May 23 2013

More criticism of BBC’s Assad propaganda headline

Writing in the May 9^th edition of the Jerusalem Post magazine on the subject of the BBC’s (since amended) headline of May 5^th in which it was claimed “Israeli strikes on Syria ‘co-ordinated with terrorists’”, London-based barrister and writer Jeremy Brier remarked:

“The pertinent question for British license-fee payers is: why is the state broadcaster taking a mass murderer at his word and why is it emphasizing his propaganda like this?”

And:

“But there is a second, subtler irony in all this. The BBC has long since refused to use the word “terrorism” to describe the acts of those who blow up Israelis in pizza shops, nightclubs and bus-stops. Those guys are “militants”. It seems you can only get the BBC to use the T-word when it comes from the mouth of a tyrant.”

Read the rest here.

May 22 2013

BBC report on shootings in Golan parrots Assad propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article includes the observation:

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

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

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

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

It defines its priorities as being:

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

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

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

May 21 2013

Move over Galloway: BBC Radio Ulster airs pro-Assad & anti-Israel propaganda

h/t IM

When George Galloway promotes Assad regime propaganda on Iran’s Press TV or the Iranian/Syrian funded Beirut-based Al Mayadeen TV, most of us are probably not in the least bit surprised that media outlets beholden to totalitarian regimes make no effort whatsoever to conceal their conscripted status.

However, we reassure ourselves that such blatant and unabashed amplification of the baseless lies and propaganda of a vicious dictatorship could not happen in Western countries where reliable and reputable broadcasters operate according to clearly defined editorial standards. Or could it?

We recently witnessed one instance in which the BBC ran a headline (later amended) composed of pure, unadulterated Assad propaganda. On Sunday, May 19^th 2013 BBC Radio Ulster’s ‘Sunday Sequence’ programme – which claims to “explore the week’s religious and ethical news and examine the key debates from the worlds of culture and ideas” with host William Crawley – permitted a long segment of the show to be devoted to running interference for the Assad regime, together with the promotion of anti-Israel conspiracies and tropes of an antisemitic nature.

The programme’s guest who was provided with a BBC platform from which to engage in that diatribe was prolific anti-Israel campaigner, Vanunu fan, ‘Global March to Jerusalem‘ supporter, ‘Russell Tribunal on Palestine’ “jury” member and former flotilla passenger Mairead Maguire. Host William Crawley – apparently rather over-awed by her status as a 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner – refrained from informing listeners about Maguire’s rich history of anti-Israel activity before allowing her to launch into her largely unhindered propaganda rant.

The programme can be heard here for a limited period of time, with the relevant segment commencing at 08:04. Not far into the broadcast we already hear Maguire state:

“No – Assad is not murdering his own people.”

That is followed at 11:19 by Maguire’s ‘explanation’ of the ‘reasons’ behind potential Western intervention in the Syrian civil war.

“And do you know what the agenda is? The agenda is Israeli security. The agenda is taking over Syria so they can destroy Iran and then we move from Iran to North Korea.”

But Maguire really gets into her stride from 18:10 onwards when Crawley asks:

“Why do you think – why do you believe – the Syrian crisis is really about Israel?”

MM: “The President of Syria took a very strong stand against the Iraqi war. The President of Syria has taken a very strong stand in defence of the rights of the Palestinian people. He has not bowed down or cowed down to the Israeli and the American agenda. So in that situation he runs the risk of being someone outside who’s not doing as he’s told.”

Of course neither Maguire nor Crawley bother to inform listeners that the Assad dynasty’s supposed “defence of the rights of the Palestinian people” has never extended to Palestinians living in Syria.

“Between 70 and 90 thousand refugees arrived in Syria, the majority from Tzfat, Haifa, Tiberias and Acco. In 1954 they were awarded partial rights, which did not include political rights. Until 1968 they were forbidden to hold property. Syrian law allows any Arab to obtain Syrian citizenship as long as his permanent residence is in Syria and he is capable of supporting himself economically. But the Palestinians are the only ones excluded from the terms this law. Even if they are permanent residents and affluent, the law prevents them from receiving citizenship.

