The whole world's against us

by Aviv Lavie

24 June 2002

If there was any doubt about the nature of the public discourse in Israel these days, along came the Ted Turner and CNN scandal. This proved that public debate is entirely from the gut, and the voice of reason, at least for now, has been shoved into a deep freeze.

All Turner essentially said was "both sides use terror," making a comparison between the attributes of military occupation and Palestinian terrorism. In other words, there are no "good guys" in this story, just terrorists on both sides. He did not express any support for terror by either side. Even with a microscope it is impossible to find anything he said justifying terrorism – if it's at all possible to shove every statement into the rubric of condemnations that form the backbone of Israel's current-events chat shows.

Turner's statement reflected the narrative accepted by most of the world about what has been going on here for the last two years. There are some – not many, and led by America – who accept Israel's official version, which says Palestinian terror is the only problem, and that Israel's activities in the territories are only meant to protect itself and its citizens. Others believe the occupation is violent and criminal, and that the suicide bombings are a particularly horrifying way to resist occupation. And there are some – mostly in the Arab world – who regard Palestinian terror as a legitimate means in the national liberation struggle.

Turner spoke for the mainstream, which is the conventional wisdom now in most of the Western world. Israelis don't have to agree with him, but if Israel doesn't want to hear him it's because Israel doesn't want to hear what the vast majority of the world has to say about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those who call for a CNN blackout are in effect proposing to limit the acceptable view to everything between Effi Eitam and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer.

The attack on CNN is particularly ridiculous because the veteran network belongs to the ruling establishment in America, and its broadcasts generally reflect the Israeli-American view that terrorism is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

The incident with the parents of Sinai Kenan, the baby killed in the Petach Tikva bombing, was bad public relations for CNN in Israel, and the network apparently behaved insensitively toward the parents of the child. But the decision it made – to broadcast a report on the family of the suicide bomber instead of an interview with the Kenan parents was entirely reasonable from purely journalistic standards.

For us Israelis, interviews with bereaved families are a kind of national therapy; but a third-party journalist, less emotionally involved, naturally looks for the story and from the newsman's point of view, the murderer's side of the story is often more interesting than that of the victim. That's true, by the way, in the opposite direction.

If those Israelis who have perpetrated a long series of terror attacks against Palestinians are ever caught, their story – the motives, the methods, the families' reactions – will be much more interesting than an interview with the Palestinian victims' families. But no doubt, if in such a case CNN prefers to broadcast an item on the Israeli terrorists, it will be accused of doing so to besmirch Israel.

The cable and satellite companies that broadcast CNN in Israel also serve as a platform for European and Arab world networks that have a far more critical attitude toward Israel than CNN, far more frequently depicting the difficulties of Palestinian daily life under the occupation. Those who want to erase Israeli screens of the network Turner founded (and no longer controls) should block all the foreign broadcasts into Israel. When we're left with Yosef Barel, Ehud Ya'ari, and Arutz 7, there really won't be anything left to get angry at.

The argument over how the foreign news companies cover the events here has accompanied the intifada practically from its first day, and apparently won't be over soon. The Israeli media's assumption is that the gentiles are hostile to us. While that is a totally subjective outlook, it is mostly presented here as fact. In every debate over the objectivity of the media, it's important to remember who is debating.

When Israelis hand out grades of objectivity to the journalists of the world, they are reminiscent of football fans who are always convinced the referees slighted their team. The other team's fans, by the way, feel the same way.

When the argument is over the dry facts, and the reports carry errors of fact that can be proved, complaints should be made, and more credible reporting demanded. But usually the argument is over the viewpoint, the terminology, the world view. In that context, the Palestinians tend to note that for every reporter of Arab origin working for one of the Western networks (in Israel, they particularly like to criticize CNN's Rula Amin), there are three Jews.

The Israeli attack on CNN yielded quick fruits. Ted Turner apologized, CNN's executives were quick to disassociate themselves from him and to announce he has no influence over the content of the broadcasts, and Eason Jordan, news director for the network, hurried to fly over to Israel and offer "compensation" – a series of reports on the victims of terrorism. Those wondering how authentic are the apologies, and especially what made CNN work so hard to dispel Israel's anger, should have paid close attention to a discussion last Wednesday on the DocuMedia show on Channel One.

Shai Bazak, former spokesman for former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and then consul-general in Miami, recalled what happens when the American media gets into a tussle with Jewish capital. "I have a friend in Miami who used to take out a lot of advertising in the Miami Herald. There was a time when the paper's reporting was very hostile to Israel. He told them 'I'm going to pull all my advertising.'" Two weeks later, their reporter here was recalled, a new reporter showed up and since then they've reported objectively and he's advertising with them again. The Americans understand only money."