Jun 7 2013

Will the BBC report any of these stories?

With no BBC correspondent currently on the ground in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, news from those regions has been rather sparse lately. On the other hand, readers can decide for themselves whether any of the following recent stories would have been reported by the BBC Jerusalem Bureau even if it had its full complement of staff.

The Catholic Herald reports that five Christian schools in the Gaza Strip face closure due to the ban on mixed education brought in by Hamas earlier this year.

“Fr Faysal Hijazin said: “This will be a big problem. We hope they will not go through with it, but if they do, we will be in big trouble. We don’t have the space and we don’t have the money to divide our schools.”

In addition to finding additional space, he said, the schools face having to hire more teachers. Men and women teachers would not be allowed to teach classes of the opposite sex older than 10 under Islamic law. […]

Fr Hijazin said that although the order did not specifically single out the Christian schools, the five are the only schools with mixed enrolment in Gaza.

“It is a concern that in education things are getting more conservative,” he said. “It reflects the whole society. This is of concern to both Christians and moderate Muslims. It is not easy to be there.” “

Meanwhile in Ramallah, the Islamist movement Hizb ut Tahrir staged a rally this week to mark the 92^nd anniversary of the fall of the Caliphate.

In contrast to previous Hizb ut Tahrir rallies, this one was given free rein by the Palestinian Authority and Khaled Abu Toameh gives some insight into why its approach is different this time.

“Chanting slogans in favor of the restoration of the Caliphate, the Muslim fundamentalists called on Islamic armies to “march toward Palestine to liberate the Aqsa Mosque and the rest of Palestine.”

The fundamentalists also shouted slogans in support of the jihadi terrorists engaged in the fight against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Baher Saleh, a senior Hizb-ut-Tahrir official, told the crowd that it was time for Muslim armies to “liberate the Aqsa Mosque from the hands of the filthy Jews.”

Saleh and other members of the organization also condemned the Palestinian Authority leadership for failing to endorse their ideology and mobilize the Islamic world for war against Israel.”

As for the Palestinian Authority, this week the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department – headed by Saeb Erekat – launched a new campaign according to which the Latrun Valley, which lies on the main Highway 1 route connecting Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, is “an integral part of Palestine”.

It will be interesting to see if this latest spoke in the wheels of negotiations will merit inclusion in the BBC narrative regarding the peace process.

Jun 5 2013

The facts behind the BBC myth of “Palestinian political prisoners”

According to the narrative frequently and habitually promoted by the BBC in relation to the Middle East peace process, the main stumbling block to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the subject of building in towns and villages in Judea & Samaria. Typically, the BBC does not inform its audiences that the PA has quite a list of preconditions for returning to peace talks – one of which is the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli prisons, with particular focus on those imprisoned before the Oslo Accords were signed.

In the past few months we have seen numerous BBC reports focusing on Palestinian prisoners, most of which severely downplayed or even completely ignored the crimes committed by their subjects and included quotes from Palestinian officials and prisoner-focused NGOs such as Addameer. One BBC report in particular – from April 2^nd 2013 – advanced the erroneous notion that the jailed Palestinians are “political prisoners” – a theme which is promoted by the Palestinian Authority, along with anti-Israel campaigners both in the region and abroad, and one which is being increasingly adopted by the mainstream media as a whole.

“The issue of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails is an emotive one for Palestinians. Inmates are generally highly regarded despite the reasons for their detention.” [emphasis added]

Now, for the first time, a translation into English of the entire list of 118 pre-Oslo prisoners – and details of their crimes – is being made available to the public. This project – carried out by CAMERA, together with Presspectiva, CiF Watch and BBC Watch – puts into the public domain information which shows that these prisoners were convicted of crimes which for the most part were of a terrorist or criminally violent nature (and in no small amount of cases were directed against Palestinians) and that in no way do they meet the definition of “political prisoners”.

Readers can view the translation here . To enlarge the table, click on the link immediately above.

BBC makeover: from Terrorist to Celeb

Politicised BBC report on hunger strikers omits crucial information

BBC yet again conceals terror connections of Palestinian ‘footballers’

What the BBC classified as ‘riots’ in London become ‘protests’ in Beitounya

BBC continues to conceal terror connections of Palestinian hunger strikers

BBC again blindly repeats PA accusations regarding dead prisoner

BBC glosses over terrorism yet again in Donnison ‘human interest’ puff piece

BBC Arabic sweetens up terrorists

Another ‘soft’ BBC portrayal of terrorism

Jun 4 2013

Soft BBC portrait of new PA prime minister

An article appearing on the BBC News website on June 3^rd 2013 relates to the appointment of a new Palestinian Authority prime minister.

