News from the Holy Land Theory and Practice of Reporting Conflict A Peace Journalism Video
Teaching Notes for Discussion and Analysis
Contents 1. USING THE VIDEO IN THE CLASSROOM . . . [leaders] 2. WHO IS THIS FOR? 3. OVERVIEW 4. KEY POINTS 5. FILM INDEX – time code for who is speaking when and where in the film 6. FILM VIEWING QUESTIONS – detailed questions to ask after playing short excerpts from the film 7. DISCUSSION NOTES – to lead a two-hour dialogue about the video, inspired by sections of the film Suggested discussion issues specifically designed for the following groups: · Civil society groups & NGOs · ‘A’ level Courses · Undergraduate & Postgraduate courses 8. THE PEACE JOURNALISM MODEL – Johan Galtung’s original table 9. COMMENTARY ON THE TWO VERSIONS – an excerpt from Peace Journalism Hawthorn Press, 2005 10. IDEAS FOR BIGGER ASSIGNMENTS 11. BACKGROUND NOTES 12. GLOSSARY 13. FURTHER READING 14. WEBPAGES
1. Using the video in the classroom or with groups · View the video before showing it to your pupils/students/participants. · Go through the teaching notes to select the questions/exercise most suited to your pupils/students/participants. · Photocopy any of the background notes you feel are necessary. Some are suggested for use as handouts after initial discussions. · Encourage active listening. Not everyone will agree with the content of the video and it could generate an emotional response from some. It is suggested that you agree ground rules with the group to ensure everybody has an opportunity both to speak and to be listened to. · Have students keep a journal. This is an effective way for them to explore their own shifting attitudes and opinions towards both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the media.
2. Who is this for? · NGOs working in the Middle East wanting to campaign for better coverage, with questions and suggestions for preparing campaigns in the media. · Civil society groups – peace groups; Arab and Palestinian support groups; Jewish groups working for peace. The questions are designed to lead into an ongoing project for the group, either supporting grassroots peace actors in the region or designing a media campaign. · ‘A’ level courses – possibly Media, Citizenship, English, Politics and History. There are detailed comprehension questions to facilitate pupils’ engagement with key concepts about both the conflict and the way the media works. These are followed by a broader, more creative set of exercises and ideas for written work. · Undergraduate courses – Journalism, Media & Communications, Politics, International Relations, Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution. · Postgraduate courses – Journalism, Media & Communications, International Relations, Peace Studies, Conflict Resolution, Development. · There are class discussion exercises and also longer assignments for use by graduate and undergraduate tutors.
3. Overview The film is an illustrated call for change in the way the Israel-Palestine conflict is presented to British news audiences. It opens up a set of questions about how any conflict is reported in the media.
The documentary shows how the coverage of the past three years has created a pattern of omission and distortion, to the point where it exerts a distorting influence on political process.
Jake and Annabel showcase examples of news stories that would help to correct thIS distortion and provide the British people with a more accurate reflection of what is taking place in Israel and on the West Bank.
The film begins with a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and two different approaches to the same news story. This helps to give a broader perspective and some context to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Five further examples of news stories follow, with detailed analysis of each.
The analytical tools of Peace Journalism can be used for evaluating how other conflicts are covered, not just that between Israel and the Palestinians.
4. Key Points · News focuses on violent events and ignores crucial processes such as such as the everyday reality of life for millions of Palestinians under Israeli military occupation. This gives a misleading view of what is happening in the Middle East conflict, and why it is happening. · Journalists need to find creative ways to convey these processes and the underlying issues of structural and cultural violence which are fuelling the conflict. · A creative reporting strategy would illuminate options for change and possible long-term solutions to key issues in the conflict. · Moderate voices – representing majority opinion in both communities – are routinely missing from news reports, giving the impression that all Israelis and Palestinians hate each other. · Current international news reporting is polarising in its approach and likely to exacerbate the conflict. · International news organisations are not following their own guidelines and rules, which clearly call for a broader range of voices and perspectives. · Despite seeing years of extensive reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most viewers do not understand even the basic facts of the situation.
5. Film index Please note times are approximate: they may vary by a few seconds.
Total duration: 49’ 30’’.
Opening sequence ( 0’ 0’’ - 3'10’’) Classic violent news pictures, with the speakers criticising most news coverage of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict for being too simplistic, lacking context and depicting each side as the 'goodies' one day and the ‘baddies’ the next.
News report 1: Suicide bombing – standard version (from 3’ 00’’) Introduction to the story from Annabel. Jake gives a standard news report on a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. We hear from: Ismail Abu Shanab – Hamas spokesman Avi Pazner – Israel Government Spokesman
News Report 2: Suicide bombing – alternative version (from 5’ 5’’) Introduction to the story from Jake. Annabel gives an alternative approach to the news report on a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. We hear from: Avi Pazner – Israeli Government spokesman Dr Fahmi Hashash – Qalqilya hospital manager Hanah Barag – Checkpoint Watch
Commentary 1 (from 9’ 2’’) Explains the thinking behind the two stories and what the second one adds to our understanding of the situation. We hear from: Carol Sansour – Bethlehem Media Centre Gabrielle Rifkind – Middle East Policy Initiative Forum Hava Halevi – Checkpoint Watch Professor Johan Galtung – Dir ector TRANSCEND Network Cherie Blair – Prime Minister's wife
News Report 3: Two brothers, two different paths (from 14’ 45’’) Introduction to the story from Annabel. Jake tells Amer’s story. He is a peace activist, but his brother was a suicide bomber. Explanation of background. We hear from: Amer Daraghmeh – peace activist Ibtisan Daraghmeh – mother
Commentary 2 (from 17’ 56’’) We hear from: Carol Sansour – Bethlehem Media Centre Dr Nabil Kukuli – Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion
News Report 4: Geneva Accord (from 19’ 45’’) Jake introduces the item. Annabel reports on the Geneva Accord – a chance for everyone in the region to take part in a dialogue about this latest peace plan. We hear from: Yasser Abed Rabbo – Palestinian Authority Rachel Zucker – Israeli settler Mina Zemach – Dahaf Polling Institute
Commentary 3 (from 23’ 18’’) We hear from: Professor Gerald Steinberg – Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Uri Avnery – Gush Shalom
News Report 5: The Wall (from 25’ 46’’) Jake introduces the item. Annabel reports on the living conditions of Palestinians, shut in a bit like the animals in a zoo. We hear from: Naim Hassan Shawani – farmer Dr Sami Khader – Zoo director Dr Salim Tamari – Institute for Jerusalem Studies Professor Gerald Steinberg – Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Robi Damelin – Parents’ Circle
Commentary 4 (from 30’ 04’’) We hear from: Professor Greg Philo – Glasgow Media Group Tim Llewellyn – Former BBC Middle East correspondent BBC graphic at 32’ 53’’ Ofcom graphic at 34’ 37’’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) graphic at 35’ 24’’
North American version CBC Code graphic at 35’ 31’’ US Supreme Court ruling graphic at 35’ 58’’
News Report 6: Refuseniks – Resisting militarism (from 36’ 11’’) Introduction to the story from Annabel. Jake talks to young Israelis facing trial for refusing to do military service in the Occupied Territories. We hear from: Adam Maor – refusenik Alex Maor – Adam's father Miri Maor – Adam's mother Matania Ben Artzi – father Yoni Ben Artzi – refusenik
Commentary 5 (from 39’ 10’’) We hear from: Uri Avnery – Gush Shalom Tim Llewellyn – Former BBC Middle East correspondent Abdel Bari Atwan – Editor, al-Quds al-Araby Professor Greg Philo – Glasgow Media Group
News Report 7: Lessons for peaceful citizenship (from 43’ 48’’) Introduction to the story from Jake. Annabel visits a school exploring the origins of the conflict in the classroom. We hear from: Noam Leshem – school teacher Sohil Haj – school teacher Anat Levy-Reisman – Israel Palestine Centre for Research Information
Commentary 6 (from 47’ 18’’) Concluding comments from Jake and Annabel.
