Louis Theroux opens up on new BBC West Bank documentary on Israeli settlers
LOUIS Theroux has opened up on his new tell-all documentary, where he argues why the world has 'amply demonstrated' its ability to withstand the Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.
The BBC series, Louis Theroux: The Settlers, is due to air this week as the celebrated documentarian returns to the West Bank for the first time in 15 years.
Writing for Deadline News ahead of the release of the series, Theroux said he spent three weeks travelling across the West Bank documenting 'the world of the Israeli ultra-nationalists" who have settled in the territory, illegally under international law.
He wrote that when he first visited the region in 2010, he was 'struck by the way in which a group of people were able to pursue an openly expansionist ethnonationalist vision while enjoying the benefits of a separate and privileged legal regime to those around them', while also being protected by the Israeli army.
READ MORE: Scottish university axes 350 members of staff as further cuts loom
Theroux said the idea for the documentary came after reading articles in the New Yorker and the New York Times suggesting that with the world's attention on Gaza, the settler community had cranked up its activities in the region.
Shot in two blocks, Theroux interviewed settlers and their leaders, including the woman known as the 'Godmother' of the 'settler movement', Daniella Weiss.
He also visited settlements, including one called Evyatar, which had been authorised by the Israeli government just a few months earlier and is illegal under international law.
Theroux wrote: 'I try to hear from those at the heart of a story who, broadly speaking, are viewed as being 'in the wrong'.
'Naturally, giving airtime to these people can lead to accusations of 'platforming'. I understand the charge. My decision to film means potentially millions will be exposed to the views of people who may be racist or fundamentalist or bigoted.
(Image: Raneen Sawafta, REUTERS)
He added: 'But making a documentary isn't just a matter of handing someone a megaphone and saying 'have at it'.
'It's a process of asking the right questions, challenging, contextualizing. Doing journalism.'
Theroux said The settlers lifts the lid on the beliefs of those who live on occupied land, showing that they are openly anti-democratic and supremacist.
He highlighted the risks associated with drawing attention to forms of exclusionary nationalism when they are perpetrated by people with their own long history of enduring persecution.
However, Theroux said: 'It should go without saying that extremists and ideologues exist in all communities.'
He added: 'No one should get a pass.'
The documentarian argues that it would be a mistake to allow religious nationalist settlers and their far-right political supporters in government to co-opt Jewish identity and to 'write off legitimate criticism of their beliefs' and their actions as an expression of bigotry.
(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
He also conceded that, regardless of how he framed the documentary, he accepts that some may see The Settlers will be seen as anti-Israel.
Theroux concluded that one of the reasons why he wanted to return to the West Bank is that he believes that other countries around the world are looking at occupied territories for 'clues as to what their own future might look like'.
He added: 'Some global populist leaders view the ideology of the settler community as a prototype for a type of nationalism they would like to practise.
'They regard Israeli settlers as the tip of the spear of what they frame as a global war against Islam.'
The Settlers will air on BBC Two on Sunday at 9pm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Iran's Adversaries in Key Nuclear Vote
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors has declared that Iran has not complied with its nuclear obligations in a vote following a resolution, backed by the United States and the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany). The resolution was passed with 19 votes in favor. Three countries voted against, 11 abstained and two countries did not vote, according to multiple media reports. Iran described it as a "politically motivated" resolution and said it will build a new uranium enrichment facility in a secure location, state media Press TV reported after the vote. Newsweek has contacted the IAEA for comment. Why It Matters The IAEA resolution could lead to the reimposition of sanctions on Iran under UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Iran has warned this would trigger a strong response, including limiting IAEA cooperation, boosting uranium enrichment, or quitting the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Increased tensions raise the risk of military escalation between Iran and the United States—with prospects also rising for an Israeli strike—which could trigger a wider Middle East conflict involving regional allies. What To Know On Thursday, the UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors officially determined that Iran has failed to meet its nuclear obligations for the first time in two decades, with 19 countries voting for the resolution, according to The Associated Press. The resolution said "Iran failed to provide credible explanations for nuclear material at three undeclared locations," according to a copy published by Al-Jazeera English TV channel. The IAEA held a board session Wednesday on Iran's nuclear program, during which Britain, France, and Germany