Only thirty percent of those still considered for some reason ‘Palestinian refugees in Syria’ live in refugee camps. In fact, they should have been considered as Syrians from all points of view a long time ago. They were part of the Arab national identity, they are linked by family connections, they should have been integrated into economic life. Yet despite this, as a result of political brain-washing, they remain in Syria as a foreign body, dreaming endlessly of ‘the right of return’, and beaten by their inferior situation. Most of them are at the bottom of the career ladder, in service industries (41%) and construction (27%). But there is nothing like the field of education to clarify their situation. 23% do not even get to elementary school and 3% only get academic education.”

At 19:28 Maguire goes on to say:

“Somebody has to say to the Americans and to the Israelis you need to make peace out here or you’re going to destroy the whole Middle East and that will affect the whole world. Israel doesn’t want peace. I’ve been many, many times to Israel and Palestine – they don’t want peace. They have chosen land. And as long as Israel chooses land, then it will continue to cause a slow genocide of the Palestinian people, stealing their land. And America says nothing because America’s afraid of Israel and President Obama is afraid of the Israeli [sic] vote in America because it is powerful. But America has to take a stand. It’s funded to the tune of millions of pounds – the militarization of Israel. And Israel with its nuclear weapons is the greatest threat in the Middle East.”

That barrage of downright lies, factual inaccuracies, defamations and antisemitic tropes is met with a tepid “there are two sides to this story, aren’t there?” reaction from Crawley, but he makes no effort to correct the erroneous impressions audiences have already received from Maguire. At 20:34 Maguire claims:

“Well you see when we were in Syria, Israel attacked Syria. Two planes over Syria.

Crawley interjects:

“Because of concerns about chemical weapons.”

MM: “No – because it wants to control…”

WC: “But that is their explanation.”

MM: “But I mean this idea that there are chemical weapons – the Syrian government, immediately this myth was put out – immediately wrote to the UN and said send in anybody you want because we can prove we don’t have chemical weapons. And the UN never even answered their letters. But that kind of thing has sort of slowed down now because they knew it was disinformation to destroy Syria.”

The Syrian regime has of course refused entry to UN weapons inspectors and the existence of its chemical weapons stockpiles is common knowledge, but Maguire’s lies go uncorrected by Crawley, who instead poses a question which one seriously doubts he would ask in relation to any other country:

“Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist?”

Maguire’s presumably unintentionally clichéd reply to that is:

“I totally believe that Israel has the right to exist and I love my Jewish friends. I have very many Jewish friends. But I totally oppose the policies being carried out by Israel. Israel has not the right to attack other countries and feel that it will not be held accountable under international law.”

The programme continues with what is presumably supposed to be a ‘balancing’ phone interview with Professor Beverly Milton-Edwards, which will do little to correct the perverted impressions listeners have already received from Maguire – not least because of its dismal sound quality and the fact that it lasts far less than half the time which she was allocated.

The Assad regime and its Iranian backers will no doubt be very impressed with the latest BBC voluntary contribution to the cause of spreading classic Syrian dictatorship propaganda – although the MP for Bradford West might be somewhat put out at no longer being the only star of the Assad makeover show. Real journalists – particularly publicly funded ones bound by standards of accuracy and impartiality – should, however, know better.

May 17 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later on in the article comes this rather curious statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 13 2013

More revealing BBC replies to audience complaints

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

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Middle East desk

BBC News website

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 12 2013

BBC reports UN kidnapping, ignores mortar fire into Israel

Position 86

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

The article opens:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 9 2013

BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ promotes more Syrian regime propaganda

h/t JK

The May 6^th edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme did not only feature a potentially BAFTA-winning performance by Jeremy Bowen pretending that “nobody really knows” whether or why Iranian long-range missiles might be transferred to the terrorist organisation Hizballah via Syria. Earlier on in the programme – from 1:09:07 here for a limited period of time – over four minutes of air time was dedicated to the uninterrupted promotion of propaganda directly from the Iran/Syria/Hizballah coalition by its mouthpiece ‘Conflicts Forum’ director Alastair Crooke.

Presenter Justin Webb introduces the item by stating:

“Israeli jets bombed Syria yesterday. It was the second attack in 48 hours. The Syrian deputy Foreign Minister called it an act of war. The United States, according to an intelligence official, was not given any warning before the air strikes which most people are assuming were on targets connected with the Iranian supply of weapons to Syria and then on to Hizballah – the militant group based in Lebanon which is backed by Iran and by President Assad. Alastair Crooke is a former EU mediator in the Middle East. He’s director now of the NGO Conflicts Forum and is on the line from Beirut. Good morning to you.”

