BBC both amplifies and conceals PA incitement in report on Jerusalem attack

On October 30th the BBC News website’s Middle East page published a report relating to the attempted murder of Rabbi Yehuda Glick which had taken place in central Jerusalem some four hours previously. The article – originally titled “Jewish activist Yehuda Glick shot and hurt in Jerusalem” – has been amended numerous times since its initial publication but its first two versions included the following caption to its main photograph:

“Mr Glick was photographed attending a conference shortly before the shooting about Israeli access to what it calls Temple Mount” [emphasis added]

Glick art main

Later on in the report readers were told:

“He was active in a push by Jews to pray at a sensitive Jerusalem holy site.

Mr Glick had just attended a conference at the Menachem Begin Heritage Centre which had discussed Jewish claims to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound which is venerated by Jews as the Temple Mount.”

And:

“The Al-Aqsa compound is also revered by Muslims – it is widely seen as Islam’s third holiest site – and is one of the most contentious areas of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

In other words, visitors to the BBC News website who read either of the first two versions of the article were not informed that Temple Mount (known as such not only by Israelis and long before the BBC’s obviously preferred title ‘Al-Aqsa compound’ came into existence) is the holiest site for Jews due to its being the location of the First and Second Temples. The failure to clarify that fact and the BBC’s use of the inaccurate phrase “Jewish claims to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound” obviously misleads readers. Neither were audiences adequately informed why it is that non-Muslims (not just Jews) are currently not allowed to pray at the site or why, for example, a Christian wearing a crucifix would not be permitted to visit.

“The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf (endowments), a Jordanian-funded and administered Islamic trust and charitable organization, manages the site and generally restricts non-Muslims from entering the Dome of the Rock shrine and al-Aqsa Mosque, a practice it started in 2000. The Waqf does not allow non-Muslim religious symbols to be worn on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif.”

In the third version of the report the following amendment was made:

“Yehuda Glick is a well-known campaigner for greater Jewish rights to pray at the site known to Jews as the Temple Mount, and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif.

He had just attended a conference where delegates discussed Jewish claims to the compound, the holiest site in Judaism, which also contains the al-Aqsa Mosque – the third holiest site in Islam.”

All versions of the BBC report mislead readers by inaccurately stating:

“Israel argues that it tolerates free prayer to all at the site, but Palestinians claim it is unilaterally taking steps to allow larger numbers of Jewish worshippers.”

Interestingly, a very similarly worded statement appeared in an AP report on October 18th.

In the fourth version of the article was it clarified that:

“Jews are allowed on to the compound but are forbidden from praying or performing religious rites there.”

The report’s fifth version stated:

“The site is administered by an Islamic body called the Waqf, while Israeli police are in charge of security.

Jews are allowed on to the compound but are forbidden from praying or performing religious rites there under Israeli law.”

One might have thought that all BBC staff would be capable of writing about such a prominent issue accurately, thus avoiding the omission of such a crucial part of the story as the significance of Temple Mount in the Jewish religion and hence avoiding the situation whereby the accuracy of information received by a reader depends upon the time at which he or she accessed a BBC report. Obviously – as we have seen before – that is not the case.

Some four hours after the article’s original publication it was updated (with advertisement on Twitter) to include the following statement:Glick BBC tweet

“Israeli police have since told the BBC that a suspect was located at a house in Jerusalem, and shot dead after an exchange of fire.”

From the third version onwards the report was retitled “Jerusalem: Glick suspect killed in Israel police shoot-out“.

In the report’s fourth version readers were finally informed that Mua’taz Hijazi from Abu Tor was a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who had previously spent 11 years in prison, but not that the PIJ subsequently issued a statement reading:

“The released prisoner Muataz Hijazi who was killed in an exchange of fire in Silwan is our activist. The attempted assassination of Glick is translation into deeds of the Palestinian feeling of vengeance in reaction to what is happening in Jerusalem.”

The appearance of several ‘martyrdom posters’ with the Fatah logo (Mahmoud Abbas’ party, of course) was likewise ignored, along with the Fatah statement “[w]e proudly mourn hero martyr. Shahid in Jerusalem son of Palestine. And the son of Fatah Moataz Ibrahim Hijazi”.

Glick Fatah poster

BBC audiences were also not informed in any of the versions of the report that Yehuda Glick had received numerous threats in the past.

The headline of the seventh version of this BBC report was changed to “Jerusalem holy site closure ‘declaration of war’ – Abbas“, meaning that within less than half a day, the article’s focus had shifted from the attempted murder of Yehuda Glick, through the shooting of his would-be assassin, to unqualified amplification of the ridiculous – yet dangerous – notion that the temporary closure of Temple Mount in order to reduce tension and the likelihood of violence is an intentional “attack” on the entire Muslim world. With no effort made to clarify to readers why the complex had been closed, that version of the report informed them that:Glick BBC tweet 2 declaration

“A spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has described the closure of a disputed Jerusalem holy site as a “declaration of war”.

Nabil Abu Rudeina said the Palestinian Authority would take legal action over the move, which came amid tension over the shooting of a Jewish activist. […]

Palestinians hold the Israeli government responsible for a “dangerous act”, Mr Abbas was quoted as saying by Mr Rudeina, in remarks carried by AFP news agency.

