Why Louis Theroux is under-fire for 'anti-Israel' BBC documentary 'The Settlers'

Louis Theroux is no stranger to controversy, but his latest documentary, The Settlers, has thrust him into the centre of the Israeli-Palestinian debate—and not in the way he’s used to. Known for his curious, disarming style, Theroux this time dives into one of the most emotionally and politically fraught regions on Earth: the West Bank. But instead of universal acclaim for his journalistic bravery, he’s facing sharp criticism—mostly from viewers who say his coverage was anything but balanced.

At the heart of the backlash is the accusation of bias. Theroux labels Daniella Weiss—a prominent figure in the Israeli settler movement—a “sociopath.” Weiss, who has long advocated for Jewish settlement in disputed territories and holds deeply ideological views about displacing Palestinians, is portrayed as a zealot with little empathy. Her rhetoric in the documentary is inflammatory, and Theroux doesn’t mince words when challenging her.

Meanwhile, Palestinian activist Issa Amro is presented in a far more sympathetic light. Theroux follows Amro through Hebron, showcasing his non-violent activism and the harsh conditions Palestinians face in areas under Israeli military control. However, critics quickly unearthed a 2014 Facebook post in which Amro called for an "intifada"—a term historically linked to violent uprisings. For detractors, this is proof that Theroux’s portrayal is lopsided: Israeli extremism is framed as moral corruption; Palestinian militancy is explained away as justified resistance.

Then there’s what Theroux chose not to include—or at least not to focus on. The most glaring omission, according to critics, is the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 Israelis were killed and 250 taken hostage. The attack was a seismic event that reshaped Israeli security policies and amplified fears among settlers living in the West Bank. By largely glossing over it, the documentary is accused of ignoring a critical piece of context that explains why Israeli society—particularly its right wing—has hardened its stance on Palestinian threats.

The location of much of the documentary—Hebron—is itself a pressure cooker. The city is split into H1, under Palestinian control, and H2, under Israeli control, where a small group of Jewish settlers live amid a much larger Palestinian population. Friction is constant. Movement restrictions, checkpoints, and regular confrontations with the military are part of daily life for Palestinians. At the same time, settlers and Israeli soldiers see themselves as under siege, constantly wary of violence.

Theroux’s lens captures the hardship of Palestinian life under occupation with painful clarity. But he’s accused of giving insufficient weight to the broader security context—especially the fact that settlers are often targeted, and that the military presence is as much about defence as it is about control. This imbalance has led some to label the documentary a polemic, not a neutral exploration.

Supporters of Theroux argue that the film needed to be provocative—that it succeeded in putting a spotlight on ideological extremism within the settler movement and the moral cost of occupation. In this view, Daniella Weiss is not just one voice among many; she represents a dangerous strand of thought that has growing influence in Israeli politics. To confront her aggressively was not bias, but accountability.

Yet, it’s the tone of the documentary—more confrontational than Theroux’s usual style—that has left viewers divided. Normally, Theroux lets subjects hang themselves with their own words. Here, he’s visibly uncomfortable, more combative, less neutral. Some see this as a long-overdue moral stand. Others see it as a betrayal of journalistic detachment.

The debate over The Settlers reveals something deeper: how impossible it is to tell a story about this region without being accused of partisanship. To highlight Israeli extremism is to be accused of ignoring Palestinian violence. To show Palestinian suffering is to be charged with minimising Israeli trauma. Theroux, by taking a stance—however subtly or overtly—has walked directly into this minefield.

Whether one sees The Settlers as courageous or biased depends largely on which truths one values more. But what’s clear is that Louis Theroux, once the master of the softly spoken, softly lit documentary, has chosen to walk into the storm—and this time, the storm is fighting back.