Webb’s claim that “Israeli jets bombed Syria” is of course a deliberately wide – and inaccurate – interpretation of pinpoint strikes carried out against specific targets in very specific areas of a very large country. Webb’s failure to inform listeners of the political motivations of Crooke’s organisation directly contravenes BBC Editorial Guidelines on impartiality, and in particular section 4.4.14 of those guidelines.

“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 interview continues:

Alastair Crooke: “Good morning to you.”

JW: “What do you think is happening?”

AC: “Err..we’ve had some reaction overnight err..from Hizballah and some sources have been speaking in Damascus. Erm..what Hizballah are saying – and they’re quite calm about it – they say they regard this very much as a political event by – political demonstration if you like – err.. by Israel. Err.. they say that they recently received emm.. effective – quote – effective weapons emm… across the border from Syria and that Israel were [sic] a little bit late on the uptake on this and that we have seen – as indeed we have seen – that Lebanon has been crisscrossed by Israeli aeroplanes during the recent days and they believe that they were unable to find what they wanted and so they gave a demonstrative attack, if you like, on the previously attacked erm.. weapons logistics centre near Damascus and this was intended really emm… having not succeeded in stopping this effective, as far as Hizballah is describing it, Israel is sending a message saying well don’t think of doing it again because we will reply.”

Using the same country and area codes, Webb’s producers could have telephoned Hizballah’s offices in the Dahiya area of Beirut and received the exact same commentary of course – albeit in perhaps less of a polished accent. Webb continues:

“And the point is these weapons – it’s the Fateh 110 isn’t it? It’s a missile that could reach Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon so in the event, for instance, of Israel attacking Iran over its nuclear programme, then this could be quite an effective active retaliation by an Iranian ally.”

Crooke responds:

“Yes, but Hizballah – and the Israelis said this quite publicly – have already got such weapons. Erm.. there’s another version of this weapon which is very similar which has been produced in Syria in recent years and almost certainly that has reached Hizballah. In any case Hizballah is fully armed. I mean there’s no question about that. Israeli intelligence sources .. amm.. admit quite clearly that they have far greater potential weapons power now than they ever had during the war in 2006. So I don’t think this – the loss – even if there was a loss of a particular weapons shipment – would be critical – strategically critical – to Hizballah’s position.”

An appreciation of the similarity of Crooke’s claims to those made by Hizballah itself can be gleaned by taking a look at this recent statement from its leader Nasrallah:

“Israel believes that if it attacks facilities and strategic stockpiles, it changes the resistance capabilities. This is an erroneous assessment.” He said,”The reason being that the stocks of the resistance have been filled with all that it needs.”

Webb then asks:

“What – are we to see this then in the context of an effort by Israel to persuade the Americans that they need now to take sides and do something?”

Crooke replies:

“Yes, I think that’s exactly right. What we’re seeing – I think it’s got two things in it – and again Syrian sources informally were saying overnight that from their point of view there was little loss. It was the same building and of course they’d cleared it since the last attack and there was nothing substantial there. Err.. they do tie it very much to the advances – and Hizballah shares this view, I believe – that the Syrian armed forces have had err.. huge advances in cutting off, if you like, the supply routes between Lebanon and Homs in Syria and also in the south and advances in the east and opening the highway to the north. In fact, I mean, it’s a huge shift taking place on the ground and they think that this is disturbing to both Israel and America: any thought that there could be a comeback by President Assad and his government and indeed a victory in military terms by them – and so there was a thought that providing a strike that would assist the opposition could be an advantage and also, in Israeli calculation, help bring err.. American involvement a little closer and by pushing America towards involvement in Syria and pushing them off their red line – the American red line as you may recall was that the use of chemical weapons would be the only cause of American direct involvement. But by blurring that and pushing America towards shifting their red line on Iran – which is the acquisition of nuclear weapons. “

Webb concludes:

“Very interesting. Thank you Alastair Crooke and we’ll be hearing the Israeli side of this in so far as we can get it after half past eight.”

That last remark refers to an interview with Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland which was conducted after the one with Jeremy Bowen.

If readers are now beginning to suspect that the BBC simply saved itself a phone call to the Syrian Ministry of Propaganda by inviting Alastair Crooke to this programme, they might not be far wrong.

