Detailed analysis of news coverage

Our aim in this report is to raise the Inquirer’s self-awareness of certain patterns in its reporting that we believe hinder adequate coverage of this important issue.

1.0 Headlines

Analysis of headlines begins by examining A1 headlines – that is, headlines appearing on the front page. Those headlines that are above the fold are marked with “**”.

1.1 A1 Headlines

1.1.1 Israeli deaths

Israeli deaths were featured 4 times on the front page, with 2 of those 4 times above the fold.

03/29/01

[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens slain

03/27/01

[A1] Jewish infant killed in West Bank gunfire [Morris]

02/15/01

[A1**] Driver rams into Israelis, killing 8 [Demick&Morris]

[A1**] Mideast killings may fuel revenge (Demick)

Palestinian deaths were featured only once on the front page, and that instance was featured below the fold. The mention was, moreover, mitigated by the presence of an Israeli justification of killing. No such justifications were given in the headlines dealing with Israeli deaths.

02/14/01

[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks [Morris]

1.1.3 Arab polemics

Three front page headlines focused on Arab polemics against Israel.

03/26/01

[A1] Volatile vocabulary in Mideast violence [Demick]

03/12/01

[A1] Artists fuel Arab rage against US and Israel [Raghavan]

01/13/01

[A1] Hussein's cash wins Palestinians' favor [Demick]

1.1.4 Israeli politics

Three headlines focused on Israeli politics, one of which was above the fold.

02/21/01

[A1] Barak rejects unity role - and politics [Demick]

02/16/01

[A1] Sharon and Barak agree for unity government [Demick&Morris]

02/05/01

[A1**] Barak appeals for votes of Arabs [Reuters]

1.1.5 Arafat

Arafat was the topic of two front page headlines.

01/16/01

[A1] Arafat offers to give informers amnesty [AP]

01/03/01

[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations [Morris&Landay]

1.1.6 Other

02/25/01

[A1**] End violence in Mideast, Powell urges [Raghavan&Demick]

02/07/01

[A1**] With win, uncertain era begins [Demick&Morris]

01/22/01

[A1**] Mideast begins lengthy talks [Morris]

01/08/01

[A1**] Clinton to Israel: 'Divide this land' [AP]

1.1.7 Not appearing as A1 headlines

The following important issues were never on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer during the period of analysis.

- UN reports/resolutions

- Human rights reports/findings

- Israeli assassination of Palestinian officials

- Killing of Palestinian children

- House demolitions

- Palestinian economic hardships

- Palestinian calls for peace

- Hanan Ashrawi – no. 1 Palestinian spokesperson - injured in demonstration

1.2 Headlines

The following is an analysis of all headlines.

1.2.1 Israeli actions placed in context

When headlined, Israeli aggressive actions tend to be put in context, or shown to be “reactions” to prior actions.

03/29/01

[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens slain [AP]

03/28/01

[A3] After two bombings, Israelis increase pressure on Sharon [Morris]

02/14/01

[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks [Morris]

01/24/01

[A2] Israel suspends peace talks after killing in West Bank [Morris]

1.2.2 Palestinian/Arab actions NOT put in context

When headlined, Arab or Palestinian actions are usually stated flatly, with no context or justifications.

For instance, the headline: “Arabs end summit backing a call to resume boycott of Israel” does not tell us why Arabs call on resuming boycott of Israel. The headline could have easily been written: “Citing Israeli ‘aggression’, Arabs end summit backing a call to resume boycott of Israel.”

Similarly, the headline “Hamas plans for suicide bombs” could have easily been written, “Israel shells civilians populations, Hamas plans for suicide bombs”.

03/29/01

[A9] Arabs end summit backing a call to resume boycott of Israel [Demick]

03/28/01

[A3] Arabs, divided on Iraq, united in criticizing Israel [Demick]

03/05/01

[A2] Suicide bomber kills 3 Israelis and injures 66 [Washington Post]

03/04/01

[A2] Hamas plans for suicide bombs [Reuters]

01/05/01

[A2] Arab leaders criticize US peace proposal [AP]

01/03/01

[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations [Morris&Landay]

1.2.3 Scare quotes in headlines

Two headlines had scare quotes in them – and both scare quotes were in compliance with the Israeli frame of reference.

03/21/01

[A3] Palestinians' “Uphill battle” [AP]

01/08/01

[A3] Israel is drawing criticism for using “pin point killing” tactic [AP]

1.2.4 Pro-Israeli editorializing in headlines

Two headlines crossed into the opinion side.

02/04/01

[A2] Where all went awry for a man of peace [Morris]

02/08/01

[A3] Sharon gathers respected team for peace efforts [Morris&Demick]

1.2.5 Israel going out of its way to seek peace

Three headlines portrayed Israel as exerting itself to be restrained or peace-seeking.

03/08/01

[A2] Sharon takes office with a plea for peace [Morris]

03/16/01

[A4] Despite arrests, Israel lifts ban [AP]

01/25/01

[A2] Despite latest killings, Israel to resume peace talks [AP]

It is important to note that a headline such as “Despite latest killings, Israel to resume peace talks”, would be just as appropriate if it had read “Despite latest killings, Palestinians to resume peace talks”. But no such headlines were present.

1.2.6 Frequencies

- Word “terror” used in association with Palestinians: 3

- Word “terror” used in association with Israelis: 0

- Israeli children killed cited: 1

- Palestinian children killed cited: 0

- Palestinians killed cited: 2

- Israelis killed cited: 2

- “Violence” used in association with Palestinians: 2

- “Violence” used in association with “Middle East”: 5

- “Violence” used in association with Israelis: 0

- Home demolitions mentioned: 0

2.0 Content Analysis

2.1 Detailed content

2.1.1 Appropriating Israeli framing/vocabulary

The most serious journalistic infraction this report will examine is the unreflective appropriation of the Israeli framework and vocabulary. We start with Barbara Demick and then examine Nomi Morris.

BARBARA DEMICK

In the following quote, the myth that Israel was fighting for its survival in 1949 is repeated as though it were a fact. Many scholars have been challenged that claim, demonstrating instead that Israel far from being a passive victim defending itself. The un-reflexive appropriation of the notion that Israel was “fighting of its survival” in the 1949 war is not only disturbing, but unnecessary on purely journalistic grounds.

The quote also tries to whitewash Ariel Sharon’s actions between 1949 and now and cast those actions as defensive: the reader is led to think that all along, Mr. Sharon has been engaged in a defensive struggle. The consensus outside Ariel Sharon’s circle of supporters is the opposite.

IN 1949, Sharon fought for Israel's survival. In a way, he never stopped. [020701][C]

The second quote offers an even more disturbing appropriation of what can only be described as the stuff of legend and lore. Ms. Demick presents the stories as journalistic fact.

Again, we note the “parallel” the reader is urged to draw by the last sentence below: just as Sharon allegedly had to fight menacing, blood thirsty Arabs, so also Israel is doing the same.

Ariel Sharon was not quite a year old when his mother yanked him out of his crib and stashed him in a barn for safekeeping against Arabs preparing to storm Kfar Malal, the agricultural village near Tel Aviv where he was born.

