Myths
and Facts - Media
MYTH
“Press coverage of Israel is proportional to its importance in world
affairs.”
FACT
It is hard to justify the amount of news coverage given to Israel based
on that nation's importance in world affairs or American national
interests. How is it that a country the size of New Jersey routinely
merits top billing over seemingly more newsworthy nations like Russia,
China and Great Britain?
Israel probably has the highest per capita fame quotient in the world.
Americans know more about Israeli politics than that of any other
foreign country. Most of Israel's leaders, for example, are more
familiar in the United States than those of America's neighbors in
Canada or Mexico. In addition, a high percentage of Americans are
conversant on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
One reason Americans are so knowledgeable about Israel is the extent of
coverage. American news organizations usually have more correspondents
in Israel than in any country except Great Britain.
MYTH
“Israel receives so much attention because it is the only country in the
Middle East that affects U.S. interests.”
FACT
The Middle East is important to the United States (and the Western
world) primarily because of its oil resources. Events that might
threaten the production and supply of oil affect vital U.S. interests.
The United States also has an interest in supporting friendly regimes in
the region. Attention is warranted because the Middle East is the scene
of repeated conflagrations that directly or indirectly affect American
interests. Events in countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Iran have
required the intervention of U.S. troops, and nothing focuses the
attention of the public like American lives being endangered abroad. The
United States has been deeply involved in each of the Arab-Israeli wars,
but has also had its own independent battles, most notably the Gulf War
with Iraq in 1991 and “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in 2003. The media is
now very focused on Iraq because of the continuing U.S. troop deployment
there.
On the other hand, Americans are not typically interested in the
fratricidal wars of people in distant lands when the fighting does not
appear to have any bearing on U.S. interests. This is true in Africa,
Latin America and even the Balkans. Similarly, inter-Arab wars have not
generated the kind of interest that Israel's problems have. However, the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute — two people fighting over one land — is a
particularly compelling story. It is made all the more so by the fact
that it is centered in the Holy Land.
Another explanation for the disproportionate coverage Israel receives
relative to Arab countries is that few correspondents have a background
in Middle East history or speak the regional languages. Journalists are
more familiar with the largely Western culture in Israel than the more
alien Muslim societies.
Israel is the one Middle East country where a correspondent can find a
girl friend.
— S. Abdallah Schleifer1
MYTH
“Western media coverage of the Arab world is equal to that of Israel.”
FACT
The journalistic community regards the Arab/Islamic world as the "arc of
silence."2 The media in those countries is strictly controlled by
totalitarian governments. By contrast, Israel is a democracy with one of
the most freewheeling press corps in the world.
The limited access is often used as an excuse for the media's failure to
cover news in the region. This was the case, for example, during the
Iran-Iraq war — one of the bloodiest conflicts in the last four decades.
Still, given the resourcefulness of American journalists, it is shocking
that so little coverage is given to even the most authoritarian of
regimes.
MYTH
“Media coverage of the Arab world is objective.”
FACT
When journalists are allowed to pierce the veil of secrecy, the price of
access to dictators and terrorists is often steep. Reporters are
sometimes intimidated or blackmailed. In Lebanon during the 1980s, for
example, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had reporters doing
their bidding as the price for obtaining interviews and protection.
During the “al-Aksa intifada,” Israeli journalists were warned against
going to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and some received telephone
threats after publishing articles critical of the PA leadership.3
When asked to comment on what many viewers regard as CNN's bias against
Israel, Reese Schonfeld, the network's first president explained, "When
I see them on the air I see them being very careful about Arab
sensibilities." Schonfeld suggested the coverage is slanted because CNN
doesn't want to risk the special access it has in the Arab world.5
In Arab countries, journalists are usually escorted to see what the
dictator wants them to see or they are followed. Citizens are warned by
security agencies, sometimes directly, sometimes more subtly, that they
should be careful what they say to visitors.
In the case of coverage of the PA, the Western media relies heavily on
Palestinian assistants to escort correspondents in the territories. In
addition, Palestinians often provide the news that is sent out around
the world. “By my own estimate,” journalist Ehud Ya'ari wrote, “over 95
percent of the TV pictures going out on satellite every evening to the
various foreign and Israeli channels are supplied by Palestinian film
crews. The two principle agencies in the video news market, APTN and
Reuters TV, run a whole network of Palestinian stringers, freelancers
and fixers all over the territories to provide instant footage of the
events. These crews obviously identify emotionally and politically with
the intifada and, in the ‘best’ case, they simply don't dare film
anything that could embarrass the Palestinian Authority. So the cameras
are angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army's actions, never
focus on the Palestinian gunmen and diligently produce a very specific
kind of close-up of the situation on the ground.”6
A particularly egregious incident occurred in October 2000 when two
non-combatant Israeli reservists were lynched in Ramallah by a
Palestinian mob. According to reporters on the scene, the Palestinian
police tried to prevent foreign journalists from filming the incident.