6. Film viewing questions Suitable for schools and university courses.
SUGGESTED USE OF THE TAPE First session · Play the whole tape to the group, without any interruptions. · This may take all of one session.
Second & third sessions · The tape is designed so that it can be paused at specific places for direct questions to be puy to the group. · There is a lot of detailed material on both the media and the conflict, so it may take a third session to get through all the questions. · This might take the following form:
Play the tape from 0’ 0’’ and pause at 3’ 0’’ (when Jake and Annabel first appear after the graphic of ‘News from the Holy Land – Options and Consequences’) Opening Sequence – pictures and clips of interview
Q1 What do the pictures tell us? A1 About violence between Israelis and Palestinians. About the Israelis and Palestinians killing each other. This is usually all we see on the news about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Q2 What do the speakers say about how Israeli-Palestinian problems are usually reported? A2 Coverage is distorted/one-sided and over-simplified.
Q3 Do you agree/disagree with them? Why? A3 A chance for students to air their views about what they watch.
Play the tape from 3’ and pause at 9’ 25’’ (after the end of the second news report)
The tape may be viewed and paused as many times as are needed to aid discussion.
INTRODUCTION TO VIEWING Listen carefully to the words used in each version of this story. Take note of the speakers, what they tell us about the conflict, and the kind of pictures used.
Watch News Report 1: Suicide bombing – standard version News Report 2: Suicide bombing – alternative ersion
Q1 What differences between the versions can you find? (Look for examples of provocative language. Who is speaking in each story? What understanding are we left with?) A1 Version 1 uses words (‘carnage’, ‘worst’, ‘despair’, ‘maximum deadly effect’, etc.) to show how shocking and terrible the violence is. Version 2 describes the event in more neutral language. It also tells of Palestinian casualties (the hospital/deaths at checkpoints). It broadens the context: we meet an Israeli who is helping to protect Palestinians. It shows moderates, thereby helping to break the stereotypical picture of the two sides all hating each other which we are usually given.
Q2a What reasons does Version 1 give for the attack? A2a Version 1 says the Palestinians are to blame. Q2b And Version 2? A2b Version 2 says the conflict is to blame for setting people against each other.
Q3a Why are people fighting, according to Jake in Version 1? A3a Version 1 says that the Hamas/Palestinians are getting their revenge. Now Israel will seek further revenge. Q3b Why are people fighting, according to Annabel in Version 2? A3b Version 2 says that Israeli security measures and military occupation mean regular Palestinian casualties, but that often no one is held responsible. The Palestinians lash out in anger, but that brings more reprisals.
Q4a What are we told is the solution in Version 1? A4a Version 1 says that the situation is hopeless unless Arabs are removed from East Jerusalem, and that the Palestinian Authority can stop the militants. Q4b Is this a fair view? Is it one-sided? Does it present the whole picture? Will the ‘solution’ work? A4b It looks at things only from an Israeli point of view. It does not look at problems from both sides. Q4c What are we told is the solution in Version 2? A4c Version 2 says that only renewed talking and a political solution (not fighting) will work. It doesn't take sides or blame only one side. Q4d What effect do you think each version will have on the people watching those involved in the conflict? A4d Version 1 will make people take sides. It makes the Palestinians look bad, theIsraelis good. It will make Palestinians feel more angry.
Play the tape from 9’ 25’’ and pause at 19’ 45’’ (as Jake introduces the next news story)
Watch Commentary 1 News Report 3: Two brothers, two different paths Commentary 2
Q1 What do you think ‘polarisation’ means? A1 Dividing into two sharply contrasting groups. A big gulf between them. Increasing hatred between opposing parties. Like magnetic poles.
Q2 What, with regard to news reporting, is increasing the polarisation between Israeli and Palestinian people? A2 Reports which do not put the violence in context by telling the story of both sides help to dehumanise the opposing group. They encourage a ‘blame’ culture against one group.
Q3 What is ‘structural violence’? A3 Structures/institutions that prevent individuals from fulfilling their potential. No one party is responsible – e.g. Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory.
Q4 What is ‘cultural violence’? A4 Prejudice, hatred and violent attitudes which become an accepted part of social iscourse and can be passed on from one generation to the next. They become the ‘norm’.
Q5 What is ‘the cycle of violence’? A5 A killing/atrocity leads to shock, followed by pain and grief, fear that it will happen again, anger that it happened at all, bitterness towards ‘them’ (the killers and their kind), desire for revenge, retaliation and another killing. The cycle of violence can last for weeks, years or even generations. It makes life more difficult for anyone trying to advocate negotiation to resolve differences.
Q6a Why did Mohammed blow himself up? A6a His best friend died in his arms. Q6b Can you imagine how this would make him feel? What other things may have motivated him? A6b Encourage pupils to imagine the death of a friend of their own, how it would make them feel – would it drive them to take revenge? Other motivations could include living in a refugee camp with few prospects. ‘Closure’ means that Palestinians are currently not free to move out of their towns. Invite pupils to imagine not being free to leave their own town/city?
Q7 Does telling Amer’s story mean that we are excusing, or explaining, what his brother did? A7 The story seeks to explain why and how it happened. Jake challenges the family – did they ever think of Mohammed's victims? – as a way of not seeming to excuse the killing.
Q8 From Amer's story, what new understanding do we get about what might remove the causes of violence? A8 Work must be done with the Palestinians to help restore their hope and belief in a peaceful future.
Q9 What does the opinion poll mentioned tell us? A9 The majority of Palestinians are in favour of ending the Intifada, of ending violence.
Q10 After viewing this piece, can you see ways that the cycle of violence can be broken? Particularly in this conflict? In a wider context? Q10 By working with Palestinians and Israeli groups to understand their own role in the conflict, to process their trauma from the violence, developing inter-group links (bridge building), providing more jobs and opportunities for Palestinians.
Play the tape from 19’ 45’’ and pause at 30’ 04’’
Watch News Report 4: Geneva Accord Commentary 3 News Report 5: The Wall
Q1 What kind of things did you see in the film which you think would lead to Palestinians feeling bitter and angry, and encourage a ‘cycle of violence’? A1 The Palestinians have had land taken away from them; there has been a military occupation since 1967. Some Israelis claim that the whole area belongs to them and have built settlements on Palestinian territory. The UN said that this was illegal under international law. The Geneva Accord would involve handing back 200,000 homes currently in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Due to the Security Fence, Palestinian farmers are losing land previously recognised as theirs under international law.
Q2 What differing viewpoints about the Security Fence (the Wall) does the film present? A2 The UN and America say it is an obstacle to peace. Some Israelis think it is the only way to stay safe Others think it will create more enemies by making life more difficult for Palestinians. The Israeli Government thinks it will keep suicide bombers out.
Q3 What would happen to such settlements under the Geneva Accord? A3 200,000 of these homes would be handed back to the Palestinians.
Q4 What do the poll findings tell us about what Israelis are prepared to do for peace? A4 62% of Israelis are prepared to hand the settlements back in return for peace.
Q5 What happened at the zoo in Qalqilya? A5 The Wall means that visitors cannot reach the zoo and fighting close by led to animals being harmed. The male giraffe keeled over and died; his pregnant mate miscarried her calf.
Q6 Why could these two news reports be important to our understanding of what is happening in the Middle East? A6 They show us that ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are much more in favour of peace than their political leaders. They also show what living conditions on the ground are like for Palestinians, so we understand better what needs to change to create a long-term peace.
