The Way the Media Dealt with the Terrorist Attack in Shafa'amr

The Initial Phase of Coverage:
This section covers reporting in the first three hours after the incident took place.

1.    Late and Misleading:
Three television channels remained silent for one whole hour after the terrorist attack. There was no interruption in regular programming, as if the terrorist attack was a routine occurrence undeserving of special coverage. The murder of Judge Azar a few months ago, for example, resulted in an interruption of regular broadcasting. The silence and delay in reporting cannot be chalked up to the time required to check facts in the field, especially as there is no comparable delay when Jews are killed in similar circumstances. Moreover, some journalists, writers and columnists evidently made no use of the delay in reporting, eventually producing reports with distorted information, lacking basis in reality.

2.     Distortion of Facts:
The Voice of Israel, the radio station that perceives and promotes itself as a fast and reliable news medium, chose to mislead the public with inaccurate information. The Voice of Israel initially reported that, "A Druze soldier shot at the passengers in the bus." Channel 2, a full two and a half hours after the attack, did everything in its power to turn the story it had into something else. Reporting focused on an "altercation between passengers", with the shooting due to a "conflict between the passengers and the soldier, who was drawn into it, with these results."

We at the I?lam Media Center, cite these as examples of "distortion," and not "lack of information", because obfuscation of the facts was systematic, with one aim: to effect distance from the guilt of the Jewish shooter. To this end, the shooter was described in one instance as ?not Jewish.? Not only did Channel 2 tenaciously cling to doubtful accounts of the murderer's identity and his origins, but broadcast only one picture to its TV viewing audience: the picture of the "angry mob,? Well into the night, commentators remarks noting that, "the mob is still angry," were drawn from the same picture shot in full daylight several hours earlier. 

3.     Diminishing the Importance of the Tragedy:
Even when the media reported on the incident without attempting to distort facts, efforts were made to diminish its extent and importance.

a.   "Gunfire," rather than "terrorist attack" was used to describe the incident. Channel 2 was the first to report on the incident. Moshe Nestelbaum and Yonit Levy continually avoided using the term, "terrorist attack," in stark contrast to standard practice in similar incidents where the victims are Jews, calling it a "shooting", an "event", or "an event that started with gunfire." Some individual journalists called this incident a ?terrorist attack? without being this an editorial policy, but a personal decision.

b.   The reporter for Channel 10, Asaf Zohar, refused ? 28 hours after the terrorist attack ?to see the murderer as a terrorist: "They [the Arabs] want to see the shooter as a terrorist, exactly like the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Palestinians." Viewers were left with the impression that this was not really terrorism, the implication being that terrorist attacks in which Arabs are murdered are somehow different from terrorist attacks in which Jews are murdered.

c.    Yiron London and Tzvi Yehezkeli on Channel 10 was to retained an easy, relaxed atmosphere. London's laughter and humor is one indication of the atmosphere cultivated. At the top of the broadcast, he gave no acknowledgement to the headline newsflash of a "major event, with shooting and deaths," beginning his report with news on the Maccabi Haifa soccer team, reporting with more seriousness than he did for the terrorist attack in Shafar?amr. After turning to a report by a correspondent in Jerusalem with pictures of what had happened, Tzvi Yehezkeli joined London in the studio, also with calm, serene face as if the murder of these four people was an imaginary event, involving the deaths of imaginary victims. People from Nazareth reported trying to call the studio to speak with London on the live broadcast, but the producer would not patch their calls through, though she did listen to complaints.

d.   The event ended with the murder victims ? without mentioning those that were wounded.  No reports or interviews were made from the hospitals, no emergency numbers were broadcast, and no psychologists assisting the families were interviewed. In sum, not one media outlet posed even one question about the wounded, in stark contrast to standard practice in similar incidents where the victims are Jews. The first report on the status of the wounded was made by Channel 10 on Friday evening, and an interview was conducted with one of the wounded. Channel 2 broadcast pictures of the hospital, without interviewing a single doctor describing the condition of the wounded, and the extent of their injuries. Had the victims been Jews, we would have heard words like "tragedy," "trauma," and the like.

