Britannia Radio

Terror Attack and Media Obssession with Settlements

Just Journalism Newsletter 1 September 2010 Guardian focuses on settlers following terrorist attack On the eve of the commencement of peace talks between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, members of Hamas yesterday conducted a terrorist attack in the West Bank in which four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were killed. The attack, which happened near the city of Hebron, was denounced by all those involved in negotiations, but lauded by a Hamas spokesman as a 'heroic' act. This outbreak of violence, which was widely seen as an attempt to derail the peace-process, highlighted the divisions between those Palestinians who are willing to negotiate with Israel, and those who reject peaceful compromise. While the ambush was widely reported, there has been a distinct lack of analysis of the long term implications of such rejectionism on prospects for peace. In particular, there was little discussion of the fact that the Palestinians are divided between two governments, and of the history and ideology of Hamas. Instead, settlements were still portrayed as the major stumbling block, most notably by The Guardian's Harriet Sherwood. Following her initial article on the killings, 'Four Israeli settlers shot dead on eve of White House talks' (which appeared online last night, and in The Guardian's print edition today) Sherwood's online article published today focused not on the attempts by Islamist militants to scupper negotiations, but on how continued settlement building posed the biggest obstacle to peace. Titled 'Israeli settlers to resume building on West Bank after Hebron killings' and illustrated with a photo of protesting settlers, Sherwood led: 'West Bank settlers have pledged to resume building... in direct response to last night's killing of four people by Hamas gunmen', before adding that this response 'could further strain an already contentious issue [settlements] which is threatening to overshadow this week's talks.' The implication here is that the most dangerous aspect of the attack was not the potential for renewed terrorist violence, but that it might spur on settlers to re-start building in the West Bank. Similarly, Sherwood highlighted the issue of Jerusalem, another sticking point unrelated to Hamas' opposition to the peace process. Reporting the news in Haaretz that Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, had floated the prospect of Jerusalem being divided amongst Israeli and Palestinian states, Sherwood noted that the issue of Jerusalem was 'one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations'. She then ended the article by stating that 'Israel occupied and later annexed Jerusalem in 1967 in a move deemed illegal under international law.' While settlements and Jerusalem were therefore both highlighted as potential stumbling blocks, there was no discussion of the relevance of Hamas, or any background information on its history of violence aimed at civilians as exemplified by yesterday's killings. To continue reading, click here. FT news brings Palestinian division to the fore The gulf between the comment and news sections at the FTwas brought into focus yesterday by Jerusalem correspondentTobias Buck's article, 'Hamas looms large over US peace talks' which focused exclusively on the likely impact of the division in Palestinian leadership on the up-coming peace talks. Last week Just Journalism published a Viewpoint on Financial Times international affairs editor David Gardner's comment piece from Friday in which he claimed that Israel has not sought peace with the Palestinians over the last two decades. The assertions made were near identical to those highlighted in 'Financial Times 2009: A year of Middle East editorials,' published last year, which analysed 121 Middle East editorials. Buck notes that Hamas 'remains implacably opposed to the new diplomatic effort' and that 'its dissent highlights a crucial problem faced by the parties meeting in the US: how to make progress when the Palestinian national movement is divided between two rival factions in two increasingly estranged territories.' The correspondent moreover envisages what would happen if the direct talks between Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas were to succeed: 'The schism would pose an even greater problem if the talks defy all expectations and produce a comprehensive peace accord. With Hamas in control of Gaza, Mr Abbas would lack the ability to implement any such agreement.' A range of Palestinian voices are included in the piece, including Abd Alraheem Mallouh, from the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. He posits that 'negotiations without reconciliation are futile,' adding, '[a]s long as there is a state of division, the Palestinian position is too weak. How can you negotiate with Israel without having national unity?' The attention paid to this issue by the Financial Times correspondent is not mirrored by his counterparts at The Guardian and The Independent, both of whom published articles today focused on comments by Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad that a 'moment of reckoning' was upon us. Harriet Sherwood's 'Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad signals make or break for two-state solution' and Donald Macintyre's 'Independent Palestine is a possibility by 2011, says PM' were entirely focused on reporting a Palestinian perspective on the upcoming talks and yet neither mentioned Hamas or the current division in leadership or its impact on the possible outcome of the direct talks. To read more, click here. Donating to Just Journalism Just Journalism is a not-for-profit organization and relies entirely upon the generosity of our supporters. If you wish to make a donation, please contactdonate@justjournalism.com for more information.