BBC News blindly repeats FT allegations

On February 14th an entry titled “Amazon accused of bias in the West Bank” appeared in the ‘updates’ section of the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page.

Readers trying to click on the link in the first sentence would discover that they needed a subscription in order to read the Financial Times article that the BBC had chosen to summarise and therefore in most cases would not be able to judge its content for themselves. 

The BBC journalist who wrote this item clearly read the part of the FT article which quotes an Amazon spokesman as saying that if Palestinian customers enter their address and select Israel as the country, they can also receive free shipping through the same promotion, as indicated by the fact that he or she wrote:

“Customers in the territories could get the free shipping if they selected their address as “Israel”, but not if they selected “Palestinian Territories.””

Nevertheless, the BBC elected to blindly repeat the accusations of “bias” presented in the FT’s ‘investigation’ to its own audiences – without informing them that they came from three highly partisan and politically motivated sources: Michael Sfard, the NGO ‘Peace Now‘ and Diana Buttu

The BBC continues of course to claim that:

“Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.”

BBC’s Tom Bateman tells part of a story about a Palestinian house ‘in a cage’

On February 14th the BBC News website published a filmed report by the Jerusalem bureau’s Tom Bateman on its ‘Middle East’ page. Titled “Israel-Palestinian conflict: The family with its own checkpoint”, the report was apparently filmed a week earlier and its synopsis indicates that it falls under the category of BBC framing of the recent US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ proposal.

“How is President Trump’s plan to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict being received on the ground?

The BBC’s Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman went to visit two homes in the occupied West Bank; starting with a Palestinian family whose house is in a fenced off enclave within an Israeli settlement.

Israel has said it intends to formally annex all settlements in the West Bank based on President Trump’s plan.

But the US proposals are rejected by the Palestinians, who say its vision of a state for them is unacceptable.

About 600,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967.

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

The same report was apparently aired on the BBC News television channel and readers will no doubt note the use of hyperbole in the title used in both versions: “The house ‘in a cage’ surrounded by a settlement”.

Similar rhetoric is used by Bateman himself – “like being in a prison, inside a cage” – and by his Palestinian interviewee – “not left me air to breathe”, “we are living in a prison”, “under siege”, “confiscated my land”.

Bateman tells BBC audiences that:

“Israel declared ownership of the land around the Gharib’s house. The settlement was built and the family home was later fenced off as part of the separation barrier Israel said it built for security.”

In addition to failing to note the second Intifada terror war as the context for the construction of the anti-terrorist fence, Bateman does not bother to clarify that the land on which the ‘settlement’ – Giv’on HaHadasha – was built had been purchased by Jews long before the State of Israel came into being, that it had been the site of a Jordanian army camp after the 1948 Jordanian invasion and subsequent 19-year occupation or that claims by the Gharib family that they owned additional land were shown to be unsupported in several court cases.

Later on in the report Bateman interviews a resident of Giv’on HaHadasha. Pointing at the fence he asks her:

“What do you think when you see a Palestinian home behind all this?”

Ilanit Gohar replies: “He chose this, he chose this type of living” but BBC audiences would be incapable of understanding her reply because Bateman did not bother to inform them that the Gharib family refused an offer of compensation for relocation prior to the construction of the anti-terrorist fence in that area in 2008 and that their claims were rejected by the Supreme Court

The compromise reached in that court case was that the fence would be built around the Gharib house (which had been constructed, according to court documents, without building permits) and that the family would have a key to the gate shown in the film. Nevertheless, BBC audiences were told by Sa’adat Gharib that “we live in a prison where they [Israeli forces] can lock the gate [when they like]”.

The aim of Bateman’s report is amply apparent in his closing remarks at 05:26:

Bateman: “What strikes me, you know, when you look at this [fence] with the settlement on the other side, most of the rest of the world has always said, building them by Israel is illegal. But what has changed in the Trump plan is he says OK, they become a formal part of the State of Israel. And as soon as you say that, you then say well these fences and walls that have been built by the Israelis, they become the new borders.”

The story that Bateman has chosen to highlight in this report is of course very much an exception. But by using that atypical example and failing to provide all the relevant background information, Bateman is able to further promote the BBC’s one-sided framing of the US Administration’s proposals to the corporation’s audiences.

Perusal of some of the comments under Bateman’s video shows just how far removed the report is from meeting the BBC’s obligation to provide “accurate and impartial” reporting which will “build people’s understanding”. 

