The December 23rd edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘Six O’clock News’ included an item (from 08:01 here) concerning the resolution which was at the time due to come up at the UN Security Council.
Presenter Corrie Corfield told listeners: [all emphasis in bold added]
“The Israeli and US governments have become involved in an unprecedented diplomatic row at the United Nations. Israel has described as shameful a planned UN Security Council vote this evening on a resolution which demands an end to Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory. In a departure from a long-standing policy, the United States – which normally votes against such calls – is expected to abstain. The vote will take place following a feverish 24 hours of diplomacy which involved senior figures in the outgoing Obama administration and president-elect Trump taking opposing sides. Our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen has been following developments.”
Listeners then heard from Bowen:
“If the vote passes it will be a big parting gift from President Obama to the Palestinians and to other opponents of Israel’s policy of settling Jews on territory captured in the 1967 war. The United States, like the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council can veto any resolution. The US has used its veto dozens of times to protect Israel. The draft resolution demands that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. It says that the establishment of Israeli settlements in the territories is a flagrant violation under international law. Israel argues forcefully it has the right to build homes for Jews anywhere in Jerusalem; a right disputed by most members of the UN. Israel also says that international laws prohibiting the settlement of an occupier’s citizens on territory it captured do not apply to the West Bank, including Jerusalem. If the Americans and the other permanent members of the Security Council allow the resolution to pass, Israel’s argument that it has law on its side will suffer a big blow. It wouldn’t immediately affect the settlement expansion programme but it would show how bad relations have become between President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.
If President Obama had allowed a similar resolution to pass much earlier in his time in office, it would have had much more impact. In his last few weeks in the White House it’s symbolic, though it tosses a fizzing diplomatic firework into the Middle East policy of president-elect Donald Trump.”
As was noted here in a previous post about BBC reporting on the same topic:
“The BBC Academy’s ‘style guide’ states that:
“Strictly speaking, the phrase ‘Palestinian Territories’ refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority…”
Obviously there are no Israeli ‘settlements’ in those areas and so the use of such inaccurate terminology misleads listeners.
Israeli communities do exist in Area C and in parts of Jerusalem previously occupied by Jordan for nineteen years. Under the terms of the Oslo Accords no limits are placed on construction in those regions and their final status is to be determined in negotiations.”
As was the case in that previous report, the language used by Corfield and Bowen clearly endorses and promotes the Palestinian side’s political claims and narrative, thereby compromising BBC impartiality and misleading listeners.
“…a small but growing number of Arabs are moving into Jewish settlements on occupied land in East Jerusalem, drawn by cheaper rent and better services. […]
…in one such settlement, around Mount Scopus where the Hebrew University is based and many Palestinians study, about 16 percent of residents are either Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinians, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. […]
Official figures from 2013 show 7.4 percent of French Hill residents are Arabs, and Mazal believes the true non-Jewish population is closer to 20 percent.
While the high proportion of Arab residents in French Hill and Mount Scopus is probably exceptional, the trend is visible in other East Jerusalem settlements too.
In the working-class areas of Pisgat Ze’ev and Neve Yaacov to the northeast of Jerusalem’s Old City, 1 to 2 percent of residents are now Israeli Arab or Palestinian, figures show.”
While ostensibly ticking the ‘impartiality’ box with a brief mention of the view taken by Israel and others on what he describes as “international laws prohibiting the settlement of an occupier’s citizens on territory it captured”, Bowen fails to provide listeners with the context necessary for proper understanding of that issue. Seeing as the BBC has exclusively promoted one view of that topic for years, the majority of listeners obviously would not understand why “Israel says” what it does.
Once again we see that the BBC’s presentation of this story lacks balance and accuracy, steering audiences towards a particular view of the topic. An additional news bulletin will be discussed in a future post.