BBC promotes the false concept of ‘1967 borders’

The BBC News website’s Middle East page of November 28th featured an article concerning France’s apparent decision to back the Palestinian Authority’s upcoming bid for ‘non-member observer state’ status at the UN General Assembly. 

In the side-box of ‘analysis’ the BBC’s Barbara Plett has, perhaps predictably, found a very euphemistic way in which to describe the OIC-led bloc which so often manages to turn UN proceedings into something between a farce and a witch-hunt. [emphasis added]

“The Palestinians are guaranteed to win the vote for an upgrade to the status of non-member state because of strong sympathy from the post-colonial nations which dominate the General Assembly.”

In the rest of the report, besides the rather glaring absence of the word ‘Hamas’ which should surely be of relevance when discussing the bid’s implications and potential results, readers will no doubt notice the erroneous use of the term “1967 borders”. 

Nowhere in this article does the BBC make it clear that the so-called “1967 borders” are in fact the 1949 armistice lines and that not only do those lines not represent any kind of territorial frontier but that, at Arab insistence, they were specifically defined as lacking any such status in the 1949 Armistice Agreement

“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.”

The BBC’s Steve Herrmann – Editor of the BBC News website – needs to ensure that a correction is made to this article in order for it to meet Editorial Guidelines on accuracy.

24 comments on “BBC promotes the false concept of ‘1967 borders’

  1. Never mind. The impeccably fair and legendarily expert Jeremy Bowen will doubtless be along soon to tell his underlings of their mistake.
    Seriously, though, someone should complain directly to both Steve Herrmann and to ME online editor Tarik Kafala.

    • I think it is wishful thinking to expect any change in the current BBC Guardianista line. The facts of the matter and the actual history have long been subsumed by the widely held left-liberal view of ‘wicked Israel’
      The reference on your blog yesterday to the address by Seumas Milne just adds to the current atmosphere so much so that it is difficult to see any rational debate anytime soon.

      • Actually M Doffman. The BBc and The Guardian are in disarray after the unexpected success of Pillar of Defense.

        Has nobody noticed. The rockets and mortars have stopped. Of course, they may start again BUT, it seems that at the moment, Hamas and their ‘Hamas brothers’ have no more stomach for more violence. The BBC and The Guardian must be wondering why. After all, without violence, not much reason for any support for Hamas. And has anybody notice the purely glancing reference to the 6 executed Palestinians one of whose dead body was dragged behind a motor cycle with other cyclists in attendance. One wonders if The BBC team in Gaza, (So strong on ‘morality), has asked for any response from Hamas to this barbarism in an area under its control.


      • I think it is wishful thinking to expect any change in the current ‘BBC Watch’ fantasy that settlements are legal and so is the occupation.

        The facts of the matter and the actual history have long been ignored by some far right wing nutcases who want to protect their own ability to live for free in an illegal settlement, rather than care about the well-being of the Jewish state.

        BBC Watch people: you’ve spent too long in the Middle-East.

    • Israel’s internationally recognized borders are the so-called 1967 borders or ‘Green Line’ – the 1948 armistice line.

      BBC Watch can always talk and talk and talk… meanwhile journalists do their job and the Palestinians now have a state.

    • The 1967 borders may be ‘false’ in Ms Sela’s imagination, but they’re real in the real world. The EU has just warned Netanyahu that EU treaties with Israel do not apply to settlements built outside the 1967 borders – namely to settlements built in violation of international law on the territory of Palestine.

    • And of course there is a problem here. On the one hand we hear that Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was invalid and at the same time we hear Jordan had the right to give it away. Which is it ?

      • In international politics there can be a vacuum. The official Israeli description of Judah and Samaria as disputed territories is correct.

        Jordan didn’t give away the territories to Israel, They conceded that they no longer had a claim to the territories and redrew their borders to exclude them.

        The actual text makes this clear.
        Article 3/2
        The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

        • David, there is no such thing as ‘disputed territories’ in international law.

          The territory of the state of Palestine (West Bank / Gaza / East Jerusalem) is currently occupied by Israel. Any Israeli settlement in the state of Palestine is illegal.

  2. Borders arise from treaties or they evolve or a combination of both. The armistice line became Israel’s internationally recognised frontiers. Any one who doubts this need only invest in an atlas.

  3. Further Moshe Dayan who was more closely involved in working out the deal than anyone was clear that these lines were borders. See page 117 of his autobiography ” The Story of My Life “

  4. Pingback: BBC still promoting myth of “1967 borders” | BBC Watch

  5. Pingback: BBC still promoting myth of “1967 borders” | Blogs about Israel aggregation

  6. Pingback: BBC confuses armistice lines with borders yet again | BBC Watch

  7. Pingback: BBC confuses armistice lines with borders yet again | Blogs about Israel aggregation

  8. Pingback: BBC confuses armistice lines with borders yet again | Palestine-Israel Conflict

  9. Pingback: Yolande Knell ties one-state banner to BBC mast | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.