On the January 22 broadcast of the PBS NewsHour, correspondent Margaret Warner reported on the outcome of the Israeli elections. It told the same story as most other reports on the issue, trying to sort out the implications for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Palestinians basically do not exist in the report; Warner makes one reference to ultra-right Israeli politician Naftali Bennett, who she says believes “the time for negotiating with the Palestinians is over.”
But what was most intriguing was a comment at the end of the piece, from anchor Gwen Ifill: “We will hear more from Margaret as she travels through Israel, the West Bank and Gaza over the next week and a half.”
That sounded like it could be be an interesting opportunity for TV viewers to get a glimpse of Palestinian life. But that’s not what PBS chose to put on the air.
The next installment (1/25/13) was also about the Israeli elections: “So, Margaret, a few days after the election, what kind of government seems to be taking shape?” asked anchor Jeffrey Brown. The emphasis was on Israeli society: “How divided does it feel politically and culturally?”
Warner explained that
the old divide used to be over how much and how to deal with the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular and whether to give land for peace. The new divide is very cultural, and it is between the ultra-orthodox religious and also the pro-settler nationalist movement, which aren’t the same.
Later on Brown asked Warner to explain what her reporting would be touching on. Warner explained that the big stories are “the Iranian nuclear program, the conflict in Syria, and the Israeli/Palestinian issue.” She added that, “of course, we have talked to a lot of Israelis. But, yesterday, for instance, we went up to the Golan Heights, which is, you know, land that the Israelis captured from the Syrians.” So Israelis one day, Israeli-occupied land the next day. Warner nonetheless promised “some textured stories next week that look at all three of those.”
The next report (1/28/13) was again about the Israeli elections–a look at the relationship between Netanyahu and Barack Obama, including their plan to deal with “the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.” Warner started in Israeli-occupied Golan Heights:
The sweeping vistas of the Golan Heights plateau and the bucolic life of the Israelis who live here bear quiet witness to the strategic importance of this area, which Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 Arab/Israeli war.
The report was entirely about how Israeli officials view the possibility of the Syrian war “spilling over” into the land they were occupying. Warner shifts the focus to include a look at Tel Aviv, where houses include safe rooms, and she recalled
the conflict last November,when radical Palestinian groups in Hamas-controlled Gaza fired rockets into Tel Aviv, sending residents scrambling to their shelters.
In Gaza, such safe rooms mostly do not exist; over 100 civilians were killed in those Israeli attacks.
At the end of the piece, anchor Gwen Ifill previewed the next installment: “Margaret’s next story looks at the debate in Israel over how to deal with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”
And that’s exactly what viewers got on January 30, a report that started out with Warner’s unsubstantiated claims about an Israeli airstrike inside Syria, relying on the Israeli and U.S. governments were saying. Warner also referred to how several nations were “concerned about Iran’s nuclear weapons program”–a false description of the state of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which has not been shown to be connected to any weapons program.
On January 31, Warner was back–with another report about what Israelis think of the world. Anchor Judy Woodruff offered this description:
Tonight, Margaret Warner, on assignment in the Middle East, reports on the growing debate within Israel about how much of a threat Iran really is.
The piece was an exploration of Iran from various Israeli perspectives–from those who see Iran as an “existential threat” to those who do not. Current and former military officials occupied much of the conversation. And Warner took a look at an Israeli emergency medical facility.
It wasn’t until the February 1 broadcast–in a series that was supposed to take viewers around Israel, the West Bank and Gaza–that viewers actually started hearing from Palestinians.
The report started with a furniture business in the West Bank, which used to do a lot of business with Israelis. “Then came the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising,” explained Warner, “that brought suicide bombings and terror to Israel.”
Had violence ever been “brought” to Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank? Warner didn’t say.
And years later, this West Bank shopping district “has become a virtual ghost town.” Israelis and Palestinians are not hopeful about the future and are suspicious of each other. Warner makes a brief stop in Gaza, interviewing a Palestinian fisherman who used to work alongside an Israeli who lived in a Gaza settlement.
