Agence France-Presse: the account versus the
facts
By Clément Weill Raynal
Translated by Douglas
French original: "L'Agence France Presse: le récit contre les faits"
(Clément Weill Raynal, Observatoire du monde juif/antisemitism.info, from the March 2002 issue)
The AFP: Independent Firm or Government Agency?
The first week - the beginning of the violence
Second Day of the Conflict: Saturday 30 September
The Imbalance in Sources
The Death of Mohammed al-Dura
The Silence Surrounding the Statements by Faluji
The Submission of the Mitchell Report
After the submission of the Mitchell Report
France's Official Position
Word Choices: who are the "extremists?"
The demonization of Ariel Sharon: the Sabra and
Shatila matter
The Karine A Affair
Imbalanced Reporting
Does the Agence France-Presse, the third largest global wire service, respect its obligations to "accuracy, balance and objectivity" that the law requires or, on the contrary, does it violate this principle by providing its subscribers with partisan information? This is the question to which I have tried to bring some concrete elements of an answer in examining the AFP's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly since the 28 September 2000 beginning of what is often called the "second Intifada."
Due to the impossibility of an exhaustive examination of the all the bulletins devoted to these events over the last year, I have confined myself to an attentive reading of the those bulletins broadcast over AFP channels during the principal moments of the Intifada. I have attempted to reveal a number of inaccuracies and omissions that — in my view — are evidence of the desire to favor the Palestinian side by casting responsibility for the wave of violence on the Israeli side alone.
The AFP: Independent Firm or Government Agency?
Why this study devoted to Agence France-Presse? It is not unfair to assert that to a great degree the AFP feeds, informs and, to be honest, orients the French press, be it broadcast or print. Largely invisible to the public at large, it is one of the principal channels of opinion in France and in an entire sector of the world, notably in the Mediterranean basin.
The AFP itself boasts of this considerable power. With 165 bureaus across the world and more than 2000 reporters, it claims to be the third largest wire service in the world, after its two British (Reuters) and American (Associated Press) competitors.
It also boasts being the largest Arab speaking wire service in the world.
Every day, it informs 10,000 subscribers around the world, transmitting two million words in six languages. It claims to have 3 billion readers.
The AFP is not an ordinary company. It is neither a public enterprise nor a commercial entity.
It is an autonomous organization with a civic face while its operations follow commercial rules. Its unique status is stipulated by the law of 10 January 1957.
This law makes the AFP an independent organization of which the mission is to seek out and broadcast "complete, rigorous and objective" news information.
According to this law, the AFP "can under no circumstances take into account influences or considerations of a nature such as to compromise the accuracy or objectivity this information; it can under no circumstances come under the de facto or de jure control of an ideological, political or economic group." The same law theoretically guarantees the AFP total financial and political independence.
Nevertheless, the State is very much present at the heart of the AFP, especially in the administration of the agency. On the Administrative Council there are three representatives of public services that make use of the AFP. These representatives are named by the Prime minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance respectively. Of the eight members of the executive board, there is one member of the Council of State, a magistrate from the Court of Appeals and two persons "having represented France abroad." Finally, it is widely known that the nominating process for the Chief Executive office of the AFP requires the assent of the highest authorities in the land. This nomination is the subject of lengthy negotiation.
The State is also present thanks to the very numerous subscriptions held for administrative accounts (ministries, embassies, commissions, large public agencies…). In the 1980s, these subscriptions represented 60% of the Agency's business. In 2000, this proportion was reduced to 40%. The single largest client of the AFP remains the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Is it for this reason that the political stance at the Quai d'Orsay sometimes - often - stands in for the editorial stance of the AFP? It should be observed that the AFP's assertion of the "triggering" nature of the Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosque Esplanade in the beginnings of the Intifada coincided, on Saturday 30 September, with the release of official communiqués from the Quai d'Orsay and the Elysée "condemning" the visit by the one who at the time was the Likud leader.
Is it due to the very great number of Arab clients of the "largest Arab language service in the world" that the AFP has decided to show a certain care for the favorite topics of Arab dictatorships? Without trying to provide definitive answers, the aim of this study is to try to offer a certain number of subjects for consideration and explanation.
The
first week - the beginning of the violence
Even though the Intifada did not really start until Friday, 29 September, for all intents and purposes, History has retained another date: Thursday 28 September, i.e. the very day Ariel Sharon, then the opposition leader, visited what is commonly called the Mosques Esplanade and which the Israeli press (from Right to Left) calls by the classical name of the "Temple Mount" given to it by the Jewish tradition. Bit by bit, one theory came to the forefront which was then elevated to the level of official and indisputable truth: the cause of the Intifada was supposedly the arrival of Ariel Sharon at the Mosque Esplanade, depicted as a deliberate "provocation." The Israelis are therefore responsible for the outbreak of the violence.
In France, it was this version of the facts that the AFP offered to its subscribers. An attentive reading of the bulletins transmitted shows that, starting with the very first days of the violence, AFP reporting seemed to want to hide the Palestinian responsibility and worsen that of the Israeli camp, to bring to the forefront the statements and arguments of the of the Palestinian side and to obscure, if not to ignore those of the Israeli government.
