BBC continues to self-censor on the issue of PA recognition of Israel

Earlier this week we noted (not for the first time) that the BBC has so far failed to provide its audiences with the information necessary for them to comprehend the Israeli demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state within the framework of the ongoing negotiations.

No attempt whatsoever has been made by the BBC to clarify the significance of that demand as a way of ensuring that the agreement currently under negotiation would bring a real and lasting conclusion to the conflict by ending any potential future demands based on claim of Israel as ‘Palestinian’ or ‘Arab’ land. 

This week, in an article about Mahmoud Abbas’ recent visit to Washington, the BBC informed audiences that “[t]he Palestinians recognise the State of Israel” and amplified the PA’s ‘reasons’ for its refusal to recognise Israel as the Jewish state. It has however consistently failed to inform audiences that even as negotiations are ongoing, the Palestinian Authority still continues to promote to its citizens the exact opposite message: the notion of Israel as ‘Palestinian’ land.

The image below (courtesy of PMW) was broadcast on official PA television last month. The caption underneath the map which eradicates Israel completely reads “Palestine: A number that is indivisible.”

PMW image 1

The Facebook page of Fatah (headed by Mahmoud Abbas and the largest faction in the PLO which is conducting the current negotiations) stated on March 5th:

“We educate our children on the national anthem every morning. They will memorize the anthem of ‘return’; they will engrave the four-colored [Palestinian] flag on their hearts; they will learn the foundations of the revolution before they learn to read and write; they will only agree to one rule, which cannot be added to, subtracted from, or calculated: that Palestine cannot be divided.” 

PMW explains:

“The text was accompanied by a photo of a teacher pointing to a map of “Palestine” replacing all of Israel drawn on the blackboard, with the explanatory text rejecting Israeli jurisdiction over Israeli cities: “Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramle, Safed, Beit Shean, were and will remain Palestinian cities.” “

PMW image 2

If BBC audiences are to be able to reach informed opinions on the subject of the current talks between Israel and the PLO and on the broader issue of the peace process in general – as pledged under the terms of the BBC’s public purpose remit – it is obvious that they must be provided with more than just the trite slogan of “[t]he Palestinians recognise the State of Israel” without any additional insight into the dissonance between that assertion and the messages promoted by the Palestinian Authority to its own people. Only if they are aware of that dissonance will BBC audiences be able to fully understand why Israel insists upon Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

So far, however, the BBC continues to self-censor on the issue of the PA’s external and internal messaging.

Related Articles:

Accuracy and impartiality issues in BBC report on Abbas White House visit

BBC’s Knell promotes already debunked claims in ‘Jewish state’ article

39 comments on “BBC continues to self-censor on the issue of PA recognition of Israel

  1. How could Palestine be asked to recognise Israel as a Jewish state when a quarter of the population are Christians or Muslims?

    • Ben Gurion proclaimed Israel a Jewish state from the start. Palestine recognised Israel, hence the Jewish state. Netanyahu is only trying to earn time because he cannot negotiate peace. Do the Palestinians still have a partner for peace? Many in Europe think they do not.

  2. Israel is a not a relight theocracy but a vibrant democracy where people of all faiths coexist. Recognizing it as a Jewish state appears to run contrary to Israel’s democratic, secular character.

    • Doesn’t it just!

      If Israel is to be truly democratic, then secular is the future.

      ‘Jewishness’ is a ridiculous basis for a state, as is any other religion – especially so when the reason for the precondition of recognizing it as the Jewish ‘homeland’ (another nonsense, divisive term) is to drive an irreconcilable wedge between the more recent European arrivals since the early 20th Century and the long term native inhabitants.

      Compatibility with human rights and the UN charter are fundamental for a state.

      • The troll’s back talking to himself again!

        A great supporter of The Islamic Republic of Iran and the many other declared Islamic states (like Pakistan?) but has a problem with the one and only Jewish homeland.

        • I have no idea what you’re on about to be honest. ??

          I do not believe theocracies are the best vehicle to represent the wishes and aspirations of people, while respecting human rights and the UN charter – this includes Iran, Israel and the USA.

          Iran has nothing to add to this debate, and hence I never quoted it. Sadly, neither do you. Based on your previous post where you hound and insult other commenters, I can only imagine this is just another puerile attempt by you to slur other contributors moral character due to a lack of cognitive ability on your part, while trying desperately to distract from the issue at hand: Israel and its people (Jews & non-Jews) are best served by a secular democracy.

