It’s one of those questions we have discussed here on B-BBC. Why does the BBC refer to the “occupied territories” in the Middle East rather than the “disputed territories”?
There was an item on Today @8.53am with regard to the language journalists use to explain stories and Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk was on to discuss a new book he has authored on the topic. He asked John Humphyrs the direct question if it is right to use “occupied” or “disputed” – Humphyrs instantly side-stepped the question and referred it to Indie Patrick Cockburn who instantly stated they are “occupied” (Hardly surprising, I was shocked Cockburn didn’t instantly start chanting Allahu Akhbar) I thought Mr Luyendijil made a number of excellent points, all of which Humphyrs dismissed or passed to Cockburn for dismissal. It’s funny but even when the BBC discuss bias, they can’t stop themselves being biased”
Surely they’re occupied and disputed. However “occupied” is a weasel word like “denier” and carries much more baggage than a simple use of the word might imply.
It has nothing to do with whether “occupied” is a “weasel word”, a stoat word, or a badger word. Under International Law that the BBC is so fond of quoting Gaza, and for that matter the West Bank, is not occupied by Israel.
To be considered as such Israel would need to be in charge of Gaza’s government, which it obviously is not. Also, and most importantly, only a sovereign state can be considered to be “occupied” by another.
For more see the links here:
The Beeb’s Legal Opinion
Gaza – as you say – is neither “disputed” nor “occupied”.
The West Bank though is an interesting case since under the 1948 (7?) UN settlement, the West Bank was awarded to Israel with (I believe) Jerusalem given a sort of dual status. This state of affairs was definitively ended by the outcome of the 1967 War. Accordingly, by a much more ancient law than that of the UN, I would consider that the West Bank is Israel’s by right of conquest. Putting that on one side, I don’t think Israel has asserted its sovereignty over the West Bank and thus – weasel word or not – in normal parlance the West Bank would thus be “occupied” by Israel.
Please realise, Biodegradable, I’m on your side. Although legal niceties are interesting points of discussion, international law on most things outside (private) commercial disputes and disagreements between civilised nations is pretty much bollocks. Israel exists, not by some declaration at the UN but by virtue of the fact that no-one has the power combined with the ambition to stop Israel existing. Talking “international law” is to play the game of Israel’s enemies. Do you think that, had Israel lost the 7-day war, the victorious Arabs and their chums here would now be speaking about “international law” to the survivors of the massacre which would no doubt have been visited on the Israelis?
My ancestors slaughtered, raped and pillaged their way through East Anglia more than 1,000 years ago. They and other “settlers” created – not knowingly – England. The only “right” I have by virtue of that history is to defend my way of life and the way of life handed down to me. If I don’t do that then I have no “rights” to the land or anything else. As it happens – and as a journey on the 134 from Archway to Muswell Hill will attest – it is no longer my country: it has been taken away from me by successive governments since 1945 and has been handed to a rabble from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe who owe no loyalty to what my ancestors created for themselves and their descendants. So where are my “rights”? What international tribunal do I appeal to?
No problem Umbongo, I know very well you’re on “our” side 😉
My point is that “occupied” is legally incorrect and actually goes against the BBC’s own guidelines about using judgemental language.
In fact as the HonestReporting piece I linked to points out the BBC is making a judgement.
There are conflicting legal opinions so by far the most neutral term is “disputed”. But neutrality isn’t something the BBC cares about when reporting on Israel.
Even Amnessty International has problems with “occupation”:
Amnesty International official ties himself up in rhetorical knots
There is an amazing interview by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi with Itai Epstein, Director of Amnesty International in Israel.
Amnesty goes under the assumption that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. This makes no sense, because if it is under Israeli occupation, Israel would have the obligation to protect Gazan citizens – even from Hamas. Israel would be responsible for police work, for education, and for all other parts of Gaza’s infrastructure. Occupation, by definition, means a physical presence on the ground.
Do read it all…
I saw this as well. It’s proof positive that Isreal’s very sovereignty over its own borders is going to be considered “occupation”. As long as these clowns get to play games and can change the definition of terms like Humpty Dumpty did with Alice, the Israel will always be the villain.
The BBC follows the Amnesty line on this, indeed uses their language. I guess Arizona occupies Mexico now.
Umbongo
Splendid post !
“I guess Arizona occupies Mexico now”
Not as much as Turkey – the BBC’s new friend – occupies Northern Cyprus.
It’s the Greeks who “occupy” southern Cyprus, surely? 😉
I have posted before, but the Turks occupied Northern Cyprus to stop the massacres which had started as part of the newly elected President Nikos Sampson’s policy of extermination of Turks.
I know because I was there at the time and saw it.
Although a friend of the Turks, although not its current deranged government, I would not support the will-nilly, but in the case of Cyprus they did the right thing.
The failure of the “international community” to stop the Greek Cypriot’s policy of extermination was a disgrace.
I suspect the same will happen if Israel is attacked.
“them willy-nilly “
‘Jihadwatch’ (July, 2009):
Why doesn’t anyone talk about the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus?
Grant
As you say, the Turks invaded to save Turkish Cypriots from massacre. “International law” would have been of no use to Turkish Cypriots and, indeed, who could doubt that in the absence of any material response from the international “community” (including, quite shamefully, British forces sitting in sovereign bases in Cyprus) rape, pillage and murder would have been rife? Perhaps the similarity of their predicaments is part of the reason that Turkey has been (until recently) a staunch ally of Israel. In other words, when it comes down to it, you’ve only yourself to rely on and dragging issues through politics-driven international “courts” doesn’t resurrect one dead Turk – or Israeli.
