Ingen anger for medienes dekning av Jenin i 2002

myrrh

For two full weeks in April of 2002, the Guar­dian ran wild with lurid tales of an Israeli mas­sacre in the Pale­sti­nian city of Jenin on the West Bank — a mas­sacre that never happened.  The mis­re­pre­sen­ta­tions and out­right fab­ri­ca­tions have never been properly addressed in the ten ensu­ing years, as though the Guar­dian’s edi­tors believe not­hing more than some hasty repor­ting and bad sourcing happened.  But the report­orial fai­lings were far too sys­te­ma­tic to be so dis­mis­sed, and until the Guar­dian con­ducts a tho­rough investi­ga­tion of its own errors and pub­lis­hes a detai­led account to its rea­ders, its integrity on Israel-Palestine will con­ti­nue to be cal­led into question.

First the facts: On the heels of a thirty-day Pale­sti­nian suicide bom­bing cam­paign in Israeli cities which inclu­ded thirteen deadly attacks (ima­gine thirteen 7/7’s in one month), Israel embar­ked on a mili­tary offen­sive in the West Bank.  The fier­cest figh­ting in this offen­sive occur­red in the refugee camp just out­side the West Bank town of Jenin, the laun­ching point for 30 Pale­sti­nian suicide bom­bers in the year and half pre­vious (seven were caught before they could blow them­sel­ves up; the other 23 succe­e­ded in car­ry­ing out their attacks).  In this battle, which las­ted less than a week, 23 Israeli sol­di­ers were kil­led as well as 52 Pale­sti­ni­ans, of whom at most 14 were civi­li­ans (there is some mar­gi­nal dis­pute about that last figure).

There was not­hing extra­or­di­nary in this battle or in these numbers.  Looking back, what is extra­or­di­nary is that Ariel Sharon’s Israel sat through 18 mon­ths of Pale­sti­nian suicide ter­ror before embar­king on even this mili­tary offensive.  Seamus Milne assu­red rea­ders on April 10 of the ‘futi­lity’ of this mili­tary response, though with the bene­fit of hind­sight we can cle­arly see this battle as the tur­ning point in the struggle to end suicide ter­ror on Israel’s streets.  Milne referred to ‘hund­reds’ kil­led, ‘evi­dence of atrocities,’ and ‘state terror.’  Not to be out­done, Suzanne Gol­den­berg reported from Jenin’s ‘lunar lands­cape’ of ‘a silent waste­land, per­meated with the stench of rot­ting corp­ses and cordite.’  She found ‘con­vin­cing accounts’ of sum­mary exe­cutions, though let’s be honest and con­cede that it’s not gene­rally dif­fi­cult to con­vinceGol­den­berg of Israeli villainy.  In the next day’s report from Jenin, a frust­rated Gol­den­berg reported that the mor­gue in Jenin had ‘just 16 bodies’ after ‘only two bodies [were] plu­cked from the wreckage.’  This didn’t cause her to doubt for a moment that there were hund­reds more buried beneath or to hesi­tate in repor­ting from a Pale­sti­nian source that bodies may have been trans­ported ‘to a spec­ial zone in Israel.’  Brian Whi­ta­ker and Chris McGreal weig­hed in with their own equally tenden­tious and equally fla­wed repor­ting the following week.

Only on the tenth con­se­cutive day of breath­less Jenin Mas­sacre repor­ting did Peter Beaumont report on detai­led Israeli accounts refu­ting the mas­sacre accu­sa­tions, though pre­dictably this was pre­sented as part of an Israeli PR cam­paign rat­her than as con­clu­sive proof.  Two days later, Beaumont con­ce­ded that there hadn’t after all tech­ni­cally really actually been a mas­sacre but then proce­e­ded to repeat a hand­ful of fal­sities as fact all over again.  Without a doubt, though, the most memo­rable article the Guar­dianpub­lis­hed on Jenin was its April 17 lea­der ‘The Battle for the Truth.’  The high dudgeon prose inclu­ded the following sent­en­ces: ‘Jenin camp looks like the scene of a crime’; ‘Jenin smells like a crime’; ‘Jenin feels like a crime’; ‘Jenin alre­ady has that aura of infamy that atta­ches to a crime of espec­ial noto­riety’; and, unfor­gettably, the assertion that Israel’s actions in Jenin were ‘every bit as repel­lent’ as the 9/11 attacks in New York only seven mon­ths earlier.

