May 23 2013

A fishy tale of literary promotion by the BBC

There are days when one wonders if the Guardian and the BBC are actually joined at the hip. May 20th was one of them, when a report titled “Keeping alive Gaza’s culinary traditions” by the BBC Jerusalem Bureau’s Yolande Knell appeared in the Features & Analysis section of the Middle East page of the BBC News website, where it was subtitled “Preserving the spice of life when ingredients and power are scarce”. The same report was also featured in the website’s ‘Magazine’ section; there it was subtitled “Preserving the spice of life under blockade”.

So what has this to do with the Guardian? Well – by complete coincidence – that paper’s Jerusalem correspondent, Harriet Sherwood, produced an amazingly similar article on precisely the same subject and promoting the exact same themes just six days earlier.

Both Knell and Sherwood wax lyrical about Gazan salads and seafood dishes – with both stressing the subject of the fishing zone, but without mentioning that after it had been extended to 6 miles in November 2012, following the ceasefire which brought an end to Operation pillar of Cloud, it had to be reduced again in March 2013 due to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. Incidentally, the zone was re-extended to six miles on May 21^st 2103.

Both Knell and Sherwood make much of supposed food shortages in the Gaza Strip and stress the subject of UNRWA food aid – without making any effort to tell readers of other sides to the story. Both Knell and Sherwood emphasise the issue of power cuts and gas shortages. And of course both Sherwood and Knell blame any and every shortage on Israel, but at least the former does not make the same mistake as Knell by claiming (yet again) that the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip was “tightened” in 2007, when in fact it did not exist until 2009.

But the most glaring similarity between the two articles is the fact that they both promote the same cookbook – just in time for its UK launch. Knell writes:

“However, a new cookbook – The Gaza Kitchen – that went on sale in the UK this month, tries to give an alternative perspective by focusing on the distinctive, and piquant, local cuisine.

“We had an intuition that this would be a really remarkable way of telling the story of Gaza – the connection between the people, the land and the history,” says co-author Laila el-Haddad, who is Gazan but lives in the US.”

As pointed out on our sister site CiF Watch, Kuwaiti-born, Saudi Arabia-raised Laila el Haddad is no ordinary food writer. She is in fact a professional anti-Israel activist and a proponent of the eradication of Israel through the ‘one-state solution’. It therefore will come as no surprise to readers to learn that the launch of her latest book in the UK has been promoted by the London School of Economics’ Middle East Centre, the London BDS website and the Mosaic Rooms which belongs to the AM Qattan Foundation – a trustee of which, Nadia Hijab, is also director of the ‘one-state’ promoting ‘think tank’ Al Shabaka, for which Laila el Haddad is a policy advisor.

One must of course at this point wonder whether the culinary trip or trips to Gaza made by Yolande Knell and Harriet Sherwood were in fact organized – and perhaps even sponsored – by Laila el Haddad and/or her publisher, because this almost simultaneous free advertising for a professional anti-Israel activist and her cause from both the Guardian and the BBC’s Jerusalem-based staff is certainly something of a bizarre coincidence.

Whilst we’re at it, we should probably also ask how the promotion of this book in the body of an article on the BBC News website squares up with the BBC’s restrictions on advertising to UK readers of that site.

May 22 2013

BBC wrongly blames Israel for cooking gas shortage in Gaza

h/t JK

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

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

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

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

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

Knell continues:

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

Dr Shtayyeh says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 21 2013

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

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

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

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

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

“4.4.14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 20 2013

BBC’s Knell inaccurate on naval blockade of Gaza Strip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 15 2013

BBC amplifies ‘Peace Now’ campaign

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

“4.4.12

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

4.4.14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report states:

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

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plan: many units in an isolated settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 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.

Apr 26 2013

Limits to BBC interest in Middle East historical sites

In recent weeks the BBC has produced several reports with an archaeological theme. In February the Jerusalem Bureau’s Yolande Knell did two reports on the subject of Israeli excavations of Herodion and more recently Raffi Berg wrote an article about a specific handful of sites included in Israel’s ongoing heritage investment project.

The common denominator between those three reports is not however- as may perhaps first seem – the wish to inform BBC audiences about Middle East archaeology and the preservation of historic sites, but the advancement of a specific political narrative. And as we see from the story below, BBC interest in Middle Eastern archaeological sites which cannot be used for such a purpose has its limitations.