We previously addressed the subject of the nature of Crooke’s organization on these pages in light of the BBC’s use of input from him in a 2011 article entitled “Hezbollah: Terrorist organisation or liberation movement?” which was recently recycled by the BBC.

“Broadly speaking, Conflicts Forum is a Western-sounding mouthpiece for the Iranian regime and its various client militias such as Hamas and Hizballah, as well as Iranian allies such as the Assad regime.

In 2007, with EU funding, Conflicts Forum produced a report (now strangely absent from the internet) detailing strategies to rebrand the proscribed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbollah in the West as proponents of “social justice” and specifically promoting “Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s values, philosophy and wider political and social programmes”.

“We need to clarify and explain that Islamist movements are political and social movements working on social and political justice,” the report explains, “and are leading the resistance to the US/Western recolonisation project with its network of client states and so-called ‘moderates’.” It claims “the progressive space of social movements [in the West] is empty” and asks, “how the West can learn from the values and the notion of society that Hezbollah and Hamas have at the centre of their philosophy?”

Of course, access to the mainstream media dovetails with the Conflicts Forum strategy very well, but one would expect members of the media organisations themselves to be aware of the organisation’s background and aims before using quotes from its officials.”

Providing Alastair Crooke with the opportunity to spout the spin of a terrorist organization and a murderous dictatorship to millions of listeners unchallenged is obviously bad enough. But when that is done without due disclosure of the political connections of the man and his very dubious organization, then the BBC is displaying wanton disregard for its own obligation to impartiality and once again putting its own political colours – and agenda – in full view.

May 8 2013

BBC’s Bowen plays dumb to weave tangled web

The Monday May 6^th2013 edition of BBC Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme included a contribution from BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen on the subject of the preceding weekend’s alleged Israeli air-strikes on targets in Syria.

The recording can be heard here for a limited period of time, with the relevant section beginning from around 2:31:20.

Presenter Justin Webb opens the segment with the following introduction:

“Israel has not said publicly that it has attacked Syrian targets, but that is what has happened, twice in recent days. There seems to be no doubt about it and no real doubt about why either. In the short term at least, an effort to stop sophisticated Iranian-made weapons getting from Syria into the hands of Hizballah – the militants based in Lebanon. And perhaps a possible wider aim as well: to get President Obama involved. The risk, of course, is a wider war. A war that causes huge suffering but also destroys the fragile balances of power in the whole region.”

So what do listeners learn from Webb’s introduction? They are informed that Israel’s alleged actions might well be an attempt to coerce the US in another Middle East war and that Israel is destabilising the entire Middle East. Does Webb have or provide any factual evidence for those very serious assertions? Of course not: this is mere speculation on his part, with no small amount of conspiracy theory-style mud-slinging thrown in.

Webb’s first guest is Jeremy Bowen who, inter alia, makes the following statements.

“And the Israelis are acting – they say – because of the need to stop weapons getting through to Hizballah – their rivals in err…their obdure enemies in Lebanon. But you know the thing about this war, this Syrian civil war, is that it’s always been a battle ground for wider regional struggles. You know one reason the Saudis and the Qataris are backing the rebels is to strengthen themselves against Iran, which backs Assad, and of course the Israelis have also got an eye on Iran and Hizballah and Assad because that triangle is err..self-styled axis of resistance against the Israelis themselves and you know you can go on about it too as well: the pressure on the US to get involved, an element of old-fashioned East-West rivalry: the US, UK and France backing the rebels, Russia and China supporting Assad and so on.”

Justin Webb continues to weave the web:

“Um. Why though – I mean this is a sort of basic question, but an interesting one – these sophisticated weapons – we think these are missiles, aren’t they? Missiles: land to land missiles. Missiles that could be used from southern Lebanon into the heart of Israel if they were in the hands of Hizballah. But I mean given that Assad is fighting a pretty desperate war to stay in power – to stay alive indeed – it seems odd that he’d be passing any weapons to anyone.”