But, first of all, the facts. The action begins in the early hours of Thursday, 28 September, 2000. Ariel Sharon, then the opposition leader, arrives at the foot of the Mosques Esplanade/Temple Mount. This symbolic act aims to assert Israeli sovereignty over the holy sites and to protest prime minister Ehud Barak's proposal to finalize a sharing agreement, making two capitals out of Jerusalem. The choice of location is no accident. In deed, the Esplanade houses both the highest holy site in Judaism and the third highest holy site in Islam. Religious tensions are focused on this point. The question of determining who will have political sovereignty over the Esplanade is one of the thorniest points of negotiation.
The visit by Sharon, announced several days prior and paid with the permission of the Muslim authorities who control the site arouses an angry demonstration by several dozen young Palestinians. Skirmishes and then battles occur. The demonstrators throw stones, chairs and metal objects onto the small delegation accompanying Ariel Sharon. The police respond by shooting rubber bullets. Six Palestinians and 25 police officers are lightly wounded. These incidents were to last only several minutes. Calm was quickly restored.
It is not until the following day, Friday, 29 September, or 24 hours later, that the serious incidents occur. From atop the Esplanade, Palestinians throw stones at the soldiers who are guarding the gates at the entrance and Jewish worshippers who are praying at the "Wailing Wall" down below. The army responds. At the end of the day, the toll from the clashes on the Esplanade reaches seven dead Palestinians and 220 wounded. For the media and the public at large, the "second Intifada" has just begun.
On precisely what date did this new Intifada begin? 28 September, the date of Sharon's visit to the Esplanade? The 29th, the date of the first serious confrontations? Since the failure of the Camp David summit in July, the Israeli press had been publishing alarming reports by the intelligence services. According to these reports, which make the front page of the Jerusalem Post in mid-September, the Palestinian Authority is preparing the start of an armed confrontation. The day prior to the arrival of Ariel Sharon on the Mosques Esplanade, two bomb attacks were perpetrated, of which one caused the death of an Israeli soldier who was escorting a busload of civilians in the Gaza strip. On 29 September, in the early hours, or several hours before the first deaths on the Mosques Esplanade, a Palestinian police officer kills in cold blood an Israeli border guard with whom he had been carrying out a joint patrol. These attacks are the most serious since Ehud Barak took office. They owe nothing to chance and mark the true beginning of the Intifada.
Reading the AFP bulletins posted Friday 29 September is interesting for more than one reason. It offers a kind of "snap shot" of the beginning, in the very first hours of the violent clashes on the Mosques Esplanade which were to mark the real beginning of the Intifada. This snap shot will then allow one to understand better the acrobatics (omissions, semantic distortions, imbalances in the use of sources…) that the Agence France-Presse would allow itself in order to credit Palestinian points of view.
On 29 September, the AFP does indeed give a relatively balanced reading of the situation. In a long bulletin posted toward mid-day (1:26 PM), while the death toll from the rioting is only at two dead, the journalist Marius Schattner writes: "Ehud Barak is facing violence of a gravity that is unprecedented since his taking office in 1999, marked by anti-Israeli attacks that have killed two and clashes that have killed two among the Palestinians on the Mosques Esplanade in Jerusalem." At this point, the "fable" of an Intifada started with the toss of a stick by Ariel Sharon has not yet been forged. The AFP had placed the events of that Friday to the context of the previous few days. The two attacks of Wednesday and Friday are therefore to be taken into consideration. They allow one to ask whether the Palestinian Authority has not already initiated the hostilities. In its day's end roundup (9:51 PM), the AFP reminds its readers that "there has existed for several months a latent risk of violence due to the impasse in peace talks, especially since the failure of the Camp David summit in July" and adds "but this risk suddenly became much more real on Friday, with certain Palestinians even calling for a new Intifada."
As to who is responsible for the outbreak of violence, here, too, the AFP shows real balance in reporting the positions of the two sides: "In the matter of the Mosques Esplanade […], Ehud Barak has unambiguously accused the Palestinians, saying they were responsible for the violence. Among the Palestinians, the violence, which started with stonethrowing at Israelis, is nonetheless explained by the visit on the previous day by the leader of the Israeli Right, Ariel Sharon, which they felt was a provocation."
Second
Day of the Conflict: Saturday 30 September
From the following day onward, the "editorial stance" changed. While the fighting was at its most intense (the day would see 16 dead and 500 wounded), the AFP retained only a single thesis: the Palestinian view of the "provocation" by Ariel Sharon. In the days and weeks that were to follow, the opposition leader's visit to the Esplanade would become the sole cause of the conflict. Moreover, the first bulletin (11:31 AM) that is oriented this way came from Paris. Reporting the reaction by the Palestinian Authority's representative in France, Leila Shahid, the AFP indicated that "The visit by opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Mosques Esplanade in Jerusalem is a 'provocation pure and simple,' of which the consequences have shown 'how inflammable the situation is,' said Leila Shahid."
The dispatches sent from the major Arab capitals follow in these footsteps. One can observe that these bulletins often take up the tone and vocabulary of governmental communiqués, of the official press or of the Palestinian organizations which they echo.
