A Vicious Israeli Attack or a Brutal Treatment of Israeli Soldiers?

The Discrepancy in the Media Treatment of the Mavi Marmara Incident

Supervisor: Nico Baakman Date: 26-10-2012 Research and Writing and Academic Writing Skills Final Draft

Table of Contents 1. The intention of this paper... 3 2. General Information concerning the incident.. 3 3. Vicious attack of Israel! (Hrriyet, 2010) 4 4. Israel says its commandos were brutally attacked before opening fire (The Jerusalem Post, 2010). 6 5. A sad testimony for both newspapers.. 8

1. The intention of this paper Studies have found that people today rather watch or read news that are formatted in a way to suit their religious or political beliefs and values. Many news channels around the world deliver the news in such a fashion that the people are directed at feeling collectively empowered, wronged, mistreated, or good about themselves. What is lost in this process is the opportunity for citizens to shape their own opinion, which in the bigger picture might still fit into their collective identity, but enables them to view certain subjects critically. This becomes increasingly important in matters where war is at stake, or in regions, like the Middle East, were conflict among countries and ethnic groups have prevailed for centuries. The implications of manipulated news broadcasting can be analysed by taking a single subject and viewing how different interest groups treated it. Are merely the facts mentioned? Are some facts omitted to suit a certain standpoint? On March 31st, 2010, a six-vessel flotilla of the DO Istanbul Fast Ferries Co. Inc. (a Turkish company), operated by activist groups from thirty-seven different countries, travelled across the Mediterranean Sea with the proclaimed intention to deliver humanitarian goods to Gaza. At around 2 a.m., the Israeli Defence Forces [IDF] intercepted the flotilla. In the course of events, ten people were killed. In its aftermath, the nights events and especially the deaths of six of the activists were widely spread through the media. What is peculiar about the situation is how the news coverage, comprising of photos, videos and text, differed with respect to the different parties: Israel and Turkey. In order to create specific examples, I have chosen a significant newspaper from each country. The two newspapers I have chosen are the Ankara based newspaper Hrriyet and The Jerusalem Post. In this paper, the course of events as offered by the UN and the US congress report will be discussed, giving a brief overview of the situation prior to the incident. The news coverage, restricted to print media, by all parties involved will be analysed and discussed to determine whether facts were manipulated to suit a certain point of view. Finally, an evaluation based on the prior discussion will be formulated.

2. General Information concerning the incident In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip but still enforces a strict blockade on its borders. With the overtake of the Gaza Strip by Hamas on June 14th, 2007, Israel banned the import of anything but what is labelled as humanitarian by it into Gaza

(Migdalovitz, 2010). The flotillas mission, which was organized by the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement and the pro-Hamas Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund and supported by [] hundreds of NGOs from many different countries (HRC, 2011, p. 2), was published weeks before the attack. The shipment included a generator to supply clean drinking water, construction materials to build houses, equipment to fix the damaged sewage system, which [was] threatening he life of the people, and playgrounds for the children (HRC, 2011). Israel offered to transfer the aid through the Israeli port of Ashdod, using established procedures, but the flotillas organizers denied the offer. Their mission was not only to bring the aid shipment to Gaza but also to break the blockade itself (SC/9940, 2010). According to Turkeys foreign minister, Ahmet Dautolu, High-seas freedom [] [is] one of the oldest forms of international law; no vessel [can] be stopped or boarded without the consent of the captain or flag state. (SC/9940, 2010). The attack, which was conducted by the IDF, occurred while the flotilla was travelling southwardly in international waters (HRC, 2011). During the attack ten civilians were killed and many more wounded (SC/9940, 2010). The United Nations Security Council has condemned the act (SC/9940, 2010), while the Israeli authorities [] expressed regret about the casualties, but blamed the activists for the violence (SC/9940, 2010) a representative from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated. Israels representative in the Security Council added that the mission was anything but humanitarian.

3. Vicious attack of Israel! (Hrriyet, 2010) The Turkish media was quick to condemn Israeli actions on the Mavi Marmara. On May 31st, just a few hours after the attack, the Turkish Newspaper Hrriyet published articles entitled Vicious attack of Israel! [Hrriyet A] and Raid on flotilla puts final nail in coffin of Turkish ties with Israel [Hrriyet B] (2010). In both articles, the Israeli actions are strongly condemned, charging them with unexpected murder in (Hrriyet A, 2010), a deadly attack (Hrriyet B, 2010). The former article focuses on the atrocity of the attack, highlighting that the developments of the night were vicious (Hrriyet A, 2010), that at least 16 activists were killed (Hrriyet A, 2010), a number that would be revoked during the following days, as more information on the event surfaced. Interestingly enough, the second article is far more focussed on Turkish Israeli ties than would be expected. Although the beginning of the article focuses on the crudeness of Israeli actions, the remainder of the article focuses on the consequences for Turkish Israeli relations. Several Turkish statesmen 4

