Tuesday 28 January 2020

The BBC rejects Trump's peace plan

BBC One's News at Six's coverage of the Trump administration's plan to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was as relentlessly downbeat as you'd expect from Jeremy Bowen and Orla Guerin.

For Jeremy Bowen, Donald Trump "has absorbed the Israeli agenda". His plan "does not go anywhere near what the Palestinians want" and is "hedged with conditions no Palestinian leader could accept". The Palestinians aren't happy and "their internationally recognised leaders" aren't part of any talks. Why? Because the Trump administration has "adopted so much of Israel's agenda" and Palestinians' "hope" over Jerusalem has been dashed.

I heard that after deliberately seeking out a non-UK/non-US perspective and settled on Deutsche Welle - the first EU media outlet I could think of that has an English language website - and found them saying something far less black-and-white about the plan:
The deal makes more concessions to Palestinians than anticipated but asks that they accept West Bank settlements. 
Although the outline makes several concessions to the Palestinians, including doubling their currently controlled territory, it does ask them to cross what has previously been described as a red line by accepting the previously constructed West Bank settlements as Israeli territory.
Jeremy Bowen went straight on with his agenda,  talking of the "more than 50 Palestinian protesters" who were "shot dead" by the Israeli Army on the day the US accepted Jerusalem as Israel's indivisible capital before dwelling on "families" who "fled" or were "driven out" by Israel in 1948 and who "and the right of return"."Israel does not want to grant it", said Jeremy Bowen.

It's truly remarkable how Jeremy Bowen can make every so very black-and-white (against Israel).

Cue his final fling:
The timing of this announcement looks tailored to the short-term needs of the two leaders. They're both facing elections - and serious charges. High crimes and misdemeanours for Trump, bribery and corruption for Netanyahu. The stakes are high, the chances of success are low.  
That's editorialising, of course.

Then that eternal ray of sunshine Orla Guerin repeated the same point that the Palestinian president "was not invited....unlike his Israeli counterpart", and said the feeling thereabouts is that "this is one more time where the Israelis will make gains and the Palestinians suffer losses".

At least Jeremy and Orla were both singing from the same hymn sheet - or, to put it another way, pushing the same narrative.


  1. Well the reality is this isn't a peace plan. The idea any sovereign people would accept foreign settlements within their territory is counter-intuitive.

    There can be no peace plan because one side (the Arab-Islamic) has not given up on the idea of destroying the other completely. It seems unlikely they will any time soon. But if they did give up on that genocidal aim then this so called peace plan would not be the basis for a long term agreement.

    1. That's your opinion. Many ordinary Palestinians just want to get on with their lives. Israel gave land for peace and that was a big mistake. The West Bank should have been annexed by Israel. Poland annexed much of Eastern Germany after the war and most Germans left. Germany lost the war and it was seen as fair it would lose territory, much Like Austria and Turkey in the first world war. Jordan lost territory as did Egypt in the 1967 war, and that should have been accepted by all. The UN seems to think post 1948 boundaries are immoveable, when they should be flexible and reflect realities after wars and conflicts. Boundaries in Africa and Asia need to be adjusted as the lines drawn on maps by colonial powers do not reflect reality.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.