bias » The Chronikler

Admiring the enemy

Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Despite the ugly war of words between Israelis and Arabs, Israel does also get some good press in the Arab world and has some surprising admirers.

Friday 24 February 2012

There has been widespread outrage in Israel over reports that Palestinian state television had aired a show “glorifying” the two Palestinians who, in 2011, had brutally murdered five members of the Fogel family, including their three children. The aunt of Hakim Awad, the young man who had led the attack on the Israeli settlement, described her nephew as a “hero and a legend.”

In 2011, the Itamar massacre was harshly condemned by Arabs, including the Palestinian Authority, media and many local Palestinian residents, despite their anger at the presence of the settlement, which is not only built on occupied land but also on large tracts of private Palestinian land.

So why did the murderers’ relatives, amid such widespread censure, choose to describe the killers as “heroes”?

“This happens in every society. And it is more acute in societies, though, that are in great emotional conflict, like Palestinians and Israelis,” said Ray Hanania, the Palestinian-American stand-up comic and columnist who writes for the Jerusalem Post. “These relatives are no different to the relatives and friends of Baruch Goldstein, who murdered scores of Palestinians praying at a mosque.”

Nor were they very different to the Israeli readers who reacted with gloating and glee to a recent bus accident which claimed the lives of numerous Palestinian schoolchildren.

But it was not just the Awad family that glorified the killers, according to Israeli media reports, the show’s host did so too. However, according to Tel Aviv University researcher and historian Ofir Winter, “The TV broadcaster did not praise them, but rather gave their relatives a platform to greet them, which is sad and very problematic, but it’s not the same thing as actually praising them.”

The programme in question is called For You and helps the relatives of the 4,000-or-so Palestinians – mostly political prisoners –in Israeli prisons to connect with their loved ones, and circumnavigate the difficulties involved in obtaining the necessary permits.

In the immediate wake of the killings, there were reports of celebrations in some Palestinian communities, including fireworks and the distribution of sweets.

But is this really any different to the thousands of “pilgrims” who have visited Baruch Goldstein’s grave, many singing and dancing or even kissing the gravestone, with fans describing him as a “saint” and a “hero of Israel,” despite widespread Israeli revulsion and condemnation of Goldstein’s murder of 29 Muslim worshippers?

Despite the brutal murder of civilians, including children, about a third of Palestinians, blinded by their hatred of the Israeli settlement enterprise and the occupation, looked favourably on the Itamar attack, according to one opinion poll.

Likewise, charged up with anger at Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, 9 out of 10 Israeli Jews, a survey found, supported “Operation Cast Lead”, despite the deaths of up to 1,440 Palestinians, including between 314 and 431 children, and the wholesale destruction of the Strip’s infrastructure.

While deriving satisfaction from such misfortune and tragedy is truly perverse, it is a clear indication of how this bitter, protracted conflict has warped people’s humanity on both sides, and this is often mirrored in the media.

But that’s not the entire story. There is a growing minority of Arab journalists – a similar process is also taking place in Israel – who courageously refuse to fall prey to this simplistic us-and-them dichotomy, despite regular character assassinations. However, Israelis are mostly unaware of this and generally have the impression that the Arab media only demonises Israel and its people.

While this is true of some segments of the media, others strive for balance. “There have been some significant changes in the Arab discourse on Israel since the 1967 war, the peace with Egypt and the Oslo agreements,” says Winter, who is also an accomplished Arabist.

In fact, anger at the occupation notwithstanding, there has been a kind of de facto partial “normalisation” of Israel in the media. Not only is Israel now referred to by name rather than the “Zionist entity” of yesteryear, news coverage often takes a neutral and non-emotive tone. One of the trailblazers in this regard has been al-Jazeera which, despite allegations by the Israeli government of anti-Israel bias, regularly hosts Israeli guests and explores other aspects of Israeli society.

One recent example was a documentary, entitled Jerusalem SOS, which featured Jewish and Arab volunteer paramedics in Jerusalem who cross the geographical and psychological divisions in the city to save lives.

In addition, when Israel is viewed beyond the prism of the conflict, it is often held up as a model to emulate. This may surprise many ordinary Israelis and Arabs alike, but this is what Winter, in collaboration with Uriya Shavit of Tel Aviv University, found by analysing a wide range of content dating back to the 1970s.

In fact, Israel is often used by the opposition to highlight “the failures of Arab regimes,” explains Winter. For example, the recent prisoner exchange involving Gilad Schalit evoked not only joy in Arab quarters but a certain amount of soul-searching regarding the thousand-to-one arithmetic of the swap. “You are lucky in your nation, Gilad,” wrote Iqbal Ahmed in the Kuwaiti daily al-Qabas. “In the Arab world, it is the state that kills, arrests and disappears its sons and daughters.”

Different groups focus on different aspects of the Israeli experience. Some Islamists use Israel’s identity as a “Jewish state” to argue that religion can go hand-in-hand with modernity, prosperity and democracy, while certain secularists point to Israel’s embrace of “western values,” such as science and technology and gender equality, as part of the secret of its success in contrast to the Arabs’ failure.

The Iraqi-German writer Najm Wali, who wrote a book about his travels through Israel, once asked on al-Jazeera: “How did Jews from all over the world manage to build such a dynamic country?” Answering his own question, Wali put it down to Israel’s ingrained pluralism.

Fascinatingly, an audio recording uncovered by Winter, apparently of the popular TV theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who some have accused of anti-Semitism, expressed, back in the 1990s, admiration for the achievements of Israeli democracy: “We hope that our countries will become like this country [i.e. Israel].”

Why? “There, it is the people who govern. There, they do not have the ‘four nines’ which we know in our countries,” he added, referring to the 99.99 percent of the vote with which Arab dictators often used to “win” elections.

Given all this oft-grudging admiration of Israel’s social, scientific and economic achievements, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Arab media reacted positively to last year’s tent protests – dubbed the “Israeli Spring” – which were at least partly inspired by the Arab uprisings, with some activists even calling Rothschild Avenue their own “Tahrir Square.”

What all this highlights is that, even if a certain amount of anti-Semitism exists in the Arab world, the majority of Arab hostility and distrust toward Israel stems from to its treatment of the Palestinians.

As Arabs battle to win their freedom from their dictators and Israelis struggle to preserve theirs against the extremists in their midst, it is time for moderates on both sides to find common cause and work together to find a just resolution to the Palestinian question and enable Israel to enter the new Middle Eastern fold as a respected and valued neighbour.

A shorter version of this article appeared in The Jerusalem Post on 22 February 2012.

Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

Tags: anti-semitism, arab world, baruch goldstein, bias, Fogel, israel, israelis, Itamar, jewish state, middle east, palestinians, tahrir, zionist

Hungary for a better future?

Add comments

Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

Rating: 9.7/10 (11 votes cast)

By Swaan van Iterson

Faced with soaring unemployment and the lack of prospects, many educated young Hungarians are being drawn to the radical right. But will it give them the better future they seek?

Friday 5 August 2011

The Turul bird is the national symbol of Hungary. Jobbik voters often wear it on T-shirts, necklaces, bracelets and other accessories. Photo: Swaan van Iterson

Until last year, the international media paid little attention to Hungary. This changed when the nationalist and conservative Fidesz party, under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, won a two-thirds majority in the elections of April 2010, thereby gaining the power to push through radical changes.

