It deserves our grateful recognition as a wonderful document of media bias:
To the News Editor and Commentator Radio 4
Re Following the 08.00 News June 4, 2007 The Today Programme
Discussion on the Middle East following the Six Day War
Throughout the discussion, your anchor man John Humphrys gave no context or background to the Six Day War. He assumed that Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan without justification. Only at the very very end, did Shimon Peres mention very haltingly of the Western world's failure to abide by its commitments when Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping - as a causus belli in itself.
The programme's context ignored the following points which impact on the situation today.
Following the Arab blockade of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, Israel's appeals to the Security Council during the two weeks prior to June 5 were ignored notwithstanding the massing of troops and armour on the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese borders - with Nasser urging the annihilation of the State of Israel.
Israel's appeal to Jordan made via the UN on June 6 to remain uninvolved- (if Jordan did not attack Israel- Israel would not attack Jordan) was rejected by Jordanian military action. Notwithstanding Jordan's receipt of Israel's message, the Arab Legion commenced an artillery barrage directed against Israeli civilian targets in West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv as well as penetrating the demilitarised "no mans land" between Israeli and Jordanian sections of Jerusalem in which the UN Compound was located. Israel retaliated and eventually reconquered the West Bank.
On June 17th Israel's cabinet offered to return all the lands captured in the War- an offer which the Arab's, in their humiliation rejected. Instead they issued the " three noes" at the Khartoum Conference- no peace with Israel; no negotiation and no recognition.
The short interview with Hanan Porat ignored the fact that prior to 1948, the Etzion Block area was legitimately owned and occupied by Jewish collective settlements during the Mandate and whose defenders were killed by the Arab Legion forces under the command of Britain's Glubb Pasha. After 1967, Porat and his followers re-established the settlements in the Etzion block on land legally owned by their Jewish predecessors.
Your commentator twice made the categorical assumption that Israel settlements are illegal under international law, on the premise that Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was legitimate. Both the assumption and the underlying premise are incorrect. The argument of illegality ignores the following facts:
Jordan captured the West Bank, including Jerusalem, during Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Until that time Jordan had no interest whatsoever in the West Bank. She, together with the four other Arab States, initiated the only war that has ever been launched as a direct result of a UN Resolution - Resolution 181.
Jordan's annexation of the captured territory was recognised only by Britain and Pakistan. Such annexation gives Jordan no better right of occupation than Israel. Indeed- from a purely legal point of view- Israel has a better claim than Jordan both to occupy and settle the West Bank under Article 80 of the UN Charter.
Article 80 of the UN Charter provides in part:
"...nothing in this Chapter [regarding Trusteeships] shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
The Jewish people's long standing rights in Palestine were recognised under the Palestine Mandate- which has the status of an international instrument. Although Britain as the Mandatory Power surrendered the mandate, the UN Charter Article 80 preserves such rights.
Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate imposed on the Mandatory Government the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
The allegation that Israeli settlement contravene the 4th Geneva Convention Article 49(6) lacks foundation and is taken out of context. The sub-article reads:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"
This subarticle which was drafted against the background of ethnic cleansing of Jews and other undesirables from Nazi Germany and their forced transfer to other parts of occupied Europe for extermination. The provision has been misinterpreted and taken out of its context. It bears no similarity with Israeli settlement in the West Bank, which for the most part has been established by a voluntary Jewish population movement investing in and developing public or waste land.
Thus the legal right Jewish of settlement in the West Bank is at worst a disputed right rather than illegal. Whether it was politically wise is another matter
As for the "occupation" Israel has no obligation to withdraw from the West Bank unless and until the Palestinians are capable of establishing a stable and responsible political body in the territory which is willing and capable of implementing a peace agreement with Israel. Thus far, Fatah under Arafat refused any compromise or proposal short of Israel's political and demographic suicide. More recently the Palestinians, in an apparently democratic election, chose to support HAMAS - a body whose declared objective is the elimination of the State of Israel and whose actions are consistent with that declaration. In such circumstances Israel is entitled to retain is control over the West Bank territory and defend itself.
None of this background or context was expressed in this morning's programme and I suspect that throughout the coming week the BBC will concentrate on Israel's responsibility for the current situation and ignore the Arab and Islamic contributions to their own misfortunes.
I would appreciate a response to my comments and hope that in the coming week the BBC in general and Radio 4 in particular will give a more balanced analysis of the Six Day War and its consequences.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment