I’LAM

Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel

SPECIAL REPORT: ISRAELITV COVERAGE ON THE MURDER OF FOUR ARABS
CITIZENS BY ISRAELI SOLDIER IN SHAFA’AMR

5 AUGUST 2005

Does the media in Israel seriously investigate and report all incidents of racism critically? What is the
impact on the values of democracy and justice?

Coverage of the Television Networks in Israel

On 4 August 2005, four Arab citizens were murdered by a soldier on a bus in Shafa’amr.
On 12 June 2005, some 50 Jewish youths attacked two Arabs in ‘Afula, uttering racist slurs, in a clear
indication that the attack was based on the ethno-national identity of the victims. The vast majority of
the Hebrew media ignored this incident, with the exception of two media outlets that gave brief
coverage. Of these, one defined the event as a “criminal attack,” despite noting in the article that the
attackers called the victims, "stinking Arabs". I’lam Media Center protested the irresponsible way in
which the media dealt with this episode, taking particular issue with the fact that an attack is defined
as "racist" in nature, only when the victim is Jewish and the attacker Arab.
The terrorist attack in Shafa'amr differs, of course, from the attack in ‘Afula in the degree of death and
injury inflicted. It is similar, however, in that professional and ethical considerations did not guide the
media in its coverage of the event.

The Way the Media Dealt with the Terrorist Attack in Shafa'amr

The Initial Phase of Coverage:

This section covers reporting in the first three hours after the incident took place.
1. Late and Misleading: Three television channels remained silent for one whole hour after the
terrorist attack. There was no interruption in regular programming, as if the terrorist attack was
a routine occurrence undeserving of special coverage. The murder of Judge Azar a few months
ago, for example, resulted in an interruption of regular broadcasting. The silence and delay in
reporting cannot be chalked up to the time required to check facts in the field, especially as
there is no comparable delay when Jews are killed in similar circumstances. Moreover, some

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org
 journalists, writers and columnists evidently made no use of the delay in reporting, eventually
producing reports with distorted information, lacking basis in reality.

2. Distortion of Facts: The Voice of Israel, the radio station that perceives and promotes itself as
a fast and reliable news medium, chose to mislead the public with inaccurate information. The
Voice of Israel initially reported that, "A Druze soldier shot at the passengers in the bus."
Channel 2, a full two and a half hours after the attack, did everything in its power to turn the
story it had into something else. Reporting focused on an "altercation between passengers",
with the shooting due to a "conflict between the passengers and the soldier, who was drawn
into it, with these results."
We at the I‘lam Media Center, cite these as examples of "distortion," and not "lack of
information", because obfuscation of the facts was systematic, with one aim: to effect distance
from the guilt of the Jewish shooter. To this end, the shooter was described in one instance as
“not Jewish.” Not only did Channel 2 tenaciously cling to doubtful accounts of the murderer's
identity and his origins, but broadcast only one picture to its TV viewing audience: the picture
of the "angry mob,” Well into the night, commentators remarks noting that, "the mob is still
angry," were drawn from the same picture shot in full daylight several hours earlier.

3. Diminishing the Importance of the Tragedy: Even when the media reported on the incident
without attempting to distort facts, efforts were made to diminish its extent and importance.
b. "Gunfire," rather than "terrorist attack" was used to describe the incident. Channel 2 was
the first to report on the incident. Moshe Nestelbaum and Yonit Levy continually avoided using
the term, "terrorist attack," in stark contrast to standard practice in similar incidents where the
victims are Jews, calling it a "shooting", an "event", or "an event that started with gunfire."
Some individual journalists called this incident a “terrorist attack” without being this an
editorial policy, but a personal decision.
b. The reporter for Channel 10, Asaf Zohar, refused – 28 hours after the terrorist attack –to see the
murderer as a terrorist: "They [the Arabs] want to see the shooter as a terrorist, exactly like the
terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Palestinians." Viewers were left with the impression that
this was not really terrorism, the implication being that terrorist attacks in which Arabs are
murdered are somehow different from terrorist attacks in which Jews are murdered.
c. Yiron London and Tzvi Yehezkeli on Channel 10 was to retained an easy, relaxed atmosphere.
London's laughter and humor is one indication of the atmosphere cultivated. At the top of the

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org
 broadcast, he gave no acknowledgement to the headline newsflash of a "major event, with
shooting and deaths," beginning his report with news on the Maccabi Haifa soccer team,
reporting with more seriousness than he did for the terrorist attack in Shafar‘amr. After turning
to a report by a correspondent in Jerusalem with pictures of what had happened, Tzvi
Yehezkeli joined London in the studio, also with calm, serene face as if the murder of these
four people was an imaginary event, involving the deaths of imaginary victims. People from
Nazareth reported trying to call the studio to speak with London on the live broadcast, but the
producer would not patch their calls through, though she did listen to complaints.
d. The event ended with the murder victims – without mentioning those that were wounded. No
reports or interviews were made from the hospitals, no emergency numbers were broadcast,
and no psychologists assisting the families were interviewed. In sum, not one media outlet
posed even one question about the wounded, in stark contrast to standard practice in similar
incidents where the victims are Jews. The first report on the status of the wounded was made
by Channel 10 on Friday evening, and an interview was conducted with one of the wounded.
Channel 2 broadcast pictures of the hospital, without interviewing a single doctor describing
the condition of the wounded, and the extent of their injuries. Had the victims been Jews, we
would have heard words like "tragedy," "trauma," and the like.

The Second Phase of Coverage

The argument that there is no information is no longer valid, nor is the argument that we do not know
what happened. At this stage, TV Channels attempt to shape and construct public opinion vis-à-vis the
terrorist.

4. Obscuring the National Identity of the Victims: The victims are called “Muslims,” and
“Christians,” and not, “Arabs.” Once again, Channel 2 employs a method all its own, with
Nestelbaum emphasizing that, "there are some people who are not Jewish," [Note: there were
no Jewish victims in the attack, outside of the murderer himself.] The media instantly
recognizes the identity of Arabs when individuals are suspected to be, or actually are, guilty of
some wrongdoing. In these cases, and even when absolutely clear that no societal consensus of
any kind is represented in the individual’s actions, he/she is made out to represent all Arabs.
When Arabs are injured or killed because they are Arabs, their identity is suddenly unclear and
confounded.

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org
5. Taking a Negative Attitude Towards Arabs, Even When They are Victims: Several
reporters take a negative stance towards Arabs. The reporter Yussi Mizrahi, chose to focus on
the "angry mob," and its nationalistic cries; but not before he used incomprehensibly muddled
terminology, according to which the terrorist's motivation was "ideological," in contrast with
that of the angry mob motivated by "nationalism." The song Biladi, Biladi, became, in Mr.
Mizrahi's words, a "call to extremism." It should be noted that the song expresses Arab feelings
towards the homeland, and contains no call for revenge or hatred of another nation. This is in
sharp contrast to the cry of "Death to the Arabs," which is heard not only during or after every
terrorist attack carried out against Jews, but even in the stadium at every soccer game between
Arabs and Jews. With very rare exception, no alarm is sounded about these calls, nor are they
labeled, "extremist.” The journalist Ayala Hason, from Channel 1, turned the story of the
murder of four innocent Arabs into the story of the fate of the murderer: "They slaughtered
him," "They took their fury out on him," and, "They lynched him,” Hason dedicated much
broadcast time to the question of whether the murderer was alive or dead interviewing the
Inspector General of the Police, the Northern Regional Commander, Danny Ronen, and other
police and army personnel. What the Hebrew media should have covered instead was the fact
that not one Arab called for "Death to the Jews."

6. Intensive Discussion of the "October Riots"[a reference to the events of October 2000,
when 13 Arab citizens were killed by Israeli armed forces] or the Possibility of Riots:
Almost every media outlet referred to the “October riots,” in their coverage of the Thursday's
terrorist attack with a few even mentioning them at the top of the broadcast. Tzvi Yehezkeli
and Yiron London (Channel 10) discussed the “October riots” at length. Moshe Nestelbaum, in
a broadcast the same evening of the attack on Channel 2, repeatedly reported on the security
measures being undertaken, such as deployments of the General Security Services (GSS). The
following day, "Reshet Bet" (“Second Network”) and "Galei Zahal" (“Army Waves”) radio
stations emphasized preparations due to a fear of riots that included the deployment of police
forces near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

7. Imposing Responsibility on the Arab Leadership: Most of the media (broadcast and print)
did not hesitate to impose the task of "calming things down," on the Arab Members of Knesset (MKs),
asking one Arab MK after another, "What is your role in calming things down?" Ayala Hason
dedicated all of her interviews with Arab MKs - Issam Makhoul, of Hadash, and Jamal Zahalka of the

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org
National Democratic Assembly - to this subject. During the course of these interviews, she did not
utter a single word acknowledging the dozens of warnings about imminent dangers to the Arab
community, a concern that emanated not only from the acts of the extreme right, but from the racism
that has become the official ideology of the State, its institutions, and Israeli society in general. The
daily newspaper Ma'ariv published a headline on p. 8 of its Monday 8 August 2005 edition (among
other articles), in which it depicts the Arab leaders as extremists: "Residents' Restraint and Leaders'
Threats." The editorial piece of Ha’aretz on August 9 was dedicated in part to a condemnation of Arab
leaders.

