Trying to buck the news blackout

Ha'aretz ^ | Monday, March 18, 2002 Nisan 5, 5762 | By Aviv Lavie

[Phil V.]

w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m

---

Trying to buck the news blackout

If and when Anthony Zinni ever finishes his shuttles between Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat, a reporter dealing in security affairs joked yesterday, he might want to try solving the problems between the IDF Spokesman's Office and the TV channels, particularly Channel Two. It looks like the two sides need a creative mediator.

The latest storm was caused by a report broadcast on Friday night and then rerun on Saturday night, on Channel Two's news show. It showed an IDF force taking over a house in the Al-Ayida refugee camp. During the briefing before entering the house, the soldiers are told to break down the door with a hammer, and if that didn't work, to use an explosive brick.

That's what they do. The result: The mother of the family is mortally wounded and lies on the floor, bleeding. The children stand behind her, choking back tears. The father tries calling an ambulance, but it is trapped between checkpoints. The soldiers continue moving through the house, and break into the next house by cutting through the wall. The daughter begs them not to break the wall, but they ignore her. One of the family members asks the soldiers a question, and is shouted at to shut up. To top it all off, one of the soldiers says to the cameras, "I don't know what we're doing here. Purification. Apparently it's dirty here. It's not clear to me what a Hebrew soldier is doing so far from home."

The report's power lay in the matter-of-fact manner in which the incident was documented. The soldiers did not depart from orders and regulations. They did not intend to harm the woman or any of the residents. Nonetheless, the results were tragic. Later, it was reported, the woman died.

Immediately after the report was completed, the IDF spokesman was swamped with angry telephone calls from the most senior officers in the army. They all asked, "Is this why you stick us with the reporters?"

The answer is no. The IDF was not at all interested in the report being broadcast, at least not those sections described here. But to the dismay of the IDF spokesman, at a certain point his office lost control over the material that reached the screens.

The affair began with the series of IDF raids on refugee camps and towns in recent weeks. At first, the army refused to let reporters accompany the soldiers, but after enormous pressure by the media, and after the IDF realized that allowing reporters in could serve the army's interests, the army decided to work by pool arrangement. That means that the IDF would attach a camera crew and a few reporters to each operation, and when they returned to their offices, they would pass the material on to the other reporters.

Through the IDF filter

For the reporters, it was a convenient arrangement, offering relative comfort and security, as well as the obvious advantage of being on the front line, even if from a very specific angle - that of the IDF soldiers. In exchange for all that, the IDF Spokesman's Office imposed a condition: All the material collected during by the pool participants would be "filtered" - in other words, approved by the IDF spokesman before publication. It would be shelved if the officers vetoed the material. Channels One and 10 agreed. There is a dispute about Channel Two's position.

A priori, it should have been clear that if some channels agreed to let their material go to the spokesman for approval, while Channel Two did not, an explosive situation would be created. Indeed, about two weeks ago, Channel One's military commentator, Ron Ben-Ishai, came back from the field with an interesting report: Golani soldiers dedicating a song to Ariel Sharon along the lines of "Come down to us .. and take us home in coffins," which was sung during the Lebanon war. Ben-Ishai gave the material to the IDF spokesman, which shelved it. Within the context of the pool, the pictures and sound also went to Channel Two. They hurried to prepare their tape for broadcast, and only a telephone call from Ben-Ishai to Ram Landes, news editor at Channel Two, kept it off the air. Ben-Ishai told Landes that even if his commitment to the IDF spokesman was problematic, he had given his word. If Channel Two broadcast the material, it would in effect be breaking Ben-Ishai's commitment. Landes accepted the argument, and the Golani soldiers' songs, for the moment at least, were sent to the archives.

But from that point on, says Channel Two, they made clear to everyone that they would not accept the spokesman's arrangement, and henceforth would ignore the his decisions about what could and could not be shown. Nonetheless, Channel Two reporters continued to accompany the forces, with the approval of the IDF Spokesman's Office.