“This dangerous Israeli escalation is a declaration of war on the Palestinian people and its sacred places and on the Arab and Islamic nation,” Mr Rudeina added.”

However, no attempt was made in either this version or any other of the report’s various incarnations to place its subject matter – and the PA president’s latest propaganda – in the context of recent incitement from the highest levels of the Palestinian Authority. As PMW has reported, a video of part of a speech made by Abbas on October 17th was broadcast nineteen times in three days by official PA television.

The day after that speech Abbas made another to the Fatah Revolutionary Council in which he dehumanized Jews visiting Temple Mount by referring to them as a “herd of cattle” and accusing them of “desecrating our holy sites”.  On October 27th the prime minister of the Palestinian Unity Government Rami Hamdallah visited Temple Mount, using the opportunity to accuse Jews of “Judaizing” Jerusalem.

““Jerusalem is a redline, and so is the Aksa Mosque,” Hamdallah told reporters. “We will go to all international institutions and Islamic and Arab countries to request that they stand against Israeli violations in Jerusalem.”

Hamdallah accused Israel of working toward Judaizing Jerusalem and the Aksa Mosque.

“We came here to say that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state and an important part of the national program,” he said.”

With the PA’s employment of the issue of Temple Mount being used to escalate its incitement to new heights, it is obviously essential that BBC audiences be made aware of the highly significant contribution of that factor to the current violence if they are to fully comprehend current and future events. This article, however, makes no attempt to meet the BBC’s obligation to build “understanding” of the issue.

Related articles:

BBC News skirts opportunity to fully inform audiences on PA and Fatah incitement

Accuracy failure in Yolande Knell’s BBC report on Pope’s visit to Jerusalem holy sites

BBC omits vital background information in Temple Mount rioting story  

BBC presents property purchased by Jews as ‘settlements’

On October 25th the BBC News website’s Middle East page ran an article titled “US urges probe after teenager shot dead in West Bank“. Apparently based at least in part on a report appearing in Ha’aretz, the article informs readers that:Silwad art

“The US state department has called for a “speedy and transparent investigation” into the death of a Palestinian-American teenager killed by Israeli soldiers on Friday.

Police said that Orwa Hammad, 14, was about to throw a petrol bomb near Ramallah in the West Bank. […]

A relative identified the teenager as Orwa Abd al-Wahhab Hammad, who was born in New Orleans and came to the West Bank when he was six, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.”

Other media reports (quoting Palestinian media outlets and Palestinian officials) have described the youth as being sixteen or seventeen years old.

With regard to the circumstances of the incident, in addition describing its location as “near Ramallah”, the BBC informs its audiences that:

“He [Hammad] was reported to have been shot in the head during clashes between IDF soldiers and stone-throwing protesters.

Some of the protesters were seen making and throwing Molotov cocktails.

An IDF spokesman initially told Reuters that forces “managed to prevent an attack when they encountered a Palestinian man hurling a Molotov cocktail at them on the main road. They opened fire and confirmed a hit.” “

In the caption to one of the photographs used to illustrate the report, readers are also told that:

“Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown at Israeli jeeps and soldiers in Silwad, near Ramallah”

So where did the incident occur and what actually happened? Channel 10 News reported as follows:

“According to an announcement by the IDF Spokesman, at around 19:00 hours a unit of the parachute regiment engaged in operational activity between the village of Silwad and Route 60 in the Ramallah area identified a Palestinian throwing petrol bombs in the direction of the road upon which Israeli vehicles were travelling.”

Walla reported:

“A Palestinian youth was killed yesterday (Friday) by fire from an IDF unit which was in an ambush in the village of Silwad, north-east of Ramallah, after the unit identified him throwing a petrol bomb at Route 60 and opened fire.”

The Jerusalem Post reported:

“A Palestinian was shot dead by IDF troops outside the village of Silwad in the West Bank on Friday evening, after he threw a Molotov cocktail at traffic on highway 60, the IDF Spokesperson’s Department said.

The IDF said that the soldiers were on patrol in the area and had set up an ambush overlooking the stretch of highway when they saw the assailant throw the bottle.

They said that the soldiers opened fire “in order to neutralize the threat to the lives of civilians driving on the highway.” “

In other words, the incident did not take place “near Ramallah” as stated by the BBC, but some fifteen and a half kilometers away outside Silwad on a main highway used by both Israeli and Palestinian motorists. Additionally, it is likely that civilian motorists were the target of Hammad’s petrol bomb rather than – as suggested by the BBC – IDF forces, with the BBC’s claim that Hammad was shot “during clashes between IDF soldiers and stone-throwing protesters” not being supported by other media reports.Silwad map

Like the US State Department, the BBC is apparently not overly interested in investigating why a US citizen was throwing petrol bombs at motorists on a main highway.

Notably too, this report misleads readers with the following statement, which appears both as a caption to an illustrative photo and in the body of the report:

“Tensions have been high since the end of the 50-day conflict in Gaza.” 

Later on, a seemingly contradictory statement is presented:

“Although a fragile ceasefire has been holding since the end of the 50-day conflict between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, incidents of violence have continued sporadically throughout the West Bank and near holy sites in Jerusalem.”

Of course the ceasefire which brought this summer’s conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip (not exclusively “in Gaza” as described by the BBC) between Israel and Hamas (not “Palestinians” as the BBC claims) has absolutely no bearing on the rioting and violent attacks carried out in other areas.