One Italian television crew managed to film parts of the attack and
these shocking images ultimately made headlines around the world. A
competing Italian news agency took a different tack, placing an
advertisement in the PA's main newspaper, Al Hayat-Al-Jadidah,
explaining that it had nothing to do with filming the incident:
My dear friends in Palestine. We congratulate you and think that it is
our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on
October 12 in Ramallah. One of the private television stations which
competes with us (and not the official Italian television station RTI)
filmed the events; that station filmed the events. Afterwards Israeli
Television broadcast the pictures, as taken from one of the Italian
stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RTI) took
these pictures.
We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way,
because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic
procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in
Palestine and we are credible in our precise work.
We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our
way of acting (note: meaning we do not work like the other television
stations). We do not (and will not) do such a thing.
Please accept our blessings.
Signed
Ricardo Christiano
Representative of the official Italian station in Palestine7
If a news organization strays from the pro-Palestinian line, it comes
under immediate attack. In November 2000, for example, the Palestinian
Journalist's Union complained that the Associated Press was presenting a
false impression of the "al-Aksa intifada." The Union called AP's
coverage a conscious crime against the Palestinian people and said it
served the Israeli position. The Union threatened to adopt all necessary
measures against AP staffers as well as against AP bureaus located in
the PA if the agency continued to harm Palestinian interests.8
MYTH
“Journalists covering the Middle East are driven by the search for the
truth.”
FACT
It will come as no surprise to learn that journalists in the Middle East
share an interest in sensationalism with their colleagues covering
domestic issues. The most egregious examples come from television
reporters whose emphasis on visuals over substance encourages facile
treatment of the issues. For example, when NBC's correspondent in Israel
was asked why reporters turned up at Palestinian demonstrations in the
West Bank they knew were being staged, he said, “We play along because
we need the pictures.”10 The networks can't get newsworthy pictures from
closed societies such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Libya.
Israel often faces an impossible situation of trying to counter images
with words. "When a tank goes into Ramallah, it does not look good on
TV," explains Gideon Meir of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. "Sure we can
explain why we are there, and that's what we do. But it's words. We have
to fight pictures with words."10a
The magnitude of the problem Israel confronts is clear from Tami
Allen-Frost, deputy chairman of the Foreign Press Association and a
producer for Britain's ITN news, who says "the strongest picture that
stays in the mind is of a tank in a city" and that "there are more
incidents all together in the West Bank than there are suicide bombings.
In the end, it's quantity that stays with you."10b
“We were filming the beginning of the demonstration. Suddenly, a van
pulled in hurriedly. Inside, there were Fatah militants. They gave their
orders and even distributed Molotov cocktails. We were filming. But
these images, you will never see. In a few seconds, all those youngsters
surrounded us, threatened us, and then took us away to the police
station. There, we identified ourselves but we were compelled to delete
the controversial pictures. The Palestinian Police calmed the situation
but censored our pictures. We now have the proof that those riots are no
longer spontaneous. All the orders came from the Palestinian hierarchy.”
— Jean Pierre Martin11
MYTH
“The media lets Israel get away with more because of its alliance with
the U.S.”
FACT
Americans tend to have a double-standard about the Jews, expecting more
from them than other peoples. This is in part due to the Jews' own high
expectations and goal of being a "light unto the nations." Thus, when
Israelis do something bad, it often attracts attention, whereas Arabs
are usually held to a lower standard. For example, when Israel expelled
four Palestinians, it generated banner headlines, but when Kuwait
deported hundreds of thousands, it was a nonevent. Similarly, the death
of one Palestinian in the West Bank received far more coverage than
thousands of Arabs killed in Algeria. On a day when Israel got a banner
headline for killing four terrorists, a story on page A19 of the
Washington Post buried in the 12th paragraph the news that more than 80
people were killed in violence during a summit between Pakistan and
India.11a Rightly or wrongly, the attitude of the public and press is
that Jews should behave differently.
MYTH
“Israel doesn't warrant so much attention because it is not one of
America's allies.”
FACT
Israel enjoys a unique relationship with the United States dating back
to the early part of the century when the Congress endorsed the creation
of a Jewish State in Palestine. Harry Truman is generally considered the
midwife in the birth of the new state, and U.S. economic, diplomatic,
and military support has been crucial to Israel's development and
survival.