The next development came last Friday. In the last two weeks of intensive military activity, military correspondents were in the field almost daily, only reaching their editorial offices in the evening, shortly before broadcast time. Dozens of hours of tape that reached the TV stations every day from the pool were never used, with most thrown into the archives without anyone even looking at them. At Channel Two, however, they sat some people down to scan all the material, and that's how they found the report about the family, which ironically was shot by Channel 10's Yinon Magal, the station's military reporter. Channel Two's Ruti Shiloni edited the material into the report shown on Friday night.

A short while before it went on the air, the IDF Spokesman's Office, and Magal, learned that Channel Two was going ahead with the report. For Magal, it was an insufferable situation. He had brought this good material in from the field, but got a thumbs down from the IDF Spokesman's office; while his news company abides by the IDF rules, Channel Two ignores them.

The IDF Spokesman's Office used its own pressure on the Friday news magazine at Channel Two, conducting difficult negotiations with Landes. Eventually, Landes agreed to give up some of the more damning images, and broadcast the rest. Channel Two says that everything broadcast was ultimately shown with the approval of the IDF Spokesman's Office. They, however, say that Channel Two brutally broke the agreement, that from from the start Channel Two had never said it would not adhere to the arrangement for the pooled material.

The broadcast, of course, resulted in fury at the Spokesman's Office inside the army. Today, a summit meeting between the IDF spokesman and the representatives of the three TV stations is scheduled, to try to work out clear guidelines. Meanwhile, the IDF Spokesman's Office has announced that the entire issue of journalists accompanying IDF forces is being reexamined.

Honey and sting

The refusal by Channel Two's news magazine to accept the conditions of the IDF spokesman is based on the most fundamental rules of journalism. But in the current environment, a lot of independent thinking and professional backbone is required to follow that rule. It is difficult to believe that independent media outlets in a democratic state would agree to let the military review their reports form the field - not, heaven forbid, by the military censor, but purely for the army's image. That condition enraged several of the reporters and commentators. Ben-Ishai, for example, says "that was appropriate for the War of Attrition, but by the Lebanon war, it was irrelevant." But the decisions were made at a higher level. In their defense, the TV people say that without the IDF's help, they would not be able to report on the war from the scenes of fighting, and the lack of information from the field would only be worse.

The IDF Spokesman's Office sees things very differently. The IDF feels "it is inconceivable that we accompany the reporters, take care of their security, impose them on the brigade commanders, and then get spit in the face." If we are going to let people cover us, they say, then the pictures have to go through us. Asked if reporters who forgo that deal - getting neither the army's honey nor its sting - will be allowed to enter the territories independently, the IDF Spokesman's Office says no. LIke all other Israeli citizens, they are prohibited from entering Area A.

The army, therefore, does not leave the press much choice. But it seems they could get along without IDF favors if they really wanted to. Just as Suleiman al-Shafi of Channel Two reports from Gaza, presumably with considerable production efforts, the TV channels could produce independent reports from the fighting in the West Bank. But in that case they might face pressure from the Palestinian side, and particularly, harm from Israeli tank fire. The reporters, and this is understandable, prefer to be behind the Israeli tanks, not in front of them. Nonetheless, their editorial offices must find a solution that is more creative than relying on the IDF's image filtering.

Another thought comes up in the wake of the specific controversy surrounding the report shown on Friday night on Channel Two: The footage showed only the tip of the iceberg of what is really happening in the territories when the IDF comes into contact with Palestinian civilians. Many civilians, women and children, have died since the beginning of this month in the West Bank and Gaza, and practically none of it has reached Israeli TV screens. The Israeli public - partly by choice - is living with a complete information blackout with regard to the extent of the damage and death taking place only a few kilometers away from their homes. Maybe the public doesn't want to know, but the media has a responsibility, which it has shirked.

It's also interesting to follow the internal logic of those inside the political and security establishment who were against the broadcast of the report. The National Union/Yisrael Beitenu faction in the Knesset issued a statement yesterday saying the report revealed "a professional distortion and a moral flaw in Channel Two, which denigrated the IDF soldiers trying to wipe out terror." Denigrated? Channel Two offered no comment on the images it broadcast, letting the pictures speak for themselves. And those were precisely the pictures that Avigdor Lieberman and his ilk wanted to see for so long: soldiers going from house to house in the refugee camps. So why do the pictures on TV make them feel so uncomfortable?