So what the PBS NewsHour gave viewers was the view from Israel–with a few moments at the end of the series to include Palestinian perspectives, never as subjects in their own right, but to illustrate a “divide” that exists on “both sides.”
On February 5, anchor Jeffrey Brown remarked, “All last week, Margaret Warner and a NewsHour team reported from Israel on many facets of its increasingly tense relations with its neighbors.” That is a far more accurate description of what PBS actually gave viewers.
Mirza Borogovac
This is why I do not contribute to PBS or NPR.
Meqdad Taheri
This is a political struggle for land.
The Palestinians effectively already have the East Bank of Palestine (Jordan), where they are the majority, and the queen is Palestinian.
In 2005, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and the Palestinians took over. With Gaza, Palestinian holdings rose to about 80% of Palestine.
The question now is how much of the West Bank they can take before the borders are finally settled, because this is the real jumping board to the Dakhl (Israel proper).
Arafat used to compare the Oslo Accords (in Arabic) to Muhammad’s (PBUH) Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, that is, the agreement would enable the Palestinians to grow more powerful until they can take everything. But with the Israelis armed to their teeth and very cautious, this promise of 100% of Palestine may never materialize. So whatever the Palestinians manage to carve out of the West Bank right now may be it.
It’s a pure struggle for land, a battle for the little bit that’s left of British-mandate Palestine.
If the Palestinians manage to get enough of the West Bank, especially outside Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem, they may have a chance at some future tricks, like taking down passenger planes with shoulder-fired missiles, tunneling to deliver suicide surprises, or just mundane rocket attacks, a-la Gaza.
This may lead to events such as the ones brilliantly depicted in Jonathan Bloomfield’s award-winning book, “Palestine,” in which actual history and future predictions are thinly veiled as fiction.
brent riley
Public Broadcasting has editors who have kept coverage to the Israeli narrative and omitted information that would enable contributors to have a full and accurate picture.. The hand on the scale at PBS AND NPR is a major reason the conflict goes on and on. Even when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says America’s interest is being compromised, he’s ignored. Consider how poorly informed Americans are on the non-violent resistance being practiced by Palestinians, on the “price tag” attacks on Palestinians and their property. It’s shameful.
TeeJae
It’s really a shame that “public” broadcasting has succumbed to corporate power, thus joining the ranks of the corporate media. No wonder most Americans have no idea of the Palestinians’ struggles as a result of being under Israel’s thumb.
Now, only news sources that are independent of corporate financing (i.e. power) can be relied upon for true and accurate information. And a great source on this particular issue is The Real News Network (therealnews.com), as they cover extensively what’s really going on between Israel and Palestine.
emwatcher
“Warner shifts the focus to include a look at Tel Aviv, where houses include safe rooms, and she recalled the conflict last November,when radical Palestinian groups in Hamas-controlled Gaza fired rockets into Tel Aviv, sending residents scrambling to their shelters.
“In Gaza, such safe rooms mostly do not exist; over 100 civilians were killed in those Israeli attacks.”
You missed something: the attacks you say Warner cited were not by Israel but by evil Palestinians. If that’s all Warner said (and meant), she should nominate Israel for a Stoic Peace Award; the 100 Palestinian civilians must have died from heart attacks (brought on by watching PBS). Angelic Israel is PBS’s central concern, as usual.
WONDERing WOMAN
American government doesn’t care about Palestine nor does it care about the Palestinians. We give an awful lot of money to Israel which is supposedly loans—–but I don’t think that those loans are ever paid back—maybe it’s time to cut off Israel and start funding places who need food ,shelter, electricity, medical—–you know Haiit and Palestine and a lot of nations in the Middle East plus our own American citizens need help too.
There is one who speaks for Palestine and I truly love this person: Thank you BANSKY. It’s amazing what one person can do, Just imagine America, what you could do if you even cared. I have been sad since I read about NAKBA…..we don’t hear much of that in this nation, but we all read about Anne Franke——and I see no difference between her dreams for life and those of the Palestinians.