Play the tape from 30’ 04’’ and pause at 36’ 11’’
Watch Commentary 4
Q1 After watching all this news, what do the British public understand about the conflict? Who do they think is occupying the Occupied Territories? A1 Many British news viewers mistakenly believe that the Palestinians are occupying the Occupied Territ ories.
Q2 What effect does the focusing of news reports on the violence have on the community? A2 Focusing on the violence feeds polarisation. It helps establish violence as a cultural ‘norm’.
Q3 What basic mistake do most news programmes make according to the former BBC correspondent in the region? A3 He says that the basic mistake most news programmes make is to report as if the two parties are equal.
Q4 What do the BBC Producer Guidelines say? A4 (At 32’ 53’’) ‘No significant perspective should go unreported or under-represented on the BBC.’ ‘There are usually more than two sides to any issue.’ ‘All views should be reflected to mirror the depth and spread of opinion.’
Q5 What is Ofcom? A5 Ofcom is the communications regulator in charge of comme rcial broadcasters.
Q6 What does Ofcom say news programmes must do? A6 (At 34’ 37’’) ‘In dealing with major matters of controversy, licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives.’
Q7 Is this being done ? If not, what is missing? A7 No, the regulation is not being fulfilled: we hear virtually nothing from Israeli opponents of the occupation or the settlements, and virtually nothing from Palestinian opponents of the Intifada.
Q8 What do news programmes ne ed to do to fulfil the regulations? A8 They need to develop creative strategies to find the sources of change.
Q9 What might some of these strategies be? A9 Researching stories in advance, not just waiting for violent events to happen. Deliberately broadening the range of sources, to include people like those in these reports. Being on the lookout for opportunities to convey aspects of process, rather than simply focusing on violent events – e.g. how the security apparatus used by Israel results in a tric kle of Palestinians deaths at checkpoints; or farmers not being able to reach their fields, and workers their jobs. There is no one event on the day: what is important is the cumulative effect of the security system.
Q10 What does the ABC Editorial Polic y say that its journalists should do? A10 It says they should show a broad range of perspectives. (At 35’ 24’’) ‘In serving the public’s right to know, editorial staff will be enterprising in perceiving, pursuing and presenting issues which affect society and the individual.’ ‘Pursuing impartiality should not mean endorsing the status quo. The Corporation is also required to be innovative. … The ABC seeks to be a pace-setter in community discussion.’
North American version Q10 What does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Editorial Policy say that its journalists should do? A10 It says that they should show issues in depth as well as breadth, so that audiences understand them properly. (At 35’ 31’’) ‘The widest possible range of views should be expressed.’ ‘There must also be depth, the capturing of dimensions and nuances. Without these elements, the programming becomes too simplistic to permit adequate comprehension.’
Q11 How is television regulated in the US? A11 Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that there should be ‘an uninhibited marketplace of ideas’. (At 35’ 58’’) ‘It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, and other ideas which is crucial.’
Play the tape from 36’ 11’’ and pause at 43’ 48’’
Watch News Report 6: The Refuseniks – resisting militarism Commentary 5
Q1 Why does Adam Maor not want to serve in the army? A1 He refuses to serve in the Occupied Territorie s, believing them to be illegal.
Q2 Why does Yoni Ben Artzi not want to serve in the army? A2 He is a pacifist. The army accepts an individual’s right not to believe in violence – as long as it is kept quiet.
Q3 Why is the army so concerned to punish Adam and his friends? A3 Because they are making political statements and the army is afraid that others will follow suit, publicising opposition to the occupation.
Q4 What are ‘frameworks of understanding’ and why are they necessary in the news? A4 Frameworks of understanding give us a context to see the relevancy of particular sources and perspectives in news. They help us to see how individual actions fit in with bigger processes of political change.
Q5 What is the significance of news ignoring grassroots action? Or of it focusing on grassroots action? A5 When news ignores grassroots action, it conceals it from view and so reduces its legitimacy and affects outcomes. Conversely, if news focuses on grassroots action, it makes it more visible and more legitimate, and encourages those carrying it out – that, too, affects outcomes.
Q6 How does the news coverage influence the behaviour of parties in conflict? A6 If people are not properly informed, there cannot be a proper public debate and that may influence the decisions made by politicians.
Q7 What effect does the distortion have on the Palestinians? A7 The Palestinians feel let down by the British and the outside world. That may lead some of them to believe that their only option is to fight back in whatever way they can.
Q8 What are some of the other ideas for intervention? A8 One idea for third party intervention takes the form of 'peace enforcement', demilitarising the Occupied Territories, removing Israeli army checkpoints.
Play the tape from 43’ 48’’ and play till the end at 49’ 30’’
News Report 7: Lessons for peaceful citizenship Commentary 6
Q1 What are the schoolchildren in Israel learning about? A1 They are learning values like freedom, liberty, equality and how power is divided in their society.
Q2 Who has the freedom in Israel? A2 The youngsters explain that although it is the Palestinians who are ‘locked up’ in the Occupied Territories, they too have lost a lot of freedom because the risk of bombs means that they cannot go out.
Q3 What is the underlying problem in the conflict? A3 The underlying problem is mutual mistrust – made worse by the fact that many Israelis and Palestinians seldom if ever meet socially.
Q4 What is the schools peace programme doing? A4 The Israel/Palestine Center for Research Information schools peace programme is unravelling harmful stereotypes.
Q5 How is this building peace? A5 It is helping to build peace because everyone is encouraged to see the conflict as a shared problem, each being part of that problem and part of the solution, asked to examine their own values, attitudes and behaviours, and then move outwards and consider the enemy.
Q6 What is the problem with the news? Are journalists to blame? A6 No, journalists as individuals are not the problem; many are highly experienced and very conscientious. The problems are built into the everyday routine of journalism in a conflict zone. Various pressures lead journalists to stick to safe stories – big bangs and official pronouncements – and to follow a format in reporting them.
Q7 What has the film set out to do? Q8 It looks at new ways of covering the conflict – ways to broaden the context.
Q9 Is it enough for journalists to ‘just report the facts’? A9 The point is, Which facts? It’s the criteria for selection that bear consequences, as the film has shown – narrowing the picture, distorting the political process.
7. Discussion notes
The following sections individualise issues for specific groups. Please select the notes which relate to your group.
NGOs and civil society groups
Play the film in two parts. Also refer to Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press 2005), Chapter 10: ‘Becoming Media Savvy’.
Play the tape from 0’ 0’’ and pause at 9’ 21’’ (after the end of the second news report) You may need to watch this section through twice.
Watch Opening sequence of pictures, interview clips and music News Report 1: Suicide bombing – standard version News Report 2: Suicide bombing – alternative version
Q1 Do you agree with the comments at the opening of the film? A1 The speakers say that the coverage is distorted, lacks context and is over-simplified – do your staff/members agree?
Q2 How many differences can you find in each story? A2 Attend to the words, who the speakers are, what pictures are used. Version 1 uses the words ‘carnage’, ‘worst’, ‘despair’, ‘maximum deadly effect’, etc. The focus is on how shocking the violence is. Version 2 describes the event in softer language, but tells of Palestinian casualtie s too. We visit a hospital that treats the wounded and go to a checkpoint where many deaths occur. We meet an Israeli who is helping to protect Palestinians. The stereotypes of each side are broken.
Q3 Who and what are we told are to blame for the attack in each story? A3 Version 1 says Palestinians are to blame. Version 2 says the conflict is to blame.
Q4 Why are people fighting? Compare the explanations. A4 Version 1 says that Hamas/the Palestinians are getting their revenge. Version 2 says Israeli security measures mean regular Palestinian casualties, and often no one is held responsible.