_{By Aviv Lavie}

[Thud]

We were allowed to go after the insurgent's "cadres" aka "infrastructure" (people, not buildings) in Vietnam. The Israeli army is not allowed to do so in the West Bank or Gaza. OTOH, the insurgents in Vietnam had sanctuaries in adjacent countries which is not the case in the West Bank and Gaza. They do have sanctuaries all right - inside which are tolerated by the Israeli govt. This is nuts.

Any squeamishness by the IDF in situations such as the one depicted in the story will cause them casualties. As an example, which was mentioned in the story, terrorists smuggle explosives for suicide bombers in ambulances.

There is a lot the IDF could do here, short of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide, which it is not permitted to do for domestic political reasons.

[massadvj]

There are numerous issues separating the Israelis and the Palestinians, but one thing they have in common is that the foot soldiers on each side are overzealous religious fanatics. The slash and burn tactics of the Israeli army are legendary throughout the world. Our own State Department has cited them for their many human rights abuses. These stories are tame in comparison with past stories of IDF overreaching.

Yes, we did the same thing in Vietnam. In the end, the entire country turned against us, and we had no friends left among the civilian population. I can see the same thing happening here to the Israelis in Palestine.

The reason Arafat is in power is because the Israelis put him there. Let's not forget that. Perhaps it's time to remove him. The problem is, Israel and the IDF have so alienated the Palestinian people, a democratically-elected leader would likely be far worse.

Israel has had since 1948 to establish positive relations with their neighbors and to demonstrate the benefits of democracy in a region where tribalism reigns supreme. Instead, with our complicit assistance, the Israelis have emerged as the biggest, baddest tribe of them all.

Any hope we ever had for pluralism in the Middle East is dead at this point. We define peace based on how people will be divided rather than how they will be united, and that's the real tragedy.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the additional comments.

[Thud]

massadvj

Comments interspersed.

"There are numerous issues separating the Israelis and the Palestinians, but one thing they have in common is that the foot soldiers on each side are overzealous religious fanatics."

Israeli foot soldiers are conscripts from the great mass of the Israeli population, and most of the latter are secular. This statement is such a whopper that I flat out say it is propaganda and that it makes all the rest of your post suspicious. You have a lot of explaining to do here.

"The slash and burn tactics of the Israeli army are legendary throughout the world. Our own State Department has cited them for their many human rights abuses. These stories are tame in comparison with past stories of IDF overreaching."

Cite sources, please. Israels serve three years of active duty (and 90-day active tours while reserves), while Palestinian "foot soldiers" are short-term volunteers. There is a world of difference between the two. As an example, Mexican civilians loved U.S. Army regulars during the Mexican-American War, because they were well-behaved, and despised the short-term American volunteers who looted, raped, burned, pillaged, murdered, etc.

I know a considerable amount on this subject and your statement looks like propaganda.

The human rights abuses I've heard our State Department has cited Israel for concern settler activity - seizing Arab land - not occupation troop behavior. Prove my ignorance here.

"Yes, we did the same thing in Vietnam."

Not in urban areas, and rarely in rural ones. It was still too much in the latter, but as a proportion it really was tiny, eespecially compared to (a) the good things we did and (b) the civilian casualties & physical destruction we caused with indirect fire weapons - artillery, mortars & aircraft.

"In the end, the entire country turned against us, and we had no friends left among the civilian population."

BS. We lost for other reasons, specifically the corruption and weakness of the RVN regime, not because of our troops' behavior. Your statement here is flat out propaganda. That war was lost before we ever got in it and then we fought the wrong enemy - the VC instead of the RVN regime. Our whole effort in Vietnam merely postponed the inevitable and killed a lot of people, most of whom would have survived, albeit unhappily, had we stayed out.