Whilst on the one hand the BBC informs audiences that tensions “have been high” since the ceasefire came into effect, on the other hand it claims that violent incidents have been ‘sporadic': i.e. “occurring at irregular intervals; having no pattern or order in time“.

So what are the facts behind those two BBC statements?

In fact, according to data collected by the ISA, violent attacks by Palestinians in Judea & Samaria and Jerusalem peaked during July and have since returned to the levels seen prior to Operation Protective Edge. However, it is difficult to see how they can be accurately described as having “continued sporadically” seeing as their occurrence (usually not reported by the BBC) is a daily event.

Silwad graph

But the really interesting part of this BBC report is its shoehorning of the topic of ‘settlements’ into its ‘contextualisation’ of Palestinian terror. Despite there being no confirmation of the motives of Orwah Hammad as he lobbed petrol bombs at passing cars, one of the images used to illustrate the report is presented with the following tendentious caption:

“Palestinians were protesting against the expansion of a Jewish settlement in the West Bank”

Silwad art pic

Relating to the terror attack in Jerusalem on October 22nd, the article later informs readers that:

“Wednesday’s car attack was carried out by a Palestinian man from Silwan in East Jerusalem, where tensions are high among Palestinians who are angry over Jewish settlements in the area.”

Oddly, some might say, the BBC appears to believe that “tensions” and ‘anger’ felt by those who oppose people of a certain ethnicity living in a certain place are a factor which can be used to ‘explain’ both petrol bomb attacks on motorists and the deliberate murder of a three month-old baby.

But are there in fact “Jewish settlements” in the Silwan (Kfar Shiloach) neighbourhood of Jerusalem? Well, not according to the BBC’s own definition of ‘settlements':

“Settlements are residential areas built by the Israeli government in the territories occupied by Israel following the June 1967 war. They are illegal under international law – that is the position of the UN Security Council. Israel rejects this assertion. ” [emphasis added]

What there is in that neighbourhood of Jerusalem is existing housing purchased and inhabited by some 90 Jewish families (roughly 500 people out of a population of over 50,000). Hence we see that the BBC is herding audiences towards a very dubious narrative which encourages them to view the purchase of property in certain areas of a city by people of a specific faith and ethnicity as “illegal” and undesirable. One has to wonder whether the BBC’s ‘progressive’ approach would extend to encouraging its audiences to view neighbourhoods of mixed religion, ethnicity (and perhaps colour or sexual orientation) in any other city in such a light.

But of course that anachronistic BBC narrative does not appear by chance: it is also the narrative of the Palestinian Authority, the president of which recently introduced new punishments (unreported by the BBC) for those who sell property to Jewish Israelis.

“Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday issued an order that would toughen punishment for Palestinians involved in real estate deals with “hostile countries” and their citizens.

Abbas’s decision came following reports that Palestinians have sold houses in Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood to Jews. […]

In his order, Abbas decided to amend the Palestinian penal code so that it would include hard labor in addition to life imprisonment for Palestinians who sell, rent out or serve as mediators in real estate transactions with “hostile countries” and their citizens.

In 2010, a PA court reaffirmed that the sale of Palestinian land to Israelis is punishable by death. Although the death sentence has not been officially executed, several Palestinians have been murdered in east Jerusalem and the West Bank over the past four decades after being accused of involvement in property transactions with Jews. ” 

Whilst BBC licence fee payers got a hefty dose of PA propaganda in this article, they have clearly not been provided with the accurate, impartial or comprehensive reporting to which the BBC is committed.

BBC News skirts opportunity to fully inform audiences on PA and Fatah incitement

The morning after the October 22nd terror attack in Jerusalem in which a three month-old baby was killed and eight other people injured, the BBC News website replaced its highly unsatisfactory report on the incident with another article titled “Israel’s Netanyahu accuses Abbas over Jerusalem car attack“.

Although the unnecessary inverted commas around the word attack seen in the previous article’s various headlines did not appear in this one, the description of a “car attack” of course still fails to adequately inform audiences that this was an act of terror and indeed the BBC refrains from categorizing the incident as such itself.

 “A spokesman said the incident was being treated as a “terrorist attack”.”

For some reason the BBC found it necessary to ensure that before readers had reached the end of the first six paragraphs of the article, they had been informed no fewer than three times that the terrorist was shot by the Israeli security forces: once in the caption to the photograph illustrating the report and twice in its text.

Pigua second art

As has often been documented here, the BBC consistently avoids reporting on the issue of Palestinian incitement from all factions and so this report may appear to make a welcome change to that previous policy. The topic of the article’s headline is presented thus:

“Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has accused the Palestinian president of incitement, after an attack which killed a baby girl in Jerusalem.

Mr Netanyahu said Mahmoud Abbas had provided encouragement for incidents such as the killing of the three-month-old by a Palestinian driver.” […]

In a statement, Prime Minister Netanyahu accused the Palestinian unity government, backed by Mr Abbas’ Fatah party and Hamas, of fuelling such attacks.

“This is the way in which Abu Mazen’s [Mahmoud Abbas] partners in government operate, the same Abu Mazen who just days ago incited to harm Jews in Jerusalem,” he said.