are quoted, such as a spokesman of the Justice and Development Party [AKP], Hseyin elik, who said that [Turkish] relations with Israel will never be the same (2010) or the head of the Turkish Centre for International Relations and Strategic Analysis, Sinan Oan, who said that the worst possible scenario has happened (2010). The intention of the article seems to be to condemn the actions with as many public testimonies as possible and to paint them in a way to show the supposedly absolute corruption of the Israelis. This is done skilfully by establishing the ethos, that is, the credibility through the citation of as many authorities as possible. By doing so, the author seems well informed and his arguments solid. On the other hand, many of the quotations seem taken out of context, focussing only on very extreme comments offered by the authorities, such as, Israel [] has committed suicide internationally [] the Turkish Israeli relationship is now open to every different scenario (Oan, Hrriyet A, 2010). This diminishes the credibility of the subject and intent of the article as such. If the author had focussed on a few speakers, gone into detail over their speeches, and offered the established facts on the subject, the reader would have had the opportunity to evaluate the events on his own, instead of being offered an unpolished version of these. This in turn influences the readers opinion, resulting in the distribution of a prefabricated version of the story and little room for personal evaluation. On May 31st, at 12 p.m., another Hrriyet article, entitled Western countries condemn Israeli attack, was dispatched. In it, the strategy outlined in the previous articles was continued. The article is basically a compilation of many different people from many different countries condemning the Israelis for what they did during the night. Among the most prominent authorities are German Foreign Minister Westerwelle, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherina Ashton and former French Foreign Minister Kouchner. Important to note in this context is that all statements remain uncommented and seem thrown together with no real red thread, that is, no connector between the different quotations. Overall, the Hrriyet media treatment seems to set its focus on the attempt to influence the readers opinion through as many testimonies as possible, leaving little room for personal contemplation.

4. Israel says its commandos were brutally attacked before opening fire (The Jerusalem Post, 2010) Having analysed the events treatment by Turkish newspaper Hrriyet, it is interesting to see how an Israeli newspaper would treat the exact same event. I have chosen The Jerusalem Post, seeing as it is one of the major newspapers in Israel and associated with the Israeli government. What I was most attentive for in the analysis of The Post was the characterisation of the own people as well as how much emphasis was put on the supposed suffering of the activists and whether the Israelis were seen as perpetrators, victims or just one half of the equation that caused so many deaths. After the takeover of the freedom flotilla, the journalists and activists were held incommunicado for days, giving Israel the opportunity to use the media blackout to present its narrative, and justifying the killing of civilian activists by claiming that soldiers were forced to open fire in self-defence (Allan and Brown, 2011). The video footage, which is not the subject of this paper, played a big part in this. Nevertheless, the print media also played a role in portraying the Israeli soldiers as the victims, and not as perpetrators. The Jerusalem Posts first article concerning the event, issued on June 1st, states that The commandos first responded to the violence [by the activists] with crowd dispersion measures, and after almost an hour of scuffles, during which a number of soldiers were wounded some of them stabbed or shot the commandos were given the permission to use live fire. At one point, activists succeeded in stealing a handgun from one of the soldiers, leading to an escalation in violence. As opposed to the Turkish method of playing to their readers ethos, the Jerusalem Post strongly play on their readers pathos, portraying the Israeli soldiers as the victims of the events and conjuring an image of helplessness of the Israeli soldiers while confronted with violent attacks by the activists. The activists in turn, are the source of evil, the barbarians, who attacked without reason. In the article, the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak is said to have called upon the Arab and Palestinian leaders to not let this event, caused by extremist supporters of terror (the Turkish Organization IHH, who organized the event) ruin the progress made in proximity peace talks. This again is in opposition to the Hrriyet report, which clearly claimed that ties between both countries were damaged beyond repair due to the incident. Could the appeal toward the Arab Leaders by Barak be interpreted as a sign of compliancy? This can, at this point, only be left to speculation, because the further course of the article includes no sign of indulgence by the author. Instead, the Israelis (soldiers and citizens) are

further presented as the victims and as the do-gooders. For example, the IDF is quoted as saying, activists who agreed to be deported were immediately taken to Ben-Gurion Airport and flown home at Israels expense (The Jerusalem Post, 2010). As this first article published by The Jerusalem Post in the aftermath of the event shows, the Israeli media tried to influence public opinion in their interest just as much as the Turkish newspaper Hrriyet did. The second article published by The Jerusalem Post begins with Israeli Navy commando quote, They came for war (2010), setting the tone for the course of the article. Similar to the first article, the author describes how the Israeli soldiers had no choice but to react with open fire due to the aggression expressed by the activists. He explains how the Mavi Marmara was warned several times, hours before that the ship would be boarded if the captain did not change course and that a few soldiers were thrown off the deck to the floor below. He stresses that the guns pointed at the activists were paint-ball guns, which can hurt but not kill. The activists are described to have prepared a well planned lynch (2010). The soldiers then feared for their lives and only because of that asked to be able to use their firearms. At the end of the article, a police source close to the Yamam (an Israeli elite counter-terrorism unit) is quoted: The soldiers acted with the utmost nobility. They engaged in hand-tohand combat, sustained injuries, but only opened fire after one of them was lying on the ground unconscious and two others had been shot. This is an unbelievable demonstration of restraint. Again, the focus of the article is set upon conjuring sympathy for the Israeli soldiers and commanders. The author emphasizes that there was no other way; all combat was in selfdefence and even that the soldiers showed restraint in their actions. A further article, published later that day, plays a different, albeit in its goal similar, strategy. The author of The flotilla fiasco. Why did the IDF so underestimate the hostility of those it had itself described as terrorists?(2010), David Horovitz, argues that the main problem about the intervention was the military misjudgment and misassessment (2010). He declares that obviously, many of those in the Freedom Flotilla were not engaged in a humanitarian action [and] were not peace activists (2010). By starting the sentence with the expletive obviously, he does not leave any room for interpretation on the readers side. Further, he skilfully focuses the problem as being caused by Israel, but instead of condemning the action itself, he pities the soldiers, who were badly prepared by their supervisors for the confrontation with a violent, extremist organization that supports