Americans feel a kinship to Israelis because of the values we share —
democracy, love of freedom, a commitment to education — that translates
into a broad range of people to people and government to government
relationships. The public is fascinated by this People of the Book, who
wandered from country to country through the centuries, suffered great
persecution, returned to their homeland, built a thriving high-tech
society, and have fought and defeated enemies with overwhelming
superiority. Americans admire the pioneering spirit of the Jews who
first settled in Palestine and created kibbutzim, in part because it
mirrors their own history. They also like underdogs, which the Jews
continue to be even as Israel has grown to be a military power.
As Israel has grown more militarily powerful, it has also become a
strategic ally that enjoys the special status of Major Non-NATO Ally.
MYTH
“Israel gets favorable coverage because American Jews control the media
and have disproportionate political influence.”
FACT
If Jews controlled the media, it's not likely you'd hear Jews
complaining so much about the anti-Israel bias of the press. It is true
that the amount of attention Israel receives is related to the fact that
the largest Jewish population in the world is in the United States and
that Israel greatly concerns American Jews. Large numbers of Jews do
hold significant positions in the media (though they by no means
"control" the press as anti-Semites maintain), and the Jewish population
is concentrated in major media markets like New York and Los Angeles, so
it is not surprising the spotlight would be directed at Israel.
Politically, Jews wield disproportionate power in the United States and
use it to advocate policies that strengthen the U.S.-Israel
relationship; however, there is no evidence this has translated into
favorable press coverage for Israel. It is possible to argue that
pro-Arab forces, such as the petrochemical industry, have as much or
more influence on the media and encourage an anti-Israel bias.
MYTH
“Arab officials tell Western journalists the same thing they tell their
own people.”
FACT
Arab officials often express their views differently in English than
they do in Arabic. They express their true feelings and positions to
their constituents in their native language. For external consumption,
however, Arab officials have learned to speak in moderate tones and
often relate very different views when speaking in English to Western
audiences. Long ago, Arab propagandists became more sophisticated about
how to make their case. They now routinely appear on American television
news broadcasts and are quoted in the print media and come across as
reasonable people with legitimate grievances. What many of these same
people say in Arabic, however, is often far less moderate and
reasonable. Since Israelis can readily translate what is said in Arabic
they are well aware of the views of their enemies. Americans and other
English-speakers, however, can easily be fooled by the slick
presentation of an Arab propagandist.
To give just one example, Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat is
frequently quoted by the Western media. After the brutal murder of two
Israeli teenagers on May 9, 2001, he was asked for a reaction. The
Washington Post reported his response:
Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian official, said in English at a news
conference that “killing civilians is a crime, whether on the
Palestinian or the Israeli side.” The comment was not reported in
Arabic-language Palestinian media.12
The unusual aspect of this story was that the Post reported the fact
that Erekat's comment was ignored by the Palestinian press.
Over the years Yasser Arafat has consistently said one thing in English
to the Western media and something completely different to the Arabic
press in his native tongue. This is why the Bush Administration insisted
that he repeat in Arabic what he said in English, in particular
condemnations of terrorist attacks and calls to end violence.
MYTH
“Journalists are well-versed in Middle East history and therefore can
place current events in proper context.”
FACT
One cause of misunderstanding about the Middle East and bias in media
reporting is the ignorance of journalists about the region. Few
reporters speak Hebrew or Arabic, so they have little or no access to
primary resources. They frequently regurgitate stories they read in
English language publications from the region rather than report
independently. When they do attempt to place events in historical
context, they often get the facts wrong and create an inaccurate or
misleading impression. To cite one example, during a recitation of the
history of the holy sites in Jerusalem, CNN's Garrick Utley reported
that Jews could pray at the Western Wall during Jordan's rule from 1948
to 1967.13 In fact, Jews were prevented from visiting their holiest
shrine. This is a critical historical point that helps explain Israel's
position toward Jerusalem.
MYTH
“The media effectively captures the danger average Israelis face from
Palestinians.”
FACT
During the intifada it was common for the media to portray the battle in
David versus Goliath terms, an image reinforced by pictures of children
tossing stones at heavily armed soldiers. The situation was actually
quite different, as U.S. journalist Sidney Zion discovered during an
August 1988 visit to Bethlehem. Zion was nearly struck by a rock while
riding in a taxicab. "It's a good thing the rock missed me," he said. "I
didn't see it coming, and wouldn't have lived to see the next second had
the driver been going a kilometer faster. Fortunately, nobody was in
that seat, but it was clear that the Arabs weren't aiming at dead air."
