducive to providing BBC audiences with a balanced and impartial view of the Middle East. That is particularly the case when the relevant information regarding their raison d’etre is often concealed from BBC audiences or when individuals belonging to those organisations are provided with a platform by the BBC without full disclosure of their affiliations.

The continuation of such practices can only further damage the BBC’s already severely battered reputation with regard to accuracy and impartiality in Middle East reporting.

May 20 2013

BBC’s Knell inaccurate on naval blockade of Gaza Strip

An article entitled “Gas finds in east Mediterranean may change strategic balance” by Yolande Knell which appeared in the ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 13^th 2013 is on the whole fairly balanced and accurate.

However, towards the end of the article when Knell discusses gas reserves off the coast of the Gaza Strip, we find the following statement:

“Further south down the coastline of the Levant Basin, the Gaza Marine field, 30km off the coast of the Palestinian territory, has long been known about. In 1999, the Palestinian Authority awarded the exploration licence to British Gas.

However the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has prevented further development of the field. The situation became more complicated when the Islamist group, Hamas, took over by force in 2007, ousting its rivals from the Fatah faction. Israel then tightened its border and naval blockade of Gaza.”

Let’s examine the accuracy of that last sentence first of all. The violent Hamas take-over of Gaza took place between June 5^th and 15^th 2007 and the Palestinian Authority – the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people – was forcefully ejected from power. Following that event, both Egypt and Israel largely closed their borders with the Gaza Strip due to the fact that the body charged with joint security arrangements under the terms of the Oslo Accords – the Palestinian Authority – no longer exercised any control over the territory.

Three months later – on September 19^th 2007 – in light of the escalation of terrorist rocket attacks against Israeli civilians originating in the now Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip – the Israeli government declared Gaza to be ‘hostile territory’.

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip and turned it into hostile territory. This organization engages in hostile activity against the State of Israel and its citizens and bears responsibility for this activity.

In light of the foregoing, it has been decided to adopt the recommendations that have been presented by the security establishment, including the continuation of military and counter-terrorist operations against the terrorist organizations. Additional sanctions will be placed on the Hamas regime in order to restrict the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip and reduce the supply of fuel and electricity. Restrictions will also be placed on the movement of people to and from the Gaza Strip. The sanctions will be enacted following a legal examination, while taking into account both the humanitarian aspects relevant to the Gaza Strip and the intention to avoid a humanitarian crisis.”

However, Knell’s suggestion that the “naval blockade of Gaza” was “tightened” immediately after the 2007 Hamas coup (as any reasonable reader would understand her phrasing) is incorrect because the naval blockade was not put in place until January 2009.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords – willingly signed by the representatives of the Palestinian people – Gaza’s coastal waters remained under Israeli responsibility. The agreements divide those waters into three different zones named K,L and M.

“Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, Zones K and M will be closed areas, in which navigation will be restricted to activity of the Israel Navy.”

Zone L was designated for “fishing, recreation and economic activities”, subject to specific provisions, including the following:

“As part of Israel’s responsibilities for safety and security within the three Maritime Activity Zones, Israel Navy vessels may sail throughout these zones, as necessary and without limitations, and may take any measures necessary against vessels suspected of being used for terrorist activities or for smuggling arms, ammunition, drugs, goods, of for any other illegal activity. The Palestinian Police will be notified of such actions, and the ensuing procedures will be coordinated through the MC.” [Emphasis added]

Following the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the November 15th 2005 agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (Agreed documents on movement and access from and to Gaza) made no change to the above provisions.

After the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas in 2007, Israel did introduce maritime zones off the coast of the Gaza Strip as part of efforts to reduce arms smuggling into the territory – for example see the Notice to Mariners No. 6/2008 of August 13^th 2008 – but that is not the same thing as a naval blockade (which has a specific legal definition) and hence Knell’s claim of a 2007 tightening of “the naval blockade” is inaccurate.

Is Knell’s wider claim that “the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has prevented further development of the [gas] field” an accurate representation of the situation? Well obviously, had the Palestinians chosen to develop the economy of Gaza Strip after Israel’s 2005 disengagement and had a terrorist organization not overrun the territory, turned it into a terrorist enclave which necessitated the implementation of maritime zones and later the naval blockade and had it not ousted the internationally recognized representatives of the Palestinian people authorized with signing agreements on their behalf, there may have been more opportunity for exploitation of offshore gas resources.