No cor­rec­tion or retrac­tion has ever been printed for this infa­mous editorial.  On the con­trary, though moun­ting evi­dence emer­ged that the whole mas­sacre calumny was a fab­ri­ca­tion (never adequa­tely reported by the Guar­dian), twice over the following year this lea­der article was obli­quely cited — once incondem­ning anot­her Israeli action by compa­ring it to the ‘repel­lent demo­lition of lives and homes in Jenin’ and most out­rage­ously under the head­line ‘Israel still wan­ted for questioning.’  The lat­ter head­line ran on top of the only lea­der that men­tio­ned the UN report clea­ring Israel of the mas­sacre charge.  Rather than hum­bly ack­now­led­ging their own role in the libel­ous cres­cendo of that spring, the edi­tors remin­ded rea­ders, ‘As we said last April, the destruc­tion wrought in Jenin looked and smel­led like a crime’ and assu­red them that this was still the case.  Someone who gets all their infor­ma­tion about the world from the Guar­dian, a siza­ble phylum in the com­mon rooms of my pre­sent uni­ver­sity, would have no idea just how much of a lie the Jenin mas­sacre was.

In fact, as aerial shots later showed, the pic­tu­res of osten­sibly wide­spread destruc­tion in Jenin and its adjacent refugee camp were all of the same tiny area wit­hin the camp which had been the scene of a tac­ti­cally bril­li­ant ambush — on the part of the Palestinians.  Thirteen Israeli sol­di­ers were kil­led when a series of booby-trapped buil­dings col­lap­sed on them.  It was the IDF’s dead­li­est engage­ment of the month-long offen­sive, and the impe­tus for Suzanne Goldenberg’s apprai­sal (in a news article, not an opi­nion piece) that the battle of Jenin was ‘a fiasco for Israel, an immensely costly vic­tory for the Pale­sti­ni­ans’ on April 10, before the cir­cu­lar fee­ding frenzy about the pho­ney mas­sacre began.

It was this inci­dent that made many Israe­lis ques­tion the wis­dom of endan­ge­ring so many ground for­ces rat­her than just rely­ing on air power.  This would hardly be unprecedented.  And we don’t need to look to the beha­viour of countries that Israel would never want to be com­pared to.  NATO fought two wars from the air — over Ser­bia in 1999 and Libya last year —with lopsi­ded results.  Very lopsided.  Zero com­bat los­ses for NATO, roughly one thou­sand enemy com­ba­tants kil­led and slightly more than a thou­sand civi­li­ans as well.  Both wars were hotly debated in this paper, but neit­her of them ‘smel­led like a crime.’

But let’s not be unfair to the Guar­dian and com­pare its cover­age of Jenin to those popu­lar NATO wars against vio­lent dictators.  Let’s not even com­pare it to much bloo­dier con­flicts in the past decade that gat­he­red a lot less attention.  And natu­rally, let’s not com­pare the way the Guar­dian covered the non-massacre in Jenin to the suicide attacks on Israeli civi­li­ans which promp­ted the mili­tary operation.  No, I sug­gest making things as easy for the Guar­dian as pos­sible, by compa­ring its cover­age of Jenin to a remar­kably simi­lar pair of batt­les in the Iraqi city of Fal­lu­jah two years later in 2004.  These batt­les were led by occupy­ing western armies (US and UK) in a war that for the Guar­dian at least had none of the ambi­guity of Kosovo or Libya.  On the con­trary, oppos­ing the Iraq War was, second only to hating Israel, the great moral stand of the paper and its rea­dership in the first decade of the 21st century.

