The BBC’s Middle East editor’s framing of the US peace plan

A report by the BBC’s Middle East editor which was aired in the January 28th edition of BBC One’s ‘News at Ten’ just hours after the presentation of the US administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan gives a good view of how the BBC has decided to frame that topic.

Presenter Huw Edwards’ introduction included the statement that “no Palestinian officials were involved” in the drafting of the plan but audiences were not informed of US efforts to get them onboard.

Interestingly, Edwards stepped a little outside the usual BBC framing according to which ‘the occupation’ is responsible for all the region’s ills with a mention of 1948 but quickly returned to the party line by claiming that efforts to secure an end to the conflict have been thwarted solely by the building of Israeli communities. Viewers of course heard nothing either from Edwards or from Jeremy Bowen about the Jordanian invasion and occupation of areas assigned to the creation of a Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine.

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

Edwards: “Now President Trump has unveiled his plans for what he claims is a credible peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, including a promise to keep Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. Mr Trump announced the proposals at the White House alongside the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president said the deal would work but no Palestinian officials were involved and tonight they rejected the proposals as a conspiracy. Now at the heart of the conflict is a dispute over land, ever since the creation of the State of Israel back in 1948. The UN backs the creation of a separate Palestinian state but Israeli West Bank settlement on land captured back in 1967 has complicated that so-called two-state solution. Israel also captured the eastern half of Jerusalem which Palestinians want as the capital of a future state. Let’s go now to our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen for the latest in Washington.”

Jeremy Bowen began his report by showcasing the commentary of anonymous “critics” and gratuitous bandying about of the ‘apartheid’ smear.

Bowen: “President Trump says he has a whole new way of making peace after years of failed negotiations, giving Israel the security it deserves, giving Palestinians the state they crave. But critics of what he’s proposing have used words like coercion of the Palestinians to describe what he’s talking about and even the word apartheid. So, the stakes are high but the chances of things getting better are low.”

He then presented his framing of the proposal.

Bowen: “In the East Room of the White House it felt more like a party than a press conference. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated each other. Their entourages clapped and whooped. […] And now comes a document that attempts to seal Israel’s victory in a century-long conflict, which Palestinians will read as surrender terms – not a peace proposal. It almost exactly replicates Mr Netanyahu’s deepest beliefs about Israel’s security and its right to the land most of the rest of the world says is occupied Palestinian territory.” […]

Once again BBC viewers were not provided with any factual historical context concerning Israel’s “right to the land”. Bowen went on:

Bowen: “In Gaza tonight Palestinians demonstrated. Their side has been deeply divided. Opposition to the Trump document could finally unite them. The Palestinians were already boycotting the Trump administration because of its root and branch support for Israel. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas wasn’t a party to the proposals and rejected them straight away.” […]

Yet again audiences were not informed that it was the Palestinians who chose not to be “a party to the proposals” or that Abbas’ rejection of the plan began long before its details were made public. Failing to provide any context to the Six Day War, Bowen attempted to frame the US proposal as being significantly different from previous ones but refrained from informing viewers of Palestinian rejection of all previous offers of statehood.

Bowen: “They’re arguing about land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. For a generation the international consensus has been that no peace is possible without a Palestinian state on the land, with a capital in Jerusalem. Today the land is sliced up by walls, wire and checkpoints. The Trump plan wants to throw out the old consensus, to offer a sort of state to the Palestinians if they agree to restrictions approved by Israel. And Israel has a chance to get bigger, with what looks like a green light to annex territory it wants, like here in the Jordan Valley.”

Making no effort to clarify that the US plan gives the Palestinians a chance to make the territory they control “bigger”, Bowen closed with cynical speculations concerning the timing of the publication of a plan which has been in the works for years and promotion of the orientalist view that the inevitable result of “frustration, anger and hopelessness” for Palestinians he apparently believes have no agency is violence.