Orbán moved quickly to nationalise private pension funds. In addition, he pushed through a controversial media law, which stipulates that a government-appointed media authority should monitor whether journalists provide “moral” and “objective” reporting.

More recently, in July of this year, his government passed a new church law, which officially recognises only 14 religions, and hence strips the others of the right to receive state subsidies. The Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP) called the legislation the “worst religion law in Europe”.

And Orbán and his party are not finished yet. His latest idea is to allow secondary school children to study “basic military science” starting from the coming academic year.

But it is not just the Fidesz party that is making news in Hungary. Further to the right on the political spectrum the radical Jobbik party, which won 16.7% of the vote in the 2010 elections to become the third largest party in Hungary, is drawing attention. The Movement for a Better Hungary’s (A Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom) manifesto is mainly based on, among other things, nationalism and the combating of so-called “gypsy criminality” (cigánybűnözés). Many believe that the party was closely linked to the Magyar Gárda (the Hungarian Guard that is now dissolved, but still active under different names), which was established to protect the population against this “gypsy crime”.

Jobbik’s main support base is not only found in the ranks of the poor and poorly educated workers in the northeast of the country, but increasingly amongst the urban young. In early 2010, some 15% of under-25s said they would vote for Jobbik – the party was particularly popular among university students specialising in the humanities or history.

This raises the question of why Jobbik is attractive to more highly educated students in Budapest. Most narratives paint a picture of a faceless crowd of “societal losers” who vote for the radical right. Can the same terminology be used to describe these students? I travelled to Budapest to find out. During a month of extensively interviewing students and hearing their story, while trying not to judge and to remain objective, I learned that radical right voters can be far from being the indistinguishable mass of victims they are often taken to be.

Of multinationals and gypsies

A Jobbik student attends class with pen and bracelet in the colours of the Hungarian flag. Photo: Swaan van Iterson.

Farkas Gergely (25), a recent graduate in economics and sociology, is a Jobbik member and one of the youngest members of parliament. According to Gergely, the lack of prospects many students face leads them to vote for his party: “Many students in Hungary cannot find work once they graduate… For 20 years, no party stood up for young people and so they looked for something new. We have filled that gap.”

A lot of the students I have spoken to indicate that having a university degree in Hungary is no guarantee for a secure future. According to Marcell, a 25-year-old public administration student, the bad socio-economic situation is a result of, amongst other things, foreign interference: “Multinationals, transnational companies and foreign banks have come to the country in droves since 1989. They were able to operate here without paying any taxes while local firms had to pick up the tab – they got no special perks,” he says. “The result is that the multinationals have devoured our economy. They became the rulers of our homeland. Every Hungarian government over the past 20 years has been their unquestioning servant.”

Szuszanna (21), a medical student in Budapest, believes that it is mainly Jewish enterprises that have received this beneficial treatment: “We’re not happy with the Israeli companies which buy up everything here – they ruin everything. They take a lot of money out of the country and invest very little,” she argues.

In Szuszanna’s view, the trouble is that if you want to do something about the situation, you’re immediately labelled as an anti-Semite. According to her, the same problem arises around the “gypsy question”. The Jobbik introduced the term “gypsy criminality” into Hungary’s political discourse, which finally made it, in Szuszanna’s view, possible to talk about the situation - something that is very urgent, she believes: “During communist times, everybody was obliged to work, but that changed with the advent of capitalism,” Szuszanna tells. “Now that you can get benefits, a lot of gypsies don’t work anymore. They spend their benefits on alcohol and cigarettes and when this runs out, they often steal.”

Radical change

Student supporters of Jobbik greet one another by saying “Szebb Jövőt”, meaning “A better future”. They would like to see change not only in the socio-economic conditions but also in the political situation. János (26), who studies IT, believes that students vote for Jobbik because they want radical change. According to him, Hungary never underwent a change of the regime (rendszerváltás). He thinks that many communists continue to be in power under the guise of socialism and that communism actually never went away in Hungary. Moreover, like János, a lot of students view the socialists as being corrupt.

For a lot of the students, 2006 was the time they decided to join the Jobbik party. That year, an audio recording surfaced from a closed-door meeting, featuring the then socialist president Ferenc Gyurcsány. On the recording, Gyurcsány admitted that “we have been lying for the last one and a half to two years” about the economic situation in Hungary. The leak led to public outrage and mass demonstrations, including the occupation of the state television building by football hooligans and radical-right students.

Many of the Jobbik supporters believe that socialist “indoctrination” does not only occur in the political sphere, but also in the education system. Jószef, a PhD student in political science who is researching euroscepticism, would like to build an academic career but, in his view, it is very difficult to earn money as an independent political scientist in Hungary: “You need to have a political colour, otherwise you’ll get nowhere in this field,” he says. “Personally I have had no problems but I have heard others say that it is difficult to get a good position if you’re not a socialist.”

And it’s not just academia. In Katalin’s opinion the media is also dominated by “liberal leftists” (referring to the socialists). The “simplistic and oversexualised” American programming on television annoys her: “The Hungarian media is extremely prejudiced and, above all, extremely liberal,” she complains. “People watch MTV, use drugs, find it normal to be gay and encourage others to become so too. That’s just ridiculous.”

The “bias” of the Hungarian media does not stop Jobbik from reaching the public, János stresses. He says that the party bypasses the mainstream media by being very active on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, this helps the party to connect better with young people.

Eszter, a master’s student in public administration, thinks that Jobbik is a party for the young generation in a country where there is an intergenerational divide in politics: “Older people lived through communism and miss the security and stability of those times. In those days, there was still work for everyone. This means that older people vote more frequently for the socialists. Young people don’t have the same experiences and sympathies.”

Hungary’s Young Turks?

Badges worn by a Jobbik supporter. Photo: Swaan van Iterson.

Péter is a university lecturer at both ELTE and Corvinus University. He says that students who vote for Jobbik regularly voice their political views in their essays and assignments. According to him, history students in particular are drawn to the party – a phenomenon that does not surprise him in the least: “Hungarians have a history of lost wars and lost independence. This gives you a reason to become nationalistic. Young people are convinced that, given all they’ve lost, Hungarians can only count on themselves.”

Many of the students I spoke to integrate their political views not only into their studies but also their plans for the future. Ákos (21) describes knowledge as his “weapon” with which he can build his future and change the world. Towards that end, he is studying history and Turkish. He believes that Hungarians must have more control over their country, and the only way to achieve this is to become more independent from the West.

Surprisingly for all those right-wing Europeans who oppose Turkish membership of the EU because of the supposed civilisational differences, Ákos wishes to strengthen ties between Hungary and Turkey, as he believes the two countries share a common history: “Most people believe that the Hungarians are descendants of the Finno-Ugric tribes, but this is untrue. The Turks and Hungarians are brothers and there is a lot of research which shows that Hungarians are related to tribes in Kazakhstan.”

For other students, Jobbik is more a part of their daily reality than their future dreams. Barnabás (20), also a history student, wears black jeans and a leather jacket bearing Hungarian nationalist iconography, as well as an armband in the colours of the Hungarian flag. His interest in the Hungarista subculture began when he turned 16 and started listening to nationalist rock bands like Kárpátia and Romantikus Erőszak, whose songs include 100% Magyar (100% Hungarian) and Lesz még Erdély (Transylvania will be ours).