Mr Netanyahu was alluding to comments by Mr Abbas in which he said Jewish “settlers” should be barred “by any means” from entering a disputed holy compound in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and Muslims as Haram al-Sharif. He described Jews visiting the site as a “herds of cattle”.

Mr Abbas was speaking after a series of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police on the compound.”

However, as Khaled Abu Toameh has documented, Abbas’ incitement has extended beyond those comments as they are reported by the BBC.

“A few days before the terrorist attack in Jerusalem, Abbas strongly denounced Jews who visit the Temple Mount as a “herd of cattle.”

Abbas told Fatah activists from Jerusalem who visited him in his office that they must make an effort to stop Jewish “settlers,” “by all means,” from “desecrating our holy sites.”

Abbas added:

“We must prevent them from entering the Noble Sanctuary by all means. This is our Al-Aqsa. Al-Aqsa is a red line: Israel must be aware that the ongoing raids and attacks on Al-Aqsa will cause a volcanic explosion in the area that will reach Israel. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Palestine, and without it, there will be no state.”

Abbas and his Palestinian Authority have been exploiting the visits by Jews to the Temple Mount to incite Palestinians against Israel. They have been incorrectly denouncing these visits as “assaults” and “raids” on Islamic holy sites by Jewish “extremists”.”

The PA president has also recently used other issues to promote incitement:

“During the 50-day military confrontation between Israel and Hamas in July and August, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his senior officials in the West Bank made it a daily practice to incite their people against Israel.

The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas’s speech at the UN General Assembly last month, when he accused Israel of waging a “war of genocide” in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas’s crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.”

“Forty-eight hours before the Jerusalem attack, Abbas intensified his rhetorical assault on Israel by announcing that any Palestinian who is involved in property transactions with “hostile countries” (Israel) would be punished by life imprisonment with hard labor.

Abbas’s announcement came in response to reports that Palestinians had sold homes to Jewish families in Silwan — the Jerusalem neighborhood where al-Shalodi lived. By threatening to punish Palestinians for selling property to Jews, Abbas was sending a message that this is an awful crime that should not pass without a Palestinian response.”

Rather than clarifying to BBC audiences the scale and intensity of the incitement promoted by the Palestinian Authority president it so frequently describes as “moderate“, the BBC elects to present the issue in terms of “accusations” by the Israeli prime minister. The fact that Abbas’ party Fatah published a ‘martyrdom poster’ praising the terrorist on its Facebook page and that Abbas’ advisor described him as “a heroic martyr” has not been reported to BBC audiences.

Image credit: PMW

Image credit: PMW

Whilst the BBC has one the one hand frequently promoted the erroneous notion that the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas was a result of the lack of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and on the other sympathetically amplified the PA’s assorted unilateral moves to achieve international recognition of statehood whilst avoiding negotiations, the corporation consistently fails to provide audiences with information on the very relevant issues of the incitement and glorification of terrorism propagated by Palestinian leaders of all factions. Unfortunately, this report does little to correct those omissions or to begin to provide BBC audiences with the information necessary to enable their understanding of the part played by those factors in encouraging terrorism and making any negotiated peace agreement increasingly unlikely.

Blatant political messaging in BBC report on Cairo donor conference

The second of the BBC News website’s reports on last weekend’s donor conference in Cairo was a report currently headlined “Donors pledge $5.4bn for Palestinians at Cairo summit” which underwent numerous changes after its initial appearance on October 12th.Cairo conf art

The article’s most notable feature is its repeated promotion of a specific theme.

“Earlier the Palestinian and Egyptian presidents called on Israel to commit to a long-term peace initiative.

Mahmoud Abbas and Abdul Fattah al-Sisi urged Israel to give up land seized in the 1967 Middle East war and accept a fair solution for Palestinian refugees in exchange for full recognition.” […]

“He [John Kerrry] added that anything other than a long-term commitment to peace would be a “band-aid fix”.

At the opening of the conference, President Sisi urged “the Israelis, both the people and the government” to put an end to the conflict.

“We should turn this moment into a real starting point to achieve a peace that secures stability and flourishing and renders the dream of coexistence a reality,” he said.” […]

“Announcing the UK’s $32m donation in Cairo, International Development Minister Desmond Swayne said the international community could not continue to pick up the pieces of the conflict indefinitely.

“It is critical that reconstruction efforts now form part of a process of meaningful political change,” he said.”

However, despite the repeated amplification of that theme, at no point in the article does the BBC bother to inform readers that the terrorist organization which still controls the Gaza Strip, which is party to the current PA unity government and to which the incumbent President of the PA has already stated that he will cede control in the event of its victory in the supposedly upcoming elections, not only opposes holding negotiations in order to reach a peace agreement with Israel, but rejects the very existence of the Jewish state.

Likewise, the related and highly relevant topic of the failure of the Palestinian unity government to disarm Hamas in accordance with existing agreements with Israel  – by which it declared it would stand (and yet failed to do so) when that government was inaugurated in June – is not introduced into this article.

Instead, BBC audiences are fed the following trite version of events:

“The Gaza Strip, sandwiched between Israel and Egypt, has been a recurring flashpoint in the Israel-Palestinian conflict for years.

Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 Middle East war and pulled its troops and settlers out in 2005.

Israel considered this the end of the occupation, though the UN continues to regard Gaza as part of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory.