warned Iran that its escalating nuclear activities—such as 60 percent enrichment of uranium and expansion of centrifuge and stockpile limits—undermine the JCPOA, a 2015 deal with Iran, but did not call for immediate punitive steps. The resolution seeks to prompt Iran to resolve the issue without immediately referring its non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions, giving Iran a window to address six years of outstanding requests, a Western diplomat told The Associated Press earlier in June. The push followed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi's reports uncovering undisclosed nuclear activities in Iran. Grossi said Iran had undermined the agency's ability to monitor Iran's JCPOA commitments and removed all related surveillance and monitoring equipment in 2022. Timely meeting in Cairo with Egypt's @MfaEgypt Badr Abdelatty and Iran's Foreign Minister @araghchi. Grateful for Egypt's constructive role in supporting peaceful, diplomatic solutions to regional challenges. — Rafael Mariano Grossi (@rafaelmgrossi) June 2, 2025 Iran criticized the resolution and dismissed Grossi's report, warning of serious consequences if the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions, Iran's UN Ambassador Reza Najafi told the board, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Russia's envoy to the IAEA, Mikhail Ulyanov, supported Tehran's position, saying that "the United States and then the E3 deliberately sabotaged the implementation of the nuclear deal," he said, referring to the JCPOA." Gulf states and other Arab and Middle East countries have supported diplomatic efforts and mediated rapprochement with Iran, but remain cautious and neutral, mindful that regional security would be at serious risk if war erupts. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear deal which lifted sanctions in exchange for nuclear limits, was disrupted by the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and is set to fully expire in October 2025. What People Are Saying U.S. President Donald trump told "Pod Force One" podcast on the nuclear deal: "I'm getting more and more less confident about it. They seem to be delaying, I think that's a shame. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Reza Najafi, Iran's Permanent Ambassador to the UN office and international organizations in Vienna, as quoted by IRNA: "Since the E3 has seriously violated Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, they are neither in a moral nor legal position to activate the snapback mechanism. If such a scenario unfolds, Iran's options will be firm, and the United States and the E3 will bear full responsibility." France, Germany and the UK (E3) joint statement, published by the British government's website: "Iran must halt and reverse its nuclear escalation and refrain from making threats regarding a change of its nuclear doctrine, which are in themselves highly destabilising and not consistent with Iran's status as a state without nuclear weapons under the NPT." What Happens Next Washington and Tehran are scheduled to resume nuclear negotiations on Sunday in Oman amid key disagreements on enrichment and sanctions' relief.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams warns anti-ICE NYC protesters: ‘We will not allow you to destroy our city'
Mayor Eric Adams warned Antifa agitators that he won't allow them to 'destroy our city' as violent anti-ICE protests spiraled out of control across the country. 'We know that there are those who travel our country and embed themselves into issues like Antifa and others,' Hizzoner told Newsmax Wednesday night. 'And they have one goal in mind, and that is to provoke and to create disruption and disorder, particularly with our law enforcement community.' Advertisement 4 NYC Mayor Eric Adams appears on Newsmax, warning protesters against destroying the city on June 11, 2025. NewsMax 'We identify them immediately, remove them from the crowds and take proper police practice when they cross the line,' he added. The NYPD nabbed 10 people in the Big Apple Wednesday as anti-ICE protestor took to the streets, law enforcement sources said. Advertisement It was down dramatically from the more than 80 taken into custody when a massive protest in Lower Manhattan descended into chaos on Tuesday. Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch has already insisted the NYPD would stand its ground and not let protests get out of control as the violence only escalated in Los Angeles and other major cities. 'Commissioner Tisch gave a very loud and clear message. We will allow peaceful protests, but we will not allow you to destroy our city or harm innocent people,' Adams said. 4 Police detain a protester during a riot in the streets near 26 Federal Plaza in NYC on June 11, 2025. Stephen Yang Advertisement 'And we will take action whenever that takes place.' Elsewhere, Hizzoner blamed the unrest on 'outside agitators' — likening them to those who flooded Columbia University last year to 'radicalize' students amid the wave of anti-Israel demonstrations. 'If you recall during the Columbia protest, I talked about the outside agitators, professional agitators that want to come on our college campuses and radicalize our students,' he said. 'Some of the leaflets and pamphlets that were handed out talk about hating America, hating Israel, hating Jewish people. Just real mean and nasty things.' Advertisement 4 Hundreds of protesters march at Foley Square protesting ICE immigration enforcement arrests across the US. Stephen Yang 4 An NYPD officers drag a protester away from the crowd during unrest in the streets of Manhattan on June 10, 2025. Aristide Economopoulos 'And we went in and took appropriate action when they broke into a dorm room… we found that there were those who were professionals, that they came from other parts of the country and actually agitated and pushed to participate in the taking over of Hamilton Hall,' he continued. 'We're seeing that here as well. These are professional people who believe in disruption and destruction of property.' Additional reporting by Larry Celona
