Prime time BBC documentary on Jerusalem: An anatomy of bias and distortion
On Monday night, the BBC’s flagship documentary programme Panorama was devoted to Jerusalem. Rarely will you get a clearer insight into the flagrant institutional bias inside the world’s most powerful media outlet than this. The slipperiness of the tactics employed, the unabashed censorship of vital historical context, and the blatant pursuit of a political agenda constituted a lesson in the techniques of modern day propaganda. It was something to behold.
Entitled “A Walk in the Park” — a reference to the parkways which link settlements across East Jerusalem — the programme was introduced by veteran BBC reporter Jeremy Vine: “Palestinians are being thrown out of their homes; Israelis are moving in, even underground,” he tells us. The drama then shifts to Jerusalem itself where Jane Corbin, narrator and reporter on the ground, is ready to begin a demolition job all of her own.
Right away, the documentary cuts to the destruction of a Palestinian home: “…roads were sealed. The Israelis don’t make it easy to see what’s going on,” we are ominously told as she skips daringly down a dirt track to avoid the watchful eye of the dastardly Israelis.
So why, one wonders, would the Israelis be so keen to hide their dirty little secret? “Under international law,” she tells us earnestly, “East Jerusalem is occupied territory; its status shouldn’t be changed.”
Well, good to know that we haven’t wasted much time before she introduces her very own, and quite definitive, interpretation of international law. But objective versions of the law are soon complemented by a historical narrative which forms the backdrop to the entire programme:
“When the State of Israel was born in 1948, Jerusalem was divided,” says Corbin. “The West of the city became part of Israel and the East was controlled by Jordan. In 1967, Israel annexed East Jerusalem after seizing the West Bank following war with its Arab neighbours.”
And that’s it. That is the broad historical context offered to a prime time British audience on the BBC’s most prestigious weekly documentary programme. Is her version accurate? Well, yes, modern day Israel was formed in 1948 and Jerusalem was indeed divided — Jordan on the one side and Israel on the other. It is also true that “following war” with its Arab neighbours in 1967 East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel.
But as an instance of propagandist methodology in airbrushing out vital context, especially in a documentary about the status of Jews in Jerusalem and the underlying causes of the wider conflict, this really rather takes the biscuit.
Consider another way of phrasing that paragraph which, once again, is vital to the documentary since it serves as the key context for a largely uninitiated British audience. Try this, with the salient points in italics:
“When the State of Israel was born in 1948 — following Arab and Palestinian rejection of a peace agreement accepted by Israel which would have seen the internationalisation of the city — Jerusalem was divided. The West of the city became part of Israel and the East was controlled by Jordan — which expelled Jewish residents and forbade Jews from praying at all of the city’s holy sites. In 1967, Israel annexed East Jerusalem after seizing the West Bank following war with its Arab neighbours. That war was caused by Arab governments and the Palestinians who had the aim of eliminating the state of Israel in its entirety and expelling its Jewish residents.”
Well, that would really cast a different light on things wouldn’t it?
Next we come to Corbin’s “walk in the park” which starts in Sheikh Jarrah and winds its way through the Mount of Olives and Ras al Amoud to Silwan.
Stopping off in Ras al Amoud the documentary now introduces “an Israeli lawyer”, who serves throughout the programme as the objective analyst providing a neutral point of reference to enhance the credibility of the narration.
That Israeli lawyer is none other than, Danny Seidemann, a well known (but not to British viewers) left-wing lawyer-activist. No countervailing Israeli opinion from a similar kind of source is offered.
But the slippery and blatantly biased tactics of the programme makers are immediately revealed as the objective reference point offered by Seidemann is then counterbalanced by the opinion of an Israeli, Arieh King of the Israel Land Fund.
A purportedly neutral anti-settlement view is thus juxtaposed with the views of an interested party whose work we are told (to a background of darkly melancholic music), “is paid for by wealthy backers [ie Jews] in America and Europe.”
We have also been offered another piece of “context” for viewers to mull over as they watch the programme: “Peace deals proposed so far reckon on giving Arab areas in these eastern parts of the city to the Palestinians. Western areas, which are Jewish, would go to Israel.”
Hmm. I wonder what’s missing from that one then? Again, here’s another way of putting that point with my suggested additions in italics:
“Peace deals proposed so far — all of which were rejected by the Palestinians – reckon on giving Arab areas in these eastern parts of the city to the Palestinians. Western areas, which are Jewish, would go to Israel.”