Q5 What are we told is the solution in each story? A5 Version 1 says that it is hopeless unless Arabs are removed from East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority cannot stop the militants. Version 2 says only renewed talking and a political solution will work.
Play the tape from 9’ 21’’ to the end at 49’30”
Watch News Report 3: Two brothers, two different paths (Reporter: Jake Lynch) News Report 4: Geneva Accord (Reporter: Annabel McGoldrick) News Report 5: The Wall (Reporter: Annabel McGoldrick) News Report 6: Refuseniks – resisting militarism (Reporter: Jake Lynch) News report 7: Lessons for peaceful citizenship (Reporter: Annabel McGoldrick) Interlinking commentary and comments
Q1 What are these stories doing that most other news from the region does not do? A1 We hear what the public think rather than the politicians: the film shows how most Palestinians would rather see the Intifada stopped and most Israelis would be happy to hand over the settlements in return for peace. We hear what motivates a suicide bomber – often the death of loved one as well as daily living conditions in the Occupied Territories. We see how Israel’s security fence, the Wall, is making life much harder for Palestinians: farmers are losing land, or they cannot reach it to tend to their crops and flocks. We hear how young Israelis are resisting military service – perhaps breaking a stereotype? And we hear of three different peace projects: the Geneva Accord, the education project, and the Middle East Policy Initiative Forum.
Q2 What does the film tell us about how to achieve peace in the region? A2 It suggests that peace has to be built between people on the ground, where certain conditions must change. It is not sufficient for politicians to find agreement and sign a deal – as Oslo proved.
Q4 What other ideas do we have for peace in the region? A4 An opportunity for brainstorming.
Q5 What do the BBC and Ofcom say news must do? A5a The BBC Producer Guidelines are at 32’ 43’’. ‘No significant perspective should go unreported or under-represented on the BBC.’ ‘There are usually more than two sides to any issue.’ ‘All views should be reflected to mirror the depth and spread of opinion.’ A5b The Ofcom Rules are at 34’ 27’’. ‘In dealing with major matters of controversy, licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives.’
Q6 Are these guidelines and rules being followed? If not, what is missing? A6 No, they are not being followed: we hear virtually nothing from Israeli opponents of the Occupation or the settlements, and virtually nothing from Palestinian opponents of the Intifada.
Q7 How could following the guidelines and rules help our campaigns for improved coverage on this topic? A7 They mean that news organisations are already making a promise to deliver what we want. Can we use this as a lever to call for our kind of coverage by saying: ‘You say no significant perspective must go unreported, yet you never give the view of grassroots peace organisations. We have monitored your output over the past six months and only once has such a spokesperson appeared.’
Q8 Why does this matter? Why campaign about the media in pursuit of peace with justice in resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict? A8 This is about the effect of patterns of omission and distortion in reporting conflict. The film shows how the British people are misinformed about the most basic facts essential to understanding the conflict – e.g. what the Occupied Territories are, who are occupying them, and how they came to be there? This distorts the political process and political debate in Britain, where the government is relatively passive on the issue because they are not challenged either by the media or by activists.
Q9 Could we organise a campaign to call for this kind of coverage? · What issue do we want to take up? For example, lack of peace groups or few Palestinian voices. · Whom will we monitor? For example, just Radio 4 Today programme or just Sky News? · Who will do this? Campaign organiser/convenor? · How will they do it? · Who will be our spokesperson? · Will we email or write a letter and follow this up with phone calls? · How will we publicise our demands and the news organisations’ responses?
Q10 Do we know of any groups like those in the film? A10 Are we in touch with any groups or individuals who could add a new perspective to the coverage – e.g. Israelis Against House Demolitions? Think of a group who have not had much media exposure.
Q11 Could we make contact with a newsroom and recommend that they do a story on these people? · Who could take responsibility for doing this? · Can we write a press release? · Is there a good time to do it? Can it be pegged to another news development?
Q12 Would we like to support a group on the front line in Israel or the Occupied Territories who are standing up against violence? A12 Peace Direct is a new charity who can put you in contact with such groups and individuals. See www.peacedirect.org for more information.
‘A’ level courses
Play the tape and use the instructions for a detailed discussion.
Investigate the background to the conflict
Create a timeline from 1947 to today, with Jewish interests on one side and Arab interests on the other. Discuss.
Compare articles
Compare articles on the same event/violent incident from the following two publications: Palestine Chronicle – www.palestinechronicle.com Jerusalem Post – www.jpost.com Then compare coverage in The Guardian with the same story written for the Daily Telegraph or The Times.
Look at · Choice of words – is different language used to describe violence perpetrated by each side? (See Background section for further ideas about the use of language in the reporting on this conflict.) · Sources – who is quoted in each article, and what do they say? · Who or what is ‘blamed’ for the violence. · The reason given for people fighting. (If it is not explicitly stated, what are you left to infer?) · Any image of a solution. (If it is not explicitly stated, what are you left to infer?) · Anything missing from each article.
Re-write the article
Find at least three new sources/voices and rewrite the article. Write a commentary explaining your choice of sources/voices and what they add to an understanding of the story.
Define the word ‘peace’
Find three new ideas for creating your kind of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Undergraduate and postgraduate courses
Peace Journalism Model
Present the ‘War Journalism – Peace Journalism’ table from Professor Johan Galtung (see page 21- 22). Discuss. For further reading, see Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Peace Journalism by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick (Hawthorn Press, 2005). A Google search will bring up endless articles on Peace Journalism.
Watch News Report 1 (Suicide bombing – standard version at 3’ 10’’)
Q1 In what senses can this be said to be War Journalism? A1 Version 1 uses words like ‘carnage’, ‘worst’, ‘despair’, ‘maximum deadly effect’, etc. – the focus is on how shocking the violence is.
Q2 Can you identify at least two characteristics of War Journalism? Take each section of the table and name the characteristics observable in the story:
I. WAR/VIOLENCE ORIENTATED Zero sum game – Israelis/victims (goodies) v Palestinians/villains (baddies). Reactive – the story is about an incident of violence. The focus is on the visible effects of the violence, with pictures of the injured in the suicide bombing. Palestinians are dehumanised and seen as the villains (baddies).
II. PROPAGANDA ORIENTATED The propaganda line is that this is a ‘period of calm’, when in fact, as Version 2 tells us, many Palestinians have been killed during this time.
III. ELITE ORIENTATED We only hear about what action the elite/politicians will take. Hamas are interviewed as the ‘evil doers’, opposing peace negotiations.
IV. VICTORY ORIENTATED Implicitly the message is that the conflict will continue until one side wins. The reporter says the fighting will end only if Arabs are removed from East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority can stop the militants, thus internalising the formula that peace = victory + ceasefire. The message is one of hopelessness.
Watch News Report 2 (Suicide bombing – alternative version at 6’ 02’’)
Q1 In what senses can this be said to be Peace Journalism? A1 Version 2 describes the event in more neutral language, but tells of Palestinian casualties too. We visit a hospital that treats the wounded and go to a checkpoint where many deaths occur. We meet an Israeli who is helping to protect Palestinians. So the stereotypes of each side are broken.
Q2 Can you identify at least two characteristics of Peace Journalism? A2 Take each section of the table and name the characteristics observable in the story:
I. PEACE/CONFLICT ORIENTATED Conflict formation is explored. There are more than two parties; against the Israeli Government are Israelis opposed to the occupation (with women at checkpoints); a goal of all the partie s is security; we hear that Palestinians are dying at checkpoints.
Conflict is seen as the problem. Both Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a cycle of violence.
Both Israelis and Palestinians are humanised – both are victims.