“It is very, very important for me to be part of the Jobbik movement. It is an integral part of my Hungarian identity,” Barnabás admits. “You really get the feeling that you belong to a group. Jobbik helps people who feel out of place but have a strong bond with Hungary to find a community. Before I joined Jobbik, I often felt alone, like I didn’t belong anywhere.”

According to Ákos, this sense of loneliness is common among young Hungarians who have few extracurricular activities to engage in or groups to join. For him, Jobbik is almost more like a family than a party: “At Jobbik, you feel that you’re at home. You are surrounded by people who think just like you and who want to reach the same goals.” He ended our conversation with the following words: “We’re there for each other. We fight for each other. Also for you, a better future!”

The students I talked to are trying to change their future through the Jobbik party. The way they actively engage their political ideas in their daily activities, studies and career plans, and use modern utilities like social media, makes it impossible to label them as ‘losers of the modern world’ or the modernisation process. But despite the solidarity and belonging that Jobbik inspires in its young members, the question is whether the radical right path they are treading is the way to achieve their dreams of independence, pride and well-being.

This article is part of a special Chronikler series on far-right extremism. It is published here with the author’s consent. ©Swaan van Iterson.

Rating: 9.7/10 (11 votes cast)

Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

Tags: american, bias, change, crime, economy, education, elections, eu, europe, facebook, far right, gay, gypsies, history, hungary, independence, irredentism, israel, jobbik, media, multiculturalism, multinationals, nationalism, norway attacks, politics, prejudice, radical right, religion, religion law, roma, social media, social networking, socialism, turkey, twitter, unemployment, viktor orbán, west, young people

Learning tolerance

Add comments

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rating: 6.5/10 (2 votes cast)

By Barry van Driel

Islamophobia is common in western society, so the classroom is a good place to start combating it.

25 November 2010

If ever a book was overdue, Teaching against Islamophobia is it. This edited volume of very diverse contributions deals with a phenomenon that I would want to describe as the first real obsession of the 21^st century: the unease of Western societies with Islam and Muslims. Unease is perhaps too mild a term for the mudslinging, accusations, fears and sheer paranoia that seem to have taken hold of large swathes of the public and media across North America and Europe. The vitriolic attacks on everything Muslim have been unleashed from both the right and the left side of the political spectrum.

This book represents a committed and comprehensive attempt to remind those in society who define themselves as educators that embracing issues of social justice and equity implies taking sides in the Islamophobia debate. The editors rightfully view Islamophobia through the lens of racism. In the UK, this has led to the use of the term anti-Muslim racism instead of Islamophobia.

Though the authors claim in their forward that the book is aimed at teachers, the contributions make it clear that it is intended for a much broader audience and that it has been especially written to make all of us (the non-Muslims primarily) reflect on our attitudes and misconceptions and to rethink many of our assumptions.

Living in Europe, I was pleased to see a primarily American book provide a North American perspective on the issue of Islamophobia, while also bringing in European issues in a few key places. In that sense, the book truly has an international character.

The 20 chapters in this book cover a wide range of topics, and it moves from more theoretical and socio-political discourse to a discussion of more practical issues.

In chapter 1, Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg set the theoretical tone for the rest of the book. Their comment that “learning from difference means that teachers are aware of the histories and struggles of colonized groups and oppressed peoples” signifies how the authors reject the very common approach in multicultural and intercultural education that avoids discussing historical injustices and controversial issues so as not to upset people. References to empathetic understanding, solidarity and valuing of differences help position their pedagogical approach. Their deconstruction of the propagandistic arguments being used by, for instance, the Fordham Foundation to promote the West as enlightened and majority Muslim nations as inherently inferior and a threat.

Chistopher Stonebanks builds on this analysis by looking at the manner in which intolerant attitudes towards Muslims and Islam are promoted by popular culture and are not considered, by and large, to be prejudicial. He also discusses the controversial concept of Islamophobia. Any treatise on the topic is enriched by looking at alternative and perhaps more accurate concepts. For instance, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which includes some 67 countries from Canada to Russia, speaks of ‘intolerance against Muslims’.

The last two chapters of Part 1 have been written by several Muslim teachers and address the misconceptions they encounter among their students regarding the core principles of Islam, the role of women, perceptions of violence, the spiritual meaning of the concept of ‘jihad’, and more.

Screen villains

Part 2 of the book looks at public, media and political discourse related to Islam. Shirley Steinberg returns to the topic of media discourse by examining 17 films where there is a significant presence of Arabs and/or Muslims. Her analysis shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs depicted in films – for most films the two are interchangeable categories – are viewed as barbaric, dangerous and uncivilised. They are somewhere between human and animal. White men are viewed as the heroes who will save locals and the West from these evil, stealing, cheating people. Arab and Muslim women are almost exclusively portrayed as oppressed and/or fanatical.

Steinberg also traces how Arabs and Muslims are portrayed in television programmes in the United States and finds that though there a few positive depictions of Muslims, they are, by far, in the minority and becoming less common in recent years. Steinberg especially deconstructs popular television shows, such as Cable TV’s Sleeper Cell and 24. On the whole, Muslims are perceived as potential threats and especially as the ‘enemy within’. Given their evil demeanour and the threat to the United States they do not deserve the same rights as others in society.

Jehanzab Dar looks at the demonisation of Muslims and Arabs in mainstream American comic books, which tend to be poorly developed caricatures of the ugly Arab stereotype. The author does devote some attention to several more recent positive cartoon depictions. The series The 99 is especially mentioned as an example of how popular media (in this case comic books) can provide more accurate depictions of Muslims and Arabs.

Michael Giardina, moves away from analyses of popular culture somewhat and looks at how political individuals can be demonised through associations with Islam. He focuses on the rhetoric and imagery used to discredit US President Barack Obama by right-wing conservatives.

Nations of Islam

Part 3 shed light on “Muslims you never knew” by covering topics outside the main discourse relating to Islamophobia.

Several essays examine a topic often forgotten in the discourse about Islam and Muslims in the United States – the relationship of the African-American community to Islam. Preacher Moss, who refers to himself as an ‘undercover Muslim’, takes a somewhat tongue-in-cheek look at African American perspectives on Muslim identities. The more serious essence of his treatise is that “African American Muslims are marginalized as African Americans and ignored as African American Muslims”.

Samaa Abdurraqib provides highly insightful information about the historical relationship of the African-American community in the United States to Islam. She explains, right from its inception, Islam has been present in the United States – citing that perhaps 10%-15% of slaves brought to the United States were Muslim. She goes on to explain how this dimension of black history in the United States has been ignored in education and in the media, as has the diversity among US Muslims. The author’s main point is that Islam is not a foreign religion in the United States, as frequently claimed, but that it has long-established roots.

In a chapter that is bound to lead to significant discussion and debate among educators of all stripes, Younes Mourchid examines the contested relationship between alternative sexual orientations and traditional Islamic values. Mourchid builds his chapter on interviews with 20 LGBT Muslims. The author shows how such individuals, in often complex and contradictory ways, almost always struggle with their identity formation.

Some tend to internalise homophobic attitudes, blaming themselves for causing friction in the family, for instance, while others might internalise Islamophobic attitudes, blaming Islam for rejecting this core part of their identity. The campaign to make homosexuality acceptable in Muslim communities faces many challenges and is an uphill struggle. Mourchid closes with a discussion of whether those who hold traditional religious attitudes and reject homosexuality can be labelled ‘homophobic’. His answer might surprise some readers.

