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 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 12 2013

BBC reports UN kidnapping, ignores mortar fire into Israel

Position 86

On May 7^th 2013 an article entitled “Syria crisis: UN peacekeepers seized on Golan Heights” appeared in the Middle East section of the BBC News website, relating to the latest case of kidnapping of members of the UNDOF force from the area of Position 86 – located in the buffer zone between Israel and Syria.

The article opens:

“Four Filipino UN peacekeepers have been abducted by armed men while patrolling in the demilitarised area between Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.”

Only later does the reader discover that these “armed men” are actually part of the opposition forces in Syria.

“A Syrian rebel group, the Martyrs of Yarmouk, published a photo purportedly showing the four men and said they were being held for their own safety.”

As was the case in the BBC’s reporting of the previous kidnapping incident in March, no explanation is given to readers regarding the Jihadist ideology of the kidnappers. And once again, whilst the BBC does report on the abduction of UN troops, it fails to report on preceding cross-border incidents, making do with the following statement:

“UN officials told the AFP news agency that there had been increased military activity by Syrian government and rebel forces in the demilitarised zone, and the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed there had been recent heavy fighting.”

During that heavy fighting in the region of the village of Jamla, mortar shells were fired across the border, landing near Ramat Magshimim, on two occasions on the afternoon of May 6^th and also on the morning of May 7^th. Fortunately, no injuries or damage were sustained. The BBC did not see fit to report either of those incidents, not even as an addition to its later report on the abduction.

With the Philippines now reportedly considering pulling its troops out of UNDOF as a result of this second kidnapping, developments along the border between Israel and Syria require accurate and comprehensive reporting if BBC audiences are to comprehend any future events in a more realistic manner than the BBC’s coverage of incidents preceding Operation Pillar of Cloud along Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip facilitated.

May 7 2013

BBC Q&A on alleged Israeli air strikes is political polemic

Among the BBC’s ample coverage of the alleged Israeli air-strikes on targets in Syria related to the transfer of advanced weapons to the terrorist organisation Hizballah, we find a ‘Question & Answer’ article dated May 5th 2013.

The article opens:

“Israel has carried out two attacks in two days on Syrian targets – three since the beginning of this year – raising the prospect of its deeper involvement in Syria’s civil war.”

The suggestion that Israel is already involved in the civil war in Syria – and may become more so – is inaccurate and misleading. Any Israeli actions are not intended to benefit either one side or the other in the conflict, but solely to reduce dangers to Israeli civilians. Should Syria or Hizballah choose to retaliate, that would signal the opening of another round in existing, separate conflicts.

The article states:

“The Lebanese military complained of multiple overflights in their airspace by Israeli warplanes on Friday 3 May. Later that day unnamed US officials began briefing media outlets that Israeli jets had hit targets in Syria. Reports said the targets were sophisticated weapons heading towards Lebanon, where they would be delivered to Israel’s arch-enemy, Hezbollah.”

“Arch-enemy”? That reads more like the script for a Bond film than measured, professional analysis.

The piece continues:

“In the early hours of 5 May, Damascus was shaken by a number of explosions. Residents told the BBC the blasts were the most powerful to hit Damascus since the start of the country’s civil conflict in 2011.

Syrian state media accused Israel of launching rocket attacks on the Jamraya scientific research institute. Some Western experts have said the institute is involved with chemical-weapons research.

However, unnamed Western and Israeli security officials briefed later that the target was not Jamraya. It was once again weapons caches heading to Hezbollah, which may have been stored near the research facility.”

A very significant and glaring fault in an article purportedly intended to provide BBC audiences with background information and context to the specific events, is its failure to put sufficient accent upon the Iranian factor – either in the context of Hizballah as an Iranian proxy, Iran as the supplier of weapons or the Iranian presence on the soil of its Syrian ally.

“The New York Times said on Saturday that Iranian surface-to-surface Fateh-10 missiles were struck at a Damascus airport warehouse that was under the guard of the Iranian Quds Force and Hezbollah. The projectiles have a range of 300 kilometers.”

