David Macilwain (VIC) takes issue with SBS news directive on settlements 5Sep09 September 5, 2009
It has come to my attention, from links with Australians for Palestine, that the SBS ombudsman has recently made a ruling on “impartial language” in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is frankly quite outrageous.
The statement, even the suggestion, that the Occupied West Bank is not “Palestinian Land” runs counter to every assessment of its status, other than that of the Israeli Settlers who illegally live there. It even contradicts your own description of it as “the Occupied Territories” in addition to UN resolution 242 which called on Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 boundary.
Apart from the Military Occupation of Palestinian Land – land on which Palestinians have lived and farmed for at least 1000 years, the building of permanent settlements on such land is against international law, and demands for it to cease have been repeatedly issued by the international community. Israel has successfully ignored such demands and is now in a situation where 480,000 settlers, of whom many have moved from abroad, live permanently on Palestinian Land, while the rightful owners and inhabitants have had homes destroyed and suffer institutionalised racism and discrimination, and refugees with a genuine right of return living in camps in neighbouring countries are denied the chance even to visit their old homeland.
Now Israel is trying to alter history by claiming the Palestinians “do not belong”, and Jews in the Diaspora are helping to spread this lie and stifle the rights of the Palestinians; I can only speculate that the SBS ombudsman has come under pressure from the Israel Lobby to issue this quite transparently political statement, in the name of “balance”.
To put the ‘directive’ in some reasonable perspective, one might compare it with the situation of the Aborigines; would you consider no longer referring to “Aboriginal Land”, to the “Traditional owners”, because some property developers freedoms might be restricted? What’s the difference? Even South Africa didn’t try to suggest the blacks didn’t belong in their own country.
Besides this the context of the new ruling is false. The “Peace Process” is NOT “moving forward” again; it is not even standing still, but moving backwards rapidly with every new building constructed in the Occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem, as both areas are essential parts of the “Palestinian State” that the International community claims to think reasonable and necessary. What is more Israel, and particularly the Netanyahu government, quite clearly knows this and intends it; the only Peace it is interested in is the Arab-free peace which will occur when all the Palestinians have been imprisoned, driven out or murdered.
It is well past time that balance was restored to coverage of the Israel – Palestine conflict, a balance which will assist the worldwide movement of BDS against Israel’s Apartheid State and force it to abide by the many UN resolutions it has so long ignored. If SBS claims proudly to be “World wide News” it needs to represent its constituency without fear or favour from racist pressure groups or foreign governments.
SBS News directive on the settlements
As Middle East peace talks gather momentum once again, it is important that all programs take care in the language used to describe the Occupied Territories.
Recently the SBS Ombudsman ruled the use of the term “Palestinian land” in a World News Australia story was a breach of Code 2.2 which states:
Reasonable effort should be made to ensure news and current affairs programs are balanced and impartial ,,,”
In making the ruling, the Ombudsman said: “The land concerned remains the subject of protracted and deep dispute and therefore the reasonable viewer could consider that the use of the term “Palestinian Land” indicates a lack of impartiality as required under the Codes.”
The status of Israeli settlements on the West Bank is controversial, and is the subject of ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
When discussing territory whose status remains the subject of negotiation, care must be taken to ensure that the language used is neutral and cannot be interpreted as being favourable to one side over another. The best way to achieve this is to describe the geographic location of the settements e.g. “Israeli settlements on the West Bank” or “Israeli settlements on the outskirts of Jerusalem” or similar. We should avoid describing them as “on Palestinian land” or “on disputed land”.
If anyone is in any doubt on this issue, please refer upwards.
Subscribe to our RSS feed.
Follow Us on Twitter