Awad Ibrahim also seeks to provoke debate by examining the role of atheists and other non-believers within Islamic societies and ends with what he calls ‘The St Petersburg Manifesto’. This Manifesto is directed at both Muslim and non-Muslim faith communities and argues for a number of freedoms to be implemented in predominantly Muslim societies, such as freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and the separation of religion and state.

Back to school

Part 4 brings us closest to the title of the book by providing some very concrete suggestions for materials that can be used in classrooms at all levels to combat Islamophobia, while also examining these materials critically.

Carolyne Ali Khan takes a critical look at a variety of educational programmes and materials that students in US schools are exposed to. In a very insightful discussion of several organisations and programmes that claim to promote understanding and ‘tolerance’, Ali Khan shows how they do the opposite. She critically assesses, for instance, the messages and approaches promulgated by the New York Tolerance Centre and the American Textbook Council. The author’s discussion of these and other respected sources shows to what extent anti-Muslim bias has penetrated mainstream and even ‘tolerance’ education. She ends her chapter by presenting some ‘uncommon knowledge’ about Pakistan and Pakistanis. Khan comments that many in Pakistan “are not the lunatic fringe. They are intelligent, complex and rational; they sing, dance and read and (perhaps most shockingly) they laugh, merrily poking fun at themselves and at the world”.

Anastasia Kamanos Gamelin looks at the intersection of gender and education in Saudi Arabia, a country known for denying women a number of fundamental rights and with a very traditional view of gender roles.

Fida Sanjakdar focuses on sex education in Australia and the view of Muslim communities regarding this always contested topic. She notes that, in Islamic school curricula, almost no attention is devoted to sex education and this omission, in her view, represents a violation of the Islamic principles of a holistic and democratic education.

Krista Riley looks at the ways that literature, in particular young adult literature, can be used to “address themes of oppression and to promote critical reflection and social justice activism”. She does this by analyzing the book Bifocal, a fictional story about the arrests made of young Muslim men in Toronto in 2006 and the racist backlash at a high school after the arrests.

In the book’s final chapter, Melanie Stonebanks presents three potential classroom resources – illustrated picture books with Muslim main characters – that could be used as first steps to combating Islamophobia. She concludes that, though the texts are far from perfect, they could be useful if used appropriately and with a critical eye.

Rating: 6.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tags: arab, australia, bias, books, culture, education, eu, europe, faith, film, gender, homosexual, islam, islamophobia, literature, multiculturalism, muslim, racism, religion, schools, sex, tolerance, united states, women

وسيط إعلامي حيوي

Add comments

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

بقلـم خالد دياب

رغم أن ساحة الحرب الإعلامية الإسرائيلية الفلسطينية تشوبها المرارة وهي متحصنة جيداً، إلا أن على الصحفيين مسؤولية المغامرة في الأرض الحرام بين الجانبين، حتى لو عنى ذلك الوقوع في خط مرمى النار.

يُعتبر النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني واحداً من أطول النزاعات وأكثرها مرارة في العالم. وقد أدت الحدّة والاستقطاب المتعلقان بالنزاع إلى تحويل الإعلام نفسه إلى ساحة معركة حقيقية. الواقع أن موضوع الانحياز نفسه أصبح مسرحاً لنفسه في حروب الإعلام، يتهم فيه معسكر الإعلام بإتباع توجه معادِ لإسرائيل، بينما يتخذ المعسكر الآخر تحيزاً معادٍ للفلسطينيين. أصبح تبادل النار حول هذه القضية ملتهباً بشكل خاص أثناء حرب غزة.

يمكن حتى للصحفي المتزن ذو النوايا الحسنة أن يقع في وسط تبادل إطلاق النار. بغض النظر، من الحاسم أن يتخلى المزيد من الصحفيين، وخاصة الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين عن ثنائية “نحن وهم” الضيقة والسعي للوصول إلى خط عادل لكلا الطرفين.

وفي الوقت الذي يجب فيه عدم المبالغة بقوة الإعلام، إلا أن له احتمالات إما إذكاء نار النزاع من خلال تجذير الصور النمطية السلبية والتأكيد عليها، أو إطالة العداء وقرع طبول الحرب، أو دفع عجلة السلام من خلال تحدي رؤى الشعوب وتغييرها عبر البناء والتفهّم وإصلاح ذات البين.

ما الذي يستطيع الإعلام عمله إذن حتى يصبح بنّاءاً أكثر؟

يتوجب على الإعلام أن يُبرِز الأمور الإيجابية لا أن يركز فقط على السلبيات. يبدو في الإعلام الغربي أحياناً أن الشرق الأوسط لا يُنتِج إلا العنف. نعلم جميعاً أن العنف يصنع العناوين، ولكن يجب أن يُعطى اللاعنف وجهود السلام على مستوى الجذور تغطية بارزة. يحتاج الإعلام الفلسطيني والعربي والإسرائيلي لأن يكرس المزيد من التغطية للقصص الإيجابية من الطرف الآخر، لا أن يشاهد الآخر من خلال منشور النزاع. يحتاج هذا الإعلام كذلك لأن يكرّس مساحة أوسع لبناء تفهّم أعمق للتركيبة الثقافية والاجتماعية للجانب الآخر.

يجب أن يكون الإعلام قناتاً للتوجهات الإبداعية والجديدة للنزاع، وكذلك معبراً للحوار. تلعب المنتديات على الإنترنت ومواقع التشبيك الاجتماعي دوراً حاسماً في هذا المجال من خلال تمكين العرب والإسرائيليين من عبور الفجوات الجغرافية والسياسية التي تفصلها والتواصل بشكل مباشر.

يمكن لكتّاب الرأي والأعمدة كذلك ممارسة تأثير هام. تعبّر كتابة العمود عن رأي، والرأي من حيث المبدأ غير موضوعي. إلا أنه إذا تم جمع اللاموضوعية مع التوازن فقد تكون مفيدة إلى درجة بعيدة.

أحاول شخصياً أن أستخدم العمود الذي أكتبه في الغارديان كمنبر لإضفاء الإنسانية على جانبي النزاع، وتأييد القيم المتّسقة عند الحكم على التصرفات، وتحدي وجهات النظر والتفكير خارج الصندوق وعكس الواقع الإنساني والاجتماعي والثقافي للشعبين حتى يتسنى إعطاء مساحة لهؤلاء الذين يجرأون على تخطّي “خطوط العدو”. تعاملت في سلسلة من المقالات، وجهاً لوجه، مع الصور النمطية والرؤى الخاطئة التي يملكها العرب والإسرائيليون حيال بعضهم بعضاً. كذلكك عَمِلت على استكشاف سبل جديدة بديلة للسلام، مثل اللاعنف وحركة الحقوق المدنية.

من ناحية أكثر ابتكارية وإبداعاً، كتبت مرة عموداً تخيلت فيه مستقبلاً وهمياً سلمياً في العام 2048، الأمر الذي أدّى بأحد القراء للإشارة إلى مسابقة لكتابة المقال (برعاية منظمة “صوت واحد” نشرتها خدمة Common Ground الإخبارية) تخيّل فيها أطفال فلسطينيون وإسرائيليون مستقبل كل منهم السلمي. وقد تأثّرت فيّ رؤاهم بالمستقبل لدرجة أنني استخدمت عموداً آخر لحث الراشدين على “ترك الأطفال يستحوذون على العملية السلمية والإتيان إليها بإدراك الطفولة وكفاءتها”.