But of course it is much easier just to vaguely lay any blame at Israel’s door rather than to trouble BBC audiences with an exact and detailed account of events for which Palestinians might be perceived to have some responsibility.

May 19 2013

What makes a story newsworthy for the BBC?

A Western journalist working in Israel once remarked to this writer that the reason so many of the foreign media’s reports from the country seem so similar is that a not insignificant number of them are written in the bar of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem where journalists share stories and experiences. He wasn’t entirely joking.

Reports such as the one appearing on the BBC News website’s Middle East page on May 13^th entitled “Israeli PM Netanyahu drops costly in-flight bedroom“, with its uncanny resemblance to – and reliance upon the same sources as – a Guardian article of the previous day, certainly do nothing to dispel that impression.

The Guardian report stated:

“Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper, Sima Kadmon said: “We thought that nothing could surprise us anymore when it came to the Netanyahus’ personal behaviour. Well, we thought wrong. It turns out that King Bibi and Queen Sara are entitled to do everything … The double bed that was installed on the plane cost the Israeli public, which is buckling under the weight of the austerity measures, half a million shekels. Is there no shame?” “

The BBC article stated:

” “Bibi is king, and in a monarchy, when the king and queen fly, price is no object,” said political commentator Sima Kadmon, referring to Mr Netanyahu by his nickname, in Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper Yediot Ahranot [sic].”

Both articles are based upon an item broadcast by Israel’s Channel 10 news on May 10^th. Of course this domestic Israeli story has absolutely no relevance for the overwhelming majority of BBC audience members and quite why it was deemed newsworthy by the BBC News website’s editors is unclear – beyond its pandering to the obsession with all things casting Israel in a less than flattering light.

That impression is reinforced when one takes a quick look at some of the other events which occurred in the region around the same time and which the BBC elected to ignore. For example, on the same evening as Channel 10 broke its in-flight bed story, two Palestinians were reportedly injured when gunmen opened fire on a PA police station near Hebron. Several hours later five others were injured in a separate incident in the same area, with the clashes being attributed to the shooting of a woman a few days previously.

“Sair has witnessed clashes since Palestinian police officers accidentally shot and killed a woman in the town on Wednesday night.
Police officers opened fire at a fugitive’s vehicle and accidentally killed his wife, 30-year-old Khalida Kawazba. A security source told Ma’an that police had ordered the woman’s husband Nawwaf Kawazba to stop, but he instead accelerated, “forcing police to open fire.”
After the shooting, angry residents hurled Molotov cocktails and stones at PA police, who used tear gas to disperse the clashes.”

The BBC has made no attempt whatsoever to report these incidents. Another newsworthy story ignored by the BBC came to light on May 8^th. In the village of Husan – located in the Bethlehem governorate of the Palestinian Authority – an IDF operation to clear the village’s farmlands of old Jordanian land mines began.

“The Palestinian side is supporting and encouraging this project,” said Lieutenant Colonel Eyal Zeevi, who heads the Bethlehem Coordination and Liaison Administration. “This project has two goals: First, to eliminate ongoing danger to human life, and ensure that all mines have been cleared. Second, to return the land to its rightful owners, for the use of the village as a community.”

Also last week – and also ignored by the BBC – Israeli doctors at the Wolfson Medical Centre in Holon successfully operated on a four year-old Syrian child with a life-threatening heart condition as part of the ‘Save a Child’s Heart‘ project and with Israeli government co-ordination.

One might have thought that at least some of those stories would be as newsworthy as an in-flight bed, but apparently that is not the case according to BBC priorities.

May 18 2013

Salafist quoted in BBC rejection of complaint supports Jihad in Syria

Readers will no doubt remember our recent publication of the reply from the BBC News website’s Middle East desk received by a reader in response to a complaint concerning Ahmed Maher’s article of May 1^st 2013 in which he claimed that he could not find video evidence of Tunisian Islamists threatening Tunisian Jews.

