|
Harsh Words: But True
The language used by al-Aqsa TV shocked me, but there's no
denying it reflects the reality of the Palestinian experience
By Seth Freedman
21/08/08 "ICH"
- - - During a recent stay with a Palestinian family in the
West Bank, I found myself in their basement, watching the news
with two of my host's sons. The week's events had been
particularly violent, with fierce clashes between the Israel
defence forces (IDF) and villagers in the town of Nilin, where
we were now sitting, as well as reports of a home-made rocket
being fired by settlers in the direction of a Palestinian
community nearby.
The mood in the house was tense, with both brothers nervous
about the possible repercussions for their village after the
morning's hostilities, and they kept a keen eye on the screen as
they watched footage of the bloody confrontation being
broadcast. For my benefit, the older brother tuned to the
English version of al-Aqsa TV, a channel launched by Hamas in
2006 as part of its campaign to counter what it saw as Israeli
propaganda in the western media.
"Zionist colonisers launched a missile [at a Palestinian town]",
announced the stony-faced presenter as he reported on the
settlers' rocket attack. Moving on, he informed viewers of plans
for "the Zionist colony of Har Homa to expand", before relaying
news that "Zionist occupying forces wounded seven in Nilin".
Suitably gory images of injured Palestinians were beamed out in
accompaniment, and we watched in silence as the unending litany
of injustices was recounted in the newsreader's sombre tones.
The news was interrupted by a commercial break, consisting of a
lengthy sequence in which images of Palestine were displayed,
with a voiceover delivering an impassioned appeal for viewers to
join the resistance. "Palestine calls to you. Support me.
Liberate me. I am your mother, and you are my sons", read the
narrator, before cutting to a final, heartfelt declaration:
"Palestine: the love word; the heart of the world."
As the news began rolling once more, all I could concentrate on
was the language employed, rather than the stories that were
being reported. The abandoning of western media parlance –
"Israel", "IDF", "settlers", and so on – in favour of an
entirely different lexicon was a rude awakening for me, having
been fed on a vastly different diet over the years. However, the
terms used weren't in the slightest bit unusual to my host's
sons, and were indicative of how wide the gulf is between
ordinary citizens on either side of the divide.
Supporters of Israel often recoil against what they see as a
disproportionate amount of airtime given to the region in
western media, as well as the alleged imbalance of the coverage,
which is said to heavily favour the Palestinian cause. However,
it would be wholly understandable if a viewer of al-Aqsa TV who
tuned into any western station from the BBC to Sky News and
beyond felt a mirror-image outrage simply because of the terms
used to describe the conflict.
Merely mentioning settlers as though they were some kind of
benign, pioneering entity, rather than out-and-out colonists,
would doubtless set hackles rising throughout the Palestinian
community. Referring to the Israeli army as a "defence" force,
despite its predominantly occupying nature and activities, would
be another thorn in the side of any Palestinian hoping for a
modicum of understanding in the western media.
The language of war is yet another battleground upon which the
two sides come to blows, as I have found time and again, ever
since I began writing for Cif. Certain words are guaranteed to
cause a violent explosion, derailing discussion threads and
obscuring the message I have tried to get across in my articles.
Calling a spade a spade becomes highly problematic in the
minefield of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Describing the situation in the West Bank as a form of apartheid
causes offence to some, despite all the clear evidence
justifying the term. The same people object to the wanton
destruction meted out in villages by the IDF being likened to
pogroms – the word having been somehow arrogated by certain
Jewish people for their exclusive use, and only then in relation
to the Jews' own historical suffering.
Any comparison between the expansionist, racially-motivated
policies of the Israeli government and similar experiments of
ethnic supremacy throughout history are deluged beneath a swamp
of derisory, indignant responses, as though pointing out the
glaringly obvious is the antithesis of honest and reasonable
debate. The self-righteous anger is no less vehement, nor any
less keenly expressed, on the other side among those who balk at
the Jewish state being referred to as Israel, or the Israeli
army as the IDF.
While I understand how emotionally invested people (myself
included) become when focusing on the conflict, we should not
allow a situation where plainly-spoken facts are dismissed
simply because the reader or viewer feels uncomfortable with the
truth. Much as I flinched initially when sitting in the
Palestinian family's lounge hearing my country described in such
incendiary language on the news, I could understand why they
used those terms in their reports.
Settlers are colonisers, just as the IDF is a force engaged in
occupation, and any attempt to try to paint the scenario
otherwise is both disingenuous and deceitful. Anyone who feels
that the western media is incorrigibly biased in favour of the
Palestinians would do well to consider the entire spectrum of
opinion on what constitutes fair reporting and honest language,
before making such sweeping judgments. Because from where the
Palestinians are sitting, under the yoke of occupation, the
picture looks very different from the one Zionism's supporters
would have the world believe.
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