تعرض توجهي للهجوم من كل من أنصار الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين، كردّة فعل أحياناً لنفس النص. ورغم العداء المتأصّل المعمّق، يعطي هذا التوجه ثماره. مما يثلج الصدر رؤية أن بالإمكان التوصل إلى أرضية مشتركة. وكما أشار أحد القراء: “تنفث الطروحات التاريخية من طرف واحد السموم، وأنت تُحسِن صنعاً إذا حاولت الوصول إلى طرح متّحد من الجانبين”. وكتب آخر: “أشكرك على هذا المقال المشجّع الذي يمكنه بشكل إيجابي أن يتحدى وجهات نظر كل إنسان حول هذا النزاع.”

أفاجأ أحياناً من مستوى نضوج الحوار الذي يتطور بين قراء مقالاتي. من المدهش فعلاً رؤية كم يمكن لأصوات “الغالبية الصامتة” أن تكون بنّاءة عند اشتمالها في الجدل الدائر. لهذا السبب يُعتبر الإعلام الأكثر توازناً أساسياً إذا أردنا أن نرى نتيجة إيجابية لهذا النزاع.

مصدر المقال: خدمة Common Ground الإخبارية، 13 نيسان/إبريل 2009

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tags: balance, bias, israel, media, palestine, understanding

A vital medium

Add comments

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

April 2009

Although the Israeli-Palestinian media battlefield is bitter and deeply entrenched, journalists have a responsibility to venture into the no man’s land between the two sides, even if it means getting caught in the crossfire.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most protracted and bitter in the world. The acrimony and polarisation associated with the conflict has transformed the media itself into a veritable battlefield. In fact, the question of bias itself has become its own theatre in the media wars, with one camp accusing the media of possessing an anti-Israeli slant, while the other alleges an anti-Palestinian bias. The exchange of fire over this issue became particularly heated during the recent war in Gaza.

Faced with such hostility, even the most well-intentioned and balanced journalist can get caught in the crossfire. Nevertheless, it is crucial that more journalists, particularly Israeli and Palestinian ones, abandon the narrow “us and them” dichotomy and pursue a line that is fair to both sides.

While the power of the media should not be overstated, it has the potential either to fuel the conflict by entrenching and confirming negative stereotypes, perpetuating hostility and beating the drums of war, or to advance the quest for peace by challenging and changing people’s perceptions, building understanding and mending fences.

So, what can the media do to be more constructive?

The media should highlight positives and not just fixate on negatives. In Western media it often seems that the Middle East produces little other than violence. We all know that violence makes headlines, but non-violence and grassroots peace efforts should also be given prominent coverage. The Palestinian, Arab and Israeli media all need to dedicate more coverage to positive stories from the other side and not always view the other through the prism of the conflict. They also need to dedicate more space to building a deeper understanding of the cultural and social make-up of the other side.

The media should be a channel for creative and novel approaches to the conflict, as well as a conduit for debate. Online forums and social networking sites are playing a crucial role in this respect by enabling Arabs and Israelis to cross geographical and political divides and communicate directly.

Opinion writers and columnists can also exercise significant influence. Column writing is about opinion and opinion is essentially subjective. But subjectivity, if coupled with balance, can be extremely helpful.

Personally, I try to use my Guardian column as a platform to humanise both sides of the conflict, uphold consistent values when judging actions, challenge perceptions, think outside the box, and reflect the complex human, social and cultural reality of the two peoples in order to give space to those who dare to cross “enemy lines”. In one series of articles I tackled head-on the stereotypes and misperceptions Arabs and Israelis have about each other. I have also explored alternative routes to peace, such as non-violence and civil rights movements.

More creatively, I once wrote a column where I imagined a fictional and peaceful future in 2048, which led one reader to point-out an essay-writing contest (sponsored by the non-profit organisation One Voice and distributed by the Common Ground News Service) in which Israeli and Palestinian kids imagined their own peaceful futures. I was so moved by their visions that I used another column to urge adults to “let the children take over the peace process and bring to it the sensibility and competence of childhood”.

My approach has come under fire from both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians, often in reaction to the same text. Despite the entrenched hostility, such an approach does pay dividends. It is heartening to see that reaching common ground is possible. As one reader pointed out: “One-sided historical narratives are toxic. In attempting a unified narrative, you’re doing good work.” Another wrote: “Thanks for this encouraging article that can positively challenge everybody’s perceptions of this conflict.”

I am often pleasantly surprised by the maturity of the debate that develops between readers of my articles. It is truly inspiring to see how constructive the voices of the “silent majority” can be when brought into the debate. That is why a more balanced media is essential if we want to see a positive outcome to this conflict.

This article was first published by the Common Ground News Service on 14 April 2009.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tags: balance, bias, israel, media, palestine, understanding

The Middle East media battlefield

Add comments

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

This is the text of a talk given to a group of Israeli and Jewish fellows.

March 2009

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most controversial issues in many parts of the world. This is partly due to the protracted nature of the conflict. Decades of bitter actions and reactions mean that none of the parties can claim to have clean hands, and that all the parties are both guilty and innocent.

Nevertheless, there is a serious polarisation of views, with both sides possessing advocates whose unspoken motto is “our side right or wrong”. This polarisation can manifest itself in the media, fuelling the cycle of distrust and hatred that helps perpetuate the conflict. One camp accuses the media of possessing an anti-Israeli slant, while the other camp alleges an anti-Palestinian bias.

But the media can also help mend fences and build bridges. But this process is fraught with difficulties. The long and bitter history of this conflict has become a battlefield in itself. This means that even the most balanced, fair and well-intentioned reporter, commentator or observer is open to bitter accusations of omission or commission.

Today, I will rush into the minefield where angels fear to tread and assess the credibility of these competing accusations.

Is the media anti-Israeli?

Since I am addressing a group who defines itself as pro-Israeli and your interests are first and foremost related to Israel, I will begin by exploring the allegations of anti-Israeli bias. Many Israelis and their supporters believe that the media takes an unfairly hostile and unbalanced view of Israel – particularly in Europe and the Arab world, but also increasingly in America, which is traditionally seen as safely pro-Israeli.

As an example, let’s look at Israel’s recent offensive in Gaza. I should point out that Gaza may not be the most telling example, since even some of Israel’s most sympathetic supporters felt compelled to oppose the action. Regardless of their sympathy or hostility towards Israel, people across the world found Israel’s decision to escalate its blockade of Gaza by bombarding and then invading the Strip to be not only wrong but ill-thought-out, to be against Israel’s own interests and detrimental to the prospects for peace.

During the fighting, I wrote:

Just like Lebanon in 2006 and 1982 – as well as the reinvasions of the Palestinian territories following the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada and the election victory of Hamas – the current campaign is unlikely to bring Israelis anything more than a little tense respite.

Like Hamas, which seems incapable of realising the futility of armed struggle and declaring a non-violent peace movement, Israel appears to be completely beholden to the logic of the battering ram.

So, how did the media perform during the Gaza offensive?

