2003-03-13T03:07:00.000Z

January 2003

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

1.0 SELECTIVE REPORTING
1.1 Civilians killed by Israeli Army - circumstances not reported
1.2 Images of Israelis firing on Palestinians
1.3 Israel ‘preventing ambulances from reaching wounded
1.4 Palestinian Authority culpability not reported
1.5 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – circumstances and legality
1.6 Sabra and Shatila Massacre – substantive issues not investigated or reported
1.7 Human rights of Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza versus human rights of Jews in Arab countries
1.8 Section summary

2.0 MISLEADING AND INACCURATE LANGUAGE
2.1 Palestinian terrorism – part of a “cycle of violence”?
2.2 Palestinian “resistance” against “Israeli occupation”
2.3 Arab “resistance” versus Jewish “terrorism”
2.4 Jewish residents of West Bank and Gaza “illegal settlers"
2.5 Palestinian “David” versus Israeli “Goliath”
2.6 Section summary

3.0 REPORTING UNCORROBORATED ALLEGATIONS AS FACT
3.1 Eyewitness account of mass graves
3.2 Mohammed Al-Dura, ‘killed by IDF’
3.3 Israel’s ‘State terrorism’
3.4 No opportunity to refute allegations
3.5 Minister will allow anti-Arab violence by settlers
3.6 Section summary

4.0 FALSE COMPARISONS
4.1 Comparing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed
4.2 Section summary

5.0 BIASED/INACCURATE VERSION OF ISRAELI HISTORY
5.1 “The Birth of Israel” Online news article 17.11.02
5.2 Section summary

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

NOTES AND REFERENCES

The Author

Jonathan Hantman's thesis “The Events leading up to the Establishment of the State of Israel” won the North East’s Blum Scholarship Prize in 1984. In the 1990’s he worked as research evaluation officer for Manchester’s regional health authority (NWRHA), and his dissertation on the evaluation of NWRHA’s Medical Innovation Fund (1994) helped him gain an MSc in Public Health from Manchester University.

SUMMARY

This report has identified compelling evidence of anti-Israel bias in BBC TV, radio and online news programmes and reports. In particular, news items have persistently failed to report the Israeli version of events, continually used biased or inaccurate terminology, frequently reported unsubstantiated anti-Israel allegations without questioning the allegation or allowing its rebuttal, repeatedly used false comparisons and promoted a one-sided and inaccurate version of Israeli history. This constitutes a breach of the BBC’s obligation to remain impartial and is likely to be creating undue hostility towards Israel and the wider Jewish community, which can only serve to exacerbate the terrible conflict in the Middle East.

It is suggested the BBC investigate the causes of anti-Israel bias and take effective steps to eliminate it from future news coverage.

INTRODUCTION

Frequent listeners and viewers of BBC TV, radio and online news programmes are likely to be aware of a persistent negative portrayal of Israel in the current Mid-East conflict. It is suggested that this is the result of frequently imbalanced, impartial, misleading and often factually inaccurate reporting. It is feared this may be causing a general misunderstanding of Israel’s position amongst the BBC’s millions of viewers and listeners, which may have far reaching effects.

Unfair or impartial news reporting is unacceptable. It represents a clear breach of the BBC Agreement [1] which requires the BBC to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, and the BBC’s own Producers Guidelines [2], which commits the corporation to reporting which is fair, accurate, objective, dispassionate, balanced, well informed and thoroughly researched.

Licence fee payers, some of whom will have relatives living in the Middle East, deserve to have their views fairly represented.

The BBC has millions of viewers and listeners, and unfair treatment of Israel could create widespread hostility towards Israel. This is deeply demoralising for Israelis suffering in the conflict, it could reinforce anti-Israel stereotypes and affect government policy towards Israel.

The aim of this report is to present the BBC with some examples of bias in its Middle East news coverage. It is hoped that after thoroughly investigating these issues, the BBC will accept that a real problem of anti-Israel bias does exist and take effective steps to ensure fairness, accuracy and balance in all future news coverage.

Examples of anti-Israel bias have been grouped into four categories: 1) selective reporting, 2) misleading and factually inaccurate language, 3) reporting of uncorroborated versions of events as fact, 4) false comparisons and, 5) inaccurate portrayal of Israeli history.

This is by no means a comprehensive report. Only a small number of examples have been described - from many examples found - to illustrate each of the categories listed above. These were chosen in a non-methodological way, during informal viewing/listening of BBC news reports by the author.

1.0 SELECTIVE REPORTING

This is where key details of an event, which would help justify or explain Israeli actions are not reported, giving a one-sided version of the event.

1.1 Civilians killed by Israeli army – circumstances not reported

1.1.1 UN Worker killed in Jenin, 22.11.02

On 22.11.02, BBC TV and radio new bulletins reported that a British UN worker in Jenin was killed by Israeli troops. In one bulletin (Radio 4, 22.11.01 at 11.00pm) the item stated “Israeli troops have shot dead a British UN official during a raid on the Jenin refugee camp … as part of its response to a suicide bombing in Jerusalem which killed 11 people”.

Without explaining the circumstances of the killing, the listener is left with the impression that the UN worker could have been deliberately targeted by the Israeli Army (IDF). Other news agencies reported accounts that the UN worker was hit during “massive exchanges of fire” as a gun battle raged between the IDF and Palestinian gunmen [3].

No mention was made of IDF claims that the UNRWA compound in Jenin had been used by Palestinians as cover from which to shoot at IDF soldiers [4]. Nor did any BBC news item mention that, in a phone call to an Israeli army officer the UN worker reported that Palestinian fighters were breaking into the UN compound [5]. These important details would have helped explain the actions of the Israeli troops.

1.1.2 International observers killed in Hebron, 26.3.02

Reporting of the killing of the UN worker in Jenin should be compared to BBC reporting of the killing of two international (TIPH) observers in the West Bank on 26.3.02. CNN reported “Two international observers were killed and one was slightly wounded Tuesday when a Palestinian opened fire on their car in the West Bank, Israeli and international officials said. The surviving witness (a Turkish TIPH official in the car during the ambush) told Israeli Radio the gunman was wearing a Palestinian police uniform and unloaded his "whole magazine," about 30 bullets, at the car.” [6].

It appears the BBC failed to report this event on any of its TV or radio bulletins. The incident was however reported on BBC online news [7]. The online report omitted the TIPH member’s eyewitness account of a Palestinian policeman unloading his gun into the car. Instead, it quoted a member of the observer force who was not a witness to the incident as saying “they were travelling in a clearly marked vehicle and it appeared they had been caught in crossfire.” [ibid.] The report also quoted the Palestinian leadership’s claim that “the Israeli army had opened fire on the car” and that the army “bears full responsibility for this crime”. [ibid.]

Hence, when international officials are killed accidentally by Israelis, the BBC gives little or no detail which might explain Israeli actions but when international officials are killed by Palestinians the BBC makes every effort to show this to be a ‘cross-fire’ incident and excuse the Palestinians from responsibility.

1.1.3 Palestinian boy killed in Nablus, 30.9.02

The following online news report is another typical example; “In the latest incident on Monday, a teenage Palestinian boy was killed by machine-gun fire in the West Bank city of Nablus as Israeli tanks moved into a refugee camp.” [8]. In this report, no explanation was given as to the circumstances of the death, whether the Israelis were under sniper or mortar fire at the time, whether the boy was part of a mob trying to run Israeli positions etc. The impression given is that Israelis have carried out a deliberate and unprovoked killing of a child.

