The rationale behind censorship: “Moderate” Palestinian leadership honours mass terrorism as Joe Biden leaves town. And the BBC’s response is?
So, let’s just accept that Israel’s handling of the Ramat Shlomo settlements announcement during US vice-president Joe Biden’s recent visit was cack handed and self-defeating. Prime Minister Netanyahu has admitted as much by apologising. It was a diplomatic faux pas, and it provoked a torrent of protest from the State Department to the Palestinian Authority. It also received saturation coverage in every major outlet in the western media. Hold that thought.
Now consider the response to the Palestinian Authority’s decision last week to celebrate the worst terrorist atrocity ever perpetrated inside Israel (the 1978 bus massacres which left 38 dead including 13 children) by naming a central square in Ramallah after its perpetrator, Dalal Mughrabi. That was a statement of values and intent, glorifying mass terrorism and signalling to Israel and the world that the Palestinians can never be trusted to abide by civilised norms. It tells you everything you really need to know about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and why peace with them has proved elusive for more than six decades. What follows is a list of the western news outlets that have covered what, I repeat, is an immensely significant and illustrative story:
1. The New York Times. 2. Nobody… That’s right, every other major media outlet in the western world has effectively censored it. Apart from the New York Times (and I am grateful to Tom Gross
for pointing that out) the story has been ignored.
If you really want to understand the reason why Israel faces such appalling demonisation and defamation across the western world, stop and think about this for a moment.
In my recent book I outline a whole set of calumnies visited on Israel in the form of an active discourse of deligitimisation. But I also argue that in many ways the censorship of vital context about the true nature of Palestinian and Arab political culture is more damaging. Labelling Israel as a “Nazi” or “Apartheid” state is both offensive and harmful. But to many people outside the activist community it is also self-condemning: those who apply such terms usually sound too hysterical to be taken seriously.
Think about it. Does the BBC — the world’s most powerful media outlet — call Israel an “Apartheid” or “Nazi” state? No, never. What in fact is the BBC line against Israel, as evidenced by the thrust of its writing and reporting? It is that Israeli settlement policy and occupation forms the root cause of the conflict with the Palestinians, that the Palestinians, though divided, are largely innocent and helpless victims, and that Israeli responses to “militants” (not “terrorists”, of course) is disproportionate to the point of amounting to war crimes. I’m generalising, of course. But in a nutshell, that is the BBC narrative on the Israel-Palestine conflict and I do not even think that most BBC employees would substantially dispute that.
And now consider this. What would happen to that narrative if BBC reporting on the Middle East were interlaced with stories giving prominence to items such as the following?
1. That the Palestinians rejected while the Israelis accepted a two-state solution under the UN partition plan of 1947.
2. That the occupation of the West Bank took place in the context of an attempt to destroy Israel which culminated in the Six Day War.
3. That all offers of statehood and withdrawal made to the Palestinians, including those advanced by President Clinton, have been flatly rejected by the Palestinians. The Clinton offers were not just rejected, they were not just rejected without a single counter offer, they were rejected in favour of the mass terrorist violence of the second intifada.
4. Palestinian schools, textbooks, television, religious leaders etc continue, today, to propagate the notion that Israel has no right to exist, that, for example, Jews descended from “apes and pigs” and that terrorism is something glorious.
5. That President Mahmoud Abbas, the great Palestinian moderate, last week authorised the honouring of the most blood stained terrorist in Palestinian history.
I could go on. But let’s just leave it at five such items and return to the question which preceded them: What would happen to the prevailing BBC narrative if such items were referred to and reported on with the energy that the BBC devotes to stories about “occupation”, “settlements” and “war crimes”?
Answer: it would be rendered totally incoherent. It would be obliterated, and they know it. In order to sustain the BBC narrative on Israel, it is therefore vital that all such references and stories are either expunged completely or reported on so rarely that they have no real impact on the broader picture they are trying to promote.