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Why Israel Should Learn to Love the Coming Iran Deal
Having once described Donald Trump as Israel's 'greatest friend ever,' Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching with some consternation as the American president enthusiastically pursues a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, the Israeli prime minister made every effort to stop the Obama administration's Iran deal in 2015. Trump exited that deal in 2018, perhaps partially at Netanyahu's urging. And now Trump is pursuing a deal of his own—his administration has even dropped a number of Iran hawks from its ranks, in what one pro-Israel D.C. outlet described as a 'purge.' But Israel's leaders shouldn't fear the coming Iran deal. They may even find reasons to welcome it: Among a host of bad options for curbing Iran's nuclear program and pacifying a volatile region, a nuclear agreement between Trump and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be the least bad option for Israel too. No such deal has happened yet—and none will until the two sides can reach an accord about whether Iran should maintain a capacity to enrich uranium on its own soil. The U.S., together with Israel, has strongly objected to any such prospect. 'WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 2. The Iranians insist on it—and, for their part, are playing a game of reverse psychology: 'This Guy Has No Will for a Deal,' read a headline in the semiofficial Tehran Times on June 7, referencing Trump. But both sides have compelling reasons to want these talks to come to something. The Trump administration, stymied in Ukraine and Gaza, could use a foreign-policy win, and the Iranian regime, having lost its regional proxy power, would prefer to avoid military strikes on its nuclear facilities and to see some sanctions lifted. Steven Witkoff, the Trump administration's top negotiator, has proffered a plan that reportedly suggests outsourcing Iran's uranium enrichment to a regional consortium. The enrichment would be for civilian purposes, and the consortium would include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Qatar and Turkey. The idea is to remove the technical capacity from Iranian hands and internationalize the process. Whether this consortium would do its work on Iranian soil or elsewhere, however, is not clear. And as Richard Nephew, an American diplomat who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, told me, this is the nub of the issue—'centrifuges in Iran'—in relation to which 'a consortium is window-dressing.' Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert close to Iran's security establishment, told me that Iran has 'seriously studied' Washington's consortium proposal and could accept it only if at least some enrichment were to be done on Iranian soil. One option might be to use Iran's islands in the Persian Gulf for this purpose, he added. These are part of Iran but geographically close to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and therefore easier to monitor than the mainland. For Israel, the matter of where the enrichment happens is nonnegotiable. 'Israel would be willing to accept the consortium solution only if it is located outside of Iran, a condition that Iran, of course, will not accept,' Raz Zimmt, the head of the Iran program at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told me. 'This is Israel's official stance, and it enjoys near-unanimous support across the Israeli political spectrum.' The reasons for this are understandable: Iran's leaders, unlike many of their counterparts in the region, have never embraced a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead continue to clamor for the destruction of Israel. Just last month, Khamenei called Israel 'a cancerous, dangerous, and deadly tumor that must be removed from the region and it will be.' Israeli leaders are worried that a deal with Iran will not go far enough in disabling it from acting on its animus against Israel. In fact, hard-line Israelis cannot envision a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that doesn't involve the total dismantlement of its centrifuges and expatriation of its uranium. That's because the means to weaponize are already there. Even those, including Nephew, who advocate for a new deal caution that Iran's enrichment capacity has increased in the seven years since Trump left the 2015 agreement. Iran now has enough enriched uranium that if it sought to weaponize, it could build as many as 10 atomic weapons. Even if it shipped that stockpile elsewhere, the country would still have its advanced centrifuges. With these, experts say, Iran could hold on to just 5 percent of its current stockpile and still be able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb inside of a month, and four bombs' worth in two months. Given this reality, according to Zimmt, the Israeli government believes that it is running out of time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And to this end, he told me, 'Israel clearly prefers no deal over a bad deal,' because without a deal, military strikes become thinkable. Many in Israel see such a confrontation as the best option—even though Iran's nuclear facilities are spread across its territory, and some are buried deep underground, making any military campaign likely to be drawn-out, complicated, and hazardous. The analysts I spoke with did not see much lasting good coming of such an assault. Nephew noted that the setback to Iran's nuclear program would likely be temporary and said that Israel would be 'infinitely better off with a good deal.' Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, pointed out that Iran's regional proxies have been so weakened that Israel is in a particularly strong position at the moment. A negotiated settlement to the nuclear question could allow Israel to build on its advantage by pursuing closer ties to Arab states. This 'would be a win for Israeli security and the region as a whole,' Brew said. Back in 2015, the Arab states of the Gulf region were leery of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal. They had poor relations with Iran and worried that an agreement might exclude their interests. Now those relations have softened, and most of the Gulf states are eager for an arrangement that could cool the region's tempers. Their support for diplomacy should be good news for Israel, which already has diplomatic, trade, and military ties with two Gulf countries (the UAE and Bahrain). The Saudis have conditioned normalization on Israel's allowing for a Palestinian state, but their language is pragmatic—Riyadh's overwhelming interest appears to be in economic development, which regional conflict only undermines. A nuclear deal that draws in the Gulf states would undoubtedly serve to better integrate Iran into the region's economy. Some in Israel may balk at this idea, preferring to see Iran isolated. But there is a case to be made that giving Iran a stake in regional peace and stability would do more to de-radicalize its foreign policy than caging it has done. Some in Israel remain skeptical. 'I don't believe that Saudi or Emirati participation in the deal carries any real significance,' Zimmt said. 'It's not something that would reassure Israel, certainly not before normalization with Saudi Arabia, and not even necessarily afterward.' Other Israeli critics of Trump and Witkoff chastise them for mistaking the ideologically driven actors of the Middle East for transactional pragmatists like themselves. Daniel Byman: Trump is making Netanyahu nervous But leaders and peoples—in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Damascus, Beirut—have grown tired of wars around religion and ideology, and many are ready to pursue development instead. This explains why Syria's new leaders have embraced Trump and promised not to fight Israel. Iran is not immune to this new regional mood. Iranian elites have reason to fear that the failure of talks will bring about devastating military strikes. But they also have reason to hope that the lifting of sanctions, and even a partial opening for the country's beleaguered economy, will be a boon to some of the moneyed interests close to the regime. Najafi told me that Iran already has a shared interest with Arabs in trying to avoid a confrontation between Israel and Iran: 'Arabs know that any military action by Israel against Iran could destroy their grand developmental projects in the region,' he said. I've talked with Iranian elites for years. Most of them have no interest in Islamism or any other ideology. They send their sons and daughters to study in American and Swiss universities, not to Shiite seminaries in Iraq or Lebanon. Khamenei's zealotry is very unlikely to outlive him in Iran's highest echelons of power. A diplomatic deal, however flawed, will not only curtail Iran's nuclear program but also put the country on a path defined by its economic and pragmatic interests. A more regionally integrated Iran is likely to be much less belligerent, as it will have relations with the Saudis and Emiratis to maintain. The regime will likely be forced to drop many of its revolutionary pretensions, as it already has toward Saudi Arabia: Iran once considered the kingdom illegitimate, but it now goes out of its way to maintain good ties with Riyadh. Although this might sound unthinkable today, ultimately the regime will have to drop its obsession with Israel as well, for the same pragmatic reason that Arab countries have done in the past. The alternative to a deal is an extensive military campaign—most likely, a direct war between Iran and Israel—with unpredictable consequences. The notion that such a confrontation would lead to positive political change in Iran is a fantasy. Just as likely, the regime will hunker down under duress, prolonging its hold on power. This is why even the most pro-Israel figures in the Iranian opposition, such as former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, oppose military strikes on Iran. Iran's population harbors very little hostility to Israel. A group of student activists recently tried to organize an anti-Israel rally at the University of Tehran, but only a couple of dozen people joined them, a small fraction of those who have turned out for rallies in Cairo, Amman, or New York City. But a direct war that costs Iranian civilian lives would easily change this. The future of Iran and Israel does not need to lie in hostility. That's why a deal that keeps Iran from going nuclear and avoids military strikes is the least bad option for everyone.
