BACKGROUND

The use of media in conflicts is a growing concern throughout the world. What flashes over the television screen and in newspaper headlines influences views of a conflict. The journalist possesses enormous power, because many people believe reporters to be objective.  But does what one sees and hears in the media adequately reflect the situation?

“Israeli television is a rumour mill and propaganda machine, not a news medium” (David Bar-Ilan, Jerusalem Post,  14.01.2001)

 The revolution in information technology has given the media a greater influence on public opinion, the actions of politicians, as well as on military decisions.  Thus it is imperative to take a closer look at the intricate relationship between the military and the media, and to understand the role of media in war.

 During war when the military undertakes a life and death struggle, both personally as well as institutionally, patriotism often comes to their rescue. The civil media often lack military training and lack the personal stake in events.  At the same time, war is good for the media business. Armed conflict is precisely the type of event on which the media thrives.

 “A common complaint against the media is that they lack objectivity, it is an unfair complaint; no thinking person can be truly objective about anything that cannot be measured. Yet journalists can be fair and even-handed, especially in situations where various sides of an issue have apparent validity. This holds particularly true for national debates over matters of life and death, in which the population is divided and emotions run high” (David Bar-Ilan, Jerusalem Post, 25.02.2001 “Journalists as poodles”).

 Incitement is a word that does not have a single meaning. Individuals can use this term in ways that serve their goals and interests. Incitement can be a synonym for “media activity”. All media outlets, whether government or private, have certain goals. Even when relying on objective facts, the media can use its capabilities to interpret the facts in ways that serve those goals.  To some extent, the media cannot exist without being accused of inciting.  Even if the incitement is neither political nor national in character. When the media seek to bring out the truth or explain it, one consequence will be a form of incitement, the swaying of opinion toward one way or the another.

 Incitement according to the Israeli understanding of the term is different.   In light of the first attempt at analysing the term, Israeli accusations that the Palestinian media engages in incitement should not come as a surprise. Neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian media should let themselves be affected adversely by accusations of incitement: there is already a constant dispute between these two parties.  When the Palestinians report on the confiscation of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem by Israeli settlers and call on those who lost their homes to hold on to their rights, it is considered an incitement against Israel by the Israeli right wing. Should they therefore desist from reporting on such events?

 One problematic element of the reporting is that the Palestinian media tend to exaggerate an issue in order to respond to Israeli claims. In order to dismiss accusations of incitement, the Palestinian media outlets turn to accusing each other. Some do so by using certain expressions or by discussing issues far removed from the interests of the Palestinian public. At this point, the Israeli media, which is more clear and precise when engaging in incitement, becomes the “winner” in the incitement war: and Palestinian journalists end up trying to justify themselves.

 In the eyes of the PA and the security forces, incitement against the PA was, prior to this intifada, regularly committed by private Palestinian television and radio stations. These stations consequently became targets of the security services concerned. The closure of private stations and other measures became a matter of course whenever a sensitive incident occured in the Palestinian Territories or even far afield, such as events in Iraq showed. Even though the Palestinian Territories were open to all of the Arab, foreign and Israeli media prior to this intifada, full coverage of any incident remained an unfulfilled goal. At times, the media criticized the Palestinian Authority in order to fulfil self-interests.  They were accused of tarnishing the reputation of the PA, while at the same time the Palestinian press and journalists became victims of accusations of incitement. Despite the fact that television and radio stations are not operating on the basis of a new draft law prepared by the PLC, Palestinian journalists do operate according to the provisions of the Palestinian Press Law. This law, however, does not provide sufficient protection for these journalists.

 Article (2)[1]

Press and Printing are free. Furthermore, the freedom of opinion should be entitled every Palestinian individual who attains the absolute right to express his opinion in a free manner either verbally, in writing, photography or drawing as different means of expression and information.

Article (37)

A. It is strictly prohibited by each print to publish the following:

1. Any secret information about police and security forces, its armament or locations or movements or military drills.

2. Articles and materials harmful to religious and doctrines guaranteed by law

3. Articles which may cause harm to national unity or incite for committing crimes or planting seeds of hatred, dissension, and disunity, or instigate hostilities and sectarianism among the members of society

4. The Minutes of secret sessions of the Palestinian National Council and the Council of Ministers of Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

5. The articles and the news which aim at shaking belief in the national currency.

6. Articles and news which may infringe on the individual's dignity or personal convictions and liberties and harmful to personal reputation.

7. News, reports, letters, editorials, and pictures inconsistent with morals.

8. Drugs or medical products or cigarette advertisements and the other links unless advertisement has been permitted in advance by the Ministry of Health.

B. It is strictly forbidden to import publications from abroad if it has been containing prohibited materials for publishing by virtue of this law.

 The TripartiteCommittee On Incitement was established as a part of the Wye River Memorandum of October 23, 1998. Its task was limited to monitoring cases of possible incitement to violence and terror and to make recommendations and reports on how to prevent such incitement. A basic obstacle faced by the committee was how to define “incitement”. Israel wanted to focus on expressions of incitement that call for violence and terrorism as reflected in the statements of official and public persons in the PA, and speakers of the Friday prayers, television broadcasts, educational television and the official Palestinian press. The Palestinians on the other hand also wanted to define incitement as the expression of political opinions that in their view call indirectly for violence. Both parties were unable to agree on a solution, after which the American party presented a solution – judging each incident on its own merits. Soon, the work of the committee became limited to exchange of complaints. During the  al-Aqsa Intifada the committee has not published any reports.

 While the Israeli government and right-wing movement repeatedly accuse the PA and President Arafat of incitement against Israel, there are several examples of such incitement coming from the Israeli government itself. Although incitement in the form of public statements from the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority is not the focus of this report, it is worth mentioning that both parties have accused each other of issuing inciting statements against each other’s people. The PA has called for the continuation of clashes and resistance, using less than sympathetic terms for its Israeli counterparts , while the Israeli government has continued to label the PA and the Palestinian people as “terrorists” in general, and to label all civil resistance as “violence”. Some of the Palestinian and Israeli groups monitoring each other’s media also have a problem of remaining objective, and thus contribute to the problem by issuing biased reports.

 “The government ministers, both in this and the previous administrations, have a basic misconception in the way they view PA incitement. They seem to think that incitement is merely a statement here or there that may be anti-Israel. In truth, however, it’s much deeper than that. There is a general trend and desire on the part of the Palestinian Authority to increase its people’s hatred against Israel. For example, Palestinian Television recently screened a movie, in which Israeli-Arab boy kills an Israeli soldier, then dies a ‘martyr’s’ death at the hands of the other Israeli soldiers, and with his last words, says, ‘I killed a Zionist’. They simply want to build hatred…” (Itamar Marcus, chairman of the Palestinian Media Watch, explained to Channel 7). [2]

 

Marcus went on to argue that the Palestinian “enemy” may be planning “exactly what they said they were planning”, like the Nazis in World War II, without the Israelis really believing it because the hatred expressed may well be very exaggerated.

 

In the following chapters, several issues will be discussed within the context of the Israeli and Palestinian media’s coverage of the al-Aqsa Intifada. In order to target the truth and balance the quality and quantity of information from all sides, journalists should show sensibility to local usage of terms, develop grassroots sources, cover the action at ground level, and humanise all perspectives when covering communities in conflict. When comparing what is included in and omitted from reports, one quickly learns what is considered to be “news”. Incitement will be discussed in two forms, one is the outright incitement to violence, the other is a more subtle way of dehumanising the counterpart.