A War of Words: Israeli and Palestinian Media Coverage of the al-Aqsa Intifada
Saturday, December 1st, 2001
Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
"Now is the time to cool it”
(Statement by Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation for Journalists, 20.10.2000)
In October 2000, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stop attempting to manipulate the media in the battle for public opinion inside and outside the region. Mr. White also called on journalists to ensure that they act professionally and do nothing to prejudice the intentions of other journalists in circumstances that are potentially dangerous for all.
The al-Aqsa Intifada has provoked charges and counter charges of media bias and incitement. Israelis accuse the Palestinian media of inflaming the Palestinians with hatred against Israelis, while the Palestinians say the Israeli media are defending murder and the use of excessive force in response to street assaults and demonstrations. Computer technology, including the availability of inexpensive digital cameras, has contributed to a barrage of images that amount to little more than digital press releases. It is increasingly difficult to maintain perspective in a time where “instant” news and “live” coverage have priority. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the historical context is critical to understanding the present situation. Journalists have a responsibility to provide that background.
During this intifada, political leaders have made decisions under the pressure of live news reports. Journalistic bias has changed the course of events. When Palestinians witness Israel’s response to the uprising on the Arabic language satellite television station Al-Jazeera, they become enraged. Israelis are frightened by the street demonstrations presented in Israeli media, making them believe that the Israeli army should take stronger measures.
Charges of media bias flare in moments of crisis. Military strategies are accompanied by sophisticated media strategies. The principal weapons are images. From the perspective of a human rights organisation, the last few months have tested the ability of journalists to remain fair – on both sides. PHRMG feels that it is relevant to discuss the question of alleged media bias and incitement in a broader context. The recent media coverage of the al-Aqsa Intifada presents a significant human rights challenge. The media can choose to assume a role in peace- building. The ways in which they forge the image of the “self” and the “other” can have a major affect on the escalation of violence against civilians. The following example illustrates the problem addressed in this report.
“I am now standing in Psagot, with my back to the killers” (Correspondent Nitzan Chen, Israeli Channel 1, reporting live from the settlement of Psagot).
The media have become instruments of the confrontation, intensifying hatred and hostilities. There is hard bitterness provoked by two images. The shooting of a Palestinian boy and a cheering mob celebrating the deaths of two Israeli soldiers were met with outrage on the respective sides and served to harden positions on both sides.
A problem emerges when comparing Israeli and Palestinian news coverage. Although the Israeli press is ostensibly free, and claims to be so, such is not the case on the Palestinian side. That fact has been documented thoroughly in several independent reports during the period of Palestinian Authority rule. This report examines specific incidents and cases in order to analyse how the print media have covered the al-Aqsa Intifada. It focuses primarily on issues of incitement and the coverage of human rights issues.
Israelis simply assume that Arab journalists are biased and Arabs assume the same of their Israeli counterparts. These accusations are rarely made out loud and making them simply seems to be a waste of time. Such accusations wouldn't have the same psychological effect as accusing American journalists. PHRMG finds this attitude worth discussing. Palestinians consider Jewish journalists to be biased because of their religion. While Israelis consider Palestinian journalists biased because of their religion. As we have seen, religion is insufficient to question their professionalism, although extremist papers on both sides often have shown marked bias.
Even though many of the charges of bias are overblown or unfounded, some journalists do not even aspire to fair reporting. Additionally, charges of bias often are used as a “tool in the arsenal of increasingly sophisticated ‘spinmeisters’ associated with all sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute”. [2] During the 1990s, public opinion became increasingly important in Palestine, as Palestinians are increasingly exposed to un- censored international and local news and information.
This report analyses the Israeli and Palestinian print news coverage of several incidents that occurred during the first months of the intifada. This report focuses on news articles, and to a lesser degree on editorials or analyses. The papers examined include The Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv and Yediot Ahronot on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side Al-Ayyam, al-Hayat al-Jadida, Al-Quds and AMIN (Arab Media Internet Network), were chosen. Obviously AMIN is not a print newspaper, but has been included because the Palestinian media do not enjoy press freedom. AMIN presents articles and commentaries from well-known Palestinian columnists that have not been censored.
Chapter 2 examines the term “incitement” and details how it is understood by both the Palestinian and Israeli side. Chapter 3 looks at Palestinian news coverage, while the Israeli news coverage is dealt with in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the restrictions that have been placed on journalists from both sides during this intifada.
(The full report may be found on www.phrmg.org)
And from an organization founded by a former aide to Y. Rabin, http://memri.org/news.html
Special Dispatch No. 355: Egyptian Government Weekly: The U.S., Israel, and Turkey "The True Axis of Evil"
In the Egyptian government weekly Al-Ahram of March 7-13, columnist Galal Nassar explains that the real 'axis of evil' is not Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, but the strategic relationship of the U.S., Israel, and Turkey. Following are excepts of the article:
The U.S. – Turkish Plans to Carve Up Iraq and Then Iran
"Standing at the doorsteps of the White House, following an audience with U.S. President George W. Bush last month, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit proudly announced that Turkey is now a 'global' force. Turkey is now an established partner in the U.S. efforts to rearrange international politics, fight terror, and smother the evil threesome of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. But evil is in the eye of the beholder. For Arabs and Middle Easterners in general, the emerging security pact of the United States, Israel, and Turkey holds woeful consequences."
"Turkey is still facing a grinding economic crisis. Still, the Ecevit-Bush talks were only marginally concerned with such minor bilateral issues. Rather, the two men focused on momentous international tasks, on regions where the United States intends to make a move or two, get the global chessboard sorted out, and generally make life easier for itself and those ready to play along."
