‘Hardtalk’: a test case for BBC claims of ‘equal coverage’

As has been noted here previously, on July 5th – three days before Operation Protective Edge commenced – the BBC’s World Editor Andrew Roy appeared on the World Service’s ‘Outside Source’ programme to explain how the BBC ensures equal coverage of what the programme termed “Israel-Palestine”.Hardtalk Osama Hamdan

Andrew Roy: “Well we try to look at the entirety of our coverage. We’re not minute counting. We are ensuring that across the whole thing we can look back on our coverage of this and say we did give fair balance to each side. So it’s not a minute by minute thing, no.” […]

Presenter: “When you get people complaining that they feel one side has been given more air-time or more favour than the other, what do you do?”

Andrew Roy: “We answer them by giving them the evidence that we’ve tried to put the other side as often as we can.”

Since the beginning of this year the BBC World News programme ‘Hardtalk’ has conducted interviews with numerous people in connection with the Palestinian – Israeli conflict or touching on that issue as part of the conversation.

The year kicked off with a repeat of an interview with anti-Israel activist Roger Waters on January 1st.  

The following month the programme hosted the PLO’s Saeb Erekat on February 18th and Israel’s Minister of the Economy Naftali Bennett on February 24th.

On April 28th the programme’s guest was Ahmed Kathrada and part of that interview was devoted to the topic of his anti-Israel activism.Hardtalk Yasser Abed Rabbo

June 30th saw an interview with the anti-Zionist campaigner and academic Ilan Pappe.  

The next month saw interviews with former Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold on July 8th, Hamas’ spokesman Osama Hamdan on July 10th, Israel’s former deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon on July 24th and Hamas political bureau leader Khaled Masha’al on July 25th.

On August 18th ‘Hardtalk’ interviewed anti-Israel activist Mads Gilbert and on August 28th Israel’s Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz appeared on the programme.

September 1st saw Stephen Sackur interviewing the Secretary General of the PLO’s Executive Committee Yasser Abed Rabbo and on the next day, September 2nd, Sackur’s guest was journalist Gideon Levy.

Since the beginning of the year, therefore, regular viewers of ‘Hardtalk’ have seen interviews with four guests presenting a mainstream Israeli point of view – three politicians and a former Ambassador. They have also heard from two members of Hamas and two representatives of the PLO. In addition, they have viewed interviews with three foreign anti-Israel campaigners and two Israelis: one of whom is also an anti-Israel campaigner and neither of whom can be said to represent the mainstream Israeli viewpoint. 

Can ‘Hardtalk’ producers look back at that content and honestly say – as Andrew Roy claims – “we did give fair balance to each side”?

Related Articles:

‘From Our Own Correspondent’: a test case for BBC claims of ‘equal coverage’

 

 

Hamas terminology and propaganda in BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’ interview with Mads Gilbert

On August 18th the BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’ aired an interview with Mads Gilbert. The programme is promoted on multiple platforms: on BBC iPlayer for those in the UK or as a podcast or, for a limited period of time, on BBC World Service radio.  

This is not the first time that the BBC has provided amplification for claims made by Gilbert himself or other members of the medical profession working at Shifa hospital since the commencement of Operation Protective Edge – as was documented here.

It is obviously difficult to comprehend the rationale behind ‘Hardtalk’ producers’ thinking in terms of their evaluation of any contribution to audiences’ factual knowledge and understanding of the conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip which could possibly be made by the blatant propaganda of a long-time political activist such as Mads Gilbert.  But in addition to the fact that nevertheless the BBC elected to allow amplification of Gilbert’s plethora of inaccurate and misleading claims, it is no less interesting to note the points at which his extremist narrative dovetails with that of the BBC representative conducting the interview, Zeinab Badawi.

Badawi’s introduction includes the following inaccurate statement:

“Close on two thousand died – nearly all civilians – and thousands more were injured, many seriously.” [emphasis added]

Preliminary examination (as yet uncompleted) of the casualties in fact shows that 46% were terrorist operatives.

She allows Gilbert to mislead audiences with a dishonest portrayal of the reasons for the shortage of medical supplies in the Gaza Strip.