The omission is so blatant it is almost laughable. In this desperate attempt to support the long-standing BBC narrative that Israeli “occupation” forms the root cause of the conflict, it has become necessary to mention peace deals without pointing out that such peace deals were offered by Israel but flatly rejected (in favour of violence, one might add) by the Palestinians. To raise that issue would clearly undermine the ideological edifice. It would suggest that the root cause of the conflict is Palestinian rejectionism and anti-Semitism — two concepts that the BBC is apparently unable to deal with.
The distortion is reinforced as we then move to a catalogue of instances of how settlement policy is making a two state solution difficult if not impossible.
Harrowing stories are told of Palestinians kicked out of their homes. The briefest of references is made to the claim of the settlers that they are taking back land and property which was seized from them by Jordan in 1948. But it is done in such a away that no lay audience could possibly see any real justification for the settlers’ position.
We are told of, and shown, instances of Palestinians being thrown out of homes they have “lived in for generations”. This is stated as fact by the narrator. When the counter argument, that the land they have lived on was stolen from Jews in the first place, this was ventured as the mere opinion of Nir Barkat, the Mayor of Jerusalem.
Arriving in Silwan, the narrator just happens to drop in at the very moment a Palestinian house is being demolished. A Palestinian activist, Jawad Siyam, is given prominence as the articulate and reasoned voice of the oppressed. He cries out: “It’s the most racist state in the world, you see…” Pointing to Israeli policemen he adds: “You are the most racist people in the world.”
No voice from the Israeli side is offered to protest about terrorism, and Palestinian anti-Semitism is referred to so obliquely that practically no-one could pick up on it as a significant issue. With the historical context largely obliterated earlier in the programme, few uninitiated viewers could disagree with Siyam’s diatribe.
Fading in the melancholic music again, we are then told ominously that many of the settlers come from abroad as we are introduced to the Adlers, a family of American religious Jews who have settled in Silwan. (American, religious, Jewish and settlers? That’s the sort of combination that gives BBC reporters sleepless nights).
As a warning of how Israeli policy is leading to tensions, we are later introduced to a Palestinian man, Ahmed, (complete with close-up of crying son) who was shot in the right thigh by an Israeli following a scuffle. No instance of Palestinian violence is offered here for balance. Ahmed then tells of how the Israeli stepped over him and “shot a child”.
As the documentary draws to a close, the narrator once again interjects with her own tendentious opinions: “Those who know Jerusalem warn that this is a powder keg,” she says. “More than the city could be ignited if the Israelis persist in what they are doing.”
“Those who know Jerusalem?” Who might that be then? We cut back to Danny Siedermann, the BBC’s objective analyst of events. Widening the discussion and placing responsibility for the overall conflict squarely with Israel, he says: “This is the volcanic core of the conflict…what begins in Jerusalem doesn’t stay in Jerusalem.” He adds darkly that regimes could be destabilised from Pakistan to Morocco in the ensuing cataclysm.
Finally we move to the wider settlements outside Jerusalem and “The Wall”. Corbin concludes the documentary with the words: “The face of the city is changing and that makes the chances of peace even more remote.”
Well, you get the picture. Obviously the issue of Jerusalem excites passions inside Israel and outside it. Reasonable people can disagree on it. There are many shades of opinion to be assessed. And there is no reason why a BBC documentary should not reflect that. The problem is that the documentary does not reflect that reality at all.
Every Jewish step in East Jerusalam is presented as wrong and dangerous. All the important context has been removed. A clear ideological agenda has been pushed at the expense of basic standards of fair reporting.
Welcome to the world of the BBC. And welcome to yet another illustration of the slippery path to the deligitimisation of the world’s only Jewish state.
—————
I watched this documentary so you don’t have to. But suckers for punishment (at least those resident in the UK) can see it in full at the following link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pznkh
To purchase my recent book on the wider issues, click here:
January 19th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I made the mistake of watching the programme. Are they not tired of recyclng this insidious garbage? I cannot face writing to complain yet again, as it appears to make no impression. Someone writes back without addressing any specific points about factual inaccuracies, apologises for any “offence” as if my tender Jewish feelings are the problem, and blatantly lies that balance is maintained overall. Then they refer you to BBC guidelines, clearly more important to them than journalistic truth and professionalism. Ah well, I applaud your efforts and have ordered your book.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I had to switch off this programme as I do for so many news reports (almost daily) on Gaza and the 1400 “civilians” who died there. It is now permissible and fashionable to be openly anti semitic and lies repeated often enough become facts. The BBC news departments play such a prominent part in moulding public opinion.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
As always we are indebted to Robin for his meticulous analysis
The question now is what if anything can we do about this further example of BBC anti Israel bias
The worrying thing is that Jane Corbin is perceived as one of the BBC’s more moderate voices and I happen to know she was properly briefed by the Israeli press office and offered all the cooperation and historical context needed!!!
