In covering the Israeli cabinet's decision to 'in principle' back the disengagement plan of Israel from Gaza, BBC reporter Barbara Plett on June 6, 2004 stated that "if implemented, the agreement would mark the first time that Israel has evacuated settlements built on land seized in the 1967 war."

Really?

As even the most uninformed observers of Middle East politics know, Israel evacuated the 61,000 sq km (23,000 sq mi) Sinai Peninsula of over 4,500 Israeli civilians. Major military bases, infrastructure, tourism attractions, sites of archaeological and religious significance, and enough oil reserves to make Israel self-sufficient into the foreseeable future were all abandoned in the name of peace.

The evacuation of Sinai represented the relinquishment of almost 90% of the territory captured by Israel in 1967, and one of the few times in history that the aggrieved party willingly vacated land captured in a defensive war. The fact that Israel gave up energy self sufficiency is unprecedented in the annals of history.

The most painful aspect of the withdrawal though, was the forced removal of the Israelis living in Sinai, especially the 3,000 residents of Yamit, east of Rafah. The images of Israeli civilians being dragged from their homes still haunts many Israelis, and is a potent and poignant symbol of how far Israel is willing to go for peace.

For Barbara Plett to completely ignore this painful episode in Israeli history shows either breathtaking ignorance or rank prejudice (or both).

While recognizing that journalists cannot be expected to be experts of world renown in the area they happen to be covering for a particular 1 or 2 year assignment, even a rudimentary knowledge of the issues provided by a 2-day crash course would have sufficed in the case of such ignorance. (Objectively though, why shouldn't reporters be experts in their field? Would you want an ophthalmologist on 6-week rotation performing your triple heart-bypass? A "Middle East correspondent" should be at the very least extremely knowledgeable on the Middle East.)

For a variety of reasons therefore, it is reasonable to suspect that Plett's omission was due less to ignorance and more to prejudice.

Firstly, Plett's report was filed in June 6, 2004, 34 years and a day since Israeli forces swept into Gaza and Sinai. This certainly would not have escaped the attention of anyone in Israel at the time.

Secondly, the concept of Yamit is ubiquitous in Israeli politics. Everyone knows about it as it is constantly mentioned by both the pro-settlement and anti-settlement movements in Israel and around the world. For the pro-settlement camp, the trauma and difficulty associated with evacuating the relatively small and (ideologically) unimportant settlement of Yamit highlights the difficulties any government would have in removing the 250,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people. For the anti-settlement camp, the evacuation of Yamit proves that settlements can, if necessary, be abandoned.

There is therefore simply no way that a reporter (properly) covering Israel could be unaware of the evacuation of Sinai, and Yamit in particular.

The only way to not be aware of Yamit is if one constantly and systematically ignores anything that is said by Israelis.

Is there any evidence to support this hypothesis?

Let us look at the record:

As discussed, Israelis on both the right and left of politics constantly refer to Yamit, yet it is completely ignored by the BBC;

Israelis on both the right and left of politics constantly refer to the smuggling tunnels crisscrossing Rafah, even providing documentary and film evidence of them, yet none of this is ever mentioned by the BBC;

Israelis on both the right and left of politics constantly cite irrefutable documentary evidence of the intimate involvement of Yasser Arafat and his administration in the funding, planning and perpetration of terrorism against Israelis, yet none of it is ever mentioned on the BBC (much of the evidence was recovered from Arafat's own offices in April 2002 );

Israelis on both the right and left of politics constantly cite documented instances where Palestinian Red Crescent, International Red Cross, UNWRA and UN ambulances have been used to facilitate terrorist attacks or hide terrorists from Israeli security forces, yet none of this is ever mentioned on the BBC;

In literally countless incidents in the past 44 months, the BBC has referred to incidents where Palestinian civilians or combatant civilians were killed by Israeli security forces without referring to the context in which they were killed. In all but a handful of cases in the last 4 years, that context was a situation in which Palestinian combatants deliberately placed Palestinian civilians at risk, often by literally hiding behind them. The BBC has never mentioned the sizable culpability of Palestinian terrorists in the deaths of Palestinian civilians, and has scrupulously avoided airing any of the ample footage available of Palestinian gunmen hiding amongst crowds of children (it should be noted that most of the BBC's cameramen are Palestinians - objectively, excuse the pun, this should raise some serious concerns about the BBC's impartiality);

The BBC assails Israel on its policy of checking ambulances at roadblocks, yet never mentions that Palestinians often use ambulances to transport weapons and fugitives.

The BBC is all too often quick to accuse Israel of human rights violations and atrocities, yet does not mention the Israeli explanation, rebuttal and/or evidence to the contrary.

Where the Israeli government or military points out clear evidence of Palestinian atrocities, the BBC will almost always ignore it, unless it is simply too big to ignore (such as a multiple-fatality suicide bombing).

The pattern emerging from the BBC coverage of Israel is one of constant, systematic ignorance of the Israeli side of the conflict. In this regard, Barbara Plett is hardly alone at the BBC, in fact, she fits right in. She is but the latest in a long line of reporters who are completely ignorant of the Israeli side of the conflict.

The question must therefore be asked as to whether this complete ignorance of the Israeli side is deliberate or random.

The volume of information damning Palestinian actions and leaders has never been so great, and yet the BBC ensures that precious little of it sees the light of day.

The weight of evidence suggests that only a conscious policy could ensure such blanket non-coverage of the Israeli side.

Given the fact that Barbara Plett joins a long line of reporters who seem to systematically ignore the Israeli side - the names Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen leap to mind - one can only assume that the policy is deliberate and entrenched.

Barbara Plett's off-hand remark - taken in isolation - reveals either ignorance or prejudice. When coupled with the BBC's general conduct with regard to Israel - be it Nisha Pillai's barely concealed contempt for her Israeli interviewees, Lyse Doucet's libelous reporting from the scenes of Palestinian atrocities against Israelis, Orla Guerin's false and misleading 'specials', or Jeremy Bowen's venomous attacks against Israel - its record speaks for itself.

The BBC's reporters are not ignorant - there is simply too much information readily available for this to be the case - they are anti-Semites. They are Jew haters. They are willing and enthusiastic accomplices in the Palestinians' murderous terrorist war against Israel.

For several years now, Israelis have known of the evil and cowardly tactic of Palestinian terrorists hiding behind civilians to attack Israelis and avoid confrontation with Israeli soldiers. We must now also recognize the fact that Palestinian terrorists take cover behind a supportive BBC, which hides their satanic actions from the world, and shields them from retribution by falsely accusing Israel of atrocities .

In a-Ram and Rafah, the anti-Semitic extreme leftist agitators of the International Socialist Movement (ISM), who have the insolence to call themselves "human shields," are arrested and deported.

Should the anti-Semitic BBC and its 'journalistic-shields' be treated differently? Through their own actions, they have differentiated themselves from true journalists and revealed themselves as propagandists and agitators. Like the ISM, they have no place in Israel.

While we in Israel do not have a tradition of expelling journalists, the Israeli government should again consider whether cooperation with an anti-Semitic organization such as the BBC can be justified.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

Talk Back! Respond to this view

Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.