I am very interested in knowing how the Israeli media is following our news? I know that they are definitely criticizing Hezballah, but I want to know what images you guys can see from all this? And how interested are the Israeli public in all this?
Firas (a reader in Lebanon)
Since quite a few Lebanese have written to ask me about the Israeli media’s coverage of their country’s most recent crisis, I’ve put together a little summary-plus-commentary of yesterday’s newspapers. The local coverage of the violence did not really begin until the Saturday night news broadcast, which marked the end of the 4-day Memorial Day/Independence Day weekend. When I mentioned the then 2-day old story to a very prominent Israeli journalist on Friday, he had no idea what I was talking about. By Saturday, though, he and everyone else had heard that we might soon have Barbarians Hezballah Banging on Fatima’s Gate. The Saturday night news broadcast (equivalent of Sunday night in the west) included the first coverage of the fighting in Beirut, with footage from Al Arabiyya and Al Jazeera subtitled in English.
Lebanese politics is confusing for most people – and no less for Israelis, who do not tend to be very well-informed about Middle Eastern affairs (ex-Israel/Palestine) in general. The local media’s coverage of Lebanon tends to focus on the Hezballah threat to Israel’s northern border, while sectarian politics is regarded as a Lebanese problem that is only important if it affects Israeli security.
At the same time, we have a big domestic scandal brewing. On Thursday, Independence Day, the courts finally lifted a gag order that had prevented the Israeli media from reporting the murky-but-sordid details of yet another police investigation into Prime Minister Olmert’s alleged financial misdeeds. The affair might prove serious enough to bring down what only one week ago looked like a rock-solid government, which raises the horrifying specter of another round of Bibi (oy vey) or (gah!) Barak. Furthermore, since the reports focus on the alleged involvement of an American Jewish millionaire and hundreds of thousands of dollars in, um, “misdirected” cash contributions, the country is naturally riveted. It’s like a soap opera, only better – a brand-new episode of As the Middle East Turns. So bear all this in mind as you read on.
Note: click on images to enlarge
Israeli newspapers for Sunday, May 11, 2008
This is the front page of Maariv, Israel’s second-biggest-selling mass circulation daily. The main story is about the accusations against Olmert, with a lead-in to the Lebanon story on the lower right corner of the page. The white-on-black headline is, “In the Hezballah State.” Sub: “Only after the Lebanese government folded – Nasrallah agreed to withdraw his forces from the capital. Full coverage is on pages 12-13.”
This is Maariv’s inside coverage – a double spread on the middle pages. The headline reads, “Lebanon surrenders to Hezballah.” Sub: “Nasrallah’s military pressure brought the government of Lebanon to its knees. After 37 were killed in battles between Amal allied with Hezballah versus the supporters of Hariri, and a moment before the outbreak of civil war, Prime Minister Saniora decided to submit to the organization’s demands in order to bring calm.”
The analysis and reporting is by Jackie Khugy, Maariv’s correspondent for Middle Eastern affairs. Jackie’s analysis, on the upper left side of the page, is headlined, “On a thin rope.” I’ve translated it as follows:
“This incident started with a rare show of determination on the part of Saniora’s government. During a meeting last Tuesday, the ministers announced their intention of taking legal measures against those responsible for establishing Hezballah’s clandestine telephone network, which extends over Lebanon. In addition, it was decided to to take action against those responsible for positioning closed circuit cameras at Beirut’s airport. The cameras filmed important people – both Lebanese and westerners – who landed at the airport.”
In the past, due to fear of Hezballah, incidents like these were resolved under the table. The pro-Western government in Beirut decided this time to take a stand. In so doing, it brought the country to the edge of civil war. Hezballah saw the legal prosecution as a precedent that, if successful, could undermine the organization’s position as the only unit in Lebanon that is above the law. That is why it decided to bare its teeth.
Its fighters did not choose random targets. Rather, they carried out pinpoint violent operations, with the goal of broadcasting an intimidating message – but not to kill. Most of the people killed by Hezballah were caught in areas where the organization encountered armed resistance from the Future Movement (Al Mustaqbal), which is loyal to the Hariri family. The Shi’a organization’s tough response was intended to clarify to its opponents that from now on they can forget about dialogue; it has been replaced with the language of force.
This is Lebanon’s tragedy. Instead of the government defining the limits for a militant organization, the organization sets the limits and forces the government to obey them. The Hezballah leadership has not forgotten what happened last summer, when armed Sunni fighters of Fatah al Islam were allowed to conquer and rule a Palestinian refugee camp. Saniora gave an order, and for three months the army pounded the refugee camp into obliteration, destroying the Sunni faction. It is not easy to obliterate Hezballah (ask Olmert), but the organization considers itself to be locked in a daily battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. If it submits to the rule of law, it puts its survival at risk.
Saniora’s surrender the day before yesterday revealed the extent to which Hezballah’s weapons play a central role in Lebanon’s power balance, but the organization’s strategy backfired to an extent. For years Nasrallah and his men have made sure to avoid turning Hezballah’s weapons against Lebanese citizens, whom they pretend to protect. The weapons, Nasrallah claimed again and again, were meant to defend Lebanon against foreign enemies – chiefly Israel.