The Gaza-based journalist Abeer Ayyoub recently wrote in Al Monitor about the bulldozing by Hamas of part of the 3,000 year-old Anthedon Harbour in Gaza – chosen by UNESCO to be a candidate for the status of ‘World Heritage Site’.

“Earlier last month, amid overwhelming criticism from public figures and nongovernmental organizations, the military wing of the Islamic movement of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, bulldozed a part of the ancient Anthedon Harbor in northern Gaza along the Mediterranean Sea. The Brigades damaged the harbor in order to expand its military training zone, which was initially opened on the location in 2002…”

Hamas’ Deputy Minister for Tourism, Muhammad Khela, told Al Monitor:

“We can’t stand as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian resistance; we are all a part of a resistance project, yet we promise that the location will be limitedly used without harming it at all,”

Curiously, the BBC’s generously staffed Jerusalem Bureau has so far shown no interest whatsoever in reporting this story. So, whilst critical reports on Israeli projects to preserve important archaeological and historic sites are thick on the ground, the destruction of a prominent ancient archaeological treasure by a terrorist organization remains unreported.

Apr 7 2013

BBC reports from Hebron funeral again promote PA propaganda

The BBC’s coverage of the funeral of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh – the 64 year-old Palestinian terrorist who died last week of esophageal cancer – includes a written report placed on the Middle East page of the BBC News website and a filmed report by Jon Donnison which appeared on BBC television news, both dated April 4th.

Both reports continue the practices of previous recent related BBC articles in that they promote unverified Palestinian Authority propaganda regarding Abu Hamdiyeh’s death and downplay the rioting incited and fuelled by that propaganda.

The written report states:

“The clashes began after thousands took to the streets to mourn the death of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, who died of cancer in an Israeli jail.

Palestinian officials have accused Israel of medical negligence – Israel says care was provided.

Abu Hamdiyeh was serving a life sentence for a failed bombing attack on a Jerusalem cafe in 2002. Palestinians say he should have been released on compassionate grounds and the death has sparked protests across the West Bank.”

Later on it also states:

“Palestinian officials claim Israel did not provide the 64-year-old with adequate medical care and failed to release him after diagnosing that his illness was terminal.”

The synopsis to the filmed report states:

“His death has sparked angry protests, with Palestinian officials accusing Israel of medical negligence.”

This repetition of PA propaganda does not represent ‘impartiality’ but rather the spreading of baseless hearsay and rumour which – as pointed out here previously – has long been employed by the PA in order to whip up fervour on the streets in order to serve its own political motives. The fact that the BBC – in this case and others – voluntarily aids and abets the spread of that conspiracy theory based propaganda, whilst lending it the coveted BBC stamp of legitimacy, raises some very serious concerns regarding the nature of the working relationship between the BBC’s Jerusalem Bureau and the Palestinian Authority and calls the BBC’s impartiality into question.

The written report opens: [emphasis added]

Palestinian rioters in Hebron, April 4, 2013. Photo: Tovah Lazaroff

“Palestinian protesters have clashed with Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Hebron following the funeral of a prisoner who died in an Israeli jail.

Soldiers used tear gas and rubber bullets – protesters threw stones.”

The construction of that last sentence shows a clear attempt to dictate the impressions received by the reader through the deliberate inversion of cause and effect.

The report also states: [emphasis added]

“The clashes began after thousands took to the streets to mourn the death of Maysara Abu Hamdiyeh, who died of cancer in an Israeli jail.”

And:

“Thursday also saw the funerals of two Palestinian teenagers killed by Israeli forces on Wednesday during clashes between soldiers and youths.”

In the article’s side box titled ‘At the Scene’, Yolande Knell writes:

“Many shops and businesses have been shut in a general strike and there have been violent clashes with Israeli soldiers.”

The synopsis of the filmed report states:

“Two Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli forces on Wednesday during clashes between soldiers and youths.”

The repeated use of the word ‘clashes’ in this article and others deliberately creates an impression in the reader’s mind of a violent conflict between two opponents. What it does not do is reflect the fact that all of the violent riots (whatever their pretext) and the hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers of the past few months – the majority of which have gone completely unreported by the BBC – are not inevitable. Contrary to the manner in which the issue is approached by the BBC, Palestinians are not obliged to throw stones and firebombs at Israeli vehicles or to riot after funerals and the Palestinian Authority has the ability to contain those riots should it wish to do so.