An analogy would be reporting the killing of the three IRA members in Gibraltar, by the SAS (6.3.88) as: “Three Irish people were killed by the British Army in Gibralter today”, without making any attempt to put these killings in context i.e. that all three were IRA members on an active service mission.

1.1.4 Four killed in Gaza, 12.12.01

Another blatant example of this form of bias was the BBC reporting of an Israeli helicopter attack near Khan Yunis on 12.12.01. The attack killed 4 Fatah-linked "militiamen” members of a Palestinian mortar crew, who had fired mortar shells at Jewish neighbourhoods, according to the Associated Press (AP) [9].

BBC online news said of the attack "Four Palestinians have been killed as Israeli helicopters launched a missile strike on a Palestinian neighborhood in the Gaza Strip. The helicopters attacked twice, hitting a residential area near the Khan Yunis refugee camp. Two Palestinians, who were in a cemetery at the time, were killed in the first strike. More people had gathered there when the helicopters attacked again, killing two more people." [10].

The BBC chose to describe the attack as a strike on “a Palestinian neighbourhood” in a “residential area” rather than on “a hiding place of members of a local militia, the so-called Abu Rish group." (according to local residents quoted by the AP [9]).

The BBC report chose not to explain how a cemetery constitutes a “residential area” or what these people were doing in a cemetery after midnight.

Hence according to the BBC, four innocent Palestinians were killed in a residential Palestinian neighborhood. Other media reported that the four were combatants, and that Israel was responding to mortar shellings.

1.2 Images of Israelis firing on Palestinians

There also appear to be selective reporting in the TV images used in news reports. For example, Israeli soldiers are often shown firing live rounds at, what appears to be, Palestinian ‘demonstrators’ armed with nothing but stones.

Rarely shown however, are images of the ever-present Palestinian gunmen, cowering in positions behind the mob [11]. And never explained is that, should the mob succeed in overrunning the Israeli position, the soldiers face certain death as would the inhabitants of any Israeli residential area the soldiers were defending.

Reports should make it clear that the threat of lethal force and use of live-fire by the Palestinians means that Israeli forces have to remain at some distance from those initiating the violence and inhibits the use of traditional methods of riot control. In all cases, IDF activities have been governed by an overriding policy of restraint, the requirement of proportionality and the necessity to take all possible measures to prevent harm to innocent civilians. IDF standing orders expressly forbids soldiers from opening fire except when fired upon, or in life-threatening situations [12].

The BBC presentation of these riots as children with stones facing heavily armed soldiers, is totally misleading. These powerful images are of huge propaganda value to all those opposed to Israel which is why it is believed many of these apparently “spontaneous demonstrations” have been pre-planned and stage managed by the PA for the benefit of the world media [13]. They create sympathy for a violent Palestinian uprising and animosity towards Israel, amongst a misinformed audience.

1.3 Israel ‘preventing ambulances from reaching wounded’

BBC coverage of Israel’s operation “Defensive Shield” in the West Bank - following the Netanya Passover Massacre by Fatah’s Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade in March 2002 - was particularly marred by selective reporting.

For example, the BBC persistently reported allegations that Israel was preventing ambulances getting to Palestinians wounded in the fighting [14]. However, the evidence that Palestinian fighters were using Red Crescent ambulances as a means of smuggling gunmen and arms in and out of the areas of fighting [15] was never reported. This would have helped explain delays, as the Army had to search ambulances entering or leaving the conflict areas. Instead the viewer/listener was left with the inaccurate impression of “callous” Israelis preventing wounded Palestinians from receiving medical attention.

1.4 Palestinian Authority culpability not reported

Following every major terrorist attack in Israel, the BBC reports that the Palestinian leadership has condemned the attack, even when the attack was carried out by fighters loyal to Arafat (see BBC TV news interview with Saeeb Erakat following the Tel-Aviv bombing for which Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility 6.1.03 [16]).

The viewer is left with the false impression that the Palestinian leadership is blameless, that they are innocent victims in a bloody fight between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists and therefore any Israeli military response against the PA cannot be unjustified.

If the BBC wishes to report Palestinian Authority condemnation of terrorism, a balanced approach would be also to report evidence of direct Palestinian Authority involvement in terrorism e.g. the funding and orchestration of terror attacks [17], the refusal to order Tanzim to halt the activities of Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade or to order the arrests of known terrorist leaders, the PA’s brutal repression of the media and abuse of its educational institutions which are used to stir up hatred, glorify and incite terrorism and espouse a distorted version of Jewish history [18].

1.5 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – circumstances and
legality

Allegations by anti-Israel politicians that Israel is flouting international law invariably go unchallenged by BBC interviewers and reporters. There are even BBC reporters who describe the territories as ‘illegally occupied’ by Israel [19].

News reporters and interviewers should counter allegations of ‘illegal occupation’ and breeches of ‘UN resolutions’ and explain…

• The West bank and Gaza came under Israeli control following a war of self-defence in June 1967 following Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, mobilisation of Egyptian and Syrian forces on Israel’s borders, announcements by Arab leaders proclaiming the imminent liquidation of Israel, intense Jordanian artillery fire from and ground movements across the 1948 armistice lines and the movement of Iraqi forces across Jordan, poised to attack Israel [20].

• Jordan was the previous occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it illegally annexed following the war of 1948.

• UN Resolutions 242 and 338 do not request Israel withdraw to the borders prior to the war of June 1967, rather to “secure and recognised borders.” which have yet to be determined by negotiated settlement.

• Arab regimes continue to flout their obligations to “terminate all claims or states of belligerency... respect (Israel’s) … sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence …(and) right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” according UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

• Israel relinquished control of most of the West Bank and Gaza to the PA, under the 1994 Oslo accord. 98% of Palestinians in the territories live in this area.

• Israel's transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority makes it inaccurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied territories”, according to the main international agreements dealing with military occupation [21].

• In January 2001, Israel offered the Palestinians an independent state in 97% of the disputed territory, including large areas of East Jerusalem.

• The Palestinian leadership rejected this offer and launched a bloody conflict which has claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians.

• Israel has re-entered areas under PA control legally, to protect her population from Palestinian violence.

Israel’s presence in the territories is not illegal under international law [ibid.]. When BBC reporters or interviewers repeat this allegation or allow it to stand unchallenged, the viewer is left with the inaccurate perception of legitimate Palestinian ‘resistance’ against an ‘illegal’ Israeli occupation.

1.6 “The Accused” 17.6.01 - Sabra and Shatila Massacre
– substantive issues not investigated or reported

On 17.6.01 the Panorama documentary “The Accused” investigated responsibility for the massacre of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila.

The documentary continually reported allegations that Ariel Sharon should have predicted the actions of the Christian Phalange - who committed the massacre - based on the group’s track record of brutality.

Omitted from the programme was any mention of previous joint IDF/Phalange operations which were conducted within norms of warfare - and would have negated the “record of brutality” argument. Nor did the documentary suggest a possible motive for Mr Sharon’s alleged complicity in the massacre – an atrocity which led to outrage in Israel, international condemnation, premature departure of Israeli forces to the southern “Security Zone”, Syrian domination of Lebanon and the sacking of Ariel Sharon from the government.

More importantly, Sharon’s defence, that he was deceived into handing over the operation to a Syrian agent, Eli Hobeika, was never mentioned.

This documentary failed to address the most important questions surrounding the massacre i.e. who gave Hobeika his orders and who had most to gain from this horrific event.

