Journalism, history and propaganda
On the news today there were two separate reports that caught my attention. Israel was sharply criticized by the PA Journalist's Union in Gaza and the International Federation of Journalists in Brussels for the shooting of a "Hamas journalist," Imad Ghanem, a cameraman. According to the IDF a small force entered Gaza in order to stop the daily Kassam rocket attacks on southern Israel, and in fact they destroyed eight rocket launchers, one of which was set up ready to be fired. Probably as a consequence of this action no rockets fell on Israel yesterday.
Ghanem was not among the journalist's covering the action, but was apparently among the Hamas gunmen. This not only put his life in danger, but also meant that IDF soldiers could not readily distinguish between the rest of the Hamas gunmen and the so-called "Hamas journalist" whose camera could easily have been misinterpreted as a gun. It was also not clear who actually shot Ghanem. As a result of being shot in the legs, Ghanem's legs were amputated at a hospital in Gaza, and his life is in danger.
But, we should ask, what is a "Hamas journalist," can there be such a thing? In western parlance, a journalist is someone who reports the news, but does so in a neutral and apolitical way. Granted that everyone has their own political views, but it is precisely for this reason that the highest achievement among journalists is that readers will not know the author's political viewpoint. Being a member of a Union does not mean that the person is an actual journalist. A "Hamas journalist" is not equivalent to an "Israeli journalist" or even a "Palestinian journalist." Hamas is a terrorist organization with a specific political viewpoint, so a "Hamas journalist" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. He could be called a "Hamas operative" or a "Hamas employee" or a "Hamas hack," but a journalist - no!
Note that since the kidnapping of Alan Johnston there are no more "independent" journalists or photographers in Gaza, and most Western news organizations use local "stringers," all of whom can be guaranteed to be under Hamas scrutiny if not actually working for Hamas. So all news reported from Gaza should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.
During the Soviet era there were numerous attempts to write independent stories about what was really going on in the Soviet Union. There were Communist "journalists," who reported the news as they were told to do so by the Government, and there were independent journalists who were suppressed (their work appeared in underground Samizdat). Today there is what passes for a "free press" in Russia, but if a journalist criticizes Pres. Putin or his Govt. too much, they are assassinated. It is a stain on the name of free journalism that anyone from Hamas should be given this appellation!
At the same time, it was reported that Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist and historian, who writes a column in "Ha'aretz," has published a book about the 6-Day war, entitled "1967." But, in his interview on IBA he said that his book is not about the war per se, but about the build-up to the war and the aftermath, how it changed Israeli society. Sounds interesting. But, he made a curious comment, he said that before the war Israel had no history, the history only became apparent when papers were released that enabled historians (such as himself) to interpret history. I entirely reject this assertion. Of course, Israel had a history before people like Segev interpreted it and gave us the benefit of their analysis. And further, since I was alive at the time and remember the period well, the history of the era was very clear-cut, and is presented in the excellent historical work of Michael Oren in "Six Days of War" that was published in 2002 (available as a Penguin book).
Oren has himself criticized Segev's account of the causes of the war and its aftermath. Particularly, Segev makes much of the fact that previous Israeli Governments specifically rejected going to war in order not to capture and occupy the West Bank and Gaza territories. However, this makes perfect sense, Israeli Governments and people did not want war, period! The 6-Day war was forced on them by the deliberate actions of Nasser's Egypt and the Syrian and Jordanian Governments, the latter of which made specific military agreements with Nasser to attack Israel when it was most propitious for them to do so. This is a matter of recorded fact. So any reinterpretation of the causes of the 1967 war as a result of Israeli "imperialism" or "colonialism" is so much nonsense, a figment of the imagination of a "new" historian with an axe to grind. So Tom Segev is to history as Imad Ghanem is to journalism!
Ghanem was not among the journalist's covering the action, but was apparently among the Hamas gunmen. This not only put his life in danger, but also meant that IDF soldiers could not readily distinguish between the rest of the Hamas gunmen and the so-called "Hamas journalist" whose camera could easily have been misinterpreted as a gun. It was also not clear who actually shot Ghanem. As a result of being shot in the legs, Ghanem's legs were amputated at a hospital in Gaza, and his life is in danger.
But, we should ask, what is a "Hamas journalist," can there be such a thing? In western parlance, a journalist is someone who reports the news, but does so in a neutral and apolitical way. Granted that everyone has their own political views, but it is precisely for this reason that the highest achievement among journalists is that readers will not know the author's political viewpoint. Being a member of a Union does not mean that the person is an actual journalist. A "Hamas journalist" is not equivalent to an "Israeli journalist" or even a "Palestinian journalist." Hamas is a terrorist organization with a specific political viewpoint, so a "Hamas journalist" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. He could be called a "Hamas operative" or a "Hamas employee" or a "Hamas hack," but a journalist - no!
Note that since the kidnapping of Alan Johnston there are no more "independent" journalists or photographers in Gaza, and most Western news organizations use local "stringers," all of whom can be guaranteed to be under Hamas scrutiny if not actually working for Hamas. So all news reported from Gaza should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.
During the Soviet era there were numerous attempts to write independent stories about what was really going on in the Soviet Union. There were Communist "journalists," who reported the news as they were told to do so by the Government, and there were independent journalists who were suppressed (their work appeared in underground Samizdat). Today there is what passes for a "free press" in Russia, but if a journalist criticizes Pres. Putin or his Govt. too much, they are assassinated. It is a stain on the name of free journalism that anyone from Hamas should be given this appellation!
At the same time, it was reported that Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist and historian, who writes a column in "Ha'aretz," has published a book about the 6-Day war, entitled "1967." But, in his interview on IBA he said that his book is not about the war per se, but about the build-up to the war and the aftermath, how it changed Israeli society. Sounds interesting. But, he made a curious comment, he said that before the war Israel had no history, the history only became apparent when papers were released that enabled historians (such as himself) to interpret history. I entirely reject this assertion. Of course, Israel had a history before people like Segev interpreted it and gave us the benefit of their analysis. And further, since I was alive at the time and remember the period well, the history of the era was very clear-cut, and is presented in the excellent historical work of Michael Oren in "Six Days of War" that was published in 2002 (available as a Penguin book).
Oren has himself criticized Segev's account of the causes of the war and its aftermath. Particularly, Segev makes much of the fact that previous Israeli Governments specifically rejected going to war in order not to capture and occupy the West Bank and Gaza territories. However, this makes perfect sense, Israeli Governments and people did not want war, period! The 6-Day war was forced on them by the deliberate actions of Nasser's Egypt and the Syrian and Jordanian Governments, the latter of which made specific military agreements with Nasser to attack Israel when it was most propitious for them to do so. This is a matter of recorded fact. So any reinterpretation of the causes of the 1967 war as a result of Israeli "imperialism" or "colonialism" is so much nonsense, a figment of the imagination of a "new" historian with an axe to grind. So Tom Segev is to history as Imad Ghanem is to journalism!
posted by Jack Cohen at 10:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home