Some of the invisible structural violence is mentioned (for more, read Peace Journalism, Hawthorn Press, 2005, Chapter 4, ‘Reporting Violence’). We hear that the security measures (the security structure – no one individual is to blame) implemented by Israel as part of their military occupation make life more difficult for Palestinians. At times they are fatal, and this makes life more dangerous for Israelis too.
II. TRUTH ORIENTATED We hear how 21 Palestinians have died at checkpoints in the previous two months despite the official status of ‘a period of calm’.
III. PEOPLE ORIENTATED By going to the hospital, we hear Palestinians suffering as well as the Israelis.
With the Checkpoint Watch women protecting Palestinians, we also get an image of people as peace-makers.
IV. SOLUTION ORIENTATED The solution suggested is renewed talking and a political deal. The inference is that peace = non-violence + creativity.
A commentary on the choices made in putting these two articles together follows after the Peace Journalism table, and can be given to students following their discussion.
Find a newspaper report
Select one on a current conflict and identify the characteristics which make it War Journalism.
Hints · Choose a news story that describes a particular violent incident or event, rather than a political development in the story. · Use Galtung's table to help you. · See how many aspects of War Journalism named in the table you can identify in this story. · Look at how the violence is explained. · Notice who the speakers are and what sort of comments they make. · Note the sort of language used to describe the violence and the other party. · Think about whose voice may be missing. · Note whether the story leaves us to infer anything about how the fighting could end.
Which is mo re objective?
Is the standard version (War Journalism) more objective, or the alternative version (Peace Journalism)? What do we mean by ‘objective’? For more, read Peace Journalism, Hawthorn Press, 2005, Chapter 6, ‘Why News Is the Way It Is’.
Watch the remainder of the film
Q1 Background: What is the history of the conflict? Do we get this from the news? A1 Are the students aware of the following? · Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. · In 1967, Israel occupied by force the territories to which Palestinian refugees had moved. · Palestinians live under military rule. · The Israelis have taken control of key resources such as water, and this is greatly damaging the Palestinian economy.
Q2 Settlements: What role do they play in the conflict and in building peace? A2 Settlements control over 40% of the West Bank. They are built on hilltops to give a commanding position over their occupants and are often heavily armed. Under the Geneva Accord, about 200,000 homes in settlements would be given back to the Palestinians. Most Israelis would be prepared to hand back the settlements in return for peace.
Q3 Public opinion v political opinion: Do politicians in the region think the same as the public? What are the implications of the differences? A3 Public opinion polls in the film show that 62% of Israelis are prepared to hand the settlements back in return for peace, and more Palestinians are in favour of ending the Intifada tha n of continuing it.
Q4 Peace: a) What do we mean by ‘peace’? b) How is it achieved – by politicians or by people? c) What ideas can you find for creating a lasting peace with justice in the region? A4 a) Come up with a group definition for peace. (For more read Peace Journalism, Hawthorn Press, 2005, Chapter 3, ‘Understanding Conflict’.) Use the Galtung formula, peace = non-violence + creativity, to help you. Discuss the concepts of ‘negative’ peace and ‘positive’ peace. b) Look into the ill-fated Oslo Accord. Many argue that this broke down partly because it was imposed by politicians and not built between people. Think about what needs to change in the hearts and minds of people, and about the ideas for achieving this presented in the film. c) Begin with the suggestions in the film – e.g. the Geneva Accord, the peace education project, and the Middle East Policy Initiative Forum. Then research further ideas on the Internet. Some useful websites are listed below.
Q5 Rules for News: a) What do the BBC, Ofcom and the ABC say the news must do?
North American version a) What do the BBC, Ofcom, and CBC say the news must do? What does the US Constitution say are the entitlements of the US public from their television news?
b) Do you think the BBC and commercial television are following their rules and guidelines in presenting the news? c) Compile a list of the perspectives which dominate the news about this conflict. Which perspectives are routinely missed out?
A5a The BBC Producer Guid elines are at 32’ 5’’. ‘No significant perspective should go unreported or under-represented on the BBC.’ ‘There are usually more than two sides to any issue.’ ‘All views should be reflected to mirror the depth and spread of opinion.’
The Ofcom Rules are at 34’ 37’’. ‘In dealing with major matters of controversy, licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives.’
The ABC Editorial Policy is at 35’ 24’’. ‘In serving the public's right to know, editorial staff will be enterprising in perceiving, pursuing and presenting issues which affect society and the individual.’ ‘Pursuing impartiality should not mean endorsing the status quo. The Corporation is also required to be innovative. … The ABC seeks to be a pace-setter in community discussion.’
North American Version The CBC Editorial Policy is at 35’ 31’’. ‘The widest possible range of views should be expressed.’ ‘There must also be depth, the capturing of dimensions and nuances. Without these elements, the programming becomes too simplistic to permit adequate comprehension.’
The US Constitutional Rules are at 35’ 58’’. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the First Amendment, and in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that there should be ‘an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.’ ‘It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, and other ideas which is crucial.’
8. The peace journalism model: Professor Johan Galtungs original model1
[Footnote: 1First published in The Peace Journalism Option, Conflict and Peace Forums, 1998, p. 44; then in Jake Lynch & Annabel McGoldrick, Peace Journalism, Hawthorn Press, 2005.]
PEACE/CONFLICT JOURNALISM WAR/VIOLENCE JOURNALISM
I. PEACE/CONFLICT-ORIENTATED
Explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z issues general ‘win, win’ orientation
Open space, open time; causes and outcomes anywhere, also in history/culture Making conflicts transparent
Giving voice to all parties; empathy, understanding See conflict/war as problem, focus on conflict creativity
Humanisation of all sides; more so the worse the weapons
Proactive: prevention before any violence/war occurs
Focus on invisible effects of violence (trauma and glory, damage to structure/culture)
I. WAR/VIOLENCE ORIENTATED
Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal (win), war general zero-sum orientation
Closed space, closed time; causes and exits in arena, who threw the first stone
Making wars opaque/secret
‘Us-them’ journalism, propaganda, voice, for ‘us’
See ‘them’ as the problem, focus on who prevails in war
Dehumanisation of ‘them’; more so the worse the weapon
Reactive: waiting for violence before reporting
Focus only on visible effect of violence (killed, wounded and material damage)
II. TRUTH-ORIENTATED
Expose untruths on all sides / uncover all cover-ups
II. PROPAGANDA-ORIENTATED
Expose ‘their’ untruths / help ‘our’ cover-ups/lies
III. PEOPLE-ORIENTATED
Focus on suffering all over; on women, aged, children, giving voice to voiceless
Give name to all evil-doers
Focus on people peace-makers
III. ELITE ORIENTATED
Focus on ‘our’ suffering; on able-bodied elite males, being their mouth-piece
Give name to their evil-doers
Focus on elite peace-makers
IV. SOLUTION ORIENTATED
Peace = non-violenc e + creativity
Highlight peace initiatives, also to prevent more war
Focus on structure, culture, the peaceful society
Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction, reconciliation
IV. VICTORY ORIENTATED
Peace = victory + ceasefire
Conceal peace-initiative, before victory is at hand
Focus on treaty, institutions, the controlled society
Leaving for another war, return if the old flares up again
9. Commentary on choices made in compiling both the war journalism and peace journalism TV news stories An excerpt from Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press, 2005), Chapter 2
Whose fault is it?
The observation in the first of these two versions, that the bombing ‘shattered a period of relative calm’, was commonplace in international media. The US monitoring group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), drawing attention to this tendency, pointed out that covering the incident in this way appears to pin on Palestinians all the blame for a breakdown in progress on the US-sponsored ‘Road Map’.