“And bear in mind that Shifa hospital, along with the rest of the healthcare system in Gaza is suffering severely from the 7 years of siege and blockade. They are lacking everything: drugs, equipment, modern machinery, even – you know – trolleys and respirators to treat the patients…”

Badawi also permits Gilbert to lie unhindered about the topic of non-payment of salaries to Hamas employees which is in fact the result of a dispute between Hamas and the Palestinian unity government.

“On top of that they [medical staff] have not had any normal salaries for the last year actually due to the dispute between…between the Israeli…you know….politics of not allowing the Palestinians to pay these so-called Hamas-employed staff in the healthcare system from 2006. So they are working for nothing. For the last three months they have not had their salaries and this is extremely demanding.”

She makes absolutely no effort to counter Gilbert’s distorted description of the situation in Gaza as exclusively attributable to Israel by informing them that Hamas was given every opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose not to do so.

“All this could have been avoided if the bombing had stopped and the siege had been lifted.”

On two separate occasions Badawi allows Gilbert to wriggle out of the issue of Hamas’ use of Shifa hospital – despite journalists (including Yolande Knell) having documented the presence of Hamas leaders in that civilian facility.

“I haven’t been in every corner of Shifa but I’ve been there for many years and I’ve never seen any militants – armed people – in Shifa.”

“I have not seen it with my own eyes. I have not seen armed militias in Shifa or in any other hospital.”

Badawi makes no attempt to correct the inaccurate and misleading impression given by Gilbert to audiences on the issue of proportionality in warfare.Hardtalk Gilbert WS

“There has so far been killed almost 1,900 Palestinians and three civilian Israelis. That says everything about the proportionality or the disproportionality of the use of weapons. It is not the Palestinians who are killing the Israelis. It is actually the Israelis who are killing the Palestinians by the thousands.”

Badawi fails to challenge Gilbert’s blatant lie about travel from the Gaza Strip:

“The point about Gaza is that nobody is allowed to leave…”

She likewise fails to correct his false claim that Israel broke the 2008 six-month lull. In fact it was Hamas which breached the agreement by both continuing to fire rockets and mortars throughout and with the construction of a cross-border tunnel aimed at kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

Not only does Badawi not challenge Gilbert’s inaccurate and misleading description of border restrictions implemented to curb the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip as a “siege”, but – like many of her colleagues before her – she adopts that Hamas terminology herself.  She also fails to adequately correct Gilbert’s inaccurate version of events, which of course entirely erases Hamas terrorism from the picture presented to audiences, as well as the violent Hamas coup of 2007.

Badawi: “Let me just pick up the siege first […] Gaza was free [in August 2005] – there are no Jews living there, there’s no occupation there, but what happened when the settlers left…”

Gilbert: “Who says there is no occupation? The Israeli government and army has full control of the land space, the airspace…”

Badawi: “But no siege, no siege. Picking up the point that you made: lift the siege – there was no siege originally.”

Gilbert: “It came in 2006.”

Badawi: “Fairly early on.”

Gilbert: “[….] and Hamas won the election. They tried to make a unified government. It was shot down. Then came the siege and it was, you know, increased and increased and increased as a collective punishment.”

Badawi: “Sure. But […] when the Jewish settlers did withdraw from Gaza and Gaza was left open there wasn’t a siege imposed straight away. Instantly it was very clear that the Palestinians in Gaza – or at least some of them: the militants – were not going to leave Israelis alone.”

Gilbert: ” […] It was still under full Israeli control with the airspace, with the sea, with the borders and with the electronic space. So the Palestinians in Gaza have never been unoccupied.”

Badawi: “No, the occupation remains. It was the siege I was pointing out.”

Gilbert: “Why did the siege come? The siege came as a collective punishment because they have elected [unintelligible].” [emphasis added]

At no point does Badawi clarify to audiences that Israeli control of Gaza’s coastal waters and airspace was agreed to by the representatives of the Palestinian people in 1995 when they signed the Interim Agreement and that no amendments were made to that status quo in the agreement signed by the PA and Israel after the 2005 withdrawal. Neither does she point out that – despite Gilbert’s inaccurate claim that the Gaza Strip is still occupied – the facts show otherwise.