More tendentious BBC reporting on UNHRC blacklist

Last week we looked at the BBC News website’s simplistic reporting of the publication of a blacklist of companies by the UN Human Rights Council.

BBC News report on UNHRC blacklist conceals more than it reveals

Among the issues arising from that BBC report was the fact that at no point were readers informed that there is no prohibition in international law from doing business in occupied or disputed territories, as explained in this article by Orde Kittire:

“The blacklist also lacks a basis in international law. Indeed, international law does not prohibit business in disputed territories. Nor is doing such business inconsistent with the principles of corporate social responsibility (which are non-binding). That is the official view of the United Nations, expressed in its Global Compact document titled “Guidance on Responsible Business in Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: A Resource for Companies and Investors.”

The same serious omission was found in a news bulletin aired on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Six O’Clock News’ on February 12th (from 18:04 here).

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Newsreader: “The UN Human Rights Council has released a list of more then a hundred companies it believes are operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Publication of the names is being seen as the first substantial step against settlements by the international community in years. Our Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman reports from Jerusalem.”

Listeners were not told by whom the UNHRC’s publication “is being seen” in that manner or what is the political agenda of organisations or individuals supposedly expressing such a view and hence were not able to judge that glib statement for themselves.

Bateman: “The list names 112 firms considered to help the development of Israeli settlements. The UN looked at companies who supplied building or surveillance equipment as well as banking, transport and travel services. Most of the firms named by the Human Rights Council are Israeli but others are large international companies including Airbnb, Booking.com and Motorola Solutions. The list also names the British construction company JCB and the travel booking firm Opodo. Settlements are seen as illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. Its government has been deeply concerned about the release of the so-called blacklist, fearing it would be used to justify boycotts of its private sector. Tonight it called the publication a shameful surrender to those who want to hurt Israel, while the Palestinian Authority said it was a good day for peace and a rules-based order.”

Once again we see that BBC audiences were told nothing about the dubious composition and long-standing anti-Israel bias of the UNHRC or the fact that it has not complied similar lists of companies operating in other occupied or disputed territories anywhere else in the world. Likewise listeners were not informed of the role played by BDS supporting political NGOs in the compilation of the blacklist.

Most notably, however, while Tom Bateman specifically named several companies in his report – including two British ones – he did not bother to clarify that there is nothing illegal about their business activities before he immediately went on to recite the BBC’s standard partisan mantra concerning ‘international law’.

Related Articles:

BBC News report on UNHRC blacklist conceals more than it reveals

BBC News report on Airbnb backtrack follows usual recipe

Weekend long read

1) David May and Varsha Koduvayur discuss ‘Trump’s peace plan and the Gulf Arab States’ reaction’ at the Hill.

“Many Arab countries initially welcomed the Trump administration’s release of its long-awaited plan in late January. Ambassadors from Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates were present at the launch event. Those that weren’t — including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco — nevertheless expressed support for the administration’s efforts and praised some of the plan’s positive elements. It appeared that Israel and the Arab states were ready to move from discreet affairs to international affairs.

However, any hope of a full-fledged embrace of the plan by Gulf leaders was dashed when, just days later, the Arab League issued a sound and unanimous rejection of the entire plan, underscoring how Israeli ties to the Persian Gulf continue their delicate dance of two steps forward, one step back. Denouncing the plan as a “so-called ‘deal,’” the Arab League dubbed it a “setback” to the peace efforts undertaken in the past 30 years. The Palestinians initiated this public meeting of the Arab League, knowing they could shame the Arab states into denying their intrigue with Israel.”

2) At the INSS Orna Mizrahi analyses the situation in Lebanon.

“Despite the January 21, 2020 formation of a government of technocrats in Lebanon, presumably in response to demonstrators’ demands, protests have persisted throughout the country. In addition, there is marked popular dissatisfaction with the composition of the government and a lack of confidence in its ability to advance reforms necessary to alleviate the country’s dire situation. Nor is it clear that how long this government can survive. Since the October 17, 2019 launch of the protest, demonstrators have demanded the formation of a government composed of professionals who are not members of the corrupt, ruling political elite, in the hope they might properly address Lebanon’s deep-set problems. However, the demands met with only a partial response; although most of the 20 members of the government – including Prime Minister Hassan Diab – are academics without formal political affiliation, they are perceived as a “Hezbollah government,” because the list was effectively decided, behind the scenes, by Hezbollah and the parties in the March 8 camp. The Sunni party of former Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, along with other parties from the rival March 14 alliance, did not support the new Prime Minister and opted not to join the government. Thus while only two ministers are officially Hezbollah members, the rest represent the organization’s partners. As such, the new government in fact reflects Hezbollah’s strengthened influence over the political system in Lebanon and challenges Western countries, chief among them the United States, and the Gulf States with a dilemma regarding their economic aid to Lebanon, which is crucial for the struggling state.”