The article describes Rami Hamdallah as being a “political independent” on the one hand and yet on the other states:

“He is currently president of al-Najah National University in the West Bank and seen as close to Mr Abbas’ Fatah party.”

Other media organisations, including Al Jazeera, the Huffington Post and Le Monde as well as the Palestinian site IMEMC (run by the ISM affiliated ‘Palestinian Centre for the Rapprochement between People), state that Hamdallah is actually a member of Fatah, but seeing as he was personally appointed by the PA’s president (whose own elected term of office expired well over four years ago) rather than elected by the Palestinian people, the subject of Hamdallah’s ‘political independence’ is somewhat academic.

What is certainly the case however is that Hamdallah’s proximity to Fatah is close enough to have made him Mahmoud Abbas’ preferred choice for the position – the reasons for which are outlined here and here by Khaled Abu Toameh.

The BBC article is somewhat economic with its descriptions of Mr Hamdallah’s CV. It elects to ignore, for example, his trusteeship and board membership at the ‘Yasser Arafat Foundation’ – the organization which has invested much energy in promoting the conspiracy theory whereby Arafat was supposedly poisoned by Israel.

The BBC also chooses to ignore the fact that under Hamdallah’s presidency, students at An Najar University staged an exhibition glorifying suicide bombers in September 2001 (described by the BBC at the time as an “art show” in a report placed in its website’s ”entertainment: arts” section) which included a gory representation of the Sbarro pizza restaurant where fifteen civilians – many of them women and children – had been murdered only six weeks previously.

It would of course contribute vastly to the BBC’s adherence to its defined ‘public purpose’ of promoting “global outlook” were it to desist from the practice of softening portrayals of the Palestinian leadership – and a new prime minister is a good place to begin.

May 27 2013

BBC still flogging the ‘settlements’ horse

An article entitled “ ‘Hard decisions’ needed for Middle East peace – Kerry“ appeared on the Middle East page of the BBC News website on May 24^th 2013.

The article – which ostensibly reports on the subject of the recent visit to the region by US Secretary of State John Kerry – devotes a considerable amount of space to promoting the habitual BBC mantras of ‘settlements as an obstacle to peace’ and ‘settlements are illegal under international law’. However, the telegram-style clichés repeated in this article, as in countless others, not only fall short of contributing to BBC audiences’ gaining comprehensive understanding of the issues at stake, but actively prevent them from doing so.

“The last round of direct talks between the two sides broke down two years ago over the issue of settlements.”

This pro forma statement is so well-worn that BBC editors have apparently not noticed that it is no longer accurate even from the point of view of its time-scale. The Palestinian Authority refused to continue direct negotiations in late September 2010 – two years and eight months ago. The statement fails to inform readers that prior to that break-down in talks, a ten-month freeze on construction had been implemented by Israel in order to encourage the renewal of discussions, but the Palestinian Authority failed to come to the negotiating table for nine of those ten months and then used the end of the construction freeze on September 26^th 2010 as a pretext to refuse to continue talks.

“Mr Kerry called on Israel to prevent further settlement building where possible in the West Bank but stopped short of calling for a total freeze.”

This statement misleads BBC audiences by implying through the use of the phrase “further settlement building” that new towns and villages are being constructed in Judea & Samaria and by failing to make clear that in fact the issue is building within the municipal boundaries of existing communities.

“Palestinian officials want all settlement activity in the West Bank to stop before they return to negotiations with Israel.

Israel says it will not accept any preconditions for talks.

Last week the Israeli government took steps to authorise four Jewish settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”

As usual, the BBC conceals from its audiences the fact that there are differing legal opinions on the subject.

“The main issues to be addressed in a peace agreement include borders, the future of Jewish settlements, the status of Jerusalem and fate of Palestinian refugees.”

Note the repeated use of the term “Jewish settlements” rather than ‘Israeli’. Communities in Judea & Samaria were built under the auspices of successive Israeli governments – all of which were democratically elected by the entire spectrum of the Israeli people – including the 20% or so who are not Jewish.

An average reader of this article would go away convinced that building in communities in Judea & Samaria is the main issue preventing a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. So let’s take a look at just some of what the BBC has to airbrush out of its ‘peace process’ narrative, as presented in this article and many others, in order to promote that chimera to its audiences.

1. The Palestinian Authority’s insistence on the ‘right of return’ for refugees: a scenario which would bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

2. The Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

3. The fact that Mahmoud Abbas does not hold a legitimate democratically elected mandate to sign any agreement on behalf of the Palestinian people.

4. The fact that part of the territory intended to be a Palestinian state is not controlled by the Palestinian Authority, but by a terrorist organization at war with Israel.

5. The fact that the ‘international community’ seems to be entirely at ease with the deliberate suspension of the rights of the Palestinian people to elect their leaders and representatives in order to keep the Palestinian Authority on ‘life support’ by postponing a Hamas take-over of the PA.

