Israel: free but selective

  Amira Hass

Long before the Winograd report was released to the public, the Israeli media had cast doubt on the qualifications of those who managed the second Lebanon war last summer (though not on the actual act of war). In the interim, Israeli newspapers discussed economic scandals in which senior officials were suspected of involvement and which in turn stole the limelight from accusations of sexual misconduct at the highest levels. Now and then the Israel Police are monitored for negligence, and the IDF for phenomena like neglecting its combat troops.

No doubt about it, the media in Israel enjoys complete freedom to pursue its most important task: monitoring centers of power in the country. The lives and livelihood of journalists and editors are in no way jeopardized by political power centers. No official mechanism of political censorship constrains them; there is no "information ministry" dictating the headlines.

During a morning talk show on Israel Army Radio in late April the civilian moderator talked at length about the latest suspicions of inappropriate conduct by Ehud Olmert when he was minister of commerce and industry. The host presented the issues from several angles and interviewed legal experts and politicians with opposing views. It was perfectly clear that he was neither frightened nor inhibited by threats of vengeance.

The talk show host's second "item" of the morning was the Gaza Strip. Here he interviewed a former IDF general who advocated that Israel again attack Gaza in order to stop the firing of Qassam rockets. The civilian host--who is known for the critical social content of his journalistic work--did not produce, if only for the sake of "professional balance", an opposing view, one that argued that previous offensives had been useless and that the solution to the Qassam rockets could only be political. The ex-military interviewee had actually been involved in friction with the IDF establishment, but that did not prevent his appearance. The lesson? Not a single hair would have fallen from the head of the host had he presented a contrary opinion.

The professional lacuna we encounter here reflects a consistent feature of Israeli journalism: regarding Israel's war against the Palestinians, aggressive army and security service versions and official government versions are generally treated as the gospel truth. These are the versions that are positioned as the opening items of electronic media news and on the front page of the print press--i.e., at the top of the editorial hierarchy. They are consequently burned into the consciousness of media consumers as "the plain facts".

The facts that contradict the official discourse on the Palestinian issue, when they are published (in one paper more than the rest of the media), are positioned lower in the hierarchy: in the features sections, where they are perceived more as "stories" than "facts", and on the editorial pages, where they can be portrayed as "views" and comment rather than "truth". Even on these pages they are usually absent, despite the fact that the occupation apparatus generates non-stop news items never reported by the IDF Spokesman's office. The Israeli public receives at most one-thousandth of the available information on Israel's policies in the occupied territories.

Thus does the media fail at its task of posing questions that emerge from those facts that do not correspond with the official discourse. This process of editorial selection reached new heights during the July 2000 Camp David talks and upon the outbreak of the second intifada. The official Israeli versions of events were highlighted like the Ten Commandments, despite easy access to contradictory information.

One cannot dismiss this selective and unprofessional editorial policy as reflecting the whims or beliefs of this or that editor. Indeed, the primary explanation for this phenomenon is sociological: Jewish-Israeli society, of which the media is part and parcel, is a "power center" vis-a-vis occupied Palestinian society. Occupation awards Jews with privileges at the expense of Palestinians. Control over water resources facilitates grossly unequal distribution of water between Palestinians and Israelis; control over land permits the development of an improved and distinct infrastructure for Jews that serves not only settlers; the settlements, including those on lands annexed to Jerusalem, offer Israelis a socio-economic upgrade and industrial parks with a potential for cheap labor. The dominant security discourse enables the continuous expansion and enhancement of high-tech jobs in the fields of security and surveillance that enjoy global demand.

Many Israelis have relatives in the settlements and in professional sectors linked to the settlements. They all consider the settlements and their security--meaning the suppression of Palestinians and the establishment of a draconian separation regime--as a natural, necessary and justified phenomenon. Israelis identify intimately with their sons and daughters who are sent to defend the occupation and do not tolerate what is understood as criticism of "their children". Here the Israeli media, with a few exceptions, acts not as a monitor and critic but as the representative of a power center and its vested interest in perpetuating its superiority.- Published 3/5/2007 © bitterlemons-international.org

Amira Hass is the Haaretz reporter in the occupied Palestinian territories. She lives in Ramallah.