At the age of 13, Sharon was crouching in the fields by night with a Caucasian dagger given as a bar mitzvah present, guarding against Arab intruders.

Israel's prime minister-elect has been doing battle with Arabs his entire life. Indeed, his life parallels Israel's history of war.[020801]

In the following quotes, the words “respond” and “retaliate” and some of their variations, are presented as fact rather than as points of view or justifications offered by the Israeli side.

The test could come as soon as Sharon is called upon to respond to the low-intensity warfare waged by Palestinian gun-men. [020801][C]

Sharon is not in a position to respond to acts of violence until he is sworn in March 31. [020901][A]

The drive toward a unity government too a new urgency this week as Palestinian violence escalated along with Israel's response to it. [021601][D]

In Gaza, Palestinians fired mortar shells Friday toward the Jewish settlements of Digit and Aley Sinai. Israel retaliated by destroying two Palestinian police posts from which the mortars were fired and closed off roads. [022501][B]

Israel has responded to Palestinian rioting by holding the money in escrow for months and by closing its borders to thwart terrorism. [022401][A]

The appropriation of the Israeli framework also occurred through Ms. Demick’s repeated failure to use scare quotes or the word “alleged” when it should have been used.

Israel has responded to Palestinian rioting by holding the money in escrow for months and by closing its borders to thwart terrorism. [022401][A]

Barak told Powell that the United States has to make clear to Arafat that he must crack down on Palestinian violence and incitement against Israel. [022501]

More outrageous, they say, is the insidious message of hatred spread by the official Palestinian media. [032601][A]

Barak thought there would be an end to the conflict and incitement would die naturally,” Dan said. He expects Sharon to place more emphasis than his predecessor on the issue of incitement. [032601][C]

Soon, Israeli skeptics noticed a disconnect between the Palestinian pledges of accepting Israel as a neighbor and the venom of the Palestinian media. [032601][B]

By contrast, note the careful use of the word “allegedly” in this quote. Note also the used of “revenge” rather than “retaliation”.

Enraged Palestinians threatened revenge against Israel as they marched in a funeral for Mahmoud Madani, 25, an Islamic militant gunned down Monday in a refugee camp near Nablus, allegedly by Israeli special forces. [022101][C]

In many instances, Ms. Demick used uncritically expressions that serve the Israeli point of view. One these expressions is “required permits”. The expression “required permits” is used without qualifications, without telling the reader that the “permits” are required by Israel and without explaining that the legitimacy of the requirement is hotly disputed by not only Palestinians but by the international community as a whole. The impression is given that the Palestinians are trampling on law and order and building haphazardly on land that is not theirs.

They want resumed demolition of Arab houses that were build without the required permits. [021901][A]

Gilo, a settlement, is described as though it were an integral part of Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, Israeli forces stationed near the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo opened fire on the nearby village of Beit Jala. [022101][D]

In the following quote, Ms. Demick presents the explanation given by the Israeli forces as the true motive behind Israeli actions. The Israelis claim that they have sealed off the West Bank in an effort to “stem attacks”, but Palestinians assert that the closures are an exercise in collective punishment. Ms. Demick appropriates the Israeli explanation.

Israel, in an effort to stem attacks on its soldiers and civilians, has sealed off most of the West Bank and Gaza. [022601][A]

The notion that Ariel Sharon was “successful” with his old strategy of “the carrot and the stick” is presented by Ms. Demick as flat fact. Ms. Demick does not explain what “success” in this case means. Instead, Mr. Sharon’s claim that there was “success” is taken as a starting point.

Sharon apparently is reviving a strategy he used with success as the top general in Gaza in the 1970s: dividing an area into small sectors, clamping down hard in the parts where the is violence and rewarding the population in parts where there is not. [031301][A]

A disturbing example of mischaracterization is the following description of Har Homa as “a giant housing development bordering Palestinian villages”, when in fact it is an illegal settlement plan to be built on confiscated land. The reader is misled into thinking that the controversy is merely over the proximity of the settlement to Palestinian land.

There are expectations that Olmert will push for more construction at the Har Homa, a giant housing development bordering Palestinian villages in Southeastern Jerusalem.[021901][B]

NOMI MORRIS

The following quote offers an example of a startling absence of attribution to any source, and the absence of the word “alleged”. The gunfire is described as Palestinian, with no additional qualifications.

Palestinian gunfire killed a 10-month old Jewish girl in the

West Bank town of Hebron yesterday, sparking retaliatory tank force by Israeli troops and raising the pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to crack down on Palestinian violence. [0327/01][A]

In the following quote, there is a glaring absence of the word “allegedly”. Instead, the word “directly” is used.

Sharon goes to Washington with new Israeli intelligence information directly linking Arafat's Force 17 bodyguard unit to armed attacks against Israelis. [03/19/01][A]

Here is another example where the word “alleged” should have been used. The word “alleged” should have preceded “instigator” - or should have double quoted the word “instigators”.

[Barak] has adopted a tougher posture, authorizing Israeli troops to step up efforts at assassinating instigators of anti-Israeli attacks, even if they are Palestinian leaders. [010401][B]

The word retaliation was used without scare quotes. In this quote, Palestinians would have preferred the expression “punishment”.

Israel imposed a strict closure of Hebron after the shooting,

preventing Palestinians from entering or leaving, although Sharon did not order further retaliation. [03/27/01][B]

2.1.2 Unnecessary editorializing

Israelis claim that Barak’s concessions were unprecedented. Palestinians hotly dispute that they are, likening them to Binyamin Netanyahu’s “Allon-Plus” Plan.

Barak has promised to continue negotiating with Palestinians to sign a comprehensive peace deal, which he believes is in reach after months of talks that involved unprecedented concessions. [02/06/01][A]

The expression “peace through strength” is appropriated intact with no quotes.

Sharon, on the other hand, promises peace through strength and no negotiations until violence stops. [020601][B]

The following quote illustrates the inappropriate use of the word “disputed” when the word “occupied” is more accurate.

Palestinian anger was growing over Barak's failure to make trust-building gestures such as withdrawing more troops and stopping construction at Jewish settlements in disputed territory. [020401][B]

Here is another instance of appropriating expressions used regularly by the Israli right and Ariel Sharon. The expression “frontier security” is used without quotes.

Many [Israelis] also sympathize with the settlers as fellow Jews who were urged by successive governments to establish settlements for frontier security. [010401][B]

2.1.3 Shimon Peres: Nobel Peace prize laureate

For some reason, Ms. Demick and Ms. Morris insist on mentioning Shimon Peres’ Nobel Peace prize whenever he is mentioned. Needless to say, Arafat is never referred to as Nobel Peace prize laureate.

BARBARA DEMICK

Nobel Peace laureate Shimon Peres… [021601][A]

Nobel laureate Shimon Peres… [022101][B]

Shimon Pares, a Nobel peace laureate and the party's statesman…. [022701] [A]

NOMI MORRIS

dovish Nobel peace prize winner Shimon Peres… [030701][A]

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres... [02/16/01][A]

The former prime minister and Nobel Laureate said in an interview...[02/06/01][D]

Nobel Prize winner Shimon Peres.... [020401][A]

2.1.4 Softening

In many instances, Nomi Morris seemed to drop from mention certain facts or to add certain descriptions that presented her subject – in all cases, Israelis – in the best of light.

