The art of balance

The art of balance: Adel Darwish reports on how the narrative of reporting Israel has changed in the British media, making the job of Israel's new ambassador to London an unprecedented challenge.

MIDDLE EASTERNERS, WHETHER Palestinians or Israelis, Jews or Muslims, or any of a dozen other identities of this complex mosaic, have a schizophrenic relationship with Britain.

For the Arabs, Britain has frequently been an historic friend who helped liberate Arabia and the Levant from the Ottoman Turks, protected them in olden days from the external enemies, whether European naval powers, Persian expansionism, or the Russian bear growling to reach the warm waters of the Gulf; and, more recently from the ambitions of ideological demagogues like the late Colonel Nasser and Colonel Gaddafi, or even from existentialist threats, by the likes of Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, the Arab media and nearly all educational history books of the members of the League of Arab Nations, teach schoolchildren about the 'perfidious Albion' who betrayed the Arabs, handed over Palestine to the Jews with the 'infamous' Balfour declaration, promising a home land to the Jews in 1917. Meanwhile Britain remains the most sought after destination for the majority of young Middle Eastern people looking for a brighter future, even from areas traditionally and culturally Francophone, such as the Levant and North Africa.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Like their Arab cousins, the Jews are also somewhat schizophrenic when dealing with Britain. The pioneers of the Jewish nationalist movement were grateful to secure a sympathetic hearing in London, and Britain was a safer haven for Jewish refugees fleeing prosecution in Europe. Jewish leaders last century were grateful to Britain for the moral stand taken by Sir Winston Churchill and his leadership for defeating the Nazi, while hundreds of Jews fought within the British armed forces to defeat the forces of fascism. At the same time, many Israelis hold a bitter memory of Britain fighting Jewish terror groups (including Irgun and the Stern Gang) and limiting immigration.

Today Britain's role as a mediator is curtailed on either side. Arab radicals and leftists who have hijacked the media, frequently misrepresent Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Israeli opinion formers present the UK as pro-Arab, not to be trusted in the same way they can trust America; while the British media is also traditionally distrusted by both sides. However, despite decades of stalemate and setback, leading British Middle East experts as well as pro-peace Israeli and Arab activists, still want to see a greater role for British diplomacy in reaching the much sought two-state solution.

In this regard, Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UK is proving to be more than just a diplomatic envoy presenting his nation's interests to the Court of St James's. A career diplomat, former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs who has also served in the US and Germany, Prosor also sees two faces of British society.

He admires Britain for "its liberal fairness and decency" but is worried that such values have not been seen by people in his home country for some time, obscured, he believes, by leftist "extremists who have 'hijacked' the debate over Israel".

During his six months in the post Prosor has been on many television and radio programmes; given various lectures and appeared on panels in places where the audience is traditionally hostile to Israel. In addition to talking to The Middle East, he has given interviews to Fleet Street's major papers and written columns stating the need for fair and accurate reporting of Israel in the media. He insists he is not trying to convince the British media to do Israel any favours, "just to report fairly and accurately"; he told TME.

In a survey by a London-based, independently funded media group, 874 editions of 20 publications (nine dailies, eight Sunday papers, one regional and two weeklies) were monitored during the first quarter of 2008.

Of these editions, 53% contained coverage of Israel, which is pretty high given the size of Israel and the fact that foreign news stories usually amount to less than 15% coverage in the broadsheets and hardly exist in the tabloid (popular) press. There were 687 articles substantially dealing with Israel. The left-wing press had the highest frequency of coverage of Israel. The Independent newspaper at 89% followed by another left wing publication, The Guardian at 82%, The Times 79% and FT 73%.

The same survey marked 70 commentary and editorial pieces in Fleet Street papers during the same period. At least 36% of those pieces were classified as 'negative' ie, critical of Israel, 19% were positive about Israel, while the rest (45%) were either balanced or fair in their criticism.

Again the left-wing papers, The Guardian and The Independent had the highest percentage of negative comments on Israel, 65% and 47% respectively, while 12% and 7% respectively were regarded as positive. The Daily Telegraph was half positive and half negative.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In the news sections, The Guardian and The Times both had an average of 10% of their reports in breach of core journalistic principles (as set by the Press Complaints Commission and the National Union of Journalists) of balance, fairness, accuracy of facts and checking of sources. In general, according to the study, there were 22 pieces, representing 3% of all coverage, that had 30 breaches of code of practice and journalistic principles. Monitoring the BBC (six news programmes with 284 broadcasts) over the same period, the report identified 4% of breaches of the BBC's own guidelines as a public service broadcaster and also those of Ofcom (the broadcast regulating authority) code of conduct.

Journalists on the left of Fleet Street don't see the figures as a proof of bias, but as an indicator that 'the narrative' of the Israeli-Palestinian family dispute, "has changed into identifying more with the underdog", according to Ian Black, Middle East editor of The Guardian. Unless something dramatic takes place, like another Oslo (the 1993 Agreement between the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the late Palestinian leader Yasser Ararat), Black believes it is unlikely anything will change the British media's attitude to reporting this conflict.

Ambassador Prosor disagrees with Black's analysis. He believes things have gone beyond just taking the side of whoever appears to be the underdog, to the stage of questioning the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a state. Prosor believes his country has been turned into a "pantomime villain" by Britons, while 'terror' attacks on Israeli citizens are ignored by both the media and public opinion in the UK.

Prosor notes that while he was a press attach6 in London (1995-1998) he came to appreciate the British reputation for cherishing liberty and human rights, earned following the fight against the "dark forces" of the Nazis in World War Two.

However, he declares himself "dismayed" by what he has seen since returning to the country last November. "Fairness is all too frequently absent in a debate that has been hijacked by extremists" he wrote in an opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph last month. "Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards."

He adds that ordinary Britons reading reports about Israel's 'siege' of Gaza don't know that thousands of rockets are fired from the strip into Israel and on crossing points taking fuel, medicine and food into Gaza.

Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a 'One state solution', a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction, the ambassador told TME, adding that many British commentators are categorically denying Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish-Democratic state. "No other country in the world is constantly forced to justify its own existence," Prosor concluded.

HAVE YOUR SAY If you would like to respond to this article, or any other in The Middle East magazine, direct your correspondence via e-mail to: p.lancaster@africasia.com marked: Letters to the Editor.