The fact that instead of presenting audiences with an accurate and realistic picture of the scale of violence and its causes, the BBC adopts and promotes the PA narrative by inevitably rebranding riots as ‘protests’ or ‘demonstrations’ is displayed in this report by the decision to include the following:

“He [Mahmoud Abbas] also criticised Israel for continuing to use force to suppress what he described at peaceful protests.”

Donnison’s filmed report also includes an example of the advancement of a narrative by means of the failure to include relevant information.

Members of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hebron

At around 1:05 Donnison says:

“..there is nowhere else in the West Bank which is quite as tense as Hebron. It’s a city with around 160,000 Palestinian people and right in the middle there is an Israeli settlement which has a large number of soldiers in order to protect it.”

Of course Donnison fails to inform his audience that Israelis living in Hebron do so according to the terms of Article VII of Annex I of the Oslo Accords – i.e. with the consent of the Palestinian Authority and the approval of the agreement’s international midwives – and that according to the 1997 agreement signed by the PA, Israel is responsible for their security. Given the BBC’s repeated promotion of the notion that Israeli ‘settlements’ are ‘illegal’ that omission is a particularly glaring example of disingenuous inaccuracy.

The BBC’s approach to the subject of the recent rise in violence in general, and the rioting under the pretext of various issues relating to Palestinian prisoners in particular, is increasingly problematic. A serious review of that approach’s role in repeated breaches of editorial standards is urgently needed because clearly the mechanisms put in place in order to guarantee adherence to those standards are not functioning.

Mar 24 2013

A wave of propaganda: BBC revisits the 2010 flotilla

The BBC News website’s Middle East page on March 23^rd 2013 was headed by no fewer than six items pertaining to what was described as an “Israeli apology for flotilla deaths”.

Those items include a written article entitled “Israel PM apologies for Gaza flotilla deaths” which also includes video footage and a filmed report under the same title by Wyre Davies which appeared on BBC television news. Curiously, the footage in both those reports comes with a disclaimer.

Other items include a written report by Kevin Connolly entitled “Mavi Marmara: US extracts last-minute Israeli apology”, a written article titled “Obama ends Middle East trip with visit to Petra ruins” which also features video footage by Yolande Knell and Q&A piece going under the dramatic headline “Q&A: Israeli deadly raid on aid flotilla”.

All of these reports contain a plethora of basic inaccuracies on the one hand and distinguish themselves through deliberate omissions of crucial information on the other.

The widespread assertion made in the website heading, article titles and in the reports themselves that Israel apologized “for flotilla deaths” is both inaccurate and superficial. As Professor Barry Rubin points out here, this event did not come out of the blue and as explained on PM Netanyahu’s Facebook page, the apology was for “any mistakes that might have led to the loss of life or injury”.

Hence, the claim made by Wyre Davies in his filmed report that “Israel apologized for its role in the deaths of the nine activists” is inaccurate, as is the claim made by Yolande Knell that:

“He [Obama] got the Israeli Prime Minister on the phone apologizing to the Turkish Prime Minister for that deadly military raid on a Turkish ship heading to Gaza with activists on board three years ago.”

The fact that such inaccurate portrayals by Davies and Knell found their way into BBC television news reports is rendered even more egregious when one notes that the wording in the strap line of the main article appearing on the BBC News website indicates that the BBC is actually well aware of the real facts:

“Israel’s prime minister has apologised to Turkey for “any errors that could have led to loss of life” during the 2010 commando raid on an aid flotilla that tried to breach the Gaza blockade.” [emphasis added]

Another serious inaccuracy which appears across the board in these reports is the portrayal of the Mavi Maramra as a ship transporting “aid” to Gaza and the description of its passengers as “activists”. Wyre Davies says in his filmed report:

Sheikh Mohammed al-Hazimi, a member of the Yemeni Parliament and of Al-Islah, aboard the Mavi Marmara

“….nine Turkish activists on a boat called the Mavi Marmara taking aid to Gaza. That boat was boarded by Israeli marines and nine of the activists were killed.”

In this article the BBC claims that:

“Nine people were killed on board the Turkish aid ship, Mavi Marmara, when it was boarded by Israeli commandos while trying to transport aid supplies to Gaza in May 2010 in spite of an Israeli naval blockade.”

The Q&A article claims that:

“It [the flotilla] wanted to deliver aid to Gaza, breaking an Israeli and Egyptian blockade on the territory. The ships were carrying 10,000 tonnes of goods, including school supplies, building materials and two large electricity generators. The activists also said they wanted to make the point that, in their view, the blockade was illegal under international law.”