During July 2003, the Palestinian armed groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were observing a ceasefire in order to create a political space conducive to this initiative. But, as FAIR pointed out, the daily drip-feed of Palestinian casualties continued throughout – 21 deaths during the ceasefire period alone, according to the Red Crescent.
There is an issue, in many media, of disparity of esteem. Israeli deaths generally do tend to attract more coverage than those of Palestinians. Even leaving this aside, however, there is another reason for the imbalance.
The Palestinians killed during the truce included the Hamas leaders referred to in these reports who were targeted specifically by the Israeli military. But most were – however grim it may sound – ‘routine’, victims of checkpoint shootings and the like which take place all the time and therefore have long ceased to be ‘news’.
A question of blame – or a shared problem?
This brings us to a crucial distinction between the two versions of the story. In War Journalism, when there is a military incursion which kills Palestinians, the problem is located in the individual perpetrator – whether a suicide bomber, as in this case, or an Israeli soldier, tank captain or pilot.
Peace Journalism opens the suggestion that the conflict itself may be the problem – a shared problem requiring a shared solution.
The Israeli system of checkpoints places severe restrictions on the freedom of movement for Palestinian civilians – not only into Israel, but between Palestinian towns and villages.
It is a recipe for frustration and confrontation, as the pictures in the reports show. Take a large number of people, wanting to pass from A to B, obliged to wait for hours in hot sun while their credentials are checked. Now transpose this basic situatio n to a major western city like London, say, or New York.
The police in either of these places would mount a major, and highly labour-intensive, operation to ensure public order. It would be seen as a challenge requiring all their expertise and experience in order to carry off the occasion without any trouble.
The point is that, even where those in charge are, essentially, servants of those they are policing, such a situation is seen as potentially highly problematical. In such a case, those in charge are the colonial masters of those they are policing.
In addition, it may be fair to observe that one of the skills we all learn as we go through life is how to get other people – children, work colleagues, et al. – to do what we want. Many of the soldiers on the front line at checkpoints are young, perhaps as young as 18, a few months into their national service. They will have had very little time to learn that there are better ways to obtain people's co- operation than by belligerence and threats.
The decision the reporter has taken for the second piece here, to focus on the activities of Checkpoint Watch, highlights the extent to which this conflict is being driven by structural violence – discussed further in Chapter 4.
Israel's military occupation of Palestinian territory and its appurtenances – the system of checkpoints and passes, with virtual impunity for those enforcing it on the front line – is itself inherently violent. It breeds violence – it is like an inanimate production line of violence.
This means that violence is not necessarily, at least not wholly, the fault of any one individual. Professor Johan Galtung, founder of the academic discipline of Peace Studies, says that this is important for reconciliation:
‘A structure-oriented perspective converts the relation from inter-personal, or inter-state/nation, to a relation between two positions in a deficient structure. If the parties can agree that the structure was/is deficient and that their behaviour was an enactment of structural positions rather than anything more personal, then turning together against the common problem, the structural violence, should be possible.’2
[Footnote: 2 Johan Galtung, ‘3 ‘‘Rs’’ – Resolution, Reconstruction and Reconciliation’, www.transcend.org/TRRECBAS.HTM, pp. 65-6.]
Reporting which leads us – or leaves us – to conclude, as the first piece does here, that the violence is all the fault of one individual, intensifies hatred and makes reconciliation more difficult.
Reporting which uses creative ways to illuminate issues of structural violence – here, depiction of the system of checkpoints – and shows us how it is sucking people from both sides into a cycle of violence, creates space for reconciliation.
The occupation
This in turn shows how important it is for reporters to be frank about Israel's military occupation of Palestinian territory.
There is a tendency, among some journalists in international and western media, to be mealy- mouthed about this, and to fall back on formulations like ‘disputed lands’ instead of ‘occupied territories’.
This is one view, of course. But it is important to point out that it is a minority view. The vast majority of global public, political and legal opinion sees Israel’s presence on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as illegitimate, a transgression of all norms of international law which should be brought to an end forthwith.
Some international media, chiefly TV channels covered by public service broadcasting agreements (such as the BBC and Sky News, both of which enjoy a high profile internationally as well as in the UK), are under a positive obligation to make this clear.
The BBC’s Royal Charter is translated into Producer Guidelines, which journalists are obliged to follow. One of their best-known provisions for the coverage of controversial issues is to ensure that ‘all views are reflected in due proportion to mirror the depth and spread of opinion’.
Sky, along with other British-based commercial channels, has similar stipulations laid down in the Programme Code of the Independent TV Commission. This means that the BBC and Sky, along with many others round the world which are covered by similar agreements, should usually reflect the view of the occupation as illegal and a problem – not as an arrangement whose status is the subject of a legitimate dispute between two parties.
It also means that we should hear much more than we do about the perspectives and activities of those in Israel, like Checkpoint Watch, who oppose the occupation and try to do something about it . They are much more representative of majority opinion than, say, the present Likud-led Israeli Government.
10. Ideas for bigger assignments
Monitoring exercise
Record a week’s worth of television news bulletins – Sky News at 5 p.m., BBC 1 News at 6 p.m., ITN News at 6.30 p.m., and Channel 4 News at 7 p.m. Choose a week where a major incident has happened in the region.
Compare the news items in each bulletin: · Look at the choice of sources/voices. · Look at the choice of pictures. · What is the explanation for violence? · What words are used to describe the incident? · Are different words used to describe violence committed by or against Israelis and by or against Palestinians? · Is there an emphasis on casualties on either side? · Is there an image of a solutio n? Or what are we left to infer is the solution?
Focus groups
Bring together three groups of 12 students from various backgrounds for an hour-long discussion, with a facilitator asking the following questions. (These are adapted from the Glasgow Media Group survey. Read the results in Bad News from Israel by Greg Philo & Mike Berry, Pluto Press, 2004.)
· When you hear the phrase ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, what comes into your mind? What do you see in your head? · What is the source of what you have just thought of, where did it come from? · Are there any other sources which you have used to find out information about this conflict? · Who is occupying the occupied territorities? · What nationality are the settlers? · In the period since the Intifada began (September 2000), which side would you say has had the most casualties? · Why are they fighting? What is the conflict about? · Do you know of any United Nations resolutions, or any criticisms that have been made by the UN, about the actions of anyone in the conflict?
Write a letter to the main news organisations (Sky, BBC, ITN) and the regulator (Ofcom), presenting your findings and calling for specific changes.
Testing the rules of news
· Find a news organisations’ guidelines or code of conduct. · Monitor a news programme’s or newspaper’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a set period. · Assess whether they are following their own code of conduct (as in the sections from the BBC Producer Guidelines and Ofcom Rules used in the film). · Write to the editor complaining about any deficiencies, and commending a Peace Journalism/more constructive approach that would a) be more responsible, and b) abide by their own rules.
The Peace Journalism approach v Objectivity
Assess whether Peace Journalism is a useful model for analysing news. Explore its advantages and deficiencies. Is it sufficient for journalists to argue that they are objective and ‘Peace is not my job, I just report the facts?’ What impact does such an approach have on events? For more on this, read Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press, 2005), Chapter 6, ‘Why News Is the Way It Is’.
Peace Journalism writing exercise
· Take an event-orientated news story about a conflict (a piece of War Journalism). · Find five alternative sources of information. You may want to conduct some interviews yourself to make this more realistic. · Explain how they would change the narrative of the conflict. · Re-write the news story in 800 words. · For help with this. read Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press, 2005), Chapter 8, ‘Doing Peace Journalism’.
11. Background notes
1918-49: The British Mandate and the first Arab-Israeli war
Until 1918, the territory of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated and destroyed in World War I. The Peace Conference at Versailles created the League of Nations, which assigned control in the conquered Ottoman lands to different countries – in Palestine, the British. Later this became a formal League of Nations Mandate to be responsible for administering the territory.
But Britain was bound by two apparently conflicting commitments. During the war, the British army officer, Lawrence of Arabia, had unified the Arab tribes in their revolt against the Ottomans, promising them self-rule as a reward: this included Palestine. However, in 1917, Britain also made the Balfour Declaration, promising to assist in ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’.
The movement for a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine was known as Zionism. Zion was the ancient name for Jerusalem, and became a symbol of Jewish belief in a Promised Land, where Jews were destined, eventually, to ‘return’.
In pursuit of this belief, thousands of Jews came to Palestine to live – many fleeing European countries where they had been under threat of discrimination, persecution and death. This movement of people grew in the 1920s and early 1930s as the rise of fascism in Europe intensified the pressures and dangers faced by European Jewry.
Jews bought land in Palestine and cleared their Arab tenants off it, in order to settle on it themselves. In many cases, Palestinian peasants actually owned the trees on the land – such as olive and citrus groves – but not the land itself. So when the land was sold, they lost access to their livelihood. Some resisted this process, culminating in a violent uprising from 1936 to 1939. Armed Arab and Jewish groups were formed, with the Jewish ones targeting the British as well as the Arabs.
At the end of World War II, the Jewish armed groups resumed their campaign against the British, culminating in 1946 with a bomb which destroyed the Mandate administration HQ at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 92 people.
The British asked the newly formed United Nations to relieve them of their Mandate in Palestine. In 1947, a UN committee recommended the setting up of two states in Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. This Partition Plan assigned 55% of British-administered Palestine to the Jews. The plan was adopted by the UN in November of that year.
Early the following year, a campaign of violence and terror by Jewish armed forces drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their homes, an event lamented by Arabs as 'al Nakba' – the catastrophe. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel followed in May 1948. The state came under immediate attack by Arab armies, in the first Arab-Israeli war. At the end, Palestine was divided into three parts. The 1949 armistice agreements gave Israel control over 78% of the territory of British Mandate Palestine.
Jordan occupied and annexed East Jerusalem and the hill country of central Palestine, thereafter known as ‘the West Bank’ of the Jordan River. Egypt took temporary control of the coastal plain around the city of Gaza, later referred to as ‘the Gaza Strip’. The Palestinian Arab state provided for in the United Nations Partition Plan was never established.
1967: The ‘Six Day War’
This was the most significant of several Arab-Israeli military engagements in the decades that followed the ceasefire of 1949.
It began when Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, the narrow passage formed by the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas which separates the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea and effectively blocks access to the Israeli port city of Eilat. Egypt also moved troops across the Suez Canal on to the Sinai peninsula and towards Israeli territory.
Was this the cause of war, or merely a trigger? On June 5, Israel carried out pre-emptive air strikes on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, destroying their warplanes on the ground where they stood.
By then, Israel had appointed a war cabinet, while advocates of war mobilised demonstrations and applied pressure in favour of a military, rather than a diplomatic, response to the Egyptian ‘threat’.
How real was this threat? Central to Israel's presentation of these events is the notion that Arab armies all around were on the attack, and that Israel’s own actions were in self-defence. However, consider the following statements by Israel leaders immediately after the war:3
[Footnote: 3 All quoted in Politicide by Baruch Kimmerling, Verso, 2003, p. 58.]
· Chief of Defence Staff Yitzhak Rabin: ‘Nasser [the Egyptian leader] didn't want war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.' (Le Monde, February 28, 1968) · Prime Minister Levy Eshkol: ‘The Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build -up there testified to a militarily defensive set-up, south of Israel.’ (Yediot Ahronot, October 16, 1967) · Menachem Begin, member of the war cabinet: ‘The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’ (New York Times, August 21, 1982)
The 1967 war ended with Israel in control of more territory. Israel’s military occupied the West Bank, formerly under Jordanian control, and the Gaza Strip, previously under Egyptian control. These were both parts of the British Mandate which were not assigned, under the 1947 Partition Plan, to a Jewish State. Israel also occupied the whole of the Sinai peninsula – part of Egypt bordering the Suez Canal – and the Golan Heights, a lush, hilly area of Syria overlooking the Sea of Galilee, or Lake Tiberias.
1973: The October War, or Yom Kippur War
Egypt and Syria, with support from several other Arab countries, launched a counter-attack, taking Israel by surprise on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. Their stated aim was to seize back the territory lost in 1967.
Despite sustaining heavy troop losses, Israel beat off the attacks. The occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights continued, although Israel did withdraw from its positions along the Suez Canal, known as ‘the Bar Lev Line’.
The Israeli Defence Force was supplied with ammunition by a US airlift. This, and the defeat of the Arab forces, led to the Arab oil boycott of the west in 1973 – the ‘oil shock’ which, in turn, triggered big changes in the global economy.
The Intifadas and the Oslo process
Jewish settlement in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continued through the 1970s and 80s. More and more Palestinian land was confiscated and built on, with the Israeli military constantly on hand to provide ‘security’.
Palestinian resistance to this process erupted in 1987 in the Intifada, or uprising, taking the form of stone-throwing by youths at the occupying forces. The Israelis hit back with water cannon, clubs, plastic bullets and real bullets. By the end of the Intifada in 1992, on some estimates as many as one in ten Palestinians had been killed or injured.
As part of the Intifada, Palestinians also formed their own ‘popular committees’ to organise resistance and run basic services for local people.
By this stage, the Palestine Liberation Organisation had set up its headquarters in exile in Tunis. Its policy was to campaign against the existence of the State of Israel, and for the right of Palestinian refugees from 1948 to return to their homes.
The Intifada triggered a number of changes. The United States, victorious in the campaign of 1991 to eject Iraqi occupying forces from Kuwait, brought the parties in the Middle East conflict to a peace conference in Madrid This was the first time Israel had sat down for talks with its Arab neighbours.
Some members of the PLO and the Israeli Government were thinking about how to develop this process, and they were brought together in secret meetings by Norwegian diplomats. This led to the Oslo Accords of 1993, based on the principle of ‘land for peace’. The Palestinians would recognise Israel’s right to exist on the borders of 1949, in exchange for which there would be Palestinian control over their own land and their own affairs.
A Palestinian state could eventually emerge, but this was put into a ‘basket’ of questions – or ‘Final Status issues – left for further negotiation, including: · What would happen to the Jewish settlements already built in the Occupied Territories? · What would happen to the refugees of 1948 and their homes in what was now Israel? · What would be the future of Jerusalem, claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their capital city? · Would there finally be a fully-fledged Palestinian state? · Where would the border lie between Israel and Palestine?
There were several big problems with the ‘Oslo process’. Opponents on the Palestinian side saw it as conceding Israel’s right to some of the land occupied since 1967. It took place over the heads of the popular committees and the leadership which had emerged on the Gaza Strip and West Bank during the Intifada itself – even though it was, in one sense, their achievement.
Opponents on the Israeli side saw it as making concessions to ‘terrorists’. The religious Right of Israeli politics, including the settler movement, saw it as denying their God-given right to live anywhere in what they saw as the Promised Land. One of them, Yigal Amir, assassinated the main Israeli negotiator, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in 1995. Rabin was succeeded, after a general election, by a hardline opponent of the peace process, Binyamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu was defeated, in the election of 1999, by Ehud Barak, a former general now leading the Labour Party. He promised to re-engage with the process, and in 2000 joined the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David, in the US, for talks brokered by President Clinton to address the Final Status issues.