Zion — who had been writing about the Middle East for more than 20 years
— said that American media reports had led him to believe that "the
rock-throwers were aiming at the Israeli Army, not at taxicabs. Did you
ever see anything else on TV? Did you read anything to the contrary in
the newspapers? Kids were tossing stones at soldiers, that's all."
"It simply didn't occur to me that American journalists would suppress
news of a life-and-death danger. It was only later that I discovered
that what happened to us was hardly uncommon," Zion wrote. "On any given
day in the West Bank, Israeli civilians are getting brain-damaged from
these nice little Arab youngsters and their pebbles."15
The "al-Aksa intifada" has featured many of the same images as the first
uprising, and the media has continued to distort the impact on Israelis
in the way Zion described.
MYTH
“Media coverage of the intifada was fair and balanced.”
FACT
Candid members of the media admitted that coverage of the intifada was
skewed. According to Steven Emerson, then a CNN correspondent, U.S.
reporters acquiesced to Palestinian control over what was filmed. An
Israeli cameraman who worked for several U.S. networks told Emerson that
"if we aim the camera at the wrong scene, we'll be dead." In other
instances, the networks handed out dozens of video cameras to
Palestinians so that they could provide footage of strikes, riots and
funerals. "There is absolutely no way to ensure the authenticity of what
is filmed, nor is there any way to stop the cameras from being used as a
tool to mobilize a demonstration," Emerson wrote.16
Although nearly one-third of all Palestinians murdered in 1989 were
killed by their Arab brethren, only 12 of the more than 150 stories
filed by U.S. networks from the West Bank that year dealt with the
internecine warfare. "While Palestinian political terror on the West
Bank fails to make the news," Emerson observed, "utter fabrications
about Israeli brutality are reported uncritically."
For example, in early 1988, reporters were called to el-Mokassed
Hospital in Jerusalem to film a dying Palestinian boy. His Palestinian
doctor showed him hooked to life-support tubes, and claimed the child
had been savagely beaten by Israeli troops. On February 8, 1988, ABC's
Peter Jennings introduced the report by saying UN officials "say that
the Israelis have beaten another Palestinian to death in the
territories." NBC and CBS also gave the claims wide publicity.
But the story wasn't true. According to the child's autopsy and medical
records, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. He had been sick for more
than a year. Overall, the U.S. networks, Emerson wrote, "have been
complicit in a massive deception about the West Bank conflict."
NBC's Tel Aviv bureau chief Martin Fletcher acknowledged that the
intifada posed a fairness problem. He noted the Palestinians manipulated
the Western media by casting themselves as "David" against the Israeli
"Goliath," a metaphor used by Fletcher himself in a 1988 report.
"The whole uprising was media-oriented, and, without a doubt, kept going
because of the media," he said. Fletcher openly admitted accepting
invitations from young Palestinians to film violent attacks against
Jewish residents of the West Bank.
"It's really a matter of manipulation of the media. And the question is:
How much do we play that game? [We do it] in the same way that we turn
up at all those Bush or Reagan photo opportunities. We play along
because we need the pictures."17
Case Study
A Washington Post story about the “cycle of death” in the West Bank
included an interview with Raed Karmi, an official in Fatah, the
dominant faction in Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.
The report begins with the observation that Karmi is running out to join
a battle against Israeli soldiers and grabs an M-16 assault rifle. What
the story fails to mention is that only Palestinian police are supposed
to be armed. The report implies that Israeli and Palestinian violence is
equivalent in this “cycle” because Karmi said he was acting to avenge
the death of a Palestinian who the Israelis assassinated for organizing
terrorist attacks. Karmi admits that he participated in the kidnapping
and execution-style murder of two Israelis who had been eating lunch in
a Tulkarm restaurant. Karmi was jailed by the Palestinian Authority, but
he was released after just four months and subsequently killed four more
Israelis, including a man buying groceries and a driver who he ambushed.
“I will continue attacking Israelis,” he told the Post.18
MYTH
“Israelis cannot deny the truth of pictures showing their abuses.”
FACT
A picture may be worth thousand words, but sometimes the picture and the
words used to describe it are distorted and misleading. There is no
question that photographers and television camera crews seek the most
dramatic pictures they can find, most often showing brutal Israeli
Goliaths mistreating the suffering Palestinian Davids, but the context
is often missing.
In one classic example, the Associated Press circulated the accompanying
photo around the world. The dramatic image was in the New York Times19
and spurred international outrage because the caption, supplied by AP,
said, “An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount.”