"I can see the same thing happening here to the Israelis in Palestine."

You overlook details such as the Pacific Ocean and terrorism. The V.C. weren't killing American civilians in America.

"The reason Arafat is in power is because the Israelis put him there. Let's not forget that. Perhaps it's time to remove him."

Absolutely true. The Israelis did it to themselves. Consider, though, that democracies sometimes have to prove the absence of alternatives to a gruesome necessity by trying and failing at the alternatives, before their public develops the will to do the gruesome necessity. IMO putting Arafat as leader was Israel trying an alternative to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

"The problem is, Israel and the IDF have so alienated the Palestinian people, a democratically-elected leader would likely be far worse."

You ignore the 50+ years of Arab propaganda and hate taught to Palestinian school children. They've taught 5 year-olds to be suicide bombers for years. You can believe a lot of screwy things by ignoring evidence contrary to your opinions. I have a hot stock tip for you about Enron.

"Israel has had since 1948 to establish positive relations with their neighbors and to demonstrate the benefits of democracy in a region where tribalism reigns supreme."

No, Israel did not conquer and occupy all its neighbors in 1948.

"Instead, with our complicit assistance, the Israelis have emerged as the biggest, baddest tribe of them all."

They were that way in 1948 and 1956 without our help.

"Any hope we ever had for pluralism in the Middle East is dead at this point. We define peace based on how people will be divided rather than how they will be united, and that's the real tragedy."

Enron.

[College Repub]

I doubt they are. I dont mind your occasional ping, just not more than 5 per day of the same type of thing..I'll come across it anyway in my daily searches and your extra pings just clutters up my self-search.

[massadvj]

Cite sources, please

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. State Department on Monday released its annual human rights report, criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians during the last several months of violence in the Middle East.

The report singled out Israel more so than in recent years for its treatment of non-Jewish citizens. It said Israel's human rights record against Arabs had "worsened" in the past year, mostly because of clashes between the Israelis and Palestinians since October.

"Israel's overall human rights record in the occupied territories was poor" during the last few months of the year, it said.

"Israeli security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses during the year" and "sometimes exceeded their rules of engagement, which provide that live fire is only to be used when the lives of soldiers, police, or civilians are in imminent danger."

There is an old common law axiom that goes: "wrong in one, wrong in all." So I won't bother to respond to rest of your post, which is full of inaccuracies and pro-Israeli spin.

[Thud]

"There is an old common law axiom that goes: "wrong in one, wrong in all." So I won't bother to respond to rest of your post, which is full of inaccuracies and pro-Israeli spin."

Such as my outing of your silly claim that Israeli soldiers are religious fanatics.

[Phil V.]

You must leave FreeRepublic. Reasoned debate IS NOT ALLOWED!

(thank you)

[Thud]

I clicked on your link to the other thread and understand your email better now.

It's funny how the blame-Israel first crowd is so blind to Israeli domestic politics - they just don't understand why the secular Israelis want to abandon aka return the "occupied territories", even in Jerusalem. The secular Israelis are hoping the settlers stay there and that the Palestinians won't let 'em back into Israel.

And massadvj really, really, didn't want to deal with my contention that the US was on the wrong side in the Vietnam War.

[veronica]

Phil you have an unhealthy attachment to me. You did Freepmail me, I could post it but why bother. You know I am not dennisw. Be a good boy and get over it.

[Dark Wing]

People who ignore history are sure to be mugged by it.

The leaders of the RSVN were the people who helped the Japanese genocide the Viche French colonists in 1944 and kissed the rings of the returning De Gaulist French in 1946.

[LarryLied]

The plot thickens.

[CommiesOut]

Brrrr... It's cold here in Siberian gulag, comrades.

[LarryLied]

Our whole effort in Vietnam merely postponed the inevitable and killed a lot of people, most of whom would have survived, albeit unhappily, had we stayed out.

Sure. The communists just wanted the best for Southeast Asia and the world. Everything was America's fault. We should haven't tried to stop communist expansion anywhere. The Soviet Union would have reformed all by itself.