But only in the thirteenth paragraph of this BBC article do its readers learn of any kind of Iranian involvement in the story from this brief docile portrayal:

“After the 5 May attack unnamed Israeli officials confirmed the assault and said the target was a shipment of Fateh-110 missiles, which were being transported from Iran to Lebanon via Syria.”

Under the sub-heading “Why would Israel attack?”, readers are told the following: [emphasis added]

“Taken at face value, the statements from unnamed officials suggest Israel’s actions are defensive. It fought a war with Hezbollah in 2006, and regards the Lebanese militant group as its key regional enemy. On this analysis, cutting the supply line to Hezbollah is crucial to stop a potential conflict.”

“At face value”? Whilst it does not specifically present any other theory, the BBC seems to be suggesting here that there are in fact other motives for Israel’s actions besides the defence of its citizens. That notion was also promoted in a Tweet from Wyre Davies on May 6^th.

Four paragraphs on, the article once again promotes the erroneous notion of Israeli involvement in the Syrian civil war – obviously sourced from Syrian regime propaganda.

“Also, Israel risks becoming a major factor in Syria’s civil war. The Assad regime has already portrayed anti-government rebels and Israel as working “hand in glove”. And the strikes have brought a chorus of disapproval from the wider region, further shoring up Mr Assad’s position.”

Interestingly, the BBC does not typically classify hands-on practical support and training provided to the rebel faction by countries such as the United States, the UK and France as ‘intervention’ in Syria’s civil war or deem them ‘major factors’ in that conflict. Neither does it parrot Syrian regime propaganda on that subject.

The article also states:

“Israel also has its own dispute with Syria over the Golan Heights. Although the border has been relatively peaceful, concern is growing that increasing chaos in Syria could spill over.”

The BBC’s definition of “relatively peaceful” apparently includes numerous incidents of cross-border shelling and shooting which, although consistently under-reported by the BBC, have long passed the theoretical threshold of “could spill over”.

Citing no named legal sources for its assertion, the article goes on to say:

“The risks of carrying out strikes are huge. The attacks, if proved, would be likely to breach international law and could lead to retaliation.”

This gratuitous reference to “international law” is clearly intended more for politically motivated dramatic effect than to inform readers of any relevant factual legal background. Interestingly, the legal aspect of the transfer of long-range surface to surface missiles to the terrorist militia Hizballah in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolution 1701 does not appear to interest this BBC writer.

Significantly, the understanding of and support for the alleged air strikes from the US and the UK goes unmentioned both in this article and other BBC coverage of the subject.

The article continues with a wonderful display of BBC equivalence:

“This year’s strikes are the first inside Syria since September 2007, when Israeli warplanes were suspected of destroying a site that UN monitors said was likely to have been a nuclear reactor. Syria denied the claim, saying the building was a non-nuclear military site.” [emphasis added]

The BBC’s polemical promotion of its ‘world view’ – disingenuously disguised as supposedly factual background material – is cringingly transparent in this article. Not only doing little to meet the BBC’s obligation to contribute to audience understanding of the real context of recent events in the region, it actually hampers any such understanding by advancing the conspiracy theories of the Syrian dictatorship and glossing over vital components of the picture such as Iranian involvement.

The BBC does not yet appear to grasp that its overall reputation as a supplier of accurate and impartial information is severely damaged by such shoddy journalism on the subject of the Middle East.

Apr 16 2013

Beyond the BBC Middle East news filter

Among the recent Middle East events not reported by the BBC was the controversy caused on April 1^st when Fatah-affiliated students at a university in Tulkarem hung and burned an effigy of the Emir of Qatar at an election rally.