Taken at a time when Palestinians were rioting following Ariel Sharon's
controversial visit to the al-Aksa mosque, the picture appeared to be a
vivid case of Israeli brutality. It turned out, however, the caption was
inaccurate and the photo actually showed an incident that might have
conveyed almost the exact opposite impression had it been reported
correctly.
In fact, the victim was not a Palestinian beaten by an Israeli soldier,
it was a policeman protecting an American Jewish student, Tuvia
Grossman, who had been riding in a taxi when it was stoned by
Palestinians. Grossman was pulled out of the taxi, beaten and stabbed.
He broke free and fled toward the Israeli policeman. At that point a
photographer snapped the picture.
Besides getting the victim wrong, AP also inaccurately reported that the
photograph was taken on the Temple Mount.
When AP was alerted to the errors, it issued a series of corrections,
several of which still did not get the story straight. As is usually the
case when the media makes a mistake, the damage was already done. Many
outlets that had used the photo did not print clarifications. Others
issued corrections that did not receive anywhere near the prominence of
the initial story.
Another example of how photos can be both dramatic and misleading is the
Reuters photo shown below showing a young Palestinian being arrested by
Israeli police on April 6, 2001. The boy is obviously frightened and has
wet his pants. Once again the photo attracted worldwide publicity and
reinforced the media image of Israelis as brutal occupiers who abuse
innocent children.
In this instance it is the context that is misleading. Another Reuters
photographer snapped the picture shown below just before the first one
was taken. It shows the same boy participating in a riot against Israeli
soldiers. Few media outlets published this photo.
MYTH
“The press makes no apologies for terrorists.”
FACT
On the contrary, the media routinely accepts and repeats the platitudes
of terrorists and their spokespersons with regard to their agendas. The
press gullibly treats claims that attacks against innocent civilians are
acts of "freedom fighters." In recent years some news organizations have
developed a resistance to the term "terrorist" and replaced it with
euphemisms like "militant" because they don't want to be seen as taking
sides or making judgments about the perpetrators.
For example, after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a pizza
restaurant in downtown Jerusalem on August 9, 2001, killing 15 people,
the attacker was described as a "militant" (Los Angeles Times, Chicago
Tribune, NBC Nightly News) and "suicide bomber" (New York Times, USA
Today). ABC News did not use the word "terrorist." By contrast, every
media outlet called the September 11 attack on the United States a
terrorist attack.
Clifford May of the Middle East Information Network pointed out the
absurdity of the media coverage: "No newspaper would write, 'Militants
struck the World Trade Center yesterday,' or say, 'They may think of
themselves as feedom fighters, and who are we to judge, we're
newspeople."19a
Rather than apologize for terrorists, the media sometimes portrays the
victims of terror as equivalent to the terrorists themselves. For
example, photos are sometimes shown of Israeli victims on the same page
with photos of Israelis capturing terrorists, giving the sense, for
example, that the Palestinian held in handcuffs and blindfolded by a
soldier is as much a victim as the woman in shock being helped from the
scene of a suicide bombing.
In one of the most egregious examples, after a suicide bombing in Petah
Tikva on May 27, 2002, CNN interviewed the mother of the bomber, Jihad
Titi. The parents of a 15-month-old girl killed in the attack, Chen and
Lior Keinan, were also interviewed. The interviews with the Keinans were
not shown on CNN international in Israel or elsewhere around the world
until hours after the interview with Titi's mother had been broadcast
several times.
This was even too much for CNN, which subsequently announced a policy
change whereby it would no longer "report on statements made by suicide
bombers or their families unless there seemingly is an extraordinarily
compelling reason to do so."20a
MYTH
“The Palestinian Authority places no restrictions on foreign reporters.”
FACT
A case study of the Palestinian Authority's idea of freedom of the press
occurred following the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United
States. An Associated Press cameraman filmed Palestinians at a rally in
Nablus celebrating the terror attacks and was subsequently summoned to a
Palestinian Authority security office and told that the material must
not be aired. Yasser Arafat's Tanzim also called to threaten his life if
he aired the film. An AP still photographer was also at the site of the
rally. He was warned not to take pictures and complied.
Several Palestinian Authority officials told AP in Jerusalem not to
broadcast the videotape. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary,
said the Palestinian Authority "cannot guarantee the life" of the
cameraman if the footage was broadcast.20b
The cameraman requested that the material not be aired and, AP caved in
to the blackmail and refused to release the footage.