          Try again.

          • @ biodegradable

            I’m sorry, I don’t know who you dislike or why – but insulting anyone is not the behavior of a forum online. If you like fighting, then take up boxing or another hobby, eh?

            It is true that other people on here have varied opinions, but insulting them is a sure sign that you have lost the point of the debate. If you dislike them, ignore them and move on. Be the bigger man.

            And with regards to ‘equal rights’ , I’m afraid that their are institutional barriers to equality in Israel – this is a documented fact – why would you dispute such a finding?

          • Nick F.
            And with regards to ‘equal rights’ , I’m afraid that their are institutional barriers to equality in Israel No more than they have in the states regarding black people.

          • So the fact that 2013 was the first time America has had two black senators serving at the same time? 0.5% of all U.S. senators, despite that black Americans make up 12.6% of the total population. So this is in your mind is equal rights.

        • From an interview in Asharq al-Awsat of Palestinian Arab Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki:

          Q: You said that there are a number of contentious issues. Which is the most intractable?

          This is the issue of recognizing the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. This is a sharply contentious issue. It would be dangerous to recognize this because this would mean our acceptance of the dissolution of our own history and ties and our historic right to Palestine. This is something that we will never accept under any circumstances.

          • @ Alexa:

            Of course this is the issue! Accept this lie that the land is ‘Jewish’ is 1) untrue and 2) no worth accepting because it will affect future negotiations and the refugee right of return, which is recognized by UN resolutions.

            So why should anyone accept it as ‘Jewish’ – no European state does, why should Palestine?

          • The land is of course not ‘Jewish’ – religions do not own land, people might however…so to assign the trusteeship of the land to a religion, or ‘god’ is basically admitting that you smoke too much crack. You should stop.

            International law, the international community and the UN do not recognize such ‘absentee landlords’, for good reason!

          • . Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

            “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

          • @ alexa

            anyone who has read history on this region knows that ‘national home’ proposition was left intentionally vague as a concept – it can be interpreted as a ‘state’, ‘ideological’ or ‘religious’ home , as these are all valid ‘homes’ but resulting in vastly different outcomes for the native inhabitants of Palestine.

            Even more troubling is the idea that the ‘League of Nations’ was democratic and representative of the PEOPLE in the world: it wasn’t, it represented the Will of Empires & The Great Powers and left very little room for self determination of the worlds peoples. It was easily and often manipulated by the Great Powers who were members of, The San Remo congresses for one, was “attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador K. ”

            Is that was you call a legitimate decision making body in 2014?

          • Anyone who read history knows that the same leage of nation created Iraq Syria Lebnaon and Jordan. Funny you have no problem with those resolution.

          • @ Alexa,

            There is nothing ‘funny’ about any of the problems in the middle/near-east, so I’m unsure what your point is exactly?

            You seem to be employing the childish logic that because someone does something stupid that should excuse everyone from doing something stupid: this is obviously nonsense and has no baring on human rights and the rule of law.

            The validity of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Jordan are not the point of discussion, and you introduce them to add an aura of authority which you do not possess. This is pure smoke and mirrors, and avoids answering the points I made above, which I shall repeat:

            How is a Great Power (League of Nations) mandate in 1922 any source of legitimacy in 2014 against the UN Charter?

            Please reply.

          • Indeed there is nothing funny when people have problem with the Leage of nation resolution concerning the Mandated of Palesitine as the national home for the Jewish people yet they have no problem with the same body resolution in the same place concerning the creatiion of 4 arab countries.
            Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.
            ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971: “When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre [French: “reason for being”] and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations].”

  3. “How is a Great Power (League of Nations) mandate in 1922 any source of legitimacy in 2014 against the UN Charter?”

    The San Remo Treaty of 1920, in which the victors of the First World War parcelled out the remnants of the defeated Ottoman Empire, created a geographical area called Palestine along both sides of the Jordan River.

    Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate signed by the League of Nations in 1922 stipulated ‘close Jewish settlement’ on the land west of the Jordan River. The river served as the boundary because that year the UK created a new Arab country, today known as Jordan, by unilaterally bestowing the land east of the river onto the Hashemite dynasty and thus giving some three quarters of Palestine away.