6. The fact that the Palestinian Authority engages in daily delegitimisation of Israel, incitement against the Israeli people and glorification of terror.

The BBC’s article also includes ‘analysis’ by the Jerusalem Bureau’s Kevin Connolly.

Connolly states:

“When the basic principles of the two-state solution were first enunciated in 1967, America’s 69-year-old Secretary of State was 23. William Hague, a senior partner in the international search for peace, had not yet turned seven. The core of the issue and the depths of mutual suspicion and hostility between Israel and the Palestinians are not much changed.

Mr Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton came to Israel only five times in four years; Mr Kerry’s already been four times in as many months. If there is any glimmer of private hope to explain that burst of diplomatic energy there is no sign of it in the public domain.

Israel still wants security guarantees and Palestinians are reluctant to talk until there is some kind of halt to Israel’s building of Jewish settlements on the territory it occupies on the West Bank of the River Jordan. Israel shows no sign of satisfying that requirement for now.”

There’s Connolly once again implying that new communities are being built in Judea & Samaria as we read – rather than housing units in existing towns and villages – and using the term “Jewish settlements” instead of Israeli. But note Connolly’s first paragraph in that ‘analysis’. The opaquely phrased claim that “the basic principles of the two-state solution were first enunciated in 1967″, followed by the use of the term “hostility between Israel and the Palestinians” deliberately airbrushes out aspects of the conflict which are vital in contributing to readers’ understanding of it.

Connolly’s reference to 1967 presumably means the Khartoum conference, but to interpret the results of that as enunciating “the basic principles of the two state solution” (whereby, according to its accepted definition, the State of Israel and a Palestinian state exist peacefully side by side) is a pretty far stretch – and one which not only downplays Arab countries’ involvement in the conflict, but ignores the third attempt by Arab states to annihilate Israel six years later.

“The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.” [emphasis added]

The BBC systematically sells its audiences short by failing to contribute to their understanding of why the peace process has failed to make any significant progress through the repeated airbrushing out of the picture of factors of considerably graver consequence than the subject of building in “settlements”. That practice not only seriously damages the BBC’s reputation for accuracy and impartiality, but also fails to meet the requirements of the “public purposes” set out in the BBC’s charter.

It is high time the BBC made some (apparently) ‘hard’ decisions of its own regarding its seeming unwillingness to meet its obligation to inform audiences accurately rather than making do with the incessant promotion of a specific political narrative. One place to start, for example, would be an in-depth feature on the subject of the Palestinian Authority’s glorification of terror and the effects of that on the chances for peace.

May 25 2013

Behind a Jon Donnison recommended article

Readers may remember that back at the beginning of February the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Jon Donnison recommended to his Twitter followers an “interesting” New York Times article headlined ”Academic Study Weakens Israeli Claim That Palestinian School Texts Teach Hate”.

Writing in the latest edition of The Tower, Adi Schwartz takes a closer look at the content of the report upon which that NYT article was based.

“Almost every major news outlet zeroed in on the report’s finding of mutual culpability, producing headlines like the AP’s “Textbook study faults Israelis and Palestinians.” A more clearly political presentation of the study was found in the New York Times headline: “Academic Study Weakens Israeli Claim that Palestinian School Texts Teach Hate.” ” […]

“What I found isn’t pretty. The report is not only flawed, but also dishonest. It systematically exaggerates the faults in Israeli textbooks and downplays those found in the Palestinians’. Its methodology tends to distort the raw data rather than analyze it, usually to the detriment of the Israeli education system. Put simply, it makes every possible effort to create the impression that Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward each other are the same, even when this is demonstrably untrue—according to the study’s own research data. It is no surprise that the State Department, which funded the study in its early phases, has endorsed neither the composition of the committee nor the report’s findings.”

Read the whole article here.

May 24 2013

BBC myths and mantras on the peace process

Particularly on the day following the horrendous terrorist murder of a British soldier in Woolwich, it was difficult to find anything remotely newsworthy about the item broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 May 23^rd edition of the ‘Today’ programme with regard to the latest visit by John Kerry to Israel. At the time it was broadcast (9:30 am local time), Kerry would barely have had time to hang up his coat, let alone make any headway in the Middle East peace process. But nevertheless, the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Kevin Connolly used the occasion of the visit as a convenient hook upon which to hang three and a half minutes of repetition of jaded BBC mantras and to cook up some new tropes.

The broadcast is available here for a limited period of time and the relevant section begins at 1:30:40. Presenter John Humphrys opens:

“The American Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East today doing what every secretary of state’s been trying to do for decades: trying to encourage a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Direct talks between the two sides had broken down even before the Arab uprising swept the Middle East. Our Middle East correspondent Kevin Connolly reports.”

