Sent: 03 April 2010 21:02:30
Dear Mr Cook,
Thank you for your comments regarding this line that we regularly use in our reports: “The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”
On the most basic level, we use the word “disputed” because it is a simple statement of fact – Israel does actually dispute the contention of illegality. The Israeli government’s argument is outlined here http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israeli+Settlements+and+International+Law.htm
While the international is clear on the issue, this opinion comes from an interpretation of treaties and conventions. No court has actually sat and ruled definitively that Israeli settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank barrier would certainly support the contention that settlements are illegal and that the West Bank is occupied territory as defined by the Geneva convention, but this was an advisory ruling and does not carry the force or weight of law.
So we believe that is fair and reasonable to characterise the issue in the way we have.
The arguments around this issue are considered in detail in this report, commissioned by the BBC Governors:
http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/lubell_law_report.pdf
Thanks and best regards,
Middle East desk
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml
Thanks for your reply.
You first offer that you are simply stating a fact which prevails. In other stories, however, the BBC does not state that a different view is held.
Eg. in this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8600285.stm
You do not state that armed reprisals are illegal under international law yet they are, or that Israel disputes it. Similarly the munitions used by the Israeli armed forces, torture in Israeli jails etc. You do not use that phrase or similar at the end of those stories, only in the settlement stories.
Using the phrase as you do seems to give the state of Israel an undue level of credibility for it's claim that that the settlements are legal. The international community is clear that they are not, and that the other policies / tactics mentioned above are not. The Israeli state website you offered me is mere propaganda by the guilty party, and in no way stands up to scrutiny. Of course it cannot stand up since it declares the illegal to be legal. Such theory is not therefore enough to justify including the statement "though Israel disputes this" at the end of your settlement stories.
'Revisionist historians' and fascist/Nazi sympathisers dispute that the Holocaust took place, and yet you would not feel it justifiable to indicate their views at the end of Holocaust-related materials, I'm sure.
You then contradict yourself by outlining the case that there is no such thing as international law.
You state that the relevant rulings are advisory and do not carry the force of law. If this is the case, why do you state that the settlements are "illegal under international law" in the first part of the phrase that I am objecting to? Clearly the international community is clear, the UN which has supreme responsibility is clear, and the BBC have quoted it after every settlement story I can remember, so the BBC is obviously also clear that international law exists and the settlements are illegal under it.
Finally the report commissioned by BBC governors which you imply is your guidance on the matter has been discussed by Arab Media Watch I note:
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/BBCWatch/tabid/133/newsid476/2580/Comparative-BBC-analysis-AMW-independent-panel-Loughborough--Lubell-reports/Default.aspx
They are happy with Lubell's advice that the settlements be described as " illegal settlements ", and recommend that their illegal nature be stressed. The report is also very clear, in that it's last word on the settlements is:
"
The vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a
violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. This is the view expressed not only by leading
commentators (including Israelis), but also by other states (including allies of Israel), the UN
Security Council, and the International Court of Justice. The Security Council has clearly
stated:
“[…]that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new
immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also
constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East”
There is no mention of any need to describe the way the state of Israel reacts to the claim that the settlements are illegal. Why then does the BBC insist on using this phrase / summing up technique in this circumstance? This one alone? When something is illegal it is criminal, and there is no reason to oppose the opinion of a tiny criminal minority against the judgement not merely of the injured party but of the vast majority of the rest of the world and the relevant bodies, ie the only bodies whose job it is to judge the matter.
I repeat my demand that the BBC stops saying: "though Israel disputes this" at the end of stories relating to the settlements. I would be very happy if the sentence merely read " The settlements are illegal under international law."
Yours sincerely,
Illinois Cook
Hi BBC,
No reply to my email below so far.
The BBC is still using the phrase:
"Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. "
eg. here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8634754.stm
I take it that since you are unable or unwilling to further defend its use, you are putting measures in place to ensure it will not be used from now on?
Yours sincerely,
Illinois Cook
Sent: 11 May 2010 10:16:00
Dear Mr Cook,
Thank you for your further email on the issue of the illegality of the settlements.
The reason we feel it is correct to say the “settlements are illegal” is, to quote Lubell’s advice, “the vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention”.
We are not judging the credibility of Israel’s argument, but recognising that there is an argument.
Clearly, you remain unsatisfied with our response, it is open to you to address your complaint to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit: ecu@bbc.co.uk or Room 5170, White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS.
Best regards,
Middle East Desk
BBC News website
3 comments:
There is also presumably an alternative view held by the "repressive military regime" (BBC's words) of the awful situations outlined this article about Burma, but it remains to be given the BBC's "Israel filter" and thus an airing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5071966.stm
Further were undergone :
From: illinoisc@hotmail.com
To: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Subject: Middle East Desk editorial policy complaint
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:21:15 +0000
Dear Sir/Madam,
As they recognised in their last communication to me, the Middle East Desk have not defended their use of a particular phrase in reporting on Israeli settlements very successfully.
I wonder if you would care to comment further, please?
Yours sincerely,
Illinois Cook
Flat 2, 27 Vivian Road
Bow
London
E3 5RE
From: Illinois Cook [mailto:illinoisc@hotmail.com]
Sent: 14 June 2010 11:50
To: ECU
Subject: RE: Middle East Desk editorial policy complaint
Dear Sir/Madam,
No response from ECU to this yet. Will any be forthcoming?