    That Mandate treaty obligation to settle the Jews in Palestine from the river to the sea has never been abrogated and endures today. The 1945 UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80 explicitly says that nothing within it shall ‘alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties’.

  4. The “the basic foundation of the UN Charter” is exactly what continues to give The San Remo Treaty legitimacy. You disagree because, like “the Palestinians” you would prefer that Israel didn’t exist.

    That same treaty is what created Jordan, ruled by the Hashemite dynasty whitch has its roots in Saudi Arabia. Do you also regard Jordan as an illegitimate state, and if so why?

    You can crave all you want for Israel to cease to exist, for the UN and “international law, human rights and the basic foundation of the UN Charter” to be different from what it is but “it is what it is”.

    I have provided sources that affirm the continuing legitimacy of The San Remo Treaty under the actual UN Charter. Please give sources, or just one source that show otherwise. Sources, not opinions based on your feelings.

    • Yes it does!

      The UN Charter states (one more time for those hard of hearing):

      Article 80

      Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

      Those “states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties” include Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and all those states formed at the same time under the same treaties. “Palestine” was not among them and as yet still does not exist as a state.

      You may wish for something different but quoting non-existent “international law” on the subject does not make it so.

      Get over it, get over yourself. Israel exists and any attempt to deny its right to do so is “contrary to Human Rights and the Right of Self Determination”, and contrary to the UN Charter, whether you like it or not.

      Learn to live with it!

  5. Nick F. says, “The basis of the UN Charter is:

    1) Human Rights
    2) Self-Determination”

    Charter of the United Nations

    1) Search for occurrences of “Human Rights”:

    Many references, here are some:

    c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

    2. It may make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

    3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

    4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

    assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.


    2) Search for occurrences of “Self Determination”:

    No occurrences found.

  6. You’re very good at cherry picking – you still refuse to recognise that The 1945 UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80 gives legitimacy to The San Remo Treaty.

    Now it’s me who’s the “troll of the worst Jew hating kind”?

    I would say “you couldn’t make it up”, but you just did!

    I’ll leave it to others who have seen my comments here since this blog began to judge who is the troll and who is the Jew hater.

  7. “Is that an admission of error on you part, bio?”

    Of course not!

    “And I shall forever re-post this to you to remind you that you are, quite frankly, a moron.”

    So, not only are you insulting me, you are are also threatening and harassing me?

    “you ‘hate’ Arabs and will even lie about the most basic of UN charter articles”

    I ‘hate’ nobody, but it seems you do hate me.

    I lied about nothing.

    Go search that page of the UN Charter for “self determination”, without the hyphen.

    Find anything?

    Nothing you have written on this thread that you, “Aaron” and “Frtiz Wunderbra” (the three must-get-heres?) have succeeded in hijacking indicate to me that you are any way at all Pro-Israel. On the contrary you maintain that Israel should be a secular state.

    Have you suggested that Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah cease to be Muslims? Do you really believe that those terrorist organisations would cease attempting to destroy the state of Israel and murder Jews anywhere in the world if Israel renounced its right to be The Jewish State?

    Moron, troll, me?

    You’re not even good for a laugh!

    • Nobody needs to be pro-any ‘State’. that’s the point!

      It’s enough to be pro-UN Charter, pro-human rights, and pro international law, and everything that is Just will fall into place – and this is why you are incapable of grasping what peace will look like.

      As for your ‘hyphen’ issue – you basically have no understanding of the UN Charter and the rights of Peoples – notice how none of your ‘mates’ are here to add support to your nonsense? They must be cringing in shame somewhere out there….

      …as are we all!

      You need some re-education. seriously.

      • 1000 Jurists from all over the world think you don;t know what you are talking about

        …..This includes the 1922 San Remo Declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel (including the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem) as well as close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations Mandate Instrument, and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by Article 80 of the UN Charter which reaffirmed the validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).

        • “Nick F.” has now become “Peter K”.

          Still the same tiresome, arrogant, lying, deceptive, abusive Jew hating sockpuppet…

        • Dave B or whatever your name is . It is nice to know that you know better than 1000 Jurists from around the world which sign the petition in my post.

        • Funny ,same remarks different names. better adress that to those 1000 jurists and tell them that you know better than they do about international law.

  8. Pingback: BBC’s Knell amplifies PA narrative, mainstreams BDS on late-night BBC Radio 5 | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.