Despite an interview with Eli Hobeika - the ex-Phalange leader accused by the Kahan Report of conducting the massacre - no questions were raised, nor any mention made of evidence (eyewitness accounts and the accounts of Hobeika’s former bodyguard, Robiere Hatam) that Hobeika was acting on the orders of the Syrian government [22].

It is reasonable to ask, why, in a documentary purporting to investigate responsibility for the massacre was crucial evidence of Syrian responsibility omitted. It would seem that the documentary makers did not wish to distract the audience from their overall aim, to tarnish Ariel Sharon and Israel.

Other concerns with this documentary were its lack of detail on; the numerous atrocities committed by Palestinians and Syrians against Christians in Lebanon [detailed in Kahl’s article – ibid.] and, the huge loss of life suffered by the IDF in Operation Peace for Galilee, which was behind Sharon’s decision to involve the Phalange in the first place.

1.7 Human rights of Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza versus human rights of Jews in Arab countries

A search of the BBCi online news archives, reveals a huge volume of reports on alleged abuses of Palestinian human rights in the territories yet not a single report on the appalling human rights abuses of Jews in Arab countries [23]. These communities have been forbidden freedom of religion, movement, association and business practice and subject to frequent harassment, beatings, imprisonment without trial, torture and execution. Not to mention the gross antisemitism promoted in the media in many Arab and Muslim countries [24].

1.8 Section summary

Rarely if ever is Israel’s case properly explained or fairly represented. Rather, the impression given by BBC news reports is that Israel, not the Arabs, are flouting international law and UN resolutions, that Israeli forces are acting without restraint and that Israel’s ‘illegal’ occupation, is the root cause of Arab/Muslim discontent and terrorism.

This total failure of the BBC to explain or defend Israeli actions allows the audience to believe that Israel is largely to blame for this conflict. This creates outrage against Israel and is likely to encourage further violence against Jews/Israelis worldwide.

2.0 MISLEADING AND INACCURATE LANGUAGE

This is the use of pejorative terms and descriptions, which prejudice the audience against Israel.

2.1 Palestinian terrorism – part of a “cycle of violence”?

On BBC1’s 10 O'clock news (21.11.02), Orla Guerin reported on the Hamas bus bomb in Jerusalem, which killed 11 people including four children. Notably, Ms Guerin described the Israeli victims as “students” not children. She then went on to state that according to Hamas, “this is revenge for Palestinians killed by Israel including children".

First of all, this comment was misleading as it failed to explain that innocent Palestinians have never been deliberately targeted by the IDF, in contrast to the Palestinian terrorist attack she had just reported on. In other words, the viewer was left with the impression that Israeli actions against terrorists are equivalent to Palestinian terrorism which deliberately targets innocent civilians.

Secondly, this comment is hugely one-sided since it espouses the Hamas claim that this attack was revenge for Israeli attacks against Palestinians, yet ignores the fact that Palestinian groups have used and continue to use terrorism as part of a consistent political strategy, openly declared e.g. Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant 1998 [25] and such attacks have continued irrespective of the Israeli military response.

Hence Ms Guerin and other BBC reporters (e.g. Tarik Kafala BBC online article on 25.1.02 “Cycle of violence gains momentum”) are effectively perpetuating the myth that each atrocity is merely the result a “cycle of violence” in which Israelis are just as guilty as the terrorists. In other words, Israel could stop the “violent cycle” if it stopped operations against terrorists – operations which have been shown to be effective in saving innocent lives [26].

Accurate and impartial reports must stop claiming that terrorists merely act out of revenge for Israeli attacks and must avoid using the term “cycle of violence”. These terms excuse deliberate acts of terrorism, and suggest to the viewer that Israeli counter-terrorist measures, which save innocent lives [ibid.] are just as much to blame for the continuation of the conflict, as the acts of terror themselves.

Reporters should explain to their audience the true nature of Hamas and other terrorist groups, whose attacks are part of an openly declared campaign to brutally eliminate the Jewish presence in Israel.

2.2 Palestinian “resistance” against “Israeli occupation”

BBC correspondents often describe the Al-Asqa Intifada and Arab/Muslim violence as “resistance” to “illegal occupation by Israel of Palestinian Land” [19]. This statement suggests to the listener that if Israel would leave “occupied Palestinian land” the violence would end. In other words Israel’s “occupation” is the cause of the violence.

As explained in section 1.5 above, Israel’s control over the territories - following a war of self-defence - is not considered illegal under international law [21]. UN Security Council resolutions call upon the Arabs to stop violence and recognise Israel before Israel withdraw to “secure and recognised borders”. Hence, describing the territories as being “illegally occupied” is incorrect.

Also, describing the Al-Asqa Intifada as “resistance to Israeli occupation” is incorrect and biased for three reasons:

Firstly, the description infers that all land the Palestinians are fighting for is Palestinian land, including Jerusalem. However, there has never been a Palestinian state and the territorial borders of such a state have yet to be determined by negotiated settlement on the basis of UN resolutions 242, 338 and the Oslo Accord, to which the current Israeli government is committed. Furthermore, no UN resolution has declared that Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, UN Resolution 181 calls for Jerusalem to be internationalised, which was rejected by the Arabs when they fought against Israel’s existence and Jordan invaded and annexed East Jerusalem in 1948.

Secondly, the description “resistance to Israeli occupation” implies that this conflict stems from Israeli intransigence on withdrawal from Palestinian areas. This is untrue, the Palestinians were offered and rejected an independent state in 97% of the West Bank and Gaza at the Taba conference in January 2001, and prior to the current Intifada, 98% of Palestinians in the disputed territories lived under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. If BBC reporters wish to continue to describe the Arab violence as resistance to “Israeli occupation” they should explain that they are resisting Israeli occupation of only 3% of the disputed territories.

Thirdly, most Palestinian groups, including the PLO, state that they do not intend to stop their fight against Israel after seizing Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, but see this as a first stage in their ultimate goal of the liquidation of Israel [27]. Hence BBC reports claiming Palestinians are merely resisting Israeli occupation are taking an extremely inaccurate and impartial view of the conflict.

The blatant inaccuracies and bias in Jim Muir’s article [19] are explored more fully in the report by Asserson, T. and Mironi, E. (2002) “The BBC and the Middle East – A Critical Study”.

Use of the terms “occupied territories”, “illegally occupied territories” or describing the Intifada as “resistance to Israeli occupation of Palestinian Land” is a clear example of the BBC adopting a pro-Palestinian position. They reinforce a misconception that the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians, is ‘resistance to an unjust occupation’ and that Israeli policies are the only barrier to peace.

Reporters must use language which is objective. The West Bank and Gaza for example, are “disputed territories” not “illegally occupied territories” and the Intifada is a “violent uprising against Israel” not “resistance against Israeli occupation”.

2.3 Arab “resistance” versus Jewish “terrorism”

A particularly glaring example of bias is the BBC’s avoidance of the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” to describe deliberate acts of violence by Arabs against Jewish/Israeli civilians, whereas the Jewish underground (of the 1930’s and 40’s in Mandated Palestine) is regularly described as “terrorists”, or their actions as “terrorism”.

On Radio 4’s Today programme (Friday 11-10-02) James Naughtie suggested one example of the “hypocrisy” of the Nobel Peace Prize, was its award to former Israeli PM, Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, because Begin “had been a Jewish terrorist in the past”.

This is unfair and biased for three reasons:

Firstly, it is inaccurate to describe Begin as a terrorist because his organisation attacked only military targets, such as the military HQ of the British Mandate in Palestine (the King David Hotel in Jerusalem) in July 1946.

