'wanting' east jerusalem

Submitted by antarchi on June 6, 2010 - 22:43

UPDATED

As the Quartet said in its statement last week, we are deeply concerned over developments on the ground, and we condemned the Government of Israel’s plan for 1,600 new housing units in Jerusalem.

As I have said before, I say again, directly and without equivocation: settlements are illegal under international law.

With regard to today’s clashes in Jerusalem, a city holy to three religions: let me remind everyone that the status of Jerusalem is a subject of final negotiation. I call for restraint and calm by all.

Ban Ki-moon, Press conference. March 2010 (emphasis mine)

The BBC have a formula for referring to East Jerusalem, which is to say that the Palestinians want it as the capital of a future state (or words to that effect).

They want it. Like a child wants a lollipop? Like I want my friend’s bicycle or boyfriend or this book which I am pulling from her grasp? Or like someone wants justice, wants their property back, or wants their stolen identity1.

The wanting formula, on its own, gives no hint as to which of these is to be taken as read, but since the general belief among the population of this country2 is that Jerusalem is part of Israel (which it de facto is), the wanting sounds more like the book which I am snatching from its owner’s grasp.

The BBC ‘guide to facts and terminology‘ for journalists writing on the Israel/Palestine conflict attempts to understand this. It recommends:

The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.

For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory."

But the BBC does not always stick even to its own flabby guidelines. This page includes the wanting claim, without a word about the status of East Jerusalem. A pure book-snatching example.

My complaint (through the complaints page):

Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8600285.stm

This page includes the following statement:

’Tensions in the region are running high after a recent Israeli government announcement of plans to build 1,600 new homes for Jewish people in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as a capital of a future state.’

The fact that Palestinians ‘want’ this area is both misleading and irrelevant. It is misleading, because it suggests to those who are not informed about the status of E Jerusalem (and indeed, Jerusalem as a whole) that Palestinians want something that some other state (Israel) already possesses. Unless you make the point that *both* Israel and Palestine want Jerusalem as their capital, and that the whole of Jerusalem is (under Oslo, and according to international law as interpreted by the head of the UN) subject to final negotiation, you are providing an incomplete and highly misleading picture.

The statement is irrelevant, precisely because the ‘wanting’ is done by both sides - which is why the status of the city is subject to final negotiation. If you are talking about the ‘tensions’ running high, then the relevant facts are surely that a region which is subject to final negotiation, and which has been illegally occupied, is now being populated and built up by the occupying power - contrary to the Geneva conventions and the wishes of the international community.

You use this formulation of the Palestinians ‘wanting’ E Jerusalem on most pages where this dispute is mentioned. Can I suggest, at least for this page, that you consider the following formulation - and that you review the other pages where the ‘wanting’ formulation has been employed.

(eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8585483.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8558850.stm)

Suggested formulation:

’Tensions in the region are running high after a recent Israeli government announcement of plans to build 1,600 new homes for Jewish people in East Jerusalem. Under international law, this is land occupied illegally by the Israeli state.’

yrs etc.

top

The BBC's reply

Note the part in bold (my emphasis)

Dear ...,

Thank you for your comments http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8600285.stm

This story is about Gaza, therefore the mention of Jerusalem is a passing and brief one. I reports that are about Jerusalem or settlement building in the city we go into greater detail defining terms and referring to the West Bank or Jerusalem as “occupied territory”.

The standard sentences that we use are:
Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

And:
Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, settling close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements. There are about 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Or: Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is occupied territory and the international community does not recognise the Israeli annexation of the city. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.

We feel that “want” to describe their hopes and aims in East Jerusalem is a reasonable and fair one. It is an aspiration, many would say a right, that comes up against an Israel occupation of many decades, a military and police force and a municipal administration in the city that is entirely Israeli. These are the “facts on the ground”, right of wrong.

As I understand it, only the east of the city is considered occupied territory and is claimed by the Palestinians. This has clearly been the drift of negotiations, and reflects the position of the international community. Also, the occupation is not illegal, per se. It is the building of settlements that is illegal.

Best regards,

top

My reply

Dear ...

Thank you for your reply to my previous complaint.

Your guidelines at http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6044000/604... do specify that 'The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story'. I would have thought it was highly relevant in order to explain the tensions that are referred to in this piece. The key point about the word 'want', when used without any further explanation, is that it does not distinguish between 'covet', 'desire', 'envy', on the one hand, and having a legitimate claim, on the other. Indeed, the most natural reading of 'want' takes the first, rather than the second of these meanings.

The word 'want', in the given context, also does nothing to convey the fact that the current (de facto) 'owner' is in violation of international law. Since the majority of your audience is ignorant of this, and since that is an ignorance which can be laid at the door of media organisations, it seems doubly incumbent on the BBC to make this clear at every opportunity.

I fail to see how the fact that East Jerusalem is occupied, and that the occupiers are carrying out illegal demolition and construction, is not relevant to the context of the story, let alone to presenting a balanced and objective picture. I appreciate that this was a passing reference, but it is through such (ambiguous) passing references that opinions are formed. It would barely take more space to make this point clear, and it is necessary precisely because it is an issue of which the general public is painfully unaware.