It is not clear why Humphrys should see any connection between the timing of “the Arab uprising” and the breakdown of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Connolly’s report begins:

“Last week Palestinians marked with protests and with rallies the moment in 1948 which helped define the modern Middle East. They call it the Naqba – the catastrophe. Israelis celebrate the same sequence of maneuverings of the UN and fighting in the Holy Land as Independence Day. It was diplomacy as a zero sum game. Israel – it seemed to the Arab world – won because the Palestinians lost. “

What the phrase “sequence of maneuverings of the UN” is supposed to represent is anyone’s guess, but it is notable that Connolly whitewashes the intended annihilation of nascent Israel by five Arab nations by euphemistically referring to “fighting in the Holy Land” and that he describes their defeat solely in terms of a Palestinian loss. Of course, had there been no Arab attack on Israel, there would have been no defeat – and no “catastrophe”. Connolly continues:

“In the decades since, world leaders have come to coalesce around what they believe would be a win-win solution. A Palestinian state could and should be created on the land Israel conquered in 1967. Israel could and should give up that territory in return for recognition and guaranteed security. Land for peace. “

Of course Connolly does not bother reminding readers that “the land Israel conquered in 1967″ was due to another annihilation attempt by Arab nations or that the said land was conquered by Jordan in 1948, with its 19-year occupation never recognized by the international community. Neither does he bother to examine the track record of the ‘land for peace’ principle. He goes on:

“When Barak Obama came to Israel a couple of months ago he put the argument elegantly and passionately, as he’s done before.”

The programme then cuts to a recording of part of Obama’s speech in Jerusalem in March:

BO: “But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination – their right to justice – must also be recognized. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.”

Then it is back to Connolly:

“Everyone knows the depths of mutual hostility and suspicion that make a deal so difficult. But the key players know how to avoid international condemnation by sounding like they’re readier to do a deal than they really are.

Under Benjamin Netanyahu, Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded. They are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes that interpretation. Mr Netanyahu leads a government which includes ministers who oppose the very idea of a Palestinian state, but when he talks about it, it still sounds eminently doable.”

There’s ye olde “international law” mantra, coming before the distinctly bizarre notion that all ministers in a democratic government should have the exact same opinions as their prime minister and if they don’t, then a peace deal cannot be made. The 1979 Knesset debate on the subject of the peace treaty with Egypt lasted a turbulent 28 hours – and not because all those present agreed with each other – but in the end the treaty was approved.

The broadcast then cuts to a recording of Binyamin Netanyahu:

BN: “So let me be clear: Israel remains fully committed to peace and to the solution of two states for two peoples. We extend our hands in peace and in friendship to the Palestinian people.”

Connolly goes on:

“The Palestinian leadership, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, says there can’t be peace talks until that settlement expansion stops. But on other issues Mr Abbas sounds the very soul of flexibility. He says he’s ready to give up his personal claim to right of return to his own childhood home – which is now in Israel – in order to make peace.”

There’s BBC mantra number two: ‘settlements are an obstacle to peace’. The broadcast then cuts to a recording of Mahmoud Abbas speaking in a 2012 interview with Israel’s Channel 2 TV station.

MA: “But I want to see Safed. It’s my right to see it but not to live there. West Bank and Gaza is Palestine. Other parts [sic] is Israel.”

Connolly conveniently avoids examining the issue of whether all Mahmoud Abbas’ ministers are pro-peace and ignores the fact that the Palestinian governmental system as a whole currently has no legitimate elected mandate. He equally conveniently airbrushes Hamas and the other rejectionist Palestinian factions out of the picture altogether. And of course Abbas’ supposed willingness to “give up…right of return” has absolutely no significance, as Abbas himself soon clarified.

“Talking about Safed is a personal position and does not mean giving up the right of return.” Indeed, he went on, “No-one can give up the right of return as all international texts and Arab and Islamic decisions refer to a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee issue, according to UN Resolution 194, with the term ‘agreed upon’ meaning agreement with the Israeli side.”

“I do not change my position,” Abbas stressed. “What I say to the Palestinians is no different from what I say to the Israelis or the Americans or anyone.”

Connolly concludes:

“And yet, even with all that reasonableness around and all this renewed effort, another Naqba day has gone by with no deal. There was a time when making peace between Israel and the Palestinians was seen as the key to changing the Middle East, but the Arab Spring has shown that the Middle East was capable of changing while this peace process remained hopelessly stalled.”

Those who may think or have thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict is or was “the key to changing the Middle East” obviously had no understanding of the myriad of complex issues facing the region in the first place, but allowed themselves to be dazzled by the spotlight placed on that issue by political activists. They are – coincidentally – quite often those who equally erroneously promote the idea that the changes brought about by the ‘Arab Spring’ so far have made any significant difference to the lives of the peoples – and particularly the minorities – of the Middle East.

