US, European press stand divided over Israel, Palestinians

By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff, 5/1/2002

The refugee camp in the West Bank town of Jenin, which was the site of furious fighting between Israelis and Palestinians, is now the focus of an equally intense battle for world opinion. It is also a classic example of the profound differences between US and European media coverage of the conflict in the Middle East.

Much of the press in this country, while taking note of the physical destruction after the combat, was cautious in its treatment of Palestinian claims of a massacre. The Washington Post reported that interviews turned up "no evidence" of "large-scale massacres or executions by Israeli troops." The New York Times said a visit to the refugee camp showed "more destruction than death." And Monday, the Globe reported that allegations of a massacre appeared to be "crumbling under the weight of eyewitness accounts."

Across the Atlantic, the tone has been decidedly different. The Economist, a British magazine, said "evidence of the Israeli army's absolute negligence in trying to protect civilian life is everywhere." London's Independent made reference to "grisly evidence of a war crime" and led one story by noting that "the world finally got to see what Israel has done in the Jenin refugee camp yesterday." The Guardian, also based in London, produced an April 17 story asserting that "the outcry in the European press over the killings of civilians in Jenin has not been echoed in US newspapers."

These variations in style and substance reflect divergent views not only between the European and American press but between the two populations. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicates that by a 3-to-1 margin, Americans have more sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians. But the Palestinians enjoy significantly more support than Israel in Italy, France, and Britain, the Pew researchers found, and marginally more in Germany, a nation still riddled with guilt over the Holocaust. It is a reality that partisans on both sides acknowledge.

"The rhetoric is much different," says Sharon Tzur, director of the pro-Israeli watchdog group Media Watch International. "I think that in a way it's a reflection of the public on both continents. A majority of Americans are more sympathetic to Israel and understand where Israel is coming from. ... Even CNN [US] and CNN International are very different in the way they report the Middle East."

"European coverage is much more balanced and much less fixed on terrorism," says Jean AbiNader, managing director of the Arab-American Institute, based in Washington, D.C. "The lack of balance in [the US media's] approach ... comes to the fore when one looks at European coverage, Jenin being a very good example. One can look at the Knesset and the Israeli press and see far more criticism of the Israeli government than there is here."

Observers acknowledge that neither continent's media are monolithic. In the United States, they say, print coverage tends to be more neutral than television coverage, and the reporting tends to be more balanced than the columns and editorials. There is also a range of viewpoints evident, from Fox News Channel's adoption of the term "homicide bombers" to New York Times editorials that frequently criticize Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.

Likewise in Europe, there are differences between right- and left-leaning outlets, says Alice Chasan, editor of the New York-based World Press Review journal. But "in most of the European press, the human interest, the human-anguish story you're going to read is about the Palestinian people," she says. There's much less coverage of "the suffering of ordinary Israelis."

When Israeli tanks moved into Hebron on Monday, a BBC report declared that "for the Palestinians ... this feels like collective punishment and can only serve to feed the hatred and the violence. ... To them, this is a gross violation of sovereignty. ... The message from here is fear." Roger Mosey, head of TV news for the BBC says, "I don't think there is a massive difference between American network coverage and BBC." But that kind of report, with a Palestinian focus, sets it apart from much of the US reporting, which tends to be more Tel Aviv-centric.

Mosey acknowledges that "generally, continental Europe has tended to be more pro-Palestinian," and he seems to suggest that the BBC's approach is more rounded than that of its counterparts here. "What BBC World does is try to bring a range of perspectives," he says. "I think we try to be genuinely international. I think BBC World is unimpeachably fair."

Patrick Jarreau, Washington bureau chief for the French newspaper Le Monde, says he was surprised to discover that the US media are "more anti-Sharon or pro-Palestinian than most people in Europe would think. I think most people in Europe would think the American media is thoroughly pro-Sharon." Asked why he thinks the coverage is more balanced than that, he says, "To me, it's a sign of how much the action by Sharon is really unacceptable for most people in a democratic country."

In Europe, says Chasan, "Middle East policy ... is seen as inextricably linked to US policy. Part of the upset is that [Europeans] would like to believe they'd have a bigger role." The World Press Review's collection of European editorial comment on Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent visit to the region seems to reflect European frustration with Bush administration policy. Spain's El Mundo suggested the mission was a cover for an Israeli "withdrawal delayed by mutual agreement, with a couple of bits of window dressing." The Guardian attacked Powell's "leisurely peregrinations across North Africa while Israeli forces have wreaked devastation in Jenin, Nablus, and Bethlehem," and Le Monde characterized the effort as a "hypocritical illusion."

The difference between the European and American perspectives has also been attributed to America's preoccupation with terrorism after Sept. 11 and fears that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. Tzur notes that "the Jewish community in Europe is very small," while AbiNader ventures that Europeans' "colonial experience has given them a lot more insight" into the dispute. Le Monde's Jarreau says that as the balance of military power has swung toward Israel in recent decades, the tide of European opinion and media coverage has shifted as well. "What changed the mood," he says, "is that Israel appeared to be the strong man crushing the weak man - the Palestinians."

This story ran on page D1 of the Boston Globe on 5/1/2002.