At 11:50 am, a bulletin from Damascus is entitled "Damascus denounces the 'massacre' on the Mosques Esplanade in Jerusalem." An hour later, again from Damascus, the PFLP spokesman asserts that "the massacre committed by the Israeli occupation forces on the Mosques Esplanade, after the profanation of this Esplanade by the terrorist Ariel Sharon, shows the absurdity of pursuing peace negotiations."
The best is yet to come. Noting a demonstration in Saïda, in Lebanon, against the "massacres" in Jerusalem, the AFP reporter Jihad Saqlaoui, writes: "youths burned the Israeli flag and an effigy of the leader of the Israeli Right, Ariel Sharon, whose visit on Thursday to the al-Aqsa Esplanade provoked bloody clashes during which seven Palestinians were killed."
The arrival on Thursday of Ariel Sharon and the bloody gun battle of Friday are now a single event. There is nothing in the dispatch to indicate that the bloody riot occurred nearly 30 hours after the visit by Sharon and that the gun fight broke out after the Palestinians youths stoned worshippers who were praying beneath them at the Wailing Wall.
From the second day of the Intifada, the AFP delivered to its subscribers (that is to say, the whole of the French press), an explanation for the Palestinian revolt: "the violence was triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade which houses the third holiest site in Islam."
On Sunday, October 1, this assertion would be repeated 13 times on the agency wire. On Monday, 2 October, the idea is used in more than 20 bulletins. From then on, this would be this sole cause of this latest episode in the Arab-Israeli conflict, according to the AFP. Practically every day, at every occasion, in each chronological rundown, the AFP would invariably use this pet phrase: "the Intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade, the third holiest site in Islam." However, in the weeks and months that followed, the AFP never deemed it useful to recall the context surrounding the failure of the Camp David summit, the deadly attacks that had returned long before Sharon's visit to the Esplanade, the attack on Jewish worshippers praying at the Wailing Wall which provoked the bloody gun battle on the Esplanade. Finally, it is interesting to note the systematic use of the expression "third-most holy site in Islam" to describe the Mosques Esplanade while "most holy site in Judaism" is used only on rare occasions. Is this an oversight, an unimportant detail? Or does the AFP, following the example of Palestinian propaganda, seek better to confirm the illegitimacy of any Jewish presence on the Temple Mount?
To this tendentious presentation of the facts is added a flagrant imbalance in the choice of sources. Indeed, this is what is shown by a careful reading of the bulletins during the first week of the conflict. On Saturday, 30 September, the AFP devoted 79 bulletins to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Six of these, which may be considered balanced, cite both Israeli and Palestinian sources. Thirteen bulletins seem to rely on independent sources (hospital sources, "witnesses," or an AFP reporter on the scene…).
As for the rest, 47 bulletins use information coming solely from the Arab-Palestinian side (Palestinian hospital sources, the Palestinian Health Minister, Palestinian security forces, Palestinian political officials, Arab organizations…) and only 14 come from the Israeli side (Government ministers, the Council of State…).
Moreover, it is interesting to note that of those 13 bulletins, often tersely edited, ten are broadcast only at the end of the day between 8 and 11 pm, while the bulletins coming from the Palestinian camp come across the AFP wire all day long.
The importance of "timing" cannot be overstated for the transmission of news in trying to understand the mechanism and influence of wire services on editorial offices. It is worthwhile to point out the obvious: a newspaper office is first and foremost an office. The immense majority of journalists work "office hours." The peak hours for news are well known. From 7 to 9 am for the radio, 7 to 8 pm for major television news magazines. The daily press is itself essentially edited in the morning, the afternoon and early evening. It is obvious that news transmitted early in the morning and the after noon will have an effect on journalists and therefore on a wider section of the public than a bulletin sent after the peak at 8 pm, when the prime times for news have passed, the majority of editors have gone home after a long day's work and the editorial offices are simply deserted.
Is this due to chance? Improper methods? One must not fear attempting a fastidious audit in order to observe that the same imbalances in the treatment of sources and in the broadcast schedules would be repeated over the following days.
On Sunday, 1 October, the AFP transmitted 45 bulletins (news flashes, ledes, summaries…) which only cite sources from the Arab-Palestinian side. Of these 45 bulletins, three were sent between midnight and 8 am, three over the course the morning, 30 between midday and 8 pm and a further ten before midnight. In the same 24 hours, the AFP transmitted only 17 dispatches citing Israeli sources. Six between midnight and 7 am, four in the morning, two at 6 pm and six between 8 pm and midnight.
On Monday, 2 October, the same arithmetic is repeated. Twenty-five bulletins based solely on Palestinian sources, 12 others relating the official positions of France and the European Union, "condemning Ariel Sharon's provocation." Thirteen rely on Israeli sources that cast responsibility for the violence on the Palestinians.
The same day, the AFP also devoted a dozen dispatches to the death on the previous day of Mohammed al-Dura, the Palestinian child whose dying moments, filmed by a France 2 camera crew were seen around the world. Everyone can still remember the sight of the child, crying in his fathers arms, both of them trying in vain to take shelter behind a chance concrete protrusion. Two civilians caught - it very much seems - in a prolonged crossfire coming from two adverse sides which it so happened were Palestinian and Israeli. What was the "nationality" of the bullets that killed little Mohammed? Israeli? Palestinian? No one can say. No autopsy has succeeded in determining this.
