In the World at One programme from BBC Radio 4 of January 13 presenter Sarah Montague revisited her flawed reporting from Judea and Samaria that we had cause to criticise in December. In a report which claimed to discuss the plight of the Bedouin community of Ras Ein el-Auja, she presented an interview with Jan Egeland, secretary general of The Norwegian Refugee council, which became a cascade of serious allegations and assertions, none of which are interrogated, sourced, or even questioned.
Montague’s very first question to Egeland is leading:
Montague: “Would you describe what’s going on here as ethnic cleansing?”
Egeland replies that yes, this is ethnic cleansing, and says it is being carried out by
“the violent criminal settlers who come recently from Europe and Russia and America to colonize occupied land.”
The crime of ethnic cleansing is a serious one, which calls to mind atrocities such as those committed in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, and it is presented by Egeland as fact with no evidence, only a comment which unfortunately appears to support the common allegation that Israeli Jews have no connection to Judea and Samaria, denying thousands of years of Jewish history and presence, which is often used to delegitimise the state of Israel itself. Montague however, does not press Egeland for definitions or evidence, or question his assertions about Jews and their connection to the land, instead she follows with yet another legal accusation framed as a question.
Montague: “Right. So, from what you’re saying is this heading towards annexation? Do you presume that is the plan?”
Annexation and ethnic cleansing are legal terms with specific meanings and high evidentiary bars. For a BBC journalist to present them as fact without discussing the terminology, the evidence, or providing balance is profoundly problematic. UK journalists are required to avoid framing unproven criminal conduct as fact. Allegations of such charged terms as ethnic cleansing should require at least the same restraint.
Montague also fails to draw any serious distinction between criminal activity and state action. She mentions Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that this activity is being carried out by a small number of youths, but when Egeland responds with the allegation that:
Egeland: “Remember many of these criminal gangs which is, according to Haaretz, the Israeli paper, an army of extremist youth, they are being subsidized by the Israeli Government.”
She does not press for any evidence of the Israeli government’s involvement in or sponsorship of criminal activity but simply moves on to the next allegation. It is interesting to note that the Haaretz article Egeland appears to be referencing, as he does twice in the interview, while being extremely critical of the settlers themselves and the government, actually has a heavy focus on the Israeli children involved being at risk and failed by welfare services, more balance which Montague fails to provide.
Unusually for BBC reporting from Judea and Samaria this interview does mention the Oslo accords and the fact that the village being discussed is in Area C which is under Israeli control. However Egeland fundamentally misrepresents Oslo, despite his expertise on the subject:
Egeland : “You know, I’m one of the organizers of the famous Norwegian channel that led to the Oslo accords. This is area C of the Oslo agreements. It was meant as a transitional arrangement for there to be a Palestinian state in this area, not as an instrument to colonise take land and, little by little, de facto annex it in Israel. It is. It is a violation of international law to to to forcibly relocate people you are occupying.”
Montague does not press Egeland on why there was never a final agreement made after Oslo, why the process failed, Palestinian rejectionism, the second Intifada, or even point out that the term “occupation” as applied to Judea and Samaria is deeply contested. She once again lets serious allegations stand as uncontested fact in the mind of the listener.
Finally, Montague changes the subject to ask Egeland as the secretary general of one of the 37 NGO’s who have refused to comply with new Israeli rules on the disclosure of details of local staff, if this new rule will affect his organisation:
Egeland: “Yes, I mean the Norwegian Refugee Council is among 40 international organizations that stand to lose our registration, which we’ve had now since 2009, and it will make it very difficult for us to continue our work both in Gaza and in the West Bank. That’s also part of this policy to avoid international witnesses, avoid the rule of law and take land and dominate it.”
Once again Egeland makes a serious allegation, that the new rules are deliberately banning 40 NGO’s in order to “avoid witnesses” to crimes. Montague does not ask what Egeland’s organisations reasons are for refusing to comply with the new rules, and she does not mention to listeners that the Norwegian Refugee Council is involved in what NGO monitor calls a
“European funded proxy war”
to overwhelm the Israeli legal system and
“works closely with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in coordinating its advocacy campaigns, in violation of the principle of neutrality in humanitarian aid.”
This is key context for listeners to understand Egeland, his organisation and his legal arguments, and yet it is entirely omitted.
The resultant narrative delivered by this interview is more indictment than journalism, and breaks BBC editorial guidelines in key and specific ways, in terms of the duty to accuracy, impartiality and including key context to avoid misleading audiences.
Sarah Montague revisited Judea and Samaria, and once again utterly failed to meet the standards expected by the BBC.
Egleand in particular has been spouting his brand of antisemitism masquerading as an “independent, fair minded and altruistic ” aid organisation also on Al Jazeera since November 2023. Maybe he should refer back to his own country’s 2WW past ?
Sarah Montague revisited Judea and Samaria, and once again produced the biased rubbish mandated by the BBC.
And this wasn’t just the World Service, over which the BBC claims reduced responsibility due to its funding differences. No, this was their key one-o-clock main news programme, broadcast and listened to by thousands of listeners across the UK. As governments and commentators are coming to understand, antisemitism is not just a series of individual incidents, which need to be dealt with individually, usually with bromides about the unacceptability of antisemitism, but the constant drip of incidents which leads to and promotes the atmosphere society-wide growth of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hatred.
The BBC is the prime gardener responsible for spreading this anti-semitic fertiliser over British society. And Sarah Montague has a huge trowel, regularly at 1:00pm, which she uses to spread muck as often as she can.