Bowen responds to Webb’s (pre-arranged?) cue:

“Yeah, strange, but I mean there’s speculation about this. Hizballah is increasingly said to be involved in the fighting in Syria. Hizballah very effective fighters in their dealings with the Israelis over the years. Perhaps he’s doing that as some kind of quid pro quo. Err…passing more weapons over to them. Perhaps he’s worried they might fall into rebel hands. Perhaps it’s part of a wider deal with the Iranians. I think nobody really knows. It is a bit strange as well because Hizballah is powerful in Lebanon and to…pretty much controls the airport. Now, [scoffing laugh] do they have to get weapons in through Syria if they could get them flown in direct from Iran, if that’s what they particularly wanted? And there’s been quite a bit of speculation in the Israeli press saying this is about a little bit more than moving weapons because it’s a big raid. It was a big raid in Damascus and the New York Times is reporting that ah..perhaps even hundreds of regime soldiers were killed in the raid.”

The BBC defined Jeremy Bowen’s job description as follows in 2006:

“Jeremy Bowen’s new role is, effectively, to take a bird’s eye view of developments in the Middle East, providing analysis that might make a complex story more comprehensive or comprehensible for the audience, without the constraints of acting as a daily news correspondent. His remit is not just to add an extra layer of analysis to our reporting, but also to find stories away from the main agenda.”

To be frank, Bowen’s so-called analysis – in this case as in many others – does anything but make the story more comprehensible to BBC audiences. His insistence upon muddying the waters by throwing into the equation his own baseless speculations (yes, the “Israeli press” – by which one presumes Bowen means mainly the English language version of Ha’aretz – is capable of writing drivel too) regarding occult ulterior motives for the alleged air-strikes unnecessarily complicates and clutters the picture.

But Jeremy Bowen is by no means stupid or dumb and has certainly been knocking around the Middle East for long enough to understand exactly what went on in Syria – and why – over the last weekend, so his pretence that “nobody really knows” why weapons are being transported to Hizballah is about as credible as a pantomime horse. Bowen’s near conspiracy theory insinuation that the target of the air strikes might actually not be weapons consignments because, according to him, Hizballah “pretty much controls the airport” in Beirut, can only be either the result of jaw-dropping ignorance of the extensive documentation of years of arms smuggling from Iran to Hizballah – particularly via Syria – or a deliberate attempt to herd audiences into the pens of his pet conspiracy theories. Neither of those alternatives is befitting of the Middle East Editor of a major media organization which chalks reliability and trustworthiness on its banner.

Those following Bowen on Twitter will have noticed a similar exercise carried out on May 5^th.

Neither Haifa nor Tsfat (Safed), where the Iron Dome was deployed are of course “close to border with Syria”, but the main point behind this Tweet was obviously to introduce over 35,000 people reading it to the idea that the deployment of a missile defence system could be anything other than a precautionary move. In this case Bowen had to back down pretty rapidly as Twitter users took him to task.

And then the ‘back-up’ was produced:

Only an organization with a monopoly grip on the licence fee payers’ wallets could pass off Bowen’s speculations on the ‘Today’ programme as analysis. Any Middle East analyst worthy of the title would have reminded listeners of Iran’s long history of financial and military support for its terror proxies Hizballah and Hamas and pointed out Syria’s long-standing involvement in the violation of UN SC resolution 1701 as far as arming Hizballah is concerned. A worthy analyst would then have explained to listeners that the alleged air-strikes should be seen in that context, rather than as having any direct connection to the civil war in Syria.

Fortunately, the guest following Bowen on the ‘Today’ programme was Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, who tried to balance Bowen’s insinuations and those made during the conversation by Justin Webb. Nevertheless, it is past time for senior BBC management to make it clear to their Middle East Editor that his remit of “find[ing] stories away from the main agenda” does not mean making them up.

However, Bowen’s performance was not the only attempt made on that particular programme to advance a specific agenda regarding the recent events in Syria. More on that tomorrow.

Related articles:

Where did Jeremy Bowen learn the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Ask Jeremy: Twitter Q&A gives insight into ME Editor’s approach

BBC’s Jeremy Bowen: “a deliberate escalation by Israel”

Jeremy Bowen: “The Israelis would have killed me too”

May 7 2013

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

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

The article opens:

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

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

The article states:

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

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

The piece continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article continues with a wonderful display of BBC equivalence:

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

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

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

May 5 2013

BBC promotes Assad propaganda in Syria reports

The BBC’s reporting on the weekend’s unfolding events in Syria is in top gear. On May 4th an article entitled “Israeli warplanes launch air strike inside Syria” – including a filmed report by Wyre Davies which was also broadcast on BBC television news – appeared on the Middle East page of the BBC News website.