Badawi’s vigorous promotion of statements made by Mahmoud Abbas in relation to missile fire from the Gaza Strip is not accompanied by the very relevant information that Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have actively engaged in missile fire throughout the recent conflict.

Even Gilbert’s most off the wall comments go unchallenged and uncorrected by Badawi.

“Anybody who opposes the grand plan of the Israeli political government today – political Zionism – will be stamped as a terrorist and will be sort of outlawed. The Palestinians have been under strict, hard, brutal Israeli rule and oppression for the last seventy years and they have the right to defend themselves.” [emphasis added]

“…I don’t support Hamas, I don’t support Fatah or any faction. I support the Palestinian people and their right to resist occupation like we [the Norwegians] did.” (Nazi analogy)

“[Palestinians say] …we don’t want to live as slaves in our own country.”

“In my view the [Hamas-Fatah] coalition government now was the pretext for the attack on Gaza. […] It had nothing to do with the rockets.”

“I think that with the power distribution in the world today poor people – not only in Palestine and in other parts of the global south – are suffering from a new colonial wave of oppression which is coming precisely from the United States and they support the Israeli colonial project…”

“Respect for international law – totally omitted by Israel. Respect for the UN charter – totally omitted by Israel. We need all of us to stand up against this degeneration of the international order I think.”

Whilst viewers and listeners may have gained some insight into the mindset of Mads Gilbert from this interview, they gleaned no factual information which would help them better understand the conflict and indeed were actively misled by Gilbert’s propaganda thanks to Zeinab Badawi’s failure for the most part to challenge his blatant inaccuracies. What this interview does provide, however, is yet another example of the BBC’s adoption of Hamas terminology in its willfully inaccurate misrepresentation of border restrictions aimed at combatting terrorism against Israeli civilians as a “siege”.

BBC News enables Hanan Ashrawi’s defamatory PLO propaganda fest

Within the framework of the BBC’s generous coverage of the Hamas-Fatah unity deal, BBC television news programmes aired an interview with one of the Palestinian officials who has been doing the media rounds  – Hanan Ashrawi. The interview, conducted by Zeinab Badawi, was also posted on the BBC News website on April 24th under the unambiguous title “Hanan Ashrawi: ‘Israel destroying peace talks’“.

The interview was also promoted on Twitter using similar language.

Ashrawi tweet

The synopsis to the interview as it appears on the website states:

“The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told the BBC he would never negotiate with a Palestinian authority that included Hamas, which he called a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of Israel.” [emphasis added]

Hamas is of course recognized as a terrorist organization by numerous countries and its Charter clearly states its intentions with regard to the destruction of Israel. Neither of those issues – as this synopsis leads readers to believe – is exclusively the view of the Israeli prime minister.  

During the interview Ashrawi – with very little interference from Badawi – goes to great pains to try to convince audiences that the new ‘unity government’, the PLO and Hamas are all unconnected subjects.

Ashrawi: “What President Abbas and Fatah and the PLO did was to try to repair the political system, to reinvigorate the democratic system and practices in Palestine, to build an inclusive…err…pluralistic…err…democracy that will represent all the Palestinians in more ways than one and that will be able to deliver. Now that government, as I said, will be a government of independent professionals and of course the PLO will continue to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians and anybody who joins it will be committed to the PLO programme to a two state solution and to peaceful settlement of the conflict and will honour all commitments.”

Badawi: “Alright. So basically Hanan Ashrawi…..OK….so you are basically saying that Hamas will not be part of a unity government in the future because if it were, as you know, that would trigger sanctions both from the Israelis and the Americans, on whom you depend for a great deal of aid.”

Unfortunately Badawi refrains from asking the crucial question of what will happen if elections take place as stated in six months’ time and this unelected “government of independent professionals” is replaced by one which includes Hamas. She does not ask exactly what such an unelected interim government will be “able to deliver” to the Palestinian people or what will happen if that “unity government” adopts policies at odds with those of the PLO. Neither does she press Ashrawi on the non-inclusive and non-democratic make-up of the PLO itself, with members of the Palestinian National Council – the PLO’s legislative body – being nominated by the PLO Executive Committee rather than by the ordinary Palestinian people. Likewise Badawi makes no attempt to unravel the obvious complications arising from the fact that Hamas – which won a significant proportion of the votes in the 2006 PLC elections – is not currently a member of the PLO. 