The blockade is not of course “illegal under international law”, as the UN’s Palmer Report made perfectly clear.

“The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

The fact that three years on, the BBC is still promoting that myth – albeit whilst apparently thinking it has itself covered by ostensibly quoting someone else – and that it does not make it clear that the “activists” have no legitimate basis for their “views”, represents a clear breach of BBC Editorial Guidelines on impartiality and accuracy.

As for the BBC’s various claims pertaining to “aid”, the Mavi Marmara was of course one of seven vessels which made up the flotilla, but the only one on board which any violence took place. The flotilla’s organisers were offered in advance by Israel the opportunity to dock at Ashdod port, have any cargo inspected for weapons and illegal goods and then have it transported into Gaza. Any legitimate aid organization would have taken advantage of that offer, but the flotilla organisers refused it.

Further, beyond the personal effects of some 600 passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara – clearly a number far in excess of that required by any legitimate aid mission – no humanitarian goods were found on that specific ship or on two of the other vessels comprising the flotilla.

The “aid” which was carried by the other four ships included expired medicines, second-hand used clothing and other goods – many of which were damaged due to improper packaging. The total amount of “aid” was later packed into 34 trucks for transport into Gaza (although Hamas refused to accept it initially). During the same week, 484 trucks of genuine aid passed into the Gaza Strip via the crossings on the border with Israel.

As for the “activists” (as the BBC euphemistically terms them), we can get a good idea of the kind of received wisdom which lies behind the use of that phrasing by looking at the section under the sub-heading “Who organised it?” of the Q&A article.

Bulent Yidirim (IHH) and Ismail Haniyeh, January 2010

“A group called The Free Gaza Movement, an umbrella organisation for activists from numerous countries, and a Turkish group called the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid (IHH).

The Israeli government says the IHH is closely linked to the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which it views as a terrorist group, and is a member of another organisation, the Union of the Good, which supports suicide bombings. However, the Turkish government regards the IHH as a legitimate charity, and had urged Israel to let the flotilla through.”

The BBC’s anodyne description of the ‘Free Gaza Movement’ is nothing less than scandalous. It completely ignores the FGM’s connections to the International Solidarity Movement and the close links of both those groups to the terrorist organisation Hamas. It fails to mention the FGM’s dismal record of support for terror and antisemitism and its documented strategy of organizing flotillas as a PR exercise, as well as the involvement of many of its members and supporters in other anti-Israel campaigns.

Members of the ‘Free Gaza Movement’ receive medals from Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza in 2008

No better is the BBC’s whitewashing of the IHH. As we see above, according to the BBC it is “the Israeli government” – and it alone – which “says” that the IHH is “closely linked” to Hamas. It is also the Israeli government which “views” Hamas as a “terrorist group”.

This warped version of reality ignores the fact that many other countries define Hamas as a terrorist organization besides Israel. It also downplays the nature of the ‘Union of Good’ – of which the IHH is a member – by describing it vaguely as an organization “which supports suicide bombings”. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Union of Good‘ – headed by the antisemitic preacher Yusuf Qaradawi – which came into existence at the beginning of the Second Intifada as a way of raising and channelling funds to enable terror attacks by Hamas and its affiliates against Israeli civilians. It is designated by the US government as well as Israel.

The BBC’s simplistic making do with the statement that the IHH is a “legitimate charity” in the eyes of the current Turkish government does not even attempt to explain to readers the close ties between the two and the extent of the support provided by the Turkish government in the organization of the flotilla.

All these BBC reports totally ignore the clear evidence of incitement to and preparations for violence on board the Mavi Marmara well in advance of any meeting with the IDF, as shown for example in an Al Jazeera report aired two days before the incident.

Almost three years after the Mavi Marmara incident, the BBC’s reporting on the subject reads like a press release of which the ‘Free Gaza Movement’ itself would be proud. The blatant omission of crucial information concerning the flotilla’s organisers and participants, as well as of the circumstances of the incident itself, can only be regarded as an attempt to dictate a very specific, dumbed-down narrative about the event to BBC audiences in order to shape perceptions. That clearly compromises the BBC’s obligations to both accuracy and impartiality – as well as insulting audiences’ intelligence.

