Between December 15th and 19th , BBC Radio 4’s World at One broadcast a week of reporting from Sarah Montague from “Israel and the Palestinian Territories”. Framed as an in-depth examination of the situation following the Gaza ceasefire, the series instead offered a strikingly flattened narrative in which Palestinian choices and agency were almost entirely erased, while Israeli actions were heavily moralised and repeatedly presented without context.
The most glaring omission across the entire week is the near-total absence of Palestinian terrorism. October 7th is mentioned, but only as a historical trauma shaping Israeli attitudes, not as part of an ongoing security reality. Despite the fact that according to INSS 11,219 terror attacks have taken place since October 7th, Palestinian violence is neither examined nor treated as a continuing obstacle to peace, and the BBC continues its “frozen in time” phenomenon, where Israeli loss is deemed to have ended on October 7th while Palestinian suffering continues.
This asymmetry is particularly clear in Montague’s treatment of Israeli voices. When interviewing Thomas Hand, the father of Emily Hand, an eight-year-old girl kidnapped by Hamas and held hostage for 50 days, his trauma is framed as an impediment rather than a response. The interview is introduced as follows:
Montague: “Now for some here in Israel, the scars of October 7 will not allow them to trust Palestinians, at least those in Gaza.”
Israeli fear and distrust are presented as emotional barriers to peace, rather than as reactions to concrete acts of violence.
By contrast, when Montague later interviews Knesset member Simcha Rothman about settlements, and he raises recent stabbings and stone-throwing attacks, the issue is quickly set aside:
Rothman: “At 9:04 in the morning, stoning of a Jewish car because he’s Jewish. 10:54 stabbing attempt against a Jew…”
Montague: “I’m not saying this is not happening. I’m just saying on Sunday I watched young settler boys putting pressure on a community…”
Palestinian violence is acknowledged only to be brushed off, while Israeli actions remain the sole subject of sustained scrutiny.
This erasure of Palestinian agency extends beyond violence. In Montague’s reporting from Ramallah, Palestinian governance is almost entirely absent. The Palestinian Authority is mentioned only in passing, including in this introduction:
Montague: “For the Palestinian people until they realise their dream of a capital in East Jerusalem, this is the home of the Palestinian Authority Government, but it’s also a place under occupation.”
What is left unexplained is that Ramallah lies in Area A, under full Palestinian Authority civil and security control under the Oslo Accords. By describing the city simply as “under occupation”, the report flattens a complex governance reality into a single emotive frame, once again removing Palestinian responsibility and autonomy from the picture.
The same pattern appears in Montague’s report on settler intimidation in a Bedouin community. Listeners are not told that the area is in Area C, where control was explicitly assigned to Israel under Oslo by the PLO acting on behalf of the Palestinian people. Instead, the situation is presented as unilateral Israeli imposition, stripped of the political agreements that produced it. The mantra that Jewish settlements in this area are “considered illegal under international law” is, as we’ve reported previously, not fact but deeply contested opinion
This framing is particularly evident in a highly emotive segment on water access:
Montague: “This community is not allowed to use the water that’s being piped around here.”
In reality, water access in Judea and Samaria is governed by post-Oslo arrangements involving joint management, planning approval, and Palestinian institutional responsibility. These complexities, while less rhetorically powerful, are essential to understanding the issue. Their absence leaves listeners with the impression of racially withheld water rather than a contested, bureaucratic, and politically unresolved system which involves permits, zoning laws and a Joint Water Committee.
Finally, Palestinian agency disappears entirely when discussing the future of Gaza. In Montague’s interview with Dr Ophir Falk, Hamas is treated not as a political and military actor capable of choice, but as a passive entity awaiting external processes. Despite Hamas having agreed to a ceasefire framework that includes disarmament, Montague repeatedly reframes the issue as dependent on Israeli action rather than Hamas’s willingness to comply, asking Dr Falk three times what plan or process Israel is implementing for Hamas’ disarmament.
Across the week, Palestinian actors, whether the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or individuals, are rarely treated as decision-makers responsible for outcomes. Israelis, by contrast, are presented as the only meaningful agents in the story: acting, deciding, imposing, and obstructing.
The result is a deeply paternalistic narrative in which Palestinians are portrayed almost exclusively as passive victims, never as political actors capable of choice, responsibility, or accountability, which is problematic enough, but it also leaves a listener with an entirely one-sided and distorted image of the region and the conflict. The BBC has a responsibility to neutral, balanced reporting. By omitting crucial context in pursuit of a specific framing, it fails in that responsibility.