Just Journalism, a UK non-profit organisation which aims to promote what it calls “responsible reporting about Israel” in the UK media, monitored the coverage of the recent war in Gaza. Here is a taster of the bias it claims to have found:

It said that 75% of the conservative Financial Times and 71% of the left-of-centre Guardian’s editorials were ‘less favourable’ towards Israel’s operation, and that neither paper published a ‘favourable’ editorial. However, the category ‘unfavourable’ did not exist in the report. Meanwhile, it said that the right-of-centre The Times was the daily broadsheet that published the greatest proportion of what it called ‘neutral’ editorials.
Just Journalism also maintained that “The UK media significantly under-represented the nature of Hamas and its policies towards Israel, particularly its use of violence and rejection of Israel’s right to exist.”
Just Journalism also observed that The Guardian and The Independent published five times as many opinion pieces critical of Israel’s occupation than supportive. Whether this is a sign of anti-Israeli bias is open to question, since there is a broad international consensus, even among Israel’s closest allies, that a crucial pre-requisite for peace is ending the occupation and dismantling the settlements that go along with it.
It also noted that there were more than three times as many press quotations from Palestinian civilians as Israeli civilians, although it did acknowledge that this disparity was “understandable in some respects”.

Prior to the Gaza conflict, earlier high-profile cases of alleged bias include the death of Muhammad al-Durrah, whose cowering image with his father became the icon of the second intifada. Pro-Israelis claim that the rush to blame Israel for his death without conclusive evidence was a sign of anti-Israeli bias, and that there is evidence to suggest that the boy was killed by Palestinian gunfire. Interestingly, pro-Palestinians allege that the amount of space given to Israeli refutations and criticisms was a sign of pro-Israeli bias.

Another example is what was dubbed ‘Reutersgate’ by some. This related to the graphically enhanced, or doctored, image of billowing smoke over Beirut used in an image released by Reuters during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon. The photographer Adnan Hajj claimed not to have intentionally altered the photo but was trying to remove “dust marks”. The news agency itself admitted that “photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvenience.”

Why all the interest?

I have heard some Israelis and their supporters question why the media lavishes so much more attention on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared with some other conflicts which are just as ugly or even uglier.

Some dismiss this as a sign of anti-Semitism. While anti-Jewish prejudice certainly plays a role in some quarters, such allegations can be used as a means of avoiding criticism of Israel’s actions, no matter how wrong or destructive. In fact, fear of being called anti-Semitic may lead some to temper and tone down their criticisms of Israel. Similarly, charges of anti-Arabism and Islamophobia can be used for similar ends when it comes to the Palestinians.

To my mind, there is a complex interplay of factors that gives the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a higher profile than many others. The Middle East’s geo-strategic importance means that conflicts there are more headline grabbing than those in other parts of the world. Being in this important neighbourhood draws more attention to Israel. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a media staple, other events in the region routinely eclipse it. Consider the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has, for all intents and purposes, mostly overshadowed Israel and Palestine in the media in recent years.

For Europe and the Arab world, the proximity of the conflict makes its significance greater than wars in distant corners of the globe. Likewise, the duration and apparent insurmountability of the conflict, as well as the periods of hope and despair, makes it a constant subject of public interest.

The fact that there are large and influential Jewish and Arab communities in the West also keeps the conflict centre stage, given its symbolic importance to both Arabs and Jews.

Israel is highly symbolic for Jews. This is partly because it is seen as an expression of their empowerment and quest for self-determination, as well as a safe haven in light of their recent tragic history of pogroms and the holocaust. It is also highly symbolic for Arabs who have traditionally viewed Israel as an “imperial implant” in their midst.

Despite a certain amount of cynical manipulation by certain Arab leaders, the Palestinians occupy a special place in the Arab imagination. Their sad plight first emerged at a time when the Arab world was keenly and optimistically expecting to enjoy the fruits of independence. Although the Arab world’s post-colonial experience has had many bitter chapters, the denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination was the first and, hence, most bitter of those experiences.

Is the media Anti-Palestinian?

In the other corner, Palestinians and their supporters also cry foul, accusing the western media of a strong pro-Israeli bias, one fuelled by anti-Arabism, Islamophobia and neo-imperialism. One recent example of this is the BBC’s refusal to air an appeal to raise money to help deal with the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza by respected aid agencies – including Action Aid, Save the Children, the British Red Cross, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and Oxfam.

The BBC argued that showing the appeal could undermine public confidence in its impartiality, but the public outrage that ensued would suggest the inverse was the case. Some commercial broadcasters ultimately broadcasted the appeal, but the BBC and Sky remained steadfast.

The vetoing of the appeal goes against normal practice. Normally, British television channels air appeals by the umbrella Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) free of charge. Since the 1960s, the BBC has aired DEC appeals for the victims of the 1967 war in the Middle East, the Vietnam war, the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and the 1990 Gulf war, among others.

To give another example. Arab Media Watch is, like Just Journalism, a media watchdog that defines its objective as “striving for objective British coverage of Arab issues”. It also released a report on the performance of the British media during the Gaza conflict in which it claims to have found that:

The division of sources, and words attributed to them, on either side demonstrated a greater proportion in favour of Israel.

In addition, a six-month AMW study in 2008 identified that “when the British press represents a party as retaliating in the conflict, that party is Israel almost three-quarters of the time (100% of the time in the tabloids)”. Of course, Israel routinely frames its actions as a “response” to an earlier Palestinian action, as do Palestinian groups. However, in the interest of media balance, retaliatory claims by either side should be approached with professional scepticism because it is both natural and expected that the protagonists will feel that they are responding to some perceived or actual crime committed by the other side. After all, neither side is acting in a vacuum, nor does either side view its actions as lacking motive or justification.

This confirms earlier findings of independent studies, such as one carried out by Glasgow University which found “a preponderance of official Israeli perspectives, particularly on BBC 1”. In addition, the report found that Israeli actions were contextualised, whereas Palestinian ones tended not to be. The failure to include historical background also led to a great deal of confusion in viewers’ minds.

The situation in the United States is far more skewed. An earlier study by the progressive American media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting monitored the use of the term “retaliation” in the nightly news broadcasts of the three main American networks: CBS, ABC, and NBC. It found that of the 150 occasions when “retaliate” and its variants were used to describe attacks in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, 79% were references to Israel “retaliating” and only 9% were references to Palestinians “retaliating”.

The truth within

So, where does the truth lie? Is the media pro-Israeli? Is it pro-Palestinian? Is it both? Is it neither?

Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that it is difficult to make hard and fast generalisations about the media. After all, the media is not an unchanging monolith – there is a diversity across the media spectrum and even within individual media outlets. In addition, perspectives shift and evolve with time. These may seem like straightforward assertions to make, but many intelligent people overlook this simple fact when surrounded by the fog of conflict or blinded by their partisanship.

That said, certain general patterns are discernible. First, there is geography. In the West, there is something of a transatlantic divide, with the American mainstream media firmly pro-Israeli, while certain segments of the European media are more sympathetic to the Palestinians who are widely regarded as the long-suffering underdog.

Of course, this is a very crude geographical division, since the media in certain countries in Europe tend to be quite firmly pro-Israeli, such as in Germany and Poland, as well as the tabloid press in the UK. Even the BBC, with its reputation for balance, tends to gravitate more towards the Israelis than the Palestinians. There are many historical and cultural reasons for this, including the view of Israel as being “Western”, guilt at the historic persecution of the Jews, and a certain measure of distrust and hostility towards the Arabs.

