“Muslim leaders from around the world have been meeting in Istanbul today to formulate a response to President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The emergency summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was convened by the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and he called Mr Trump’s announcement illegal and provocative.”
Listeners then heard a voiceover translation of Erdogan’s remarks.
V/O: “With this decision Israel – the perpetrator of crimes such as occupation, siege, illegal settlements, demolishing houses, displacement, property and land grabs, disproportionate violence and murder – has been rewarded for all its terror acts. Although he’s alone, this reward is given by Trump.”
That defamation went completely unchallenged by Coomarasamy who simply went on to say:
“Well we hope to be speaking to our correspondent in Istanbul a bit later in the programme.”
That indeed was the case, with Coomarasamy introducing the second item (from 18:54 here) thus: [emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]
Coomarasamy: “And let’s return to that story in Istanbul and the meeting of the heads of government from Islamic countries around the world, meeting to agree a formula about their response to President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We can speak to our correspondent in Istanbul Mark Lowen now. So Mark, what have they actually agreed?”
Lowen: “Well it was a 23-point statement, Jamie, that was put out by the Organisation for [sic] Islamic Cooperation, calling on countries to recognise Palestine as an independent state and East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestine. Other highlights in the statement included rejecting and condemning Donald Trump’s decision on Jerusalem as null and void and also calling on the UN to reaffirm the legal status of Jerusalem – i.e. as the capital of two future states.”
Mark Lowen’s claim that the “legal status” of Jerusalem is already defined by the UN as “the capital of two future states” is clearly inaccurate and misleading to audiences. Just days before, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process stated that the city’s status depends on negotiations between the parties concerned.
“The United Nations position was clear, he emphasized. “Jerusalem is a final status issue for which a comprehensive, just and lasting solution must be achieved through negotiations between the two parties and on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions and mutual agreements.””
Lowen: “So this was an attempt by 57 member OIC to come together to bridge differences and to harden its response to Donald Trump’s decision on Jerusalem. The problem is that of course some Muslim leaders are more pro-Trump than others, so for example Egypt and Saudi Arabia only sent ministers to this meeting – not heads of state – possibly to keep the US on board. And really, beyond the kind of tough talk and this call, will there be any kind of hard bite? It’s hard to know really and certainly it is unlikely to change White House policy.”
Coomarasamy: “Yeah, I mean is it simply –as you say – really an attempt to show a united face even if perhaps there isn’t quite one there? And as you say, does this organisation have any sort of track record in influencing global opinion?”
One would have course have expected at this point that listeners would have been told something of the OIC’s persistent anti-Israel activities at the UN and of the relevant aims laid down in its founding charter – but that was not the case.
Lowen: “Not really and you know it’s hard to see this more than a talking shop. I mean yes there will be a call at the UN to…to bring this to the table. The joint communique says that if the UN Security Council does not act to reaffirm the status of Jerusalem, then the UN General Assembly must do so. But when you’ve got the US as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, you know, anything that would kind of go against White House policy is going to be vetoed.”
Lowen did not bother to inform listeners that UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding before going on:
Lowen: “So, you know, the US is fairly isolated on this although of course it’s got the support of Israel and according to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, there are other countries that say they want to follow suit but at the moment none have spoken up. We’ll have to see whether or not this can…the statement today can really give a proper semblance of unity to the Islamic world because up until this conference the Turkish prime minister for example accused some Arab countries of a very weak response and being timid towards the US. So I think there are really certainly divisions among Muslim leaders themselves.”
Coomarasamy: “Do they have any proposals for who might be a broker in a future peace process?”
Lowen’s answer to that question included noteworthy use of the word ‘forthright’ – a synonym for which is ‘honest’.
Lowen: “They’ve called on the UN to replace the US as a peace broker. The protagonists at this conference – Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan who was very forthright: he accused the US of bullying the rest of the world and said Israel was a state of terror – the Palestinian president, the Jordanian king, all saying that the US has lost its position as a sort of impartial peace broker and that the declaration by Donald Trump has disqualified the US as an impartial player in the peace process, so they’ve called the UN now to take its position. We’ll have to see whether the United Nations can come together and respond to it.”
Coomarasamy: “And interestingly they talk about the potential this decision has to increase terrorism – I guess sort of using the sort of language that Donald Trump, they hope, will resonate with him.”
Lowen: “Yeah, I suppose so. I mean they accuse the Israelis of…Turkey’s accused the Israelis of terrorising Palestinians and Turkey said that by supporting Israel the Americans – or the US – is complicit to terror. So I suppose yeah, they’re kind of taking a tone that Donald Trump might listen to or might hear but probably not heed.”
Remarkably the BBC – which of course serially refrains from describing terror attacks on Israelis as terrorism (supposedly in order to avoid appearing “to be taking sides“) and uses the euphemism ‘militants’ to describe terror organisations such as Hamas, the PIJ and Hizballah – obviously has no problem with unquestioning and uncritical repetition and amplification of the Turkish president’s use of the word terror for the purpose of delegitimisation and defamation of Israel.