Instead, Badawi allows Ashrawi to distract audiences from the issue of Hamas’ terror designation with a smoke and mirrors tirade of defamation.Ashrawi interview

HA: “Now excuse me. I think the government we’re talking about is not a factional government – a government of representatives of political parties – but it is a government of independence that will deliver the required services; this is it. But too I don’t see why it is any of…emm…Netanyahu’s…Israel’s business or even America’s business to tell who’s acceptable and who’s not in a pluralistic political system. I can tell you I don’t want to talk to Lieberman or we don’t want to talk to Naftali Bennett. These are people who are either racist or settlers or who deny Palestinian rights or who reat us as sub-human species or who want to take all of historical Palestine for greater Israel. These are people who are in the Israeli government coalition and the Israeli government is responsible for an army that is daily killing Palestinians and yet they tell us that if we reconcile and if we repair our system and if we have elections, then that means we don’t want to negotiate. What about [unintelligible] settlements?”

In near-apologetic manner and folding quickly, Badawi replies:

ZB: “OK well I was asking you about the formation of a unity government that would include Hamas. I was just seeking your clarification on that.”

HA: “It’s a government of national accord.”

ZB: “So it may not have a Hamas..”

HA: “It’s a government of national accord.”

ZB: “Alright. I understand.”

HA: “No, there will be no card-carrying member of any faction or any party. That’s the government we have agreed to and everybody knows that. It’s no secret. And we’ve been striving for national unity because it is the responsibility of any leadership to repair this lethal rift that has weakened the Palestinians and of course the EU welcomed it.”

Expressing no interest in which ‘non-card-carrying’ personality is set to head the ‘unity government’ to be set up according to the Shati Reconciliation Agreement, Badawi says:

“Alright. Tell me briefly though….OK….briefly, do you accept though that President Abbas has basically given a hand up to Hamas, which has been looking pretty isolated and relatively weak, particularly since the ousting of President Mohammed Morsi in Egypt?”

HA: “Definitely Hamas has been weakened, but what President Abbas has done is he has responded to the Palestinian people’s persistent and vocal demands to go back to unity, to try to repair the system itself, to try to bring Hamas to the fold and to have elections – because we need elections badly and without Hamas we cannot have it – and to present Hamas as part of this fabric – the political fabric of the Palestinian system – rather than as an alternative to it.”

Again, Badawi does not use the opportunity to ask what will happen if Hamas once again wins the next election. She concludes by providing Ashrawi with yet another opportunity to promote PA political propaganda.

ZB: “Alright. In a quick word – are the peace talks dead then; in the future they may not be revived?”

HA: “I think Israel has done everything possible to destroy the peace talks, to sabotage the process itself, and I think this time its withdrawal from the talks – even though we still have a few days left till April 29th – is a clear signal that it’s looking for any pretext, any excuse, to undermine them and to bring them to an end while giving it a free hand to continue with its settlement activities, its siege of Gaza and its annexation of Jerusalem, plus reneging on its commitments and its signed agreements – particularly the release of Palestinian prisoners.”

Even the BBC must be aware that when the PA demanded the inclusion of Israeli Arabs among the list of terrorists to be released it knew exactly how that demand would endanger the talks.  Of course when Mahmoud Abbas signed applications to join various UN bodies in defiance of the ‘pre-nup’ agreement which facilitated the current round of negotiations, it was perfectly obvious that their continuation was in jeopardy. Likewise, the PA and the PLO were well aware in advance of the precise reactions that a ‘unity agreement’ with Hamas would bring from Israel and the international community. But Badawi makes no attempt to clarify those points to BBC audiences and instead allows them to go away with only Ashrawi’s unchallenged PLO propaganda.  

Once again the BBC makes a mockery of its commitment to “enable individuals to participate in the global debate on significant international issues”. 