Umbongo,
Very wise words !
The rift between Turkey and Israel is tragic. Especially given the history of religious tolerance by the Turks of all religions, including the Jews, right back to the Ottomans giving sanctuary to the Sephardic Jews.
My view generally is to not to judge people by the actions of their governments. Iran, which I visited twice many years ago, is a classic example. Wonderful people governed by fascist morons.
The more I think about what is happening in the world today, the more I despair and cry.
BTW, while I’m on, I assume you noticed the dismissive, aggressive and condescending interview of Vince Cable by Humphrys. Now that Cable has swallowed his loathing of the Conservatives and agreed to form part of the coalition administration, compare Humphrys treatment of Cable pre-election (when he couldn’t get enough of and agree more heartily with Cable’s words of wisdom – even if Cable kept changing his mind) with the post-election contempt for Cable who Humphrys treats as a Conservative or, at best, a Conservative stooge. Bias? Of course, it’s the BBC which is still massively disappointed that the LibDems didn’t ally themselves with Labour.
Is this Cockburn related to the long list of commie cocks which have blighted this nation with their collectivist crap since the 1960s?
They never met a murdering commie thug they didn’t wet dream over.
How does he pronounce his name ?
Campbell is way left. That is why they chose him as a “referee” !
And it was ludicrous of Humphrys to play dumb, pretending he did not recognise that the BBC always uses the word “occupied”.
Titles of the last 3 World Have Your Say Programmes:
“Has Israel gone too far?”
“Is it time to end the blockade?”
“Should Israel be ashamed?”
Apparently the one today will be entitled
“The Holocaust: did they deserve it?”
BTW, anyone listen to Ed Stourton running round Istanbul this morning finding evidence to convince us that the IHH are lovey-dovey peace people.
And on From Our Own Correspondent we have this today:
“In the aftermath of the storming of an aid convoy by Israeli troops, Wyre Davies explores whether this is another indication of how isolated Israel finds itself”
Hey BBC, what about a programme like:
“What proportion of the flotilla peace people accept a 2-state solution?”
“What proportion of the flotilla peace people belive that the Holocaust happened as detailed in history?”
“Does the blockade save Israeli lives?”
“Do the Western media play into the hands of Hamas?”
If anyone is interested in how Israel came into being, or doubts the legitimacy of Jewish claims to Jerusalem, or thinks the Jews are interlopers in Muslim lands, or that Israel was a present from Britain to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, it’s worth watching these Youtube videos from Canadian TV.
“Who Owns Jerusalem.”
There are five sections, with the commercial breaks edited out, from an hour’s worth of telly, an interview with international legal expert Dr Jacques Gautier. He is a clever fellow, and he explains everything clearly and convincingly. You have to overlook the low-tech visual aids, the ‘y’ missed off the intro title board, and the hostess’s peculiar facial expressions and inappropriate interjections; but if what Dr. Gautier says is sincere and accurate, it should be made compulsory viewing for all politicians and journalists before they’re let loose on the I/P conflict.
To the BBC and all those who see Israel as the ultimate villain, so long as there is one checkpoint anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, it counts as “occupation”. The Beeboid who used to come here to defend the indefensible under the alias “John Reith” said as much more than once.
Of course, Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel. But the BBC can’t really focus on that too much because somebody might ask why they keep using the plural form, “territories”. That kind of hurts the narrative.
Here’s another one: the BBC when mentioning Israeli settlements always uses the phrase “illegal under international law, though this is disputed by Israel”.
Surely in as much as “international law” exists (and I follow Umbongo on this) it does only insofar as states agree on things. Thus the BBC’s version is contradictory or simply dismissive of the Israeli position. If the Israelis say they are legal, and other states say they are illegal, who is the BBC to decide on which is true?
I don’t know how watertight this is as a development of Ed’s argument, and I don’t mind having any holes pointed out to me or details fleshed out, but this is what appears to be the case:
1. UN Security Council Resolutions are legally binding. UN General Assembly Resolutions are advisory only.
2. It is a General Assembly resolution which has declared Israel’s “occupation” to be illegal.
3. As regards UN resolution based law, however, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/10/Resolution-242.pdf
– there is plenty of valuable information spread across the Myths and Facts series – clearly distinguishes between Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the West Bank’s being “occupied territory”, which it doesn’t seem to be, judging by all the legal opinions and statements of intention that the paper sets on record.
4. As regards which nation has the greatest right to sovereignty over the West Bank, since its status was not that of part of a sovereign territory prior to 1967 and because the San Remo Treaty (treaties between nations are legally binding unless explicitly superseded, with the agreement of the parties, which this one hasn’t been) defined it as part of the territory of a future Jewish state – and the UK was a signatory to the treaty – then international law regards Israel as having the best entitlement to sovereignty over the territory.
5. Entitlement, though, doesn’t in itself mean that the West Bank isn’t occupied, and the UK, being one of only two countries (the other is Pakistan) which recognised Jordanian sovereignty over the territory, appears also to reject the entitlement argument based on that fact (the recognition being more recent than the treaty).
6. But, as everyone must know, there are those who choose to interpret Security Council resolution 242 in a different way, based on the French text’s insertion of “les” ahead of “territoires”, which is completely invalid, as Myths and Facts points out.
But, if the BBC is happy that the leg on which its pronouncements stand is hollow and if that misconception is in line with successful FCO Realpolitik, then who am I to ask for morality, fairness and obligation to be brought into their calculations?