Reviewed by Dr. Khan Yasir
The Double Standard: Media Reactions to Zionist Terror, as conspicuous from the subheading, is an academic investigation into media’s reactions to the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Zionist forces over the years. For an in-depth and unwavering analysis of the media-narrative, the authors, Jody McIntyre and Mohammed Hijab, have rooted their study on the coverage of two incidents:
- King David Hotel Bombing of 1946 by Irgun (a pre-state predecessor to IDF), and
- An IDF airstrike at Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza on 31st Oct 2023
Prima facie, both these acts are acts of terrorism. Considering the loss of life – 91 killed and 41 injured in the former incident as compared to casualties in the latter i.e. 126 killed (including 64 children) and 280 injured – the latter appears to be more heinous and tragic. Yet in the British, Arab, and Jewish media, the former was described as a terrorist attack whereas the latter wasn’t. The central question that the authors explore is why.
The reader comes to know that IDF (i.e. Israeli Defence Forces) were formed from the remnants of three terrorist organisations namely Haganah, Irgun and Lehi. To be very clear at the outset, these organisations were regarded as terrorists not by some Palestinian or Arab propaganda machine but by the British government itself.
The reader wonders that with such a terroristic lineage in the past, and genocidal intent and performance showcased in the present, the IDF has christened (no pun intended) itself rather ‘humbly’, it should have been named ITF in which T would manifest their truth i.e. Terrorism.
The authors have not only underscored this truth of IDF but have also questioned the legitimacy of the very political entity named Israel. They stress over the unquestionable terroristic past of the Israeli political leaders. For example, two times Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin was a leader of Irgun, later he founded Likud to which belongs Netanyahu. Another Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was a Lehi leader, etc. Hence, the authors deduce that by every definition Israel is a terrorist political entity. They wonder why it’s not regarded as such and ask some uncomfortable questions: “Is it the case that the colour of the victims’ skin sets the definition? Or is judgement simply determined by whether the perpetrator supports Western interests or not?”
The compact 80 pages study is divided into four parts. Part one introduces the theme and questions of the study. It builds a case about Zionist violence as a building block of Israel. Plan Dalet especially the massacre of Deir Yassin is explored in detail. Two brutal murders, of a child and paramedic, followed by some erroneous rather shameless justifications are highlighted. Additionally, the text touches upon the apartheid practices of Israel (for e.g. discriminatory laws, such as the Law of Return and the Absentee Property Law, etc.) besides Israel’s collaboration with apartheid South Africa. In short, the authors establish that the Israeli political entity is an apartheid, oppressive and terrorist regime.
Part two deals with media responses to the 1946 King David Hotel Bombing. The heinous attacks have been described as an equivalent to the Twin Towers attacks for USA. It has been accentuated that over the years Israeli leaders have justified the attacks to the extent that Netanyahu has unveiled a plaque commemorating the incident without condemning the perpetrators. After establishing this background, responses of British media (The Manchester Guardian, The Daily Mail, and Daily Mirror); Palestinian media (Filastin, Al-Ittihad, and Al-Difa); and Jewish media (The Palestine Post, Al ha-mishmar, and Ha’aretz) have been recorded and analysed. The authors have noted that in the British media despite the characterisation of the attacks as an “outrage” and even as an act of “Jewish terrorism”, an undercurrent of sympathy towards the motives of the Jewish resistance movement can be traced. The Palestinian media condemned the “heinous Jewish crime” in strongest terms. They also attributed Zionist terror to British occupation rather than emphasising Jewish criminality. The Jewish media strongly condemned the Irgun’s actions, labelling them a “reckless fascist gang”, it also highlighted global reactions, including British condemnation and concerns about the impact on world sympathy for Zionism.
Part three deals with media responses to the Jabalia Refugee Camp Bombing of October 31st, 2023. A context has been given of Israel’s recent bombardment of Gaza and the attacks have been described as “bloodiest in history”. Genocidal rhetoric from Israeli officials has been underscored including suggestions of using nuclear bombs on Gaza. A brief history and description of Jabalia Camp is followed by the analysis of media responses to the attack that comprised six 2000-pound bombs dropped on Jabalia camp. Following the pattern of the preceding chapter, responses of British media (The Guardian, Daily Mail, and Daily Mirror); Palestinian and Arab media (Al-Jazeera, and Al-Quds); and Jewish media (The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, and Ha’aretz) have been recorded and analysed.