3) At the JISS Jonathan Spyer asks ‘Do Syria-Turkey clashes presage a wider confrontation in the Middle East?’.

“This week saw the first direct clashes between Turkish government and Syrian regime forces since the commencement of the Syrian civil war in mid-2011. According to a statement issued by the Turkish defense ministry, seven Turkish soldiers and one civilian were killed on Monday, February 3, in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province, when their position was shelled by advancing regime forces.

Turkish forces responded to the fire, claiming to have killed 76 regime soldiers. The Assad regime itself denies that its forces suffered any fatalities. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is opposition-associated but regarded by many news outlets as generally reliable, reported that at least 13 regime soldiers were killed by Turkish fire. […]

So does this event presage a wider confrontation between Assad and Erdogan? And what are the implications for Russian attempts to maintain a diplomatic process intended to finally bring the war in Syria to a close? Will the Turkish-Russian rapprochement which has formed a notable presence in regional diplomacy over the last year suffer serious damage as a result of ‘the week’s events?”

4) The ITIC reports on ‘Iranian support for Palestinian terrorism’.

“In late January 2020, the Al-Ansar Charity Association, affiliated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), distributed Iranian financial support to families of shaheeds killed from the beginning of the Second Intifada (2000) until Operation Protective Edge (2014). The funds were delivered to the association by the Iranian Martyrs Foundation, which is used by the Iranians as a channel for funneling funds intended for social institutions supporting the terrorist organizations. The amount distributed in the Gaza Strip among the families of shaheeds was not specified. However, in the ITIC’s assessment, similarly to 2018, the total amount was close to $2 million, paid to about 4,800 families (each family received the sum of $300-600).”

The exception to the BBC rule on place names

A browse through the BBC News style guide reveals plenty of examples of the BBC’s policy of moving away from the use of place names introduced or preferred by foreign conquerors and past rulers.

“Belarus

formerly part of the Soviet Union as Byelorussia; now independent. Adjective, Belarusian.”

“Burma

The BBC has been moving towards calling the country Myanmar. We should use Myanmar rather than Burma in headlines and summaries. Inside the body of our stories, preferably on first mention, we should include the wording “Myanmar, also known as Burma”. Further references should be to Myanmar. We should talk about the main commercial city as “Yangon, also known as Rangoon”, and thereafter Yangon.” 

“Calcutta

As of early 2015, our style is to use Kolkata for the Indian city. It may be helpful for readers if we use this construction once high up in the story: People in the Indian city of Kolkata (Calcutta)…”

“Chennai

As of November 2011, our style is to use Chennai rather than Madras, but we should include the formulation Chennai (Madras) once high up in the body of the story.”

“eSwatini

The country formerly known as Swaziland. Add “previously known as Swaziland”, high up. It’s Swati when describing its people.”

“Kyiv not Kiev”

One entry specifically instructs BBC journalists not to use the terminology favoured by an invading country.

“Cyprus

The northern part, occupied by Turkey, is not internationally recognised, so do not refer to “North Cyprus” – the term the Turks have chosen. Instead, say northern Cyprus, describing it either as Turkish-occupied or Turkish-controlled. And we should speak of the Green Line – not “the so-called Green Line”.”

The exception to the rule in that BBC policy is of course its permanent employment of a term that the Jordanians invented some seventy years ago after they invaded, occupied and later annexed foreign territory – without recognition from the international community. The BBC refers to Judea & Samaria exclusively as “the West Bank” and its website even has a tag for that term.

So much for BBC consistency, impartiality and ‘progressiveness’. 

BBC News report on UNHRC blacklist conceals more than it reveals

On the evening of February 12th the BBC News website published a report headlined “UN lists 112 businesses linked to Israeli settlements” which, for reasons unknown, it chose to tag “Trump peace plan”.

The main image illustrating the report appears to show an Arab neighbourhood in Jerusalem near the anti-terrorist fence but is captioned “The settlements are seen as illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this”.