Nevertheless, from the very first hours of the drama, the AFP thought and still thinks it was able to declare that the child died under Israeli fire. Throughout the day, the agency's bulletins indicate the child "apparently" died under Israeli fire. "The footage (France 2) does not show who was shooting," the stringer notes with some honesty, "but the shots seem to come from the Israeli position" (AFP 1:19 PM). On what material evidence does the AFP base its assertion? The bulletins do not reveal this. At the end of the day, a new bulletin seems to add some clarifications. The headline is the following: "The Israeli Army Implicitly Admits It May Have Killed the young Mohammed" (AFP 8:59 PM). One can note the redundancy of precautions under which the headline is written. The first paragraph offers the following indications: "the adjunct chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, general Moshe Ayalon, has implicitly admitted that Mohammed al-Dura may have been mistakenly killed by Israeli soldiers."
One must read as far as the fourth paragraph to see that the remarks in question of the general are both more precise and more uncertain: the general "admitted the possibility that an Israeli soldier could have targeted the boy's father, believing that he was one of the assailants, but did not completely rule out the possibility that the child was hit by Palestinian bullets."
Throughout the year 2001, the AFP would hold to this "appearance," "Mohammed al-Dura was apparently killed by Israeli bullets." Thus the "official version" was drawn up and decreed by the AFP in numerous bulletins dedicated to this matter that the service would send to its subscribers. In the Spring of 2001, the AFP would not devote a single line to the publication of a report by an official inquiry panel which concluded that it was impossible to establish from where the deadly shots came. The publication of this report did not go unnoticed in Israel, however. It made the front page of the very serious daily Haaretz and also aroused numerous polemics in Israel.
Finally, nearly a year after the fact, the AFP would no longer trouble itself with any extenuating qualifications. The adverb "apparently" would disappear once and for all from the dispatches concerning Mohammed al-Dura, despite the absence of new evidence allowing one to favor one theory over another.
On 15 October 2001, when the Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahme was to receive an award, the AFP wrote: "the cameraman Talal Abu Rahme who filmed the death of Mohamed al-Dura, a young Palestinian killed by shots from Israeli soldiers, was prevented from travelling to London to accept a prize."
On 29 November 2001, the reporter Dan Beaulieu wrote a bulletin containing a portrait of the father of Mohammed that began as follows: "the father of the Palestinian child Mohammed al-Dura, whose death under Israeli fire filmed lived by a French television crew made it the most famous of the 1,000 dead in the Intifada, is no longer able to talk of peace."
The
Silence Surrounding the Statements by Faluji
On 2 March 2001, five months into the Intifada, Imad Falouji, the Palestinian Communications Minister, gave a speech at PLO meeting in the Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp, 45 kilometers to the south of Beirut. In this speech, Imad Faluji made two important declarations. Firstly, he asserts that "the Intifada had been planned since the failure of negotiations at camp David," in July 2000. On this point, the Palestinian minister could not have been more clear, as he spoke of "the Camp David summit where president Arafat sent the American president Bill Clinton packing and rejected the American conditions." Imad Faluji then asserted (for those who might not already have understood) that "it is an error to think that the (Palestinian) insurrection was instigated by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade."
These remarks were felt to be sufficiently important for the American wire service the Associated Press (AP) to devote a long bulletin to them that very day. The majority of the English language press would follow this story for several days. The correspondent for Le Monde in Israel, Georges Marion, took notice of it. The AFP, which is nevertheless present in Lebanon, did not give it a line. Why? Could it be because this report - from Palestinian sources - contradicted the official version of the "provocation by Ariel Sharon" ceaselessly harped on over the previous five months by the AFP?
Imad Faluji had already made similar remarks during a conference in Gaza on 5 December 2000. These words had been reported by the Palestinian daily al-Ayam on 6 December. Other Palestinian officials, cited by the international press, have made statements to the same effect. In its March 3, 2001 edition, Le Nouvel Observateur published statements by Mamdoh Nofal, one of the leaders of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), explaining that Yasser Arafat personally made the decision to launch hostilities:
"Several days before Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade, when Yasser Arafat asked us to be ready to fight (…)." Jibril Rajub, head of preventative security in the West Bank, himself also ceaselessly warned Arafat against the dangers of armed conflict. In vain. Abu Amar (Arafat) was convinced that at the end of two or three days, the disproportion of force would be so intolerable that the Americans, the Europeans and the Arabs would advise Barak to return to the negotiations. The AFP never repeated these statements, whether to downplay them, to call their importance into question or to criticize them. In this way, the AFP applied a simple rule of disinformation: that which one does not discuss, does not exist. Despite the statements by Faluji and other Palestinian officials, the AFP would continue all year long to name Ariel Sharon as the sole party responsible for starting the Intifada.
The
Submission of the Mitchell Report
After six months of investigation, the international Mitchell commission charged with determining the causes of the explosion of Israeli-Palestinian violence submitted its report on Friday, 4 May, 2001.
Formed at the Sharm al-Sheikh summit of 16 and 17 October 2000, this five-member commission, officially christened as "fact-finding," and not as an investigation, was presided over by the former US Senator George Mitchell.
Starting in the morning of Friday, 4 May, the AFP transmitted a series of bulletins to announce the arrival in the hours that would follow of the report, the official conclusions of which were awaited.