The Second Phase of Coverage
The argument that there is no information is no longer valid, nor is the argument that we do not know what happened.  At this stage, TV Channels attempt to shape and construct public opinion vis-?-vis the terrorist. 

4.     Obscuring the National Identity of the Victims:
The victims are called ?Muslims,? and ?Christians,? and not, ?Arabs.? Once again, Channel 2 employs a method all its own, with Nestelbaum emphasizing that, "there are some people who are not Jewish," [Note: there were no Jewish victims in the attack, outside of the murderer himself.] The media instantly recognizes the identity of Arabs when individuals are suspected to be, or actually are, guilty of some wrongdoing. In these cases, and even when absolutely clear that no societal consensus of any kind is represented in the individual?s actions, he/she is made out to represent all Arabs. When Arabs are injured or killed because they are Arabs, their identity is suddenly unclear and confounded.

5.     Taking a Negative Attitude Towards Arabs, Even When They are Victims:
Several reporters take a negative stance towards Arabs.  The reporter Yussi Mizrahi, chose to focus on the "angry mob," and its nationalistic cries; but not before he used incomprehensibly muddled terminology, according to which the terrorist's motivation was "ideological," in contrast with that of the angry mob motivated by "nationalism."  The song Biladi, Biladi, became, in Mr. Mizrahi's words, a "call to extremism." It should be noted that the song expresses Arab feelings towards the homeland, and contains no call for revenge or hatred of another nation. This is in sharp contrast to the cry of "Death to the Arabs," which is heard not only during or after every terrorist attack carried out against Jews, but even in the stadium at every soccer game between Arabs and Jews. With very rare exception, no alarm is sounded about these calls, nor are they labeled, "extremist.? The journalist Ayala Hason, from Channel 1, turned the story of the murder of four innocent Arabs into the story of the fate of the murderer: "They slaughtered him," "They took their fury out on him," and, "They lynched him,? Hason dedicated much broadcast time to the question of whether the murderer was alive or dead interviewing the Inspector General of the Police, the Northern Regional Commander, Danny Ronen, and other police and army personnel. What the Hebrew media should have covered instead was the fact that not one Arab called for "Death to the Jews."

6.      Intensive Discussion of the "October Riots"
[a reference to the events of October 2000, when 13 Arab citizens were killed by Israeli armed forces] or the Possibility of Riots: Almost every media outlet referred to the ?October riots,? in their coverage of the Thursday's terrorist attack with a few even mentioning them at the top of the broadcast. Tzvi Yehezkeli and Yiron London (Channel 10) discussed the ?October riots? at length. Moshe Nestelbaum, in a broadcast the same evening of the attack on Channel 2, repeatedly reported on the security measures being undertaken, such as deployments of the General Security Services (GSS). The following day, "Reshet Bet" (?Second Network?) and "Galei Zahal" (?Army Waves?) radio stations emphasized preparations due to a fear of riots that included the deployment of police forces near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

7.    Imposing Responsibility on the Arab Leadership:
Most of the media (broadcast and print) did not hesitate to impose the task of "calming things down," on the Arab Members of Knesset (MKs), asking one Arab MK after another, "What is your role in calming things down?"  Ayala Hason dedicated all of her interviews with Arab MKs - Issam Makhoul, of Hadash, and Jamal Zahalka of the National Democratic Assembly - to this subject. During the course of these interviews, she did not utter a single word acknowledging the dozens of warnings about imminent dangers to the Arab community,  a concern that emanated not only from the acts of the extreme right, but from the racism that has become the official ideology of the State, its institutions, and Israeli society in general. The daily newspaper Ma'ariv published a headline on p. 8 of its Monday 8 August 2005 edition (among other articles), in which it depicts the Arab leaders as extremists: "Residents' Restraint and Leaders' Threats." The editorial piece of Ha?aretz on August 9 was dedicated in part to a condemnation of Arab leaders.