It seems that Kevin Connolly and the BBC are unable – and unwilling – to get themselves out of the rut of incessant repetition of the same old jaded, politically inspired myths and mantras about the Middle East which prevent audiences from gaining any real grasp of the region’s history, present or future.

May 22 2013

BBC wrongly blames Israel for cooking gas shortage in Gaza

h/t JK

In addition to the written version of Yolande Knell’s recent feature on offshore gas finds which appeared in the ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website, the subject was covered in an additional report by Knell which was broadcast on May 21^st 2013 in ‘The World Tonight’ on BBC Radio 4.

The relevant section of the programme begins from 34:16 here, with Knell first visiting Lebanon and Israel. At 38:17 she reports from Gaza.

“Further south along the coast we reach the Gaza Strip, where dozens of men are dragging their empty gas canisters along the street as they queue to refill them. The Palestinian Authority awarded British Gas the licence to develop an offshore gas field here back in 1999, but so far it’s brought no benefits to locals. Gaza currently has serious shortages of cooking gas, partly due to border restrictions imposed by Israel.”

To drive the point home, listeners then hear an anonymous ‘man in the street’ say:

“Animals live a better life than us. Everyone here had to leave his business and stand in this long line to get a can of gas for his family. We pay a high price and we don’t get it easily.”

Knell continues:

“The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has long held up plans to exploit Gazan gas. In 2007 the situation got more complicated when the Islamist group Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip and ousted their political rivals Fatah. Mohammed Shtayyeh is President of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Construction.”

Dr Shtayyeh says:

“Overall it is for us as Palestinians extremely frustrating that, you know, you have that natural resource there that should be a real wealth for the nation and you’re really not utilising it. There are some problems related to excavations and technical problems, but mainly political problems.”

Beyond the euphemistic statement that “in 2007 the situation got more complicated”, Knell does not make any real attempt to explain to her listeners that the main stumbling block preventing the exploitation of offshore gas near the Gaza Strip is the fact that the recognised representative of the Palestinian people (and hence the body tasked with administrating their natural resources) – the Palestinian Authority – has no control over the Gaza Strip due to the violent takeover of that territory by a terrorist organisation. Instead, Knell churns out the old mantra according to which it is “the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” which is to blame.

Especially insidious is Knell’s treatment of the subject of the shortage of cooking gas in the Gaza Strip, which she claims is “partly due to border restrictions imposed by Israel” – without making any attempt to clarify to listeners what the other part of that “partly” might be – and hence portraying the problem as an Israeli-created one.

So what are the facts behind the issue? Here is some recent (April 2013) relevant background information: [emphasis added]

“According to the data of the Land Crossings Authority at the Ministry of Defence, the infrastructure of Kerem Shalom meets the requirements and provides the necessary needs to transfer all goods into Gaza, including cooking gas, but the crossing infrastructure are not being exploited to its fullest when the volume of orders by gas suppliers from the Gaza Strip does not match the needs of the public. Here it should be noted that as part of the expansion of civil policy, in quarter A of 2013 Israel approved the transfer of tens of thousands of gas cylinders for domestic use.

From the data at the District Coordination Office in Gaza, we understand that there is a constant shortage of 1,300 tons of cooking gas (monthly average), about 60 tons of gas per day (daily average). Last year, gas smuggling from Egypt were reduced from 700 to 200 tons per month due to an internal crisis in the energy sector in Egypt. This reduction limits the amount of cooking gas in the market (and the ability to cope with its constant lack) and harms the population of the Gaza Strip.” […]

“There is no public entity in the Gaza Strip that supervises the cooking gas field and there is no public storage facility that allows accumulating surplus for “a rainy day”. During the summer months, the demand for cooking gas in the Gaza Strip declines as well as utilization of the infrastructure in Kerem Shalom crossing. In addition, the credit policy of the Palestinian Authority ‘s Energy Authority limits the local merchants in Gaza from holding sufficient supply. Extending credit lines will allow accumulating larger stock toward the winter.

Gaza have the option of diversifying its gas import sources and allow various Israeli companies to supply gas to the Gaza Strip, but the Palestinian Authority restricts import to one company and actually prevents from local merchants to import gas from competing companies and by this use the capacity at Kerem Shalom to its full extent.

During 2012 the Palestinian Authority reached a decision regarding reduction of cooking gas prices due to public pressure exerted around the protest of cost of living in the West Bank, decision that merchants from Gaza claim caused significant losses to those holding stocks at the stations. Therefore, there is concern among local merchants that the PA will reduce again the fixed gas prices set by law (and the lack of a mechanism for compensation), a move that reduce the economic interest of the merchants to hold stocks in the Gaza strip.”