NOMI MORRIS

In the following quote, it is striking how Ms. Morris inserts the word “now”, when Mr. Sharon was unequivocal in his interview that he expects no final solution with the Palestinians, whether now or ever. This is a clear softening of his harsh stand: Mr. Sharon is clear in his interview that he does not view his non-beligence pact as a step towards permanent peace.

Sharon said he would not seek a permanent agreement with the Palestinians now, but would strive to achieve a non-belligerence pact to build trust and eventually lead to peace. [03/08/01][B]

Another example of presenting reality in the best of lights for Israelis is the omission from mention in the following quote (and in fact from the whole story) of the identity of Binyamin Kahane as the son of the late Mayer Kahane, and as head of the JDL, a racist, anti-Arab group that calls for expelling all Arabs from Israel.

On Sunday, two prominent settlers, Binyamin and Talia Kahane, were killed and five of their children wounded by gunfire as they drove on a West Bank road. [010401[A]

2.1.5 Misleading the reader

NOMI MORRIS

Examples of highly misleading passages written by Ms. Morris are numerous.

In the following passage, Ms. Morris characterizes Hebron as “a place where both Jews and Palestinians claim deep historical roots”. The reader is not told that only 400 settlers cling to Hebron or that most Israelis believe that the settlers there need to be evacuated at once.

Hebron has been a place where both Jews and Palestinians claim deep historical roots. It has also been the scene of many bloody incidents between Arabs and Jews. [03/27/01] [D]

In another quote, Ms. Morris inappropriately mischaracterizes Hebron as a “divided city”. The reader is misled into thinking that the city is split into two, when in fact it is a city of 120,000 Palestinians with 400 settlers and an army presence to protect them in their midst.

Israeli soldiers also killed Arij Faber al-Jabali, 19, in the divided West Bank city of Hebron. [010601][B]

In the following quote, the reader is misled into thinking that Palestinians are illegally building on land that legally belongs to the state of Israel. The highly contentious “permits” are mentioned by Ms. Morris in a matter of fact manner, as though there were non-controversial.

The Jerusalem municipality also wants to lift a moratorium on demolishing Palestinian homes that were built without permits. [03/24/01][A]

Note below the totally inappropriate insertion of the word “alleged”. Mr. Sharon was found, by an Israeli court, to be personally responsible for the massacres.

Sharon is reviled throughout the Arab world for his alleged failure to prevent a 1982 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians.” [03/19/01] [B]

The most vivid example of mischaracterization of reality is the wholesale appropriation of the notion that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank, as shown in the following two quotes. No explanation of what the 95% means. The quote also illustrates the misleading characterization of the offer on East Jerusalem and the absence of an explanation over why Palestinians did not accept the offer. Indeed, the paragraph appears to be written to show Barak in the best of lights and Palestinians in the worst of lights.

Barak was prepared to recognize a Palestinian state in Gaza and 95% of the West Bank, with most of Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinians spurned the offer.” [03/08/01] [A]

[Barak] was prepared to recognize a Palestinian state in the Gaza strip north of Egypt and 95% of the West Bank of the Jordan River. [020401[C]

In the following quote, the reader is again mislead, this time through the opaque concept of “share control”. Barak has said many times that he will never cede any sovereignty to Palestinians. Using the expression “share control” is clearly highly misleading. The expression “administrative control” should have been used instead of “control”, and mention of Barak’s repeated assertion that he would never cede Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, should have been mentioned also.

Barak agreed to share control of Jerusalem with the Palestinians, but Arafat has not budged on the refugee issue, which Israelis consider a threat to their existence as a Jewish nation. [020401][D]

The following quote is one of the most misleading passages encountered.

Palestinians and Israelis want sovereignty over the holy city, Palestinian refugees are demanding the right to return to homes they fled in what is now Israel, and Jewish settlers want to remain on land Palestinians claim in the West Bank. [012201][A]

The passage is highly misleading since, (1) it misleads the reader into thinking that Palestinians want sovereignty over the whole holy city, when they are asking only for East Jerusalem; that (2) Jewish settlers simply want to remain, when in fact what they want is for the settlements to remain part of Israel; and (3) that only Palestinians are making the claim that the land is theirs, when in fact their claim is recognized by international law and by the whole international community.

2.1.6 Palestinian denial comes much later after allegation

A disturbing pattern was the habit of postponing mention of denials from the Palestinian Authority until deep into the story, or much later after the allegation of Palestinian guilt has been made.

The most glaring instance was the case of the baby girl killed in late March. Cabinet minister Yassin Abed Rabo asserted that there was no evidence of Palestinian involvment, but his assertion was mentioned 7 paragraphs into the story, off the front page where the story ran.

Palestinian cabinet minister Yassin Abed Rabo... told the Reuters news agency there was no evidence the baby was killed by Palestinians. [03/27/01] [C]

Another example is the following, where Palestinian denial was mentioned 11 paragraphs deep into the story.

In Taba, top Palestinian negotiator, Ahmad Qurea condemned the killings. [012401][A]

Examples of stories where no mention of the stand taken by the Palestinian stand are: 01/03/01 and 01/02/01.

2.1.7 Israeli denial reported soon after allegation

By contrast, Israeli army denial is mentioned up front, or soon after the allegation is made in the story. Here are two examples. The first came early in the story – paragraph 3. The second illustrates how the army’s denial is mentioned soon after the allegation is made.

The Israeli army denied it has any involvement in Mikki’s murder. [011801][a]

Palestinians said Israeli troops killed a 14-year old boy in Gaza, but the army denied the incident.

[021401][A]

2.2 Keyword analysis

The following results were conducted at the Inquirer’s web site news search, at: http://www.philly.com/newslibrary/text_pi.asp

source:	http://www.philly.com/newslibrary/
	archives

	words or phrases indicate what was entered into the search database.
	Numbers represent number of articles containing the exact phrase entered.

	Absence of "occupied"

	West Bank		364
	occupied West Bank		5

	Gaza		333
	occupied Gaza		0

	East Jerusalem		70
	occupied East Jerusalem		0

	The Gunmen, terrorist, and the troops

	Palestinian Gunmen		57		Israeli gunmen		0
	Palestinian Terrorist		12		Israeli terrorist		0
	Palestinian terrorism		2		Israeli terrorism		0
	Palestinian militants		20		Israeli militants		0
	militant Palestinians		3		militant settlers		2

	It happens every day, but is rarely published

	home demolition		1
	demolition of homes
	demolition of Palestinian homes

	confiscation of land			0
	confiscation of Palestinian land			0
	land confiscation			1
	confiscation of Arab land			0

	The lexicon continues…

	shooting at Palestinian			8		shooting at Israelis		13
	shelling of civilian neighborhoods			0
	shelling of Palestinian neighborhoods			0
	shelling civilian neighborhoods			0

