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’

30 comments on “Does BBCsplaining of Palestinian aspirations stand up to scrutiny?

  1. The BBC again displaying their one sided narrative adhering to the well worn melodies of the PLO and Hamas with distinct overtones of the contralto sounds of Islamic Jihad. Anyone who cannot still is unable to fathom what the BDS chants of ‘from the river to the sea’ means, is either subnormal or no longer capable of thinking for themselves, following 20 years of Bowen anti-Israel indoctrination.

  2. A unified voice does not exist in Israel, Australia or any other country. That is why we have elections.. Deary me that is politics 101.

    My neighbour can threaten to kill me but if he or she does not have the means to do that the threat is meaningless.
    NO country, organisation or whatever can destroy Israel. you have to be very stupid to think so or you are trying to portry a meaningless threat as a lot more than it is,
    Lastly if we go to the Deal of the Century it is stupidity of the highest order to have jewsih cities in a proposed Palestinian state. The people have to decide if they want to remain Israeli citizens, if so they go back to Israel or become Palestinian citizens and remain where they are.

    you were very confused. I hope I cleared things up for you..

    • Then, that’s the point of the post. The BBC wording monothically portrays Palestinians as speaking in unison, whereas that’s not the case.

      You make two other tangential points, neither of which addresses the topic of the article and are therefore not germane. But, since you have decided to open that door, fine.

      It is quite possible that no entity can destroy Israel. However, many talk that way, such as the IRGC. Furthermore, even if the Palestinians cannot destroy Israel, they can nevertheless hurt Israel through terrorist attacks, which Israel is entitled to thwart.

      The Deal of the Century is the best so far. Having Jewish cities, under the protection of the Israeli army, within the borders of a Palestinian state puts a serious impediment into Palestinian terrorism. Such an approach is not commonplace, but then again most places don’t have these issues. The final agreement will stipulate the citizenship of individuals.

      I hope that I have clarified for you.

      • No nation has one voice period. The writer obviously does not understand that.
        The BBC portrays that when they continually write about differences between the West Bank and Gaza. sure

        Talk without the means of doing something is simply talk. to allege that any nation or organisation can destroy Israel is simply presenting an argument that cannot occur. However even to imply as this author does time ans time again that this can occur is to perpetrate a lie.

        you simply cannot have a nation that has cities of another country in it. That is stupidity of the highest order.
        Only apologists of the current corrupt Israeli PM think this deal is a deal.

        • No nation has none voice. That is true. The writer is pointing out the fallacy in the BBC’s reporting, as evidenced by “the Palestinians…”

          Where has the author implied that another nation or organization can destroy Israel? There is a very stark contrast between implying that it can occur and the reporting the rhetoric about it.

          Present your scientific evidence that you cannot cities of one nation in the territory of another. Also, you do not dispute the security issue.

          • tell me of another country eaten up by cities of another country in it.

            you are bonkers believing anyone would agree to that or even consider it. Jews knew the long term consequences when they built there.

            The writer always implies about the destruction of Israel when an article is about Israel / Palestine or the Middle East in general.

            Like Goebbels she might even believe her own propaganda in the end. He went mad remember!!

          • The fact that it hasn’t been tried does mean that it is impossible. Furthermore, where is your evidence that Jewish cities will “eat up” yet-to-be-designated Palestinian territory?

            The Palestinians will probably reject it, they reject all peace offers. And…? The fact that Jewish cities may remain does not affect their viability. Palestinians will have to compromise. Something that they have never been willing to do.

            Show evidence that Sela implies that Palestinians can cause the destruction of Israel as opposed to the rhetoric about it.

          • There are jewish cities in the proposed Palestine.. Read the document.
            It is absurd.
            As for the writer it occurs all the time as I have said. When asked they could destroy Israel the writer is as always silent.

            I should add all jews would agree on a state of Israel but there would be disagreement on the hows, what it is, etc.
            Same for Palestinians and Palestine.

            As for terrorism it is very hypocritical to whinge about it when it brought about the consolidation of Israel. It is why so much of Palestinian houses and property was stolen.

            Solve that and promote the Palestinian dream and wella

          • You still haven’t explained HOW or WHY having Jewish cities in the yet-to-be-created State of Palestine is untenable. It proves that you have no expertise in the area, so you also have no business calling it absurd.

            You also don’t seem able to grasp the concept that a monolithic view of Palestinians is what Sela criticizes in this article. Those are the BBC’s comments, not hers.

            The “stolen land” canard has been debunked time and again. There has never been a state of Palestine, so the land was not Palestinian. Furthermore, very much of that land was bought through the JNF. It is hypocritical to criticize Sela for using propaganda while relying on it yourself.

          • you cannot have mini countries within another country. If you cannot grasp that very simple point remove yourself from the conversation.

            These cities were allowed to flourish to stop any Palestinian state emerging.

            Thousands of Palestinians had property stolen from them when fleeing Jewish terrorists groups in the late 40s. They are still around today. to verify the occurrence.

            Lots of Christians involved in this. Jews of course deny this just as they deny the Jewish terrorist groups and the massacred they perpetrated.

          • Wrong as usual. There are places like Vatican City, San Marino, Monaco, and Andorra. Vatican City is only a city and the others are little larger than cities themselves. If you cannot prove why cannot have those mini-countries then it shows that you have nothing and you need to remove yourself from the conversation yourself.

            Also prove that the cities in Judea and Samaria were founded to stop any Palestinian state from emerging. They were founded to facilitate Jews living in their homeland.

            Arab armies told Arabs to flee. This has been documented. Of course some deny all of the above because it’s inconvenient.

          • crikey. They are countries. They are not cities of another country put in another country. Imagine 5 or 6 Palestinian cities in Israel. it is untenable.