The action was condemned by PA president Mahmoud Abbas, as well as by Hamas – which apparently demanded that the PA arrest the students concerned. According to journalist/activist Hazem Balousha (he of the Donnison fauxtography tweet fame), Hamas e-mailed a statement on the subject to reporters:

“In a press statement that was sent out to reporters via email, Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas’ spokesman, said that “Hamas considers Abbas’ condemnation of the abusive act on the part of some Fatah-affiliated youth to the Qatari leadership not to be enough and does not relieve him from responsibility given the fact that he is the head of the Fatah movement. We condemn this irresponsible act and call upon Abbas to arrest the culprits in order to preserve our foreign relations. We consider this act to be the result of incitement on the part of some Fatah leadership to support certain Arab parties against others.” “

The possibility that this incident received no coverage from the BBC because its e-mail does not appear in the Hamas address book of course exists, but given the BBC’s well documented – if naïve – enthusiasm for the subject of Hamas/Fatah reconciliation, it seems rather more likely that this was not considered to be a ‘need to know’ item for BBC audiences.

Another recent event not reported by the BBC was an additional incident of cross-border fire in the Golan Heights on April 12th. The ever-looming possibility of withdrawal of UN peace-keeping forces from the buffer zone between Israel and Syria has also failed to generate any significant coverage by the BBC.

“Austrian UN peacekeepers, fearing their safety due to fighting in Syria, will assess on a daily basis if they can stay to monitor a truce between Israel and Syria, Austria’s foreign minister said on Friday. [..]

“We have decided, as Austrians, to stay as long as we can, this is our mandate … (but) we have to decide every day if it’s possible,” Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger said.

”We will do so as long as is possible,” he told Reuters after visiting Austria’s UN contingent on the Golan Heights, where he was briefed about the situation.

In the past three months, Japan and Croatia have both said they were withdrawing their troops from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).

Austrians account for around 380 of the 1,000-strong mission and should Vienna quit the operation, it was unclear if any other nation would be ready to step into the breach.”

On April 13^th the IDF apprehended a Palestinian intending to carry out a terror attack at the Eliyahu checkpoint near Kfar Saba and on April 14^th three prominent members of Hamas from the Jenin area were arrested by the IDF according to Palestinian sources. There has been no coverage of the attempted terror attack by the BBC.

Neither has the BBC seen fit to inform its audiences of the recent call by the overwhelming majority of members of the Jordanian parliament to pardon the murderer of seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997 at the ‘Isle of Peace’ at Naharayim.

BBC audiences’ understanding of the Middle East is of course just as dependent upon which news items are filtered out as it is on what is actually reported.

Apr 7 2013

Syrian fire into Israel again goes unreported by the BBC

Until recently the BBC only saw fit to report on cross-border fire from Syria into the Golan Heights when Israel fired back. Now it seems not even those incidents merit a mention.

On the evening of April 2^nd2013 a mortar shell fired from Syria landed near Tel Fares and shortly afterwards shots were fired at an IDF patrol near Tel Hazeka. Israel responded with tank fire in the direction of the Syrian outpost from which the shooting came.

The BBC did not report these incidents.

Another recent Syria-related incident not reported by the BBC was the attack on an Al Jazeera news team covering ‘Land Day’ events in the Galilee town of Sakhnin on March 30^th.

“A scuffle broke out Saturday during a Land Day procession in Sakhnin. Several dozen protesters who support Syrian President Bashar Assad assaulted an Al-Jazeera reporter and his crew.

The rioters hurled water bottles at the journalists claiming they were fabricating reports about the situation in Syria. The scuffle quickly spread to include other protesters. Three people were lightly injured including a Channel 1 journalist who sustained a minor head injury and was treated at a local clinic.”

In fact, the BBC chose to maintain ‘radio silence’ altogether regarding the annual ‘Land Day’ demonstrations – several of which turned violent. At the Qalandiya checkpoint near Jerusalem the day was marked with stone-throwing by some 150 rioters. On Route 60, near Efrat, a four year-old Israeli boy was injured when the car in which he was travelling was pelted with rocks.

Of course, BBC audiences’ comprehension of the Middle East is not enhanced by selective reporting.