	"killed by" used to identify killers of 75% of Israeli deaths, but only 10% of Palestinian deaths

	killed by Palestinian		42			killed by Israeli		69

	again, it is clear who kills an Israeli, but not so for Palestinians

	murder of Israeli/Jewish		6			murder of Palestinian		1	(but was referring to the shooting of Palestinian by Palestinian)
	killing of (a) Palestinian		20			killing of (an) Israeli		56

	one side attacks, the other retaliates

	retaliating, Palestinians		0			retaliating, Israel		1
	Palestinians retaliated		0			Israel(i) retaliated		10
	retaliation by Palestinians		0			retaliation by Israel		2
	in retaliation, Palestinians		0			in retaliation, Israel		2
		total	0				total	15

	attack by Palestinians		20			attack by Israel		18
	Palestinians attacked

	Palestinians live in "areas." Israelis live in "neighborhoods"

	Palestinian areas		14			Jewish areas			4
	Palestinian neighborhoods		8			Israeli/Jewish neighborhoods			25

	Palestinian civilians		19			Israeli/Jewish civilians			18

	Palestinians linked to the "violence" nearly three times more than Israelis are

	Palestinian violence		25			Israeli violence		9

3.0 Maps

A glaring flaw in the Inquirer’s coverage is the TOTAL absence of any maps depicting the offers presented by Ehud Barak and/or Bill Clinton to the Palestinians. Many times in the stories, the figure 95% was mentioned to describe Ehud Barak’s offer and “concessions” to the Palestinians. What is left from mention are an array of details – such as the scattered presence of numerous settlements deep into Palestinian territory, the proposed borders (and the proposed complete encirclement of Palestinian territory by Israel), the presence of Israeli army bases inside Palestinian territory, access to water, contiguity and lack thereof -– that are crucial for explaining Palestinian reluctance to accept the proposed offer. Maps depicting the offers would be an effective way to communicate the nature of the proposed state. And yet, NO map was EVER shown during the period of our analysis!

During this same period, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a large number of maps describing many complex situations: China, Kosovo, Macedonia, Iraq, etc. On March 25, 2001, for instance, a detailed map depicting the intricate ethnic makeup and contentious borders of Macedonia and Kosovo were shown on pageE3. (See below)

Maps of Israel and the occupied territories also ran, but never to depict settlement proposals. For instance, in February 9, 2001, when a car bomb blast was reported, a detailed map of Jerusalem was shown (A2). Similarly, a February 14 story on the assassination of a Palestinian officer was accompanied by a map (A16).

It is truly startling, to say the least, that a conflict that is in its core a conflict over land would be covered over a long stretch of time without ONCE presenting a map depicting the state of the offers presented on the table. Maps are available from many respected organizations, such as The Foundation for Middle East Peace (http://www.fmep.org) that would provide a very accurate depiction of the offers made by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton. Maps can be found at: http://www.fmep.org/maps/

Below is a map depicting approximately the offers made by Ehud Barak in December 2000.

Grey: Palestinian built up areas Blue: Israeli settlement

Pink: Israeli military area Brown: areas under Palestinian sovereignty

Yellow: Long term Israeli control or lease Purple: Areas to be annexed to Israel

Green line: The Green Line

4.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The report presented here details a clear pattern of appropriating the Israeli frame of reference when writing about Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The headlines clearly present the story from the Israeli point of view. (1) Israeli deaths are highlighted while Palestinian deaths are not, even though the number of Palestinians killed is almost one order of magnitude that of Israelis; (2) Israeli actions are placed in context, always presented as “retaliations” or “responses”, while Palestinians actions, even when explicitly declared to be retaliations or responses are headlined ex-nihilo, with no context’; (3) An array of crucial events from the publication of important human rights findings to UN resolutions, to the injury of high-level Palestinian officials, are rarely, if ever, headlined.

Analysis of story content reveals a disturbing pattern of framing the conflict in Israeli terms. Numerous passages presented clearly illustrate a tendency by the Inquirer’s regular journalists, Barbara Demick and Nomi Morris, to (1) unreflectively appropriate Israeli wordings without attribution to Israeli sources, (2) unreflectively using loaded terms such as “respond” and “retaliate” to describe Israeli actions, (3) softening facts or realities that are unflattering to the Israeli side, (4) misleading the reader with partial information, opaque expressions, bad data and misinformation.

A keyword analysis confirms the disturbing pattern that the language used is compatible with the Israeli version of the conflict. The figures are telling: rare reference to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as occupied territories, frequent characterization of Palestinians in violent terms and the seldom characterization of Israelis as such, rare mention of home demolitions and land confiscation, use of terms such as “areas” to refer to territory inhabited by Palestinians and “neighborhoods” for territory occupied by Israelis, etc. All of this shows a clear pattern of stressing certain aspects of the conflict and ignoring others, with the whole picture presented consistently promoting the pro-Israeli point of view.

The single greatest journalistic failure in the Inquirer’s coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the total absence of any maps depicting the offers presented by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton. The conflict is centrally about land, and Palestinians have consistently complained that the offers presented to them do not represent a viable Palestinian state. A reader who follows the story and tries to understand why Palestinians continue to refuse the proposals in spite of the fact that 95% of the land is allegedly being offered by Ehud Barak will be at best left puzzled, and often left with the impression that the Palestinians are indeed not serious about attaining a final settlment – the very conclusion promoted by the official Israeli side. This is highly misleading and does the Inquirers’ readers a great disservice.

Appendix A provides a “Suggested check list” of items your writers and editors should take into consideration when writing and/or editing. We strongly urge the Philadelphia Inquirer to take a fresh and sober look at its own practices and habits in its coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Many of the failings depicted in this analysis are not worthy of a paper of the Inquirer’s caliber. The Inquirer should report the conflict using the highest standards of journalistic excellence and should always strive to serve first and foremost its own readership.

Appendix A - Suggested check list

The following is a check list of items we hope your journalists and editors will keep in mind when writing/editing pieces on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

- Please use the word “alleged” when source is either side

- Please do not insert the word “alleged” when not appropriate

- Please use scare quotes around the words such “retaliation”, “response”, or avoid using such words

- If you insist on using the words “retaliation” or “response”, please use it also to explain actions taken from the Palestinian side

- When Palestinians deny involvement, please report in the text soon after allegation is reported rather than bury the denial deep into the story

- Please do not soften reality, just report it

- Please headline Palestinian deaths more often

- Please headline Palestinian children deaths more often

- Just as you contextualize Israeli actions, you should contextualize Palestinian/Arab actions

- Please show maps of proposals rather than state misleading figures

Appendix B – A1 headlines

The following are all the front page headlines appearing between January 1, 2001 and March 31, 2001.