Also Read: 1,000 killed, injured, and missing from Israeli airstrikes on Jabalia camp: Gaza Health Ministry
The authors have noted that Israeli version of the events gets prominence in British media with minimal to no pushback on Israeli claims. They especially underline the fact that the term “act of terror” is not explicitly used in describing the Jabalia camp bombing in comparison with the King David Hotel bombing, where the term “terrorist” was applied. Even at risk of prolonging this write-up, I am giving in to the temptation of showcasing a glimpse of their meticulous analysis. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to their assessment of The Guardian’s coverage. Authors have underscored the following points:
- While covering the King David bombing The Guardian recognises the attack as “brutal” but warns against “vicious cycle” of repression of the Jews that would “only breed further terrorism”. These attacks, for The Guardian, “stress the need for speed” in bringing a political solution. The authors have emphasised that, “Palestinians are never afforded such platitudes in the modern context, with any acts of resistance often completely stripped of their political context.” (p. 24)
- In the context of Jabalia Camp bombing, the authors have called out the “dissociative amnesia” of The Guardian in the following words, “Palestinian deaths have increasingly been reduced to a murder mystery in the Western media, with ‘Dozens killed’ written in the passive tone. Rather than stating that the Israeli airstrikes killed these people, it is as if the relation between the two was merely incidental.” (p. 41)
- The authors argue that Israeli version of events often gets presented as facts. In this case, it has been done through the following subheading: “Israeli military says it bombed Jabalia camp to target a key Hamas commander, Ibrahim Biari.” The authors expose the impact of such journalistic mischiefs, “When you first open the article online, this is the sole analysis viewable to the reader. This immediately gives the Israeli voice an authority and supremacy and rationalises what would otherwise be patently obvious as a war crime and abominable act.” (p. 42)
- In their analysis, authors dissect “a persistent foregrounding of the Israeli narrative, often with little to no pushback” that results in “a situation where attacks on civilian infrastructure are, if not acceptable to the Western palate, at least expected.” (p. 42)
- They draw attention to the fact that in the second paragraph the statistics of casualties (50 dead and 150 injured) are attributed to “Hamas officials” thereby delegitimising the same. The perception that this wordplay creates is called out in the following words, “Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, placing a question mark on the numbers given. Furthermore, the incident came after reports casting aspersion on the figures emerging from Gaza, despite international humanitarian agencies considering them ‘broadly accurate and historically reliable’, according to a report in Reuters. The term ‘Hamas officials’ is also (some may argue deliberately) far more ambiguous than referring to, for example, ‘the Gaza Ministry of Health’.” (p. 42)
- Furthermore, the contrast in coverage of Palestinian and Israeli voices is highlighted when the authors point out that in the third paragraph it is mentioned that ‘The Hamas-run health ministry called the attack a ‘heinous’ massacre.’ They emphasise, “The citation is only one word, and there is no identification of who said it. In contrast, in the fifth paragraph, an Israeli spokesperson is named and quoted in full sentences… Later in the article, another Israeli spokesperson is mentioned by name and again quoted in full…” (p. 43)
- The authors have concluded their argument as follows, “…there are key terms missing from this article. There is no description of the Israeli attack on Jabalia refugee camp as ‘indiscriminate’ or an ‘act of terror’. In fact, the only condemnation of the atrocity is in a quote from Hamas officials. In contrast, Hamas’ attack of October 7th is described by The Guardian themselves as a ‘murderous onslaught’. This is a double standard. Furthermore, the Israeli claim to have killed a senior Hamas commander in the bombing is prominently featured in the subheading, whereas the response of Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem, who ‘denied any senior commander there and called the claim an Israeli pretext for killing civilians’, as per Reuters, is not communicated… this reflects an underlying presumption that Israeli claims are authoritative and factual, and Palestinian claims are suspect, questionable, or not worthy of report.” (p. 44)
In the Jewish media, authors contend, Jabalia refugee camp is unabashedly described as a ‘Hamas military stronghold’ and victims are described as Hamas terrorists. No evidence is provided for these unsubstantiated claims and the entire reconstruction of events is based on an unnamed military spokesperson. On a more subtle note, the authors have pointed out the absence of victim images and prominent mention of two Israeli soldiers killed providing details about their names, ranks, and hometowns. Unlike King David bombing where opposition to the attacks from within the Jewish community was given due coverage and the terror act was condemned as ‘Nazi-style brutality’; strong Jewish voices against Gaza genocide have not been given any space.
Authors praise Al-Jazeera’s coverage which is characterised by on-ground reporters, detailed reports, live updates, series of photographs, independent verification of claims, eye-witness accounts, reportage of global condemnation, emphasis on the impact on civilians (with details of women and children being rescued from half-destroyed buildings), and covering Hamas’ claim that its civilian captives, including foreign passport holders, were killed in the strikes which were conveniently omitted in British and Jewish media. However, the authors note that, the network’s coverage, even while empathising with Palestinians, avoids characterising the bombing as a terrorist attack. Though, they recognise that avoiding loaded terms like terrorism may be a strategic move to maintain professionalism and credibility.