That partial but standard BBC mantra is of course repeated in the body of the article.

“About 600,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967. The settlements are widely considered illegal under international law, though Israel has always disputed this.”

The report promotes a version of a partisan map produced by the political NGOB’tselem’ which has appeared in countless previous BBC News website reports. The map marks the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City as a “settlement” and fails to inform audiences that what are described as areas under “Palestinian civil control” and areas under “Israeli military and civil control” are in fact Areas A and B and Area C as designated under the Oslo Accords, to which the PLO was party.

Readers are told that:

“The UN human rights office has issued a long-awaited report on companies linked to Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

The report names 112 business entities the office says it has reasonable grounds to conclude have been involved in activities related to settlements.

They include Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia Group and Motorola Solutions.”

The BBC does not clarify that the UNHRC’s blacklist also includes the Rami Levy supermarket chain (which is known as a model of co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians) and numerous companies providing services such as transport, water and telecommunications to both Israelis and Palestinians.  

Later on readers are told that:

“In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council mandated the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to produce a database of companies involved in specific activities relating to settlements. […]

Following what it said was a thorough review and assessment of all information available, the OHCHR presented a report on Wednesday identifying 112 business entities that it said, there were reasonable grounds to conclude, had been involved in one or more of those activities.”

BBC audiences are not informed that members of the UNHRC at the time that the resolution (3136) requesting the compilation of that database was passed included human rights ‘beacons’ such as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Qatar and Venezuela. Neither were they given any background information concerning the UNHRC’s infamous and long-standing bias against Israel.

The BBC’s report avoids all mention of the BDS supporting NGOs involved in the compilation of the blacklist. NGO Monitor notes that:

“The list was based on input from BDS groups, including Human Rights Watch. Many of the groups centrally involved receive significant funding from the EU and European governments. […]

Given that 85 of the 112 companies included on the blacklist are also found in the BDS NGO Who Profits’ database, and based on documentation seen by NGO Monitor,  it is clear that the UN relied on this and other BDS actors as its sources of information.”

In light of that serious omission, the BBC’s decision to include part of a quote from Human Rights Watch in its report is particularly notable.

“Human Rights Watch said the list “should put all companies on notice: to do business with illegal settlements is to aid in the commission of war crimes.””

Although the BBC’s report claims that “There were no immediate comments from the companies named on the list”, one such comment is available here.

The BBC report amplifies comments made by a PA official:

“The Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, said: “The publication of the list of companies and parties operating in settlements is a victory for international law.”

He also called on the Human Rights Council member states to “issue recommendations and instructions to these companies to end their work immediately with the settlements”.”

However at no point in the article did the BBC bother to inform readers in its own words that there is no prohibition in international law from doing business in occupied or disputed territories.

Neither does the report make any effort to inform audiences of the fact that the UNHRC has taken no such action against companies operating in other occupied or disputed territories anywhere else in the world.  

Given the BBC’s dismal record on informing audiences on the topic of UNHRC bias against Israel, its long-existing editorial policy of promoting a specific politically motivated narrative concerning ‘settlements’ and ‘international law’ and its promotion of the BDS campaign agenda, the serious omissions in this report come as no surprise whatsoever.

Related Articles:

BBC continues to obstruct audience understanding of UN bias

Disproportionate focus in BBC News report on UNHRC speech

BBC portrayal of US decision to leave UNHRC – part one

Does BBCsplaining of Palestinian aspirations stand up to scrutiny?

The BBC’s recent coverage of the US Administration’s ‘Peace to Prosperity’ proposals once again provided no shortage of examples of ‘BBCsplaining’ of alleged Palestinian aspirations.

“The Palestinians want an independent state of their own, comprising the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.”

“The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967.” [source]

“The Palestinians have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which were occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.”

“The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967.” [source]

“The Palestinians want an independent state of their own, comprising the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.”

“The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967.” [source

We have in the past all too often had cause to note that the BBC’s implication that there is one unified and representative Palestinian voice which aspires to a two-state solution is inaccurate and misleading. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad obviously do not hold that aspiration – their aim is the destruction of Israel. Readers may recall that three years ago, however, the BBC rejected a complaint on that issue.

We have also noted the BBC’s failure to inform its audiences of the existence of voices from within the Palestinian Authority and Fatah which do not align with the narrative it promotes.