03/30/01

[A1] The trap of violence in Mideast [Demick]

03/29/01

[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens slain [AP]

03/27/01

[A1] Jewish infant killed in West Bank gunfire [Morris]

03/26/01

[A1] Volatile vocabulary in Mideast violence [Demick]

03/12/01

[A1] Artists fuel Arab rage against US and Israel [Raghavan]

02/26/01

[A1**] Powell to Israelis: relax the sanctions [Demick&Raghava]

02/25/01

[A1**] End violence in Mideast, Powell urges [Raghavan&Demick]

02/21/01

[A1] Barak rejects unity role - and politics [Demick]

02/19/01

[A1] Israeli right seeks reward in real estate [Demick]

02/16/01

[A1] Sharon and Barak agree for unity government [Demick&Morris]

02/15/01

[A1**] Driver rams into Israelis, killing 8 [Demick&Morris]

02/14/01

[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks [Morris]

02/07/01

[A1**] With win, uncertain era begins [Demick&Morris]

02/05/01

[A1**] Barak appeals for votes of Arabs [Reuters]

01/22/01

[A1**] Mideast begins lengthy talks [Morris]

01/16/01

[A1] Arafat offers to give informers amnesty [AP]

01/13/01

[A1] Hussein's cash wins Palestinians' favor [Demick]

01/08/01

[A1**] Clinton to Israel: 'Divide this land' [AP]

01/04/01

[A1] Arafat & Barak envoys are heading to US again [Morris&Landay]

01/03/01

[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations [Morris&Landay]

01/02/01

[A1**] Clinton to meet with Arafat [Savino&Morris]

01/01/01

[A1**] Mideast killings may fuel revenge (Demick)

Appendix C – All headlines

The following are all the headlines that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer between January 1 and March 31, 2001.

03/31/01

[A7] Six Palestinians killed in protests [Morris]

[A7] In Hebron, settlers also clashing with the Israeli police [Demick]

03/30/01

[A1] The trap of violence in Mideast [Demick]

[A7] Bush makes an appeal to both Arafat and Sharon [Edna&Strobel]

03/29/01

[A1] Israel hits Palestinian officers after 2 teens slain [AP]

[A9] Arabs end summit backing a call to resume boycott of Israel [Demick]

03/28/01

[A3] Arabs, divided on Iraq, united in criticising Israel [Demick]

[A3] After two bombings, Israelis increase pressure on Sharon [Morris]

[A3] US votes against UN force in Mideast [AP]

03/27/01

[A1] Jewish infant killed in West Bank gunfire [Morris]

03/26/01

[A1] Volatile vocabulary in Mideast violence [Demick]

03/25/01

[A2] Debate over Iraq takes center stage before Arab talks [AP]

03/24/01

[A4] Sharon resumes building projects in East Jerusalem [Morris]

03/22/01

[A4] UN chief urges Sharon to eas territory closures [AP]

[A4] CIA no longer a Mideast broker [Washington Post]

03/21/01

[A3] Palestinians' “Uphill battle” [AP]

[A3] Bush to Sharon: no forces peace [KR]

03/20/01

[A3] Sharon, in US, cites a rise in terrorism [AP]

[A3] 2 Israelis killed; 60 rifles stolen [AP]

03/19/01

[A3] On eve of US visit, Sharon stresses condition for peace talks [Morris]

03/18/01

[A6] Arafat is told terror must end [AP]

03/17/01

[A4] Palestinian youths take part in rallies [AP]

03/16/01

[A4] Dispite arrests, Israel lifts ban [AP]

03/15/01

[A2] In Mideast, blockades stir both sides [AP]

03/14/01

[A3] In West Bank, Israel relaxes blockade [AP]

03/13/01

[A2] Roadblocks spart protest in West Bank [Demick]

03/12/01

[A1] Artists fuel Arab rage against US and Israel [Raghavan]

[A8[ Sharon sharpens criticism of Arafat [AP]

03/11/01

[A14] Arafat urges resumption of peace talks [Morris]

03/10/01

[A2] Glimmers of hope amid the violence [AP]

03/09/01

[A4] Sharon & Arafat speak of peace, but doubts remain [AP]

03/08/01

[A2] Sharon takes office with a plea for peace [Morris]

03/07/01

[A3] Israelis hoping for change under Sharon [Morris]

[A3] After bombing attacks, a lot of things look suspicious [AP]

03/05/01

[A2] Suicide bomber kills 3 Israelis and injures 66 [Washington Post]

03/04/01

[A2] Hamas plans for suicide bombs [Reuters]

03/02/01

[A2] New Israeli defense minister has warning for Palestinians [AP]

[A2] Blast kills 1; Israelis say Arafat shares blame [AP]

[A2] A Palestinian voice for peace [Demick]

03/01/01

[A16] Israeli army officials say Arafat is ordering terrorist attacks [AP]

02/27/01

[A3] Labor ultimately vote for unity [Demick]

02/26/01

[A1**] Powell to Israelis: relax the sanctions [Demick&Raghava]

02/25/01

[A1**] End violence in Mideast, Powell urges [Raghavan&Demick]

02/24/01

[A6] Palestinian ruling body nears economic collapse [Demick]

[A6] Violence flares anew in Mideast [AP]

[A6] Muslims prode US on abuses by allies [Raghavan]

02/22/01

[A8] Amnesty condemns both Israelis and Palestinians for violence [Reuters]

02/21/01

[A1] Barak rejects unity role - and politics [Demick]

02/20/01

[A2] A Hamas leader is gunned down in the West Bank [AP]

02/19/01

[A1] Israeli right seeks reward in real estate [Demick]

02/17/01

[A3] Barak agrees to stay on in Israel [AP]

Palestinian driver in crash was taking anti-depressants [AP]

02/16/01

[A1] Sharon and Barak agree for unity government [Demick&Morris]

02/15/01

[A1**] Driver rams into Israelis, killing 8 [Demick&Morris]

[A14] In Philadelphia, Netanyahu delpores 'black day for Israel' [Matza]

02/14/01

[A1] Palestinian killed; Israel cites attacks [Morris]

02/13/01

[A3] Palestinians vow more violence in effort to undermine Sharon

02/12/01

[A7] Barak puts conditions on his joining Sharon in government [AP]

02/11/01

[A5] Israel refuses to work with UN rights group [AP]

02/10/01

[A2] Arafat makes call to Sharon [AP]

02/09/01

[A2] Blast rocks enclave in Israel [Morris&Demick]

02/08/01

[A3] Sharon gathers respected team for peace efforts [Morris&Demick]

02/07/01

[A1**] With win, uncertain era begins [Demick&Morris]

[A10] A life of conflict and controversy [Demick]

[A10] Among Arabs, strong words and quieter words [Ghattas]

02/06/01

[A2] Israelis vote today amid rising tension [Morris]

02/05/01

[A1**] Barak appeals for votes of Arabs [Reuters]

02/04/01

[A2] Where all went awary for a man of peace [Morris]

[A2] Barak, Sharon increase efforts [Reuters]

02/03/01

[A2] Latest polls predict a Sharon landslide; Barak sounds upbeat [AP]

02/02/01

[A2] Barak & Arafat won't hold summit [AP]

02/01/01

[A10] Sharon foes talk up Peres-for-Barak switch [AP]

01/31/01

[A9] Barak hopes to win back public before elections [AP]

01/30/01

[A3] Arafat encourages talks after election [Reuters]

01/29/01

[A2] Arafat, Sharon assail Barak for Mideast unrest [AP]

01/28/01

[A4] Israeli-Palestinian talks end without an agreement [AP]

01/27/01

[A4] No agreement, but Mideast negotiations take an upbeat tone [AP]

01/26/01

[A2] In Mideast, progress on borders [AP]

01/25/01

[A2] Despite latest killings, Israel to resume peace talks [AP]

[A2] For Palestinians who aided Israel, a mark of shame [AP]