The BBC reply based its dismissal of the complaint upon statements procured by BBC Arabic’s Ahmed Maher from one Sheikh Bashir bin Hassan.

“I spoke to Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan, one of the most prominent Salafi, Wahabi sheikhs in post-revolution Tunisian, and asked him again about two things: the chants and the protest in front of the Tunis synagogue. He said: ‘The chants were not aimed at the Tunisian Jews; make no mistake. It was directed at Israel because Israel is a very sensitive issue in the Muslim world. Our Prophet Muhammad asked us to take good care and protect non-Muslims living in our countries like Christians and Jews.’

“Regarding the Tunis synagogue video, Sheikh Bashir Bin Hassan said it was ‘misleading because it was taken out of context. The protest was not against the Tunisian Jews but rather it was in support of Salafists and other Islamist forces in Egypt. The protesters were heading towards the Egyptian embassy in Tunis and they stopped for moments in front of the synagogue to express their anger at the Zionist entity’s policies’.”

As we remarked at the time:

“Get it? According to the BBC, if Tunisian Islamists (and presumably any elsewhere too) chant “Killing the Jews is a duty” or “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud” or ”the army of Mohammed will return”, then local Jews have nothing whatsoever to worry about because in fact they are not referring to them – or indeed to Jews at all – but to Israel, which should apparently be perfectly understandable. And the BBC website’s Middle East desk is quite sure of that because a prominent Salafist – who obviously thinks it unremarkable to chant hate speech relating to “the Zionist entity’s policies” in front of a synagogue in Tunisia – told them so.”

In another recent report by Ahmed Maher (“Syria conflict: Why did my Tunisian son join the rebels?“, May 15^th 2013, filmed version here) we learn that Maher’s reliance upon – and amplification of – the opinions of the Saudi Arabia-educated Sheikh was not a one-off event. We also gain further insight into the views of the man the BBC News website’s Middle East desk apparently considers a quotable authority.

“Many imams, like Sheikh Bashir bin Hassan, endorse jihad in Syria openly and are proud of what they see as the “heroic acts of the young jihadists”.

“They are on a humanitarian mission. The West insists on associating jihad and Salafism to terrorism, which is not true,” Sheikh Bashir told me in an interview inside a mosque in the town of Masakin, 200km (124 miles) south of Tunis.

For Sheikh Bashir, it is justifiable for Sunni Muslims to take arms against the Assad forces, who belong to a Shia sect, to protect oppressed fellow Sunnis – a stance that reflects the sectarian overtone of the conflict.

And he accuses the West of double standards.

“Let’s imagine that the British government decided to attack a county with scud missiles to stamp out a peaceful rebellion. Europeans would be watching entire families being slaughtered day in day out. What would the young do? They would flock in droves to England to protect the oppressed.” “

BBC licence fee payers will no doubt be very interested to know that the BBC considers it acceptable to judge the merits of a complaint on the basis of the opinions of a man who not only subscribes to the inherently antisemitic Wahhabi ideology, but is also openly supportive of jihadist violence.

May 17 2013

An interesting use of the word ‘missiles’ by the BBC

The BBC News website’s Middle East page included two items on the same subject on May 17th. A written article entitled “Ultra-Orthodox Jews in mass protest against Israel army draft” was accompanied by a filmed television news report titled “Ultra-Orthodox Jews protest at forced military service plan“.

Why the BBC considers this internal Israeli issue worthy of so much coverage is not clear, but the two articles are interesting in that they show something of the BBC’s monochrome grasp of the subject of the many varied religious streams in Israel.

The narration accompanying the filmed report states:

“Ultra-Orthodox Jews are currently exempt from military service on religious grounds. They say it would harm their way of life. But it’s an issue which causes tension between them and Israel’s secular majority.”

The majority of viewers watching that report would remain unaware of the fact that many religiously observant Israelis of various streams do serve in the Israeli army, including some ‘Ultra-Orthodox’ – or as they are better termed Haredi – Jews. Viewers – as well as readers of the written article – were not informed that the protest was organized by the anti-Zionist ‘Eda Haredit’ stream or that a counter protest by another Orthodox group – ‘Haredim L’Achdut Israel‘ (Haredim for Israeli Unity) – also took place at the same time.