Examining the BBC’s claim of Palestinian support for the two-state solution

Fatah officials contradict the BBC’s ‘two-state’ narrative

Palestinian Media Watch has documented another such recent example provided by a member of Fatah’s central committee, Tawfiq Tirawi.

“Who said that we are for a state [on the borders of] 1967? Who said this? In Fatah, this does not exist in our constitution and our charter! They [Israel] want Beit El and Ma’ale Adumim (i.e., Israeli towns in the West Bank) to be Israeli, and we say that Nazareth, Haifa, and Acre (i.e., Israeli cities) are Palestinian, and they will remain Palestinian! Our Palestinian land is from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. I dare any Palestinian, any senior Palestinian official, or any Palestinian leader to reduce the Palestinian map to the West Bank and Gaza! He would not be able to walk one meter in the streets of our Palestinian cities among our people! … Arab brothers… Be with the Palestinian people, the people that lives on land that is all holy and that is all waqf land (i.e., land that is an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic law.)” [Facebook page of Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi, Feb. 2, 2020]

BBC audiences will of course continue to be denied knowledge of such views because they contradict the politically motivated narrative that the corporation has chosen to advance.

Related Articles:

Reviewing BBC News website coverage of the US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan

A review of the impartiality of BBC radio coverage of the US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan

Why is the BBC’s failure to properly report the Jewish state issue important?

BBC News silent on Abbas’ rejection of Jewish state

BBC Complaints: inaccurate portrayal of Palestinian leadership is not a ‘significant issue’

BBC Radio 4 promotes a redundant comparison

The February 5th edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘The World Tonight’, presented by Shaun Ley, included a pre-recorded interview with David Miliband, president and CEO of the NGO the International Rescue Committee.

During that interview (from 24:42 here) Miliband spoke about the humanitarian crisis in Idlib, Syria, which is under attack from the Assad regime and its Russian allies along with Iranian militias. He noted that hospitals and health centres are being bombed and that vehicles “carrying displaced people are also being targeted”. Ley raised the topic of war crimes in relation to ambulances being targeted and Miliband referred to “international humanitarian law” and “war crimes”.

However in the course of that interview, Miliband also made the following statement (from 26:43):

Miliband: “I want to say to your listeners, we already have one Gaza in the Middle East, in Gaza itself, with about two million people crammed in. There’s a new Gaza being created in the west of Syria with three and a half million people, with terrorist groups in control and with civilian life at daily risk from bombardment and other fighting.”

One can of course find several points on which to take issue with Miliband’s simplistic, if not sensationalist, comparison of Idlib to the Gaza Strip. For example, in that province in Syria hospitals have – as the BBC knows – been deliberately bombed by Russian jets. In the Gaza Strip, not only is that not the case but hospitals receive medical supplies transferred by Israel (139 tons in the week in which this programme was aired alone) and additional products such as food and building materials are also supplied.

For the producers of ‘The World Tonight’, however, that redundant comparison was apparently the most important thing that Miliband said during his five-minute interview – as shown by the fact that it was used to promote the item in the programme’s introduction (from 00:55) along with a reference to war crimes.

Ley: “Also in the programme, the UN Security Council meets tomorrow to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Idlib, the last rebel-held province in Syria. The former foreign secretary David Miliband tells me that Western indifference has contributed to a situation in which war crimes are being committed.”

Miliband: “There’s a new Gaza being created in the west of Syria with three and a half million people, with terrorist groups in control and with civilian life at daily risk from bombardment and other fighting.”

Apparently the BBC considers that invalid and irrelevant comparison to be consistent with its supposed editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.

Related Articles:

Comparing BBC reporting on strikes on hospitals in Syria and Gaza

BBC Sounds relaunches 2017 series by Middle East editor

The BBC recently re-uploaded the 2017 audio series by its Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen called ‘Our Man in the Middle East’.

Our analysis of the episodes relating to Israel can be found below:

BBC’s ME Editor misrepresents the Hussein-McMahon correspondence

A predictable view of Jerusalem from the BBC’s ‘Man in the Middle East’

BBC ME editor gives context-free, omission rich potted history of Israel’s creation

BBC’s Bowen tells his annual Lebanon story on Radio 4

BBC’s Bowen resurrects the ‘Arafat was poisoned’ canard on Radio 4

In which the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen repeats his ‘no human shields in Gaza’ claims

Summary of BBC News website portrayal of Israel and the Palestinians – January 2020

Throughout the month of January 2020, twenty-eight written or filmed reports relating to Israel and/or the Palestinians appeared on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page, three of which were carried over from the previous month and some of which also appeared on other pages.