Apr 1 2013

No BBC reports on Israeli medical aid for wounded Syrians

Golan Heights

Readers will no doubt remember the BBC’s somewhat bizarre take on the subject of a group of seven wounded Syrians (one of whom remains hospitalized) treated in an Israeli hospital in February. Since then, Israel has provided medical help to several more Syrian citizens.

On March 30^th a seriously wounded man was treated by Israeli army medics at the border fence and then evacuated to hospital in Haifa. The previous week a group of wounded people arrived at the border fence where most were treated on the spot, but two had to be evacuated to hospitals in Israel due to the severity of their wounds. One man – suffering from a gunshot wound to the head – later died whilst in hospital. The week before that, two people with shrapnel injuries – from a larger group of wounded who reached the border – were evacuated to a hospital in Haifa whilst the rest were treated on site.

The IDF has now set up a field hospital in the north of the Golan Heights in order to provide medical care for the increasing numbers of Syrians seeking Israeli help.

So far, the BBC has shown no interest in reporting this story.

Mar 28 2013

BBC’s ‘History of Syria’ erases ancient Jewish community, distorts Six Day War

On March 11^th 2013, an hour-long documentary entitled “A History of Syria with Dan Snow” was broadcast on BBC Two. An accompanying article under the heading “Syria’s priceless heritage under attack” appeared in the Magazine section of the BBC News website on March 10th.

Readers familiar with the history themselves will no doubt have noticed that in Dan Snow’s extensive portrayal of the rich tapestry of ethnic groups making up Syria throughout its history, one particularly ancient community was conspicuous by its absence. No mention whatsoever was made of the centuries-old Jewish community of Syria, either in the television programme or in Snow’s written article which featured the city of Haleb (Aleppo) - home to Jews for millennia and formerly one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world – very prominently.

Towards the end of the film (at 57:32 in the version above), Snow informs viewers that:

“Between eruptions of violence, there is actually a long-standing tradition of tolerance and opposition to extremism in Syria.”

That portrayal of course airbrushes out the persecution of Jews in Syria completely, as well as their subsequent flight from the country.

Another no less amazing bout of airbrushing – especially coming from someone with a background in modern history – appears at 34:23 in the above video when Dan Snow tells his audience:

“In 1967 [Hafez al] Assad was Minister of Defence when Israel launched a series of strikes against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Israelis humiliated Arab forces and took control of part of Syria; the Golan Heights.”

Snow of course fails to inform his audiences that the Golan Heights can only be considered to have been “part of Syria” for a maximum of 45 years before 1967, but it is his one-liner on the subject of the Six Day War which in particular stands out as a blatant breach of BBC Editorial Guidelines on accuracy.

Children in an air-raid shelter at Kibbutz Gadot during an attack by Syrian shell fire, April 1967

Viewers are given no inkling of the events leading up to that war; indeed they might reasonably conclude from Snow’s account that Israelis simply woke up one morning and decided to attack three of the surrounding countries. Snow avoids any mention of the Arab League project to divert the headwaters of the Jordan River (the source of Israel’s main water supply at the time) and the relentless Syrian attacks upon Israeli communities below the Golan Heights during the years preceding the Six Day War.

He completely ignores the build-up to the war, including Egypt’s massing of troops in the Sinai and its expulsion of the UN forces from that area, after which Nasser informed the Arab world by radio that:

“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”

A Syrian tank in its fortified position at “Tawfik”, Golan Heights, dominating Kibbutz Tel Katzir and the Jordan Valley.

Likewise Snow fails to mention the massing of Syrian troops in the Golan Heights on May 18^th 1967 and the bellicose statement made by Hafez al Assad two days later:

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united….I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”

The closure of the Straits of Tiran on May 22^nd 1967 – a clear casus belli, as noted by President Lyndon Johnson at the time – is also ignored by Snow, as are the subsequent almost daily statements put out by Nasser.

“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” (May 27th 1967)

“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” (May 28th 1967)

Kibbutz Daphna (foreground) and Kibbutz Dan as seen from the “Tel Azaziat” fortifications, Golan Heights.

