Anyone wishing to study the subject of the Israeli media and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict must, as I see it, examine the issue
on two levels. There exists, on the one hand, the openly declared,
formal conflict between Israel and the official representative body
of the Palestinian people. On the other hand, one must examine the
implications of the conflict on the internal situation in Israel.
This involves asking to what extent this media has accommodated
itself to those Palestinians who are on the face of it Israeli
citizens, and to whom the media should give proper expression,
including voicing their complaints.
The most trenchant problem in Israeli television and radio, from
this point of view, is the almost complete lack of Arab programs
and journalists. There does, indeed, exist an Arab "ghetto" on
state television's Channel 1. These Arabic broadcasts every evening
last for about one hour, but their weakness lies in their lack of
original productions, even in the news: most of their material
comes from foreign news agencies and deals primarily with foreign
news. The bulk of the senior staff in the studios consists of
Jewish immigrants from Arab countries and, in the field, of members
of the Druze community. The main advantage of the latter in
pursuing a journalistic career appears to be their past service in
the Israeli army. On TV's Channel 2, the ghetto is restricted to
half an hour per week of mainly outdated news and interviews
conducted at least a day before.
In order to see the absurdity of the way in which Israel approaches
the Arab world, it should be remembered that each of the 23 Arab
states has at least one satellite station broadcasting to the four
corners of the earth, 24 hours a day. Moreover, commercial
companies offer a variety of channels in Arabic day and night from
London, Paris and Rome. In my home in Nazareth, without any effort,
I receive three channels from Lebanon. In my opinion, the best TV
station is the Arab language broadcasts from the small oil Gulf
state of Qatar: day by day, one can watch hours of heated
discussions on existential questions related to the Arab citizen,
or authentic reports by experienced correspondents from world
capitals on important current events.
Handing Out Crumbs
On the other hand, Israeli TV and radio broadcasts only offer the
Arab audience crumbs left over from a pauper's meal. It is true
that all the million Israeli Arab citizens nowadays know enough
Hebrew to watch Hebrew TV, and this also applies to many people in
the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza. All these
have the option of watching reasonably credible news in Hebrew on
what is happening in official Israel. In particular, they can look
over the shoulders of the Israelis and watch their power
struggles.
Israeli Arab citizens hardly find any expression in the main talk
shows on both channels and, among the hundreds of interviewees,
only a few Arabs are invited. These include Dr. Ahmad Tibi (Yasser
Arafat's advisor) and MKs Abdul Wahab Darawshe, Talab El-Sane' and
Dr. Azmi Bishara. Other Arabs are exposed in the Israeli media only
in the wake of violence, as in the demolition of "illegal"
buildings in Umm El-Sahali, or Umm El-Fahm, where there were
violent clashes with the police against the background of closing
agricultural areas for military training. In other words, there is
generally a place for Israeli Arabs on Israeli TV only within the
framework of reporting deeds of violence and bloodshed.
In order that my claims not sound like vague accusations and
generalizations, I took it upon myself to watch Israeli television
and monitor the press for a period of two weeks, from the beginning
to the middle of October 1998. At that time, Israel was in the
throes of an economic shock following a typically bombastic
statement by the prime minister that Israel was "an island of
stability in a world of upheavals," an attempt to calm the public
after the collapse of the markets in Southeast Asia. Over a few
days, the value of the Israeli shekel decreased by about 10 percent
against the dollar in an unplanned devaluation.
Fanning the Flame
On the other hand, toward the middle of the month, Israel found
itself in a really tempestuous mood in the wake of a major series
of fires which damaged forests and residential areas on Mount
Carmel, in Western Galilee and in Wadi Ara. The economic storm was
not connected in the Israeli press with the Jewish-Arab conflict,
but the storm over the blaze fanned the flames of mistrust against
the Arab citizens, with accusations that the fires were caused by
Arab arsonists. From the dark clouds of the forest fires, there
arose the bogey of suspicions threatening the delicate fabric of
coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
When questioned about this, President Ezer Weizman was quick to
point out that he had proposed discussing ways of promoting
understanding with the Arab minority in Israel. The prime minister
saw fit to announce in public that the suspicion of arson had been
discussed at government level and he, Netanyahu, had proposed that
nobody should be in a hurry to blame the Arab citizens before the
police find incriminating evidence.
Labor MK Micha Goldmann, chair of the Knesset Committee for
Internal Affairs, declared that he intended to meet the leaders of
the Arab community in order to bring them into the activity against
forest arson. However, I neither heard nor saw an Israeli
journalist reminding those who voice their - unfounded - suspicion
against the Arabs that this suspicion is based on the fact that,
for 100 years, Jewish National Fund afforestation imposed a
blockade on Arab villages. This was the method used to safeguard
"national land" and its closure to Arabs until Jewish settlement
would be planned for these areas. In other words, the cat had been
appointed to watch over the cream.
