TV As Servant of Prejudice : Centuries-Old Themes Infect Coverage of Israel

In the events in the territories over the past months, the press was not an uninvolved factor, without influence over what was happening, and simply reporting on events. The press--I am primarily referring to overseas television--was an explicitly involved factor in the events themselves. They were a contributory, inciting and aggravating factor--without necessarily having any malicious intent, but simply because the activators of the riots needed the media, and manipulated them in order to make waves and win support for their struggle.

The logic is simple: Those who instigate the disturbances in the territories are interested in arousing world opinion in their favor. The means of enlisting sympathy and political support on the international scene are the press, and particularly the foreign television cameras.

In the modern world something has not “happened” unless it has been shown on television. International television is not there, and therefore the war in Afghanistan is forgotten; the war in Indochina does not exist, and the Armenian unrest in the Soviet Union receives scant attention.

In contrast, the incidents in which children were throwing stones at Israeli soldiers were turned into the central news and military story throughout the world, a world in which no less than 25 wars are being waged.

When incidents occur in two or three towns or villages in the West Bank, they occupy the screens of the world. The remaining 447 or 448 towns or villages in the West Bank, which have been peaceful, are never mentioned or screened.

The television news report does not reflect, obviously, the historical background, the hatred, the blank refusal to negotiate peace, the taunts, the irritations, the full depth of the struggle for existence of the people of Israel in all its facets. It only reflects the local drama, the ephemeral moment, the partial truth--which is so many times worse than half-truth, and occasionally even worse than the blatant lie.

What we are facing today is a continuation of the struggle for our existence. This time the principal weapon is, regrettably, the foreign television camera. It has already caused us political and economic damage of serious dimensions. It can be a decisive weapon.

This is a question of ethics and conscience to which the journalistic establishment has to give some consideration.

There is another aspect, not frequently discussed, to this problem. I would like to suggest that the present controversy regarding coverage of events in Israel by the media is not a new phenomenon. It is tied in with a far broader, far deeper issue which catalyzed the founding fathers of the Zionist movement over a century ago--the irrational attitude of the Western World toward Jews, Judaism and, in our case, the Jewish state. I believe that that is the determining factor in shaping the image of Israel in the world. It is that deep-rooted irrationally, that historic inability to relate normally to Jews and Israel, that prevents objective appraisal of events or achievements in the state of Israel.

There is imbalance in the attention paid to events in Israel compared to other events taking place in the world; and also imbalance in the way in which events happening in Israel are themselves reported.

My question is: Why?

The first reason for this has to be the disproportionate fascination of the Western World with Jews; a phenomenon that is centuries old, and for which countless Jews throughout the ages have paid with their lives. Throughout the European Middle Ages two themes basically characterized the Christian anti-Semitic attack: first, that the Jews were responsible for every misfortune; and, second, that Judaism, and therefore Jews, had no right to exist.

In the 20th Century, the ultimate monstrosity, the ultimate obscenity, found expression in Nazi Germany, where the early rallies of the Nazi party took place in giant arenas under banners reading “Die Juden sind unser ungluck!”-- “The Jews are our misfortune!”

The second theme--that Jews had no right to exist as Jews--was perhaps even more insidious, because it was a matter of argument, not of fact. From the early Middle Ages onward, Jews were forced to participate in public debates, known as Disputations, against churchmen. The charge that they had to defend was that of their own existence--and the standard format, if one can speak of such a notion, was that the Jews, or their representatives, had to win the debate, convincing the local bishop, or ruler, of the validity of Judaism--or face compulsory baptism, expulsion, or death. No Jew ever won!

It was taken as axiomatic that Jews had no ipso facto right to their identity--no “right to exist.”

Open anti-Semitism is no longer a feature of public life in the civilized world. But I have to wonder whether these two themes, arising from feelings deep in the psyche of Christian civilization, do not, nevertheless, survive subconsciously in Western culture, and manifest themselves in the treatment of Israel in world media?

Isn’t it the case that over and over again, we see Israel (or Israelis) portrayed as central and causative to events in which they are in fact totally peripheral? And isn’t it the case that while no one questions the right to exist of any other truly sovereign nation, Israel alone--established by majority vote of the United Nations--faces a daily “Disputation by Media,” where there is a permanent undertone demanding of Israel that it justifies its very existence, or demands of Israel that it “explain” its normal and legitimate participation in international politics, in international trade, or in international affairs in a way demanded of no other country? Our enemies, unfortunately, have proven themselves very adept at activating this subconscious chord in the media psyche.