The conflict between the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine is certainly not new. It started long before the creation of Israel. And the basis of this conflict, the claim on the same piece of land by two nations, has not changed through the years. The violence produced by this conflict has also been present since the day the first Jewish settlers arrived in what was then an Ottoman province. The number of casualties was lower, but only because the population itself was smaller and because their weapons were less effective.
What has changed is the public opinion expressed by the tone of the UN and the media coverage related to the conflict. At the birth of the State of Israel and until a number of years after the 1967 War the media had a positive attitude towards Israel. It painted a picture of a small country surrounded by far larger enemies that threatened without cease to annihilate it; in this view, brave little Israel was depicted not only as a courageous survivor, but also as a successful reproduction of Western social-democracy and human rights in a sea of despotism. The subject of Israeli-Arab conflict had not yet apportioned to itself more media attention and UN scrutiny than its relative importance implied it should.
The Arab Palestinians that became refugees as a result of the Arab-Jewish struggle for possession of the Holy Land in 1947-8 were the real victims of policies instituted following the war. The policy of the Arab states was to leave the problem unresolved – thereby leaving the question of Palestine open - and Israel could and would not permit the return of large numbers of refugees as such a policy would have undermined the character and security of the nascent Jewish State. The UN has created a special organization, the UNRWA, to aid the Palestinian refugees next to the UNHCR that aids all other refugees with an independent budget larger per capita than that of its sister organization.
Significant interest in the plight of the Palestinian Arabs and changes to the media’s portrayal of the refugee problem began materializing in the seventies. The figure below shows the sharp increase in the percentage of country-specific United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerned with the Middle
East in 1970 and continuing over subsequent decades. In 2006 the number of resolutions related to the Palestinian conflict amounted to more than a quarter of all resolutions. During the same period of time the media gradually changed its tone, first depicting Israel as an occupying and aggressive state and later even as an apartheid state and worse. The proportion of anti-Israeli and pro-Arab Palestinian reporting increased, with some news outlets becoming effectively PR agents for the Arab view of events. This change was evident in the many reviews of the Six Day War published in 2007 and is evident currently in the way that the Gaza conflict is being reported. A clear example of such one sided reporting took place in the wake of Israel’s military operations against Qassam rockets in Gaza on the fifteenth of January; in clashes, an estimated seventeen Hamas militants were killed. Media outlets throughout the world were quick to report Palestinian claims of a massacre in Gaza, failing to note entirely or relegating to a trivial detail the fact that these were armed combatants and not civilians. Moreover, they died fighting, so the appellation massacre, although good propaganda, was not appropriate.
The reasons for this change are manifold; most have little to do with the conflict itself. The main contributors are the change in the moral perception of armed conflict by the general public in the west, the intrusiveness and ubiquity of emotive reporting, and the increasing strength of the Arab world and its PR savvy.
When Israel was established, the Second World War has just come to its end and the notion that wars could be just and necessary was still very strong in the public consciousness. There was also a deep feeling of guilt in the West with regard to the Jewish people which made it difficult to criticise the Zionist desire for an independent Jewish state. Furthermore, for nations with Christian cultures the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Palestine was quite obvious. In the 50s and 60s the western public was exposed to a series of independence wars in the European colonies and conflicts like the Vietnam War. The new generation began associating war not with heroic struggles against evil like the Second World War, but rather with petty and cruel conflicts in which superior Western powers sought to crush miserable locals struggling for a better life. For some, it became axiomatic that the West only fought wars to oppress just national liberation struggles out of racist and exploitative motives. When the Six Day War produced enormous territorial gains for Israel, it was easy to associate it with what was now considered despicable colonialism in the Western mindset and to interpret it as an act of premeditated aggression rather than as a defensive war. The rise of a Jewish settlement movement in the conquered territories further reinforced this association. Pro-Palestinian propagandists exploited this development to depict the whole Zionist movement as no more than an instance of Western colonialism. Interestingly, the territories that are now called ‘the occupied territories’ were occupied since 1948 by Arab countries yet never referred to as such until after they passed into Israel’s hands.
