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.