You make a further 2 claims in your closing paragraphs which I was surprised to read. They represent a controversial view, at best, and certainly not one with which most of the international community - and international lawyers - would agree. The certainty with which you make the claims is not warranted, and for the sake of impartiality, the BBC should, at the very least, be keeping an open position.

1. You say: 'Only the east of the city is considered occupied territory and is claimed by the Palestinians. This has clearly been the drift of negotiations, and reflects the position of the international community.'

But -

  • Ban ki-Moon himself recently made a statement in which he said: let me remind everyone that the status of Jerusalem is a subject of final negotiation
  • The British Government is of the same opinion, as is nearly every other member of the UN. That is the reason why no embassies are to be found in Jerusalem (not even West Jerusalem).
  • The UN General Assembly has passed countless resolutions reminding Israel that it has no sovereignty over *any* part of Jerusalem. UNGA 63/30 (2009) states that 'any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures'
  • The Palestinians, like Israel, claim the whole of the city as their capital, not just E Jerusalem.

2. You say: 'Also, the occupation is not illegal, per se. It is the building of settlements that is illegal'.

Whether or not the original occupation was illegal (and this too is a subject of controversy) there are very few who would claim that the occupation is still legal. An occupation is legitimate only as a temporary measure, and only if it has come about in an act of self-defence. There are then strong conditions even on a legal occupation which serve to sustain (or take away) legitimacy. The Israeli occupation of Palestine has gone on for over 40 years, and it has become bound up with numerous contraventions of international law, any one of which goes beyond the legitimate 'self-defence' which is the only possible justification for continuing to occupy another people's land. How many more years must this continue, with how many further breaches of the Geneva Conventions, before the BBC will accept it as an illegal act?

Thank you for your attention.
...

top

2nd response from the BBC

Dear ...

We are required, especially with this story, to use language that is moderate, clear and accurate. We specifically state, where relevant, that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that settlements are illegal under international law. In stories with only a glancing mention East Jerusalem or settlements, we may not feel it necessary to define terms and set the context.

You argue that the word "want" is inadequate in the context we were using it. I would argue that it is adequate and, crucially, neutral. It doesn't over or under state the case. This line is normally combined with a definition of East Jerusalem as occupied territory and a mention of the fact that the international community does not recognise the Israeli annexation or sovereignty over the city. We would argue that that the combination of this definition and our characterisation of the Palestinian aims are clear and complete.

The British government “recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem”. The position is outline here: http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/se...

We can argue about what is and is not legal or illegal. In terms of our definitions, we are happy to say that settlements are illegal in line with the Geneva Convention. We go into this in detail here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682640.stm

Questions of the legality of the occupation are far more complicated, and do not lend themselves to easy definition. Are we talking about the initial resort to force or the conduct of the occupation? You point to this when you say that the Israeli occupation has gone on for so long that it cannot be considered legitimate self-defence. In news stories we really can only use terms and definitions that we are very sure of.

This issues are considered at length in a report on the legal issues of the ME conflict commissioned by the BBC Governors http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/lubell_law_report.pdf

Best regards,

Tarik Kafala

top

My second response

Dear Tarik

Thanks for the reply. You have not explained to me why the fact that East Jerusalem is occupied is *not* 'relevant to the context of the story' - although I have set out a number of reasons why I think it is. Since the BBC recommendation is that where the fact is relevant, it should be included, I do intend to submit this complaint to the ECU, unless I hear back from you in the next day or so.

On the legality or otherwise of the occupation - of course this is a complicated question, and there will be lawyers willing to defend both sides. Richard Falk, an eminent lawyer and the UN's Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights is one lawyer who does not agree with the BBC position - see his article at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1520166. There are numerous others.

On issues of international law where the majority of international lawyers are in agreement - for example, on the building of settlements or the attack on the Gaza flotilla - the BBC always makes sure to add a clause saying that 'Israel disputes this' - even if Israel is the *only* party to dispute this. Perhaps to be consistent the BBC should add a clause to its claim that the occupation is legal, to the effect that 'The UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinian Rights' disputes this.

Of course you will not: but my point is that far from being neutral by not referring to the occupation as illegal, you are in fact supporting a fairly controversial position. You are, furthermore, doing so without making it clear that there is a controversy, and that your position is based on the opinion of one lawyer whose services you decided to commission.

Yours

top

  • 1. Juan Cole gives a good account of the baseless grounds on which Israel has taken and claims East Jerusalem as its own
  • 2. See Glasgow University Media Group’s report on TV news coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict: ‘TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict. The great majority of viewers depended on this news as their main source of information. The gaps in their knowledge closely paralleled the ‘gaps’ in the news. Most did not know that the Palestinians had been forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. In 1967 Israel occupied by force the territories to which the Palestinian refugees had moved. Most viewers did not know that the Palestinians subsequently lived under Israeli military rule or that the Israelis took control of key resources such as water, and the damage this did to the Palestinian economy. Without explanations being given on the news, there was great confusion amongst viewers even about who was ‘occupying’ the occupied territories. Some understood ‘occupied’ to mean that someone was on the land (as in a bathroom being occupied) so they thought that the Palestinians were the occupiers. Many saw the conflict as a sort of border dispute between two countries fighting over land between them.’