Despite this, the AFP was able to preempt these conclusions several hours before the submission of the report - the attitude of which was still unknown - in writing to the parties:
"The goal (of the Mitchell report) is to determine the origin of the violence triggered by Ariel Sharon's controversial visit to the Mosques Esplanade…"
This assertion (which totally contradicts the report's findings, but this would only be known later) was to be repeated seven times that day.
Starting at 5 pm, the Mitchell report's conclusions began to become known. In particular, it is known that, according to the report, "the arrival of Mr. Sharon on the Mosques Esplanade is not the cause of the Intifada" (even if the members of the Mitchell commission deplore its "provocative" nature). The AFP would then nuance its version in juxtaposing these two events as the better to underscore the causal link that bound them.
In a bulletin at 5:57 pm, the AFP reporter Jo Srich writes: the violence "has killed 508 since 28 September, the date of the visit by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, then the opposition leader, to the Mosques Esplanade."
Once again, the AFP proceeds to confuse the date, leaving it to be understood that the first Palestinian dead were killed at the moment of Sharon's visit while, in fact, the first Palestinian casualties of the Intifada were killed on 29 September. Why, then, begin the macabre death toll on 28 September if not in order to credit the theory of Sharon's responsibility? (It is worth noting that the AFP would continue in the weeks and months that were to follow the submission of the report to write again - and on numerous occasions - that the Intifada "was triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade.")
In the evening of Friday, 4 May and then in the day of Saturday 5 May, the AFP did of course report on the whole of the Mitchell report's conclusions, including the one concerning Ariel Sharon's arrival at the Mosques Esplanade. But the title of these bulletins would dwell on one point only: "The Mitchell commission seeks a total freeze on settlement building…" (8:53 PM).
Leaving the reproaches and recommendations addressed to the Palestinian side in the background, particularly the condemnation of the violence committed by the Palestinians.
On Friday, 5 May, the AFP published 11 bulletins devoted to the submission of the report's contents. The title of the first four returns to the information reported the previous day: "the Mitchell report recommends halting all Jewish settlement building."
Once again, the AFP chooses to advance only those points unfavorable to the Israelis. One must read to the middle of the document to glean from a phrase that the report "blames both sides." And it is only in the very last paragraph that the service reports that criticisms had been addressed to the Palestinian Authority and to Yasser Arafat, with the Mitchell report notably reproaching the Palestinians for their "lack of control over their security forces."
At midday, the first Palestinian reactions to the publication of the report began to come down the wire. "Arafat wants a new Sharm al-Sheikh summit," reported the service. According to the Palestinian leader, whose words were reported by the AFP, this summit "is necessary to discuss the conclusions of the report and of the Mitchell commission on the violence."
At the end of the day, the AFP reported new Palestinian reactions. The 10:39 pm bulletin bears the following headline: "Mitchell Report: several points are acceptable, according to the Palestinians."
Up to this point, the Israeli reactions were still unknown. The AFP did not say a word about them. On Sunday, 6 May, in the morning, the first Israeli reaction - at last! - was: "Israel rejects another Sharm al-Sheikh before a halt to violence."
The Israeli position, as reported by the AFP, is therefore a negative reaction. The tendentious presentation of the facts could lead one to think that Jerusalem rejected the Mitchell Commission's recommendations. This is not the case. The Israelis were only adding a condition to Yasser Arafat's latest demand.
By contrast, the positive reaction of the Palestinians is repeated again and brought to the forefront several times over the course of the day: "Mitchell Report: rather favorable Palestinian reception."
It wasn't until Sunday evening, at the very end of the day (10:06 pm), that the AFP tell its subscribers of the official Israeli reaction: "The report by the Mitchell Commission is 'just and balanced,' according to Peres."
But by this time, as we have already noted, the greater newspapers, radio and television news offices are closed. The press rooms are winding down, especially on Sunday evening! Editorial offices are deserted. Nevertheless, Shimon Peres' reaction had been transmitted to the Israeli media as early as Saturday evening.
Why this inexplicable delay of more than 24 hours in the broadcasting of news which, after all, is essential? Is this negligence or the wish to give this information the smallest possible audience?
Thanks to the AFP, throughout the weekend radio and television audiences were made aware of a truncated document, presented in a tendentious manner, that would lead one to believe that:
1. Ariel Sharon's responsibility was an established fact even before the release of the report's conclusions.
2. The report's recommendations cast the essential responsibility for the troubles onto Israel, particularly because of the problem of the "colonies."
3. The Palestinians had shown good will by accepting the greater aspects of the report while the Israelis had more or less rejected them, which is entirely false.
After
the submission of the Mitchell Report
In the weeks and months that followed the release of the Mitchell Report, the AFP continued to identify Ariel Sharon as the party responsible for the Palestinian uprising. The Agency would only recall on very rare occasions (six, according to my audit) that, according to the Mitchell Report, "Ariel Sharon's presence was not the cause of the Intifada." On the contrary, the service would on many occasions advance the theory of the Israeli prime minister's direct responsibility. Between the months of May 2001 and January 2002, 54 bulletins persisted in accusing Sharon of having "triggered" the violence in carrying out his visit to the Esplanade. The various wordings used by the AFP are the following:
"Ariel Sharon's visit detonated the Intifada." (7/23/2001 6:21 PM)
"The controversial visit by Ariel Sharon was the spark that set off the second Intifada." (7/28/2001 8:57 PM)
"[…] the popular upheaval was ignited spontaneously after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosques Esplanade." (2/1/2002 3:04 PM)
"It was following the visit by Ariel Sharon to the Mosques Esplanade that the Intifada began" (8/2/2001 10:03 AM)
These assertions are again repeated - and on multiple occasions - in the bulletins regarding the first anniversary of the Intifada and broadcast between 23 and 30 September 2001.