Israel exercises control over most of Gaza’s borders, waters and airspace, while Egypt controls Gaza’s southern border.”

As we see, the elephant-in-the-room issue of Palestinian terrorism is completely ignored in this account, with the BBC clearly trying to promote the politically motivated myth of an ‘occupation’ of the Gaza Strip which has not existed for nine years. As has been the case on numerous previous occasions, the BBC misleadingly proposes that Israeli control over “Gaza’s borders, waters and airspace” is evidence of continuing ‘occupation’ but deliberately refrains from informing audiences that the representatives of the Palestinian people were party to the creation of that arrangement when they signed the Oslo Accords and further confirmed it when they signed the later Agreement on Movement and Access in November 2005 following Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

An additional notable factor in this report is its continued promotion of casualty figures which have still not been independently verified by the BBC and with no transparency regarding the partisan nature and political background of their sources.

“The seven-week Gaza conflict, which ended in a truce on 26 August, killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians, the UN says, along with 67 Israeli soldiers and six civilians in Israel.”

Cairo conf art graphic

As has been the case in all BBC reports to date, no effort is made to inform audiences of the existence of other estimates of the civilian/combatant casualty ratio in the Gaza Strip. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre, which has so far carried out detailed examination of 42% of the casualties named by Palestinian sources has so far identified 49.8% of those names as terrorists and 50.2% as civilians. Yet again, no attempt is made by the BBC to inform audiences of how the civilian/combatant casualty ratio in Gaza compares to that of other conflicts.

This report – ostensibly a news item – once again demonstrates that the BBC’s practical interpretation of its obligation to “[b]uild a global understanding of international issues” is shaped by the political messaging it aspires to promote rather than by any genuine commitment to accurate and impartial reporting of events and the provision of all relevant information which would allow audiences to fully and comprehensively understand the issues at stake. 

BBC’s Knell turns planned mixed Jerusalem neighbourhood into ‘Jewish settlement’

The BBC News website’s efforts to promote the topic of last weekend’s donor conference in Cairo were evident before, during and after the event.

On October 11th – the day before the Cairo conference – an article by Yolande Knell titled “After Gaza war, Palestinians seek new path to statehood” appeared in the ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the website’s Middle East page.Knell Cairo conf art

Roughly half of Knell’s article is devoted to amplification of the PA’s various current unilateral strategies, with her closing sentences so encumbered by redundant understatement that they fail to inform readers of the true significance and implications of the PA’s breach of its existing commitment to a negotiated solution to the conflict in favour of additional headline-grabbing unilateral moves.

“The Palestinians know that their latest plan to return to the Security Council, which has been criticised by Israel, is very likely to fail. However, they hope for a show of support for statehood.

A draft resolution calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territory by November 2016 and for an international presence in East Jerusalem to protect the Palestinian population.

The Palestinian back-up plan is to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to pursue legal action against Israel.

Both moves would stir up tensions with the US and other major donors to the Palestinian Authority. While they will raise the political profile of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, they are unlikely to bring a real peace deal much closer.”

Knell’s characterization of the PA’s attempts to bring about externally imposed actions rather than negotiated agreements as merely “unlikely” to bring about an end to the conflict is clearly absurd. Notably, she fails to make any mention of the fact that one partner in the current PA unity government – Hamas – refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and is not a member of the body with which Israel negotiates – the PLO.

 No less remarkable is her earlier misrepresentation of an existing construction project in the Jerusalem district.

“But in the coming days, Palestinian officials hope a series of events will put their cause back in the spotlight.

At a donors’ conference in Cairo on Sunday, President Mahmoud Abbas will seek $4bn (£2.5bn) for Gaza reconstruction.

A day later the British parliament is scheduled to hold a non-binding vote on whether the government should recognise Palestine as an independent state within the boundaries of the ceasefire lines which existed prior to the 1967 Middle East war.

Later this month there is a plan to ask the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for recognition and to set a deadline for Israel to pull out from occupied Palestinian territory.

The latter two steps are likely to be little more than symbolic but the Palestinians hope to increase political pressure on Israel, which has recently continued to expand its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Jewish settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

The location of the “settlements” to which Knell refers is indicated by an accompanying photograph with the following caption:

“Israel has been criticised this month for approving new settlement construction in Givat Hamatos neighborhood in East Jerusalem”

Knell Cairo conf art pic

Seeing as it already reported on the same planning application in 2012, the BBC should be aware of the fact that there is nothing remotely “new” about the plan to build housing in the Givat HaMatos district of Jerusalem. Knell, however, refrains from informing readers that the neighbourhood was the site of temporary housing for new immigrants from the former USSR and Ethiopia from 1991 onwards. She neglects to state that initiatives to replace caravans with proper housing were first proposed nine years ago and that the plans approved by the district planning committee in late September allocate around half of the planned apartments to Arab residents of nearby Beit Safafa - which itself straddles the 1949 armistice line and yet of course is never referred to by Knell and her colleagues as a “settlement”.  

Had she made sure to accurately and impartially inform BBC audiences of the above facts, Knell would of course have found it rather more difficult to make use of the BBC’s misleading standard editorial guideline breaching insertion “Jewish settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this”. The Givat HaMatos project is not a “Jewish settlement” but a planned mixed neighbourhood of Jerusalem in an area which would remain under Israeli control according to any realistic scenario of a negotiated two-state solution.