 

BBC tones down Iranian rhetoric and extremism

Precisely what does the BBC mean when it uses the word ‘occupation’? We do not have to suppose or speculate about the answer to that question because the BBC’s Key Terms guide tells us exactly what it means.

“Occupied Territories/occupation

The phrase ‘Occupied Territories’ refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is common usage for this phrase to refer to the West Bank as a whole and not the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 War or Syrian/Israeli relations).    

This is our preferred description. It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase ‘occupied West Bank’ can also be used. It is, however, also advisable not to overuse the phrase within a single report in case it is seen as expressing support for one side’s view.”   

In other words, when it uses the word ‘occupation’, the BBC intends readers to understand that it is describing areas which came under Israeli control as a result of the Six Day War. 

So consider this August 2nd BBC headline: “Iran’s Rouhani calls Israel occupation ‘old wound’ on Islamic world“.

Rouhani speech

As others have noted, Rouhani of course made no such distinction between areas east or west of the ‘green line’: his ‘problem’ is with Israel as a whole – not just this or that particular part of it.  

The article’s strap-line further shows the BBC’s transparent attempt to tone down Rouhani’s rhetoric by insertion of the phrase “Palestinian areas”.

“Iran’s President-elect Hassan Rouhani has denounced Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas as an “old wound on the body of the Islamic world”.”

What does the BBC mean when it says “Palestinian areas”? We do not have to guess about that one either. 

“Palestinian land

This phrase has become more widely used by politicians and broadcasters to refer to the Occupied Territories - for example, to explain why the construction of settlements is considered illegal by the UN.

Critics of the phrase say it is not strictly accurate because, for example, the West Bank was captured from Jordan in 1967. 

The BBC Governors considered this issue in a complaint which was referred to in the programme complaints bulletin of July 2004. Their decision was that, although the complainant objected to references to ‘Palestinian land’ and ‘Arab land’, these terms “appropriately reflected the language of UN resolutions”.

So the use of the phrase “Palestinian areas” is clearly intended to reinforce the false impression that Rouhani was referring to land gained by Israel in the 1967 war. 

Why the BBC should find it necessary to tone down Rouhani’s remarks in a manner which it presumably thinks makes them more palatable to Western audiences is anybody’s guess, especially as other members of the Western media managed to report the geographical intentions of Rouhani’s words accurately. 

The problem is, of course, that the BBC has invested much in educating its audiences with regard to its own definition of “occupation”, but rarely bothers to clarify the fact that for other parties – including Iran and its terrorist proxies – “occupation” means every last inch of Israel. Hence, average readers would be liable to fail to grasp the real significance of Rouhani’s words quoted later on in the article:

Speaking at a rally, Mr Rouhani said: “There is an old wound on the body of the Islamic world, under the shadow of the occupation of the holy lands of Palestine and Quds [Jerusalem].

But the BBC’s whitewashing does not stop there.  

“His remarks echo those of other Iranian leaders and come on Jerusalem (Quds) Day, held every year in Iran to support the Palestinians and denounce Israel.”

 There is nothing ‘pro-Palestinian’ about the hate-filled annual event which is Al Quds day and “denounce” is a very euphemistic way to describe the aims of an event that includes demonstrations of support for an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation which also make no distinction between pre and post 1967 Israel.  As the NYT correspondent in Tehran pointed out:

“Walking among celebrators holding signs reading “Death to Israel” and pictures of maimed Palestinian children, Mr. Rouhani […] gave a preplanned statement to waiting television cameras.”

That’s “Death to Israel”, dear BBC – not “Death to the bits of Israel east of the ‘green line’ “. 

Iranians carry anti-Israeli placards during a rally to mark al-Quds Day in Tehran, Iran, 02 August 2013. Photo: EPA

Iranian man carrying the Hizballah flag at an anti-Israeli rally to mark al-Quds Day in Tehran, Iran, 02 August 2013. Photo EPA

al-Quds Day rally in Tehran

Iranians attend al-Quds Day rally on August 2, 2013 in Tehran, Iran. Photo: Maryam Rahmanian

Iran's new president calls Israel an 'old wound'

An Iranian man holds an anti-Israeli placard with a portrait of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah during an annual Al-Quds Day rally in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Aug. 2, 2013. Photo: AP

Another BBC report on the subject of Rouhani’s inauguration appeared on the BBC News websites’s Middle east page on August 3rd. In that article too, the BBC misleads readers as to the meaning of Rouhani’s remarks.  [emphasis added]

“The day before he took office, Mr Rouhani said Israeli occupation was an “old wound on the body of the Islamic world”, as Iran marked its annual Jerusalem (Quds) Day.