The press reported that Ariel Sharon, who continued to claim that
he opposes both retreat from the territories and shaking Arafat's
hand, was appointed foreign minister, and it didn't cause a stir.
On the contrary, many people welcomed Netanyahu for imprisoning
Sharon in a golden cage. MK Azmi Bishara, the only Arab to publish
an announcement in a Hebrew paper, saw in the appointment
additional proof that Netanyahu doesn't want peace.
Two Subjects
The two "Arab" subjects prominent in the press dealt with Umm
El-Fahm and the police violence against demonstrators opposing
their right as farmers to what was left of their land after
expropriations in and since 1948; and with a sensational and
unprecedented tragedy in the history of Israeli medicine: a
gynecologist in the government hospital in Safad was to help
Khadija Sawaid from the village of El-Kammana to give birth to her
fifth child. However, as the result of an accident while she was
giving birth, the doctor pulled and severed the baby's head,
removing the body in a Caesarean section.
The Umm El-Fahm story received live coverage on all the TV channels
and lead headlines in all the newspapers. However, only a few
papers bothered to present the readers with the tragic background:
decades in which Israel denied ownership rights of Arab citizens to
their land (Yediot Aharonot and Ha'aretz). Unfortunately, one can
state with a high degree of certainty that the impression received
by most of the Jewish public was that the "national Intifada" had
come to Wadi Ara, as reported in the evening papers Yediot Aharonot
and Ma'ariv.
The local (regional) papers were even harsher and cruder. The
weekly Kol Ha'emek ve Hagalil (which belongs to the Yediot Aharonot
network) repeated on October 9, 1998, the traditional libel that,
in Umm El-Fahm, demonstrators cried "Death to the Jews" and
demonstrated in their riots against the existence of Israel, while,
"cowardly and apologetic [Jewish] behavior" facilitated their
arrogance.
Khadija - The Background Story
How did the Israeli media deal with the tragic story of the mother
who mourned the shocking death of her offspring at the hands of the
gynecologist? It can be noted that the journalists in all the
Israeli media supported the mother and criticized the treatment
that she received in the hospital. They knew in the hospital from
the mother's medical file that she had needed a Caesarean section
in the past, yet the doctor opposed an operation until the disaster
in which the baby's head was severed. This warranted a public
condemnation (and perhaps, though it is not clear at the time of
writing, criminal malpractice charges) against the doctor and the
government hospital that employed him.
However, the fact that the mother came from the Galilee village of
Kammana was not considered worthy of any mention in the Hebrew
press. Kammana is one of the tens of small villages in Galilee
(there are also about a hundred in the Negev) whose existence is
not recognized by the Ministry of the Interior and by the State of
Israel. The residents are denied minimal services like electricity,
running water and, even, a proper mail service.
What stands out so conspicuously is the lack of Arab correspondents
in the Hebrew press who would report on the background of the
tragic heroine of the story. Incidentally, one of these villages,
Ein Hud (near Ein Hod artists' village) did receive de facto
government recognition some years ago, but during the fire
mentioned earlier, the fire brigade didn't arrive to help the
villagers. The Public Works Department had not paved a proper road
for cars. It seems that the fire fighters didn't know about the
government recognition.
The Media - An Opposition
However, contrary to the above data concerning the internal front,
it can be stated that on the issue of war and peace with the
Palestinians and the Arabs, most of the Israeli media is in
opposition to the government. Only isolated voices have defended
the aggressive line of the Netanyahu government or attacked it from
the right. For example, the editorial in Ha'aretz on October 11,
1998, on the anticipated Clinton-Arafat-Netanyahu summit at the Wye
Plantation notes in the restrained style typical of this paper,
that the peace process is aimed at creating a political alliance
between Israel and the Palestinians, paving the way to
rehabilitating the relations between Israel and her neighbors and
granting the Palestinians the prospect of realizing their political
rights. The summit is vital and, if an agreement is reached, its
success will be measured by goodwill and day-to-day application by
both camps. A similar peace-oriented tone can be found in articles
by the prominent political correspondent Yoel Marcus and the
military correspondent Ze'ev Schiff.
The People Want Peace
But the Israeli public opinion wants peace and sees it as the
realization of its foremost dream. The political correspondents
report in their papers on a public opinion poll with a sample of
2,500 persons conducted by the prime minister's advisors on the eve
of his departure for the Wye summit. Netanyahu learned from this
poll that a decisive majority of Israelis support the 13-percent
retreat which was agreed upon with the Americans.
