How the BBC denies Israel’s occupation

28 September 2012

120928-bbc-jerusalem.jpg

No occupation to see here, according to the BBC.

There is international law, and there is the world as Israel and the BBC see it. And if Israel claims the whole of Jerusalem as its territory, contrary to international law, then it is not for the BBC to dispute this — or so its coverage would have us believe.

In its country profile for Israel, the BBC’s website lists statistics including Israel’s size in square meters, its major languages and its main exports. Shying away from giving a capital, as it does for all other recognized countries featured in such profiles, the BBC’s online editors have opted instead to give Israel a “seat of government” (“Israel profile,” 11 September 2012).

And this seat of government, according to the BBC, is Jerusalem. All of it. This is despite the fact that international law is quite clear that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, illegally occupied and annexed by Israel. Israel, however, refuses to accept UN resolutions on Jerusalem and continues to claim it all, undivided, as its own. The BBC, it would appear, is backing Israel up on this.

This is how Israel’s claim to Jerusalem is presented on the BBC website: “Israel profile. Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.”

The Israeli government does not recognize Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital, and so the BBC obligingly does not give a capital for Israel in its country profile — noting, instead, in its specially-created “seat of government” category, that “most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv.”

The website also runs a profile for “Palestinian territories” and this gives an “intended seat of government.” Under this category, BBC editors have written “Intended seat of government: East Jerusalem. Ramallah serves as administrative capital” (“Palestinian territories profile,” 31 August 2012).

Concealing the truth

There are no difficulties here for the BBC in making a distinction between East and West Jerusalem. Rather, the difficulty for the BBC lies in admitting that Israel occupies the “Palestinian territories.” Nowhere in the profile is the occupation mentioned, and the land is not referred to as the “occupied Palestinian Territories” — the wording used by the United Nations — but simply as Palestinian territories. And of course there is nothing to inform the reader of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Jerusalem from 1947 onwards, and how the division of the city came about.

The UK-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign challenged the supposedly impartial BBC on its assertion that the whole of Jerusalem is Israeli territory, a falsehood which Israel is keen to propagate in its attempts to create facts on the ground.

The PSC pointed out over a series of email correspondences since July that it would be simple enough for the BBC to add the word “West” to let its audience know that Israel’s seat of government is not in Jerusalem, but in the western half of a divided city. This would also guarantee 100 percent accuracy, surely a priority for a major news organization.

Richard Hutt, complaints director at the BBC, sent a detailed email on 18 September to say: “It seems to me that the current content on the page for Israel acknowledges the Israeli view, but contextualizes it so that it is clear to readers that this is disputed.”

With no hint of irony, Hutt goes on to say, about a page that is subtitled “Facts”: “Although more information would have been helpful, I do not believe that the content would mislead readers as to the basic facts.”

Laughable

Hutt’s defense of the BBC position becomes laughable as he defies logical argument in his attempts to defend inaccuracy in the BBC’s news pages.

Explaining why the BBC refers to “Jerusalem” on the “Israel” profile and “East Jerusalem” on the “Palestinian territories” profile, he says: “I do not think that ‘due’ impartiality in this context would require that the language for one page mirror that of the other.”

Hutt then says he does not think readers would make the assumption that the whole of Jerusalem is Israeli territory from the BBC’s reference to the whole of Jerusalem being Israel’s seat of government.

He argues: “The only grounds I can see for reaching such a conclusion are that the content for the [Palestinian territories] page lists ‘East Jerusalem,’ whereas the reference to Jerusalem on the Israel page is not similarly qualified.”

That is the exact reason given by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to the BBC in its request for the qualifier “West” to be added to “Jerusalem” on the Israel page. Bizarrely, Hutt appears to acknowledge that argument, before concluding that no alteration will be forthcoming.

Defending criminality

Israel’s claim to an undivided Jerusalem is not the only area where BBC terminology privileges Israeli occupation and colonization.

However, just as BBC reporting consistently fails to mention the fact of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, it is similarly coy about spelling out the criminality of its settlement building, despite UN Security Council Resolution 446’s clear definition of settlements as a “serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has not been alone in asking the BBC why, without fail, in all its online reports concerning settlements, as well as in television and radio broadcasts, it uses this line: “The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this” (“Israel anger at S Africa ‘Occupied Territories’ labels,” 22 August 2012).

The line will be found buried at the end, or near the end, of any article about settlements and provides scant context for the preceding content.

What is interesting is the need the BBC feels to use this line. Settlements are not stated categorically as being illegal under international law, simply “considered” to be, and a disclaimer is added — “Israel disputes this” — as though international law is not the last word on what is legal for nations.

Tarik Kafala, the Middle East editor of BBC Online, replied to a Palestinian living in the UK, who had emailed him to question the use of this line. Kafala’s reply, sent in October 2011 and seen by this writer, explains the BBC’s reasoning for its caution, erring on the side of Israel.

