Britannia Radio

Just Journalism Newsletter   7 July 2010

VIEWPOINT: Independent 'expose' illustrates questionable approach to reporting Israel - Carmel Gould Today's top story in The Independent says a lot about how reporting on Israel operates in sections of the British media. Yesterday, the following two events took place: in Washington, Israeli PM Netanyahu held a much anticipated bilateral meeting with President Obama, and in Israel an NGO called B'Tselem released a report critical of Israel's policies in the West Bank. No doubt the latter was timed to coincide with the former. The Independent went with the NGO report for its front page story, which carried the headline: 'Exposed: The truth about Israel's land grab in the West Bank' which it would be fair to say, implied that the newspaper had something very new and very important to reveal to its readers about Israel's dealings in the West Bank. However, B'Tselem's central claim that 42 per cent of the West Bank is controlled by settlement-related infrastructure is not new, as indicated by the fact that The Independent's own Middle East correspondent, Donald Macintyre, was reporting this as fact back in May 2007. Other aspects of Catrina Stewart and David Usborne's news piece were noteworthy, for instance, the lead, which read: 'Jewish settlers, who claim a divine right to the whole of Israel, now control more than 42 per cent of the occupied West Bank, representing a powerful obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state, a new report has revealed.' But Israelis who live in the West Bank for ideological reasons are a minority of the settler population and not a majority. B'Tselem's report even says in its conclusion that 'Israel offered a long list of generous benefits and incentives to encourage some half a million Israelis to relocate to these settlements.' Also, it is interesting that the journalists uses the term 'revealed' rather than the more commonly used, 'claimed' when describing the findings of 'By Hook and by Crook'. Following the release by Israel of footage in May showing Gaza flotilla passengers attacking Israeli soldiers, the same journalists did not take this to 'reveal' anything. On the contrary, Catrina Stewart dismissed it in 'The hijacking of the truth' as part of 'a carefully choreographed account of the events' that was 'problematic'. In a further example of trying to attach as much news-worthiness as possible to the B'Tselem report, the journalists claim: To continue reading, click here. BBC focuses on settlements as obstacle to peace This week saw Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visit the US for a meeting with President Obama that was seen as an attempt to mend the fractured relationship between the two leaders. The meeting, and its implications for the peace-process, received widespread coverage across the BBC, with multiple reports on radio, television and its website. Across the BBC's coverage, prominence was given to the issue of settlements as an obstacle to direct peace talks, with commentators noting how it was a source of tension for Netanyahu, who faced pressure from both Obama and his coalition. Nonetheless, while there was considerable discussion of whether or not Israel could meet the demands of the Palestinians, there was no in-depth analysis of the Palestinian position. In contrast to the analysis given to Israel's ability and willingness to make concessions, or the relationship between Israel and America, the division between Fatah and Hamas was given scant notice, and only directly raised in one report. While the sheer scope of the coverage meant that many different aspects of the meeting were covered, the underlying message was clear: Israel, and Israel alone, was responsible for whether or not peace negotiations could be successfully held in the immediate future. The ambivalence of Palestinians towards returning to direct negotiations was given a low profile. The BBC News website presented the issue of settlements as the primary stumbling block to be overcome. For example, the main article on the meeting, 'Obama holding talks with Netanyahu at White House' included analysis from Wyre Davies, where he noted that while the Israeli PM argued that he had  'bent over backwards to accommodate Palestinian demands', his Palestinian counterparts viewed these gestures as 'hollow.' Davies then suggested that there was unlikely to be progress in the peace process since 'Netanyahu does not have much more room for manoeuvre' because sections his 'right-wing coalition are already demanding a complete resumption of all building in the settlements in September.' The subject of whether or not Israel could make the necessary concessions was expanded upon in 'Little room to manoeuvre', also by Davies. As well as the aforementioned points about the restrictions presented by Netanyahu's coalition partners, and the fact that Palestinians did not feel that the freeze went far enough, the article also positioned the settlements as the single challenge that Obama would have to contend with. Davies argued that it remained to be seen if Obama would 'conclude that Israel's "gestures" go far enough to warrant a resumption of face-to-face peace talks', or if he would 'put more pressure on Mr Netanyahu to stop the controversial planned demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.' To continue reading, click here. For more information about Just Journalism, or to contact us, please visit www.justjournalism.com