Secondly, Mr Naughtie made no mention of Sadat’s financing, logistical and media support of Palestinian terrorism, which targeted Israeli civilians in the 1960’s and 70’s.

Thirdly, the word “terrorism” is never used by the BBC to describe Arab attacks against Israelis. It seems then that the description of “terrorist” used by Mr Naughtie, is reserved only for Jews.

Another example of the misuse of the word “terrorism” is the BBC online news article “The Birth of Israel” by Tim Llewellyn [37], which accused the Jewish Underground of organising a “terror campaign” and employing “terror tactics” against the British and Arabs. This article is discussed in greater depth in section 5.0.

2.4 Jewish residents of West Bank and Gaza “illegal settlers”

A further example of unfair, misleading and inaccurate language is BBC news reports which persistently label Israeli residents on the West Bank and Gaza as “settlers”, and describe their communities as illegal under international law [28]. The legality of these communities is very much disputed. There are certainly cogent arguments refuting allegations of illegality [29], and it is clearly biased for the BBC to take sides on this legal argument.

Furthermore the classification of communities as ‘illegal’ and their occupants as ‘settlers’ could be understood to imply that these people are legitimate targets for attack, thus justifying Palestinian acts of terror.

2.5 Palestinian “David” versus Israeli “Goliath”

A further example of one-sided language is when BBC news reporters describe Palestinian children throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and tanks as “a modern day version of David and Goliath.” [30]. The viewer is thus presented with a hugely powerful biblical parallel - brave defiance by weak Palestinian children, versus brute force by heavily armed Israelis. An image used to full effect by Palestinian propagandists.

However as explained in section 1.2 above, the truth is somewhat less clear-cut. Israeli soldiers are in fact, less concerned about children throwing stones than the ever-present Palestinian gunmen in positions behind the stone throwers and petrol bombers.

Reporters should avoid being taken in by Palestinian propagandists peddling choreographed images of children throwing stones at tanks. Their reports should make it clear that the IDF are not there to confront stone throwing children, but to protect innocent Israelis from Palestinian gunmen and bombers who pervade populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza.

They must not allow these images to divert attention away from the central issues around the IDF’s presence in these areas. Namely, Palestinian rejection of an Independent state, in 97% of disputed territories, incitement to violence in PLO controlled media and educational institutions, the illegal procurement of arms and the orchestration of monstrous acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The analogy of an Israeli Goliath will be particularly difficult to grasp for Israelis, who live in one of the smallest countries of the world, surrounded by 21 hostile Arab states (including the large neighbouring Palestinian state of Jordan) in a world with 14 million Jews and 1.2 billion Muslims and who have suffered the killing of 25,000 of citizens in the past 50 years, in bloody wars and acts of terrorism.

2.6 Section summary

Biased terminology and commentary is not only offensive, but creates a one-sided and distorted picture of this hugely complex conflict.

An impartial BBC must not serve Palestinian propaganda interests by describing Palestinian terrorism as part of a “cycle of violence”, explaining the campaign of violence against Israelis as “resistance to Israeli occupation”, describing Israeli neighbourhoods as “settlements”, describing Israel’s presence in the territories as “illegal” or presenting the conflict as “David versus Goliath”.

3.0 REPORTING UNCORROBORATED ALLEGATIONS AS FACT

3.1 Eyewitness account of mass graves

Following the departure of Israeli forces from Jenin in April 02, Orla Guerin reported on the 10 O’clock news (April 02) that there have been “eyewitness accounts” of bodies being loaded on trucks and “mass graves”. Did Ms Guerin really have eyewitness accounts of Israelis dumping bodies in mass graves? If so, surely her “eyewitnesses” would know the exact location of the mass graves, and would have directed investigators there.

However, according to the UN report on Jenin [31] “52 Palestinian deaths have been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002… A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April, that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged.” The report makes no mention of mass graves.

Hence Ms Guerin’s account of “mass graves” was either misreported or is completely fictitious. Suggesting a deliberate attempt by Ms Guerin to discredit Israel.

3.2 Mohammed Al-Dura, ‘killed by IDF’

A further example of this was BBC’s reporting of the killing of 12 year old Mohammed Al-Dura, whose televised death was broadcast round the world (30.9.00).

In TV, radio and online news reports, the BBC reported that the boy was killed by Israelis, e.g. BBC online news (17.11.00) [32]: “Mohammed al-Durrah, the boy from Gaza, shielded by his father but still dying under a hail of bullets fired by Israeli soldiers.” This report went on to state “they (Mohammed and his father) blundered into the type of small-scale riot that is so familiar in Gaza. Kids gather to throw stones … The soldiers respond with tear gas and rubber bullets, sometimes live rounds.”

The true facts of this shooting, as revealed by a German TV documentary broadcast in March 02 and the IDF commission of enquiry released on 27.11.02 [33], tell a somewhat different story.

Firstly, the riot what not “small scale”. Palestinian gunmen were firing from seven positions around the isolated Israeli position and Palestinian gunmen were positioned on either side of the boy and his father [ibid].

Secondly, the video footage shows round holes in the wall behind the boy, which could only be made by firing directly into the wall. The Israeli position was 110m away from Mohammed, at a 30 degree angle [ibid.]. Shots hitting the wall from that direction would have caused elliptical holes not round. Hence the shots which killed the boy could not have come from the Israeli position [ibid.].

Thirdly, Mohammed’s body was buried by Palestinians before an autopsy could be performed or before any Commission of Inquiry could be set up. The Palestinians never produced the bullets that were taken from the body so it could not be confirmed what type of weapon they were from. And it has never been explained how the Palestinian cameraman happened to be in position, where his original “unedited” tape ended up, and who produced the many copies of the edited version that started to appear on TV right after the incident [ibid.].

There is persuasive evidence that the boy was deliberately killed by Palestinians, in full view of a Palestinian cameraman, to provide a potent propaganda weapon against Israel [ibid.].

None of this evidence has ever been reported in any BBC TV, radio or online news items.

Journalists should make every effort to ensure that they are aware of the full facts surrounding a civilian casualty before blaming one side or the other. The disputed allegation that the IDF killed Al-Dura has been used as a propaganda weapon against Israel, and even led to the boy’s father speaking against Israel at the UN sponsored “World Racism Conference 2001” in Durban.

3.3 Israel’s ‘State terrorism’

Of particular concern are accusations of “state terrorism” against Israel, which are often reported by the BBC but go unchallenged by the reporter or interviewer. Without counter argument or evidence to the contrary, a neutral viewer/listener is left believing the accusation. This happens particularly in interviews with representatives of Muslim groups, the PA and Arab regimes. For example, in an interview with the Syrian ambassador to London on BBC 2’s Newsnight (18.12.02) the ambassador repeatedly accused Israel of state terrorism. These accusations went completely unchallenged by the interviewer.

A fair and responsible approach would be for the interviewer to challenge the accusation e.g. (with the Syrian Ambassador):

“Ambassador, you accuse Israel of terrorism, but can you name a single incident where an Israeli army operation has set out to target innocent Palestinians, in the way groups you support, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP target innocent Israelis in buses, shopping centres, pizzerias and discotheques?”

or

“Ambassador, do you really think Israeli operations against Palestinian terrorists (who have murdered and maimed thousands of Israelis) are any more terroristic, than, for example, Syrian actions against Islamic militants in 1982 when the Syrian Army massacred around twenty thousand residents of Hama?”