"It was the visit last year by the current Israeli prime minister Ariel Shron to the Esplanade that sparked the Intifada." (9/28/01)
And, finally, a bulletin dated 7 August proceeds with a confusion of dates and asserts that "the bloody battles occurred on the Mosques Esplanade during the provocative visit of Ariel Sharon" (8/7/2001).
The theory of Sharon's responsibility, consistently emphasized by the AFP, is also the official view of French diplomacy. Starting on 2 October, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement by Minister Hubert Védrine which "unreservedly condemns the deliberate provocation achieved by Ariel Sharon" and which "deplores the resultant violence."
The same day, in a statement by the President of the Republic, the Elysée confirmed this analysis. Receiving the American secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Jacques Chirac stated:
"We are disturbed and very concerned by this flare up of violence. At the outset last Thursday, an irresponsible provocation at the holy site of the Mosques Esplanade. And, following that, a foreseeable uprising."
Had France revised its opinion on the responsibilities for the conflict a year after the start of the events? Doubt is permissible. Despite the Mitchell Report's conclusions, despite the statements by Palestinian officials themselves, the Quai d'Orsay maintains its view. Some would offer as proof this startling declaration of 18 January 2002 by the Ministry spokesman during the usual daily press briefing. In answering a question by a reporter who sought to name the parties responsible for a recent incident on the ground, the spokesman answered:
"In the context of such a complex situation, we do not wish to notarially review all the responsibilities for each incident and each violation. By default, we would then enter a sterile dialogue. France, in its turn, has quite clearly stated which event was at the origins of the Intifada."
Word
Choices: who are the "extremists?"
According to its own rules, the AFP is forbidden from taking any side or making any "value judgments." However, scrutinizing the vocabulary and qualifiers chosen for referring to either side can give doubts as to their objectivity.
Who are the "extremists" in the Middle East? A systematic review by "keyword" of all of these bulletins leaves the very clear appearance of the point of view that the AFP argues to its subscribers.
Since the beginning of the year, the only "extremists" in the region have been the Jews, the Israelis, most often the colonists. More than a hundred such bulletins were counted. "In Hebron, some 400 extremist Jewish colonists live nestled among 120,000 Palestinians."
This phrasing is the one used automatically to describe the situation in Hebron.
The 400 colonists are all called extremists with neither nuance nor the distinctions of age or opinion. Each time the "extremist" tag is used, it is to denote the Jews:
"Anti-Palestinian attack: the police suspect Jewish extremists" (AFP 7/20/2001 9:30 AM)
"The murder of three Palestinians, including an infant, in an ambush on Thursday near Hebron raises serious questions about the impunity of Jewish extremists." (AFP 7/20/2001 2:20 PM)
"Jewish extremists demonstrate before the Mosques Esplanade." (AFP 4/10/2001 7:33 PM)
"Hundreds of young extremist Jews shout 'death to Arabs!' outside the Hassan Bek Mosque in Tel Aviv, opposite the discothèque where a suicide attack killed 19 in the night, including the bomber." (AFP 6/2/2001 8:46 PM). (It will be observed that the terrorist himself, is, ornamented with the kamikaze title without which it would be necessary to call him an "extremist.")
"The Israeli police stopped three Jewish extremists trying to infiltrate the Mosques Esplanade […]. These extremists claimed the right to pray there." (AFP 5/21/2001 2:50 PM)
However, this term is never applied to the Palestinians. To refer the members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the AFP most often used the following phrases:
"Palestinian activists are determined to continue the struggle." (AFP 23/5/2001 5:40 PM)
"The members of the radical Islamist movement Hamas promised to continue the struggle." (AFP 7/27/2001 11:03 PM)
"A militant from the radical group Islamic Jihad was killed by the Israelis." (AFP 7/23/2001 8:56 PM)
"An Islamic Jihad leader killed by soldiers in the West Bank." (5/5/2001 8:21 AM)
"A militant from the Palestinian movement Islamic Jihad…" (5/4/2001 6:06 AM)
"The spritual leader of the movement of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) calls the Arabs to supply arms."
"A local Hamas official targeted in a raid." (AFP 7/17/2001 3:52 PM)
The
demonization of Ariel Sharon: the Sabra and Shatila matter
Since Sharon's arrival in office, Arab propaganda has excoriated the Israeli prime minister as a war criminal, particularly for his responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This propaganda aims to depict Ariel Sharon as directly responsible for the killings, while he was only a passive witness, the massacre having been carried out by the Lebanese Forces, a Christian militia then lead by Elie Hobeika. The latter then began a distinguished political career in Lebanon. For many years, he was a minister in the government of the current prime minister Rafik Hariri and was never subjected to judicial prosecution nor the least public condemnation.