More than a week later, the Palestinian Authority returned a videotape
it confiscated from AP showing a Palestinian rally in the Gaza Strip in
which some demonstrators carried posters supporting Saudi terrorist
Osama bin Laden. Two separate parts of the six-minute tape involving
"key elements" were erased by the Palestinians, according to an AP
official.20c
The Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Israel expressed "deep concern
over the harassment of journalists by the Palestinian Authority as
police forces and armed gunmen tried to prevent photo and video coverage
of Tuesday's rally in Nablus where hundreds of Palestinians celebrated
the terror attacks in New York and Washington." The FPA also condemned
the threats against videographers and "the attitude of Palestinian
officials who made no effort to counter the threats, control the
situation, or to guarantee the safety of the journalists and the freedom
of the press."
Israel Radio reported September 14, 2001, that the Palestinian Authority
seized the footage filmed that day by photographers from various
international (including Arab) news agencies covering celebrations of
the attacks against America held in cities across the West Bank and Gaza
by Hamas. The celebrants waived photographs of wanted terrorist Osama
bin Laden.21 The very same news programs and networks that broadcast the
photo opportunities produced by the Palestinian Authority (Arafat
donating blood, Palestinian students in a moment of silence, posters
supporting America) failed to broadcast the news that the PA is using
terror and intimidation to discourage the airing of unfavorable reports.
In October 2001, after the United States launched attacks against
Afghanistan, Palestinians supporting Osama bin Laden staged rallies in
the Gaza Strip that were ruthlessly suppresed by Palestinian police. The
PA took measures to prevent any media coverage of the rallies or the
subsequent riots. The Paris-based Reporters Without Frontiers issued a
scathing protest to the PA. "We fear the Palestinian Authority takes
advantage of the focus of international media on the American riposte to
restrain more and more the right to free information," said Robert
Menard, general secretary of the journalists' organization. The group
also protested Palestinian orders not to broadcast calls for general
strikes, nationalistic activities, demonstrations or other news without
permission from the PA. The aim of the press blackout was expressed by
an anonymous Palestinian official, "We don't want anything which could
undermine our image."22
In August 2002, the Palestinian journalists union banned journalists
from photographing Palestinian children carrying weapons or taking part
in activities by terrorist organizations because the pictures were
hurting the Palestinians' image. The ban came after numerous photographs
were published showing children carrying weapons and dressing up like
suicide bombers. Shortly before the union acted, six children were
photographed carrying M16 rifles and Kalashnikovs during a pro-Iraq
rally in the Gaza Strip. Another group, the Palestinian Journalists
Syndicate, issued a similar ban that included photographing masked men.
The Foreign Press Association expressed "deep concern" over the effort
to censor coverage, and the threats of sanctions against journalists who
disregarded the ban.22a
In July 2004, as Gaza became increasingly unstable, and protests were
being mounted against corruption in the Palestinian Authority and the
leadership of Arafat, Palestinian journalists covering the crisis
received death threats. They were told, for example, to stay away from a
rally in Gaza to protest Arafat's decision to appoint his cousin as the
commander of the PA security forces. One reporter who works for an
international news organization said journalists were told that anyone
who went to the rally would suffer the same fate as a Palestinian
legislator who was shot after he called for reforms in the PA in a
television interview. The Gaza rally was subssequently either downplayed
or ignored by the Palestinian media.22b
Journalists from Arab nations are also subject to censorship. In January
2003, for example, the PA's General Intelligence Service arrested a
correspondent for al-Jazeera television. The journalist was accused of
harming the national interests of the Palestinian people by reporting
that Fatah had claimed responsiblity for a double suicide bombing in Tel
Aviv. In January 2004, journalists working for Arab satellite TV
stations were told to refer to all Palestinians killed by the IDF as
shaheeds (martyrs). Numerous incidents have also been reported of
physical attacks on journalists who offended PA officials. A reporter
for a Saudi-owned news channel was wounded by gunfire when he was
driving through the Gaza Strip. He was then dragged from his car and
beaten because his station had allowed criticism of Yasser Arafat and
other officials. A week later, 100 Palestinian journalists went to
Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah to pledge allegiance to him.22c
MYTH
“Al-Jazeera is the 'Arabic CNN' providing the Arab world with an
objective source of news.”
FACT
Al-Jazeera is an Arabic-language television network based in Qatar that
is widely viewed throughout the Arab world. The channel began in 1996 as
a pet project of Qatar’s emir, Sheik Hamad bin-Khalifa al-Thani and
gained prominence during the U.S. war in Afghanistan because of its
longstanding contacts with the Taliban rulers and Osama bin Laden. By
airing a variety of viewpoints, including those of Bush Administration
officials, the network sought to create the impression that it is an
objective news source for the Arab world. In fact, Al-Jazeera has a long
history as a propaganda outlet for extremist views in the Arab world.
