When it comes to international coverage of Israel, the past month has undoubtedly been marked by Sheerin Abu Akala. Beyond the intense coverage of her death and funeral, headlines in Israel also raged around a CNN “investigation” based on Palestinian testimony, and by cosmic coincidence was published two days before the PA’s “investigation” findings, the results of which were known in advance. Both stated that not only was Israel responsible for the journalist’s killing – the trigger was deliberately pressed. The whole incident made it possible to understand how much the Palestinian Authority lives on the negative public relations it manages to squeeze out of international media about Israel, and how much those media outlets are willing to cooperate with it.
The New York Times published no less than 12 headlines about the killing of the journalist from Al Jazeera. During the first three days, the story about her received regular non-stop updates, and one of them noted that 2022 was a fatal year for journalists. Indeed, since the beginning of the year, no less than 36 journalists around the world have been killed during their tenure. Had the Times had little awareness, it would have been this headline that raised the biggest question mark: Of these 36, why did only Abu Akala’s death receive such massive coverage?
This is actually a big part of the problem. Are the journalists killed in Ukraine not important? Some did not even receive a single headline in the paper, not even a mention. The best known of these, Brent Renault, an American citizen who even occasionally wrote for the New York Times, won a four-headline record. But Abu Akala’s death is three times that of Renault’s death, and to the same extent as the total headlines published about the 35 other dead journalists combined.
Ironically, the editorial published in the Times in early June about Abu Akala only demanded more intensive coverage of the investigation into the circumstances of the death, because “the public has a right to know.” Not about the death circumstances of other journalists of course, but just more and more about the circumstances of her death.
The essence of anti-Israel disproportion, then, is not just the tone of the articles, and not just filtering information about Palestinian violence that is not brought to the readers’ attention, but an inflated focus on incidents. When you cover the same incident over and over again, a false feeling is created that journalists in Israel are constantly being killed.
Lite terrorism
During May, the New York Times published the most stories about Israel since the beginning of the year, a total of 29 (in practice there were a few more, but not on the main page, the opinion page, the world page and the Middle East page that I monitor). Eleven of them dealt with the accidental death of Abu Akala, and only three of them dealt with the deliberate murder of the axes in Elad and the capture of the heinous terrorists who committed it.
In the best editorial tradition of the newspaper, the word “terrorism” did not appear in the headline or subtitle of coverage of the murderous ax attack in Elad, but only in the text, and as part of a quote from an Israeli source on the affair. If a hate-ridden extremist Muslim had been an assassin-slayer while shouting Allah Akbar anywhere else in the world, presumably the case would have been defined as a terrorist attack. Why do only terrorist incidents in Israel have mitigating circumstances?
The murder of security man Vyacheslav Golev in Ariel was not reported, as was the stabbing of a policeman in Jerusalem, an attempted attack in the Old City and another in Tekoa. No terrorist was arrested with a knife and another terrorist was arrested with an ax on his way to the attack. Hamas’ incitement and repeated threats have not been mentioned even once, nor has it claimed responsibility for the assassination in Ariel. The Turkish Foreign Minister’s media visit, as well as the flag parade, Jerusalem Day and Independence Day (but also the Nakba Day) were also ignored.
Another disturbing fact is the suspicious reference to information coming from official sources in Israel, while information coming from Hamas or the Palestinian Authority is described without suspicion, as if it were a very reliable source. The New York Times, for some reason, likes to forget that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that the Palestinian Authority is an autocracy, with no freedom of expression, a free press or a minimal commitment to the truth. Imagine a situation where information from another autocracy would be treated that way. For example, the New York Times would report on Russia’s statements without questioning them as if it were a credible source that never deals with lies or propaganda.
Of all the biases, the Abu Akala incident was the most jarring in May. Nine journalists have been killed in Ukraine since the beginning of the year, eight have been killed in Mexico, some were Americans or worked for American media outlets. Only the death of Abu Akla al-Jazeera received floor coverage. Of course, not a word was said about al-Jazeera’s character, its sources of funding or the station’s level of credibility.