Even in the US, long seen as Israel’s staunchest ally, the picture is not as straightforward as it might appear. While opinion has hardened in favour of Israel in the conservative media, Palestinian perspectives are beginning to make inroads, especially in smaller media outlets and the more liberal end of the media spectrum. Part of the reason for this is the growing engagement of the Arab American community in US politics.

In addition to geography, the Western media’s allegiances and sympathies tend to run along political lines, with the conservative and rightwing media tending to be more pro-Israeli, while the more liberal and leftwing media tend to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Middle Eastern media

Now if we switch our attention to the Middle Eastern media, we can observe something of a paradox. In Israel and the Arab world, there has been both a hardening and a softening of media perspectives in recent years.

The relative optimism of the Oslo years led to a shift in the Middle Eastern media landscape, with a higher proportion of nuanced and even positive coverage on both sides of the divide, and a relative dwindling of ideologically driven, simplistic reporting.

However, the collapse of the peace process, increased Israeli militarism, the second intifada and the increase in Palestinian violence it brought, marked a new watershed, with mainstream coverage hardening both in Israel and the Arab world – humanisation has increasingly been replaced by demonisation. Despite the regression that has occurred for most of this decade, certain gains have continued to be registered, and the rhetoric of peace, although it is looking increasingly tattered, lives on.

The explosion of online and satellite media content has made it increasingly difficult for Arabs and Israelis to insulate themselves from the views of the other side to the extent that was once possible. One notable exception has been the most recent Gaza conflict. Within Israel, the media was almost entirely behind the action and no Israeli – or western – journalists were allowed into Gaza to bring an alternative view on the situation.

This was reflected in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Israelis approved of the assault (93%, according to one poll commissioned by the Ma’ariv newspaper). I got a sense of the extent of this support when an Israeli Buddhist we’d encountered in India phoned me to discuss Gaza. Despite being a declared pacifist and the obvious degree to which the carnage in Gaza distressed him, he was entirely convinced that “this time, there was no other option”. The idea of dialogue and removing the blockade strangling the Palestinians didn’t seem to have occurred to him.

One of the few chinks in this media armour was the heart-wrenching case of Izz el-Deen Aboul Aish, the gynaecologist and respected peace activist, who lost three of his daughters during an Israeli attack. With the aid of long-time friend and Channel 10 journalist Shlomi Eldar, he recounted the terrifying episode via mobile phone live on Israeli television.

Likewise, the Gaza standoff has led to more insularity among Palestinians, partly because they, particularly in Gaza, have minimal access to the outside world.

Nevertheless, the recent conflagration in Gaza aside, the liberal end of the media spectrum has played a growing role as counterbalance to the prevailing sense of hostility. Although they also often employ unhelpful clichés and stereotypes, they also offer platforms for a broad range of views from the opposite camp and dissenting views from within. Examples include Ha’aretz in Israel, the Daily Star in Lebanon and al-Masry al-Youm in Egypt.

Blurring borders

Regional satellite TV has played an important bridging role in these troubled times. For instance, al-Jazeera regularly interviews Israeli officials and invites them on to its talk shows. In addition, it gives air time to the Israeli peace movement which helps to counterbalance perceptions in the Arab world that all Israelis want to perpetuate the conflict.

The recent explosion in media outlets and growing user control over what they view has enabled certain segments of the population to cocoon themselves more from views that run counter to their own. On the plus side, unprecedented accessibility has provided those people who possess a desire to learn more and acquire a more balanced and nuanced view of the complex situation with the tools they need to bridge the divide.

Crossing the divide

I know plenty of Arabs and Israelis who regularly read and watch the media of the opposite camp. In addition, the internet has enabled like-minded Israelis and Arabs to come together and communicate directly through discussion groups, such as Salaam-Shalom, blogs, such as one written by an Israeli woman I know who calls herself Israeli Mom, and social networking sites, such as Facebook.

Personally, I have been a member of several online forums and discussion groups which have provided me with a level of insight into the human dimension that years of research and reading did not quite capture.

This direct access also proved invaluable during my visit to Israel a couple of years ago, because it provided me with the opportunities to get far more intimate with Israeli society than I would’ve been able to had I just rocked up without acquaintances. For part of my visit, I stayed with a lovely Israeli family I had got to know online who allowed me into their home, introduced me to their friends, arranged unusual excursions and engaged in endless, round-the-clock debate and dialogue. Although on politics we perhaps disagreed more than we agreed, we all came away the richer and the wiser.

We learnt from one another, we saw beyond stereotypes, we recognised more clearly the human angle beyond the politics, and the constant challenging to each other’s views changed our perceptions. Above all, it made us realise the unmatchable value of dialogue.

You can learn more about my ‘Without a road map’ trip through Israel and Palestine on the blog I wrote while there.

Medium for peace

Now, I’d like to explore what role the media can play in building bridges.

Given its ability to influence and shape people’s perceptions, the media has the potential to fuel the conflict by entrenching and confirming negative stereotypes, perpetuating hostility and beating the drums of war. Alternatively, the media can assist the quest for peace by challenging misperceptions and biases, providing a platform for dissenting views, and by becoming a space for dialogue and creative approaches to reducing tensions and reaching a resolution.

Of course, we must be careful not to overestimate the power and reach of the media – either negatively or positively. Although the media can punch above its weight in terms of influence, it is, as I noted earlier, not a monolith and possesses no magical powers. After all, it is only the fourth estate. If other power centres in society have a radically different agenda, then the media’s impact may be minimal.

So, what, in concrete terms, can the media do to improve the situation?

The role of opinion

So far, we have largely explored news reporting, but opinion writers play an important role. Column writing is about opinion and opinion is essentially subjective. But subjectivity, if coupled with balance, can be extremely helpful in building understanding, bridging gaps and reducing polarisation in conflict situations. Conversely, opinion shapers can play a major role in derailing the best and most promising efforts.

Personally, I use my column as a platform to humanise both sides of the conflict, uphold consistent values in judging actions, challenge perceptions, think out of the box and reflect the complex human reality of the conflict.

My approach has come under fire from both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians, often in reaction to the same text. One example of this was a two-part article entitled The art of peace which challenged Arab political, historical and cultural misperceptions of Israelis and vice-versa.

One commenter wrote: “Yet again another article on Cif which promotes the impression that only the Arabs can be victims. That Zionism is evil and that the West are [sic] to blame.”

Another reader came to a diametrically opposite conclusion: “I think [your article’s] first line ought to read ‘We collaborators …’, shouldn’t it? You, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mohammed [sic] Abbas, and Salman Rushdie all play bridge together. Don’t you?”

In case you are unfamiliar with them, Hirsi Ali is a Dutch politician of Somali extraction whose vitriolic attacks on Islam have made her as unpopular among Muslims – and have even led to death threats from extremists – as she is popular among anti-Muslim conservatives in Europe and the United States.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, is regarded as a traitor by some Arabs because he is seen as serving the interests of Israel to the detriment of his own people. And the British novelist Salman Rushdie is hated by some Muslims and Arabs because of his novel The Satanic Verses, even though most of those who have the strongest views about him have not actually read the book. It is ironic that a master of post-colonial literature, which humanises the subjects of imperialism, their plight and history, should be labelled an orientalist stooge.