“The contention that settlements are illegal … is hugely well founded in international law, but an opinion,” Kafala writes.

And then this: “We also feel that to simply state that the settlements are illegal under international law is potentially misleading. An untutored reader might wonder why, if Israel is so flagrantly breaking the law, such a criminal state is still a member of the UN, a favored ally of the US, a major trading partner of the EU and so on.”

It’s an astounding assertion from a senior BBC editor. It also lays bare the BBC’s policy on reporting on Israel and its daily violations of UN resolutions, Geneva conventions and International Court of Justice rulings. There is a softening, a tempering of the reality, if it is even reported at all, which is rare. An intellectual analysis for the BBC audience of why a “criminal state is still a member of the UN, a favored ally of the US, a major trading partner of the EU” is out of the question.

Such an analysis would require honesty about the political situation, not just in Palestine and Israel, but in the Middle East as a whole, and Kafala’s incredible revelation shows that the BBC is not capable of such honesty.

The resultant dishonesty, and the attempt to keep the truth about Israel’s illegal actions from its audiences, is spread across the whole of BBC programming, from news right through to entertainment.

Not interested in reality

An activist with Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods spent a year in correspondence with the BBC over “Top Gear Middle East Special,” an entertainment program for motoring enthusiasts broadcast on BBC Two in December 2010. It traced a trio well-known to UK TV audiences traveling from Baghdad to Bethlehem in a convertible sports car.

As presenters James May, Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond drove through Syria, viewers were given the following information about the occupied Syrian Golan Heights: “For political reasons, this was Syria and is now Israel.”

In reality, the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, illegally occupied and annexed by Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 242 makes this clear and additionally calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

But the BBC isn’t interested in reality when it comes to Israel. What appears to be more important for this publicly-funded UK broadcaster is to shield Israel from criticism of its illegal actions by hiding the truth of those actions from its audiences. In this instance, the BBC was prepared to broadcast an outright lie about the status of the Golan Heights.

Wiped off the map

And to hide the existence of the Palestinian West Bank — where Bethlehem is located — the program used maps which named only Israel. Palestinian land was effectively wiped off the map by the BBC. This mirrors the maps used in Israeli schoolbooks and Israeli tourism guides, which show all the land which was once historically Palestine as being “Israel.” Gaza and the West Bank are not named.

To complete the deception, at no point during the drive to Bethlehem or on arrival did the presenters use the words “West Bank” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

Instead, viewers were told that the “final border crossing” before arriving in Bethlehem would be from Jordan into Israel. The crossing from Israel into the West Bank, which has to be made in order to reach Bethlehem, was ignored by the BBC, and viewers were left to think that the city is in Israel. There was no indication of the existence of Palestinian land.

It is a narrative that would thrill the Israeli government. To justify its broadcast, the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee ruled, in December 2011, that, because Top Gear is an entertainment program, there was no requirement to “make the location of Bethlehem explicit.” Why the location of Bethlehem had to remain hidden when the location of every other city visited by the presenters was marked clearly on the maps they used constantly throughout the program was not explained.

Nor was there any explanation for not marking the West Bank on any maps. Instead, the committee said “contrasting shading” used on the maps was sufficient to show the area as being separate from Israel. Why not just name it?

Finally, dealing with the Golan Heights reference, the committee said that it did not believe “the description used in the program was materially inaccurate or misleading, bearing in mind that the requirement [in the BBC’s editorial guidelines] is for due accuracy.”

Due accuracy, according to the guidelines, is accuracy that is “adequate and appropriate to the output.” Because Top Gear is an entertainment program, the level of accuracy displayed was, according to the committee, totally adequate. In other words, it was happy with the BBC broadcasting a falsehood.

Why, when it comes to Israel, can’t the BBC call a spade a spade? Why do the words “West Bank” and “Occupied Palestinian Territories” stick in the throats of BBC presenters, unable to see the light of day even when the presenters in question are standing on that very land? Why, if these are genuine mistakes, can’t the BBC correct them, put “West” in front of “Jerusalem” and admit that Israel illegally occupies the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights?

Rectifying these errors would be far simpler than concocting the tortuous and absurd explanations BBC employees spend so much time on to justify their misleading and biased output. But, then again, when it comes to the BBC and Israel, nothing is rational. 

Amena Saleem is active with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK and keeps a close eye on the media’s coverage of Palestine as part of her brief. She has twice driven on convoys to Gaza for PSC. More information on PSC is available at www.palestinecampaign.org.

Comments

Brits gave away half of Palestinians' land during their Mandate back in the day. Why expect their public stations to be impartial now? The BBC acts arrogantly because it thinks the UK still has an empire. Or should have one.

The Brits fought Gandhi tooth-and-nail and betrayed T E Lawrence. Why expect them to be on the right side of history now? At base they admire Israel's arrogance, having loved to lord it over others for centuries themselves.