So in fact, the shortage of cooking gas in the Gaza Strip actually has nothing to do with “border restrictions imposed by Israel” as claimed by Knell, but it does have rather a lot to do with the policies of the Palestinian Authority.

Knell obviously made no effort whatsoever to fact check the accuracy of her claim blaming Israel for the shortage of cooking gas in Gaza. In fact, she merely parrots the politically motivated propaganda surrounding the issue as put out by Hamas.

The knee-jerk blaming of Israel for any and every problem in the Gaza Strip may well be the quickest, easiest – and most fashionable – option, but BBC audiences expect far more from journalists committed to accuracy and impartiality.

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

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.”

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 11 2013

Diatribe against anti-terrorist fence on BBC Radio 4

As may have been anticipated, episode four of John McCarthy’s radio series “In a Prince’s Footsteps” – broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on May 9^th 2013 and available here for a limited period of time – consisted of fifteen minutes of undiluted propaganda.

Beginning in the village of al Jib – which is located in Area B and therefore under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority – McCarthy was quick to acquaint listeners with the main focus of his programme.

“We’re now stopped looking out over the hillsides toward the neighbouring villages. Separation wall is visible in the distance.”

At 2:25, in response to a question from McCarthy about the direction of the second village on his itinerary, a local man tells him:

“Before the wall, we got from here to Beit Ur about five, six minutes. Now you must go to Ramallah and there about one hour to go to Beit Ur.

Following that, listeners are introduced to McCarthy’s mind-reading abilities:

“And I think it’s particularly poignant for them [the villagers] as they think about the places that the Prince went in an hour or so on horseback. Now because of the Israeli barrier – what they call the separation wall – they cannot get there without taking massive detours through the countryside. So this picture is important to them because it reminds them of what life had been like in former times.”

Next, the village mayor labours the point still further:

“Before the wall we can go from here to Ramallah just five minutes. From here, from al Jib village, to the Damascus Gate, just seven minutes. Now we cannot go to Jerusalem. We are village from Jerusalem district, but we cannot go to Jerusalem.”

McCarthy interjects:

“So you do not have the right ID anymore. They will not let you ..”

The mayor replies:

“If anyone want to go to Jerusalem now, he must go to Ramallah and to the checkpoint. If you want to go to your land, you can’t.”

McCarthy asks:

“How do you earn a living if you cannot go to Jerusalem, your farm land has been taken away – you cannot use that. How do you all survive? What do you do?”

The mayor replies: “Now we use this land – from the wall to the village. Very difficult life.”

Another man interjects: “Very hard”. The mayor echoes: “Very, very hard.”

In response to a question from McCarthy about the future of the village’s children, the mayor answers:

“It’s more difficult. I think it more difficult if the Israelien (sic) occupation is still here. If the Israelien (sic) go, maybe the future is good.”

Of course McCarthy offers no evidence for his claim that the villagers’ lands have been “taken away” and fails to make clear the fact that such lands are generally accessible via agricultural gates in the anti-terrorist fence. McCarthy also makes absolutely no effort to explain to listeners that his interviewees have lived under the control of the Palestinian Authority for almost two decades, according to the terms of the Oslo Accords signed by that body, and that their complaints that they do not have unlimited access to Israel’s capital city should therefore be weighed within that framework.

Next, at 5:59, McCarthy speaks to Eugene Rogan from Oxford University in what is presumably the section of the programme supposed to tick the impartiality box.

JM: “The Israeli government says that the barrier is necessary to protect its citizens from potential Palestinian suicide bombers and other attacks. Eugene Rogan is a fellow of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University. Eugene, the work on the barrier started in 2000: what actually prompted construction?”

McCarthy inaccurately brings the date of commencement of construction work on the first section of the anti-terrorist fence forward by at least a full two years. The second Intifada began at the end of September 2000 and the Israeli government authorized the construction of a fence in July 2001. The decision to start work on the first section of the fence was made in June 2002 and Israelis had suffered almost three years of non-stop terror attacks before that first section was completed in July 2003. During that time, 73 terror attacks originating in Samaria were carried out, killing 293 Israelis and wounding 1950 others.

Rogan responds:

“Coming out of the violence of the second Intifada the government of Israel took the view that it needed to put a physical barrier between the Palestinians and the Israelis to stop the violence that was ravaging Israeli towns. I think the international community was very comfortable with the idea that a barrier be put up to separate Israelis and Palestinians. The real issue was the course the barrier would follow. It’s the way in which the wall encroaches upon territory to the east of the green line which marked the boundary between Israel and the West Bank before June 1967. That’s really caused the trouble.”

