BBC Watch reminds us that Jeremy Bowen's heavily-trailed Radio 4 documentary Olive Wars is to be broadcast this afternoon.
Having read the accompany BBC News website article by Jeremy Bowen, I think I'll give it a miss. The article is staggeringly one-sided, even by the BBC's standards, and comes so close to reading like pro-Palestinian propaganda that it probably is pro-Palestinian propaganda.
It begins with Jeremy Bowen recalling his first taste of "delicious" West Bank olive oil at the hands of a generous Palestinian farmer. That farmer was "unlucky enough" to live near a big Jewish settlement. Israel has "inserted" such settlements into Palestinian land and build a "complex of walls and high tech fences" which "takes big bites out of land Palestinians consider to be theirs". Israel "says" the separation barrier is necessary to protect its people. This farmer, whose generosity towards Jeremy Bowen, is then further described, had his land divided by the fence.
After this heart-tugging tale, we hear another from a kindly Palestinian farmer, for whom the olive trees are a symbol of Palestinian identity. He loves the trees so much. But the separation barrier runs near to his favourite tree. (Wonder if the documentary will feature ominous music at that point?)
The UN blames Jewish setters, Jeremy Bowen tells us. But so does Jeremy Bowen, blaming Israel's occupation for causing the spiral of violence:
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is enforced by violence and breeds violence.
Next, we meet someone who the BBC's Middle East editor paints a far less flattering portrait of - an Israeli goathead, an "ideological settler", originally from Brooklyn, New York (something mentioned twice in the article).
He's a "sharp, charismatic, religious Jew", related (by marriage) to a "notorious Jewish militant". He "carries the Torah" and "brandishes his holy book". Jeremy Bowen paints him as a threatening religious bigot. ("And then Mr Herzlich produced what he said was not a threat, but a statement of fact"). His importance is that he and his kind "dominate Israeli right wing politics and the debate over the future settlements is one of the key issues that would need to be discussed if ever there was to be another peace process."
Then it's straight back to a Palestinian villager and his wife, and their heart-tugging story. They've just had their trees cut down by settlers with chainsaws:
Mrs Rashed was close to tears and full of anger: "It feels like bringing up a child, and then losing him. Those trees are our base and roots.
"We felt we were burying a family member. Every week the settlers try to come down to our land. Our men try to stop them and fight them.
After hearing at length from Mrs Rashed, we very briefly encounter two young Israeli soldiers who "insisted" the Israeli army does all it can to stop trouble and doesn't automatically favour Israelis.
Their cameo is set in the context of yet more Palestinian generosity. A local Palestinian landowner invites them (and Jeremy) in for tea. We hear no more from the soldiers, presumably just sitting there, drinking the man's tea, and it's on instead to the Palestinian landowner who rubbishes what they've just said, accusing the Israeli army of standing aside and letting the settlers do what they want. (Did the Israeli soldiers say anything in reply?) He is quoted at length, airing other grievances, and the article ends by giving him the last word:
"It's a symbolic issue. This is the only thing that we have left to be honest. What else can we grip on, we have to hold on to the trees. Our goal is to protect our land," he says.
Now if that's fair, balanced, dispassionate reporting then I'm Jon Donnison. And, no, I won't be listening this afternoon. I think I might write another complaint and maybe send an email to an MP or two instead.
Update: Sue did catch most of the Radio 4 programme. From her description it doesn't sound as shamelessly propagandist as this online article. She says it "was infuriatingly full of omissions and came across as though he was desperately but disingenuously trying to appear impartial."
Update: Sue did catch most of the Radio 4 programme. From her description it doesn't sound as shamelessly propagandist as this online article. She says it "was infuriatingly full of omissions and came across as though he was desperately but disingenuously trying to appear impartial."
