Charges of media bias surge in moments of crisis. Military strategies are accompanied by sophisticated media strategies, whose principal weapons are images and words. The al-Aqsa Intifada has not diverged from this rule. It has provoked charges and counter charges of media bias and incitement. Israelis accuse the Palestinian media of inflaming the Palestinians with hatred against Israelis, while the Palestinians say the Israeli media are defending murder and the use of excessive force in response to street assaults and demonstrations.

It is not clear what exactly is understood under the charges of "media bias." Objectivity is an ideal that cannot be expected in its pure form from any human being reporting facts that are not strictly measurable, and journalistic reports are therefore necessarily subjective. However, that journalists convey their own beliefs and goals is not reason enough to infringe on their right to freedom of expression. But there are limits to free speech, and the PHRMG is fully aware of the responsibility that falls upon journalists in forging popular opinions that eventually build peace - or call for war. These limits are dictated on the one hand by professional ethics, and on the other by the prohibition of incitement to violence.

What exactly is incitement?

The Wye River Memorandum of 23 October 1998 established a Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee, whose first task was precisely to define the meaning of this term. However, Israel and the Palestinian Authority never agreed on a common definition 28. According to the PHRMG, incitement should be defined as a call to violence against an identifiable group, whether issued in speech, in writing, or by any other means. The more public the place where the statement is made, the more serious will be the offence. Incitement can therefore also refer to calls issued by religious or political leaders, etc, although this fact sheet will only deal with incitement in the media. In addition, incitement can also be indirect, such as in the praising of a crime already committed. But the prohibition of incitement constitutes a limitation to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and hence must be narrowly defined. It seems that mutual accusations of incitement have been made much too lightly in the course of the present intifada.

It remains that even reports that do not amount to incitement must be condemned if the journalists did not meet the ethical standards of the profession. Such standards ask for journalists to be thorough, accurate and fair in their reporting 29. When these standards are not met, then we can speak about "media bias." This has been the case more often than not during this intifada, both in the Palestinian and in the Israeli media.

In the areas under Palestinian control, the media is not free, since most media outlets are either co-opted by the Palestinian Authority or censored. In addition, Palestinian papers are not responsible for the statements issued by official bodies of the Palestinian Authority, which are often biased themselves and which they are obligated to report. But this does in no way excuse the lack of professionalism that is often shown in reports.

Palestinian journalists rarely carry out thorough, independent investigations, and rumors and lies are widely published. Typically stories will blame Israel for Palestinian deaths without verifying the actual events. One such example is the case of Issam Judeh, where newspapers reported that he had been tortured to death by Israeli settlers although he died in a car accident on 9 October 2000 (he seems to have been chased by the Israeli Border Police) 30. Many unsubstantiated claims also refer to types of weapons that the Israeli army would use (dum-dum bullets, depleted uranium). A simple Geiger teller would have disproved the report of the use of depleted uranium in Gaza, but such verifications are not carried out. Worse: the Palestinian leadership was all too eager to further disseminate this claim. Sometimes, media spread downright lies, such as when Palestinian newspapers reported that the damages to the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus, after the Israeli army withdrew from the site in early October 2000, was actually due to Israeli shelling. Even if subsequent facts or investigations reveal that the information published was erroneous, no erratum will be published to redress the facts.

Sometimes the language used in Palestinian reports is also unprofessionally subjective. Israeli soldiers are occasionally referred to as "the killers," and Israelis as "the Zionists." If such language does not amount to incitement, it certainly does not help to generate understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. Reports also glorify martyrdom, even when the "martyr" killed numerous Israeli civilians, in complete disregard of international humanitarian law. Names of Israeli victims are almost never printed out, helping further to de-humanize them. The last point also applies to the Israeli media, who rarely mention the names of Palestinian victims.

On the Israeli side, the main problem is that the media has become totally devoted to reporting the views of the Israeli military establishment. This especially applies to military correspondents, who find an easy source of information in official press releases. Indeed, press releases by the Israeli army spokesperson are often quoted in full, without scrutiny, which leads to Palestinian deaths occurring systematically in "heavy exchanges of fire" even if other sources claim that no clashes were taking place at the time. Similarily, when Jamal Abdel-Razek was assassinated in Gaza on 22 November 2000, the Israeli media reported that "four Tanzim militiamen" had been killed 31, although it later turned out that two of the victims were riding in a taxi that got caught up in the shooting, and the third was a friend of Abdel-Razek who was driving him to university.

In addition, the Israeli army has set up a whole language to describe the al-Aqsa Intifada in a light more favorable to Israel, and the media obligingly uses this "newspeak." Attacks become "responses," settler rampage becomes settler "protests," Gilo is not a settlement but a "suburb of Jerusalem," bulldozing agricultural land and housing becomes a "security engineering work," and assassinations become "selective strikes" or "interception operations."

Most striking is the indiscriminate use of the word "terrorism." Terrorism should be defined as violence against civilians with the purpose of instilling terror. The definition does not apply to actions by Palestinian militants targeting Israeli combatants (whether soldiers or armed settlers) with the purpose of liberating the Palestinian territories from the Israeli occupation. But in Israeli newspeak, every Palestinian who resists the occupation - meaning, virtually, every Palestinian - has become a "terrorist." This language totally obscures the motive underlying the al-Aqsa Intifada, and prompts the Israeli public to perceive Palestinians as fundamentally violent people. It also minimizes the importance of Palestinian deaths: Palestinians, after all, are not really "civilians."

The PHRMG is very concerned by the attitude of the media on both sides of the Green Line. Journalists have a duty to report events as thoroughly and accurately as possible. Forging public opinion, journalists have also the power to defuse the tension - to a certain extent - and prepare the road to peace. More than just observing and reporting events, the media has become a real actor in modern-age conflicts, as is particularly obvious in Israel and Palestine. Here, the Palestinian media has further enflamed the resentment of the Palestinian population while the Israeli media happily accompanied the right-wing shift of the Israeli public. The PHRMG calls on all journalists, Palestinians and Israelis, to live up to their responsibility and respect the ethical standards of journalism while reporting on the al-Aqsa Intifada. Balanced reporting is key if both nations are to find a way out of the current deadlock. International norms of human rights and humanitarian law should also serve as a guideline in expressing opinions and reports.

The PHRMG also strongly condemns all attempts by governments to influence and direct the media. This has been the case for example when the Israeli government discussed the possibility of withdrawing the press cards of Palestinian journalists, when journalists were harassed by Israeli or Palestinian security forces, and when films and equipment were seized and threats issued against journalists by the Palestinian Authority. Such attempts to muzzle the media are totally intolerable in states that claim to abide by international standards of human rights and freedom of the press.

• 28 The main points of contention were whether incitement could emanate from action only (PA position) or also from words (Israeli position), and whether the source of verbal incitement could be official only (PA position) or also unofficial (Israeli position)
• 29 The PNA Press Law (1995) provides that "It is inadmissible to publish in the printed publication any materials which may contradict with the principle of freedom, national responsibilities, human rights, and the respect of truth." (Art. 7). The law further provides that " The journalist and all persons dealing with this profession, should fully respect the rules and the ethics of this profession, including the abidance by the flowing obligations: B. Presenting the press material in an objective, integrated, and balanced form. C. Striving for accuracy, integrity, and objectivity in presenting news and main events." (art. 8).
• 30 See Physicians for Human Rights, Car accident is cause of death in 'Issam Judeh case, medical group finds, issued on 3 November 2000, available on http://www.phrusa.org
• 31 See Ha'aretz, 23 November 2000