Over recent years, Hezballah has widened its base of support beyond its Shi’a constituency. This is due to its victory against the IDF in 2000, its perceived lack of corruption and its successful social welfare projects. An historical electoral win seemed to position Hezballah for a democratic and legal conquest of Lebanon. Over the past few days Hezballah has been treading carefully between its desire to maintain its popular support and its existential need to prevent others from undermining it. The organization’s men proved that they have not yet succeeded in removing violence from their lexicon. It will take some time to determine whether this has damaged or improved its public standing. After all, those who take the law into their own hands will find it difficult to claim that they have the people’s best interests at heart.”
This is the front page of Yedioth Aharonoth, Israel’s biggest-selling mass-circulation daily. At least two-thirds of Israelis who read a newspaper every day choose Yedioth; I believe it is the only daily newspaper in Israel that actually makes a profit. The front page is all about the investigation of Olmert, with no mention of Lebanon. The headline over the photo of Olmert reads, “What am I, Tony Soprano?” ( 
).
Yedioth’s coverage of the Lebanon story begins on page 11. The headline reads: “Tehran has arrived.” Sub: “Hezballah’s actions were carefully considered and are meant to show everyone who is the boss in Lebanon. In this situation, with Iran striving to obtain nuclear weapons, the question as far as Israel is concerned is not whether or not it should take care of this problem – it is when.”
The second page of Yedioth’s Lebanon coverage is headlined, “Saniora folded.” Sub: “37 dead and the occupation of west Beirut by Hezballah left the prime minister of Lebanon with little choice.”
The headline on the article that is illustrated with the masked gunman smoking a nargilah reads, “Enraged at Hezballah.” A reporter identified only as “a western journalist reporting from the capital of Lebanon,” summarizes the anger of Lebanese who previously believed Hezballah’s claim that it would never use its weapons against fellow Lebanese. The caption under the photo reads, “‘Hezballah made a grave error.’ Hezballah man in Beirut, over the weekend.”
And so we come to Haaretz, Israel’s most important daily broadsheet. It is considered a sort of truism in Israel that, while no-one can afford to ignore Haaretz, very few people actually read it. It’s a serious newspaper, written in Hebrew that still has me scurrying for the dictionary on occasion, and it has a declared left-of-center agenda. For intellectuals and politicians, it is an essential daily read. But outside of Greater Tel Aviv (Gush Dan) and a couple of neighborhoods in Jerusalem, few kiosks even bother to stock Haaretz.
In keeping with its more worldly, intellectual image, Haaretz’s front page is all about Lebanon. The main headline (in black) reads, “The government of Lebanon surrenders to Hezballah.” The line in red, above: “Approximately 30 dead in 4 days of battle in Lebanon – the worst since the civil war.”
The night editor of Haaretz’s English edition chose a different headline for the same article, translated from the Hebrew. The analysis on the right (“Not only Lebanon’s problem”) was published on an inside page of the Hebrew edition.
More Israeli media coverage:
Opinion writer Guy Bechor wrote a piece, called “Nasrallah lost, for now,” for Ynet (owned by the Yedioth Group, but NOT the same as Yedioth Aharonoth). It was translated for the English site (which is quite different from the Hebrew site), here. I draw your attention to the following quote, with which a few Lebanese might, um, beg to differ:
Siniora is a true artist when it comes to understanding the Middle East. He did not fall into the trap of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and did not unleash the Lebanese army against Hizbullah’s fighters. Had he done so, Nasrallah would have taken advantage of it and really taken over Beirut. Instead, Siniora allowed Hizbullah to enter areas it doesn’t belong in, thus making Nasrallah fall into a trap himself. (continued…)
Just as the Israeli Every[wo]man is waiting with trepidation for Hezballah to turn its weapons on Israel, so the Lebanese Every[wo]man is convinced that the next IDF attack is imminent.
Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon plays right into the average Lebanese person’s fear with the following statement:
“We have to realize that Lebanon is a Hizballah state. Everything happening there is their doing… The country is ruled by the Hizbullah and the reigning government is meaningless, its fiction.” (source: English; Hebrew)
Just in case you didn’t get the hint, Avi Dichter, minister of internal security, adds:
“Hizballah maintains its hold on Lebanon, without the responsibility of running matters of state. This creates a real difficulty for Israel, which can’t work against the (emanating) regional terror.” (same source as above).
Hezballah, of course, is not exactly going out of its way to maintain peace with its southern neighbour, either.
Update – TV coverage. Channel 10’s Zvi Yechezkeli gave a report/analysis on Lebanon for London and Kirshenbaum. The summary is titled, “Beirut licks its wounds.” The clip, which focuses on the Hezballah-Druze battle in the Chouf, is in Hebrew only, but there’s interesting footage and Arabic speakers will get some of the narration.
My next post will be about the Lebanese media’s coverage of the crisis in English, with an emphasis on how they factor Israel in. The post will include a fascinating video clip from Lebanese television, with English translation provided by a Zionist collaborator Lebanese friend.