Regards,
I Cook
Alison Wilson
14 Jun 2010, 15:53
to Illinois
Dear Mr Crook
Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your email regarding terminology used on the BBC's Middle East website.
I'm afraid that you were wrongly advised to contact the Editorial Complaints Unit, as our remit is limited to the investigation of stage 2 complaints where the issue is that a specific item that has been broadcast or published by the BBC may have breached the corporation's editorial guidelines. Your complaint concerns an underlying policy regarding the use of this terminology and as such it is a matter for BBC News management to address. I've therefore drawn your email to the attention of the relevant members of staff, and they'll be in touch shortly with a further response.
Once again, my apologies for my oversight in not replying to you sooner.
Yours sincerely
Alison Wilson
Complaints Manager
Editorial Complaints Unit
From: Illinois Cook
To: alison.wilson-ecu@bbc.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:01 AM
Subject: RE: Middle East Desk editorial policy complaint
Hi Alison,
Thankyou for your help with this. No response from News Management yet, but please would you pass on the following:
I heard Jeremy Bowen on R4 this morning and he used the phrase 'the settlements are illegal under international law'. He did not use the phrase I find unnecessary and unnacceptable to mention: 'though Israel disputes this' after it, so I am very pleased that R4 is playing it my way.
As for the website and BBC television news I will no longer be viewing / using them due to the BBC's failure to distinguish impartiality from bad or corrupt journalism, of which the issue I complained about, and more significantly for example the excessive airtime given to apologists for torture and war crimes like Mark Regev, are symptoms.
Yours sincerely,
Illinois Cook
Editorial from my Dad:
Al Cook
7 Jul 2010, 03:16
to alison.wilson-ecu, Illinois
Hi Illinois,
Your complaint is good of course - when Serbia carried out massacres in the former Yugoslavia I don't recall the BBC carrying a tag saying "though Serbia disputes this", though Serbia did in fact dispute it. The difference is that Serbia did not have apologists on the BBC Board of Governors, whereas Israel does.
Their Board of Governors is always getting the BBC into stupid situations. I recall the "Buchenwald issue" of the 1960s. For whatever reason, presumably in order to prevent the BBC putting over what some members of the Board might consider a left-wing interpretation of events, they put a policy of "even-handedness" in place, whereby every view, if critical, had to be counterbalanced by an opposing view in favour. When doing a program about Buchenwald Concentration Camp, this policy put them in the ridiculous position of not being able to broadcast it under their own guidelines, because of the absence of the "favourable" interpretation of Buchenwald.
With this stupid Israeli propaganda tag the BBC reduces its own credibility and reputation for impartiality - though perhaps that is long gone, sadly, and the BBC has become just another servile and corrupt news agency. Just have to leave them to it.
D
And more :
zzHelen Boaden Complaints
Mon, 12 Jul 2010, 18:38
to illinoisc
Dear Mr Cook,
Thank you for your email on the issue of the illegality of settlements, which has been passed on to BBC News Management by the Editorial Complaints Unit and which I am answering on behalf of Helen Boaden, Director of News. I’m sorry that you were wrongly advised to contact the unit following your initial complaints.
The terminology that we employ in our description of the status of settlements is designed to provide context for the reader and aid understanding. You may be interested to know that our guidance for journalists on this issue has been published in abbreviated form here.
The BBC's reporting reflects the international position, outlined in the guide, that the settlements are illegal.
But their future is, of course, one of the key problems that divides the two sides - it is a so-called 'final status' issue.
Palestinians see the settlements as one of the most damaging aspects of occupation and many of them believe they reflect an Israeli desire never to give up their hold on land and to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. They argue that for more than 30 years, the creation of settlements has been a central component of Israel’s effort to consolidate control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Israel, however, has argued that the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there on the basis that it has existed from “from time immemorial”. It says that the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, does not apply to the West Bank and Gaza. Where appropriate, therefore, it is only right for the BBC - in the interests of impartial coverage - to include Israel's position on this subject.
I realise that you may find this response disappointing, but this approach has been decided upon after careful consideration and much discussion. The BBC Trust is the final arbiter about impartiality issues, and it would be open to you to approach the Trust to see if they would take your complaint on appeal, if you wish to pursue the matter. The contact details are: trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Rob Liddle
Chief Assistant, BBC News Programmes
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Trust Editorial
Mon, 19 Jul 2010, 15:07
to illinoisc
Dear Mr Cook,
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email of appeal of 13 July 2010.
In order to establish whether your complaint qualifies for an appeal to the BBC Trust under the BBC’s published editorial complaints procedure we will review your complaint and your previous correspondence with the BBC. We will do this as quickly as possible and will let you know as soon as we reach a decision.
For your reference, the full editorial complaints process can be found on the BBC Trust’s website at:
bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf).
Yours sincerely,
Ruby
Ruby Seehra
Editorial Standards Team Assistant
& PA to Fran O'Brien
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ
And Dear Reader, they sent me a letter, now lost, finding that they would not uphold my complaint.
Ta-Daa!
Post a Comment