January 19th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Robin, I think that you are doing a sterling job but unless and until the BBC is dismantled, nothing is going to change here in the UK regarding anything to do with Israel. To be honest, I think that the UK is a lost cause. Did you see the BBC report about the Israeli field hospital in Haiti? Did it make the point that the Israelis were the only team who were actively proactive in saving lives in the hospital? Did it make the point that the Israelis were the largest aid team per capita in Haiti? No. Of course not. I’m sickened by the bias of the BBC and the Jewish quislings who are part and parcel of its payload.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
The insidious lack of balance in Panorama’s programme on Jerusalem makes a very convincing argument for the uninformed and easily misled. It presented a wholly unbalanced picture of the recent history and background to the current situation in which individuals are paying the price for political realities. The underlying real politic was neglected and whilst Palestinian perspectives were stated as “fact”, the other side were presented in a most negative and dismissive manner. It is shameful that a programme that used to be at the top of the BBC’s one-time repute has become so debased.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Thanks for describing what I luckily missed. The BBC’s disgusting bias has worsened during the last forty years. Even the outrageous licence fee is biased so that it always rises but never falls.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Briliant piece, Robin. Well done.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
If the BBC wants to check the “chances for peace” they should present a simple question to the Palestinian leaders : which borders with Israel will satisfy you ? They never ask it because they are not allowed. You never get honest reporting from that side. Everything is staged. The “leaders” are leaders for the purposes of meetings and other world stage events. All the disputes with Israel are presented in the media as “the Israeli army against one poor Palestinian” Where are the leaders in these disputes? What is their side? They will never finish their argument with Israel because Israel as their enemy is their biggest asset.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Thankyou for another incisive analysis, Robin, and for being so stalwartly and courageously a friend of the much-maligned little Jewish State in these perilous times. I knew from the moment that Jeremy Vine, in his dirge-toned introduction, spoke of a “knock at midnight” (thus introducing Gestapo-invoking imagery into the programme in its opening seconds) that this was going to be yet another BBC defamation of Israel.
You are so right, Romo, about the “Jewish quislings” on the BBC’s payroll.
By contrast, Ross Kemp’s recent two-part documentary on Channel 4 was a model of objectivity.
January 19th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Good analysis Robin. Vine and Corbin were a disgrace. The only reporter who does not toe the BBC’s Israel-bashing line is Stephen Sackur.
Robin Shepherd says: Agreed Jonathan. But for God’s sake let’s not say it too loudly. Sackur does a great job and, where necessary, plays Devil’s advocate fairly. That might be grounds for dismissal…
January 19th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I wonder if the BBC bothered to mention that Jerusalem is where Jews pray towards three times a day, while Palestinians pray towards Mecca with their asses facing Jerusalem…
January 19th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Perhaps Ms Corbin should have visited the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem
which - wait for it - is 90 % Occupied by Muslims
Isnt it double standards when the whole world protests a few Jewish families living on “Muslim land” whereas when Muslims “occupy” the Christian Quarter - not a peep
January 19th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“I watched this documentary so you don’t have to.”
Thank you, Robin.
Seeing what was on, I couldn’t bear to watch it. When it comes to Israel, the BBC represents a massive failure of conscience and dereliction of the duty to be intellectually honest, balanced and fair. At the same time, the BBC is part of the broader pattern of lies and distortions, engendered by the marriage of left-wing ideology and Islamism, undermining our self-belief and threatening to bring down the West.
Analyses like yours are invaluable in countering this destructive movement and I am exceedingly grateful.
And yes, you spared me the agony of having to watch this rubbish!
January 20th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Nicole S, it is important to complain, but make sure you ask for a detailed response specific to the complaint, not a generalised cut and paste one. When you (inevitably) get a pitiful defence of the indefensible, escalate the complaint to the ECU, (Editorial Complaints Unit) - it is only at this level that any notice gets taken. If still not happy with the reply, escalate it to the third and final stage, the BBC Trust. It ties them up in knots, and it does get noticed!
January 20th, 2010 at 8:06 am
The BBC on Newsnight on ( 19th Jan) had Colonel Tim Collins visiting Gaza and Sderot to give a much fairer report on the rocket attacks from Gaza and some details about the Gaza operation. He investigated the attack on a mosque in the early days of operation Cast Lead to conclude that the only explanation for the devastation would have been the secondary explosion(s) of stored explosives. The attack by Israeli tanks on a home that resulted in civilian casualties was “questionable” but a close call when viewed from positions of firing. The posters that lined the streets of “martyrs” is a waste of young lives. The posters in Gaza depicting the launching of missiles into Sderot as proof of war crimes.