Mar 23 2013

Yolande Knell ties one-state banner to BBC mast

Under the very broad umbrella of BBC coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Israel (my count at the time of writing is up to twenty-one articles and a dedicated Twitter feed in less than 48 hours), the BBC News website slipped in an item entitled “Reconsidering the two-state solution” by the Jerusalem Bureau’s Yolande Knell on March 21^st.

So numerous are the inaccuracies, mistakes and distortions in Knell’s piece that they will have to be unravelled one by one. Knell begins:

“A “two-state solution” to the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the declared goal of their leaders and many international diplomats and politicians.

It is the snappy shorthand for a final settlement that would see the creation of an independent state of Palestine on pre-1967 borders in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem living peacefully alongside Israel.” [emphasis added]

This is far from the first time that the BBC has erroneously presented the 1949 Armistice Lines as “borders”, despite the fact that the Armistice Agreement specifically states that they are not.

“Article II

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

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

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

Article VI

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.”

In making the claim that the Armistice Lines are borders and in using the term “East Jerusalem” (also repeated in this BBC article relating to the Obama visit), Knell is opening her article with an unquestioning adoption of the Palestinian narrative which compromises her report’s impartiality from its very beginning. Knell’s equally erroneous claim that the concept of the two-state solution relates to the creation of a Palestinian state on an area of land pre-determined by what she mistakenly terms “pre-1967 borders” ignores the fact that under the Oslo Accords, the subject of borders was left to final status negotiations, along with the subject of Jerusalem (and others) and is another unquestioning adoption of the Palestinian narrative – also in clear breach of BBC editorial guidelines on both accuracy and impartiality.

Knell continues:

“But many experts, as well as ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, now believe the two-state option should be abandoned or at least reconsidered.”

Who or how many make up Knell’s “many experts”, audiences are not told and neither are they informed of the nature of those experts’ credentials. Particularly in light of the fact that Yolande Knell saw fit to showcase the ‘one-stater’ anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah less than a month ago, it is vital that BBC audiences be afforded the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the “expert” opinions Knell uses as a basis for her suspect claims are indeed such, or just mere common or garden anti-Israel campaigners – as is very often the case with proponents of the one-state ‘solution’.

Next – once again faithfully reproducing the Palestinian narrative – Knell informs readers that:

“Twenty years after the breakthrough Oslo Accords there is no sign of a final agreement.

Meanwhile, the construction of Israel’s barrier in and around the West Bank and the expansion of settlements on occupied land make a Palestinian state less possible.”

Let us remind ourselves of just what Knell had to ignore in order to make that statement. Seven years of terror between the 1993 Declaration of Principles and September 2000 followed by the Second Intifada. The 2007 violent Hamas coup in the Gaza Strip – meaning that the Palestinian Authority has no control over either part of the Palestinian population or a significant part of the territory designated for a Palestinian state. A Palestinian president whose mandate to sign anything on behalf of the Palestinian people expired years ago and an unelected prime minister – both of whom are well aware that the next elections could well bring a Hamas take over of the Palestinian Authority.

And yet Knell feeds her audience the dumbed-down notion that it is the anti-terrorist fence and Israeli building plans which are making the creation of a Palestinian state “less possible”, and does so without making it clear to her readers that neither the Declaration of Principles nor the Interim Agreement (‘Oslo II’) prohibits or restricts building in towns and villages in Area C, and that Israel has proven track record of settlement evacuation when peace really was on the cards. Knell also neglects to mention that, as Israelis saw after they removed all Jewish inhabitants from the Gaza Strip in 2005, doing so is no guarantee of peace or an end to the conflict.

Knell goes on to say:

“On Israel’s left and far right in particular, as well as among Palestinian activists, there is renewed talk of a one-state solution.

The Palestinian Islamist movement, Hamas has never officially dropped its claim to a single state in all of historic Palestine.”

That first sentence should of course actually read “on Israel’s far left”. Except for a handful of far-Left extremists, the Israeli Left – in line with mainstream Israeli opinion as a whole – remains committed to the two-state solution and Jewish self-determination. With regard to Knell’s curious use of the word “officially” in the second sentence, she apparently missed the publication of a Hamas policy paper the day before her own article went live in which some of the 19 official Hamas positions presented include:

“1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine – all of Palestine – is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of “Israel” and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.

4. Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.

5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.”

Knell then goes on to state:

“Under heavy US pressure, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech in 2009, in which he first committed to a “demilitarised Palestinian state”.”