8.    Preoccupation with the Fate of the Murderer While Emphasizing Humane Aspects:
Even before the report by Channel 1 correspondent Moniv Faras that the murderer was killed, Ayala Hason was careful to continually ask the question, "What was the fate of the murderer?" throughout the evening broadcast. Hason asked that question of every interviewee in the field. Even as the Hebrew media ignored the identity and life stories of murdered and injured victims, they made extra efforts at humanizing the murderer, posing questions such as, "Who is Nathan Zade?  How did the brilliant child become a "despicable" murderer?"  The media entered his family home, relating his personal story, interviewing parents and friends, allotting more importance to the issue of his burial, than they did to the burial of the victims. Disagreements over where he should be buried was given headline status in most cases. For the first time, the media asked such questions as, "How did he become a murderer?" a valid and humanitarian question to pose, to be sure. But why was it never asked before this incident? Why does the media fail to ask this question when people commit suicide-bomb attacks, after having lost loved ones, their siblings, parents and children?

9.     Reconciliation is Requested When the Murderer is Jewish, the State's Efficiency is Investigated When the Murderer is Arab:

The Hebrew media did interview an Arab representing the co-existence camp saying that : "We, the Arabs, will not let this "event" affect the 'fabric of the relations between Jews and Arabs', or affect 'co-existence' or the 'Peace Process'.? In this case, the mayor of Shafar?amr, Orsan Yasin, fulfilled that role for most of the media. When the victim is Jewish, not a single journalist would dare to speak of "co-existence? thus rendering the "desire for revenge" for legitimate.

The Third Phase of Coverage

1.     Reveals the Israeli Interest:
Questions about the irresponsibility of the police, the army, and the GSS begin to be posed, not out of concern for additional terrorist attacks against Arabs, but because of the fear of additional attacks against Jews.

2.    Complete Shift to Observations of Arab "Revenge":
Journalists, news anchors, interpreters and columnists referred to the "Effect of the October Riots", as defined by Moshe Nestelbaum, of Channel 2. Even though Arabs were the victims, on the television screens they transformed into illegal rioters with thousands of police personnel, and even battle helicopters called in to deal with them.

Ramifications and Conclusions

The TV Channels in Israel do little to promote values of democracy and justice solely lacking within Israeli society, when it comes to the rights of the Arab society. The media contributed to preparing the groundwork for the terrorist attack in Shafar?amr by quietly and consistently passing over racist commentary or incidents against Arabs, and by initiating accusations against Arab leaders for "not taking responsibility," and "not doing anything for their society." It was the media that designated the Arabs as fraught and extremist, and it was the media that revelled in highlighting every argument or statement that it considered to be "extremist". The media misleads the public by denying the fact that Arab citizens act legitimately when they try to decide for themselves what is "good for them," and quite regularly presents Arabs only in the roles of ?the accused? or ?the traitor.?

The media, along with other actors, tries to obscure the identity of Arab citizens, categorizing them by religion, distributing high marks for loyalty to those of a specific religion, while accusing others of betrayal and disloyalty. Yussi Mizrahi determined that the murderer did not want to harm Christians. The newspaper Yediot Aharonot noted that the murderer opened fire on Muslims and Druze; and in an interview on Channel 1 on the same day, the people of Tapuach - the extreme right settlement the murderer made his home - repeated a number of times that "We don't harm Druze."  Muslims, Christians, and Druze - are all Arabs.

Haz_r, N_diya, M_sh_l and Nadir paid with their lives for "the political culture" that the official policies of Israel have nurtured for over 50 years. Arabs are the Number One Victims of the deteriorating policies and political culture in Israel. Arab citizens of the State have to be very assertive and politically savvy in efforts to convince the Israeli State, society, and its media that they have the right to live with honor and dignity, as equals.


Report produced by the I?LAM: Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel.

{mosimage}