Honestly, I had to pinch myself very hard that this was the same BBC that has brought us so much emotive nonsense and distortion about the conflict. Go to 27-28th minute.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25
January 20th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Adam B: After much seething I cracked and did eventually complain (on the complaints form via the home page) to the BBC, if only just to annoy and take up some of their time. I pointed to specifics and took the liberty of quoting Robin’s italicised comments beside the reporter’s statements. Thank you for your advice and encouragement. I shall indeed take it further if they come back with the usual ignorant, weaselly excuses. Another Joshua: I caught the end of that report. What a turn up! Obviously you need an army man, not a professional BBC reporter, to get at the truth.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Another Joshua: Many thanks for posting the Newsnight piece. For once an absolutely balanced report. Commendations for Col. Tim Collins. A soldier understands conflict. He put it into context and was thoroughly unemotive, something that other BBC correspondents should learn.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Another Joshua:
Agreed. Col. Tim Collins report was fair and factual. Another documentary well worth watching is Ross Kemp’s two-part series, one on Israel and one on Gaza. They can be found on YouTube.
Kemp really puts the BBC and its so-called Middle East ‘experts’ to shame, with a balanced and non-judgemental report. When you compare his reports to the Panorama show, the BBC’s anti-Israel agenda becomes crystal clear.
And by the way, we have not forgotten that the BBC still refuses to publish the Balin report into its biased reporting of the Israel-Palestine comflict.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
All they needed to do was show how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah, and how many in the Koran.
Does the BBC know what the word ‘context’ means?
January 20th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Just a thought, but what would happen if you send the BBC a complaint complete with a non-committal response addressed back to yourself and a postage paid envelope? You could end your complaint with a p.s. “I’m not sure why I bother. You don’t seem to read the complaints, and the generic responses always fail to address even 1 of the points raised. If you’re not going to do better this time, please save yourself the effort and just post back the standard reply I’ve already enclosed for you. Otherwise a real and detailed response would be appreciated.”
If nothing else it would get the people in the complaints department talking and perhaps the news would flow upwards and the trust would eventually realise their complaints department was publicly regarded as a waste of space.
On the other hand if their purpose is to filter out as many complaints as possible to stop them progressing to the next level… they are doing great work!
January 20th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Do you think that this ‘lack of balance’ may be, rather than say a huge, multifarious, evil Left-wing conspiracy, just a reflection of the facts as they are on the ground which appear ‘unbalanced’ because the Israeli response is always disproportionate and deadly?
No? Didn’t think anyone would.
“As a warning of how Israeli policy is leading to tensions, we are later introduced to a Palestinian man, Ahmed, (complete with close-up of crying son) who was shot in the right thigh by an Israeli following a scuffle. No instance of Palestinian violence is offered here for balance.”
That’s because they’d quickly run out of Palestinian violence if they were to try and match every single Israeli shot. And is the reporter not right - that such acts do lead to tensions?
How many Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead? And how many Israelis? Where’s the balance there?
January 20th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Nicole S, that’s great! I’ve complained as well, as have others I know. It does make you feel better to do something, doesn’t it? The BBC is obsessed in its Israel bashing…let’s hope they get deluged! It is utterly ridiculous that the BBC sits in judgment of itself - it needs to be answerable to an outside, truly independent body. Of course, they never admit bias, so the only way to get them into a corner is to find something inaccurate in their reports/propaganda pieces.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I think Britain’s Jews should set up a picket ouside Broadcasting House.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I cannot believe how one sided and bias Panorama is. So much for going into the root of the problem. If you would have bothered to look on the surface you would realize that Jerusalem was never of any interest to anyone but Jews. Even Christian part is due to Jesus being Jew. how easy it is skipped, how easy the history of the place became lets choose the piece where Muslims lived there and forget anything else…..hmmm, I suppose this way you ensured that the windows will not be broken for we are not violent. Well done on submitting to oil money and propaganda, well done on neglecting truth and facts - your behavior is like a game of how low can you go and behold - you have achieved new top score. so how low????????????????
January 21st, 2010 at 10:06 am
Almost beyond belief one of the reported biggest criticisms is that Israel is building parks and tourist trails around the mount of olives, which is portrayed as a Jewish plot. She also freely admits demolished buildings were build without permits (are they even safe? You can bet she’d blame Israel if they were destroyed in an earthquake) and Jewish “settlers” are only moving into houses owned by Jews or bought legally. Why does the BBC consider it illegal for Jews to live there?