Rather oddly – given both that the BBC does not usually bother to report on details of the attire of protesters in other countries and that it would in fact be newsworthy only if the people present were not wearing their everyday dress – the written article states:

“At least 15,000 men, all dressed in the black coats and hats traditionally worn by Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews, crowded into the streets around the military’s recruitment office, in the Haredi neighbourhood of Mekor Barukh on Thursday night.”

But the article’s outstanding feature is its use of one very interesting word.

“Violence erupted as some threw missiles at police and set rubbish bins on fire.”

Of course there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the use of the word ‘missiles’ to mean “an object thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance” – in this case stones. However, as those who regularly watch or read BBC output will be aware, that word is not the BBC’s usual term of choice when describing the actions of Palestinian stone-throwers, or even the firing of military-grade rockets at Israeli civilians.

May 17 2013

BBC’s Davies describes new Golan fence as ‘controversial’

The ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website included an item by the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Wyre Davies on May 12^th entitled “Israel prepares for the worst as tensions over Syria grow“.

In that piece, readers once again see the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hizballah described in cartoonish terms as Israel’s “arch-enemy in southern Lebanon” and once again the writer manages to produce an entire article based around the subject of Israeli responses to weapons transfers to Hizballah via Syria without explaining the all-important underlying UN Security Council resolution 1701.

Davies’ main theme in this feature is that Israel is preparing itself for another round of conflict with Hizballah – an assertion which will not be news to anyone with even a basic familiarity with the Middle East.

“It is obvious as well, that not just the municipality of Haifa but the Israeli government and the higher echelons of the army are getting ready for the possibility if not the probability of another conflict in the north.”

However, Davies appears to have swallowed the same dubious claims regarding the Iron Dome missile defence system as promoted by his colleagues Kevin Connolly and Jonathan Marcus in recent weeks.

“Driving out of Haifa, newly installed batteries of the much vaunted Iron Dome anti-missile defence system are visible in fields to the north of the city.

After the system was successfully used in last year’s Gaza conflict, it should provide added security for Haifa and other northern towns in the event of another conflict, even though there is still a debate about how effective the system – developed in Israel and financed by the United States – actually is.”

Later on in the article comes this rather curious statement:

“Although all of the intelligence and military assessments concur that the greatest immediate threat to Israel still comes from the north and Hezbollah, in recent weeks and months there has also been a great deal of concern and attention focused on the eastern frontier.”

That analysis suggests that Davies has not entirely grasped the fact that whilst Hizballah’s traditional stomping ground is indeed southern Lebanon (to the north of Israel), its record of activity abroad and its involvement in the Syrian civil war indicate that it is by no means confined to that geographical location. The Lebanese website Naharnet reported earlier in the week that Hizballah has been involved in the recent fierce fighting in the Dara’a area in southern Syria – close to the borders with both Jordan and Israel – and other reports suggest that the terror organisation’s presence in that region has, with Iranian prompting, received Bashar Assad’s blessing.

Meanwhile, on the morning of May 15^th, mortars from Syria landed in the area of Mount Hermon in the northern Golan Heights, with the fire later being claimed by an Islamist group operating in Syria. On the same day a New Zealander serving with UNTSO was abducted from an observation post in the Golan, apparently together with two others, but released after a few hours. In southern Lebanon a UNIFIL post was overrun with three soldiers also briefly kidnapped and equipment and ammunition stolen. None of the above incidents has so far been reported by the BBC. (Also unreported was missile fire on the same day on Israel’s southern area of Eshkol.)

The repeated incidents of abductions of UN personnel in the Golan Heights have already had a detrimental effect upon peace-keeping activities along that border (one imagines much to the delight – if not intent – of the assorted Islamist groups located in the area) and an alleged recent EU statement suggests that the same could apply to the Lebanese – Israeli frontier. Ironically, during a visit to Lebanon on May 13^th, the UN Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping saw fit to whitewash the long-standing failure of his organisation to implement UN SC 1701 which has led to the current situation in which Hizballah is able to threaten regional stability on several fronts.

“In his remarks, Mr. Ladsous commended Israel and Lebanon for their continued commitment to the cessation of hostilities and the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese group Hizbollah, and calls for respect for the Blue Line, the disarming of all militias in Lebanon, and an end to arms smuggling in the area.”

