Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
[citation needed] In the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War Israeli usage initially adopted the standard terminology of referring to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied territories" (ha-šeṭaḥim ha-kevušim).Finally, the West Bank area, excluding East Jerusalem, was renamed "Judea and Samaria" (Yehudah we-Šomron),[7] a term chosen to affirm the Biblical basis for the Jewish people's connection to that territory.[8] Rashid Khalidi describes how, in the wake of the Six Day War, Israeli policy-makers have designated East Jerusalem not as "occupied" or a cultural and spiritual centre for Muslims and Arabs for 14 centuries, but as "the eternal, indivisible capital of Israel" and "reunited".[13] In 2002, Greg Myre wrote of the rise of a "verbal arms race" where "(m)uch of the Mideast conflict is about winning international support", one which escalated with the onset of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.[14] Brian Whitaker, reviewing 1,659 articles covering events in the Guardian and Evening Standard for this period (2000–2001), observed the same effects, adding that omission of important adjectives was notable: 66% failed to mention that the incidents took place in an occupied territory.[d] Thus, Israeli violence is restricted to responses to specific events like putting down the First and Second Intifadas, Israel's wars in Gaza and the Palestinian knifing attacks in 2015–2016,[e] which were mainly the work of lone wolves.[19] Such omissions and alterations in the terms used are cited as an example of the pervasive use of euphemisms or loaded terminology in reportage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a problem which the International Press Institute thought sufficiently important by 2013 to issue a handbook to guide journalists through the semantic minefield.[28] Robert Fisk argues that the descriptive language used by major political players and the press to describe the occupation is one of "desemanticization": occupied lands become "disputed territories"; colonies are described as "settlements", "neighbourhoods"[i] "suburbs", "population centres"; dispossession and exile are referred to as "dislocation"/"displacement"; Israelis are shot by "terrorists" but when Palestinians are shot dead they die in "clashes"; the Wall becomes a "fence" or "security barrier".[6][2] The Intercept reported that in October 2024, on the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war, an internal memo written by Philip Pan and other senior New York Times editors instructed the paper's journalists to restrict, or avoid or refrain generally from using the terms genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupied territory, Palestine, and refugee camps.In response to attempts to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli territorial policies[36] concerns have been expressed that the topic itself is at risk, and that the political pressures restricting research and discussion undermine academic freedom.Academics like Sara Roy have argued on the other hand that "the climate of intimidation and censorship surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both inside (at all levels of the education hierarchy) and outside the U.S. academy, is real and longstanding".[o] Attempts have been made to silence several high-profile critics of Israeli policies in the territories, among them Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Nadia Abu El-Haj and William I.[37][49] Internal Israeli studies have argued that local press coverage has traditionally been conservative, reflecting the often tendentious and biased views of the political and military establishment, and similar tendencies have been noted in Palestinian reportage.[15] Tamar Liebes, former director of the Smart Institute of Communication at the Hebrew University, argued that Israeli "Journalists and publishers see themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders".[56] A former vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs in the United States has remarked that many rabbis themselves address their congregations by tiptoeing around the topic of Israel and Palestine, and that there is a widespread fear that speaking forthrightly will make their community life and careers insecure.[59] She concluded that coverage of (a) the refugee problem; (b) settlements; (c) the historical and political background, (which are either frequently skimmed over or entirely omitted), and (d) violence, "reflects the parameters of U.S. Middle East policy", regarding both U.S. aid and support for Israel.[61] According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, it is better to talk about the Palestinian resistance and decolonisation of Palestine from the river to the sea, instead of using the misleading language of the American and Western media such as "Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas" or "peace process"."