In reply to Schlomo: to be sure, successive British governments have a lot to answer for in terms of their actions in the Middle East but in the case of the BBC, it's more likely to be down to direct pressure from the Israeli Embassy than some sort of innate British arrogance, as you suggest - see published research by Greg Philo and the Glasgow University Media Group. It's about where the power is, and what the BBC stands to lose if it veers away from Israel-approved discourse.

Excellent article, which reflects my observations of the BBC over the years. It is outrageous and their reasoning is often a joke

The question must be asked: who runs the BBC? Of course, the government has a big say, but there must be people within BBC management and directoral board who determine this.

Time for some whistleblowing to explain this.

The Nakba is not mentioned. The reason the "diaspora Palestinians" exist is not mentioned. Using the word "diaspora" is incorrect, the issue is about refugees and the right of return. Refugees now living in the Gaza strip and West Bank are technically not diaspora.

"The war that followed Israel's declaration of independence in 1948 left the former British mandate of Palestine partitioned between Israel, Trans-Jordan and Egypt." Wrong. The war started way before May 1948 as a civil war. Jews were fighting outside the Jewish UN partition. http://www.palestineremembered...

"[Israel] makes incursions into urban areas [of PA governed areas] against armed groups." Against armed groups? Is that what they do? Any video for that? It is as true as saying "the BBC runs a coffee corner".

Despite the page title, the "Palestinian territories" are not described as such (no mentioning of the green line/1967 borders, not articulation the diferrence between lining in Israel or in the OPT, writing "Gaza" for "Gaza strip").

The word "occupation" does not appear on the page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

The days of the colonialist/imperialist powers pulling the wool over 'their' subjects eyes are slowly, but surely, coming to an end...it is only a matter of time. Whereas once institutions like the BBC were believable and to all intents and purposes credible, such is not the case anymore. For me personally, a pinch of salt is no longer enough in order for me to digest what issues spring from the likes of the BBC. It is a case of, 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'.

It's like right wing news in the United States referring to settlements as "neighborhoods" instead of illegal settlements. I noticed on Mosaic that even Israeli news refers to them as "neighborhoods". It includes them (legalizes them). And it is important to call them out on using the wrong word(s) that skew reality. And rhetorically skewing reality is an act of violence.

We too easily limit the use of the word violence to physical acts, where way before that ever happens, the stage is being set, like Bush's "smoking gun". I deeply appreciate the writer of this article "bearing witness" and calling the BBC out on this.

"An untutored reader might wonder why, if Israel is so flagrantly breaking the law, such a criminal state is still a member of the UN, a favored ally of the US, a major trading partner of the EU and so on.”

Aren't we all.

If I believe there is no true national group called "Palestinians", and since there is no state of Palestine, can I use your logic here and deny it - as a fact?

Yisrael Medad; "Extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan.
Where's yours? Links please. Here's mine.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

http://www.palestineremembered...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/...

Excellent article, excellent replies and comments. Maybe those of us who pay our licence fee to the BBC should withdraw our funds , if enough of us do it, then maybe the publicity would make them sit up and take notice. I for one would love to have someone come to my door and get involved in some facts on the ground chat !

For further information you may be interested to read the following article in Haaretz re this subject, which shows that the BBC obeyed direct instructions from the PM's office and Mark Regev in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/wo....
Praise to Apple though for not even responding to JTA's request for comment re the omission of listing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Dear Amena
About two tears ago I asked the BBC to explain that "...considered illegal..." terminology. They fobbed me off with a "we are conforming to our internal guidelines" response and directed me to this set of guidelines. You are probably already familiar with them, but if not, you might find them interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_...

Thanks Michael. Yes, I have seen these guidelines. They're deliberately vague and non-specific. For example - the entry for 'Jerusalem' says: "Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory."
But there is no advice for the journalist on how to refer to the part of Jerusalem that isn't 'East Jerusalem'. Instead, there's just the line saying 'Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city'. This leaves it open for BBC journalists to refer to 'Jerusalem' and not 'West Jerusalem' in the context of Israel. There is no attempt at accuracy or to write from within the framework of international law.

It must be remembered that the Balfour Declaration of 1917,in its final version, set out: '.......the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people.'

It said nothing about the formation of a Jewish State.
Naomi Shepherds' book, 'Ploughing Sand', is essentuial reading as it was written by one who now lives in Israel
I have always considered that the appointment of Balfour to look into the matter was similar to asking a poacher to write a law banning poaching.
Of course, this country must never forget the Stern Gang and their allies and the brutality they showed. Remember the bombing of the King David Hotel ? Two British Army men kidnapped and then hung. When their bodies were being cut down a booby trap was sprung,killing more Army men. All very easy to forget.
Finally. I suggest thet some one reads ' The Crisist of Zionism'. The current Presdient of the USA was funded by the Jewish population of Chicago - according to the author who, incidentally, is a Jew.

'Seek and ye shall find,Knock and it shall be opened unto thee.' Unless,of course, you are a Palestinian who has lost his land.