In the two Fal­lu­jah batt­les, US-UK for­ces lost 126 men and kil­led nearly 1400 armed mili­tants and about 900 civi­li­ans; in Jenin, recall, the respec­tive num­bers were 23 IDF kil­led, 38 Pale­sti­nian mili­tants, and 14 civilians.  Though both Fal­lu­jah batt­les were covered exten­sively and cri­ti­cally, and though the second one involved tro­ops from the UK, and though it was in a war that this paper viewed dimly, the num­ber of times the words ‘mas­sacre’ or ‘war crime’ appea­red in its cover­age was exactly zero (of if you pre­fer num­bers: 0).  The only com­mo­na­lity in the Guar­dian’s cover­age of the battle of Fal­lu­jah is that, as with Jenin two years ear­lier, no men­tion was made of Fallujah’s mili­tants’ involve­ment in mur­derous attacks against Bri­tish and Ame­ri­can civi­li­ans at home.  This is less an edi­to­rial deci­sion though, and more likely because there were no such attacks.

Maybe Fal­lu­jah isn’t where we should be look­ing for a comparison.  We could just go a few miles west of Jenin to Netanya, site of the Pass­o­ver eve suicide bom­bing that spar­ked the Israeli mili­tary operation.  How did the Guar­dian cover that massacre?  Naturally, with detai­led cover­age of the vic­tims and their fami­lies, and some under­stan­dably high-strung lan­guage on the frigh­te­ning, almost ritua­li­s­tic aspect of a mass mur­der of Jews as they sit to mark a fes­ti­val of deli­verance from bon­dage.  Guar­dian repor­ters hit the pave­ment pro­bing the feelings of Israe­lis and Jews world­wide in the face of this enor­mity and com­men­ta­tors made much of pol­ling data showing that suicide attacks on Israeli civi­li­ans com­man­ded large majori­ties of sup­port in Arab and Mus­lim countries.

Of course I’m just kidding.  None of that actually hap­pe­ned. There was not a single opi­nion piece about the Pass­o­ver Mas­sacre, no lea­der condem­ning it, and in fact, not even one news article by a Guar­dian wri­ter dedi­cated to the story.  The mor­ning after the attack, the Guar­dian did lead with a story by cor­re­spon­dents Suzanne Gol­den­berg and Gra­ham Usher about the bom­bing which under­stated its death toll by nearly half (16 as oppo­sed to 30) and named and pro­fi­led none of the vic­tims; most of the story dealt not with Netanya but with the Arab sum­mit under­way in Beirut.  Nearly a third of the dead in Netanya were Holo­caust sur­vi­vors, but it would cle­arly be beneath the level of a serious news article to men­tion such an emo­tive an irre­le­vant topic.  Well, until the very end of the article at least, which clo­ses with an unre­mar­ked upon quote by Syrian Pre­si­dent Bashar Assad that ‘It’s time to save the Pale­sti­nian people from the new holo­caust they are living in.’  I am not making this up. Duly reported as well was that ‘Pale­sti­nian security sources said Yas­ser Ara­fat had orde­red the arrest of four key mili­tants in the West Bank.’  I hope it wasn’t too much work following those sources down!

The following day, Gol­den­berg (still in Bei­rut, but cle­arly clued in to all the right sources) dut­i­fully passed on the infor­ma­tion that the attack was just a ‘perfect pre­text’ for Israel’s mili­tary offen­sive and descri­bed the Israeli prime minis­ter as ‘prac­ti­cally gloa­ting’ at the tole­rance he could now expect to any Israeli mili­tary action.  Meanwhile Usher wrote that Israel would bury its dead, ’22 civi­li­ans and 6 sett­lers,’ though there is no pre­ce­dent or legal basis for los­ing one’s non-combatant sta­tus because one is a settler.  Two of Usher’s ‘sett­lers,’ inci­den­tally, did not live in sett­le­ments at all.  They were both 80-year-old men visi­ting rela­tions in a sett­le­ment over the holi­day who were stab­bed to death on their walk to synagogue.  A third ‘sett­ler’ was a child not old enough to have sett­led any­where, who was mur­de­red along with his parents when a Pale­sti­nian gun­per­son ente­red their home and shot everyone.  For Gra­ham Usher, appa­rently, to be a Jew where Jews are unwan­ted is to for­feit the pro­tec­tions of civilians.