            I just have. you cannot have cities within a country. you all knew that. What better way to stop a Palestinian state .

            It has not . People fled for their lives after the massacres perpetrated by Jewish terrorist. Two of them later became PM and neither showed any repentance in what they had done.
            Why would any Christian for example flee their own property simply because an Iman said so which has been stated here in the past.

            This reminds me very much of the Armenian holocaust and how people deny that.

            There are plenty of people around now who were around then on both sides.

            As I said it is very hypocritical to was lyrical about the evils of terrorism now if you do not criticise the jewish terrorists of yore who were far more murderous than the current Palestinian ones.

          • Crikey Wikey,

            So what? They are jurisdictions with police power unto themselves. If you are unable to provide scientific evidence of why it is untenable, then it means that you have nothing to show. “Because I say so,” does not have any weight except with yourself.

            You have proven nothing regarding Judea and Samaria. All you have is an opinion on the matter, which is only an opinion. News flash: your opinions are not proven facts.

            There is evidence that Arabs fled because Arab armies told them to flee.

            While there have been Jewish terrorist, such as the Irgun, they did not represent the majority of the Jewish fighters i.e., the Hagana. Do you also blame Palestinians in general because of Hamas?

          • scientific evidence?
            It is self evident. You cannot have cities of another country in another country.
            It is absurd. That is why it does not exist any where.

            As I said Attempt to have a few Palestinian cities inside Israel and there would be an upheaval

            No idea of what you are referring to in Judea and Samaria.

            People fled for their lives because of the massacres perpetrated by Jewish terrorists. When they came back to their property it was taken by Jews.

            That has to be solved and until it is there wil never be a deal of the century.

          • You’re wrong. Hong Kong could still be under British rule, while it is still a part of China. And thus far, you have shown no evidence, nor any credentials in the study of Geography, so it really comes down to you saying “because I say so.”

            You also have no evidence of the “upheaval” that you describe. However, Israel and the Palestinians can negotiate what they wish.

            I have to admit that I was thinking about Judea and Samaria when I wrote my previous comment. It refers to Israel and the propaganda of “stolen land.”

            And I have provided the evidence above that it was Arab armies who told Arabs to flee. Israel did not permit them to re-enter because of the terrorism threat. Nevertheless, there are few true refugees among those that fled. Refugee status is not inherited, except for Palestinians.

          • Hong kong is a country not a city!

            Israel gained territory illegally under terrorism. Until something is done about that no deal will be reached.

            If you no longer have a home because you have been dispossessed you are a refugee

          • It still doesn’t matter. The developed area is mostly city. Israel gained territory through a war of independence against the British and as I have proven, as opposed to you, it was Arab armies that told Arabs to flee. Furthermore, Jews originally accepted the UN Partition Plan. It was Arabs who rejected it, so it’s too late to go back. Israel is under no obligation to honor a rejected agreement.

            A child born to refugees in another country is not considered a refugee. If a Darfurian family settles in Paris. They are refugees. If they have another child while there, that child is French and not a refugee. Palestinians are the only ones who inherit that status.

            And by the way, if you want to talk about stolen land and terrorized natives, a good candidate is Australia. Maybe that would be a better target for your criticism.

          • of course it matters. you drive in a country and every so often you drive into a city which is of another country. Two different laws.

            The people simply decide whether they want to be Israeli citizens and thus got back to Israel or become Palestinian citizens.

            Some may well have but most fled after massacres by /Jewish terrorists fearing their lives. No other reason to leave your property.

            In Australia it was mixed blood children who were taken mainly and primarily because of threatened violence by full blooded aboriginals.
            Not a good look all round/

          • This is making an issue where there isn’t any. Very many people live Belgium and France, but work in Luxembourg. They make that commute on a regular basis. The law in Israel is based on Common Law, so there would be no major surprises. People who live in the Israeli cities will remain Israeli citizens. It’s not a difficult concept to craft transnational agreements to facilitate that movement.

            Provide evidence that most fled due to Jewish terrorism.

            Are you denying the atrocities committed by white settlers in Australia? That’s risible. At least in Israel, Jews have a historic connection to the land that predates Arabs. Not so vis-a-vis Australians and Aborigines.

          • commuting is completely different to having a city or cities of another country in a different country.

            It is not a coincidence that after the terrible massacre of Deir Yassin and then the leaflets saying people would face the same fate people fled. Palestinians ,now mostly living in the USA, continue to verify this.

            Why would christians pay any attention to muslims unless their lives were under threat. When they came back they found their property seized by Jews.

            I though you were referring to the alleged stolen generation.

            Yep there were too many white people who should have paid the penalty for Australia.

          • It’s not really different. If the Palestinian agree to drop violence as a means to their ends, then people will be able to travel freely. If anything, there will be more freedom under Israeli law which has very little religious intrusion.

            You still need to provide evidence that most Palestinians fled because of Jewish terrorism as opposed to Arab armies telling them to leave. If you make a statement, provide evidence for it.

            What “stolen generation?”

            The sources that I have posted indicate that the scale of what happened in Australia dwarfs that of what has happened in Israel.

          • I should also add that you are entitled to state your opinion i.e., “Jewish cities in ‘Palestinian’ land is absurd.” Everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything,

            But an opinion is all that is and until you can scientifically prove otherwise, it doesn’t mean that it’s correct.

  3. Pingback: 02/14 Links Pt2: Put BDS to the Test; How a Former Non-Zionist Became a Supporter of Israel; Does the NY Times Have a Problem Recognizing Antisemitism? – 24/6 Magazine

  4. Pingback: BBC News ignores events that challenge its chosen ‘peace process’ narrative | BBC Watch

  5. Pingback: BBC News ignores events that challenge its chosen ‘peace process’ narrative – CAMERA

Comments are closed.