8. Preoccupation with the Fate of the Murderer While Emphasizing Humane Aspects: Even
before the report by Channel 1 correspondent Moniv Faras that the murderer was killed, Ayala
Hason was careful to continually ask the question, "What was the fate of the murderer?"
throughout the evening broadcast. Hason asked that question of every interviewee in the field.
Even as the Hebrew media ignored the identity and life stories of murdered and injured
victims, they made extra efforts at humanizing the murderer, posing questions such as, "Who is
Nathan Zade? How did the brilliant child become a "despicable" murderer?" The media
entered his family home, relating his personal story, interviewing parents and friends, allotting
more importance to the issue of his burial, than they did to the burial of the victims.
Disagreements over where he should be buried was given headline status in most cases. For the
first time, the media asked such questions as, "How did he become a murderer?" a valid and
humanitarian question to pose, to be sure. But why was it never asked before this incident?
Why does the media fail to ask this question when people commit suicide-bomb attacks, after
having lost loved ones, their siblings, parents and children?

9. Reconciliation is Requested When the Murderer is Jewish, the State's Efficiency is

Investigated When the Murderer is Arab: The Hebrew media did interview an Arab
representing the co-existence camp saying that : "We, the Arabs, will not let this "event" affect
the 'fabric of the relations between Jews and Arabs', or affect 'co-existence' or the 'Peace
Process'.” In this case, the mayor of Shafar‘amr, Orsan Yasin, fulfilled that role for most of the
media. When the victim is Jewish, not a single journalist would dare to speak of "co-existence”
thus rendering the "desire for revenge" for legitimate.

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org
The Third Phase of Coverage
1. Reveals the Israeli Interest: Questions about the irresponsibility of the police, the army, and
the GSS begin to be posed, not out of concern for additional terrorist attacks against Arabs, but
because of the fear of additional attacks against Jews.
2. Complete Shift to Observations of Arab "Revenge": Journalists, news anchors, interpreters
and columnists referred to the "Effect of the October Riots", as defined by Moshe Nestelbaum,
of Channel 2. Even though Arabs were the victims, on the television screens they transformed
into illegal rioters with thousands of police personnel, and even battle helicopters called in to
deal with them.

Ramifications and Conclusions

The TV Channels in Israel do little to promote values of democracy and justice solely lacking within
Israeli society, when it comes to the rights of the Arab society. The media contributed to preparing the
groundwork for the terrorist attack in Shafar‘amr by quietly and consistently passing over racist
commentary or incidents against Arabs, and by initiating accusations against Arab leaders for "not
taking responsibility," and "not doing anything for their society." It was the media that designated the
Arabs as fraught and extremist, and it was the media that revelled in highlighting every argument or
statement that it considered to be "extremist". The media misleads the public by denying the fact that
Arab citizens act legitimately when they try to decide for themselves what is "good for them," and
quite regularly presents Arabs only in the roles of “the accused” or “the traitor.” The media, along with
other actors, tries to obscure the identity of Arab citizens, categorizing them by religion, distributing
high marks for loyalty to those of a specific religion, while accusing others of betrayal and disloyalty.
Yussi Mizrahi determined that the murderer did not want to harm Christians. The newspaper Yediot
Aharonot noted that the murderer opened fire on Muslims and Druze; and in an interview on Channel
1 on the same day, the people of Tapuach - the extreme right settlement the murderer made his home -
repeated a number of times that "We don't harm Druze." Muslims, Christians, and Druze - are all
Arabs.

Hazār, Nādiya, Mīshīl and Nadir paid with their lives for "the political culture" that the official
policies of Israel have nurtured for over 50 years. Arabs are the Number One Victims of the
deteriorating policies and political culture in Israel. Arab citizens of the State have to be very assertive
and politically savvy in efforts to convince the Israeli State, society, and its media that they have the
right to live with honor and dignity, as equals.

POB 101, 16000 Nazareth. Tel +972-4-600 1370, Fax. +972-4-600 1418,
Int.relations@ilamcenter.org / www.ilamcenter.org