|
The Evening Standard (London)
October 27, 2004 Pg. 53
HEADLINE: Why Israel never gets a fair press
by DAVID YELLAND
Unlike the US, not enough senior British journalists grasp the issues as I
write this, we see Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, risking his
political life by trying to push through his policy of closing all Jewish
settlements in Gaza and four on the West Bank. This is big stuff -
historic stuff - which is simply not getting the coverage it deserves here
in Britain.
The real problem is not those news organisations that place Israel too low
down the newslist. It is that many come to the issue with prejudices in
their hearts and hands clasped firmly over their ears.
No major global issue is covered worse in the British media than Israel.
Even in the past few days, when Sharon has clearly put his neck on the
line, he has received little credit - only The Economist has given the
story due prominence, with its Israel's Unlikely Dove front page, its
superb analysis and an excellent leader.
Such is the depth of vitriolic opinion against Sharon, it is simply
unacceptable among most senior hacks even to admit, for one second, that
he might have done something right.
The TV pictures of the anguished Knesset debate, the fact that Sharon's
Likud party is split down the middle, the fact that settlers and their
supporters surrounded the parliament building should, surely, persuade
even the most casual onlooker that this is democracy at work.
Yet, watching the BBC and reading the papers this week you would think
Israel was a monster. The BBC started its coverage of disengagement with
images of Palestinians fleeing Israeli tanks on the West Bank. There was
no attempt to explain that it is the awful leadership of the Palestinians
that has contributed to their plight - or that the whole point of pulling
out of Gaza is to quicken the peace process.
Nor did the BBC quote Sharon himself saying (as he did three days ago):
"We do not wish to rule forever over millions of Palestinians.''
Yesterday, for example, Radio 5 Live carried an overly aggressive
interview with an Israeli politician in which Sharon's resettlement policy
was characterised as a "bit of a ruse", whatever that means.
On BBC1's Breakfast News, the interviewer suggested to an Israeli
spokesman that the new policy would "encourage terrorism".
The Guardian on Monday relegated the story to page two but ran a
reasonably fair analysis by its Jerusalem correspondent, Chris McGreal, in
later pages. Even The Independent, which has an almost vitriolic dislike
of Israel, ran a page lead from Donald Macintyre reporting from the Gaza
Strip which put both sides of the story. This is a rare example where the
written press is at least allowing its reporters to reflect a pro-Israeli
position.
Generally, however, the coverage of Israel is a weak point in the British
media. Unlike in the United States, there are not enough senior
journalists with the necessary understanding of the issues.
Sharon is a much-misrepresented politician - and I have to admit to some
prejudices before I actually met the man for the first time. He came to an
editorial board lunch at the New York Post when I was deputy editor of
that paper.
Sharon was then in opposition - but he knew he would soon be prime
minister, with all the responsibilities that the job entails.
I learned more in that lunch about Israel than I have done before or
since.
Sharon may have been a tough general but he is no brute. His current
policy will almost certainly lead to a new coalition in Israel and then
his own departure from the top job.
Here is a man trying to go out by doing the right thing. He has had scant
credit for it in the British media, which lacks the knowledge or the
balance to try to get the story straight.
|