3.4 No opportunity to refute allegations

In recent months, programmes such as BBC1’s Question Time, Radio 4’s Any Questions and Radio 5 phone-ins, have been dominated by discussion of the ‘campaign against terror’ and the Iraq crisis. Both these subjects invariably lead to copious anti-Israel comment by panellists and audience members [34]. On Radio 5’s morning phone-in on the Iraq crisis, for example (14.1.03) a panel member supporting the government’s line on Iraq, stated that he found Israel’s attitude to UN resolutions “despicable”. Typically, this statement went unchallenged. The audience being left with the impression that Israel is somehow comparable to Iraq in its disregard for the UN and international law.

Rarely if ever is there a speaker capable of rebutting these unfair accusations and invariably, anti-Israel comment goes unchallenged.

In the lead to possible conflict in Iraq, programme makers should adopt an even-handed approach and ensure speakers are present who are capable of presenting Israel’s case without being lone voices in a panel dominated by anti-Zionists.

3.5 Minister will allow anti-Arab violence by settlers

Another clear example of unsubstantiated accusations levelled at Israel, was a statement by Lees Ducet, on the BBC radio world service (believed to be 18.11.02 at around 2am), that the appointment of Shaul Mofaz, as Israeli Defence Minister, will result in Jewish settlers on the West Bank being given greater freedom to attack Palestinians.

Ms Ducet has no evidence whatsoever to support this statement, which appears to be a deliberately dishonest attempt to portray Israel as a state which does not respect the rule of law.

3.6 Section summary

Editors, reporters and news presenters appear ever willing to present a version of events which is not only unsympathetic to Israel, but presents her as a brutal, callous, intransigent occupying force.

Reporters should make every effort to verify allegations before they are broadcast or at least ensure Israel has a chance to respond. Also, interviewers should be better prepared to challenge unfair allegations against Israel.

4.0 FALSE COMPARISONS

This is where the actions of the IDF, in operations aimed at defending its population from terrorist attack are equated with the actions of Arab terrorists and rioters.

4.1 Comparing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed

Reports by Ms Guerin (and others) on Palestinian terror attacks in which Israeli civilians have been killed often end with a comment that more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. For example, following the double bombing in Tel-Aviv (6.1.03) which killed 22 people, Orla Guerin stated on BBC TV news: “But for the Palestinians it never stops; 50 of them killed by the army each week” [35].

Besides being inaccurate on numbers of Palestinian casualties in recent weeks, this statement is clearly biased. It effectively equates Palestinian terror attacks with Israeli measures to quell a ferociously violent uprising, initiated by the Palestinians themselves. It also suggests to the viewer that whatever the Palestinians have done to Israelis, Israel has done much worse to Palestinians.

More than twice as many Palestinians have been killed than Israelis in the past 27 months of conflict however, 80% of Israeli victims were innocent civilians, deliberately targeted by terrorists, whereas the majority of Palestinian victims were combatants including suicide bombers and gunmen (see ITC report [36]). Also hidden in these figures are the 185 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians as suspected ‘collaborators’, as well as innocent Palestinian victims who died in Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis. Hence the BBC is, in effect, allowing the viewer to believe that Israel is to blame for the deaths of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians.

By stating that more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the conflict, without explaining that Israeli forces are not directly to blame for the majority of Palestinian deaths, the listener/viewer is left with the false impression that Palestinian terrorism is merely a response to even greater Israeli aggression.

If the BBC wishes to be impartial in its reporting, it should compare like with like i.e. the number of non-combatant Israelis killed with deliberate intent by Palestinians, compared to the number of non-combatant Palestinians killed with deliberate intent by Israelis. Alternatively, the presenter could state, “Approximately 2,400 Israelis and Palestinians have died in the past 27 months of violence, mainly Palestinian combatants and Israeli victims of terrorism.”

4.2 Section summary

Reports should not mislead the viewer into believing that Palestinian terrorism is comparable to Israeli counter-terrorism. The deaths of Palestinians killed on terror missions or in combat with Israeli forces are not equivalent to innocent Israelis killed with intent by terrorists.

Balanced reports would make it clear that, in contrast to the terrorists, the IDF has never deliberately targeted innocent civilians. They would explain the army’s extremely difficult task in defending the population from terrorists holed up in densely populated civilian areas. They would describe examples of Israeli soldiers risking and losing their lives in close combat, in order to protect civilians who would have been at risk from aerial bombardment. And they would compare this approach to that of US led coalition forces, which have used intense aerial bombardment (including the use of cruise missiles) on populated areas of Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

Balanced reporting would also report on declarations by the PA leadership calling on the continuation of violent struggle against Israel until the Jewish state has been wiped out [27].

5.0 BIASED/INACCURATE VERSION OF ISRAELI HISTORY

Despite extensive news coverage, BBC news programmes make very little attempt to explain how this conflict arose historically.

5.1 “The Birth of Israel” Online news article 17.11.02

One BBC online article did however attempt to cover the events leading to Israel’s establishment: “The Birth of Israel” by Tim Llewellyn [37]. This article was riddled with inaccuracies, selective reporting and biased language, including the following anti-Israel platitudes:

5.1.1 The Jewish underground in Mandated Palestine
organised “a terror campaign” against the British

Jewish resistance against the British mandate was certainly not a “terror campaign”. The unified resistance against the British conducted attacks only against military and military infrastructure targets. The example in the article, the King David Hotel attack, failed to mention that the hotel had been taken over by British forces as their military headquarters in Palestine and that warnings from the Irgun that there was a bomb in the building, were ignored. Attacks directed against civilians were very rare and vehemently opposed by the mainstream Haganah.

The article failed to give a single example of the anti-Jewish/pro-Arab policies of the British [38] e.g.; breaches of their mandate on Palestine (to create a national homeland for the Jews and facilitate Jewish immigration) [39], prohibition of Jewish immigration whilst permitting the immigration of tens of thousands of Arabs, complicity in Arab massacres of Jews, deportation, internment and mistreatment of Holecaust refugees and restrictions on Jewish religious practices.

5.1.2 “Jewish fighters massacred more than 200 Palestinian villagers…in the village of Deir Yassin”

Claims of a massacre at Deir Yassin are baseless. The village was a major staging post for sniper attacks and ambushes, which had rendered the Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem road impassable, and left the Jews of Jerusalem stranded.

On 8.4.48, between 4 and 5 AM, a loudspeaker mounted on an armoured car, warned the Arabs to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed. A pitched battle ensued, in which 110 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were killed. The head of the coroner unit, professor Yehoshua Arieli, testified that the number killed was 110. This has been confirmed by Bir Zeit Palestinian University professor Sharif Kanaana.

The massacre claim has long since been discredited. The story persists because pro-Arab sources constantly repeat it. For a full account of what happened at Dir Yassin, see [40]:

5.1.3 This ‘massacre’ and other ‘Jewish/Israeli terror tactics’ was a factor in Arabs being “forced out” from their homes

It is totally incorrect to suggest the Jews forcibly removed Arabs from their homes. Rumours of massacres encouraged many Arabs to flee, but the Hagana did not forcibly evict anyone. In fact there is an overwhelming body of evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay (the Haifa situation is was one example [41]).

Omitted from the article was any mention of the role Arab leaders themselves played in urging the Arab population to leave [42].

As Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951): “The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”

5.1.4 “Even before the mandate ended … Jewish fighters moved to … widen the territory for the new Jewish state. Often they attacked areas designated for Arabs, and tried to depopulate Arab areas in the planned Jewish sector.”

This is totally untrue. It was the Arabs who began the war in January 1948 - three months before the mandate ended:

John Bagot Glubb the British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, stated:
“Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman.”

