This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/24/israel-palestine-pcc
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The readers' editor on … the PCC and the Middle East | |
| (1 day later) | |
| A decision by the Israeli government to authorise 3,000 new homes in an area to the east of Jerusalem as part of settlement expansion caused an international outcry. The decision was taken following a UN decision to recognise the Palestinian state. A Guardian editorial of 3 December 2012 stated that the E1 plan "would cut the West Bank in two and separate it from East Jerusalem". This conclusion was reflected in coverage by other major media organisations here and in the US. However, this view did not go unchallenged by pro-Israel lobby groups, which claimed that it was misleading to describe the situation in that way. | A decision by the Israeli government to authorise 3,000 new homes in an area to the east of Jerusalem as part of settlement expansion caused an international outcry. The decision was taken following a UN decision to recognise the Palestinian state. A Guardian editorial of 3 December 2012 stated that the E1 plan "would cut the West Bank in two and separate it from East Jerusalem". This conclusion was reflected in coverage by other major media organisations here and in the US. However, this view did not go unchallenged by pro-Israel lobby groups, which claimed that it was misleading to describe the situation in that way. |
| On 12 December CiFWatch, a US-based website set up to monitor the Guardian for what it describes as antisemitism and the "assault on Israel's legitimacy", wrote to the readers' editor to complain about the description of the effect of the plan in that editorial and two other articles. Part of its argument was that the New York Times had published a correction as a result of a similar complaint by another pro-Israel website. | On 12 December CiFWatch, a US-based website set up to monitor the Guardian for what it describes as antisemitism and the "assault on Israel's legitimacy", wrote to the readers' editor to complain about the description of the effect of the plan in that editorial and two other articles. Part of its argument was that the New York Times had published a correction as a result of a similar complaint by another pro-Israel website. |
| I found it a complex complaint to investigate, a problem of language as well as geography. It needed conversations with writers in London and people on the ground to establish just what the building of 3,000 houses in that area would mean. I was unable to respond by 31 December so the complainant went to the Press Complaints Commission. | I found it a complex complaint to investigate, a problem of language as well as geography. It needed conversations with writers in London and people on the ground to establish just what the building of 3,000 houses in that area would mean. I was unable to respond by 31 December so the complainant went to the Press Complaints Commission. |
| The readers' editor doesn't deal with PCC complaints – these are dealt with by the Guardian's managing editor, who reports to the editor-in-chief. This doesn't prevent me discussing the issues or expressing a view. | The readers' editor doesn't deal with PCC complaints – these are dealt with by the Guardian's managing editor, who reports to the editor-in-chief. This doesn't prevent me discussing the issues or expressing a view. |
| When the complaint to the PCC arrived at the Guardian on 3 January it had grown. A total of 14 articles were the subject of this new complaint: four related to the phrase, or similar, "cutting the West Bank in two", and 10 to the phrase, or similar, "close off East Jerusalem … from the West Bank". | When the complaint to the PCC arrived at the Guardian on 3 January it had grown. A total of 14 articles were the subject of this new complaint: four related to the phrase, or similar, "cutting the West Bank in two", and 10 to the phrase, or similar, "close off East Jerusalem … from the West Bank". |
| CiFWatch argued that the West Bank would not be cut in two because the north and south parts of the West Bank are connected by a 15km stretch of land east of the E1 area. The lobby group further argued that East Jerusalem would not be cut off because there was access via several border towns. | CiFWatch argued that the West Bank would not be cut in two because the north and south parts of the West Bank are connected by a 15km stretch of land east of the E1 area. The lobby group further argued that East Jerusalem would not be cut off because there was access via several border towns. |
| The Guardian's formal response, with which I agreed, turned on the "meaningful contiguity" of any future Palestinian state. Elisabeth Ribbans, the Guardian's managing editor, wrote to the PCC that CiFWatch pointed to a stretch of territory, "at its narrowest point about 15km wide", as evidence that the Guardian committed a significant error in reporting that the plan would split the West Bank, making a contiguous state almost impossible. She said: "The commission will note the terrain: a challenging expanse of hills and deserts (quite unlike the landscape of the Israeli coastal plains to which CiFWatch compares it) with little existing modern infrastructure. In theory a bypass could be carved through the cliffs to create a long way round, or we suppose the journey could be accomplished on foot or by a vehicle suited to the terrain; what some have termed 'transportational contiguity'. The word contiguity has always been used to refer to what a reasonable person would regard as a state that has meaningful integrity; that is a genuinely viable territory and a seriously viable state. The West Bank may be left technically contiguous but it seems clear it would lack contiguity in the sense most people/diplomats/peacemakers reasonably understand it." | The Guardian's formal response, with which I agreed, turned on the "meaningful contiguity" of any future Palestinian state. Elisabeth Ribbans, the Guardian's managing editor, wrote to the PCC that CiFWatch pointed to a stretch of territory, "at its narrowest point about 15km wide", as evidence that the Guardian committed a significant error in reporting that the plan would split the West Bank, making a contiguous state almost impossible. She said: "The commission will note the terrain: a challenging expanse of hills and deserts (quite unlike the landscape of the Israeli coastal plains to which CiFWatch compares it) with little existing modern infrastructure. In theory a bypass could be carved through the cliffs to create a long way round, or we suppose the journey could be accomplished on foot or by a vehicle suited to the terrain; what some have termed 'transportational contiguity'. The word contiguity has always been used to refer to what a reasonable person would regard as a state that has meaningful integrity; that is a genuinely viable territory and a seriously viable state. The West Bank may be left technically contiguous but it seems clear it would lack contiguity in the sense most people/diplomats/peacemakers reasonably understand it." |