One Muslim scholar blamed the network for inciting the Arab masses
against the West and for making bin Laden and his aides celebrities.
"There is a difference between giving different opinoions an opportunity
[to be heard] and leaving the screen open to armed murderers to spread
their ideas," said Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of Shar'ia and Law
at Qatar University.23
In an interview on 60 Minutes, one Al-Jazeera correspondent was asked
about coverage of the Palestinian issue. He refers to Palestinians who
are killed as martyrs. When Ed Bradley pointed out that the Israelis
would call them terrorists, he replied,"This is a problem for the
Israelis. It's a point of view." When asked what he calls Israelis who
are killed by Palestinians, the reporter answered, "We call it that: the
Israeli is killed by Palestinians." Bradley added that Al-Jazeera's
coverage of the Intifada was "credited with igniting pro-Palestinian
demonstrations all over the Middle East."24
MYTH
“The media carefully investigates Palestinian claims before publicizing
them.”
FACT
Palestinians have learned that they can disseminate almost any
information to the media and it will be published or broadcast
somewhere. Once it is picked up by one media outlet, it is inevitably
repeated by others. Quickly, misinformation can take on the appearance
of fact, and while Israel can present evidence to correct the
inaccuracies being reported, the damage is usually already done. Once an
image or impression is in someone's mind, it is often difficult, if not
impossible to erase it.
It is said that there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and
statistics. One staple of Palestinian propaganda has been to distribute
false statistics in an effort to make Israeli actions look monstrous.
For example, if an incident involves some death or destruction, they can
grossly exaggerate the figures and a gullible media will repeat the
fabricated data until they become widely accepted as accurate. This
occurred, for example, during the Lebanon War when Yasser Arafat’s
brother claimed that Israel’s operations had left 600,000 Lebanese
homeless. He made the number up, but it was repeated by the
International Committee of the Red Cross and publicized in the media. By
the time the ICRC repudiated the figure, it was too late to change the
impression that Israel's military operation to defend itself from
terrorist attacks on its northern border had created an unconscionable
refugee problem.25
This happened again after Israel’s operation in Jenin in April 2002 when
Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat told CNN on April 17 that at least 500
people were massacred and 1,600 people, including women and children,
were missing. Erekat could produce no evidence for his claim and, in
fact, the Palestinians’ own review committee reported a death toll of
56, of whom 34 were combatants. No women or children were reported
missing.26
What is perhaps more outrageous than the repetition of Erekat’s lie is
that media outlets continue to treat him as a legitimate spokesperson,
giving him access that allows him to regularly disseminate
misinformation. If an American official was ever found to have lied to
the press, they would lose all credibility and would have little or no
chance of being given a forum to express their views.
MYTH
“The media treats terrorist attacks against Israel the same way as it
does attacks on other nations.”
FACT
Terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens are often treated by the
media in an entirely different way than similar atrocities committed
against other nationalities. Many press outlets are reluctant to call
attacks against Jews terrorism and frequently attach more benign labels
to the murderers such as “gunmen” or “militants.” For example, when a
Palestinian woman walked into a crowded beach restaurant in Haifa and
detonated a bomb that killed 21 people, including four children on
October 4, 2003, the Reuters account said she had waged an “attack” in
retaliation for previous Israeli army actions and that the bombing
showed that Palestinian officials had failed to “rein in the
militants.”27
One of the best examples of how the press sometimes distinguishes
terrorist attacks against other nations was a list of “recent terror
attacks around the world” disseminated in November 2003 by the
Associated Press, probably the most influential news service in the
world. The list cited 15 terrorist incidents during the five-year period
between August 1998 and August 2003. During that period, more than 800
Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks, but not one of the
incidents in Israel made the list.28
Similarly, when AP released its Year in Photos 2003, six of the 130
photos chosen related to human suffering in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. All six were of Palestinians.
“By any logic, militants engaged in warfare don't blow up little
babies.”
— Tom Fiedler, Executive Editor, Miami Herald29
MYTH
“There is a distinction between the political and terror wings of
Hamas.”