Another poll conducted by Ma'ariv early in October 1998 showed that
more than any other event, for the largest proportion of Israelis,
peace with the Arab states is seen as the happy realization of a
dream. From their point of view, 47.6 percent said peace is more
important than anything else. A poll conducted for Yediot Aharonot
by Mina Tsemach reached similar conclusions. The most intimate
desire of the Israeli out of a total of 50 options was peace (64.9
percent), followed by health (31.7 percent), and economic
prosperity in Israel (12.4 percent). In fourth place came security
(11 percent), and then other items like personal wealth. The desire
not to return territories to the Palestinians came 24th (1
percent), while in 40th place came those Israelis who desire peace
without returning territories (0.6 percent).
The Wound of Southern Lebanon
Zvi Barel writes in Ha'aretz on a subject which has been most
painful for the Israeli public over the last two years: Israel's
involvement with Hizbullah fighters in southern Lebanon. Barel
proposes that the Israeli government make a decision to retreat
from the Lebanese town of Jezzine in the Israeli "Security Zone" as
a gesture to the new Lebanese president, General Emile Lahoud. The
taking over by the Lebanese army of the area will in itself grant
Israel the security guarantee to which it aspires and will
facilitate continued negotiations over the evacuation of southern
Lebanon by the Israeli army.
Ma'ariv, which has been considered as tending toward the right of
Israel's political map, also deals with Lebanon. Ofer Shelach
writes that "the government of Israel is unsuccessful as regards
making a decision about leaving Lebanon, and only an uprising by
the Israeli public is capable of freeing Israel Defense Forces
(IDF) soldiers from the mud in which they are sunk in
Lebanon."
What Did Arafat Say?
In late November 1998, I noted the different approach of two of
Israel's main newspapers. In Yediot Aharonot, there appeared a
page-long report of Yasser Arafat's speech on the 10th anniversary
of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. The headline read:
"Arafat: We Shall Defend with Our Rifles Our Rights in Jerusalem."
But Arafat really said, "We shall use our rifles against whoever
prevents us from praying in Jerusalem," as reported accurately in
Ha'aretz. Yediot Aharonot has the biggest circulation in Israel,
while Ha'aretz has a relatively small readership. Sensational
reporting promises higher ratings and wider circulation -
especially when it is related to "security" issues.
Educating by the Book
Shortly before the hour, when I was scheduled to sit down and start
writing this article, Uri Porat, the new director-general of the
Israel Broadcasting Authority, published a book of new guidelines
for the broadcasting staff. These new rules include the use of
permanent and standard terminology in their editing of the news, in
their reports, and in formulating questions when they are
conducting interviews.
For example, the new rightist director-general laid down that in
interviews, the journalists must call the whole Mandatory areas of
Palestine/Eretz Israel by the name of "Land" or "the Land." The
West Bank, including the areas governed by the Palestinian National
Authority (PNA), is to be called "Judea and Samaria" ("Yosh"
according to the Hebrew abbreviation). Porat instructed the TV and
radio staff to call the village of Silwan in East Jerusalem by the
Hebrew name "Shiloah," while the Palestinian flag is to be called
the "PLO flag." Ministers in the PNA are to be called not
"ministers," but "those in charge of portfolios."
In brief, he wants to exploit his authority in order to wipe out
all signs of sovereignty, state and peoplehood from the
Palestinians. This is exactly what Israel's state broadcasting and
most Israeli papers did before the Oslo Accords. The PLO people
were "terrorists" and "saboteurs," and that is how the Israeli
right would prefer to see them in the future. It would be better to
have Oslo and all the subsequent agreements deleted.
In this spirit, Arab demonstrators in Israel are "rioters," while
Jewish rioters are merely "demonstrators." Armed Jews, for instance
settlers on the rampage, are at worst "hotheads" or "extremists."
As for massacres like the one carried out by the IDF at Kufr Qana,
the attacks by the Jewish "underground" at the University of Hebron
and against the mayors of Nablus and Ramallah - all these are
merely "irregular acts," "errors" or "irresponsible deeds."
Therefore, one can undoubtedly learn about the current
Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Uri Porat's decisions on rules of
the media and on what one can call the "semantics" of the
conflict.
Who Will Have the Last Word?
On the whole, one can conclude that most, if not all, Israeli
newspapers tend to adopt a liberal line as regards peace, and they
advise the government to show more willingness for cooperation and
reconciliation. In most issues, the bulk of the Israeli newspapers
support the demand of the Arab minority for equality. On the
problems of peace and equality, they are ready to criticize the
establishment. The TV and radio usually don't share in this
approach. The number of Arab journalists in these institutions is
"less than the fingers on one hand," as we say in Arabic. They tend
to ignore the Arab issues, except when they are sensational or in
cases that are presented as having a dire effect on Israeli
security or safety.
So, alongside those trying to return us to the pre-Oslo period,
there are forces working for peace and coexistence. Who will win?
Who will have to succumb? Time will tell how the storm of conflict
with which we have been living for the last 100 years will
eventually end.