January 21st, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Any comment I could make on this issue would pale beside the eloquent and informed comments that so many others have made.
We rented a few movies a couple of weeks ago, and one, which I wanted to see again, was Caberet. We only got around to seeing it last night and watching Fosse’s portrayal of the insidious way in which the Nazi threat grew into something uncontrollable, combined with the disgusting excuse for journalism that is now the BBC, makes me fear for the future of Jews in the UK.
We are lucky enough to live partly in Canada and partly in the UK. Therefore our flat is unoccupied for periods. Whereas I never used to bother, I’ve now cancelled my TV licence for the time we’re not there, and I may think about renewing it when we’re next there. It did strike me that a sustained campaign of licence cancellation by significant numbers of protesters at their bias may draw some attention.
Finally, you might want to look at this article which appeared in Canada’s National Post last month. I’ve rarely seen a better dismantling of the “illegal settlements” position, and we should use its facts to expose the lies and quarter-truths broadcast by the BBC.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/29/david-m-phillips-the-myth-of-israel-s-illegal-settlements.aspx
January 21st, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Garry: Did you not read Robin’s post? He explains it all very clearly. You should also watch the Newsnight report that Another Joshua links to if you are still not clear about Palestinian violence. Adam B: I’m glad others have complained too. The more the merrier. Let’s hope it makes some impression.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Jerusalem municipality responds:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147948831&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Municipality slams BBC demolition report
Jan. 21, 2010
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
“The amount of demolitions carried out by the Jerusalem Municipality every year is determined solely by the number of illegally constructed buildings erected by those residents who flouted the law,” the Jerusalem Municipality said Thursday afternoon in response to a show aired on the BBC news network which claimed the municipality allocates a special budget for house demolitions.
In the show, aired on Monday, BBC’s Jane Corbin claimed that “Demolitions have been increasing in recent days, and in fact, we’ve got hold of a list that shows there’s another 40 to go before the end of the year. That’s because the municipal government has a budget that it has to use up for demolitions.”
The municipality said in a statement the number of demolitions conducted in eastern Jerusalem actually decreased in 2009 - from 86 in 2008 to 65 in 2009, a 25% decrease.
It said also that there was simply no connection between the annual budget of the municipality and the number of demolitions conducted.
The municipality called Corbin’s report “completely and utterly false” and a “distasteful distortion of reality.”
The municipality also expressed doubt whether the reporter really had in her possession a list of planned house demolitions, saying “it would be prudent to ask Ms. Corbin what happened to her alleged list of 40 planned demolitions since her filming in late 2009. You’ll easily find yet another one of her distasteful distortions.”
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 am
Over the last few years, I’ve sent dozens of complaints about the ignorance and bias of BBC Middle East reporting. Jeremy Bowen is the worst culprit. He’s a disgrace.
When I asked for responses, they were invariably dimwitted and useless, so I don’t bother now. I missed the Jerusalem programme but don’t regret it, because most BBC output in this area is shallow and mediocre.
I’m seriously against paying the licence fee. To think I’m contributing even a penny to Bowen’s salary is galling. He’s almost as bad as Fisk.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Has anyone managed to find out why the illegally built tower block shown in the film has not been subject to a demolition order?
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 am
Nigel Blumenthal and Jonathan Karmi, how can we organize such a protest (ie not paying the enforced licence fee)? They’ve got us over a barrell at the moment. I agree that a mass non-payment would make them sit up.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 am
Adam B: I’d be quite happy to withhold my license fee if it were a mass action. Is there no way that a Facebook/internet petition could be inaugerated?
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:48 am
A comprehensive fisking of the programme here, it quotes Robin’s post:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1789
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The question of the licence fee is tricky, because there are bits of the BBC that I’m happy to pay for. ‘Match of the Day’ is not noticeably hostile to Israel nor are the weather forecasts. If micro-payment technology could be embedded in TV sets so you pay for what you watch, that might solve the problem. I could choose not to watch BBC News and avoid directly paying for Bowen, but I’m sure programmes would be internally cross-subsidised so it wouldn’t make much difference. In any case, how can mass non-payment be achieved ? The Jewish community is law-abiding and wouldn’t back the idea. I have written to my MP, but didn’t get a proper answer. My long-term plan is to return to live in Israel when personal circumstances allow, which is one way to avoid the licence fee ! :)
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Adam B. In this country there are so few Jews and non-Jewish true friends of Israel that I’m sure the couple of hundred thousand people (maximum)that would refuse to pay the licence fee would not dent the BBC’s coffers that much, and they have the ability to make people pay a £1000-plus fine for non-payment so the reverse would happen to your goal - the BBC would get loads more money than they should lose. Also, I read once that there is no such thing as detector vans - it’s just an idea the BBC puts out to make people want to pay their licence fee. Apparently what really happens is the BBC has a list of households where the licence fee has not been paid. They turn up on the doorstep at a time when people are most likely to be in the house watching TV, say a big football match, and then if they catch you with the TV on when you open the door, they slap you with the fine. Whilst I would support some way to ‘fine’ the BBC itself for their wasting of our licence fees, I don’t think what you suggest can be the way to go about it.
