Despite appearances, and although it is very often called "free",
the Israeli media is far from being so. In the hot atmosphere of
the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, the Israeli media seems to have
been swept by the current of boiling conditions into assuming a
very "patriotic" role, deeply committed and strongly recruited to
the "national" cause of Israel.
This lack of free will strips this press of the basic principle of
freedom of expression. The basic and most "natural" role of a free
press is not to support, encourage or strengthen feelings and
traditions of tribal revenge among the general public but to forge
and create public opinion on the basis of the universal values of
freedom and human rights. Its role is not to support the government
or applaud its policies but to monitor and criticize the government
on the one hand and educate the general public on the other.
I am very aware of the fact that the role of the free press is
hardly applicable in the era of commercial competition, not to
speak of the patriotic fervor felt in both Israel and the Occupied
Territories. There is certainly a wide range of commercial and
national considerations that the publishers keep in mind. They are
human too. However, it seems that the Israeli press has little
sense of proportion when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian
struggle. Every word in the press' discourse is wrought with
"patriotic" fervor, in a manner that goes beyond commercial,
national or political considerations. It seems this press almost
follows the "national" policy towards the Palestinians in all
possible regards and often comes very close to provocation and
incitement. The Israeli media is so politicized that it seems as if
a higher hand or power directs it, even in the most basic
orientations, vocabulary or line of thought. This power is not the
government, which in Israel changes policies, parties and
personalities frequently, but a kind of higher national interest
that overwhelms daily policies.
The use of such overwrought vocabulary makes a Palestinian
militant, or even a suspected but innocent resident, seem like a
saboteur (michabel), a word incorrectly translated into English as
terrorist, while Israeli occupation soldiers who destroy and kill
are simply fighters. However, while this use of emphatic language
might be understood given the feeling of national crisis, it cannot
be excused when this language deliberately covers up facts or gives
a distorted impression of the truth. Israeli press coverage of
events in the occupied territories, on the rare occasions when it
appears, is distorted, biased and marginalized.
Contradiction in Coverage
In total contradiction with this lack of coverage of events in the
territories, (especially those which concern the occupying forces)
events in which Palestinians are involved, such as the attacks in
the Israeli cities, are incredibly widely covered, with enough
spectacular colored pictures showing blood, tears and sufferings to
drive you mad. This coverage arouses feelings of revenge, merged
with paranoia and masochism.
I do not envy the Israeli who is exposed to this kind of coverage,
especially in the audiovisual mass media. Hour after hour the same
pictures are broadcast, the same statements and reports drive home
the message. I felt so deeply depressed after watching such
coverage that I finally stopped myself from doing so, limiting
myself to just a few minutes of exposure to Israeli coverage of
bloody attacks, to find out what is going on. If such a thing can
happen to a Palestinian, who can see things from the opposite
perspective, what would it do to an Israeli who hardly knows what
is going on in the back yard of Israel - the Occupied Territories -
and is already stuffed with "patriotic" propaganda?
Linguistic usage in Israeli press reports highlight this trend.
Exaggerated use of the passive voice in reports about the Israeli
army's activities against Palestinians could not be accidental.
Innocent Palestinians who are killed are not only without a story,
or a past, they are most likely nameless, killed in the passive
voice with nobody accused of their murder. Alternatively, the
killing is reported as a direct accusation of the targeted
Palestinians themselves for using "human shields" - even if the
Israeli attack happened to take place in an over-crowded inhabited
area.
With the exception of some reporters, whom I feel an obligation to
do justice to in this regard, especially Amira Hass and Gideon Levy
from Haaretz, columnists such as Gideon Samet and Yoel Marcus, or
writers like Meron Benvenisti, who tend to be critical and expose
the Israeli reader to the greatest amount of fact finding and
emotional empathy, the vast majority of reporters, columnist and
writers in the Israeli press are biased, extremist and egocentric.
Contrary to Haaretz, which has a small circulation, Yediot Ahronot
and Ma'ariv, the two most widely-read daily newspapers, are very
"patriotic" and populist in their orientation and coverage. This of
course does not include opinion writers, who feel free to express
their attitudes with no restrictions other than their beliefs and
consciences, such as B. Michael and Yehuda Litani as prominent
examples.
It is amazing to see that even very intelligent and well informed
reporters such as Nahum Barnea in Yediot Ahronot, one of the best
and most independent of Israel's journalists, take part in this
attempt to exempt the government and its leader from "moral
responsibility" for the resumption of suicide attacks after a long
period of calm.
The Israeli press participates in providing the moral basis for the
continuation of the vicious circle of violence, by encouraging the
military mentality of the Israeli leaders and public. When the
Palestinian level of attacks is lowered, the Israeli press makes a
direct link between this and the military reoccupation of
Palestinian cities. But when this violence returns to the forefront
after a period of calm that hadn't been exploited politically, then
it is, for the Israeli press, because the army is not doing enough
to quash the attacks. A "more of the same policy" is recommended.
Even Hamas has claimed more than once in their arguments with
moderate Palestinians that the Israeli reaction to Palestinian calm
was to continue with the military actions which were supposed to
have created this calm. Explaining the recent revival of the
suicide attacks, a reporter would attribute it to the "loosening of
the closure" around the Palestinian cities - despite the fact that
the closure was being tightened. Thus the Israeli press enforces
the illusion that it is only possible to curtail the Palestinians
by force and through military actions.
Accusations of Incitement
Incitement is an accusation frequently levied by the Israelis at
the Palestinians, but even a superficial review of the Israeli mass
media shows high levels of incitement. For example, there is an
open discourse that touches the boundaries of criminality in
everything related to President Arafat. "As long as Arafat is
alive, Jews will die", is one front-page headline of Ma'ariv. If
this is not incitement, then what is?
Incitement, in fact, has a reverse reaction for those who use it.
Before, during and even after the American war against Iraq, the
Israeli media was filled with incitement against Iraq. Under the
pretext of fear of Iraqi attacks, the Israeli government and its
extension, the mass media, fell into the trap they themselves
prepared by adopting a confused line of action that aroused
ridicule among the Israeli public itself. Any revision of the
reports of that period would clearly show the absurdity of
government policy and the media coverage of the alleged threat from
Iraq. Ze'ev Schiff, a famous analyst and strategy expert, was
recommending actions to the Americans all through the war and
covering the American pretext for the war along with the Israeli
pretext to encourage them to go for it. His embarrassing language
could never cover the simple fact that everybody knew there was not
even the slightest possibility of an Iraqi attack on Israel.
Incitement, egocentrism, biased and ill-intentioned reporting could
provoke the same reverse reaction. A recent report about the
retreating support for democracy among the Israeli public could
certainly be attributed to this approach, adopted in the name of
the "patriotic" Israeli cause. Occupation not only corrupts in the
back yard but also internally. The media - journalists and the
officials who direct and monitor it - should be responsible for a
deep revision of this policy before it is too late and Israel finds
itself totally identified with the rejected environment in the
Middle East of inferior anti-democratic traditions.