[64] A study by openDemocracy found that in BBC coverage of the Israel-Hamas war from 7 October to 4 November, the word "massacre" was only used to describe Israeli deaths, despite a larger number of Palestinians being killed.On September 30, 2000, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and other media outlets published a photograph of a club-wielding Israeli police officer standing over a battered and bleeding young man.[103] The young man in the picture was 20-year-old Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish American student from Chicago who had been studying at a Yeshiva in Israel; the Israeli police officer in the photograph, actually came to his rescue by threatening his Palestinian assailants.[108][109][110][111][112] Seth Ackerman of FAIR described the attention given to the photo, as well as the two NYT corrections, as disproportionate to a "plausible, though careless" assumption resulting from "garbled information from the Israeli photographer".[75][76][118][126] Israelis cite the reporting surrounding the Battle of Jenin Palestinian allegations that a massacre had taken place, a claim disputed by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.'[133] On August 5, 2006 Charles Foster Johnson of Little Green Footballs accused Reuters of inappropriately manipulating images of destruction to Beirut caused by Israel during the Second Lebanon War.[136] On October 28, 2006, The Independent published an article, by Robert Fisk, which speculated, based on information from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, that Israel may have used depleted uranium weapons during the 2006 Lebanon War.The baby's father, Abdul-Halim Helou, said that his son Mohammed was born with a lymphatic disorder and needed removal of the fluids that accumulated in his respiratory system, and had only a few months to live.[147] The Associated Press later learned that news of Mohammed Helou's death had already appeared on March 4 in the local Arabic newspaper Al-Quds and that Hamas was now trying to recycle the story to capitalize on the family's tragedy."[150][non-primary source needed] The Associated Press then retracted the story, explaining that "The report has been called into question after it was learned that a local newspaper carried news of the baby's death on March 4.[166] According to the pro-Palestinian LiP Magazine, the movie "offers a great starting point for thinking about media misrepresentation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and useful analysis of how language is used to manipulate public opinion," but is short on "solid statistics and facts to back up some of its blanket statements".[169][170][171] According to an Associated Press article, Israelis and Palestinians make use of social media to promote "rival narratives" and draw attention to their own suffering to gain international sympathy and backing.[179][180] UN Under-Secretary General Valerie Amos wrote, "It is regrettable that an OCHA staff member has posted information on her personal Twitter profile, which is both false and which reflects on issues that are related to her work.
Arab–Israeli conflictHistoryMedia coverageInternational lawReutersarmored vehicleImperial War MuseumIsraeli–Palestinian conflicthostile media effectmedia watchdog groupsYasir SuleimanDictionsemanticdisputed territoriesoccupied territoriessecurity fenceapartheid wallfreedom fighterterroristSix-Day WarEast JerusalemJudea and SamariaRashid Khalidibelligerent occupationPalestinian territoriesOperation Defensive ShieldGreg MyreAl-Aqsa IntifadaBrian WhitakerGuardianEvening StandardHebronGilad ShalitGaza StripPalestinian West Bank parliamentariansIsrael Defense ForcesSecond IntifadasPalestinian knifing attacks in 2015–2016lone wolveseuphemismsloaded terminologyInternational Press InstituteNew HistoriansFrench colonization of AlgeriaDutch settlement of South Africademonizing termRobert Fiskshahidhuman shieldscollective punishmentThe InterceptIsrael–Hamas warPhilip PanNew York Timesgenocideethnic cleansingPalestinerefugee campsuniversity campusesacademic freedomCampus Watchhasbara organizationCAMERAHonestReportingPalestinian Media WatchAnti-Defamation LeagueEhud BarakPallywoodMohammad DurrahBeitunia killingsconspiracy theorySara RoyTony JudtNorman FinkelsteinJoseph MassadNadia Abu El-HajWilliam I. RobinsonTamar LiebesHebrew UniversityJewish Council for Public AffairsJohn MearsheimerStephen WaltLe MondeIlan PappeFairness and Accuracy in ReportingGlasgow Media GroupopenDemocracyIsrael-Hamas warmassacrePeace, Propaganda & the Promised LandCanadian Broadcasting CompanyJournalism ethics and standardsMedia ethicsJournalistic scandalethics and standards of journalismscandalsIsrael-Palestinian conflictBattle of JeninHuman Rights WatchIslamic JihadKiryat ArbaJerusalem PostHaaretzIsraeli Border PoliceEhud OlmertHamas charterFalse compromiseMoral equivalenceMoral relativismBret StephensMedia of IsraelIsraeli Military Censormedia blackoutsRichard FalkIra StollNew York SunPhilippe KarsentyMuhammad al-DurrahNetzarim junctionFrance 2Al-DurrahSecond IntifadaDr. Ra'anan GissinDaniel SeamanGiora EilandAssociated Press