Towards the end of Davies’ article we find another bizarre statement:

“Israel’s response to the fighting and upheaval on the Syrian side of the plateau has been spectacular if controversial.

A massive new 3m (10ft) high fence has been built in almost no time along the entire length of the de-facto border and Israel’s military presence has been visibly stepped up in the region.”

What exactly Davies thinks is “spectacular” or “controversial” about replacing a forty year-old rusty fence with a new one in light of the appearance of armed Al Qaeda-affiliated groups on its other side is – to this writer at least – something of a mystery.

And for as long as the BBC continues with its practice of selective reporting of events on Israel’s northern and eastern borders – as well as those on its southern one with the Gaza Strip – BBC audiences will also remain mystified with regard to the dynamics at work in cooking up the next round of conflict – from whichever direction it may come.

May 16 2013

BBC sensationalises routine obligatory inquiry

A dramatic headline appearing on the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 14th announced “ICC launches inquiry into Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla“.

However, the full facts behind the story make the event distinctly less dramatic and sensational than portrayed in that headline.

The BBC report opens:

“The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched a preliminary inquiry into an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla which left nine Turkish activists dead.

ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said it would establish whether there were grounds for a full investigation.”

The fact is that – as stated in the press release issued by the Office of the Prosecutor to which the BBC article links – such an inquiry is routine and indeed required in the event of any referral, as explained here.

“Finally, a plea to the media: please do not overstate the importance of the OTP’s “decision” to open a preliminary examination into the attack on the flotilla. As the ICC’s press release notes, the OTP is required to conduct such an examination into every state referral, regardless of merit. I have no doubt that the OTP takes state referrals more seriously than referrals from individuals and human-rights groups. But that does not mean, nor does it even suggest, that the OTP will decide to open a formal investigation into the flotilla attack. Indeed, for all the reasons mentioned in this post, I think that is exceedingly unlikely.”

The BBC article continues:

“The move follows a request from the Comoros islands, in which one of the vessels was registered.”

The article initially omits any mention of the fact that the request was filed by Turkish lawyers Ramazan (Ramadan) Ariturk and Cihat (Jihad) Gokdemir (who also represent the Mavi Marmara ‘victims’) from the Istanbul-based law firm Elmadag on behalf of Comoros, by Power of Attorney. Only half way through the BBC report do readers learn of “a Turkish law firm acting on behalf of the government of the Union of the Comoros”.

The report also fails to mention that whilst the vessel concerned – the Mavi Marmara – was indeed registered in Comoros at the time of the incident in which some of its passengers attacked Israeli soldiers trying to board the ship in order to prevent it from breaching a legal naval blockade, that registration only took place on May 22^nd 2010 – just over a week before the incident occurred – and that the ship was, and still is, owned by the IHH with its registration having been transferred back to Turkey in August 2011.

The BBC article once again promotes the PR myth of the 2010 flotilla as an “aid” mission whilst concurrently touching on its real aim:

“The boats were trying to transport aid supplies to Gaza in May 2010.

The Free Gaza Flotilla, which had more than 600 pro-Palestinian activists aboard several ships, was trying to break Israel’s naval blockade.”

In addition, the report heavily airbrushes the events initiated by passengers aboard the ship which led to the eventual deaths of nine.

“The activists were killed when Israeli commandos boarded the lead flotilla vessel, Mavi Marmara.”

The article also includes the deliberately disingenuous use of the phrase “Israel says” in its description of the naval blockade: the smuggling of arms to Hamas by sea is a well-known fact.

“Israel says the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons and ammunition being smuggled to the Gaza Strip, which has been governed by the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas since 2007.”

BBC audiences’ understanding of the significance – or rather, lack of it – of this latest Turkish move would of course have been better served by clear, accurate and impartial reporting on the subject. Instead, the BBC succumbed to sensationalism which was only marginally pipped at the post by the IHH itself.

May 15 2013

BBC amplifies ‘Peace Now’ campaign

The BBC’s editorial guidelines on impartiality include the following clauses:

“4.4.12

News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.