When the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli rule, media interest in and access to them increased greatly and their plight was publicised internationally. As a consequence of the violence of the Second Intifada, the Israeli security establishment enacted harsh measures to prevent terrorist attacks. Palestinian freedom of movement within the territories was severely curtailed and access to Israel for work or trade restricted. Life in areas under Palestinian control suffered from infighting and occasional Israeli incursions to limit terrorist activities. Due to the fact that these incursions frequently took place in densely populated residential areas, there were civilian casualties despite efforts to avoid this. Natural sympathy for the weaker party and pictures of seemingly ragtag Palestinian fighters and stone throwing youths confronting an apparently first rate Israeli army created a rich pasture for reporters, producing interesting, often one sided stories that moved public opinion away from Israel. The huge influence of such representations on public opinion is also recognized by the Palestinian PR machine, which has been caught staging scenes and feeding them to media outlets in order to fan hostility against Israel.
An important development of the seventies was the realisation in the Western World that it was strongly dependent on Arab oil. This recognition strongly influenced European Middle East policies and their positions on the Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the emergence of a unified block of Islamic nations under the aegis of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) mobilized the political clout and voices of over a billion people against Israel. These voices were strongly reinforced by the left which has made Israel one of the classics of their ideological struggle, casting it as the evil western/white power against the innocent non-western/non-white power. As a consequence, the Arab Palestinian cause became an integral part of all of their activities, mainly demonstrations and conferences, which are not related at all to Palestine (e.g. anti globalization). Another active channel to anti Israel opinions in the west is created by the millions of Muslim immigrants. All these voices are in turn broadcast through the media and impact public opinion.
Israel is unable to move public opinion towards a more balanced view of the conflict in large measure due to the fact that it is an open society. There is absolute freedom of speech in Israel and thus the views expressed by the media and individuals are very diverse, reflecting not one but many different understandings of the conflict. Instead of providing a clear Israeli position, Israeli society provides a multiplicity of positions which precludes the effective propagation of an official narrative for PR purposes.
As long as there will not be significant changes on the ground (like the establishment of an Arab Palestine living peacefully side by side with Israel), one can expect to continue seeing the shift of public opinion away from support for Israel.
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Tamara Fai
What has changed is the public opinion expressed by the tone of the UN and the media coverage related to the conflict. At the birth of the State of Israel and until a number of years after the 1967 War the media had a positive attitude towards Israel. It painted a picture of a small country surrounded by far larger enemies that threatened without cease to annihilate it; in this view, brave little Israel was depicted not only as a courageous survivor, but also as a successful reproduction of Western social-democracy and human rights in a sea of despotism. The subject of Israeli-Arab conflict had not yet apportioned to itself more media attention and UN scrutiny than its relative importance implied it should.
The Arab Palestinians that became refugees as a result of the Arab-Jewish struggle for possession of the Holy Land in 1947-8 were the real victims of policies instituted following the war. The policy of the Arab states was to leave the problem unresolved – thereby leaving the question of Palestine open - and Israel could and would not permit the return of large numbers of refugees as such a policy would have undermined the character and security of the nascent Jewish State. The UN has created a special organization, the UNRWA, to aid the Palestinian refugees next to the UNHCR that aids all other refugees with an independent budget larger per capita than that of its sister organization.
Significant interest in the plight of the Palestinian Arabs and changes to the media’s portrayal of the refugee problem began materializing in the seventies. The figure below shows the sharp increase in the percentage of country-specific United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerned with the Middle
East in 1970 and continuing over subsequent decades. In 2006 the number of resolutions related to the Palestinian conflict amounted to more than a quarter of all resolutions. During the same period of time the media gradually changed its tone, first depicting Israel as an occupying and aggressive state and later even as an apartheid state and worse. The proportion of anti-Israeli and pro-Arab Palestinian reporting increased, with some news outlets becoming effectively PR agents for the Arab view of events. This change was evident in the many reviews of the Six Day War published in 2007 and is evident currently in the way that the Gaza conflict is being reported. A clear example of such one sided reporting took place in the wake of Israel’s military operations against Qassam rockets in Gaza on the fifteenth of January; in clashes, an estimated seventeen Hamas militants were killed. Media outlets throughout the world were quick to report Palestinian claims of a massacre in Gaza, failing to note entirely or relegating to a trivial detail the fact that these were armed combatants and not civilians. Moreover, they died fighting, so the appellation massacre, although good propaganda, was not appropriate.The reasons for this change are manifold; most have little to do with the conflict itself. The main contributors are the change in the moral perception of armed conflict by the general public in the west, the intrusiveness and ubiquity of emotive reporting, and the increasing strength of the Arab world and its PR savvy.