On February 16, 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council: “Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”

As discussed above, the claim that Jews were trying to depopulate Arab areas -just as they were facing potential liquidation from 5 Arab armies - is totally untrue.

5.1.5 “The Arab campaign was a generally badly organised, uncoordinated affair with untrained units who were no match for the Haganah and, later, the Israeli Defence Force. The Palestinian militias and other Arab irregulars were also easily crushed.”

This is untrue. The war was anything but a pushover for the Jews.

At the start of the war Israel had only 3 tanks, 5 artillery pieces and no air-force, to confront invading Arab armies that boasted 270 tanks, 150 field guns and 300 aircraft. (The Arab Israeli Wars, A.J. Barker).

Israel was almost overrun in the first days of the war. An Egyptian armoured column advanced up the coast, getting within 21 miles of Tel-Aviv before it was finally halted by ill-equipped Jewish defenders armed with Molotov cocktails and old rifles.

Well equipped Jordanian forces moved through the West Bank, overrunning Israeli communities such as Gush Etzion, whose defenders surrendered after a two day fight and were then massacred by Palestinian forces. The Jordanians also took the ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing it of its Jewish inhabitants.

Six thousand Jews were killed in that war, fully 1% of the Jewish population.

5.1.6 Omission of Arab atrocities against Jews

It is incredible that Mr Llewellyn felt it unnecessary to mention a single example of the catalogue of Arab atrocities perpetrated against the Jews during the British Mandate period including Arab massacres during the 1920-21 riots, the 1929 Hebron and Sefad massacres, atrocities during the Arab Revolt 1936-39, the Sheik Jarah massacre April 1948 and the Gush Etzion massacre May 1948 [43].

Furthermore, whilst the article went into some detail about the plight of Palestinian Arab refugees, it made not a single mention of the 800,000 Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries during and after the War of 1948.

5.2 Section summary

This article is a conspicuous example of anti-Zionist narrative and is totally incompatible with a news organisation claiming to be impartial.

When the history of the region is reported, every effort should be made to ensure accuracy and impartiality. This is important because Israel’s history provides the moral and legal basis for its existence.

Reporting an inaccurate, one-sided version of Israel’s history is offensive to those who lived through it, it challenges the legitimacy of Israeli statehood and serves to increase support for those regimes, groups and individuals violently opposed to Israel’s existence.

CONCLUSIONS

Legitimate criticism can be levelled at both sides in this conflict, and neither Israelis nor Arabs should be exempt from reports of brutality and other human rights abuses. Whilst one can understand a tendency to favour the perceived underdog, the situation in the Middle East is not straightforward, and news reports must be objective and fair to both sides.

BBC news broadcasts have singularly failed to present the Israeli case in any serious or coherent way and appear to consistently strive to portray Israel in an unfavourable light. The BBC has failed to inaccurately portray the true nature and ideology of the current wave of Palestinian violence, the involvement and underlying intentions of the Palestinian leadership, the strategic nature of Palestinian terrorism, the legitimacy of Israel’s response to violence against her citizens, the legal and historical context of the creation of Israel and Israel’s presence in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and the nature of the Arab/Muslim regimes in the middle east and their involvement in the conflict.

In particular it seems that the BBC deliberately wishes to avoid reports which might suggest Palestinian violence being more motivated by political obstinacy, hate filled anti-Israel propaganda and incitement, than by the pain of an occupation which Israelis are committed to ending.

This misrepresentation fuels hatred against Israel and gives credence to horrific acts of terrorism, which serves only to win support and encourage future despicable acts.

This issue goes beyond the integrity of the BBC as an impartial news broadcaster or the great offence caused by presenting a one-sided depiction of the conflict. Of greatest concern is the effect anti-Israel bias has on the thinking of millions of TV, radio and internet viewers, which could affect government policy towards Israel, create increased support for violent, groups and regimes in the Middle East and worldwide and reduce the likelihood of a just and peaceful solution to the conflict.

The BBC should acknowledge the prevalence of anti-Israel bias in its news coverage and commit itself to a serious and concerted campaign to eliminate such bias in the future.

A possible first step might be the setting up of an independent inquiry into allegations of anti-Israel bias to assess how this prejudice has come about and investigate and implement ways of eliminating it from future news coverage.

NOTES AND REFERENCES:

(1) See Chapter 5.1 of BBC Agreement on programme standards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/BBCcharter/agreement/agree_06.shtml

(2) See Chapter 2.1 of BBC’s Producers Guidelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/chapter2.shtml

(3) Reuters 22-11-02 8.23pm."’During our operation, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on our forces. A battle erupted -- massive exchanges of fire in which we understand a U.N. official was hit.’ (IDF spokeswoman) Feingold said.”

(4) “In addition to fire from within the UNRWA headquarters, the IDF identified at least seven cases in which direct fire was aimed toward IDF forces from an alley near the UNRWA headquarters. In two cases, terrorists opened fired while using civilians as human shields. In one of the cases, a terrorist opened fire while taking cover behind a woman holding an UNRWA flag.”
See IDF website: http://www.idf.il/english/announcements/2002/november/23c.stm

(5) “UN man ‘telephoned Israelis before death in Jenin camp firefight… ‘We’re pinned down in the compound. The shabab — Palestinian youths — have knocked a hole in the wall which I am not happy about. I will just keep my people pinned down in a corner until I hear from you,’ he said.” Jewish Chronicle, 29 Nov 02.

(6) CNN - March 26, 2002 Posted: 6:02 PM EST (2302 GMT) “Two international observers killed in West Bank”
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/26/mideast/

(7) BBC online news (26.3.02) “Two Observers Killed in West Bank.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1895463.stm

(8) BBC online news report (30.9.02) “Children ‘bear brunt’ of Mid East conflict”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2288380.stm

(9) Associated Press report (12.12.01) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30180-2001Dec12.html

(10) BBC online news “Israeli strikes kill 4 in Gaza” (12.12.01) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1704968.stm

(11) USA Today correspondent Jack Kelley reported (Oct. 23, 2000): "Children serve as infantry in the confrontations between Israeli and Palestinian soldiers. In scenes reminiscent of Iranian children sent to the Iraqi front equipped with plastic keys to heaven, Palestinian children are sent close to Israeli positions with rocks and Molotov cocktails, while the gunmen and snipers fire from positions hundreds of yards back."

Weiner, J. (1.10.02) “In the current intifada children acted as decoys, burning tires and shooting slingshots to attract TV cameras while making it harder for the world to identify the gunmen lying in ambush. Knowing that Israeli soldiers are ordered not to shoot live ammunition at children, Palestinian snipers hide among groups of youngsters, on rooftops or in alleys, often using kids as shields when aiming at exposed IDF soldiers. On some occasions, these gunmen apparently have inadvertently shot Palestinian children from behind.” in “The recruitment of Children in current Palestinian strategy” Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 2 No. 8: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-8.htm

IDF Website; “Children are groomed and dispatched to carry out suicide attacks in the centers of the Israeli civilian population and positioned at the front lines of demonstrations to hide snipers behind them.”
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/amnesty2.stm

(12) “Standing IDF orders stipulate that the use of fire is called for only when fired upon, or in life-threatening situations.” IDF website http://www.idf.il/english/news/background_20nov00.stm