The talks broke down, with each side blaming the other for the failure. In this volatile political atmosphere, at the end of September 2000, Ariel Sharon, another former general who was leader of the right-wing opposition Likud party, visited the heart of the Holy Land in Jerusalem – for Jews, the Temple Mount; for Muslims, the Haram al-Sharif. The area contains some of the most important sites for each religion – the Jewish Wailing Wall and the Mosques of Al Aqsa and the Dome on the Rock.
Several hundred Palestinians came out in protest and some started throwing stones at police. This incident, together with reprisals by the Israelis over the following days, marked the beginning of the second, or ‘Al Aqsa’, Intifada.
Again, was it the cause, or merely a trigger? This brings us full circle to the issues covered in the film. It is worth noting that the Mitchell Commission, which examined the origins of the Intifada, identified the underlying cause as the continuing growth of Israeli settlements, during the seven years of the Oslo process, by over 50%.
And the form taken by this second Intifada was also different – including suicide bombings like the one in Jerusalem in August 2003, which forms the starting point for News from the Holy Land – Options and Consequences.
The view of the UN
After the 1967 war, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242, calling on Israel to ‘withdraw from territories conquered’. Here is its full text:
The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
· Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territorie s occupied in the recent conflict; · Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
· For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; · For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; · For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Mid dle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Language
The Glasgow University Media Group found that Israeli casualties were reported more frequently than Palestinian casualities (even though Palestinians have sustained, during the second Intifada, around three times the number of deaths as Israelis).
In the language used by journalists, words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘cold - blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not used about the killing of Palestinians. Palestinians are often referred to as ‘terrorists’, but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’.
Robert Fisk (Independent correspondent) says that blame for the killing of Israelis tends to be apportioned to someone – like the Hamas bomber in our film – while blame for the killing of Palestinians is not. Palestinians die in ‘clashes’, as if they are accidentally shot rather than targets for Israeli snipers. Contrast this with Israeli deaths: ‘Palestinian shooting attacks on Jewish settlements’, and an Israeli man stabbed to death ‘presumably by Palestinians’.
12. Glossary
Violence Individuals prevented, by whatever means, from fulfilling their potential. Structural violence Structures/institutions that prevent individuals from fulfilling their potential. No one individual is responsible. Cultural violence Violenc e and hatred passed on in cultural forms, from one generation to the next. Cycle of violence One killing leads to anger, bitterness and the call for revenge until the other side strikes back in retaliation. Direct violence Physical violence, like hitting, beating, stabbing, bombing, etc. Ofcom Communications regulator governing independent television stations like Sky and ITN. Green Line The line designated by the UN in 1967 as dividing Palestinian Territory and Israel. Occupied Territories The West Bank and Gaza were occupied by the Israeli military after 1967. The UN had designated these areas Palestinian, but Israel argues they were not part of a sovereign state. Polarisation Increasing hatred between opposing parties, forcing everyone towards one extreme or the other. Settlers Religious Jews who have chosen to live in the Occupied Territories. Settlements are heavily guarded as they are surrounded by Palestinian villages. Recently there has been a growth in less religious motivations, with Jews moving to settlements for cheap housing and government loans. UN (United Nations) A club of nations set up after the WWII to maintain world peace’
13. Further reading
Essential reading
McGoldrick, A. & Lynch, J., Peace Journalism, Hawthorn Press, 2005 Galtung, J., McGoldrick, A. & Lynch, J., Reporting Conflict – An Introduction to Peace Journalism, Pluto Press, 2005
Media and conflict
Bagdikian, B., The Media Monopoly (sixth edition), Boston, Mass., Beacon Press, 2000 (a classic passage on the emergence of objectivity is given in full at: www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/DemoMedia_Bagdikian.html) Carruthers, S., The Media at War, Palgrave, 2000 Cote, W. & Simpson, R., Covering Violence – A Guide to Ethical Reporting about Victims and Trauma, Colombia University Press, 2000 Hackett, R. & Zhao, Y., Sustaining Democracy – Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity, Toronto, Garamond Press, 1998 Knightley, P., The First Casualty, Prion Books, 2000 Pedelty, M., War Stories – The Culture of Foreign Correspondents, Routledge, 1995
Israel and Palestinian conflict
Freedland, J., ‘Parallel Universes’, The Guardian, April 17, 2002 Kimmerling, B., Politicide – Ariel Sharon's War against the Palestinians, Verso, 2003 Philo, G. & Berry, M., Bad News from Israel, Pluto Press, 2004 Wolfsfeld, G., Media and the Path to Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2004
Webpages
Arab Media Watch, a British media monitoring and campaign group, challenging the way Arabs are represented: www.arabmediawatch.com Bethlehem Media Net, a Palestinian grassroots peace and community group, based in a Lutheran church: www.bethlehemmedia.net B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group monitoring the Occupied Territories: www.btselem.org Gush Shalom, an Israel peace group: www.gush-shalom.org/english Electronic Intifada, news from a Palestinian perspective: www.electronicintifada.net FAIR – Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, an American-based media activism group who regularly challenge the US networks on their coverage of Israel/Palestinians: www.fair.org Independent Media Centre (IMC) Palestine: www.jerusalem.indymedia.org (looked out of date when I was there, but had a good write up in The Guardian) International Crisis Group, extensive articles and analysis in the conflict: www.crisisweb.org (follow links to Arab-Israeli conflict) Israeli Government: www.mfa.gov.il/mfa Israel/Palestine Center for Research Information, joint Arab and Israeli think-tank, the group running the education project featured in the film: www.ipcri.org Machsom Watch, checkpoint watch women for human rights, featured in the film: www.machsomwatch.org/ Media Channel has a section on biased articles on Israel/Palestinians: www.mediachannel.org MIFTAH, a Palestinian dialogue group headed by Dr Hanan Ashrawi: www.miftah.org Neve Shalam/Wahat al-Salam , an Arab-Israeli peace community: www.nswas.com Peace Direct, charity supporting people on the front line of wars to act non-violently – they are looking for link groups to partner with them: www.peacedirect.org Reporting the World, a journalism think-tank run by Jake Lynch & Annabel McGoldrick – much of their material and discussions with journalists can be found here: www.reportingtheworld.org.uk The Parents Circle , families who have lost children, featured in the film: www.theparentscircle.org The Refusers Solidarity Network, updates on the refuseniks: www.refusersolidarity.net TRANSCEND Peace and Development Network, useful source of articles and ideas for solutions in various conflict zones: www.transcend.org
Reporting the World can be contacted at [email protected] Telephone: 01865 714446
‘Reading Links’ before publication of Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press, 2005) – a separate sheet inserted into the guide prior to publication of PJB
The following is a list of articles which provide some of the content referred to in Peace Journalism (Hawthorn Press, 2005):
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, ‘The Peace Journalism Model’ – see Lynch, J. & McGoldrick, A. (2000) ‘Peace Journalism What Is It and How to Do It?’ – www.reportingtheworld.org.uk (see ‘Peace Journalism Training’); and Lynch, J. (1998) ‘The Peace Journalism Option: Conflict and Peace Forums’ – available from www.transcend.org
Chapter 2, ‘Understanding Conflict’, and Chapter 3, ‘Reporting Violence’ – see Lynch, J (2002) ‘Reporting the World – A Practical Checklist for the Ethical Reporting of Conflict in the 21st Century: Conflict and Peace Forums’ – available from www.reportingtheworld.org.uk
Chapter 6, ‘Why Is News the Way It Is? – see Loyn, D. (2003) ‘Witnessing the Truth’ – www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?id=8&articleId=993> Lynch, J (2003) ‘Journalists Need to Think’ – www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-92-1037.jsp Lynch, J (1999) ‘What Are Journalists For?’ (the Peace Journalism Option 2: Conflict and Peace Forums) – available from www.transcend.org