His remarks echo those of other Iranian leaders on the day dedicated to supporting the Palestinians and denouncing Israel.”

It appears that the BBC is having difficulty sobering up after its ‘Rouhani the moderate reformer’ binge following the June elections and that, rather than engaging in a critical review of its own misguided stance, is now attempting – fingers placed firmly in ears – to bend reality to fit its own narrative.

That policy of course does nothing to meet the corporation’s obligation to enable its audiences to “build a global understanding of international issues”. 

Update:

An edition of a BBC World News programme has the BBC Persian service’s Rana Rahimpour translating Rouhani’s words as follows: 

“The occupation of the holy land of Palestine and Quds – which is Jerusalem – is an old wound on the body of the Muslim world.”

Rahimpour hastens to add:

“But he never mentioned Israel or the Zionist regime, as Iranian politicians refer to Israel…”

Of course Rouhani had no need to mention Israel by name: his audience at what Zeinab Badawi ridiculously insists upon calling the “pro-Palestinian rally” would have understood his intention perfectly well, given the Iranian regime’s record and its long-standing support for terrorist organisations which do not accept Israel’s existence in any form. BBC audiences, however, will remain in the dark due to this latest bout of the syndrome described by Sohrab Ahmari and James Kirchick in 2012 as “We Are All Persian Grammarians Now“.

Clearly, the BBC could have avoided this case of inaccurate and misleading reporting had it simply been more vigilant in its use of quotation marks in that headline. 

BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’ on democracy in Egypt

This episode of the BBC programme ‘Hardtalk‘ in which Zeinab Badawi interviews Coptic Christian Naguib Sawiris – founder of the Free Egyptians Party – is not connected to Israel, but it is both interesting in itself as well as useful in that it provides a glimpse into BBC perceptions of the “Arab Spring” some six months after the publication of the BBC Trust commissioned report on the subject.

(Sound is lost at around 04:00 but resumes at 05:39)  

BBC does ‘The Palestinian Authority economy for dummies’

One day, perhaps, a BBC journalist will make a fact-based programme which will explain to audiences the real reasons that lie behind the weakness of the economy in the Palestinian National Authority controlled areas. 

Such a report would of course have to include factors such as the population growth rate, the rise of the dependency of the PA economy upon foreign donations from 10.47% in the year 2000 to over 60% in recent years, the endemic corruption, the lack of investment in infrastructure and means of production, the top-heavy civil service sector, the payment of wages to workers in Gaza who stay at home and convicted terrorists in Israeli jails, the inefficient tax collection, the self-inflicted effects of the second Intifada and the stifling influence on the economy of foreign NGOs and aid agencies – as well as many more contributing elements. 

But until that day, BBC audiences will have to make do with superficial reports such as the one broadcast on BBC News by Zeinab Badawi on November 6th 2012. 

 The accompanying synopsis states that:

“Recent protests across cities on the West Bank against rising fuel and food prices have sometimes turned violent.

Many people blame obstacles put in place by the Israeli authorities.

Despite the problems some Palestinians are trying to do more to boost their own economy, and create more jobs.”

The video report continues with the same theme of gratuitously blaming Israel for the PA’s economic ills with one of the interviewees , Ziad Anabtawi, stating that:

“We don’t have any control over our borders whether it’s coming from the port of Ashdod or Haifa or the crossing from Jordan, it’s always being handled by the Israelis and they have the control over every movement that we make at the border line.”

Seeing as the territory controlled by the PA (both at present and under any future agreements)  is landlocked, the situation regarding sea ports is not going to change unless the PA resolves its differences with Hamas and constructs a port in the Gaza Strip. That, of course, has nothing to do with Israel. 