4.4.14

Two recent articles appearing in the Middle East section of the BBC News website highlight the problematic widespread phenomenon of BBC reports based upon information sourced from political NGOs working in Israel.

A May 7^th article entitled “Israel PM Netanyahu ‘curbs settlement construction’” devotes five out of 16 paragraphs to promoting the position of the foreign-funded political NGO ‘Peace Now’ (Shalom Achshav).

“Israel’s prime minister has issued an unofficial order to stop the approval of new plans or tenders for Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, a leading pressure group says.

Peace Now said it appeared Benjamin Netanyahu was responding to US efforts to restart Middle East peace talks.” […]

“Peace Now said it appeared Mr Netanyahu had “adopted a policy of restraint, possibly to avoid being blamed for undermining Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to launch a new Israeli-Palestinian political process”.

However, Hagit Ofran, the director of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch project, noted: “This is not a freeze.”

Settlement construction was still taking place at numerous sites, sanctioned by plans and tenders that were approved before Mr Obama’s visit, he said.” Hagit Ofran (Photo: Matthew Bell)

Seeing as Hagit Ofran is female, one has to wonder if that last sentence above indicates that whoever wrote this BBC article just reproduced a ‘Peace Now’ press release.

The BBC article also includes two paragraphs relating to a Palestinian Authority statement on the subject and four paragraphs of second-hand reactions by the Israeli Housing minister and the Yesha Council – both cribbed from other media sources.

The report states:

“Direct negotiations with the Palestinians stalled in 2010 following a dispute over settlement construction.”

This is far from the first time that the BBC has misrepresented the events of 2009/10 when a ten-month long construction freeze initiated by the Israeli government as an incentive to restart peace negotiations was ignored by the Palestinian Authority for 90% of its duration and its culmination used by that body as a pretext to discontinue talks.

The article continues:

“About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

Yet again we see the BBC’s adoption and promotion of a very partial and political interpretation of “international law” which in no way reflects the variety of legal opinion (by no means only Israeli) on the subject and fails to provide the necessary resources for BBC audiences to form their own opinions on the issue.

Those same two dumbed down mantras are repeated in another BBC article by Yolande Knell published two days later on May 9th and titled “Israel approves almost 300 new West Bank settler homes“.

“Direct talks with the Palestinians stalled in 2010 following a dispute over settlements.

All settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”

Knell also devotes four paragraphs of her article to the promotion of the point of view of ‘Peace Now’.

“The Israeli pressure group, Peace Now, confirmed that no tenders had been issued for new settler homes in recent months. A leading settler body, the Yesha Council, confirmed this.

Peace Now said the latest announcement was a blow to peace.

“There was a possible sign of restraint but this new plan makes it clear there is no freeze in construction,” says Melanie Robbins from the organisation.

“In fact the decision to promote this building in Beit El is extremely problematic. It will lead to a 33% growth in the settlement.” “

Interestingly, Knell describes the proposed location of construction – Beit El – in the following terms:

“Beit El is an isolated settlement close to the Palestinian city of Ramallah, the administrative capital for the Palestinian Authority.”

Beit El is situated 29 kilometers (18 miles) from the city centre of Israel’s capital Jerusalem – closer than Bushey or Watford to central London – and so Knell’s employment of the word “isolated” is notable, especially as we find it used in a ‘Peace Now’ press release relating to the subject of Knell’s article and published on the same day. [emphasis added]

“Peace Now: “It seems that Netayahu is deceiving the public by claiming to have restrained the construction in settlements. The reported pause in publication of new tenders is halting only a small part of the construction in settlements, while the construction on the ground continues, and the initiation of new plans, even in isolated settlements, continues.”

The plan: many units in an isolated settlement

The settlement of Beit El is located very close to Ramallah, in an area that will not be annexed to Israel under any future peace agreement.”

In the interests of its obligations to impartiality, any BBC article based upon press releases from politically motivated NGOs should make that fact clear to readers. In addition, the BBC’s habitual failure to provide its audiences with fully transparent information regarding the positions, motivations and funding of such NGOs severely compromises its reputation for impartiality by contravening the guidelines noted above and entrenching the impression that the BBC is knowingly acting as a promoter and amplifier of selected political campaigns.

