Long before the Winograd report was released to the public last week, 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 Israeli armed forces for such things as neglecting its combat troops. There is no doubt that media in Israel enjoy complete freedom to pursue their 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 Prime Minister 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 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 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 work – did not produce, if only for the sake of “professional balance, an opposing view arguing that previous offensives had been useless and that the solution to the Qassam rockets could only be political. The onetime general had actually been involved in friction with the Israeli military 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 lacunae we encounter in Israel reflect a consistent feature of Israeli journalism: when it comes to 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 placed as the opening items of electronic media news and on the front page of the print media. 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, are positioned lower in the hierarchy of editorial priorities: in the features sections, where they are perceived more as “stories than “facts, and on the editorial pages, where they can be portrayed as “opinions and comment rather than “truth. Even on these pages they are usually absent, despite the fact that the institutions of occupation generate non-stop news items never reported by the Israeli armed forces spokesperson. The Israeli public receives at most one-thousandth of the available information on Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories. Thus do the media fail at their 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 at the time of 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 such 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 with respect to 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 more than just the 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. 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, act not as monitors and critics but as the representative of a power center and its stake in perpetuating its superiority. Amira Hass, the Haaretz reporter in the occupied Palestinian territories, lives in Ramallah. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter that publishes articles on Middle Eastern and Islamic issues.
Israeli media as both monitors and occupation tools