Bowen: “The timing suits the two leaders: a distraction from elections and serious charges. High crimes and misdemeanors for Trump, bribery and corruption for Netanyahu. This may be the deal of the century for the Israeli government but it’s not for the Palestinians. It could create a sense of frustration, anger and hopelessness which in such a combustible part of the world is dangerous.”

Clearly BBC One viewers were not provided with an objective or informative view of the US administration’s proposals in this report. That, however, was obviously not its objective. The BBC Middle East editor’s superficial framing of the topic can be summed up in two sentences from the beginning and the end of his report:

“And now comes a document that attempts to seal Israel’s victory in a century-long conflict, which Palestinians will read as surrender terms – not a peace proposal.”

“This may be the deal of the century for the Israeli government but it’s not for the Palestinians.”

That, as far as Jeremy Bowen is concerned, is all BBC audiences need to know.

 

 

 

 

19 comments on “The BBC’s Middle East editor’s framing of the US peace plan

  1. Pingback: 01/30 Links Pt1: Breaking the ‘everybody knows paradigm’; Ben Shapiro: The First Real Peace Plan; Bret Stephens: Every Time Palestinians Say "No," They Lose – 24/6 Magazine

  2. Once again then:- It is to be expected that Bowen would frame his report in the biased way he does. His own hatred of Israel is apparent in everything he does. He carefully ignores Israel’s 3,500 year history in Judea and Samaria, only punctuated by a brief number of years when from 1948 – 1967 it was ‘occupied’ by Jordan, who ethnically cleansed the area of Jews by murder and expulsion and renamed it the West Bank to eliminate it’s Jewish identity.This will be the sixth peace plan that has been rejected only proving that the mythical ‘Palestinians’ do not want peace they only want Israel.
    Until their attitude changes and they stop their slay for pay policies, indiscriminate
    missile launches, explosive balloons, incendiary kites, attack tunnelling, knife attacks
    bus stop ramming, gun attacks, and petrol bombs and change their charters that state their intended genocide of Jews and reclamation of mythical ‘Palestine’there never can be peace.
    It still amazes me that pro Iranians like Bowen totally ignore the fact that in 1948 UN
    resolution 181 does not anywhere mention ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinians’ and that is
    certainly not Israel’s fault.

  3. This deal of the century ( of which the writer again got wrong but again cannot apologise or retract ) was dead on arrival.
    It could only occur if the US was perceived as an honest broker and it is not.

    • It could only occur if Abbas would attend which he has refused to do for 20 years, where is the honesty in that?

        • No he just prefers to get his brainless youngsters to carry on martyring themselves the way they were educated to do by UNWRA, the attraction of seventy virgins and monetary compensation for their families is just too strong.

          • A perfect answer on why you need an honest broker.

            It is a bit like marriage. you need trust and to share.

          • Well who would the accept as a broker then. Who could bring them to the negotiating table? I can honestly say nobody, because Abbas and the ‘Palestinians’ do not want peace they only want Israel and the world knows it.

          • There is no-one else at present who could do it. We have to wait until rthe present president is gone.
            They can only have at best the 49 borders

          • Why does it have to be a POTUS? Get Nikki Haley to do it and she can rub the male chauvinists noses in it.

  4. Pingback: Inadequately presented interviewees and an anonymous quote in BBC One Guerin report | BBC Watch

  5. Pingback: BBC Radio 4’s preemptive framing of the ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan | BBC Watch

  6. Pingback: BBC’s ‘Newshour’ serves up ‘rumours and leaks’ with one-sided analysis | BBC Watch

  7. Pingback: BBC Radio 4 news implies previous existence of Palestinian state in US plan report | BBC Watch

  8. Pingback: BBC radio interviews same PA representative three times in one day | BBC Watch

  9. Pingback: BBC WS radio promotes US peace plan commentary from partisan lobbying group | BBC Watch

  10. Pingback: Reviewing BBC News website coverage of the US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.