Apartheid

inclusive, democratic and secular vision of that state. With this
message and the exposing of Israeli apartheid, the Palestinians have a
real alternative to present to the international community, and the
conditions are such that the world will listen. 675
273
The world did listen and look in September and October 2000, as the Second Intifada,
or rather, the first contained civil war, broke out in the Occupied Territories, and to some
extent in pre-1967 Israel itself. Yet, the voices that practically drowned out all others in
massive spin campaigns were those of the pro-Israeli, US-owned media and US and Israeli
government officials, spokesmen and hired teams of public relations professionals. 676 The
propaganda since then has remained astounding in both scope and depth, as Said acutely
observes:
Never have the media been so influential in determining the course of
war as during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which, as far as the Western
media are concerned, has essentially become a battle over images and
ideas. Israel has already poured hundreds of millions of dollars into
what in Hebrew is called hasbara, or information for the outside world
(hence, propaganda). This has included an entire range of efforts:
lunches and free trips for influential journalists; seminars for Jewish
university students who over a week in a secluded country estate can
be primed to ‘defend’ Israel on the campus; bombarding congressmen
and -women with invitations and visits; pamphlets and, most
important, money for election campaigns; directing (or, as the case
requires, harassing) photographers and writers of the current Intifada
into producing certain images and not others; lecture and concert tours
by prominent Israelis; training commentators to make frequent
references to the Holocaust and Israel’s predicament today; many
advertisements in the newspapers attacking Arabs and praising Israel;
and on and on. Because so many powerful people in the media and
publishing business are strong supporters of Israel, the task is made
vastly easier. 677
Even the public broadcasters – who are by law supposed to be neutral and objective –
are hopelessly biased, perhaps especially those in the USA. The American media monitoring
organization, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a rare voice of sanity in a national
media landscape that could benevolently be described as an extension of the publicity
departments of the Israeli government and army, has repeatedly expressed concern about this.
For example, a FAIR study of six months of the National Public Radio (NPR) network’s
coverage found that ‘…81 percent of Israeli conflict-related deaths were reported, but only 34
percent of Palestinian deaths. Strikingly, NPR was even less likely to report the deaths of
Palestinian minors killed; only 20 percent of these deaths were reported, as compared to 89
percent of Israeli minors’ deaths. While NPR was more likely to cover Israeli civilian deaths
675 Hagopian 1998
676 See Plushnick-Masti: Israelis, Palestinians Wage Media War, Reuters, July 16, 2001. Although this article
tones down the enormous extent of the actual dominance of pro-Israeli media content, it does acknowledge the
lopsidedness of reporting in favor of Israel. On the intimate, almost incestuous relationship between the mass
media and the (other) economic, political and military elites in the USA, see Herman & Chomsky 1994 (1988).
Some of the following passages can be found shortened in Löwstedt & Madhoun: The Intifada, Hasbara and the
Media, 2003: 47-56
677 Said September 3, 2001. Cf. Pilger: Why My Film is Under Fire: The Pro-Israel Lobby Intimidates Journalists
to Ensure that Most Coverage Remains Biased in Its Favour, 2002; Eltantawi: US Media Turn a Blind Eye to the
Israeli Occupation, 2002; Dunsky: What Constitutes Full and Fair Media Coverage of Israeli-Palestinian Issues?
2002.