01/24/01

[A2] Israel suspends peace talks after killing in West Bank [Morris]

01/23/01

[A2] Sharon's past brought to fore [AP]

[A2] Mideast sides focused if not optimistic [AP]

01/22/01

[A1**] Mideast begins lengthy talks [Morris]

[A10] Palestinian father upset by sentence [AP]

01/21/01

[A2] Barak agrees to marathon peace talks [AP]

01/20/01

[A6] Israeli teenager apparently lured to his death by an e-mail girlfriend [AP]

01/19/01

[A3] Shooting death of Arafat ally rocks his inner circle [AP]

Sharon an incentive for accord-seekers [AP]

01/18/01

[A2] Palestinian network chief shot to death [Morris]

01/17/01

[A3] Israeli leader rejects 2 Palestinian demands [AP]

01/16/01

[A4] A squandered chance for Mideast peace

[A1] Arafat offers to give informers amnesty [AP]

01/14/01

[A2] Peres, Arafat join peace negotiations [AP]

01/13/01

[A1] Hussein's cash wins Palestinians' favor [Demick]

[A4] Mideast sides are still talking - but of lowered expectations [AP]

01/12/01

[A2] In Mideast, two sides at table again [AP]

01/11/01

[A2] Sharon says he would not honor accord [AP]

01/10/01

[A6] Palestinian negotiator says it's all or nothing on accord... but low-level talks continue [AP]

01/09/01

[A2] Both sides rally against peace plan [Morris]

01/08/01

[A3] Israel is drawing criticism for using 'pin point killing' tactic [AP]

[A1**] [Clinton to Israel: 'Divide this land' [AP]

01/07/01

[A5] Israelis, Palestinians express pessimism [Reuters]

01/06/01

[A2] President gives up on fast peace deal [Morris&Landay]

01/05/01

[A2] Arab leaders criticize US peace proposal [AP]

01/04/01

[A1] Arafat & Barak envoys are heading to US again [Morris&Landay]

[A16] Violence has only strengthened settlers' resolve [Morris]

[A16] Palestinian objections to US peace proposal [NO NAME GIVEN]

01/03/01

[A1] Arafat expressed his reservations [Morris&Landay]

01/02/01

[A1**] Clinton to meet with Arafat [Savino&Morris]

[A4] In an awaful instant, a violent encounter [AP]

01/01/01

[A1**] Mideast killings may fuel revenge (Demick)

Appendix D - Articles on American news coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Brian Whitaker on the dangers of sloppy journalism

The Guardian

Monday April 9, 2001

A familiar tale from the Middle East: “Palestinians launched three bombs overnight against the Eile Sinai settlement in the far north of the Gaza Strip. Israeli troops responded with tank shells, destroying a Palestinian border post and hitting two houses.”

This report, which happens to have come from the BBC, is familiar not only for the events it describes but also for the way it describes them: the Palestinians attack and the Israelis “respond”.

Military actions by the Israelis are always a “response” to something, even when they strike first. If they haven't actually been attacked, it's a “response” to a security threat.

“Response” is a very useful word. It provides a ready-made reason for the Israelis' actions and neatly brushes off demands for further explanation. It says: “Don't ask us why we did it, ask the other side.”

There's no point in blaming the Israelis for using this device; the question is whether journalists should let it shape their reporting of the conflict.

Portraying the conflict as a series of Palestinian actions and Israeli responses is dangerous, for several reasons.

Firstly, it lends support to the Israeli argument that if only the Palestinians would stop their violence everything would be fine. That might be true for many Israelis, but not for the Palestinians.

Secondly, it builds up - through constant repetition - into a misleading picture of the overall conflict. The violence is not a series of discrete actions and reactions but a cycle (or spiral) in which actions on both sides feed off those on the other.

Thirdly, while Israeli actions are reported as a self-justifying “response”, actions by the Palestinians are rarely allowed either a proper context or an understandable motive.

Obviously there is a limit to what can be said in a news story of 300-400 words, and some journalists will argue that their main job is to report the day's events, not to explain the background.

But I am not suggesting they should turn it into a history lecture; merely that they should at least hint at a broader picture and acknowledge that the Palestinians might have some genuine grievances.

To do this is neither difficult nor unduly word-consuming. Some news agency reports, for instance, routinely work into their stories a five-word reference to the “Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation”.

The Israeli occupation lies at the root of the conflict - and yet, more often than not, journalists fail to remind their readers of it.

The Guardian's electronic newspaper archive contains all the British national dailies, plus the London Evening Standard. A search of this reveals 1,669 stories published during the last 12 months that mentioned the West Bank.

Of these, 49 contained the phrase “occupied West Bank”. A further 513 included the word “occupied” or “occupation” elsewhere in the text. That leaves 1,107 stories - 66% of the total - which managed to talk about the West Bank without mentioning one of the key facts.

Some journalists - particularly Americans - seem reluctant to treat occupation as an established fact and instead treat it as an opinion which should be attributed to someone. Last October, for example, CCN's Jerusalem bureau chief told viewers that Palestinians were angry at “what they regard as the Israeli occupation”.

Others resort to euphemisms: the West Bank is “disputed” or “administrated by Israel”. Some adopt the practice of Israeli officials by shortening “the Occupied Territories” to “the Territories”.

Journalists are also rather timid on the question of Jewish settlers, usually portraying them as a target of violence but more rarely as one of the major causes (which they plainly are). Some of the recent stories about the killing of a 10-month-old Jewish baby, Shalhevet Pass, in Hebron made clear that the settlers there are a tiny and particularly fanatical bunch - though many did not.

One report described Hebron as a “divided city”, when in fact 99.8% of the inhabitants are Arabs. (Jerusalem, on the other hand - with two-thirds of the population Jewish and one-third Arab - is constantly described by Israelis as “undivided”.)

Over the last 12 months, 394 stories in the archive mentioned Jewish settlers. Of these, seven included the phrase “extremist settler” and eight “extremist Jewish settler”. The word “extremist” did occur in 44 of the stories, though not necessarily applied to settlers. Some stories juxtaposed settlers characterised simply as “Jewish” with Palestinians characterised as “extremist”.

The illegality of the settlements under international law also often escapes mention. The phrase “illegal settlement”, used in an Israeli-Palestinian context, appeared only eight times during the last 12 months - and three of those were in readers' letters to the editor.

During the early stages of the intifada newspapers were accused of “dehumanising” Palestinians by publishing numbers but not names of those killed. This was contrasted with the wealth of personal information, helpfully provided by the Israeli authorities, about Jewish casualties.

The lack of Palestinian names was certainly not due to a conscious policy on the part of journalists and, although there are sometimes difficulties in getting the names, efforts have been made to remedy it.

However, last week's search of the archive highlighted another practice which has a similar effect: Jews mainly live in “communities” but Palestinians live in “areas”.

Palestinian “areas” scored 109 mentions over the last 12 months; “neighbourhoods” scored 15 and “communities” only three (one each in the Guardian, Observer and Independent).

In the case of Jews, the positions were reversed: “communities” scored 87, “neighbourhoods” 30 and “areas” 21.