For an Oxford scholar, Rogan makes some very basic mistakes here. Firstly, the ‘green line’ is of course actually the 1949 Armistice Line and it never constituted a “boundary” in any legal sense of the term, as was made amply clear in the Armistice Agreement itself.

“Article II
With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognised;

2. It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

Secondly, the anti-terrorist fence was always intended to be just that: a structure – envisioned as being temporary by Israeli governments which initially opposed public pressure for its construction – aimed at curbing the access of terrorists from the PA controlled areas to Israeli towns and cities. Perhaps if journalists and academics employed the correct terminology to describe the structure, they would also be clearer about its function. But that is all too often not the case, with too many having adopted the terminology of Palestinian propaganda to the degree that they are capable of describing a structure which is 95% wire fencing as a “wall”.

Like many others with political motivations, Rogan ignores the fact that the fence was never intended to define borders or co-opt territory. He also deftly skirts round the obvious need to inform listeners of the fact that the anti-terrorist fence has a proven track record of achieving its aim.

McCarthy continues:

“It’s interesting visiting villages in the area. Their access to Jerusalem, their access perhaps to each other, is affected by the route of the barrier. Clearly that has a dramatic effect on the lives of the villagers as they explain it. Do they have any recourse to Israel which is obviously occupying the West Bank?”

Rogan replies:

“Interestingly enough the Supreme Court has refused to take a stand on the wall as a whole, but when Palestinians take specific segments of the wall to the Israeli courts to complain that this encroaches upon their human rights in terms of cutting them off from their livelihoods or separating their houses from their neighbourhoods and things like that, they’ve often found these Israeli courts supportive and that the government of Israel has been forced to change the course of direction of the wall to accommodate this decision, but you know it’s a very painstaking process for the Palestinians and it’s still the case that the wall has created a situation that’s really intensely difficult for Palestinians living alongside the wall.”

Apparently Rogan did not deem it necessary to mention that rebuilding a family after one or more of its members has been blown to smithereens on a bus, in a café or in a shopping centre is also “very painstaking” and “intensely difficult”. As for Rogan’s disingenuous claim that the Israeli Supreme Court has “refused to take a stand” on the subject of the anti-terrorist fence, the opposite is in fact the case, although the particular “stand” taken is apparently not to Mr Rogan’s taste.

“The Israeli Court shall continue to examine each of the segments of the fence, as they are brought for its decision and according to its customary model of proceedings; it shall ask itself, regarding each and every segment, whether it represents a proportional balance between the security-military need and the rights of the local population. If its answer regarding a particular segment of the fence is positive, it shall hold that that segment is legal. If its answer is negative, it shall hold that that segment is not legal. In doing so, the Court shall not ignore the entire picture; its decision will always regard each segment as a part of a whole.”

Next, McCarthy travels to Beit Ur al Fauqa in the Palestinian Authority controlled Area A. Interestingly, he does so in the company of two activists from the Palestinian NGO the Land Research Centre – but fails to disclose that organisation’s political aims, as required by the BBC Editorial Guidelines on impartiality.

“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.”

The Land Research Centre was established in 1986 by Faisal Husseini.

“The Land Research Centre (which, despite its participation in the BDS campaign, has received funding from the UK via DFID) engages in the production of reports, often in collaboration with ARIJ and with EU financial support, which do little to hide their political motivations, going under the banner of “Monitoring Israeli Colonisation Activities in the Palestinian Territories”. In one such recent report, the Land Research Centre reportedly stated that:

“The Land research center warned that the Israeli occupation government intends to bring more Jews from all over the world to occupied Palestine in order to change its demographic composition and annex more lands for their settlements.

The center said in a report that the Israeli legislation regarding the construction of roads for Jewish settlers so as to protect what they call the state lands reveals that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is aimed to Judaize them and bring Jews to live in place of the Palestinian natives.

The Israeli occupation annexed the Palestinian lands, destroyed agricultural lands, demolished homes, displaced their residents, built settlements for Jewish settlers and then unleashed them to control the tops of mountains, expand their outposts, launch attacks on Palestinian property and then set up an apartheid wall that dismembered Palestine and isolated and besieged its villages, it added.” “

In Beit Ur al Fauqa, McCarthy allows an interviewee – with apparently as much difficulty in understanding cause and effect as he himself seems to have – to indulge in romantic nostalgia for the ‘good old days’ of the first Intifada.

“Back then when the intifada was ongoing things weren’t as bad as today because there weren’t as many checkpoints. There weren’t this kind of separation that is going on these days.”

“Since the beginning of the nineties the separation started between like separating Arabs from Israelis and now they’re like contained in their communities they cannot really – like they have almost no relations whatsoever with the other side because the other side just isolated them in a way.”