I often wonder why people like the Israeli government don’t pursue libel actions through the courts for repeat offenders like the BBC and the so-called Independent newspaper.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Bowen is indeed biased. He watched his good friend Abed Takkoush get blown apart by an Israeli shell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/762559.stm
How can they keep this man on the air as Middle East editor? He refuses to accept it was an accident, and instead has campaigned for ‘justice’ for Abed’s family. What an utter disgrace.
I too watched the Panorama programme and was utterly appalled by the way they edited Israeli statements together and used their ‘own’ words against them. Where is the balance in that?
January 25th, 2010 at 1:08 am
My question is, will there be someone who will take BBC to court for libel or take the case to end on bias (like in the case of Jeremy Bowen).
I seems that there is ample set of lies so that a case can be easily won.
Pleas someone out there, take this case and run with it, like on Jeremy Bowen.
Good Luck and God bless.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
For ONCE the BBC showed the truth. A minute portion of the RACISM of Israel. They do not care for any of the Palestinians in Israel. They do not care that it is their homeland. You people who are talking about taking the BBC to court or complaining are ridiculous. Most Western Media is so unbelievably bias towards Israel and you are wanting to take away any rights that the Palestinians have to be heard. There are thousands of INNOCENT Palestinian citizens who’s lives are being DESTROYED by Israel. Yet ANY Jew in the world can move to Israel (even if they or their parents have NEVER lived there) and claim it as their own. They get free housing and education and benefits. How is this fair? When Palestinians who have lived in that land for generations get nothing. I won’t even get into the terrible things the Israeli army is doing to Gaza and the West Bank. Please do not get sucked in to calling ANYTHING that sticks up for the Palestinians as anti-semitism. That is ridiculous. It is nothing to do with hating Jewish people. The Palestinians and Jews lived SIDE BY SIDE in harmony before all these foreign settlers moved to Israel. PERSECUTING innocent people, DESCRIMINATING against a race… it’s not anti-semitism to comment on this, it’s basic HUMAN RIGHTS.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Emily, You are a complete wally. Those “Palestinians” who live in Israel are now Israeli citizens with all the rights other Israelis have. They hold places in the Knesset, ambassadorial positions abroad, they attend university.
Palestinians enter Israel daily for work because they are assured of equitable wages with all Israelis, also they are entitled to Israeli medical cover, and other benefits.
Check how Palestinians (even three generations born on Arab soil) are treated in Arab States - they are holed up in camps, no citizenship, no decent education, the most menial of jobs, no rights at all.
Arabs prefer to bring in foreigners, offering great incentives, rather than employ Palestinians in their midst. In Lebanon, their camp is surrounded by guards, they are not permitted to bring in building supplies to repair the hovels in which they live. Hail - Oh Robert Frisk! who has a home there yet never ventures any criticism.
Gazans are not Palestinians. Gaza was a protectorate of Egypt before the 6 Day War. Parlously administered, the Egyptians couldn’t wait to off-load this area. Gazans speak an Arabic distinct from the Palestinian, an Egyptian Arabic, they have familial and economic ties to Egypt. They gained state of-the-art industries under the Israelis. But when Israel left Gaza leaving these industries intact, the Gazans destroyed them. Why doesn’t Egypt do everyone a favour and resume control of Gaza.
The holy places of Islam are Mecca and Medina. Where in G-d’s name, does history confer on Jerusalem the honour of being a holy site to Islam.
Incidentally, non-Jews comprise 26% of Israel’s population - over 20% of Israel’s population are Islamic Arabs (once Palestinians). From your somewhat hysterical, capitalized, and ill-informed response, I can only assume that you are a teenager with a lot of growing up to do.