That is why the Dalal Mughrabi story was ignored. That is why the BBC continues to censor all reference to Hamas’s anti-Semitism from their profile of the group on their website. That is why terrorists are referred to as “militants”. And what applies to the BBC applies in Europe more broadly.
By leaving the general population in a state of near total unawareness about the realities that Israel confronts in its dealings with the Palestinians, even neutral and unbiased observers are bound to come away with the impression that Israel is the guilty party in this conflict.
This is real censorship. And it works.
Tags: Israel
March 14th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Excellent analysis as always Robin.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Robin - I was also shocked by this action by the PA, though in truth it shows the reality behind the mask.
What is also infuriating is that it was driven off-stage by Eli Yishai’s idiocy that resulted in the Biden affair, a PR disaster for Israel when the Dalal Mughrabi issue could have been used to illustrate vividly the difficulty Israel faces in dealing with the PA.
March 14th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Very many non-Jewish, and all copingly-delusional and non-malicious Jewish, and all deranged and malicious Jewish, academics, intellectuals, journalists, political activists, and politicians, from Western (Christian-European-based, profoundly-Jewish-influenced) countries are not dissuaded, by factual history, nor by facts about the current reality, from their deeply held, anciently and continuingly culturally entrenched, wrong belief that “it’s ‘The Jews” fault”.
I am distressed about, maddeningly frustrated by, and enraged about, the current situation, and I am concerned about, and distressed about, the future of the world.
The following is some information about me.
My ethnicity is Jewish (Jewish-Russian(Ukrainian)-Polish)
The political views that I hold are a balance between Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.
The existential view that I hold, and the existential practice that I strive to practice, is Theravada Buddhism.
I grew up in, live in, and I am a citizen of, the United States.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
The analysis was intelligent and well done.
At the same time it is pointless. Do you really think anyone is going to care about anything you have to say when you call an Israeli statement of defiance regarding housing for Jews as a “Faux Pas”?
I think you are as scared to death of the West as any other Liberal out there. The only difference is that you think if you put on a braver face than you can “manage” the situation. That the Americans will love you for your plucky wit and courage.
No my friend, they won’t. Because American foreign interests always hinge on one and only one thing: American business/political interests. Everything else can be spun.
If you regard making a simple statement of building 1600 housing units as a mad outrageous earth shattering insult, than it means you don’t really believe in yourself or your country. You may be better than the liberals. But not all that much.
In the end, however you dress it up, you wish Israel to be nothing more than an American colony.
This is exactly why I celebrate the Obama presidency. We need to cut ourselves off from this concept of leaning on the United States. You say that Eli Yishai instigated a faux pas? I say it is a glorious statement of defiance and heart!
March 14th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Ron says : “At the same time it [Robin’s analysis] is pointless. Do you really think anyone is going to care about anything you have to say when you call an Israeli statement of defiance regarding housing for Jews as a “Faux Pas”?
I think you are as scared to death of the West as any other Liberal out there. The only difference is that you think if you put on a braver face than you can “manage” the situation. That the Americans will love you for your plucky wit and courage.
… You say that Eli Yishai instigated a faux pas? I say it is a glorious statement of defiance and heart!”
Does anyone understand this ? I’m with Robin on this one. Netanyahu apologised for the timing of the announcement, so this was no statement of defiance. It was a simple, old-fashioned cock-up. These things happen. I don’t think Eli Yishai has done anything in his whole life that can be described as ‘glorious’, apart from having five kids (and I’ve never met them).
Ron : “This is exactly why I celebrate the Obama presidency. We need to cut ourselves off from this concept of leaning on the United States.
Israel’s air force consists of American planes and choppers. If it bombs Natanz, Bushehr etc. it will be done with US planes. OK the Israelis have done neat things with avionics and UAVs, but Israel is a small country and it needs American support. OK, I don’t care for Obama either, but without American backing, things could get scary for Israel. It depends on overseas trade and with people like the lovely Catherine Ashton around, Israel could find itself very isolated in no time.
