|
Back
to Studies page
The media has continuously represented one of the most crucial weapons
possessed by the Zionist program in the past and by the Jewish state
since its erection until now. This media has been the ideological tool
that aims to play two roles simultaneously, the internal justification
for all moves, and the creation of an outside image that fits world
public opinion. In addition, the Zionist media earlier and the "Israeli"
media in the past did not suffer any true problems due to the feebleness
of the Arab media and the dimness of the international interest.
However, this image changed when traces of the Arab-"Israeli" conflict
entered each home throughout the world and when the world became a
“small village” due to the media.
In fact, one cannot understand the reality of the "Israeli" media when
dealing with al-Aqsa Intifada without tying the issue to the
developments and the "Israeli" media movement historically. As it is
known, the media forms on more than one side a mirror that reflects the
progressive reality within a certain society with its initiations and
objectives. This greatly matches the "Israeli" media.
Closing up the circle
Since the beginning of the Zionist program, the media has been a focal
point. Theodore Hertzel founded the newspaper “The World” to become “a
shield and weapon” that serve “the national program” regardless of the
political and ideological disputes amid the Zionist trends.
Throughout the period separating between the formation of the Zionist
movement and the erection of the Jewish state, the Zionist media was
engaged in consolidating “the Zionist truth” at the expense of “the
abstract truth.” For example, in its trend towards western public
opinion, it relied on the successors’ and religious thought that said
that God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews, and that the Jews who
live in the west, originally came from Palestine, and they form a
different species from that of the west. It also relied on “the
phenomenon of the non-Semitism to confirm the unity of the Jews and to
develop the thought of “the international Jewish nationalism.” What is
more important is that this nation has the right to decide its destiny
while “on its land.” The Zionists in their trend never retreated when
addressing others by squeezing themselves within the circle of those
accepted by Europe, and that they are the agents of “the western
civilization.”
Concerning the internal level, the Zionist media was engaged in working
on consolidating the morality and authoritativeness of the Zionist
settling while projecting the Palestinian image as nothing but an
occupier of the land, who came form the Arab peninsula, and that the Jew
is the “liberator” of this land. In return, these means worked on
insinuating to the Arabs that the program does not target them and that
it yearns for the development of historic relationship between the
“cousins.” Those speaking in the name of Zionism indicated in each
speech addressed to the Arabs that their “return” would bring prosperity
and progression for the region in general.
However, with the beginning of the Palestinian clashes against the
Zionist program, the media crystallized other tasks. The first of these
tasks was to plant in the Arab mind the impossibility of defeating the
"Israeli" mightiness.
In fact, the power became available for the Jewish society growing in
Palestine, which was called “Aleshof”, to administer the conflict with
the Palestinians by relying on the alliance with the colonial British
power and via mounting self-mightiness. Through serving the interests of
the British occupation, the Zionist program succeeded in using the
successful service of what they call “the armed propaganda.” Thus, the
Zionist media at that time focused on propagandizing the news of the
Jews progressing in the fight against the Arab resistance in Palestine.
The reality of the Zionist media continued after the erection of the
Jewish state with this condition, yet with further new horizons. The
erection of the Jewish state escorted the growing western sympathy
towards the Jews and the increasing bond between Judaism and the Zionist
program. This gave the way for "Israel" to gain the sympathy of two
lines in the west: the first headed in the way of progression, where
"Israel" was regarded as a title for such progression, whereas the Arab
cause was regarded as a title for retardation. The second headed for the
modern “compatibility” either by relying on the notion of the European
feeling of “self-guilt” following the Nazi Holocaust or by focusing on
the Jewish-Christian principles of the western civilization.
Therefore, the "Israeli" media found itself between the year of 1948 and
1967 moving within a sympathetic atmosphere. The Jewish state was like
an innocent lamb living in a forest full of Arab wolves; the "Israeli"
participation in the triple-assaults of 1965 did not change this view.
Furthermore, "Israel" showed the “revengeful operations” including the
massacres of Bureij and Qbayeh as being retaliations to the actions of
the Guerillas.
This also formed in 1967 the climax of the media merger in the internal
and external "Israeli" policy. The 1967 war represented the true
interpretation of this merger either through the role played by the
media in the preparation for war or via the endorsement of its
aftermath. Thus, the "Israeli" media was recruited entirely for the war
program.
From 1967 until 1982, this merger faced enormous hesitation and the
October war for liberation contributed to the events of the first true
crack between the "Israeli" policy and the media. The media was no
longer a tool controlled by the hand of the politicians and military
leaders following the “shock of October”, and began to play the role of
the observer and critic. As soon as the invasion of Lebanon took place,
the climax of the separation arrived. Several researchers of the media
affairs viewed that the 1982 war led to the maturity of the "Israeli"
media and its separation from the political and military institution.