“The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.” (May 30th, 1967 – following the signing of the defence pact with Jordan.)

While Israel did indeed launch pre-emptive strikes on the Egyptian air-force on June 5^th 1967, that was of course far from either the beginning or the end of the Six Day War as Snow so erroneously implies.

This is far from the first time that the BBC has broadcast or published politically motivated historically revisionist versions of events surrounding the Six Day War. This blog post from CMEW regarding a complaint already made to the BBC about Snow’s above statement suggests, however, that the BBC chooses to remain bunkered in its ahistorical view of those events.

It is high time for the BBC to ensure adherence to its own Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality with regard to this subject and to cease the advancement of political narratives under the guise of “history”. It is the BBC’s self-declared role to contribute to audiences’ knowledge of the world – not to seek to manipulate viewers’ political opinions regarding the Middle East or any other region.

Mar 27 2013

Selective BBC reporting on cross-border incidents in the Golan

As previously noted here not long ago, the BBC’s selective reporting on the subject of the growing number of cross-border incidents along the Israeli-Syrian frontier in the Golan Heights is not as erratic as it may at first seem.

Shelling and shooting into Israel, such as the incident at Alonei HaBashan in late February or the one at Ramat Magshimim in early March, received no attention from the BBC. On March 23^rd shots were fired at an Israeli patrol along the border in the late evening. That incident was also not initially reported by the BBC.

On Sunday, March 24^th, another incident occurred near Tel Fares, and this time the IDF responded. That response prompted the appearance of a short report on the BBC News website in which it was seen fit to remind readers twice that “Israel seized the Golan Heights during the 1967 war” and “Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since the 1967 war”.

The fact that the BBC apparently elects to report only on incidents to which Israel responds means that BBC audiences are receiving a partial picture of the situation along that border and – as has similarly been the case with the BBC’s selective reporting of incidents along the border with the Gaza Strip – that crucial context is eliminated from audience understanding.

Dec 31 2012

BBC confuses armistice lines with borders yet again

Kibbutz Ein Gev, circa 1937

In the BBC’s profile of the Golan Heights which appears in the Middle East section of the BBC News website we find that once more 1949 Armistice Lines are mistakenly presented as borders. Addressing the subject of past talks between Israel and Syria, the profile states:

“But the main sticking point during the 1999 talks is also likely to bedevil any future discussions. Syria wants a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 border. This would give Damascus control of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee – Israel’s main source of fresh water.

Israel wishes to retain control of Galilee [sic] and says the border is located a few hundred metres to the east of the shore.”

That “pre-1967 border” is actually the 1949 Armistice Line which was specifically defined as not being a border. Article V of the agreement states:

“1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.

2. In pursuance of the spirit of the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, the Armistice Demarcation Line and the demilitarized Zone have been defined with a view toward separating the armed forces of the two Parties in such manner as to minimize the possibility of friction and incident, while providing for the gradual restoration of normal civilian life in the area of the Demilitarized Zone, without prejudice to the ultimate settlement.”

Prior to 1949, the most recent recognized border in the area was the one agreed between the mandatory powers Britain and France in 1923 after several alterations had been made in 1922 to the original territory assigned to the Jewish national home.

The 1923 Franco-British Boundary Agreement came about after the British High Commissioner at the time, Herbert Samuel, demanded and got full control of the Sea of Galilee and the Upper Jordan River. The border was set 100 meters to the east of the Jordan River, with a ten meter-wide strip at the north-eastern side of the lake and a broader strip at its south-eastern side included in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine.

In 1948, the two year-old Syrian state took part in the attack against the nascent State of Israel, with that conflict ending in the 1949 Armistice Agreement which established an Armistice line and a series of demilitarized zones which did not constitute an international border.

The BBC’s claim that a return to a “pre-1967 border” would “give Damascus control of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee” is therefore inaccurate as the only border in existence prior to 1967 was the one agreed upon in 1923 by France and Britain which left access to the lake within the borders of Mandate Palestine.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: Golan Heights