For seemingly obvious reasons there’s an obligation to afford those with high-grade academic qualifications elevated respect. Yet that somewhat simplistic assumption sometimes seems misguided, particularly as our tertiary institutions appear to have lost some ground over the past decades. No local university is graded amongst the top 120 in the world.
This depressing situation is borne out by an examination of a recent article by Professor Jane Duncan of the department of Journalism at UJ, titled “Gaza and the task of journalism” published on 4 August 2014.
In considering this, I wish to set some sort of benchmark based on a report by the Pew Research Centre, a nonpartisan fact tank that informs about issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Research Centre conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research does not take policy positions.
This report, titled “Principles of Journalism” sets out nine core principles which should serve as a general guide to journalists operating in any democratically constituted country. In the report each principle is fully defined. (http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/)
- Journalisms first obligation is to the truth.
- Its first loyalty is to its citizens.
- Its essence is a discipline of verification.
- Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
- It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
- It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
- It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
- It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
- Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
The credo of the Ethical Journalism Network covers similar ground but includes Fairness and Impartiality; Humanity and Accountability, adopted also by the Canadian Association of Journalists.
The Society of Professional Journalists (USA) stipulates that ethical journalism should be accurate and fair and that journalist should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Further, journalists should take responsibility for the accuracy of their work and verify information before releasing it using original sources wherever possible. Another stipulation is the provision of facts and context devoid of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation or oversimplification in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
Paramount in each report is the demand for context, truth, the presentation of facts, verification of facts, the reliability of sources of information, accountability, transparency, critical analysis, balance and lack of bias. (My bold type)
Professor Duncan’s article follows below with my comments in RED.
Gaza and the Tasks of Journalism
By Jane Duncan · 4 Aug 2014
Picture credit: A woman is overcome and weeps at the destruction of her neighbourhood in Gaza courtesy Cintayati
In the past few weeks, the South African media has been dominated by the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza and South Africans have had to rely largely on foreign coverage of this issue to understand it.
The mainstream US media is still parroting the Israeli line that the country is acting in self-defence, or its right to be ‘free from tunnels and rockets’ in Secretary of State John Kerry’s words, but Israel is clearly meting out collective punishment to Palestinians.
The clear inference is that Israel’s “line” that she is acting in self-defence and its right to be free of tunnels” is a red herring and invalid. It is being “parroted” which suggests that it is a non-truth utilized for no more than purposes of propaganda.
Duncan’s emphatic affirmation that Israel is ‘clearly meting out collective punishment’ reinforces what, from her, is an unequivocal statement reflecting a subjective judgement. Reducing Israel’s actions to ‘collective punishment’ removes any space for any alternative interpretation of a complex situation, complicated further by logistics on the ground, the tactics employed by Hamas which compromise the safety of civilians, the efforts by the IDF to minimalise civilian casualties to the best of its ability within the chaotic minute-by-minute circumstances of war, and the procedures adopted to warn civilians about pending attacks. Duncan’s assessment fails to reflect accuracy, context and intellectual fairness.
At a deeper level, though, Israel’s motivation might well be to scupper Palestinian unity (albeit strained) after years of bitter conflict between Hamas and Fatah, and the killing of three Israeli teenagers provided a pretext to do just that. A united Palestine would be deeply threatening to Israeli interests.
Another subjective (and speculative) judgment with regard to Israel’s motives, which completely ignores the far more logical and realistic motive, being the continual bombardment by hundreds of rockets and mortars fired into Israel by Hamas in the days and weeks prior to start of Israel’s retaliation. In her entire article this is hardly referred to. Eight days passed between the discovery of the three bodies and the start of Operation Protective Edge. Were the murders of the boys the only pretext, airstrikes could have started far earlier. Another example of a subjective conclusion devoid of fact or logical foundation.
As far as a “united Palestine” is concerned, while the inclusion of Hamas would pose a threat to Israel (borne out by the actions of Hamas in precipitating the recent war in Gaza), it would be a far greater threat to the future existence of Mahmud Abbas and Fatah.