One presumes Knell is referring to the June 14^th 2009 Bar Ilan speech (in which a lot more was actually said than that) made some ten days after, and partly in response to, Barack Obama’s Cairo speech. As for her claim of “heavy US pressure”; Knell provides no evidence for that assertion.

She continues:

”A year later, peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were revived but then quickly derailed with the end of a partial freeze on Jewish settlement building.”

Here, Knell of course neglects to mention that for nine months of the ten-month building freeze, the Palestinian Authority wasted time by refusing to come to the negotiating table and that the new precondition of a construction freeze (which the PA had never ‘needed’ before in order to negotiate) was the suggestion of the rookie Obama administration.

Next Knell states:

“In recent months, Mr Netanyahu’s government has announced plans to construct thousands of new settler homes, including in the sensitive “E1″ area that would separate East Jerusalem from the West Bank.

If these go ahead, even the UN has said they would represent “an almost fatal blow” to the chance of a two-state solution.”

Again, this is far from the first time that the BBC has uncritically parroted the unfounded Palestinian narrative according to which construction in E1 would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state – with obvious disregard for both the geographical facts and BBC Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

Knell then resorts to quoting the notoriously partisan Avi Shlaim, whom she describes merely as a “historian”, with no mention of his political activity.

“I’ve always been a supporter of the two-state solution, but we’ve reached a point where it is no longer a viable solution,” he says. “Now I’m a supporter of a one-state solution, not as my first choice, but as a default solution in the light of Israeli actions.”

Having also invoked the former Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin and the former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei in support of her promotion of the ‘one-state solution’, Knell goes on to advance the baseless ‘apartheid’ trope in support of her campaign.

“Aware that a one-state solution would undermine the Jewish identity of Israel, frustrated Palestinian officials increasingly warn that they may abandon their quest for statehood and push for that instead.

President Mahmoud Abbas has said there is a danger of ”an apartheid-style state” being created.

The argument goes that Muslim and Christian Palestinians – with their growing populations – would quickly outnumber Jewish Israelis. If it acted to raise the status of Jews, Israel would be undermined as a democracy and could end up with an apartheid system. Some claim this exists already.”

What Knell fails to make clear to her readers is that in many cases, so-called “frustrated” parties and their supporters actively seek the demise of the Jewish state by means of promotion of the one-state ‘solution’, garnishing that aspiration with buzz words such as ‘justice’ and ‘democracy’ in order to conceal the inherently antisemitic nature of a proposal to deny self-determination to one ethnic group.

Knell does not inform her readers of the crucial differences between the concept of a one-state ‘solution’ as proposed by anti-Israel campaigners – according to which the ‘right of return’ would be granted to millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees from 1948, thus resulting in the rapid elimination of Israel as a Jewish state – and the proposal made by some on the Right of the Israeli political map to annex Area C alone and grant Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians living there, who comprise less than 5% of the Palestinian population. Whether or not she is genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between the two or whether this is deliberate obfuscation in order to create the impression of a wider support base for a ‘one-state solution’ is unclear, but certainly throughout her entire presentation of various differing suggestions for ways to solve the conflict, Knell fails to make sufficiently clear to her readers the fact that the ‘one-state solution’, as most anti-Israel campaigners envisage it, is merely a code word for an end to Israel.

The BBC’s regular portrayal of settlements as the obstacle to peace, its unfounded mantra that time is running out for the two-state solution, its frequent distortion of historical facts and its habitual whitewashing and under-reporting of Palestinian terror mean that it consistently fails in meeting its obligation to inform its readers of the real factors at work in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Having already recently floated the concept of a world without Israel, the BBC has now apparently elected to voluntarily advance the PR campaign of those fringe extremists who wish to deny Jews self-determination in their own state, by mainstreaming the notion of the ‘one-state solution’ as a panacea to the lack of progress in the peace process and with across the board adoption of the Palestinian narrative regarding the reasons for that lack of progress. Knell’s article makes absolutely no attempt to explain to readers what the consequences of the ‘one-state solution’ she promotes would be for Israeli Jews.

The BBC of course does not don its campaigning hat in order to promote the denial of the right to self-determination to any other nation. Neither does it blithely depict the proposed destruction of any other sovereign country as a ‘solution’ to a conflict – no matter how protracted or complicated. It is little wonder then that the BBC’s reputation for impartiality on the subject of Israel is called into question almost daily.

BBC Watch

Tag Archives: Yolande Knell