 As for the border crossings into Jordan, the 1994 Paris Economic Agreement – which some called to annul during the September demonstrations against the economic situation in the PA – includes provisions for PA customs control there. 

 “In the entry points of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip:

Freight shipment
The Palestinian Authority will have full responsibility and powers in the Palestinian customs points (freight-area) for the implementation of the agreed upon customs and importation policy as specified in this protocol, including the inspection and the collection of taxes and other charges, when due.
Israeli customs officials will be present and will receive from the Palestinian customs officials a copy of the necessary relevant documents related to the specific shipment and will be entitled to ask for inspection in their presence of both goods and tax collection.
The Palestinian customs officials will be responsible for the handling of the customs procedure including the inspection and collection of due taxes.
In case of disagreement on the clearance of any shipment according to this Article, the shipment will be delayed for inspection for a maximum period of 48 hours during which a joint sub-committee will resolve the issue on the basis of the relevant provisions of this Article. The shipment will be released only upon the sub-committee’s decision.”

Unfortunately, of course, the decision by the Palestinian Authority to launch a terror war against Israel in 2000 has had repercussions on all aspects of the Oslo Accords of which that protocol is part. 

Badawi also interviews an olive farmer who states that “After the 1967 war so many young people left because of the lack of job opportunities”. A somewhat less one-dimensional view of the situation at the time can be read here.

Zeinab Badawi concludes her report by stating that the Palestinians:

“…need more backing from their own leaders and fewer restrictions on their economic activities by the Israeli authorities.”

Significantly, she neglects entirely to mention the fact that  - as in the past – the Israeli government has in recent months done much to try to boost the ailing PA economy, including making advance payments of 380 million shekels of tax monies not yet collected and adding a further 5,000 new work permits. 

“All told, some 48,000 Palestinians can now work legally within the Green Line, while some 26,000 work in industrial zones in settlement regions, and an estimated 30,000 more are working in Israel without permits. Thus, over 100,000 Palestinians are earning their livelihoods directly from Israel, receiving salaries that are at least double the salaries paid in the West Bank..”

Badawi also fails to mention the 617 million shekel debt owed by the PA to the Israel Electric Corporation, the PA’s $1.1 billion deficit in 2011, Israel’s appeals to the International Monetary Fund for aid to the PA and so forth. 

By resorting to the all too easy and simplistic default option of blaming Israel for just about any Palestinian problem, Zeinab Badawi displays a blatant disregard for accuracy. It is therefore not surprising that on occasions such as this, the BBC’s impartiality is then called into question. 

BBC’s ‘Hardtalk’: soft on Hamas

The BBC programme ‘Hardtalk’ describes itself on its own website thus:

“HARDtalk is the hard-hitting flagship news programme shown on BBC World News and the BBC News channel.

The half hour interview is the result of detailed research and in-depth investigations.

HARDtalk asks the difficult questions and gets behind the stories that make the news – from international political leaders to entertainers; from corporate decision-makers to ordinary individuals facing huge challenges.”

Here is a ‘Hardtalk’ interview with Ghazi Hamad of Hamas from July 2012:

Notably, presenter Zeinab Badawi allows Hamad to speak about the blockade without bringing up the subject of rocket fire at Israeli civilian communities.

When forced by the constraints of ‘impartiality’ to represent the Israeli point of view as Hamad recites his list of Israeli ‘crimes’, Badawi displays palpable ennui which, when interrupted by Hamad fizzles out into an apologetic “I was just trying to give you what they…”.

Badawi asks Hamad about arms smuggling through Rafah, but when he changes the subject to that of the smuggling of food, medicines and building materials, she fails to follow through.

Her final attempt at ‘impartiality’ is a lame “they [Israel] deny that of course” after Hamad states “We are sure that Israel poisoned President Arafat”. 

This is not the first time that Ghazi Hamad has appeared on ‘Hardtalk’. Here he is in May 2011 going completely unchallenged by presenter Stephen Sackur when he says that Hamas is ready to “liberate our homeland” and claims that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, not radical and not extremist. 

“Hard hitting”? “Difficult questions”?

Hardly.