When Israel was established, the Second World War has just come to its end and the notion that wars could be just and necessary was still very strong in the public consciousness. There was also a deep feeling of guilt in the West with regard to the Jewish people which made it difficult to criticise the Zionist desire for an independent Jewish state. Furthermore, for nations with Christian cultures the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Palestine was quite obvious. In the 50s and 60s the western public was exposed to a series of independence wars in the European colonies and conflicts like the Vietnam War. The new generation began associating war not with heroic struggles against evil like the Second World War, but rather with petty and cruel conflicts in which superior Western powers sought to crush miserable locals struggling for a better life. For some, it became axiomatic that the West only fought wars to oppress just national liberation struggles out of racist and exploitative motives. When the Six Day War produced enormous territorial gains for Israel, it was easy to associate it with what was now considered despicable colonialism in the Western mindset and to interpret it as an act of premeditated aggression rather than as a defensive war. The rise of a Jewish settlement movement in the conquered territories further reinforced this association. Pro-Palestinian propagandists exploited this development to depict the whole Zionist movement as no more than an instance of Western colonialism. Interestingly, the territories that are now called ‘the occupied territories’ were occupied since 1948 by Arab countries yet never referred to as such until after they passed into Israel’s hands.
When the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli rule, media interest in and access to them increased greatly and their plight was publicised internationally. As a consequence of the violence of the Second Intifada, the Israeli security establishment enacted harsh measures to prevent terrorist attacks. Palestinian freedom of movement within the territories was severely curtailed and access to Israel for work or trade restricted. Life in areas under Palestinian control suffered from infighting and occasional Israeli incursions to limit terrorist activities. Due to the fact that these incursions frequently took place in densely populated residential areas, there were civilian casualties despite efforts to avoid this. Natural sympathy for the weaker party and pictures of seemingly ragtag Palestinian fighters and stone throwing youths confronting an apparently first rate Israeli army created a rich pasture for reporters, producing interesting, often one sided stories that moved public opinion away from Israel. The huge influence of such representations on public opinion is also recognized by the Palestinian PR machine, which has been caught staging scenes and feeding them to media outlets in order to fan hostility against Israel.
An important development of the seventies was the realisation in the Western World that it was strongly dependent on Arab oil. This recognition strongly influenced European Middle East policies and their positions on the Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the emergence of a unified block of Islamic nations under the aegis of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) mobilized the political clout and voices of over a billion people against Israel. These voices were strongly reinforced by the left which has made Israel one of the classics of their ideological struggle, casting it as the evil western/white power against the innocent non-western/non-white power. As a consequence, the Arab Palestinian cause became an integral part of all of their activities, mainly demonstrations and conferences, which are not related at all to Palestine (e.g. anti globalization). Another active channel to anti Israel opinions in the west is created by the millions of Muslim immigrants. All these voices are in turn broadcast through the media and impact public opinion.
Israel is unable to move public opinion towards a more balanced view of the conflict in large measure due to the fact that it is an open society. There is absolute freedom of speech in Israel and thus the views expressed by the media and individuals are very diverse, reflecting not one but many different understandings of the conflict. Instead of providing a clear Israeli position, Israeli society provides a multiplicity of positions which precludes the effective propagation of an official narrative for PR purposes.
As long as there will not be significant changes on the ground (like the establishment of an Arab Palestine living peacefully side by side with Israel), one can expect to continue seeing the shift of public opinion away from support for Israel.
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Tamara Fai