FACT
Apologists for Palestinian terror, especially in the media, sometimes
argue that Hamas shouldn’t be labeled a terrorist organization because
only some members engage in murder while others perform charitable
activity. The ombudsman for the Washington Post, for example, argued
that , since Hamas is a “nationalist movement” engaged in “some social
work,” the perpetrators of Palestinian suicide and other attacks should
be described in the press as “militants” or “gunmen.”30
A false distinction is made between the “political” and “military” wings
of Hamas. All of the activities of Hamas are intertwined, and serve the
organization’s primary objective laid out in its covenant, namely, to
“raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
Hamas’s leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, denies that Hamas has uncoordinated
wings: “We cannot separate the wing from the body. If we do so, the body
will not be able to fly. Hamas is one body.”31 And the “political”
leaders of Hamas freely admit their relationship to the murderers. “The
political leadership,” Hamas spokesman, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ar-Rantisi said,
“has freed the hand of the [‘Izz ad-Din al-Qassam] brigades to do
whatever they want against the brothers of monkeys and pigs [i.e.,
Jews].”32
While Hamas does engage in social work, this is closely connected to the
“armed struggle.” Various charitable activities are used to recruit
young Palestinians for terrorist operations. Hospitals, mosques, sport
clubs, libraries, and schools serve not only their expected roles but
also act as covers for hiding weapons, obtaining supplies, and
indoctrinating future suicide bombers.
The education system is used to incite young Palestinians to become
martyrs.“The children of the kindergarten are the shaheeds [martyrs] of
tomorrow,” read signs in a Hamas-run school, while placards in
classrooms at al-Najah University in the West Bank and at Gaza’s Islamic
University declare that “Israel has nuclear bombs; we have human
bombs.”33
Hamas operatives use Islamic charities and social welfare programs to
skim and launder funds, and to earn money to live on while they engage
in terrorism. Recipients of Hamas charity also understand there is a
quid pro quo. If they are asked to provide assistance, whether it be to
hide weapons, provide a safe house for a fugitive, or act as a courier,
few are likely to refuse.34
The United States government recognizes the connection between the
charitable activities of Hamas and its terrorist campaign, which is why
the Treasury Department designated six senior Hamas political leaders
and five charities as terrorist entities. According to Treasury, “the
political leadership of Hamas directs its terrorist networks just as
they oversee their other activities.”
Notes
1Daniel Pipes, The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East,
(NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990), p. 278.
2Pipes, p. 278.
3Jerusalem Report, (May 7, 1991).
4Associated Press and Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2001); Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, (September 20, 2001).
5New York Jewish Week, (August 31, 2001).
6Jerusalem Report, (May 7, 1991).
7Al Hayat-Al-Jadidah, (October 16, 2001)
8Al Hayat-Al-Jadidah (November 2, 2001)
9Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (September 12, 2001).
10Near East Report, (August 5, 1991).
10aJerusalem Report, (April 22, 2002).
10bJerusalem Report, (April 22, 2002).
11Report filed by Jean Pierre Martin on October 5, 2000, a day after his
Belgian television team from RTL-TV1 was filming in the area of
Ramallah.
11aWashington Post, (July 18, 2001).
12Washington Post, (May 10, 2001).
13CNN, (Octbober 10, 2000).
14Al-Hamishmar, (December 6, 1991).
15Sidney Zion, "Intifada Blues," Penthouse, (March 1990), pp. 56, 63.
16Wall Street Journal, (February 21, 1990).
17Near East Report, (August 5, 1991).
18Washington Post, (September 7, 2001).
19New York Times, (September 30, 2000).
19aWashington Post, (September 13, 2001).
20Washington Post, (September 13, 2001).
20aForward, (June 28, 2002).
20bAP, (September 12, 2001).
20cJewish Telegraphic Agency, (September 20, 2001).
21Associated Press and Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2001); IMRA,
(September 13-14, 2001); Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (September 20,
2001).
22Jerusalem Post, (October 10, 2001).
22aJerusalem Post, (August 26, 2002).
22bJerusalem Post, (July 24, 2004).
22cJerusalem Post, (January 12 & 14, 2004).
23Al-Raya (Qatar), (January 6, 2002).
2460 Minutes, "Inside Al Jazeera," (October 10, 2001).
25Washington Post, (June 25, 1982).
26New York Post, (May 3, 2002).
27Tom Fiedler, "Handle with care: words like 'conflict,'
'terrorist,'"Miami Herald, (January 4, 2004).
28WorldnetDaily, (November 24, 2003).
29Tom Fiedler, "Handle with care: words like 'conflict,'
'terrorist,'"Miami Herald, (January 4, 2004).
30Washington Post, (September 21, 2003).
31Reuters, (May 27, 1998).
32Reuters, (July 31, 2001).
33USA Today, (June 26, 2001).
34Matthew Levitt, "Hamas from Cradle to Grave," The Middle East
Quarterly, (Winter 2004).
From:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf23a.html
|
|