Apparently, Mr Samara and Mr McCarthy do not ‘do’ irony either:

“It’s important to recognize the existence of the others. Not to destroy the future of the others. To live with the others in peace. So we can live with them, but without these barriers or these checkpoints.”

McCarthy’s entire broadcast is clearly nothing more than a politically motivated factually skewed diatribe against the anti-terrorist fence which includes numerous breaches of BBC standards on accuracy and impartiality. One of the most glaring of those breaches is the repeated use by McCarthy and his various interviewees of politically inspired terminology to describe the anti-terrorist fence in flagrant contravention of even the BBC’s own specific guidelines on the subject.

” BARRIER

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute.

The BBC uses the terms “barrier”, “separation barrier” or “West Bank barrier” as acceptable generic descriptions to avoid the political connotations of “security fence” (preferred by the Israeli government) or “apartheid wall” (preferred by the Palestinians).

The United Nations also uses the term “barrier”.

Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say “this wall” or use a more exact description in the light of what he or she is looking at.”

The fact that this broadcast got past the BBC’s system of editorial checks and balances for Middle East-related content indicates that a very serious review of that system is clearly urgently needed.

May 10 2013

BBC skirts issue of incitement

The headline of an article appearing on May 8th in the Middle East section of the BBC News website informs readers: “Senior Jerusalem Islamic cleric questioned over clashes“.

The report opens:

“Israeli police briefly detained Jerusalem’s most senior Islamic cleric, following clashes between Muslim and Jewish worshippers on Tuesday.

Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was arrested in connection with a “disturbance” outside the Old City’s al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Given the BBC’s usual employment of the word “clashes” as a euphemism for rioting, the use of the phrase “clashes between Muslim and Jewish worshippers” suggests some sort of violent activity in which two sides were active. However, that implication appears to be contradicted by the placing of the word disturbance in quotation marks without there being any accompanying mention of a source from whom the term might be quoted. Later on in the article, readers are told that:

“During Tuesday’s clashes, Muslim worshippers are reported to have thrown chairs at Jewish visitors to the compound.”

So what did happen on Tuesday on Temple Mount? Here is Ha’aretz’s account:

“The riots ensued Tuesday after the police allowed some 200 Jews to enter the Temple Mount to pray in honor of Jerusalem Day. At the same time, security forces prevented a few dozen Muslims, whom police said were members of extremist groups, from entering the Mount.

Shortly thereafter, the Palestinian media reported that “extremist settlers” had taken over the Al Aqsa Mosque and that the police were not allowing Muslims on the Mount.

Clashes then broke out between police, Jews and Muslims, with Palestinians throwing stones and chairs at police. A few hours later, the police summoned the Jerusalem mufti, Mohammed Hussein, for questioning, following information that he had been involved in the rioting. The police issued a warning to Hussein and then sent him home. However, Palestinian and Jordanian media outlets reported that the mufti had been arrested and had spent the night at a police station.”

As we see, there is no small amount of rumour, disinformation and incitement in this story. That, of course, is nothing new: myths depicting Israeli plots to destroy the mosque or tales of ‘extremist settlers’ plotting to ‘storm‘ Temple Mount are part of the staple diet of incitement fed to the Palestinian people and the wider Muslim world by various organisations and the Palestinian media, as well as by interested parties such as the Iranian state-owned media outlet Al Alam. Neither is the Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Hussein himself a stranger to incitement.

This BBC report, however, makes no effort to explain to readers the context behind this latest incident of violence and its relation to the regular use of the site’s emotional potential for political ends. Instead, the only background information given is in two laconic sentences:

“The compound where the mosque lies is revered by Muslims and Jews and is a frequent flashpoint for violence.

It is known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif or the Noble Sanctuary, and to Jews as the Temple Mount.”

That is followed by a statement which reveals something of the BBC’s bigotry of low expectations:

“Muslims regard visits by Jews to the mosque compound as provocative.”

We also find in this article a very political and partial description of the Israeli holiday ‘Jerusalem Day’:

“Tuesday’s violence coincided with Israel’s celebration of Jerusalem Day, which marks the anniversary of its capture of East Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war.”

In fact, the holiday celebrates the city’s reunification after 19 years of Jordanian occupation.

The article closes with the repetition of a ridiculous quote from Mahmoud Abbas:

“Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had called for Sheikh Hussein’s “immediate release”, calling his arrest “a flagrant challenge to the freedom of worship”.”

Obviously, detaining someone for questioning in connection with the throwing of rocks and chairs has nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom of worship, but again the BBC fails to place Abbas’ statement in its appropriate context as part of the cycle of rumour and incitement designed to keep the threat of violence at such a volatile site permanently simmering.

The BBC’s self-declared mission of building “a global understanding of international issues” cannot be fulfilled by the omission of vital context – especially on such a contentious issue.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: Palestinian Authority