This is clearly not intentional and it may be partly due to the way we speak of Jewish communities in the diaspora. But the overall pattern does suggest a perception - perhaps an unconscious one - that Palestinians are less civilised. Another factor is that “neighbourhood” and, to a lesser extent, “community” are used as euphemisms for settlements. Israeli spokesmen regularly describe the settlement at Gilo as a “neighbourhood” of Jerusalem because it has been unilaterally annexed.

A recent report in the Times, following in the tradition of CNN, said that “Palestinians regard” Gilo as an illegal settlement. Indeed they do, but then so does international law.

Email

brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk

Bias and Fear Tilting Coverage of Israel

By Norman Solomon *

Creators Syndicate, April 19, 2001

A couple of weeks ago, the New York  Times  finally  printed  the

name of  a  12-year-old  organization  called  Rabbis  for  Human

Rights. But the mention had to be bought --  in  a  full-page  ad

expressing support for actions by the group, which is  “the  only

Israeli rabbinic  association  that  includes  Orthodox,  Reform,

Reconstructionist and Conservative rabbis.”

Days before the advertisement appeared on April 8, the  executive

director of Rabbis for  Human  Rights  had  been  arrested  while

participating in nonviolent civil  disobedience  against  Israeli

demolition of houses. “Palestinian homes are being systematically

bulldozed all over the West Bank,” said  a  bulletin  from  Rabbi

Arthur Waskow, director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia. “In

this case, there isn't any pretense of  'security  interests'  or

'military targets.' The  houses  destroyed  yesterday  and  today

belong to ordinary Palestinian citizens whose only crime  is  the

wish to have a roof over their heads.”

Groups  like  Rabbis  for  Human  Rights,  and  Jewish   American

activists like Rabbi Waskow who vocally oppose Israeli  policies,

get short shrift in U.S. news outlets. Meanwhile,  the  reporting

on the Israeli-Palestinian cycle of violence is badly  skewed  by

an endless cycle of media bias.

Searching the Nexis database of U.S. media  coverage  during  the

first 100 days of this year, I found several dozen stories  using

the phrases “Israeli retaliation” or “Israel retaliated.”  During

the same period, how many stories used the  phrases  “Palestinian

retaliation” or “Palestinians retaliated”? One.

Both sides of the conflict, of course, describe their violence as

retaliatory. But only one side routinely benefits from having its

violent moves depicted that way by major American media. The huge

disparity in the media frame is a measure of the overall slant of

news coverage.

To help maintain pressure for a favorable media tilt,  supporters

of  Israel  have  a   not-so-secret   weapon,   brandished   most

effectively as  a  preemptive  threat  --  the  charge  of  anti-

Semitism. Any Americans who speak out  against  Israel's  extreme

disregard for human rights are liable to be in the line of fire.

Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize  winner,  is  a

reminder that victims of tyranny are capable  of  later  aligning

themselves with perpetrators of  enormous  cruelty.  Last  month,

Wiesel delivered  a  speech  to  a  national  conference  of  the

American Israel Public Affairs  Committee,  one  of  Washington's

most powerful lobbying groups. Wiesel declared that  anyone  “who

uses their Jewishness as a context to attack or condemn Israel --

that's something I'm against.” And  he  denounced  criticisms  of

Israel as “anti-Semitism in Jewish leftist circles.”

Such salvos are warning shots that  Joseph  McCarthy  would  have

understood. To quash debate, just smear, smear, smear.

Instead of trying to refute critiques of Israeli  policies,  it's

much easier to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism -- a

timeworn way of preventing or short-circuiting real debate on the

merits of the issues. It is absurd and dangerous  to  claim  that

bigotry is at the root of calls for adherence to basic  standards

of human rights. But the ongoing  threat  of  the  “anti-Semitic”

label helps to prevent U.S. media coverage from  getting  out  of

hand.

Last year, I had an interesting experience with one of  Florida's

daily papers, the Palm Beach Post. A reader's  letter,  published

in early June, charged that a column I'd written  “had  an  anti-

Semitic undertone” because it criticized media spin  for  Israel.

Eleven weeks later, on Aug. 25, the newspaper  printed  a  second

letter from the same reader, objecting to a column I wrote  about

Sen. Joseph Lieberman. This time the letter was more emphatic and

sweeping, though less specific: “I have noticed in  some  of  his

previous columns, he is apt to express anti-Semitic views.”

The Palm Beach Post printed my weekly syndicated column 30  times

during 2000 -- for the last time on  Aug.  19,  six  days  before

publication of the second letter  accusing  me  of  being  “anti-

Semitic.” After that letter came off the press, my  column  never

again appeared in the Palm  Beach  Post.  When  I  inquired,  the

newspaper's  opinion-page  editor  told   me:   “There   was   no

connection.”

Whatever the case may  be,  there's  no  doubt  that  journalists

generally understand critical words about Israel to be  hazardous

to careers. “Rarely since the Second World War has a people  been

so  vilified  as  the  Palestinians,”  comments  Robert  Fisk,  a

longtime  foreign  correspondent  for  the   London-based   daily

Independent. “And rarely has a people been so frequently  excused

and placated as the Israelis.”

Fisk is asking his colleagues to search their  consciences:  “Our

gutlessness, our refusal to tell the truth,  our  fear  of  being

slandered as 'anti-Semites'  --  the  most  loathsome  of  libels

against any journalist --means that we are  aiding  and  abetting

terrible deeds in the Middle East.”

Anti-Semitism is a reality  in  the  world.  Like  all  forms  of

religious and racial bigotry, it should be unequivocally opposed.

The effectiveness of such opposition is undermined by  those  who

cry wolf, using  charges  of  anti-Semitism  as  a  weapon  in  a

propaganda arsenal to defend Israel's indefensible crimes against

Palestinian people.

Robert Fisk: When journalists refuse to tell the truth about Israel 'Fear of being slandered as “anti-Semites” means we are abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East'

Independent - UK, 17 April 2001

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=66956

What if we had supported the apartheid regime of South Africa against the majority black population? What if we had lauded the South African white leadership as “hard-line warriors” rather than racists? What if we had explained the shooting of 56 black protesters at Sharpeville as an understandable “security crackdown” by the South African police. And described black children shot by the police as an act of “child sacrifice” by their parents? What if we had called upon the “terrorist”

ANC leadership to “control their own people”.

Almost every day that is exactly the way we are playing the Israeli-Palestinian war. No matter how many youths are shot dead by the Israelis, no matter how many murders - by either side - and no matter how bloody the reputation of the Israeli Prime Minister, we are reporting this terrible conflict as if we supported the South African whites against the blacks. No, Israel is not South Africa (though it happily supported the apartheid regime) and no, the Palestinians are not the blacks of the shanty towns. But there's not much difference between Gaza and the black slums of Johannesburg; and there's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army in the occupied territories and that of the South African police. The apartheid regime had death squads, just as Israel has today. Yet even they did not use helicopter gunships and missiles.

Rarely since the Second World War has a people been so vilified as the Palestinians. And rarely has a people been so frequently excused and placated as the Israelis. Israeli embassies are now buttonholing editors around the world, saying that it's not fair to call Israel's Prime Minister “hard-line”. And the reporters are falling into line.