In other words, Yolande Knell has once again ditched her commitment to the BBC’s supposed editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality, as well as her obligation to enable audiences to reach an “understanding” of international issues, in favour of exclusive amplification of the PA’s political narrative. 

 

BBC’s Bowen promotes BDS in ‘analysis’ of Commons vote

As readers are no doubt aware, fewer than half of the MPs making up the lower house of the British parliament took part in a vote on a non-binding motion to recognise a Palestinian state on October 13th.

Whilst the motion does nothing to change UK government policy, those who have perused the transcript of the debate would no doubt be struck by the appalling ignorance and distortion of facts voiced by some of the elected representatives of the British public in a debate which – with context-free references, for example, to “punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement” and “the construction of an illegal annexation wall through Palestinian land” – at times (and perhaps not coincidentally) bore resemblance to some of the BBC’s more egregious content.

Following that parliamentary debate, the BBC’s Middle East Editor appeared on television news to ‘analyse’ the issue for audiences. The item was also promoted on the BBC News website’s UK Politics and Middle East pages.Bowen filmed Commons vote

Bowen: “It’s symbolic because Britain is still important in the Middle East. Britain is a member of the [UN] Security Council. Other Western members of the Security Council haven’t recognized an independent State of Palestine and of course Britain doesn’t intend to at the moment either. But the fact that the…the parliament in this country is pushing for it is something that the Israelis do not like and it’s something that the Palestinians are going to be cock-a-hoop about. Because their whole diplomatic strategy in recent times has been trying to carve out…eh…a sort of virtual independence – even if they don’t have actual independence – by moves at the UN, trying to join international organisations and a country of Britain’s stature – and Britain’s historic role in the Middle East as well – doing this is something which they will like very much. The Israelis have lobbied against this – they believe that everything should go through a bi-lateral negotiation. However, there isn’t one at the moment: that’s the so-called peace process. Doesn’t exist right now.”

Notably, Bowen refrained from informing BBC audiences that the reason the peace process “doesn’t exist right now” is because the last round of talks was curtailed by the PA’s decision to form a unity government with a terrorist organization which rejects Israel’s right to exist and just weeks later initiated a seven-week war with Israel. He continued:

“And the Israelis of course continue to build their settlements – illegal under international law – in occupied land and that’s something that the Palestinians say is a unilateral action by them.

As usual, no attempt was made to conform to BBC guidelines on impartiality by informing audiences that differing legal opinions on that topic also exist and hence BBC audiences were once more deliberately misled.

Not unpredictably, Bowen then went on to give some free publicity to what has emerged in recent months as one of his most frequently plugged causes.

“So I think what we’re seeing at the moment is a change in the shape of the conflict; a change as well in the way that the diplomacy around it is evolving. And also moves like this will do other things that will strengthen other…other….vestiges of it. There is this move to try to boycott and divest and sanction Israel. I think they will be encouraged by that and the Israelis are more and more worried about that as well.”

As we see, Jeremy Bowen’s provision of promotion and publicity for the BDS campaign continues – see previous examples in ‘related articles’ below. With absolutely no effort having been made by the BBC to date to clarify to its audiences that the BDS movement is a major actor in the anti-peace campaign which seeks to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state to the point of extinction, the majority of viewers of this item will have been unable to appreciate the redundant nature of Bowen’s suggestion that the ‘one-stater’ advocates of the BDS campaign will be “encouraged” by the passing of a motion which was defined by its supporters “as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”. Those viewers would therefore also be unable to recognize the gratuitous nature of Bowen’s irrelevant shoe-horning of the BDS campaign into the topic under discussion.

As this example once again shows very clearly, Bowen’s repeated promotion of the BDS campaign on assorted BBC platforms can only be viewed as inappropriate and unacceptable exploitation of his position to advance his own political views.

Related Articles:

BBC’s Bowen promotes BDS and apartheid analogy on main TV news programme

Bowen again promotes BDS in three separate BBC programmes

 

 

BBC fails to provide essential background to Commons vote on recognition of Palestinian state

On October 11th the BBC News website’s UK Politics page included an article titled “MPs to vote on recognising Palestine as a state“. Both the caption to the photograph illustrating the article and its opening sentence inform readers that the vote is “historic”.MPs to vote

“MPs will take part in an historic vote calling for the recognition of Palestine as a state”

“MPs are to take part in an historic vote in Parliament that will call on the government to recognise Palestine as a state.

Labour backbencher Grahame Morris will present the motion on Monday as MPs return to the Commons.

The motion has the full backing of the Labour shadow cabinet, the BBC has been told.”

Curiously, the vote quickly moves from “historic” to “symbolic”.

“The vote is symbolic and would not change government policy but could have international implications.”

Later on in the report, under the subheading “Swedish move”, readers are reassuringly told:

“The vote comes amid moves elsewhere in Europe to recognise Palestine officially.

Sweden’s new centre-left government announced last week that it intends to officially recognise Palestine as a state, becoming the first long-term European Union member state to do so.

It will join more than 100 other countries that have already recognised Palestinian statehood.

A spokesman for the French foreign ministry said this week that recognition would be a positive step at some point in the future.”