terrorism. Again, this is a play on the readers pathos, conjuring empathy for the soldiers, who could do nothing but react in armed rebuttal. As was also the case in the Hrriyet articles, the focus in all three articles in The Jerusalem Post is laid upon the own countrymen. The activists acted aggressively, prepared a perfectly choreographed attack and were willing to fight in open combat. The Israelis on the other hand were humble and only wished to resist peacefully. Instead of presenting the facts and referencing testimonies from both camps, the focus is solely on the maltreatment of the own statesmen, in the first two articles mainly by the opposition, in the third article by the opposition as well as the military commanders.

5. A sad testimony for both newspapers Although the way in which it was executed differed, the treatment of the Mavi Marmara incident can only be seen as a sad testimony for both newspapers. While Hrriyet relied heavily on testimonies by different high authorities, The Jerusalem Post presented their soldiers as the victims of attack. Thus, Hrriyet strongly played on the readers ethos, while The Jerusalem Post strongly manifested its pathos. What both seem to forget is to establish their logos. Though they both present facts, it can now, in the aftermath, be concluded that most of them were almost correct at best. What was presented as the truth is merely a momentary interpretation of events, and therefore should not be presented as facts. In the direct aftermath of the event the sensible choice would have been to present the few established facts as neutrally as possible, in order to ensure that subsequent investigations would not prove these faulty and to allow the readers the possibility to create their first impression of the events on their own, based on the information that was available at the point. Both newspapers published articles that would have been more fit for the opinion sections of their respective papers, which is most evident in the fact that they both so masterfully leave out anything that would discredit their own people. In this case, Hrriyet is basically off the hook, since both the world press and the United Nations condemned the acts by the Israeli Army in the aftermath (final statement nine months later) of the event. At the point of reporting, however, most facts had not been fully investigated and the treatment of the half-facts presented by the papers assumed these as correct. This in turn is a disservice to the respective readers, who rely on their big newspapers for information, rather than opinion. The example presented in this paper can unfortunately be applied to many situations, 8

in which the different interests of different countries are polarized through their newspapers, shaping public opinion of their own people and country sympathizers. Left for personal consideration now only remains whether this style of journalism is of the public taste. Maybe people wish to be able to substantiate their opinions with strong evidence, not really caring about whether all sides of the story are shown.

References
Daily News Staff, D. (2010, May 31). Raid on flotilla puts final nail in coffin of turkish ties with israel. Hrriyet Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-thepoint-of-no-return-2010-05-31. Retrieved 10-15-2012. Daily News Staff, D. (2010, May 31). Western countries condemn israeli attack. Hrriyet Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/western-countriescondemn-israeli-attack.aspx?pageID=438&n=eu-demands-full-enquiry-on-israeli-attack2010-05-31. Retrieved 10-24-2012. Horovitz, D. (2010, June 01). The flotilla fiasco. why did the idf so underestimate the hostility of those it had itself described as terrorists?. The Jerusalem Post, p. 1. Retrieved 1024-2012. Katz, Y. (2010, June 1). Vicious Conflict Aboard the 'Mavi Marmara' after Five other Ships Swiftly Commandeered. Dozens wounded, including 10 soldiers, in pre-dawn battle at sea - Israel says its commandos were brutally attacked before opening fire. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 10-14-2012. Katz, Y. (2010, June 1). 'they came for war'. we feared for our lives, say navy commandos. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 10-14-2012. Migdalovitz, C. Congressional Research Service Report For Congress, (2010). Israel's blockade of gaza, the mavi marmara incident, and its aftermath (R41275). Retrieved 10-142012. Pike, J. (n.d.). Blockade of gaza. Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/gaza-blockade.htm. Retrieved 10-232012. LSEVER, C. (2010, May 31). Vicious attack of israel. Hrriyet Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=viciousattack-of-israel-2010-05-31. Retrieved 10-13-2012. U.N. Human Rights Council. Written statement submitted by the foundation for human rights and freedoms and humanitarian relief, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status. (A/HRC/16/NGO/112). 25 February 2011. Retrieved 10-12-2012. U.N. Security Council. Security council condemns acts resulting in civilian deaths during israeli operation against gaza-bound aid convoy, calls for investigation, in presidential Statement. (SC/9940). 31 May 2010. Retrieved 10-12-2012.

10