Sharon, we are told, may turn into a pragmatist, another De Gaulle; in truth he's more like the French putschist generals in Algeria. They also used torture and massacred their Arab opponents. It needed an Israeli writer - Nehemia Strasler, in Ha'aretz - to point out that Sharon's career spells anything but peace. He voted against the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. He voted against a withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 1985. He opposed Israel's participation in the Madrid peace conference in 1991. He opposed the Knesset plenum vote on the Oslo agreement in 1993. He abstained on a vote for peace with Jordan in 1994. He voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997. He condemned the

manner of Israel's retreat from Lebanon in 2000. He is now building Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land - in total violation of international law  at a faster rate than his predecessor.

Yet we are to believe that it is the corrupt, Parkinson's-haunted

Yasser Arafat who is to blame for the war. He will not “control” his people. He is chastised by George Bush while his people are bestialized by the Israeli leadership. Rafael Eytan, the former Israeli chief of staff, used to talk of the Palestinians as “cockroaches in a glass jar”. Menachem Begin called them “two-legged beasts”. Rabbi Ovdia Yousef, the spiritual head of the Shas party, called them “serpents”.  In August last year, Ehud Barak called them “crocodiles”. Last month, the Israeli tourism minister, Rehavem Zeevi, called Arafat a “scorpion”. Even the South African regime never called the blacks by such vile names.

And woe betide the diplomat or journalist who points this out. Earlier this year, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Paris, accused the Swedish president of the European Union of “encouraging anti-Jewish violence”.  To condemn Israel for “eliminating terrorists”, the centre wrote in a letter to the Swedish prime minister, “recalls the allied argument during the Second World War, according to which bombing the railways leading to Auschwitz would encourage anti-Semitism among the Germans”.  Sweden was making “a unilateral attack against the state of the survivors of the Holocaust”. And the Swedish president's crime? She had dared to say that “the practice of eliminations constitutes an obstacle

to peace and could provoke new violence”. She did not even refer to death squads.

In February Newsweek propagated a virtual fraud on its cover by

showing - under the headline “Terror Goes Global - Exclusive: Bin

Laden's International Network” - a frightening photograph of a man

(head and shoulders), his face covered in an Arab scarf, holding a

rifle in his right hand. The reader would imagine this to be a member of Osama bin Laden's network of “global terror”. But I traced the Finnish photographer who took this picture. He snapped it at a funeral on the West Bank. The man was an armed member of the Palestinian Tanzim militia -- and had nothing to do with Bin Laden. The Tanzim are violent enough. But the cover generically smeared the entire Palestinian people by associating them with the man supposedly responsible for bombing US embassies in Africa.

As that brave American writer Charley Reese said in his regular US

column, the Israelis “have created their own unconquerable enemy”. They have made the Palestinians so crushed, so desperate, so humiliated that they have nothing to lose. We, too, have done this. Our gutlessness, our refusal to tell the truth, our fear of being slandered as “anti-Semites” - the most loathsome of libels against any journalist – means that we are aiding and abetting terrible deeds in the Middle East.  Maybe we should look up those cuttings of the apartheid era and remember when men were not without honour.

THE INDEPENDENT, DECEMBER 13, 2000

Robert

Fisk

In the Middle East jungle, a journalist has to expect a few sticks and stones. A Bahrain newspaper cartoonist once depicted me as a rabid dog (fit, of course, for extermination), and Cairo's most lickspittle columnist called me “a crow pecking at the corpse of Egypt” . But the degree of abuse and outright threats now being directed at anyone -- academic, analyst, reporter -- who dares to criticise Israel (or dares to tell the truth about the Palestinian uprising) is fast reaching McCarthyite proportions. Take Edward Said, the brilliant Palestinian academic who is a professor at Columbia University. He has been facing unprecedented abuse from the Zionist Organisation of America, which last year demanded that he be fired from the Modern Language Association and which now demands on an almost daily basis his dismissal from his professorship at Columbia -- solely because he points out, with clinical ferocity and painful accuracy, the historical tragedy of Palestinian dispossession, the brutality of Israel's continued occupation and the bankruptcy of the Oslo “peace” agreement. Columbia University has issued an unprecedented public defence of Said and “the fundamental values of a great university”, quoting John Stuart Mill and adding that to give way to the Jewish lobby's demand would be “a threat to us all and to academic freedom”.

Too true. Noam Chomsky -- himself Jewish -- is one of the most profound philosophers of our age, but his scathing reviews of the Israeli occupation and America's blind, unquestioning support for Israel now earn him ever more ruthless abuse. In the United States, he wrote recently, a whole population is kept in ignorance

of the facts because “the economic and and military programmes (of Israel) rely crucially on US support, which is domestically unpopular and would be far more so if its purposes were known.”

Ignorance of the Middle East is now so firmly adhered to in the US that only a few tiny newspapers report anything other than Israel's point of view. You won't find Chomsky in The New York Times. It was put very well by Charlie Reese in a recent issue of the Orlando Sentinel -- note the boondocks location -- when he wrote that “Palestinians won't get their independence until Americans get theirs”.

But the attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is now international. We must say that Israel is under siege by Palestinians (rather than occupying Palestinian land), that Palestinians are responsible for the violence (even though Palestinians are the principal victims), that Arafat turned down a good deal at Camp David (though he was offered just over 60 per cent of his land, not 94 per cent), and that Palestinians indulge in child sacrifice (rather than question why the Israeli troops have shot so many Palestinian children).

Israeli ambassadors and Israel's lobbyists have never been such frequent visitors to European newspaper offices, to complain about reports or reporters, sometimes in a quite disgraceful manner. The Johannesburg Star -- a sister paper of The Independent which carries my own Middle East reports -- was confronted by one pro-Israeli group this year which claimed that I was in some way assisting the right-wing historian David Irving -- someone I

have never met and never wish to meet. They subsequently withdrew their allegation.

Then an odd thing happened in Ireland -- at a prize-giving ceremony in memory of a Belfast journalist. Mark Sofer, Israel's ambassador in Dublin, had been invited to talk about reporting in conflict zones to journalism students under the auspices of Co-operation Ireland, a charitable movement dedicated to North-South

relations. But at one point he chose to use the opportunity to attack my own reporting of the Middle East, to suggest that it should not be read or believed. Mr Sofer is, of course, entitled

to his views -- but not to air his prejudices in a charitable forum without allowing a right of reply. The charity has since announced that it “totally dissociates itself” from the ambassador's remarks. So it should.

And yet it goes on. In South Africa, in Europe, in Australia -- I still treasure the five pages of abuse in an Australian lobby group's magazine headlined “The Ignoble Scribe” and accusing me of a “stupor of self-deception”. Oddly, you can now learn more from the Israeli press than the American media. The brutality of Israeli soldiers is fully covered in Ha'aretz, which also reports on the large number of US negotiators who are Jewish. Four years ago, a former Israeli soldier described in an Israeli newspaper how his men had looted a village in southern Lebanon; when the piece was reprinted in The New York Times, the looting episode was censored out of the text.

So here's just one final question. If Arab ambassadors and lobbyists behaved like their Israeli opposite numbers, would we listen to them? Would we respect them? Would we run for cover and print only one side of the story? Would we tell?

Independent (London), 13 December 2000.