The deal announced on June 27, between Israel and Lebanon presents something genuinely new and groundbreaking in a region beset by diplomatic groundhog days.
A deal that represents the de-facto recognition of Israel by Lebanon, something unthinkable until very recently, and declares in writing that Lebanon wants international help not just from Israel but from the US and the Arab states to retake its sovereign territory from Hezbollah and establish a whole, unfragmented, peaceful Lebanon which does not intend to make war against its neighbours.
This is a development that could be described by an enthusiastic journalist as monumental in the history of the region, and a significant blow to the Islamic Regime in Iran, who, having sought to tie the fate of Hezbollah and their occupation of Lebanon to their own ceasefire with the US, have been significantly out manoeuvred by a deal which does indeed demand the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, but also spells the end for Hezbollah.
The BBC, as the British national broadcaster and the impartial source of Middle East news for millions, could be expected to report all of this clearly and rationally for their audiences. Unfortunately, once again their reporting sought not to explain the full truth but to uncritically parrot the opinions of terrorists.
On June 28th, Neil Murphy published a piece to the BBC Website titled
“Israel strikes Southern Lebanon as Hezbollah condemns new deal”
Murphy immediately misleads with his framing:
“Israeli air strikes in Lebanon have killed one person, the country’s health ministry said, a day after the two countries signed a deal aimed at paving the way to a lasting peace… The Israeli military said it carried out the drone strike on an individual who posed a threat to its forces, without providing details.”
The formulation “without providing details” as we’ve discussed before, is a semantic sleight of hand which uses an unrealistic reporting standard in order to create an artificial vacuum of evidence and therefore ascribe guilt. But more than this, Murphy’s reporting blurs the lines between Lebanon and Hezbollah.
This framing opens the story with the idea that Israel attacked Lebanon hours after a peace deal between the two countries was reached. Murphy, as any BBC journalist reporting on the region, knows that Israel is at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon as made clear in the agreement here:
“The Government of Israel stresses that its military actions in Lebanon are solely a consequence of the attacks, threat posed by, and hostile intent of non-state armed groups, particularly Hizballah. The Government of Israel underscores that the termination of this threat, through the disarmament and dismantlement of such groups in all of Lebanon and additional security arrangements to be agreed upon between the two countries, will eliminate any future need for IDF military action or presence in Lebanon.”
And he also knows that Lebanon has explicitly stated in the same agreement that:
“The Government of Lebanon rejects the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorisation, and reiterates that any claim by any state or non-state actor to exercise a military or security role is illegal per the decisions of the Lebanese Government and contrary to Lebanese national interests.”
So why, as a journalist who understands these distinctions, is Murphy unwilling or unable to share that information with his audience and instead choosing to create a framing whereby Israel is treacherously attacking Lebanon in contradiction of the agreement?
Murphy goes on to give extensive word count to the views of Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem:
“The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group – which was not involved in negotiating Friday’s US-brokered agreement – rejected it and accused the Beirut government of undermining Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
The idea that the leader of an Iranian terror organisation can seriously accuse Lebanon’s government of undermining Lebanese sovereignty while his group has caused decades of bloodshed and destruction for Lebanon in its committed pursuit of forever war against Israel is a statement which should not be allowed to pass uncritically.
When a BBC journalist amplifies a voice without qualification or pushback they are lending BBC credibility to that voice. This is the process by which an objectively ridiculous statement can become a serious argument or viewpoint.
Rather than qualify Qassem’s statements by providing context Murphy goes on to give him more space than any other voice:
“On Saturday Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem accused the Lebanese government of making damaging concessions.
“The framework agreement in Washington is humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty. This agreement is null and void,” he said.
Qassem criticised provisions linking Israel’s withdrawal to the group’s disarmament, saying they crossed “all red lines”.
He accused Lebanese authorities of committing a “grave blunder” which “may even lead to the annexation of these lands”, and vowed that Hezbollah would continue its armed resistance.”
What’s being reported here is the words of the leader of a terrorist organisation which has been declared to be illegally undermining Lebanese sovereignty, saying publicly that he intends to continue to do so. Murphy frames this as the only reasonable and trustworthy voice in his piece.
The monumental and historic achievement of de-facto recognition and a shared commitment to peace between these two countries that have been in a state of war for decades? Not mentioned at all. In fact, Murphy appears to deliberately leave those details out, in order to frame Prime Minister Netanyahu as untrustworthy:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the agreement reached in Washington “historic” and “a blow to Iran and Hezbollah”.”
Murphy uses this quote devoid of context and sandwiched between the comments from Naim Qassem which creates a framing of accusation. Why would Netanyahu say this when he’s attacking Lebanon and undermining Lebanese sovereignty? The audience has only one conclusion available: he’s not telling the truth.
Why does the BBC continue to prioritise the amplification of Hezbollah talking points over meeting it’s obligation to accuracy and impartiality? It is a question the institution must grapple with as its journalists’ failures continue to undermine BBC standards.