(dates in brackets indicate the time period during which the item was available on the ‘Middle East’ page)

One report concerned external security issues:

Qasem Soleimani: ‘Trump deserves all the credit’ – Netanyahu (3/1/20 to 6/1/20)

Eleven items related to the US Administration’s ‘Peace to Prosperity’ proposal (discussed here):

Trump’s Middle East peace plan: ‘Deal of the century’ is huge gamble Jeremy Bowen (27/1/20 to 7/2/20)

Netanyahu: Trump Middle East peace plan ‘deal of the century’  (28/1/20 to present)

Trump outlines Middle East peace plan (28/1/20 to present)

Abbas on Trump peace plan: ‘Conspiracy deal won’t pass’ (28/1/20 to present)

Trump releases long-awaited Middle-East peace plan (28/1/20 to 29/1/20)

Trump’s Middle East peace plan: Smiles and sorrow on the ground Tom Bateman (28/1/20 to present) discussed here

What does Trump’s Middle East plan say on key issues?  (29/1/20 to 10/2/20)

Trump Middle East plan: What he gets out of it  Aleem Maqbool (29/1/20 to present)

Why Trump’s Middle East plan is so divisive  Jeremy Bowen (29/1/20 to 3/2/20 and 7/2/20 to present)

Trump Middle East plan: Palestinians reject ‘conspiracy’ (29/1/20 to 3/2/20)

Palestinian PM defends stance on Trump Middle East plan Orla Guerin (30/1/20 to 3/2/20)

Six items related to a ceremony held in Jerusalem to mark the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Holocaust row seethes as leaders gather in Israel Tom Bateman (22/1/20 to 29/1/20) discussed here

Macron orders Israeli security to ‘go outside’ at Jerusalem church (24/1/20 to 28/1/20)

‘Go outside’: France’s Macron berates Israeli police at Jerusalem church (23/1/20 to 24/1/20) discussed here

Yad Vashem: Why Poland won’t be attending Holocaust memorial (23/1/20 to 24/1/20)

Holocaust forum: Netanyahu urges world to unite to confront Iran (23/1/20 to 28/1/20) discussed here

Prince Charles visits grandmother’s tomb on Jerusalem visit (24/1/20 to 25/1/20)

While no reporting on internal Palestinian affairs was published in January, audiences did find a report carried over from the BBC’s Christmas coverage and an interactive feature relating to archaeology in the Gaza Strip.

The Christians helping Bethlehem shepherd families give birth safely (25/12/19 to 3/1/20) discussed here

Treasure Hunters (24/1/20 to 25/1/20)

Of the eight items relating to internal Israeli internal affairs, seven reports concerned legal/criminal cases, of which two related to a case in Cyprus in which Israelis had been released without charge in July 2019, yet the BBC continues to publish reports on the website’s ‘Middle East’ page:

Ayia Napa: Foreign Office ‘concerned’ over Briton found guilty over rape claim (31/12/19 to 2/1/20 and 4/1/20)

Ayia Napa Briton sentenced over false rape claim (7/1/20 to 9/1/20)

Benjamin Netanyahu asks for immunity from prosecution (1/1/20 to 7/1/20 and 9/1/20)

Israel releases two Syrian prisoners in ‘goodwill gesture’ (10/1/20 to 12/1/20)

Jerusalem rabbi arrested for ‘holding women in slavery’ (13/1/20 to 14/1/20)

Netanyahu indicted in court on corruption charges after dropping immunity bid (28/1/20 to 30/1/20)

Naama Issachar: US-Israeli woman released from Russian prison (29/1/20 to 1/2/20)

One report concerned social issues:

How Beitar Jerusalem’s football club owner took on racism and won Alex Capstick (20/12/19 to 1/1/20) discussed here

As noted above, the BBC News website did not produce any reporting on internal Palestinian affairs throughout January and neither did it produce any coverage of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis. As we see, almost 40% of the reporting appearing on the BBC News website’s ‘Middle East’ page throughout January concerned the US administration’s ‘Peace to Prosperity’ proposal.

Related Articles:

Summary of BBC News website portrayal of Israel and the Palestinians – December 2019

Reviewing BBC News website coverage of the US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan

Reviewing BBC News website coverage of Palestinian affairs in 2019

BBC News coverage of terrorism in Israel – January 2020