A previous BBC article from October 3rd on the topic of the announcement by the new Swedish prime minister is promoted at the bottom of this report and in the sidebar of ‘related stories’. As was also the case in that superficial report (which failed to make any mention of the past anti-Israel activities of some members of the new Swedish cabinet or of that country’s history of financing anti-Israel NGOs), this one concerning the UK vote makes no attempt to inform BBC audiences of the implications and significance of such a move.

No mention is made of the fact that one party to the current Palestinian Unity Government is a terrorist organization designated by the EU with a private militia which is additionally proscribed by the UK. Readers are not informed of the fact that despite a pledge to abide by all existing agreements with Israel, that unity government has failed to do so since its inauguration on June 2nd and yet has remained unaccountable for that failure in the international arena.

The BBC’s report does inform readers that:

“Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander, writing on the LabourList blog, said: “This conflict will only be resolved ultimately by both sides engaging in a negotiated peace process towards that two state solution.””

It does not, however, bother to clarify that Hamas is not a member of the body with which Israel conducts negotiations – the PLO – or that it rejects the concept of a two-state solution and that its raison d’etre is the destruction of the Jewish state.

British MPs may well elect to take the step of recognizing a state with an internationally designated terror organization which seeks to destroy its neighbour (a UK ally) party to its current government. They may decide that it is acceptable to recognize a state in which the official security forces are outmatched by a much stronger terrorist militia backed by countries (Iran and Qatar) which fund terror throughout the Middle East and which, as we saw only this last summer, is capable of dragging that government into conflict as and when its own (or its backers’) interests dictate. British MPs should, however, be frank about their motives and ought not to be allowed to pretend that they are doing so in the interests of ‘peace’.

The people those MPs represent (most of whom are of course also BBC licence fee payers) are clearly in need of – and entitled to – the full range of information concerning the background to this issue if they are to be able to make their views on the subject known to their elected representatives before Monday’s vote.

As we have seen in both the previous BBC article about the Swedish move and in this one, the BBC has failed to provide its funders with that information.

Superficial BBC report on Swedish decision to recognise Palestinian state

On October 3rd the BBC News website published an article titled “Sweden to recognise Palestinian state“. The report, which appeared on both the website’s Europe and Middle East pages, can be divided into two parts with the first relating to the announcement itself made by the new Prime Minister Stefan Löfven during his inaugural address in the Swedish parliament.Sweden art

“Sweden is to “recognise the state of Palestine”, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has said, the first long-term EU member country to do so.

“The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution,” he said during his inaugural address in parliament.

It should be “negotiated in accordance with international law”, he said. […]

“A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence. Sweden will therefore recognise the state of Palestine,” Mr Lofven said on Friday, without giving a timeline for the recognition.”

The second part of the article supposedly provides background information on the topic to BBC audiences but fails to point out the inbuilt contradictions in Mr Löfven’s statement.

“In 1988, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat unilaterally declared a Palestinian state within the pre-June 1967 lines.

This won recognition from about 100 countries, mainly Arab, Communist and non-aligned states – several of them in Latin America.

The 1993 Oslo Accord between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel led to mutual recognition. However, two decades of on-off peace talks have since failed to produce a permanent settlement.”

The Algiers Declaration of 1988 actually refrained from defining the unilaterally declared state’s borders and made no mention of “pre-June 1967 lines” as claimed by the BBC.

“The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).”

Notably, the BBC (like the new Swedish prime minister, apparently) side-steps the very relevant issue of Hamas’ being a party to the current Palestinian Unity Government despite its refusal to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel and the fact that it is not a member of the body which signed the Oslo Accords – the PLO.

Additionally, this BBC report notably fails to remind audiences that during the last round of negotiations the PLO continued to refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. That omission will not come as a surprise to regular BBC watchers: throughout the entire nine-month period of negotiations in 2013/14, the corporation refrained from providing its audiences with the comprehensive background information necessary for them to understand the significance of that Palestinian refusal. Notably too, one of the articles offered to readers in the “related stories” section at the side and bottom of this report is Yolande Knell’s inaccurate article from February 2014 titled “Row over demand for Palestinians to recognise Israel as ‘Jewish state'” in which the issue was misrepresented (in line with PA campaigning at the time) as a new demand on the part of Israel designed to scupper the talks.

If BBC audiences are to reach informed opinions regarding the statement made by the new Swedish prime minister, they are obviously in need of vital context which the BBC has to date failed to provide. 

 

Unqualified amplification of Abbas’ ‘genocide’ agitprop on BBC News website

If – as one sincerely hopes is the case – it can be assumed that BBC staff are sufficiently well-informed to be able to recognize Mahmoud Abbas’ inaccurate and repeated use of the term ‘genocide’ to describe this summer’s conflict in his recent speech at the UNGA as nothing more than the agitprop that it is, then one must necessarily ask why BBC editors considered it appropriate to plaster that and additional defamation on the pages of the BBC News website.

Abbas UNGA on HP

Click to enlarge

One must also ask why the September 27th article titled “Palestinian leader accuses Israel of ‘genocide’ at UN” makes no effort to clarify to readers that the accusation amplified in its headline and in the body of the report is entirely baseless and that Abbas’ additional accusations of “war crimes” have not been proven in any legal forum.Abbas UNGA art

The BBC’s report on Abbas’ polemical speech is highly selective, dealing only with specific parts of its content.

“Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of carrying out a “war of genocide” in Gaza in his speech at the UN General Assembly.

Mr Abbas said Israeli “war crimes” in Gaza should be punished, but stopped short of saying he would take the issue to the International Criminal Court.” […]

“Mr Abbas said the scale of damage in Gaza was unprecedented and surpassed that of earlier wars.

“This last war against Gaza was a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment,” he told the UN General Assembly in New York.

He added that it was “impossible” to return to negotiations with Israel that did not address what he called “fundamental questions”.

“There is no meaning or value in negotiations for which the agreed objective is not ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital on the entire Palestinian Territory occupied in the 1967 war,” he said.” […]

The Palestinian leader also said the “hour of independence of the state of Palestine” had arrived. He added that he would be seeking a UN Security Council resolution on a two-state solution, but gave no time frame.”

Notably, the BBC ignored Abbas’ delusional and embarrassingly uninformed claim that the “devastation” in Gaza is “unmatched in modern times”. It erased from audience view his hallucinatory allegations concerning Jerusalem and the Al Aqsa mosque and – perhaps most significantly – Abbas’ references to “our national struggle established by the Palestinian fedayeen […] in early 1965″ and “Al-Nakba of 1948″ which clearly indicate that his interpretation of the causes of the conflict (and its solutions) does not begin in 1967. That point is of course critical to proper understanding of the rest of Abbas’ speech, including the short sections which the BBC did elect to report.

The BBC is of course perfectly entitled to report inaccurate and misleading allegations and claims made by Mahmoud Abbas or anyone else. What it is not at liberty to do is to mislead audiences by failing to provide them with the relevant factual information which would enable them to put falsehoods amplified by the BBC into their correct context.

Dumbed down BBC reporting on the Palestinian Unity Government continues

September 25th saw the appearance of an article titled “Hamas and Fatah agree unity government’s return to Gaza” on the BBC News website’s Middle East page.PUG art

The report opens with the specious suggestion that the reason that the Palestinian Unity Government which came into being on June 2nd has not brought the Gaza Strip under its authority to date is the conflict between Israel and Hamas which began 36 days after that government’s inauguration (and which it did nothing to prevent) rather than internal Hamas-Fatah disagreements.

“Palestinian negotiators in Cairo say they have agreed a “comprehensive” deal for a national unity government to take responsibility for running Gaza.

A cabinet backed by Hamas and Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority, was unveiled in June.

But the move was eclipsed by Israel’s conflict with militant groups in Gaza.”

The article continues:

“The territory has been governed by Hamas, which won the last parliamentary elections in 2006, since it ousted forces loyal to the PA in 2007.

The PA was left to run parts of the occupied West Bank not under Israeli control.”

Readers are not informed that the electoral mandate won by Hamas in 2006 long since expired and elections to the PLC are long overdue. Neither is it made clear that what the BBC euphemistically describes as Hamas having “ousted” the PA was in fact a violent coup. Likewise, the fact that PA control over Areas A and B is a product of agreements between Israel and the PA is not adequately clarified to readers. The article continues:

“Earlier this month, PA President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas accused Hamas of operating a “shadow government” in Gaza. Hamas denied the claim, calling it “against the reality”.”

No effort is made to enable BBC audiences to place that Hamas denial in its correct context by informing them that, despite the establishment of the unity government on June 2nd, Hamas continued to run ministries such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Information – both of which played active roles during the recent conflict.

Next, readers are provided with the following analysis from Kevin Connolly:

“The BBC’s Kevin Connolly in Jerusalem says bringing unity between Hamas and Fatah is a strategic aspiration for the Palestinians – but differences between the factions are bitter and profound.

The new deal is described as “comprehensive”, but not enough detail is being published to allow a real judgement on its prospects, our correspondent adds.”

In line with the BBC’s policy since the beginning of June, Connolly fails to clarify to readers that – despite the placatory assurances at the time of its inauguration – the PUG has failed to live up to the PA’s existing agreements with Israel on various issues, including the disarming of terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip. Connolly apparently does not consider it relevant to inform audiences about crucial clauses in those existing agreements such as the ban on local weapons manufacture and import.

Later on, the report states:

“However, a Hamas official told the Associated Press that there were still disagreements over who should be responsible for paying civil servants in Gaza, and whether the PA’s own security forces would be allowed a significant presence in the territory. He described the deal as “partial”.” [emphasis added]

Despite that very clear writing on the wall, the BBC obviously does not see the necessity of making audiences aware of the fact that if Hamas and other terrorist organisations are not disarmed by the PUG and the territory not brought under the sole control of PA security forces, then the Gaza Strip – along with the rest of the PA-controlled areas – will find itself in a ‘Lebanon-style’ situation whereby the actions of a foreign-sponsored terrorist organization can continue to spark conflict whenever that suits its own (or its sponsors’) agenda.

Additionally, the obviously relevant topic of the recent exposure of a planned Hamas coup against the PA is once again ignored by the BBC in this report.

Nearly four months since the Palestinian Unity Government came into existence, the BBC has still not met its obligation to “build a global understanding of international issues” by providing audiences with anything more than superficial reporting on the topic. That failure clearly not only hampers audiences’ ability to understand current events, but also means that they will be ill-equipped to comprehend any future developments.