The headline in the issue of Ha’aretz published on the eve of Simchat Torah included a sensational quote from Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to the prime minister. Weisglass revealed that “We initiated the disengagement plan in order to freeze the political process for an indefinite period,” so as to “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and prevent discussion of the refugees and Jerusalem.” According to Weisglass, the reasons for initiating the plan were “the broad support for the Geneva initiative and the increasing phenomenon of refusal [to serve in the IDF].” The main achievement of the plan was that “I agreed with the Americans that we wouldn’t touch many of the settlements.”
Weisglass’s comments aroused considerable furor, although he said nothing new. Commentators and left-wing figures have made the same comments countless times in the op-ed and commentary sections of several newspapers. Ariel Sharon himself expressed the same position, albeit in a more restrained and subtle manner, in the holiday interviews he gave in the media between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. What seems to be new, therefore, is Weisglass’s decision to send a clear and unequivocal message to right-wing Likud members and the settlers. It is ironic that he chose Ha’aretz for this purpose. The paper’s editors published the comments prominently on the news pages, as was only proper. As a result, what had until then been just one of various theories regarding Sharon’s motives became the official version, and Ha’aretz correspondent Ari Shavit chalked up another impressive journalistic success.
With this exception, however, there is little room for enthusiasm regarding the way Israel’s mainstream media has addressed the subject of the disengagement plan. A review of the coverage over the past few weeks in the main newspapers Ha’aretz, Yediot Aharonot, and Ma’ariv; in the newscasts on Channels One, Two, and Ten; and in the current affairs radio programs on Galei Tzahal and Reshet Bet shows that the media have usually been preoccupied with the petty, marginal, and sensationalist aspects of the initiative, systematically failing to examine the important issues it raises or to ask the difficult questions.
Questionable priorities and editing decisions led to a focus on three main issues regarding the disengagement plan in the media during September and October: incitement (or “extremist statements”); the level of financial compensation for evacuated settlers; and apocalyptic forecasts (i.e., dark prophecies of civil war and/or increased Palestinian terror from the Gaza Strip). At a certain stage, these were embellished by the debate over the idea of holding a referendum, on the question of soldiers refusing orders, and preparations in the various parties ahead of the votes in the government and the Knesset. At the same time, much more important and substantive issues were pushed into the inside pages and to the op-ed and commentary columns. Worse still, coverage of issues on the agenda was dominated by a sensationalist and demagogic tone, replete with inaccuracies and distortions.
Agitation
The media devoted its greatest efforts to locating and publicizing extremist comments by right-wing figures. Every telephone death threat against the prime minister or against Yonatan Basi, head of the disengagement authority, won prominent headlines. Every comment by an eccentric figure immediately became the grounds for investigation by the police, the attorney-general, and the state prosecutor’s office. Thus, for example, Nadia Mattar featured prominently in the headlines after comparing Basi to the leaders of the Judenrat under Nazi rule, and MK Eitan Kabel (Labor) was quoted in-depth after he called for a criminal investigation to be launched against a broadcaster on Channel Seven who compared Sharon to Hitler.
In their passionate quest for yet another “shocking” statement and “appalling” quote, the journalists exaggerate and misrepresent reality. Last month, for example, Channel Two revealed footage of extreme right-winger Yosef Dayan threatening to hold a Pulsa DeNora ceremony against Sharon, describing Dayan as “the rabbi of the Psagot settlement.” It soon emerged that Dayan is not, in fact, a rabbi and is a problematic and controversial figure even among the settlers themselves. The day after this item appeared on Channel Two, Ha’aretz published a statement by residents of Psagot and the local rabbi, Shalom Yosef-Witzen, emphasizing that “Dayan, who does not claim to be a rabbi, let alone the rabbi of Psagot, does not represent the residents of Psagot, does not speak on behalf of Psagot, and is not a member of Psagot.” This did not prevent Ha’aretz from again referring to Dayan as a rabbi the very next day. Channel Two news also ignored the correction and continued to screen Dayan’s threats at every possible opportunity.
“Dayan was a thug from Kiryat Arba, a former member of the Kach movement, who moved to Psagot,” says journalist Uri Auerbach. “Because he has a beard and wears a kippa, they immediately turn him into a rabbi. I don’t think that the journalists act maliciously but rather out of laziness and ignorance. The result is a process of alienation of the subject of the coverage, which transforms the religious public into a bizarre cult that observes strange halakhic rulings of violent ceremonial significance.”
This is not the only case when extreme right-wing individuals have been erroneously and misleadingly identified with the settlers as a whole. In August, Channel Two carried a report on a training camp run by the Kach movement for children in Gush Katif in preparation for the evacuation. The report included pictures of a number of people wearing kippot and running along the beach, jumping over fences, and hiding behind bushes. On September 10, Ben Caspit wrote in Ma’ariv that “the entire event was staged… it was all timed and directed to create good footage (with the knowledge of the media, according to security sources), while residents of the Gush themselves disassociate themselves from the whole story… The local settlers did everything possible to prevent the Kach activists from entering the settlements.” Sagi Bashan, the Channel Two reporter who broadcast the story, does not deny that this was a “semi-staged” event, as he put it. The sequence of events, according to Bashan, offers a useful lesson in the way the media works. “I knew that Channel Ten had filmed something along these lines the day before,” he recalls. “I asked my sources in the Gush, and they told me that Itamar Ben-Gvir was going around there with a group of children, playing with them and calling it a summer camp. I contacted members of Kach, and they sent me a videocassette they had recorded. In the report, I expressed reservations and noted that the phenomenon was not of significant proportions – that it was just a small group of children who had spent a few days at the site.” Uri Auerbach is not surprised. “Journalists cannot resist the temptation,” he argues. “Someone tells them that there’s a summer camp, so they immediately run off and film three wispy-haired children for a ninety-second item on the evening news. Anyone who knows the settlers could tell you that the residents of Gush Katif and Kach have about as much in common as an evening of Hassidic folksongs at a local branch of Meretz.”
In both the above examples, the race for a sensational scoop resulted in sloppy journalistic work at the expense of accurate and reliable reporting. Worse still, the slipshod coverage of marginal events and eccentric individuals diverted attention from truly important stories. Ehud Oshri in Ha’aretz made this point well: “Nadia Matter called Yonatan Basi the ‘Judenrat?’ That’s really serious. The police are instructed to open an investigation. An anonymous rabbi said, ‘Pulsa DeNura’? Most grave. The attorney-general is asked to intervene. Some people in Gush Katif said that Sharon sees terror as an opportunity to move forward with the disengagement plan? That’s a sick comment. It’s true that all kinds of things that are several times worse than this are going on in the Territories, but we can stomach that as long as everyone talks politely.”
The acts o