“As part of its adherence to the rules of the conduct of war, the IDF goes to great lengths to avoid harming civilians, especially children. This concern is an integral part of soldier training, of the regulations governing when to open fire, of orders issued by commanders, of operational plans, and of the message conveyed by the highest-ranking officers... Regrettably, while some civilians have been injured during the fighting against the Palestinian terrorist groups, in no case were these injuries intentional. Those hurt were either individuals involved in Palestinian terrorist activity, or civilians who were unintentionally hurt when they entered a live-fire zone. The terrorist factions have transformed Palestinian civilian population centres into terrorist activity headquarters." IDF statement: http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/1104-5.stm

(13) “The media has developed a smoothly engineered operational coordination and understanding with Arafat and the mobs. They receive pre-notification of ‘spontaneous' riots and the media provide film crews, still and video, who report the event with the agreed slant.
One revealing example of this can be found by downloading a very provocative picture that exemplifies the problem. It shows a stone-throwing young man. Behind him is about a dozen photographers and videographers (see www.honestreporting.com homepage). It is as slick a pre-arranged and staged photo-op as possible A very complete set of professional photographs appears on the Website: http://www.rotter.net/israel They show every area of the current media manipulations from staged photos to Palestinian children being taught to shoot, hate and kill.”
Winston, E. A. “Media Frenzy – biased reporting” Freeman Centre for Strategic Studies
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/nov00/winston.htm

(14) BBC News Online report, (5.4.02) “UN to probe Mid East Rights abuses”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1914264.stm

(15) On March 27, a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance driver was caught transporting an explosive belt containing 10 kilograms of explosives of the type detonated by suicide bombers, Israel Radio reported. The ambulance was stopped and searched between Nablus and Ramallah, and soldiers found the explosive belt under a stretcher upon which a Palestinian boy was lying. The boy's family was with him in the ambulance.
The ambulance driver told interrogators he received the belt from a senior Tanzim activist working for Palestinian Authority West Bank security chief Marwan Barghouti.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it was "shocked and dismayed" and "condemns such abuse of an ambulance and of the Red Crescent emblem." (1.4.02)
See: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/April_Fools$.asp

Also, see Israeli Embassy website for further details: http://www.israelemb.org/boston/update.html#Medical

(16) BBC online news (sound link) Saeb Erakat, Palestinian Chief negotiator "The Palestinian Authority has nothing to do with these attacks": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2629745.stm

(17) To view documents seized from PA offices, by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), implicating direct PA involvement in the funding of terrorism, see IDF website: http://www.idf.il/arafat/english/main_index.stm

Shilo, D. (12.4.02) ”Israel's case against Arafat - Sharon team says papers captured in raids detail payments to suicide bomb groups.” San Francisco Chronicle.

How has the voice of Palestine Radio been used? http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_vop_radio.php

Is there a free Palestinian Press and Media? http://palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_palestinian_press.php

Roth, M. “Palestinian intimidation of Journalists”.
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Palestinian_Intimidation_of_Journalists.asp

(18) Weiner, J. (1.10.02) “The recruitment of Children in current Palestinian strategy” Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 2 No. 8: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-8.htm

(4.10.02) “Children Under Fire” Media Critique
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Children_Under_Fire.asp#militaryandpr

AIPAC (8.4.02) “The support Network of Palestinian Suicide Bombers.”
http://www.aipac.org/documents/aipacfacts14.html

(19) BBC Online News (4.12.02) Frank Gardner: “The ongoing illegal occupation by Israel of large amounts of Palestinian land is one of the biggest root causes of Muslim anger and vastly complicates the war on terror.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4x4_reports/2540311.stm

BBC News Online (22.4.01) Frank Gardner: “But in the Palestinian territories, where resistance to Israeli occupation is often seen as a national duty, the Saudi cleric's words are unlikely to carry much weight.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1291339.stm

BBCi News report by Orla Guerin (27.6.02) “For Amal, the reason for all this is clear; the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2285489.stm

BBCi News report by Jim Muir (12.9.01) “The fact is that for more than five decades, in defiance of countless UN resolutions and of international law, the Palestinians’ land has been occupied and their rights ignored by Israel, with full diplomatic cover and open-ended financial and military backing from Washington.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1540364.stm

(20) What led to the Six Day War 1967? http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php

(21) For an exposition of the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza see: “Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories” Jerusalem Issue Brief (2.9.01) Vol1. No1: http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-1.htm

(22) Numerous eyewitnesses and Hobeika’s former bodyguard and confidante, Robbiere Hatam, have revealed the Sabra and Shatilla massacre was committed by Hobeika on the orders of the Syrian government, along with a systematic series of other events designed to discredit Israel.

For fuller exposition see:

Prof. Kahl, M. (7.11.01) “Details not included in the BBC’s attack on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.” The Lebanese Foundation for Peace (website): http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/BBC/bbc.html

Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (30.1.02) “Covering up the secrets of Sabra and Shatilla” Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 1 No. 17 http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-17.htm

(23) Bard, M. G. “The treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic countries”. Jewish Virtual Library:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html#f

(24) Anti Defamation League website “Antisemitism in the Arab World”:
http://www.adl.org/main_as_arab.asp

(25) Hamas Covenant 1998; "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…The Hamas movement believes that the conflict with the Zionists in Palestine…can not be brought to an end unless its cause-the Zionist settlement in Palestine …is removed…Hamas believes that … the Zionist occupation of Palestine should not be recognized and that … all Arabs [should]… fight the Zionists until they leave Palestine.”

(26) ”The (Fatah leader) Ra’d Karmi’s assassination (in Jan 2001) was undertaken to prevent him from carrying out his plans, which included the assassination of a prominent Israeli. Umar Sa‘adah, the head of the Hamas military wing in Bethlehem, killed in July 2001, was planning a major attack at the closing ceremony of the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish olympics. At the time of his assassination, Salah Shihada was in the process of organizing a "mega-attack" of six terror operations that were to take place simultaneously. Nobody will ever know the scope of the bloodbath that was prevented by thwarting these attempts. These acts never made headlines; they constitute the silent terror—the terror that never happened.”
Luft, G. (Winter 2002) “The Logic of Israel’s Targetted Killling” Middle East Quaterly, Vol 10, No 1.
http://www.meforum.org/article/515

IDF Website (9.3.03) “122 Terror Attacks thwarted in January-February 2003”
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/0309-1.stm

Smilovitz, M. (14.2.03) “Israeli checkpoints protect lives” Seattle Post Intelligencer.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/108570_place14.shtml

(27) Salim Za'anum, Chairman of the Palestinian National Council “the PLO Covenant (calling for Israel's destruction) remains in force and was never changed” (al-Hayat al-Jadida, 3rd Feb 2001).

Othman Abu Gharbia, head of the Political Guidance Apparatus of the Palestinian Authority (directly under Yasser Arafat) "We remain tied to our overall goal at the present stage, of an independent Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem and the right of return. This goal is not the end of the march from the viewpoint of the Palestinian people, the dream of our nation will not stop. This goal is only one stage, the second stage is the establishment of a democratic state on all parts of Palestine” (al-Ra´I, June 2001).

Stages Plan of the PLO (1974) "once it is established, the Palestinian National Authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, with the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian Territory."

Ziad al-Rajub, Fatah Higher Committee Member, “The political platform of Fatah, today, is the Stages Plan, that was forced on the PLO leadership after the defeats that the Arabs suffered, one after the other....The sons of Palestine, and Fatah among them, are not permitted to accept Israel as a permanent state on the soil of Palestine." (Akhbar al-Halil, 24.1.01)

Sakher Habash (adviser to Arafat) “At this stage it is imperative that we realize our temporary political goal continued in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem within the 4 June borders, and this will lead to a democratic solution of building democratic Palestine on all the national land. I believe that the time is not appropriate to speak about the revolution to liberate all of the land....The Palestinian state whatever it will be will constitute of beginning of the dismantling of the Zionist enterprise" (al-Hayat al-Jadida, Nov. 17, 2000).