Despite the entrenched hostility, it is heartening to see that reaching a common ground is possible. As one reader pointed out: “One-sided historical narratives are toxic. In attempting a unified narrative, you’re doing good work.” Another added: “Thanks for this encouraging article that can positively challenge everybody’s perceptions of this conflict.”

I am often pleasantly surprised by the maturity of the debate that develops between readers of my articles. It can be truly inspiring to see how constructive the voices of the “silent majority” can be when brought into the debate. That is why a more balanced media is essential. If we are to move forward, people should not just fight their own corner.

What the media can do

In more general terms, here are some ideas and suggestions of what the media can do – and which some of it is already doing – to aid the quest for peace:

Provide a podium for diverse and dissenting views. In my view, The Guardian and Haaretz are good example of this. Although it has a liberal-progressive bent, it provides a platform for a broad spectrum of opinion.
Be a channel for creative and novel approaches to the conflict. For example, the Common Ground News Service regularly republishes articles that bring new perspectives to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 5^th March edition ran an article on how Jewish, Muslim and Christian religious organisations can advance the quest for peace. In the same issue was an article highlighting the efforts of the Israeli peace movement during the Gaza conflict.
Highlight positives; don’t just fixate on negatives. In the western media, it often seems that the Middle East produces little but violence. The media needs to dedicate more space to reporting positive news about Israel and Palestine, including the little-reported efforts to build understanding. The Arab media needs to dedicate more coverage on Israel to positive stories and stories not directly related to the conflict. The same applies for the Israeli media vis-à-vis the Palestinians and other Arabs. One interesting example I recently reported on was an essay-writing contest for Israeli and Palestinian children. One Israeli kid from Sderot imagined how he single-handedly laid the groundwork for peace when he bombed – or should I say bon-bonned – Gaza with sweets from his radio-controlled model plane.
Violence makes headlines, but so should non-violence. There is a growing non-violent Palestinian movement, including Mustafa al-Barghouti’s Palestinian National Initiative or the village of Bilin’s weekly protests against the Israeli wall which have been taking place since 2004. Then, there is the Israeli peace movement and its general opposition to non-violence on the Israeli side.
Humanise to counteract the demonisation. I attempt to do that with my column, as well as with the blog I wrote while travelling through Israel and the West Bank.
Be a conduit for dialogue. The online comment sections of newspapers can, if handled correctly, provide a forum for constructive debate and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as their supporters.

In conclusion, we need more voices who will climb out of their trenches and venture into the no-man’s-land and transform it into a common ground, even if it means occasionally getting caught in the crossfire. You all define yourselve as pro-Israeli but I believe that the best service you can provide Israel is to support the cause of justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. If you wish Israel to live in peace with its neighbours, you should support it when it gets things right, but not shy away from criticising it when it is wrong. The first step down that road is to reject any violence from either side because there can be no violent resolution to this conflict.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tags: balance, bias, israel, media, palestine, understanding

The Middle East media frontline

Add comments

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The media is another battlefield in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

By Khaled Diab

Pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinian need to join forces and find common ground in the no-man’s-land of the media battlefield.

March 2009

The media is an important front in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is why I ventured on to this particular battlefield with a slight sense of trepidation. I had been invited to address a group of Israeli and Jewish fellows (Read talk).

In order to build understanding and find common ground, I always welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue with Israelis and Jews, both to challenge and be challenged. Moreover, the chance to address, and perhaps influence, tomorrow’s possible opinion shapers was an additional lure.

There is a lot of controversy at the moment surrounding the issue of how the media covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with both sides alleging bias against them. The exchange of fire over this issue became particularly heated during the recent conflict in Gaza.

After considering the cases put forward by various pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and independent media watchdogs, as well as anecdotal evidence, I outlined my reading of the complex and shifting media topography. A disclaimer first: it’s difficult to make hard and fast generalisations about the media. In addition, bias can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder, and even the most well-intentioned and balanced journalist cannot be completely impartial.

Nevertheless, certain patterns are discernible. In the West, despite a closing of the gap in recent years, Israel’s well-oiled media machine is still ahead, especially where it counts, while the Palestinians are way out front in the Arab world.

There is something of a transatlantic divide, with the American mainstream media firmly pro-Israeli, while the European media is often sympathetic to the Palestinians. That said, certain countries in Europe tend to be quite firmly pro-Israeli, such as in Germany and Poland, as well as the tabloid press in the UK. In the US, while opinion has hardened in favour of Israel in the conservative media, Palestinian perspectives are beginning to make inroads, especially in smaller and more liberal media outlets.

The Middle Eastern media is experiencing something of a paradox: with both a hardening and a softening of Israeli and Arab media perspectives in recent years. In addition, the explosion of online and satellite media content has made it increasingly difficult for Arabs and Israelis to insulate themselves from the views of the other side to the extent that was once possible.

I then went on to prescribe certain things the media could do, or do more of, to help advance the quest for peace – much of which I strive to implement in my own journalism. The media should be a channel for creative and novel approaches to the conflict, as well as a conduit for debate. It should highlight positives and not just fixate on negatives. Although we all know that violence makes headlines, non-violence should also be given prominent coverage.

There is a lot of demonisation going on. Journalists can help to counteract this by humanising the people on both sides of the divide. Bloggers, online forums and social networking sites are playing a crucial role in this respect.

Although I strive to make my position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as balanced and non-partisan as possible, I wasn’t sure what kind of reception my message would get from this group of young people who are passionate about Israel and some of whom have been involved in pro-Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC, with its fearsome reputation in Arab circles.

Most of the fellows made me feel welcome and the subsequent debate was generally civil and intelligent. Only two interventions riled me. One fellow disparaged Palestinians as being “liars” and “propagandists” and incapable of abiding to the same Western standards of “truth” as Israelis, that is why attempts to construct a more unified narrative were “intellectually shallow”, he argued. I explained to this fellow why I thought his analysis was a prime example of true intellectual shallowness.

The second was a regurgitation of that old orientalist chestnut that Arabs “only understand the language of violence”, and that’s why Israel has to be tough and non-violence as a political ideology is a non-starter. I pointed out that, if one were so disposed, one could make the exact same generalisation about Israel, what with the Zionist dream of creating the tough “new Jew” that would ensure that the persecution of yesteryear would never be repeated, not to mention the Israeli adulation of the IDF. Jingoism knows no borders, but with the right leadership and perseverance, Israelis and Palestinians can move beyond that.

That aside, we discussed a broad range of issues, including the quality of media reporting, the banning of journalists from Gaza, press freedom in the Middle East, the value of citizen journalism and blogs, and more general political questions. The keenness with which the fellows engaged with me – we ran way over time – and their thirst for dialogue is a promising omen for the future.

I advised them that the best way for them to promote Israel’s interests – and the same applies for pro-Palestinians – is to move beyond the narrow us and them dichotomy. The best support they can provide to their own side is to advocate the cause of justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.

We need more people who are willing to climb out of their trenches and venture into the no-man’s-land and transform it into a common ground, even if it means occasionally getting caught in the crossfire.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 18 March 2009. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tags: balance, bias, israel, media, palestine, understanding

Admiring the enemy

Related posts

Learning tolerance

Related posts

وسيط إعلامي حيوي

Related posts

A vital medium

Related posts

The Middle East media battlefield

Is the media anti-Israeli?

Why all the interest?

Is the media Anti-Palestinian?

The truth within

Medium for peace

Related posts

The Middle East media frontline

Related posts