| "Mr Levick meanwhile alleges it is 'nothing short of a lie' to describe the E1 plan as closing off East Jerusalem from the West Bank. We reject this accusation. Development will not hermetically seal Jerusalem but that will be its practical effect. CiFWatch says Jerusalem can be accessed from Ramallah to the north and Bethlehem to the south. Both are blocked by the separation barrier and checkpoints through which people in the West Bank cannot pass without an Israeli-issued permit." The managing editor offered to insert the word "effectively" into articles that didn't say so. | "Mr Levick meanwhile alleges it is 'nothing short of a lie' to describe the E1 plan as closing off East Jerusalem from the West Bank. We reject this accusation. Development will not hermetically seal Jerusalem but that will be its practical effect. CiFWatch says Jerusalem can be accessed from Ramallah to the north and Bethlehem to the south. Both are blocked by the separation barrier and checkpoints through which people in the West Bank cannot pass without an Israeli-issued permit." The managing editor offered to insert the word "effectively" into articles that didn't say so. |
| On 18 March the PCC wrote to the Guardian to say that "no matters have been raised which show a breach of the code". | On 18 March the PCC wrote to the Guardian to say that "no matters have been raised which show a breach of the code". |
| The PCC said: "The commission noted that these articles had reported on a significant, on-going, international debate which had taken place in response to the decision to continue with the development of the E1 settlement, and the impact of this on any potential Palestinian state. In assessing the complainant's concerns under Clause 1 [accuracy] , the commission had to consider these statements in the light of this background, and in the context of the articles as a whole. In reporting these concerns, the articles had referenced or quoted comments from sources including the Foreign Office, the US state department, European Union members of the UN security council, the UN secretary general Ban-Ki Moon, and Baroness Catherine Ashton. The commission noted that several of these comments had used language to the effect that the development would isolate East Jerusalem, or split the West Bank in two, in explaining the nature of their concerns about the impact of the settlement on a potential Palestinian state. | The PCC said: "The commission noted that these articles had reported on a significant, on-going, international debate which had taken place in response to the decision to continue with the development of the E1 settlement, and the impact of this on any potential Palestinian state. In assessing the complainant's concerns under Clause 1 [accuracy] , the commission had to consider these statements in the light of this background, and in the context of the articles as a whole. In reporting these concerns, the articles had referenced or quoted comments from sources including the Foreign Office, the US state department, European Union members of the UN security council, the UN secretary general Ban-Ki Moon, and Baroness Catherine Ashton. The commission noted that several of these comments had used language to the effect that the development would isolate East Jerusalem, or split the West Bank in two, in explaining the nature of their concerns about the impact of the settlement on a potential Palestinian state. |
| "The complainant explained that the settlement would leave a corridor of land connecting the northern and southern West Bank, and that there would remain a number of access routes through which individuals could enter East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Whilst the viability of these links had been disputed by the newspaper, the commission did not take the view that these statements would have been understood as commenting on current or potential transport links in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The language had been used to explain the basis for international concerns about the settlement and its potential impact on the viability of a Palestinian state in the light of E1's development. In this context, readers would not have interpreted the newspaper's comments as meaning that the West Bank was literally to be divided in two, or that access to East Jerusalem from the West Bank would become impossible. Whilst the commission acknowledged that, taken individually, the statements under complaint appeared in some instances to simplify the geographic situation, it did not consider that, taken in the context of the articles as a whole, the statements had been significantly inaccurate or misleading." | "The complainant explained that the settlement would leave a corridor of land connecting the northern and southern West Bank, and that there would remain a number of access routes through which individuals could enter East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Whilst the viability of these links had been disputed by the newspaper, the commission did not take the view that these statements would have been understood as commenting on current or potential transport links in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. The language had been used to explain the basis for international concerns about the settlement and its potential impact on the viability of a Palestinian state in the light of E1's development. In this context, readers would not have interpreted the newspaper's comments as meaning that the West Bank was literally to be divided in two, or that access to East Jerusalem from the West Bank would become impossible. Whilst the commission acknowledged that, taken individually, the statements under complaint appeared in some instances to simplify the geographic situation, it did not consider that, taken in the context of the articles as a whole, the statements had been significantly inaccurate or misleading." |
| I regret I was unable to respond before the matter went to the PCC. However, I think this is an important judgment that sets terms for how UK newspapers can discuss within the code an important development that may be vital to the future of Israel and Palestine. | I regret I was unable to respond before the matter went to the PCC. However, I think this is an important judgment that sets terms for how UK newspapers can discuss within the code an important development that may be vital to the future of Israel and Palestine. |