The governors judged that the report, contained in a time-line of historical events in the region, failed to give a balanced account of a 1967 United Nations resolution about the six-day war between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The report, published late last year, suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war when in fact it called for a negotiated "land for peace" settlement between Israel and "every state in the area".

The BBC governors' report concluded: "The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the online article did not accurately reflect this balance and gave a biased impression. It
therefore breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality".

In many ways, this particular issue is crucial. The distortion helps to feed the misperception that the conflict started in 1967 and is only about the occupation. It also provides fuel to the propaganda locomotive of those who insist that Israel and only Israel is violating UN resolutions and International Law.

The institution of this review procedure will perhaps be a welcome corrective not only for the BBC, but for others. The Guardian itself is one of the worst offenders regarding distorted reporting about Israel and the Palestinians. There can be many narratives and nuances, but they aren't all equal. Accounts that reinvent history and ignore clear documentary evidence such as UN resolutions are propaganda, not reporting. Too bad that the corrections do not happen spontaneously, as the result of journalists and media policy makers understanding their professional and ethical obligations. At least however, this insistence shows that concerted efforts by activists can make a difference.

Ami Isseroff