If it is conceivable that, for its own reasons, Arab and Palestinian propaganda seeks to silence the venerable name of the "Butcher of Sabra and Shatila" to replace it with that of Ariel Sharon, is it acceptable that the AFP should repeat this complacently?
Over the year 2001, the AFP devoted more than 150 bulletins to the Sabra and Shatila matter.
All of these bulletins are devoted to Ariel Sharon, whose role is consistently included in the headlines:
"Lawsuit against Sharon: a survivor of Sabra and Shatila tells of his suffering." (AFP 6/18/2001 1:22 PM)
"Sabra and Shatila: the BBC debates Ariel Sharon's responsibility." (AFP 6/18/2001 1:53 AM)
"A Lebanese lawyer seeks to bring Sharon and Peres to justice." (AFP 6/11/2001 3:05 PM)
"(Iranian) television announces the victory of the 'butcher of Sabra and Shatila.'" (AFP 2/7/2001. 1:31 PM)
"'Ogre,' 'terrorist,' 'butcher,' the Arab press berates Sharon." (AFP 2/7/2001 1:13 PM)
"Sharon is a 'war criminal,' according to a Danish socialist leader." (AFP 7/2/2001 10:46 AM)
"(Tunisian) lawyers file a complaint against Ariel Sharon." (AFP 7/8/2001 2:17 PM)
"Strasbourg: an improvised 'International Criminal Court of the People' against Sharon." (AFP 7/6/2001 6:40 PM)
"Organization in France against the arrival of Ariel Sharon" (7/5/2001 12:52 PM)
"Brussels prosecutors seek a hearing for the complaint against Sharon" (7/1/2001 2:23 PM)
The whole of these bulletins reluctantly and laconically specify in their final lines that the massacre was "perpetrated by Lebanese Christian militias allied with Israel." However, only one of these 150 bulletins periphrastically indicates the role of Elie Hobeika whose name remains completely unknown to the French public and press.
In January 2002, the name of Elie Hobeika suddenly reappeared on the occasion of his death in a booby-trapped car in Beirut. From 24 January, the day of the attack, to 29 January, the AFP devoted 45 bulletins to the event. Twenty of these are essentially given over to the statements by Arab leaders accusing Israel of having made Hobeika disappear to prevent him from testifying against Sharon.
"A Syrian daily accuses the Israeli Mossad of Hobeika's assassination." (AFP 1/27/2002 11:36 AM)
"Hobeika Assassination: the Damascus press reprobates Israel." (AFP 1/25/2002)
"Israel accused of Hobeika's assassination." (1/24/2002)
"Hobeika Assassination: the Lebanese president implicitly accuses Israel" (1/24/02)
"For the Palestinians of the Sabra and Shatila camps, there can be no doubt about Israel's responsibility." (AFP 1/25/2002 7:13 PM)
In these bulletins, the AFP creates, with a wealth of details and some complacency, the theory of a "man who knew too much" and who would supposedly have "been silenced" to prevent him from making "revelations" at the trial of Ariel Sharon.
From the role of the principle responsible party for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila (silent for 20 years), Hobeika rises to the more noble status of impartial witness ready to unmask Ariel Sharon:
"Hobeika had 'revelations' to make about Sabra and Shatila, according to a Belgian senator." (AFP 1/24/2002)
"Two days before the assassination, Hobeika had revealed to Belgian senators that he was ready to testify before the courts in Belgium where a lawsuit has been brought by the survivors of Sabra and Shatila against the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon" (1/26/2002 12:39)
"Following in the footsteps of the (Lebanese) government, the press scolded Israel, asserting that the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has eliminated a man ready to incriminate him." (AFP 1/26/2002 10:26 AM)
In a bulletin recalling the massacres of Sabra and Shatila perpetrated by the Lebanese Forces of Elie Hobeika, the AFP wrote:
"In July 2001, Hobeika claimed to have proof exonerating the Lebanese Forces and swore he had 'collected testimony' and to possess 'documents that will tarnish the image of the Kahane commission and take away all its credibility (…). We have been under very great pressure from the Israelis to be physically present at the scene. We have refused to do so,' he asserted, categorically stating it was 'the Israelis and the Lebanese of all sides' who had committed the massacres." (AFP 1/24/2002 9:27 PM)
One must observe that these "declarations" by Hobeika in July 2001 had at the time received no notice from the AFP. Faced with numerous accusations, the AFP four times published Israeli denials calling the Lebanese accusations "ridiculous."
On 4 January 2002, the Israeli army intercepted a vessel, the "Karine A" in the Red Sea, which was carrying a significant cargo of arms bound for the Palestinian Authority. This matter placed Palestinian leaders in a delicate position, as much with the Americans as with the Europeans themselves, who, after several days of delay, called on the Palestinian Authority to offer some "explanations."
The seizure of the Karine A's cargo was only so much more unwelcome for the Palestinians because the affaire was revealed the day that American emissary Anthony Zinni arrived in the region. Anthony Zinni was again charged with exploring possibilities for recommencing parleys among Israelis and Palestinians.