January 30th, 2010 at 5:03 am
As I said on my blog http://www.defendisrael.blog.com/;
I watched the first of three sections on “youtube” thinking this actually isn’t that bad (for the BBC) but by part 2 the ominous music began and she announced she’d “discovered” (prob printed from the internet) plans to build….da da da…”parks and tourist trails” around the mount of olives! Those evil Israelis! Any other country would be praised for preserving the environment around such a historic location but to the BBC its an evil Zionist plot. She then states that many of the residents in an Arab area built illegally without permits so Israel is demolishing 88 of their squats to build another park. This is truly BBC at its worst. I couldn’t watch anymore.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
No 21 Garry, please cut and paste the following webpage into your browser http://www.goldstonereport.org/pro-and-con/critics/517-alan-dershowitz-the-case-against-the-goldstone-report-a-study-in-evidentiary-bias-270110#_ftn12
I’ll leave you with a quote from the above critique regarding the Goldstone report into Operation Cast Lead - it’s not about balancing numbers of casualties: ‘With these quotes in hand the report concludes, “Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.”[44] There is an argument, albeit a very weak one, that these quotes suggest an unlawful policy of disproportionate destruction of property. This argument is weak because the use of the word “disproportionate” quoted on page 9 supra does not constitute an admission that unlawfully disproportionate force would be employed under the standards of international law. Under international law, the harm collaterally inflicted on civilians must not be disproportionate to the military objective.[45] But there is no prohibition against using overwhelming—that is disproportionate —military force against a legitimate military object.[46] Israel had a perfect right to kill every single Hamas fighter, even if that number was in the thousands, in order to stop the rockets from endangering millions of Israeli civilians. The fact that 8,000 Hamas rockets succeeded in killing only a dozen or so Israelis, does not require Israel to limit the number of Hamas combatants killed.’
January 31st, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Further to my last post, from the critique on the Goldstone report:
‘Reading the quote on page 8 does not suggest that the speaker was urging disproportionate civilian casualties but rather he was urging military force greater than and disproportionate to the number of Israelis killed by the rockets that were being fired at Israeli civilians. This is perfectly lawful under international law. If proportionality were required in relation to military targets, it would be impossible for countries like the United States to employ its overwhelming military weapons—drones, tomahawk missiles, stealth bombers—against terrorists, who are poorly equipped but determined to kill … In addition to relying on statements of military and political officials, the report also points to the IDF’s advanced military capabilities in concluding that Israel intentionally targeted civilians. The argument is that, because the IDF uses such advanced weaponry, whenever civilians were killed, they must have been killed intentionally … It should go without saying that, no matter how advanced or sophisticated weaponry may be, errors are made in the fog of war. A month before Operation Cast Lead, United States forces in Afghanistan attacked a wedding, killing nearly forty civilians.[55] Although everyone agrees that the United States has advanced weaponry, no reasonable person would argue that this is proof that America was targeting an Afghan wedding party. Likewise, Israeli use of sophisticated weaponry should not serve as proof that Israelis intended to kill civilians during Operation Cast Lead. After all, the IDF killed several of its own soldiers through “friendly fire” mistakes.[56]
And from the introduction:
‘The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group … Most of the criticism and praise of the report has been based on its highly publicized and controversial conclusions, rather than on its methodology, analysis and substantive findings. The one statement Richard Goldstone has made, with which I agree, is that many of the report’s most strident critics have probably not read the entire report. But it is also true, though I have not heard the report’s biased author say this, that many of the report’s most vocal defenders and advocates have also not read it.
It is not surprising that so few of the report’s critics and supporters have actually made their way through its dense and repetitive texts. The version I originally read was 553 pages long plus appendices. There are 1223 footnotes, though many of its most critical statements are not well sourced. It is poorly written, obviously drafted by several different hands and without the benefit of a good overall editor. It is laden with internal inconsistencies, shoddy citations of authority, and overall poor craftsmanship. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, this report lacks even the grace of a dromedary. Most of the commentary on the report, both pro and con, seems to be based on its somewhat sanitized summary and conclusion. Some of the worst mistakes are buried very deep in the report, many of the most serious ones toward the end.’
January 31st, 2010 at 1:52 pm
PS. if you want to read the above critique in full, you may have to scroll down the webpage a little to view the text - just so you know!