That frequently amended article relating to the events of May 2^nd/3^rd was based on a CNN report which in turn was based on claims made by anonymous US officials. According to the BBC article, a consignment of weapons destined for Hizballah was the target of Israeli air-strikes. The article states: [emphasis added]

“While Israel rarely comments on specific operations, it has repeatedly said it would act if it felt Syrian weapons, conventional or chemical, were being transferred to militant groups in the region, especially Hezbollah, says the BBC’s Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.”

Actually, it is probably safe to assume that any decision to send Israeli pilots on a mission to neutralize weapons consignments in enemy territory is based on considerably more than a ‘feeling’.

On May 5^th coverage expanded to include the events of the night of May 4^th/5^th under the headline “Damascus ‘hit by Israeli strikes’”.

The coverage included a rolling article entitled “Damascus military facilities ‘hit by Israel rockets’” in which readers were informed that:

“The BBC’s Jim Muir in Beirut says Israel’s intervention is a very dangerous development.

He says Israel will not want to be seen as being involved in the conflict, but Syria’s state media is hammering the message that the rebels are working hand in glove with Israel.”

Apparently, any Israeli action is to be considered much more of a “dangerous development” than the possibility of long-range missiles or chemical weapons falling into the hands of a terrorist organisation. And of course that particular “message” from the Syrian authorities is nothing new – and neither is its uncritical repetition by the BBC.

That passage was later replaced by the following one:

“The BBC’s Yolande Knell in Jerusalem says the latest developments are a significant escalation in Israel’s involvement in the conflict.

She says Israel has already responded to fears of retaliation by locating two batteries of its Iron Dome missile defence system near Haifa, close to the Lebanese border.”

Haifa is, of course, some 43 kilometers from the Lebanese border.

The latest version of that article includes a side box of analysis by Jim Muir in which he – like Yolande Knell – seems to be incapable of distinguishing between an act of self-defence and “involvement” in the Syrian civil war.

“Two air strikes in 48 hours does indeed start to look perilously like the involvement in Syria’s internal crisis the Israelis have always said they want to avoid, especially when they are visibly taking out military targets on the very edge of Damascus.” […]

“Israel has said that its only concern is to prevent advanced weapons being handed over to Hezbollah. Objectively it would be hard to see Israel’s interest in helping trigger an uncontrolled collapse of the regime, leaving the field open to rebel groups among which Islamist radicals currently make the running.”

Muir appears to be incapable of grasping the fact that beyond the issue of weapons being transferred by the Syrian regime to its allies Hizballah – a situation which would prompt further deterioration of the security situation in Lebanon and Syria as well as Israel – the very real possibility of weapons falling into the hands of those “Islamist radicals” also carries with it the potential for further destabilization of the region as a whole.

The BBC’s coverage also includes an article by its Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus entitled “Israeli air strikes: A warning to Syria’s Assad“. Whilst all in all a balanced and informative article, in common with the BBC coverage of the strike on a weapons convoy last January, it fails to inform readers of the all-important context of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the international community’s utter failure to either disband Hizballah or prevent it from rearming after the 2006 war which has enabled the current situation to come about.

Regrettably, the BBC also saw fit to resurrect a deeply flawed article from 2011 under the link titled “Are Hezbollah terrorists?” for inclusion in its coverage of these events.

But the worst was yet to come. A later BBC report ran the headline “Israeli strikes on Syria ‘co-ordinated with terrorists ‘“, yet again uncritically repeating baseless statements put out by the Assad regime.

“The Syrian foreign ministry statement said three military sites had been hit – a research centre at Jamraya, a paragliding airport in the al-Dimas area of Damascus and a site in Maysaloun.

“The flagrant Israeli attack on armed forces sites in Syria underlines the co-ordination between ‘Israel’, terrorist groups and… the al-Nusra Front,” the statement said, referring to al-Qaeda militants fighting with the rebels. […]

The statement added: “This leaves no room for doubt Israel is the beneficiary, the mover and sometime the executor of the terrorist acts which Syria is witnessing and which target it as a state and people directly or through its tools inside.” “

Official BBC Tweets also promoted the same propaganda.

As one Tweeter succinctly put it:

And no – the use of inverted commas in that headline does not excuse the unquestioned, context-free promotion of propaganda from a regime which has already killed over 70,000 of its own people.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: Syria