(28) BBC News24, 25 November 2001: "The 26 year-old was part of an Israeli unit guarding a Jewish settlement, built on occupied Palestinian land in the Gaza Strip."

BBC online news report (18/2/02) “Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 Six Day War, establishing hundreds of settlements in the territories that are regarded as illegal by international law.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1827328.stm

(29) The following constitute the principal arguments of Israel that settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are legal under international law:

• During the time of the League of Nations Mandate, settlements were set up with the Mandate’s permission and encouragement
• Article 49 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (“The Conv1ention”) prohibits “Individual or mass forcible
transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country.” However, the Convention does not apply to the West Bank and Gaza, since it applies to cases of “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” by another such party. The West Bank and Gaza were never territory of a High Contracting Party. Accordingly Israel is not a ‘foreign occupier’ under the terms of the Convention with respect to those territories.
• Even if the Convention did apply, it still would not outlaw Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, Article 49 was directed against the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories. The provision does not apply to Israelis, who have moved to the territories voluntarily.
• The Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements contain no prohibition on the building or expansion of settlements. From: Asserson, T. and Mironi, E. (2002) “The BBC and the Middle East – A Critical Study”.

For fuller exposition of these and other arguments see:
“Israel & Palestine”, Prof. Julius Stone, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
Geoffrey R. Watson, “The Oslo Accords - International Law and the Israeli – Palestinian Peace Agreements”, OUP 2000
“Israel’s Settlements – their Conformity with International Law”, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign affairs. See www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dgj0
“Jewish Settlements and the Media”, CAMERA Media Report Vol. 10 Number 2, Fall 2001, p. 5

(30) Hilary Anderson: Newsnight “These battles are rituals. It is a modern day version of David and Goliath.“
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1028210.stm

(31) See UN website: http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/ for full report.

(32) BBC Online News (17.11.00) “When Peace Died”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1026340.stm

(33) For details of the circumstances of Mohammed al Dura’s death and the Israeli Army investigation see: http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php

(34) Davis, D. “Why I won’t talk to the BBC.” The Spectator 25.5.02:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-05-25&id=1892

(35) Orla Guerin’s comment was reported in the website: http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com

(36) See the comprehensive study by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT): http://www.ict.org.il/researchreport/researchreport.htm

(37) Llewellyn, T. (17.11.02) “The Birth of Israel” BBC Online News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2486589.stm

(38) The following are example of the pro-Arab/anti-Jewish policies of the British including violations of their mandate on Palestine:
• Granting of Eastern Palestine (Transjordan) - 76% of Mandated Palestine - to the Emir Abdullah in June 1922 in violation of the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine.
• Prohibition of Jewish settlement in “Transjordan” in 1922.
• Complicity in Arab attacks against Jews e.g. failure to intervene to protect the Jewish from Arab violence. Most notably, during the Arab riots of 1920-21, 1929 (e.g. Massacres at Hebron and Sefat) and 1936-9, also in massacres in the lead up to war in 1948 (see [43] below).
• Allowance of free and open immigration to Palestine of tens of thousands of Arabs and assignment of land to Arabs on land designated by the mandate as the “Jewish National Home” [Peters, J. (1984) “From time immemorial”].
• Restrictions on Jewish prayers and the religious buildings at the Western Wall, Judaism’s Holiest site
• The 1939 White Paper prohibiting Jewish immigration and denying land rights to Jews, on the eve of WW2.
• Holecaust refugees refused entry into Palestine e.g. refugees on the steamer St. Louis, who died in Nazi death camps after they were forced back to Europe by the British.
Others, such as the 768 passengers of the Struma, all drowned after their unseaworthy vessel foundered after being towed out to sea by the British.
• Holecaust survivors escaping to Palestine forced into deportation camps in Cyprus.

(39) The League of Nations’ document that established the British Mandate for the territory of Palestine stated the purposes as follows: “Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty [the Balfour Declaration], and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Article 6 of the Mandate provided as follows:
"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use".

(40) What happened at Dir Yassin? “Palestine facts “: http://palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php

(41) During the fighting in Haifa in April 1948, the Hagana’s truce terms stipulated that Arabs were expected to "carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa." In its Arabic-language broadcasts and communications, the Hagana consistently articulated the same message. On April 22, at the height of the fighting, it distributed a circular noting its ongoing campaign to allow the restoration of "peace and security and good neighbourly relations among all of the town’s inhabitants." On April 29, even Farid Saad of the [Arab] National Committee was saying that Jewish leaders had "organized a large propaganda campaign to persuade [the] Arabs to return."

In early May [1948], units of the Arab Legion, entered the town of Beisan and reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children. At about the same time, the Arab Liberation Army was reported to have ordered the villagers in Fureidis, south of Haifa, to 'evacuate the women and children from the village and to make ready to evacuate the village entirely.’ (Morris, “1948 and After,” p 100)

Under British mediation, the Israeli leadership agreed to a ceasefire, offering what the British regarded as generous terms. But then, when faced with Moslem pressure, the largely Christian leadership got cold feet; a ceasefire meant surrender and implied readiness to live under Jewish rule. They would be open to charges of collaboration and treachery. So, to the astonishment of the British and the Jewish military and political leaders gathered on the afternoon of 22 April at the Haifa town hall, the Arab delegation announced that its community would evacuate the city. The Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, and the British commander, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, pleaded with the Arabs to reconsider ... but the Arabs were unmoved ... (Morris, “1948 and After” p 20)

(42) Statements on the voluntary migration of Palestinian Arabs before and during the 1948 War:

Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner for Palestine, wrote in an official communication to London:
“British authorities in Haifa (where 10% of the Arab population of Palestine lived) have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:
“We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948/49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada alJanub (August 16, 1948): “The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

In early May [1948], units of the Arab Legion, entered the town of Beisan and reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children. At about the same time, the Arab Liberation Army was reported to have ordered the villagers in Fureidis, south of Haifa, to 'evacuate the women and children from the village and to make ready to evacuate the village entirely.’ (Morris, 1948 and After, p 100)

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:
“The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.

(43) Examples of Arab atrocities against the Jewish population of Palestine during the British Mandate period:
• The 1920-21 Arab riots in Palestine: Haj Amin el Hussaini and other Arab leaders incited the mobs to murder Jews and loot their homes. 47 Jews killed during May 1921 alone.
• The 1929 Massacres of Hebron and Sefad: 85 Jews were slaughtered. The ancient Jewish population of Hebron driven out by an Arab mob. No intervention by the British Police stationed there.
• 415 Jews slaughtered during the Arab Revolt headed by Haj Amin el Husaini 1936-39.
• The slaughter of Jews in the 4 months after the UN resolution on partition, when the Arabs killed some 850 Jews throughout the country, many of them in Jerusalem or on the road to the city.
• The Sheik Jarrah massacre (13.4.48) a convoy of trucks, buses and ambulances carrying supplies, nurses, doctors, scientists, and patients to Hadassah Hospital was attacked. 78 were killed and their bodies mutilated. Dozens were wounded. British soldiers delayed intervention in the attack for 6 hours while the killing continued.
• The Gush Etzion Massacre May 1948; 240 residents of the village were massacred following the surrender of the city to Jordanian forces.

A Report on Anti-Israel Bias in BBC News Coverage