israelinsider: The night the settlers seized the media

Ellis Shuman is israelinsider's Senior Editor. Prior to joining the israelinsider team, he served as webmaster for Yazam. Mr. Shuman was trained in the hospitality industry, and worked in many capacities at the Neve Ilan Hotel and at the Jerusalem Hilton. In addition, Mr. Shuman serves as Israeli Culture Guide for About.com. ellis@israelinsider.com

More from Ellis Shuman

Left with Sharon

Don’t shoot the messenger

Fig leaf or restored dignity?

Why Barak should go home

Sharon deflects pressure from right and maintains cease-fire

Israeli killed outside Nablus in terrorist ambush

The night the settlers seized the media
By Ellis Shuman June 4, 2001

Last week Palestinian terrorists took the life of Gilad Zar, 40, the security officer of the Shomron Regional Council. Zar, a resident of the settlement of Itamar, was the father of eight children. His father, Moshe, had served in the 101 Commando Unit with Ariel Sharon, and was one of the first Jewish settlers in Samaria.

Minister without Portfolio Tzipi Livni represented the government at the Karnei Shomron cemetery for Zar's funeral. Livni's speech was interrupted by Zar family members demanding an end to Israel's unilateral cease-fire. One of Zar's sisters grabbed the microphone and shouted at Livni, "Stop sitting quietly and eulogizing us! Fight them! You have tanks, and anti-aircraft, and planes! Make war already! We are sick of this! It is no shame to fight - this is what we must do!"

The anger and despair of the Zar family are totally understandable. They are living in areas where they believe they serve as pioneers in the Zionist cause, and their lives are endangered daily by hostile neighbors that shoot at them with horrific results. Their demand that Israel take actions of reprisal was delivered forcefully to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he made a condolence call to the bereaved family.

"It hurts," Sharon told them. "Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions, and I made this one," he said, referring to the government's policy of restraint.

The condolence call and the bitter attacks directed at Sharon and the government were the subject of a televised report aired on Channel Two news Thursday night. It would have been a journalistic scoop for the station if the report had been filmed by one of their crewman, but apparently this was not the case.

The video footage shown on the newscast was quite obviously filmed by one of the family members or by settlers present at the meeting. Shown on television in its home quality format, the footage lasted a full six and a half minutes, allowing ample time for the settlers to verbally abuse the Prime Minister, who sat uncomfortably in their midst.

"Tell me, Arik," cried Anat Cohen, sister of Gilad Zar. "Where have you been for eight months? Do your job. We cannot continue to bury our dead."

The anger of family members, as mentioned before, was totally understandable. What could not be understood were the ulterior motives of Channel Two's decision to air the 400 seconds of angry attacks. This was not news, but rather what can only be considered prime-time propaganda.

Even though all Israelis feel for the Zar family at this time of their heavy loss, not everyone believes in their cause. A poll released by Yediot Aharonot on Friday shows that a majority of Jewish Israelis still supports a freeze on settlement construction, even after a week of Palestinian shooting attacks.

The use of non-professional video footage to deliver news is not something new. The video of Asi and Keren Dror's wedding and the collapse of the Versailles banquet hall was shown round the world - but despite its inherent news value, it was edited down into a reasonable length.

The meeting between Prime Minister Sharon and the Zar family was covered the next day in the print media. Ha'aretz presented a selection of statements by Sharon and the family in a short news item. Orna Landau, writing in Yediot Aharonot, said that Channel Two's decision to give ample time to the video was surrender to dictated demands of the settlers, therefore setting a worrisome precedent.

What was not apparent was the reasoning behind Channel Two's editorial decision to devote one fourth of its primetime newscast to settler propaganda. Did they want to promote the settlers' cause? Were they intent on showing growing unease in Sharon's leadership? Maybe they were calling for an end to the unilateral cease-fire. At the end of the item newscaster Mickey Haimovitz offered only a plaintive frown, but no explanations.