"Turkey is more than ready. Ankara will lead the international forces after the end of the UK command mandate in Afghanistan. It has a finger in other global pies: Central Asia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Balkans, Cyprus, the Aegean Sea, the Caucasus plateau, the oil of the Caspian Sea. And just out of the oven, the main course in this sumptuous global banquet is the joint offensive against Iraq."
"Plans for an imminent offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime are afoot. Ecevit reviewed these plans during his Washington visit. Military planners envisage supplying the 70,000 Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq, and the smaller force of irregular fighters in southern Iraq, with weapons and money and sending them against Saddam Hussein, with aerial U.S. support. In a later stage, U.S. Special Forces and columns of Turkish tanks would march on Baghdad…"
"Bush and Ecevit seem to have finalized plans for a joint offensive against Baghdad. They are likely to have discussed ways of imposing a strategic military, economic, and political blockade on Tehran. That is two-thirds of the axis of evil taken care of. North Korea can be left to the devices of closer neighbors in the Asia-Pacific Rim."
An Axis of Evil in the Making: U.S. - Turkey - Israel
"What we have here is not an axis of evil under attack; rather, what we have is an axis of evil in the making. Cooperation among the United States, Israel and Turkey has been sharpened through successive security and military agreements. Turkey's role is central to the plans of this axis. It is the thin end of the wedge that can take the axis to places it could not have gone, at least not so easily. Turkey, with its Islamic creed, secular constitution, imperial history and European location, can act as a primary scalpel in the reconstructive surgery the United States envisages for the Middle East. It is a role Turkey has been auditioning for for some time through its previous cooperation agreements with Israel. The distinctive feature of Turkish foreign policy right now is its desire to promote its national interests, even at the expense of its traditional loyalties and historic commitments."
"The conflict between secularism and fundamentalism within Turkey has made it a model for historic contradictions. The rivalry between secularists and traditionalists, between state institutions and conventional loyalties, is not new to the region. But it has assumed a heightened urgency in Turkey, where the Islamist Refah Party has once made a successful bid for the country's government…"
Turkey's Campaign Against Syria, Iran, & Iraq Alarms the Arabs
"Turkey, situated at the edge of the world's arguably most industrialized continent on earth, seems ready to sacrifice its entire Islamic and Arab links for a geopolitical/military threesome with the United States and Israel. The army, patron of the Turkish constitution, is an active supporter of these new strategic bonds. Turkey's military institution played a key role in consolidating ties with Israel. Senior military commanders have actively sponsored training and cooperation programs with Israel. These same commanders are now spearheading the campaign against Syria, Iran, and Iraq; their pretext being that all of these countries support the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its perceived 'terror.'"
"The implications of the Turkish-Israeli-U.S. axis are alarming for the Arabs. Turkey is the wild card that can effectively upset the regional odds. Let us look at the agreements, security arrangements and plans that have so far been forged by the United States, Turkey and Israel. The essence of the security cooperation agreement between the United States and Israel, and the earlier military cooperation agreement between Turkey and Israel, reflect changes in the U.S. strategy in the Middle East... Israel, Turkey and the United States are holding periodic naval drills in the Mediterranean, the latest of which was a few days ago, following Ecevit's visit to Washington. Arab countries, while monitoring such actions closely, are making little secret of their displeasure."
The Arab and Iranian Position
"From the Arab and Iranian point of view, this is the new 'axis of evil,' for it presents a direct threat to Arab and Iranian national security. The threat could not have been worse-timed, for it comes at one of the lowest points of the Middle East peace process. The Turkish-Israeli-U.S. axis opens the Turkish aerial space to the Israeli air force. It can thus provide Israel with a chance to attack any country in the Arab region, particularly next-door Syria and Iraq. Iran, mindful of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, cannot miss the significance of such arrangement for the safety of its own nuclear installations and arms industry."
"The new axis aims to encircle the Middle East from the north. Israel has been making parallel efforts to encircle the region from the south, through cooperation with Eritrea, Ethiopia and other African states. This sits well with the new Israeli security doctrine. It also interlocks nicely with other security pacts being forged in Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, and the Indian subcontinent, in which other regional players, such as India, the interim government in Kabul, and a number of Central Asian countries, are involved…"
Arab – Iranian Ties Must Be Bolstered
"How would the Arabs, and Iran, get out of this fix? There is a number of ways. One is to bolster Arab-Iranian ties. There are signs that closer ties are developing between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria on one hand, and the Iranians on the other. An Egyptian-Syrian-Iranian-Gulf axis may emerge to confront the Israeli-Turkish-U.S. one. Egypt and other Arab countries have agreed to attend the Islamic summit in Tehran. Iranian officials are regularly exchanging visits with officials of several Arab countries, particularly Abu Dhabi."
"A second line of defense is to appeal to Turkey's cultural heritage; that is, to persuade it that its historic bonds and traditional loyalties matter. Arab pressures may range from moral persuasion to a collective boycott of Turkish goods and economic interests."
"The Arabs and Iran may also be tempted to play the Kurdish card. Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have leverage in the Kurdish question and can use it to reach some understanding with Turkey. This prospect is perhaps the reason why Turkish military commanders are so eager to get into Iraq and eliminate this bargaining chip for good. There is more to the prospective invasion of Iraq than meets the eye." (1)
Endnote:
(1)www.ahram.org.eg/weekly, 7-13 March 2002.