Also Read: How Israel uses ‘hasbara’ to justify killing civilians
A hallmark of this study is its terminologically correct approach. The questions and conclusions of the authors may seem harsh but they are very clear in their approach that their understanding of terrorism is based on the United Nations definition of the term which is cited as, “Any action… that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” Likewise Israel, in the whole text, has been referred to as “political entity” and not as a “state” which grants it a certain kind of legitimacy.
The authors have focused on unearthing the between-the-lines of the coverage and identifying and exposing the biased narrative of the mainstream media in their study. For instance, in their analysis of the coverage given to the rescue efforts in 1946 (by The Palestine Post), they write, “In 1946, those under the rubble were afforded sympathy. But in 2023, the Palestinian victims of Israeli bombing campaigns in Gaza, struggling to dig their dead and wounded from beneath decimated buildings, remain anonymous.” (p. 33-34) Likewise they emphasise that when sympathy is the goal, “the detail on the victims of a terrorist attack is abundant, right down to the hours their bodies are discovered.” The Palestine Post had even estimated the financial cost of the damage to the King David Hotel at 100,000 Palestinian pounds. The authors lament, “In 2023, however, you will find no estimates of the financial or human cost of Israeli bombs.” (p. 35)
Their following remark is also amusing given in the context of British MPs’ calls for restraint in response to the King David Hotel attacks, “If we compare these reports to the present day, we find that British MPs were far more capable of advising their own government to show restraint in an arrest campaign against the Jewish community in Palestine in 1946 following a terrorist attack on their own headquarters than they are now in advising a foreign government to show restraint in an indiscriminate bombing campaign against what former British prime minister David Cameron described as a ‘prison camp’.” (p. 38)
Numbers boggle us down; till the publication of this eBook, 15,000 human beings had been killed in recent genocidal attacks on Gaza (the toll has more than doubled as I am penning this review). But the credit goes to the authors for humanising the narrative of pain and loss that has been cruelly dumped under the burden of statistics and sheer numbers. This is especially noticeable in the text, for e.g. when they explore the brutal murders of Iman al-Hams and Razan al-Najjar, etc.
Part four concludes this meticulous study which can be regarded as a landmark as far as literature on media analysis is concerned. The study is deeply rooted in facts and its authenticity can be gauged from 11-page bibliography and 361 footnotes that duly provide the details of every citation, statistic and observation. In this part, authors cite Airwars and their estimation of 126-136 civilian deaths, including 69 children, and 280 civilian injuries in Jabalia carnage. They introduce Airwars as a UK-based transparency watchdog affiliated with the Department of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths University in London and highlight their meticulous methodology of collating 106 individual sources, largely comprising specific eyewitness accounts posted onto social media accounts, through which they have reached the numbers. They go on to establish that the Israeli military had a focus “on damage and not on accuracy” in Gaza and saw “no such thing as uninvolved civilians”, in short, they did deliberately target civilians in Jabalia on October 31st.
Authors ask, “Why then has the October 31st bombing of Jabalia not been reported as an act of terror?” The painful answers that they have reached are, in their own words, as follows, “By creating a narrative where every person and location in the Gaza Strip is a legitimate military target, as reflected in media reports that characterised Jabalia as a ‘military stronghold’ and the victims of the bombing as ‘50 terrorists’, the Israeli political entity has managed to avoid culpability for these crimes in recent years. Nevertheless, unsubstantiated political statements do not outweigh swathes of eyewitness accounts and verified facts, as compiled, for example, in the Airwars investigation.” The authors lament that “Indeed, we have come to accept in the West that the Israeli military are automatically absolved of such appellations.”
They apply the UN definition of terrorism on the incident and conclude their study on the following note, “An act of terror is neither defined by the identities of its victims or perpetrators. The lives of the 91 Arab, British, and Jewish victims of the King David Hotel bombing in 1946 were no more sacred than those of the 126+ Palestinians victims of the Jabalia massacre in 2023, and the Jewish militants of the Irgun and Haganah in 1946 were no more criminal than the Jewish militants of the IDF in 2023. A moral consistency is imperative. Therefore, just as the King David Hotel bombing was condemned as a criminal act, so too should the Jabalia massacre.” (p. 64)
[The writer is Director In-Charge, Indian Institute of Islamic Studies and Research]