At the moment, Israel needs to play the political games, nauseating as they may seem. There are more important issues on the horizon. Israel needs to keep its powder dry.
Anyway, Robin’s main point relates to the Western media’s utter silence on the issue of “Mughrabi Square” at El-Bireh. To draw attention to it, may I suggest that Israel send over some crop-duster planes tomorrow at dawn to spray the square from end to end in red paint. Now that would be an artistic statement !
March 14th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
An impressive piece Robin.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Also note the absence of any condemnations by Clinton and cohorts. Might it not be a constructive contribution to demonstrate to the PA that such behaviour does not go down well?
The interesting question here is, what if anything can be done to change this trend?
March 14th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You’re so right Robin. Censorship by omission is what I call it, it depends on not what and how things are reported but on what is not reported at all.
Of course if you mention some of the examples you’ve given to the anti-Israel crowd they simply don’t believe it and accuse you of making it up.
The other tactic of course is to make light of an event. The BBC’s current report on Hamas banning male hairdressers from cutting women’s hair is a good example. According to the BBC it’s a cultural thing, and anyway, hardly any women in Gaza want men to cut their hair, so that’s alright then.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:06 am
@Ron
“Because American foreign interests always hinge on one and only one thing: American business/political interests”
You play down the importance of the fact the reason for strong cooperation and support for Israel is because of largely US shared interest be it political and economic. It has not always been the case that Israel had the kind of support it has enjoyed in recent years , not least during the Bush senior years when the US delayed sharing intelligence with Israel during the Gulf conflict, is one more recent example.
As for Yishai’s inflammatory talk, it has taken Israel no where forwards or backwards. It is an idiotic and unrepresentative view by most Israelis. Obama, if he does not wake up, puts the world at serious risk, particularly with regard to how he is handling Iranian ambitions. So nothing to celebrate here.
As for what appears like an overreaction from Abbas is in fact a salutory warning as to the way the free world responds and more to the point how it does not respond . Settlements shmettlements, they are not the cause of the lack of progress. It is the perpetual hatred and the madness of it that drives the conflict. The US are trying hard to “kick start” the process to give a chance for statehood for the Palestinians and a much needed peace for all the people in the region, whilst the Palestinians pathologically and masochistically resort to shooting themselves in the head, and perversely seem to prefer it. Whatever their failure, Israel is always to blame.In Palestinian terrorist eyes It should not be there. Israel’s success is a constant reminder of their abject failure. They are shamed and fight for an imagined once owned honour they had. It is truly pathetic and the BBC give hope to their false beliefs. And not just the BBC of course.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Please set up your blog so that I can post your articles to my Facebook account! Thanks for the brilliant analysis — as always!
March 15th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Just continuing the Ramat Shlomo digression, latest reports suggest that the US administration wants Netanyahu to announce its cancellation, ie. reciprocal humiliation.
Easy that one. Netanyahu should agree to cancel the project on condition that the US moves its embassy to Jerusalem.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:31 am
Yes, a good writing. Before having read this I was already thinking and fuming about this same issue for days. The BBC is simply a discredited unüberable vile propaganda machine in the service of Muslims and Arab “militancy”. Much worse than even the CNN, which is also pro-Palestinian of course. They are the loyal allies of jihadists. They are getting away with it. There must be another attempt sometimes in the near future to go to court to have the Balen report open to all. Surely there must be a way!!! Please link this page to wherever you can - I did to Rosner’s domain at Jerusalem Post! Spread the word!
March 16th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Richard Cohen published an op-ed this morning in the Washington Post about Mugrabi… So now, they are 2 ! Wow… Impresssive !
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031502290.html
March 16th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Generally agree, but I’m mindful that we should ascribe to malice that which can be explained adequately by incompetence. or at least incompetence in the first instance, followed by the desire not to admit to incompetence later.