"Israel" did not shape its informative policy by relying on its
information ministry; such a ministry rarely existed. Its formation for
a temporary period following the war of October was not coincidental,
and shortly after it was cancelled. Nonetheless, the "Israeli"
informative policy is adjusted largely through the formation of three
main apparatuses, the bureau of the governmental press, which is a
direct branch of the "Israeli" government premiership, the bureau of the
"Israeli" army spokesman and the information administration in the
"Israeli" foreign ministry.
The governmental press bureau runs and directs the informative policy
during normal days. However, when the situation becomes tense on the
military aspect, the priority goes back to the bureau of the army
spokesman who somehow expresses the security stance of the institution.
The information administration in the "Israeli" foreign office will run
the task of dealing with the internal and external media means.
The work of these three apparatuses is not confined to the provision and
direction of the necessary information for the media; rather it extends
to practice pressures on them using different methods, some
administrational and some security or professional. Over the past few
months, we have seen how "Israel" worked on boycotting the British
Broadcasting Communication (BBC) and preventing it from covering the
press conference of the "Israeli" Prime Minister. In addition, we have
seen how the coded TV live broadcasting networks in "Israel" canceled
their participation in broadcasting the programs of CNN after accusing
it of biasing to the Arab stance.
Furthermore, the "Israeli" official institutions and media means have
been subdued by its dominance especially when the issue relates to the
security of "Israel". Therefore, despite the freedom given to the
"Israeli" press, the military surveillance is still playing an important
role on one hand. The “editors’ affairs” is as well still playing the
self-control role concerning not only the security level, but also the
political one.
The desired press once more
If the October War has caused the first grave crack amid politics and
media in "Israel", then the stance against the "Israeli" invasion of
Lebanon has formed the absolute contradiction to the stance of the
"Israeli" media concerning the 1967 war. Many people thought that the
openness of the "Israeli" society and the existing “Americanization”
condition within began changing the media attitude from the condition
that affiliates with the hostile program to the condition of
neutralization or even expressing animosity against it. It is also known
that the "Israeli" media has played a prominent role in assembling the
"Israeli" street against this war and in demanding the formation of an
investigation committee. This role led to the rise of crowded
demonstrations that contributed to the toppling of the minister of war
at that time, Ariel Sharon, due to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila.
There is an issue that links between the dismantling relationship
occurring between the media and the hostile program and that of the
developments that took place in general in the "Israeli" society, which
also cracked the relationship between the society and the army. Thus,
the pilot, officer, or soldier in the elite unit is no longer the
“symbol” and “example” of the society. He rather became a business man
specialized in computer.
A generation has grown up in "Israel", which is demanding a role for the
media, not only to present the “responsible” reports, rather to “reveal”
the reality of the causes. This led to clashes between the press and the
"Israeli" official institution. However, all the aspects of the crack in
the relation between the media and politics in "Israel", which have been
mounting since the October War until the beginning of the first Intifada
have begun to retreat after the agreements of Oslo.
The "Israeli" media means have been recruited to serve the official
institution completely during the negotiations of Camp David, between
American President Bill Clinton, Yassir Arafat and the "Israeli" Premier
Ehuda Barak. Barak succeeded in gaining the media on his side in a way
that pushed the "Israeli" street to line behind the notion that the
Palestinians do not want peace regardless of how many concessions we
offer them. He also pushed western public opinion to believe the
"Israeli" story.
With the beginning of al-Aqsa Intifada, the "Israeli" media returned to
play its original historic role, a powerful weapon held by the two
political and military leaderships concerning both internal and external
sides equally. One "Israeli" political commentator in “Maarev” described
this situation saying: the years since the war in Lebanon “enhanced the
experiment of the last two years since the beginning of the Intifada. It
showed that these instincts, especially when strengthened by simple
human fear and the instinct of survival would flow to the surface to
mark once more the defined role of the media.”
Within the shade of al-Aqsa Intifada, the "Israeli" media means have
been overwhelmed by expressions such as “war of existence” or “war for
home.” The aim of propagandizing such expressions was to confirm that in
this war, there is no choice for "Israel,” but to achieve victory and
that any other choice means the destruction of "Israel".
The "Israel" media means initiated to restore the picture of “the lamb”
via saying that the 1948 war is not over yet and that the Palestinians
are dissecting the Jewish state and spreading ruins across. The issue of
Palestinians who show their adherence to their right for repatriation
has been interpreted as conclusive evidence for their reluctance for
peace. Within this alignment, the self-sacrificing operations have been
filmed in the form that expresses an instinctual Arab and Islamic desire
to wipe out the Jews and not as a struggling method used by the weak to
achieve authorized objectives.
