Language, Media and Political Rights

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban (Issues)

25 April 2009
It is very difficult today to exaggerate the impact of media on politics; rather it may be even difficult to truly comprehend the far-reaching effects of media on politics, not only as far as governments and official institutions are concerned but even as far as people and their stands are concerned.

This issue is multi–dimensional and it is still being developed by parties who are certain of its impact and effectiveness. Many years ago I wrote about the misleading terminology and idioms when the Israelis started to use “two sides” to equate between themselves and the Palestinians; and when they started to use the word “clashes” to refer to an Israeli missile killing an unarmed Palestinian.

Since then, the Israelis have exerted massive efforts to market and circulate their idioms, which are being used today by Arab senior officials and in Arab media—with the Israeli occupying army becoming the only source of news about Palestinians being killed by the army or by the settlers. During the last 10 years, Israeli occupying forces have killed American woman Rachel Couri, British journalists David Miller and Tom Hurrendale, and humiliated, beaten and imprisoned others in order to deter international media from reaching the occupied territories to the extent that hardly any international media was in Gaza during the terrible Israeli war on Gaza in December-January 2009. Even after the so-called ceasefire, Israeli occupying forces continue to kill Palestinians every day and arrest tens of them, and cast the news in a way to give the impression that those were dangerous to Israel’s security or that killing them was a reaction to their violent deeds. Even when they kill a student such as the young woman Basma Al Nadiri (16), with her school bag on her back, they announce that she was suspected of carrying explosives. That is not to mention the 320 Palestinians who died in the last three years because they were prevented from leaving Gaza to receive treatment outside. Even this simple information is not easy to get in international media, not to mention analysing it and writing about the violation it constitutes of the Geneva Conventions and the international humanitarian law.

That is why Israeli officials, such as Israel Katz, dare to call for penalising the Palestinians even further in Gaza, while Lieberman threatens Palestinians with a nuclear bomb without being condemned by the “international community” or the “free press” of the Western world—who keep raging about the Korean and Iranian nuclear programmes. Due to the blockade that Israel has imposed on the Palestinians, isolating them from the rest of the world, and to the virtual absence of Arab terms of reference regarding an alternative terminology, idioms, language or news we are left with is a media that is totally irrelevant to the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its future horizons.

A case in point is Netanyahu’s statement to President Barack Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, that “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognise Israel as a Jewish State before talking about two states for two peoples”. How could the Palestinians establish their own state once they recognise Israel as a Jewish state on their own lands after they were killed and turned into refugees on their own soil by settlers who came to erase the indigenous inhabitants of this land?

What is the meaning of the phrase used by many senior Europeans and American officials: to establish “two states” in light of the fact that one state is established by military force and is expanding by the day to the extent of undermining the possibility of establishing the Palestinian state.

The phrase “the two-state solution” aims to mislead and give the impression as if both Israelis and Palestinians are waiting to establish their states, once again equating the aggressor with the victim, while the reality is that contrary to the UN resolution 194 one state is eating up the land, history, water,and the very existence of the other “The Palestinians”.

The political language of officials and experts concentrate on the security and well being of Israel, while only focusing on persons on the other side: Arafat, Abbas, Fayad in total negligence of the Palestinian people and their future.

The Economist Magazine (April, 9th, 2009) discussed “genocide” in Rwanda although that took place 15 years ago but no mention was made of the no less terrible genocide in Palestine.

When is the Arab media going to pay attention to this issue and devote resources, time and effort to address this extremely important aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict? This aspect has become an essential part of our battle to restore our rights: this media battle is not impossible to win as we are the original owners of the land, and as our rights are recognised and supported by international legitimacy, and as we are the ones who invented the alphabets and taught the world how to write. This could be the most logical entry to drive the world to take a fair stand towards our rights. We only need the will to win the media over again to support justice instead of massacres.

Dr Bouthaina Shaaban is Minister, Political and Media Adviser at the Syrian Presidency