The three major international wire services registered the event, each one it is own way:
Reuters (GB): The IDF seizes 50 tons of arms bound for the Palestinians
TEL AVIV (Reuters) - IDF soldiers operating 500 km from the Israeli coast in the international waters of the Red Sea have inspected ship carrying 50 tons of arms and explosives bound for the autonomous Palestinian zones, Israeli officers said. (1/4/2002 3:42 PM)Associated Press (USA): The Israeli army claims to have seized 50 tons of arms bound for the Palestinian territories
JERSUALEM (AP) - The Israeli army announced on Friday the seizure of 50 tons of arms and munitions being carried on a ship belonging to the Palestinian Authority toward the territories under Palestinian control. (1/4/2002 4:06 PM)Agence France-Presse (France): Israel complicates Zinni's mission
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel claimed on Friday to have incepted a shipload of arms coming from Iran and
Destined for the Palestinian Authority, complicating the mission of the American mediator Anthony Zinni, who announced a return security talks. (1/4/2002 5:30 PM)
This study, which in no way claims to be comprehensive, has the sole aim of contemplating the reasons which could push the AFP, the world's third-largest global wire service, to favor the views of the Arab-Palestinian side at the expense of Israel almost systematically.
Other examples could have been studied in a similar manner. A brief summary:
- The AFP's silence on the occupation of Lebanon by Syrian troops. The word "occupation" being formally proscribed, the service prefers more diplomatic phraseologies (the Syrian army "maintains" or "stations" 35,000 soldiers in Lebanon when it is not "redeploying" them…).
"Syria wields a determining influence in Lebanon where it has stationed an expeditionary corps." (AFP 9/9/01 6:04 PM)
"Syria has overwhelming influence in Lebanon where it has stationed tens of thousands of soldiers since 1976." (11/26/2001 2:30 PM)
"Syria has undivided influence in Lebanon where it maintains a significant expeditionary corps…" (8/16/01 3:47 PM)
- The AFP's silence about Palestinian violence, on the use of children sent to the front line, on the teaching of hatred in Palestinian media and schools. The AFP has never devoted even the smallest bulletin to the children's programs on Palestinian television that call on the very young to become kamikazes to perpetrate suicide attacks in Israel. Recordings of these programs nevertheless exist. They were broadcast during reports by major European and Western television networks.
- The complacency of the AFP regarding the Arab "dictatorships" and the "dictators." If there truly exist, as in the words chosen in the service's bulletins, dictators and dictatorships in Africa, Asia or in South America, it seems there are none on the perimeter of the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf. Here too, a keyword search proves very informative.
The late Hafez al-Assad, evidently treated with more deference than Pinochet or Milosevic, has never in his life been called a dictator, with the AFP always preferring more neutral expressions to this ("the Syrian president") or more florid ("the old lion of Damascus"). His son, Bashar, who succeeded him, is for the moment only "the young Syrian president." President Hosni Mubarak is simply "the Reis." Colonel Gadhafi retains the title of "Libyan leader" when it is not that of "guide of the revolution" or "head of the Jamahyria." Saddam Hussein is only "the Iraqi president." Even this list not complete.
Why such complacency when the AFP has never had the least difficulty in referring to numerous leaders on the planet as "dictators?" Is this because the AFP prides itself on being the "largest Arab language wire service in the world" and because it does not wish to arouse the anger of numerous press organs little concerned with free and rigorous reporting - the customer is always right! - that it counts among its subscribers in the Arab world?
Is it for the same reasons that the AFP daily emits imbalanced information at the expense of Israel where - it must be said - it has only one subscriber, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Is this for purely commercial or also ideological reasons?
There is little choice other than to observe that the errors, approximations, silences and omissions are too numerous and persistently unfavorable to Israel to allow the conclusion that these are simple, material errors.
[Posted 2003/01/06]
Copyright © Watch 2001-2006. Copyrights of quoted materials
belong to their respective owners.
"When
people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.
The term is not a slur; it is a technical label."
Articles
of the week
"Losing the Enlightenment" (Victor Davis Hanson, OpinionJournal, 2006/11/29)
"Allah’s England?" (Daniel Johnson, Commentary. November 2006)
"'Sex in the Park': The latest doings of the Danish imams" (Henrik Bering, The Weekly Standard, 2006/11/18)
"Narcissism on Stilts" (Harold Evans, New York Sun, 2006/11/16)
"Terrorists are recruiting in our schools, says MI5 boss" (Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, 2006/11/10)
›
AOTW Archive
From the archives
Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.
"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" (Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/03/13)
"How the West Was Won and How It Will Be Lost" (Oriana Fallaci, The American Enterprise, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"On Jew-hatred in Europe" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2002/04/13)
"Anger and Pride" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2001/12/19)
Weekly archive
2006/12/04
- 2006/12/10
2006/11/27 - 2006/12/03
2006/11/20 - 2006/11/26
2006/11/13
- 2006/11/19
2006/11/06
- 2006/11/12
2006/10/30
- 2006/11/05
›
From
2001/09/11 -
Monthly
index
December
2006
November
2006
October
2006
September
2006
August
2006
July
2006
›
From
September 2001 -
Author index
›
Ajami,
Fouad - Johnson, Paul
›
Kagan,
Robert - Ye'or, Bat
Support
Watch
Please
feel free to donate if you enjoy the daily content and links Watch provides:
Contact Watch
Email:
watch-at-windsofchange.net