Such an excessive reference actually isolates the Jewish state, which ostensibly has to meet different standards from those of the rest of the world. This is exactly the difference between criticism and anti-Israel bias, which, although not rooted in anti-Semitism, encourages anti-Semitism. When international media claim that they are merely criticizing, and that they are not anti-Israel, that should be the answer.
God of small details
Here are some anecdotes published in May that are interesting to note: In an article published in the Times about Hezbollah for losing its majority in the Lebanese parliament, the organization was described as a “military group supported by Iran, which the US treats as a terrorist organization.” For Hamas, it is also defined as a terrorist organization by the United States and is also supported by Iran. But this definition has never been attached to Hamas so far, and it is hard not to wonder why. Even as the United States tightened sanctions on Hamas during the month, the incident was simply not reported.
In an article published about the possibility of another chance for Netanyahu, he was described as “leading the collapse of the peace talks in 2014,” as if the Palestinian Authority was not a party to those talks. This is interesting, because it does not seem that the current government is receiving much refinement in the newspaper (although it is possible that the coverage was relatively worse during Netanyahu’s time, I did not monitor it at that time). The anti-Israel sentiment is even greater now, so what does it matter who is in power? In any case, Israel is snatching anti-Semitism from the newspaper.
In an article published on the retirement and return of Jida Rinawi Zoabi to the coalition, she was defined as “a member of the Palestinian minority from the left-wing Meretz party.” With such definitions, it is no wonder that confusion has arisen. Rinawi Zoabi is an Israeli Arab, meaning she belongs to the Arab minority in Israel (even if she identifies with the Palestinian people). The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and therefore not a minority. Beyond that, the PA’s schools are educating against hatred of Israel and killing Jews, and the Hamas leadership is openly striving to replace Israel and erase it.
This definition seems like a small detail, but it is important for understanding the situation, and it seems that the New York Times does not really help this understanding, but tries to shape the perceptions of its readers according to its doctrine and not according to the reality on the ground.
“Attacks”, not terrorism
April did not mention Holocaust Remembrance Day, and May did not mention Memorial Day. The 24,000 victims and their families were not mentioned, nor was the Israeli decision not to celebrate with fireworks this year, to take into account a large population of post-trauma victims. Apparently there are those who prefer that the whole vulnerable side of Israel remain invisible. But it exists.
Almost all attempted attacks are unreported, and some of the attacks that end in murder are ignored (such as that of security man Vyacheslav Golev in Ariel, for example). Not only are they not reported – it turns out they are not counted either. One of the articles stated that since March there have been five “attacks” in Israel (the word terrorism is not mentioned), while there have been dozens. The warming of relations with Saudi Arabia was reported sparingly on the business page only, and the visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister was not reported at all, although the warming of Israel’s relations with the countries of the region greatly affects the conflict. It makes Hamas feel irrelevant, so it intensifies its threats and attempts at incitement. But this whole part of the story just isn’t told.
The avoidance of Hamas coverage also continued in May. The number of mentions of the organization in the newspaper since the beginning of the year reaches only 33, and none of them appears in the headline or subheading. The name of Yahya Sanwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, has been mentioned only once since the beginning of the year and a total of 26 times ever, and he is defined as a “military leader.” His entire background story – including his cruelty to the Palestinians who tortured him to death with his own hands, or the fact that he underwent life-saving surgery in an Israeli prison, or the fact that his brother was abducted by Gilad Shalit and threatened to slaughter him if his brother is not returned to Gaza.
So, in fact, not only is the Palestinian Authority taking every opportunity to discredit Israel and preserve its rot in the dark, Hamas is doing the same. It can be said that as long as the coverage does not point to the enormous problematic nature of the Palestinian leadership, it is not really pro-Palestinian, because this method actually preserves the misery of the Palestinians. They may gain some media sympathy as a people, but as long as sympathy is also attributed to their impersonal leadership, they will not achieve freedom, democracy, state or human rights.
The monitoring is performed on the home page of the New York Times website, the opinion page, the world page and the Middle East page.
[email protected]