Here’s what happens:
1. The BBC starts out even-handed. I know. Bear with me. When I say “starts out”, I’m thinking some time at least before ~1970 or so.
2. The BBC wants to get coverage from the Palestinian side (because it’s wanting to be even-handed and, given its impeccable even handed nature, it is very reluctant to assume the Palestinian/Arab really is as nihilistic and intransigent as it actually is).
3. It files one or two tentative hedged reports suggesting that there may be some fairly unpleasant factions about.
4. It quickly discovers that:
a) it can’t get the access it wants to the people it wants
b) its people are in real danger
5. It learns to report from the Palestinian side under Palestinian restrictions. Further it learns that even to report that it is reporting under Palestinian restrictions invokes 4b above. So it doesn’t.
6. Bake under a hot sun at one end and add a dash of liberal nicey “can’t we all just get along - we wouldn’t mean such nasty things if we said them so I’m sure they don’t either” at the other for ~40 years and voila! you have the BBC mindset.
It doesn’t actually require malice or an institutional policy. All it requires is a lack of institutional leadership and backbone.
Doesn’t make it right though.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Clarifications…
2) “given its impeccable even handed nature, it is very reluctant to assume the Palestinian/Arab really is as nihilistic and intransigent as it actually is”
By this, I mean that it can’t imagine that anyone could be as nihilistic and intransigent. It’s viewing everything through the positive sum, western outlook and cannot conceive of the honour/shame mentality that produces the nihilistic and intransigent behaviour.
This, by the way, is still the heart of the problem.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Cracking piece Robin - thank you!
March 17th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Jonathan Karmi here:
“Does anyone understand this ? I’m with Robin on this one. Netanyahu apologised for the timing of the announcement, so this was no statement of defiance. It was a simple, old-fashioned cock-up. These things happen.”
Jonathan Karmi today at Melanie Phillips’s blog:
“But the Israelis have antagonised him through sheer bad manners. Not only the timing of the Ramat Shlomo announcement. Before he was elected, Obama visited Sderot on the border with Gaza, where he gave a speech to the world’s media. On the platform behind him stood Eli Moyal, the mayor of Sderot, in his sunglasses looking like some gaunt, seedy gangster, and Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister, who was smiling, waving and winking to friends as Obama spoke. What a plonker. Sheer lack of class and bad manners. For Americans and Obama in particular, style is every bit as important as substance, so perceived humiliations and insults do not go down well. The natural instinct is to put offenders in their place.”
http://tinyurl.com/ykgofwv
I suppose there must be two Jonathan Karmis.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
JSS,
The article you post the link still ultimately links everything back to Israel (Stop the settlements. Rename Dalal Mughrabi Square. Now let’s talk.) as the sole cause of the problems in the middle east.
Sure, the guy makes mention of various things that terrorists are getting up to BUT ultimately he, like nearly every other msm munter does, blames everything back on Israel.
Mailman
March 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Joshua. I don’t see the contradiction. All that I’m saying is that Israeli leaders have to be careful and professional in their actions and sensitive as to how they’re perceived.
The timing of the Ramat Shlomo announcement was a bureaucratic oversight which ended up making Joe Biden look stupid, so he reacted. The incident amounted to bad manners on Israel’s part, whether intentional or not. Netanyahu has since revised procedures so that this does not happen again. Netanyahu has not defended what happened, so why should you ? (For clarity’s sake, I don’t have a problem with building at Ramat Shlomo.)
If you ever see the whole footage of Obama’s speech in Sderot, you will appreciate that Ehud Barak and Eli Moyal were both guilty of rank bad manners. This guy was already a frontrunner to become President, so the lack of respect shown was not clever. I’m a great admirer of Ehud Barak as a military man, but things haven’t gone so smoothly for him as a politician. The Israel Labour Party has nearly disappeared off the map, which for me is a real pity.