This was jour­na­li­s­tic mal­prac­tice, and it’s time to come clean.

It’s not as though the Guar­dian’s edi­tors don’t think the Jenin battle is a fit­ting hook to hang a media cri­ti­que on.  In one of the more comical moments of its his­trio­nic cover­age in April 2002, the Guar­dian ran a piece by no less than Julian Bor­ger (cur­rently the diplo­ma­tic edi­tor) under the head­line ‘Muted cri­ti­cism in Ame­ri­can news­pa­pers: Scep­ti­cism at reports of Jenin bloodbath.’  It was cle­arly not meant as a gentle expres­sion of doubt about the lat­her whip­ped up by the Euro­pean media.  It was, rat­her, for the cle­ver rea­ders to tsk-tsk into their tea and fill in for them­sel­ves that we all know why the Ame­ri­can press is too scared to report an Israeli massacre.  (The less cle­ver ones don’t need to scroll down very far into any CiF forum to have it spelled out for them explicitly.)

Once the record is cle­ared, the Guar­dian owes itself a tho­rough reckoning of how it got the story so wrong.  Something bet­ter than the weasely cor­rec­tion it buried days after run­ning an article under the head­line ‘Israel admits harve­s­ting Pale­sti­nian organs’ back in 2009.  (Yes, two thou­sand and nine.  This was pub­lis­hed in a respectable Euro­pean paper in 2009.)

A pos­sible model is New York Times’ tho­rough accoun­ting in 2004 of its repor­ting fai­lu­res in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, spec­i­fi­cally in repro­du­cing unsub­stanti­a­ted claims of WMDs in Iraq.  That hap­pe­ned only one year after the war; ten years on from Jenin the Guar­dian has done not­hing, though its jour­na­li­s­tic fai­lings were — and you’ll have to par­don me here — every bit as repellent.

 

[I sub­mit­ted this to the Guar­dian as a com­men­tary piece on April 4.  On April 12 they con­fir­med that they will not be run­ning it.  Both Brian Whi­ta­ker, for­mer Middle East Edi­tor cur­rent CiF edi­tor, and Har­riet Sher­wood, cur­rently the Jeru­sa­lem cor­re­spon­dent, have infor­med me that there are no plans to revi­sit the Jenin issue or the Guardian’s cover­age of it ten years ago.  The rea­ders edi­tor also wrote me that he has no plan on revi­si­ting the issue.]

 

Ori­gi­nal­tit­tel:
Ten Years Since Somet­hing That Never Hap­pe­ned: A Lear­ning Moment for the Guardian

http://hurryupharry.org/

 




Om du ikke følger Document på sosiale media kan du følge oss på e-post.

Donere engangsbeløp?Kan du forplikte deg til fast betaling?

Penger kan også doneres til kontonummer 15030249981. Du kan også støtte oss ved å kjøpe bøker eller varer.

Leserkommentarer på Document er gjenstand for moderering, som ikke skjer kontinuerlig og under enhver omstendighet ikke om natten. Vi ønsker en respektfull tone uten personangrep, sleivete språk eller flammende retorikk. Vis særlig nøkternhet når temaet er følsomt. Begrenset redigering av skjemmende detaljer kan finne sted. Skriv til debatt@document.no dersom du ikke forstår hvorfor en kommentar uteblir. Se her for nybegynnerhjelp.