That impression is further strengthened by its failure to report on construction plans in Judea and Samaria destined for Palestinian residents – such as the recently publicised project near Jericho.

“The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria has deposited a plan for a large project of 1,140 Palestinian homes on Israeli state land in Area C of the West Bank near the city of Jericho.

The project, on 1,800 dunams of land, would provide a legal housing solution for Palestinians in that area living in illegal homes and unauthorized villages that are not properly connected to utilities, according to the civil administration.”

A BBC report on that particular proposed ‘settlement’ has yet to appear.

May 13 2013

More revealing BBC replies to audience complaints

As noted here previously, it took the BBC some 48 hours to amend the May 5^th headline which read “Israeli strikes on Syria ‘co-ordinated with terrorists’” to “Syria says Israeli strikes ‘co-ordinated with terrorists’”.

A BBC Watch reader has informed us of the reply he received to his complaint about the wording of the original headline, from which we learn that baseless Syrian regime propaganda is apparently “newsworthy”. That might indeed be considered to be the case if the BBC had provided its audiences with some insight as to why the Assad regime considers making such bizarre claims useful to its cause, but it did not do that. Instead, it merely garnished that regime propaganda with the BBC stamp of ‘reliability’.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your comments regarding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419995

The original headline was incomplete and insufficient. It has been changed, which we acknowledge at the foot of the report, to make it absolutely clear that the claim that Israel had co-ordinated its strikes with Syrian rebels was made by Syria. This was of course made absolutely clear within the report. We would argue that it is newsworthy that the Syrian regime has claimed that Israeli strikes were coordinated with Syrian rebels. The Israeli point of view on the strikes and the threat that Syria constitutes is amply explained in the analysis box on the report by our Jerusalem correspondent and in these sidebars:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21275289

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221

It is clear from our report that the word ‘terrorists’ to refer to Syrian rebels is used by officials of the Syrian regime.

Best regards,

Middle East desk

BBC News website

However, the first link presented as supposedly “amply” explaining the Israeli point of view by whoever wrote this reply leads to the political polemic addressed here, which does nothing whatsoever to balance the BBC’s promotion of Syrian regime propaganda: quite the opposite, in fact.

The BBC’s response to a separate complaint concerning the use of the word ‘settler’ to describe Evyatar Borovsky in a headline relating to his murder in a terror attack on April 30^th is brought to us by Honest Reporting. From that reply we learn that the BBC considers the single most important defining factor about any Israeli to be his or her place of residence and that people – or more specifically, Jews – living over the ‘green line’ cannot be categorized as Israelis.

“We used the word “settler” because it is, in the first instance, the word that most accurately and completely describes the victim of Tuesday’s attack. Obviously, lower down in the report, we give more detail on the victim.

“Israeli” is wrong here because it does not indicate that Eviatar Borovzky lived in the West Bank. Under international law, the West Bank is occupied territories and Israelis who live there are therefore settlers. This in no way mitigates or justifies an act of murder. We are, for a general international news audience, trying to be as clear as possible about who killed whom and where. All three leading international news agencies – Reuters, the Associated Press and AFP – used exactly the same phrasing us we did.”

Evyatar Borovsky was murdered for no other reason than the fact that he was an Israeli citizen. The terrorist did not request information regarding his postcode before deciding whether or not to stab him to death at a bus stop. It is high time the BBC brought itself up to speed with that unpleasant reality and ceased its offensive, dehumanising and misleading habit of dividing Israelis into ‘good’ ones who live where it thinks they should be allowed to live and ‘settlers’ who do not – according to the BBC’s own partisan and politically motivated interpretations of “international law”. It is also high time that the BBC recognised that whilst some legal opinions regarding the status of communities in Judea and Samaria might question the legitimacy of the towns and villages themselves, the issue of legality does not extend to the people living in them, who all hold Israeli citizenship.

Of course that is probably too much to expect from an organisation which clearly believes that it is acceptable for it to make paternalistic decisions about when and where ” ‘Israeli’ is wrong”. Those arbitrary and ill-informed decisions anachronistically trample the rights of a people to self-determination and self-identification in a manner which it is difficult to imagine the BBC considering doing with regard to other nations.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: BBC News