January 31st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Sorry to labour the point, but here’s another quote about Israel’s supposed intention to target civilians in Operation Cast Lead:
‘Despite the problematic nature of the highly-biased PCHR [Palestinian Centre for Human Rights] count, even the story the raw PCHR numbers tell are not evidence of intent to kill civilians. If we count policemen as combatants, there were according to PCHR 491 combatant deaths and 926 civilian deaths. Thus, even according to one of the most biased and skewed sources available, there was a combatant casualty to civilian casualty ratio of 1 to 1.885. That is, for every Palestinian combatant killed, less than two civilians were killed. It is sad that so many innocents died during the Gaza war, but numbers alone do not prove that Israel intended to kill civilians, especially in light of how Hamas used civilians as shields (see section III infra). A United Nations report estimates that worldwide 75% of war casualties are civilians.[81] Some have suggested that the combatant-civilian casualty ratio for America’s recent drone attacks in Pakistan is as high as 1 to 10.[82] Others have suggested that during NATO’s 1999 Kosovo operation, there were four civilian casualties for every combatant casualty.[83] In late December of 2009, an American air strike killed ten civilians in Afghanistan.[84] Although there are valid arguments about the prudence of these operations, no reasonable person argues that these numbers prove an intention to kill Pakistani, Yugoslav, or Afghani civilians.
If the ratio alone proves anything it is that there was a policy of reducing civilian deaths, not targeting civilians. If Israel’s intention was truly to kill civilians, why was the combatant to civilian casualty ratio only one to less than two? Certainly if one of the world’s most advanced military forces intended to kill civilians it could have made that ratio one to five or even one to ten. As Professor Halbertal writes, “There are 1.5 million people in Gaza and around 10,000 Hamas militants, so the ratio of militants to civilians is 1:150. If Israel targeted civilians intentionally, how on earth did it reduce such a ratio to 1:3 or 2:3?”[85]‘
The critique goes into why Palestinian policemen should be regarded as combatants:
‘…the status of the Gaza police must first be considered, since approximately 250 of them were among those listed as “civilians” who were killed. Although the Goldstone Report concludes that the Gaza police force was a “civilian law-enforcement agency,”[68] there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise. The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force. When the Executive Force was formed in 2006, its commander announced that the force was “the nucleus of the future Palestinian army. The resistance must continue. We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.” [69] According to the report, the Executive Force merged with a reorganized PA police in October 2007.[70] Despite the fact that the Executive Force no longer technically exists, during Operation Cast Lead a police spokesman said, “Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded.”[71] This is conclusive evidence that the Gaza police were not entitled to the protections accorded to civilians in war. In addition, evidence suggests many policemen were combatant individuals regardless of their connection with the police.[72] According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization or in infantry training, with a “decisive majority” of casualties belonging to military wings.[73] In any event, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the status of the Gaza policemen killed by Israel. They cannot simply be lumped together with infants and other obvious non-combatants for purposes of listing the number of dead civilians.[74′
February 1st, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The Goldstone Report has no credibility at all. There are only three facts that are self-evident.
8,000 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel. An act of war. Israel was justified under international law to defend itself.
The aim of Operation Cast Lead was to take out weaponry/militant strongholds. A legitmate action under international law.
Hamas fought from military strongholds imbedded in civilian areas. Hamas built no bomb shelters for Gazan civilians. Hamas must take full responsibility for civilian lives lost. Surely there is some code within international law which addresses such crimes. We all know that Hamas cynically intended civilian lives to be lost for its propaganda machine. Much credit should be given to the economy and restraint of the IDF which resulted in far less casualties than Hamas intended. No review of Israel’s actions can be made without cool assessment of the conditions under which they had to fight. Experienced servicemen Col. Tim Collins and Col. Ross Kemp have already provided their findings.
On a completely different tack - the “Doctrine of Proportionate Response,” as far as I am aware is not an article of war. The term first cropped up in the TV series “West Wing”; the media picked it up and ran with it when condemning Israel. For anyone questioning this, I suggest they read “The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya” (Kuala Lumpur,1952).” This Manual states that Malay terrorists had only small arms, pistols, and handgrenades, generally in poor condition. The British, along with Ghurkas and Australians used state-of-the-art weaponary, including tanks, bombing runs by the RAF, and shelling by the RN. More civilians were killed than terrorist and British deaths combined.
The British hold themselves to be, and are regarded by other countries, as moral and ethical combatants.
Other manuals of conduct for operations elsewhere show the same level of defence/aggression. We must not bypass the UN action in the Balkans.
The Goldstone Report should be reviewed in the context of International Law Journals addressing “Use of Force and Self-Defence.” Further references materials/journals are:
Jus ad Bellum
Jus in Bello
“Combat Manuals: The SAS and Elite Forces” (Australia)
“International Law and the Use of Force by States”
“International Law and the Use of Force”
“Harvard International Law Journal”
“War, Aggression and Self-Defence”
“Self-Defense against the Use of Force in International Law”
February 13th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Please read this article - there’s a mind-boggling reference to a BBC “reporter” who visited the embattled - by the Hamas jihadists - town of Sderot and who, as it turns out, are supported by their media friends.
Guest columnist: Noam Bedein, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=168437