"Israel" went back to use methods of “personalization” of the evil. It
describes the Moslem as a terrorist with a certain image, skin color and
way of performance. It also described Arafat as the enemy who has been
attached to all the wrongdoings via stressing on the fact that he is the
symbol of the Palestinian people. Therefore, all issues branding him in
the end will touch the entire people. "Israel" has also stressed,
through its informative and psychological war against the Palestinian
people and resistance after realizing the difficulty of the
international confrontation with the Palestinian, on the media level.
For example, the actions that appear through images of the martyred
children Muhammad al-Dorrah, Eiman Hijo and the scenes of terrorization,
siege, starving, cold-blooded killing and breaking into camps could only
be justified by picturing the Palestinian as uglier.
In addition, Arafat and the self-sacrificing operations played the most
prominent role in the "Israeli" media arena. The "Israeli" ministry of
war during the reign of Barak’s government prepared a book about
corruption in the authority and the role of President Arafat concerning
terrorism. The "Israeli" media intended to show each Palestinian action
as a crime against humanity.
Thus for example, came the "Israeli" dealing with the arsenal cargo
carried by the ship “Karen A.” They tried to reveal it as a ship that is
carrying the nuclear weapon, which would not only destroy "Israel" but
also the western civilization. The "Israeli" media means ignored the
fact that any "Israeli" settlement stores much more arsenal than that
carried by “Karen A.”
Nonetheless, "Israel" kept on inspiring that the media does not support
it. Therefore, the "Israeli" army discussed the issue of creating “a
media weapon” for the general staff. The "Israeli" government also
discussed the issue of creating an information ministry. Rather, it
decided to erect an Arab speaking satellite channel, and Benjamin
Netanyahu, the "Israeli" foreign minister at that time, declared the
necessity of displaying the informative “aggressive spirit” and that “it
is not allowed for us to offer any apology.” He also declared that the
"Israeli" informative policy must “transmit the image as one who is
certain of the justice of his method. It must also focus on the
non-existence of any justification for terrorism and that there is no
place in this world for the systems that sponsor terrorism.”
To execute this policy, the Palestinian authority has been publicized in
different forms as a “terrorist entity”. This issue provided the ethical
foundations for "Israel" to launch an informative and field war on the
Palestinian public, which “sponsors terrorism.” In addition, the former
general director of the information affairs in the "Israeli" foreign
office, Jadoun Maier has declared, “We are describing Arafat in person
as the man who heads the axis of terrorism, and we are offering examples
such as his relation to “the suicidal” people who tried to execute an
operation against al-Maleha compound in al-Quds.”
Success within the shade of failure
The events of September 11 created a golden chance for the "Israeli"
media to reveal its delight at the misfortune that struck the world in
general and the US in particular. In every aspect, it pointed the finger
of accusation at everyone because no one believed "Israel." After the US
moved into attacking the entire world in the name of “fighting
terrorism”, the political and military leaders in "Israel" began to
inspire from the American action. Thus, generalization became an optimum
method, where "Israel" can direct the accusation to whomever it wishes
before the occurrence of any action. Therefore, in the future, it will
be easy to support a policy such as “assassinations” and “starving.”
The "Israeli" media went back to its past custom by adopting the stances
of the government and army without showing tendency to criticize them;
rather it pursued the basis of working on justifying their every action.
The "Israeli" media escalated this sort of behavior within the shade of
al-Aqsa Intifada, and followed the policy of intimidation. Thus, each
Palestinian who dies at the occupation bullets would be a terrorist
regardless of the truth. The Palestinian and Arabs restored within the
"Israeli" media mind the image of nothing but people questing after the
elimination of the Jews and throwing them into the sea.
The issue that does not lessen in importance is that the "Israeli" media
followed the method of showing the Palestinian agony and the destruction
traces. However, it clarified that this was a justified punishment for
those who “aid terrorists”, and that all the events that occurred in
Palestine were not due to "Israel;" rather were due to the “guilt of the
saboteurs” who use the Palestinian cities as shelters and “capitals” for
themselves.
Some of the most prominent elements of success in "Israel" needed to
accomplish some media achievements were the use of the Palestinian field
errors and the maximum exploitation of the corruption of the authority
leadership. However, the truth soon appeared because no one could
imagine the capability of "Israeli" in hiding the truth of its
occupation of the land and confiscation of the present and future of an
entire people.
Top |