What are the tasks of journalism in South Africa in reporting on Gaza? Mainstream journalism is not as embedded in the governmental power structure as it is in the US, giving it a greater degree of autonomy to tell important but difficult stories.
Nevertheless, there is a temptation to rely on foreign news agencies for their copy, increased by the massive resource constraints in many newsrooms. Reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict often unleashes massive emotional responses from South Africans. Journalists working on this beat may also be tempted to produce sanitised copy, adhering to the basic tenets of ‘objective’ journalism to avoid becoming embroiled in energy-consuming controversies.
There is very little evidence that journalists reporting on the conflict produce ‘sanitised’ copy to avoid becoming embroiled in ‘energy-consuming controversies’. Duncan implies that local journalists face being swamped by mountains of correspondence/e-mails/sms’s/social media texts/ telephone calls etc, from readers with differing opinions, so much so that simply coping with their daily work-load becomes problematic. This is hard to believe. There is, however, an abundance of examples of journalists taking a particular view, all-too-often critical of Israel, and presenting it with little regard for accuracy, fairness or factual portrayal of a matter of deep complexity. Duncan’s remarks (above) are a classic case in point.
There is also reason to believe that many journalists prefer to take the path of least resistance instead of doing the necessary legwork and research into the history and intricacies of this conflict. There is a regular reliance on the stock reports of others while resorting to emotive clichés like ”Israel’s disregard for international law”, “ethnic cleansing”, “collective punishment”, “Israeli apartheid”, Nazi-like tactics”, “a living hell”, “starving Palestinians”, “Israeli genocide”, “Israel should know better”, “another Holocaust”, etc etc. So we have the classic examples of the supposed “shooting” by Israeli soldiers of 12 year-old Muhammad al-Dura in September 2000 which became the international symbol of the 2nd Intifada and which a French court subsequently judged to have been a staged hoax, and the so-called ‘Jenin Massacre’ in which over 500 Palestinian civilians were allegedly killed by the IDF, only to have a UN fact-finding mission conclude that the actual figure was no more than 56, of which 28 were Palestinian militants. This did not stop thousands of publications the world over from reporting the untested numbers as fact without bothering to seek proper verification while few published the truth when it was finally disclosed. Those who did, relegated the announcement to a couple of inches on an inner page. So much for objective journalism.
Would Professor Duncan consider including either of these incidents in her curriculum as case studies?
However, this form of journalism (objective) is a cop-out, and ultimately a route away from good journalism, rather than a route towards it. ‘Objective’ journalism requires journalists to practice a number of strategic rituals, including seeking balance by quoting the spokespeople in a conflict, even if the spokespeople themselves have not been eyewitnesses to the events they are called on to speak about. Ostensibly, a journalist’s task has been discharged once the story has been balanced in this way.
Duncan is suggesting that journalists who practice “objective” (balanced) journalism are generally prone to accepting sub-standard information (including the accounts of spokespersons who were not themselves witnesses to an event) simply to meet their own requirements. In this she appears to decry the need for balanced reporting by again assuming that journalists seeking said balance would invariably resort to unprofessional methods to satisfy that need.
If ‘objective’ journalism demands that a journalist seeks balance by ensuring that as many sides as possible are addressed prior to the compilation of a report, it is strange that Prof Duncan should regard this as a negative.
Again she makes a strange assumption; that journalists would, as a matter of course, pursue a process of seeking balance by accepting the account of those who have no direct knowledge of, or were not authentic eyewitnesses to, an event. This being the case, it would be poor journalism indeed and should be rightfully condemned. Surely the non-critical manner of news-gathering is ‘subjective’ and not objective; subjective in that a journalist, content to accept sub-standard information will probably subject it to some level of manipulation in order to conform to his/her individual interpretation of events.
According to the Pew Research Centre, journalists rely on a professional discipline to verify information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called rather for a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. It is the method that is objective, not the journalist. (My italics and bold type)
This ritual can lead to journalists not wanting to take sides on matters of considerable public importance when they really need to. ‘Balance’ means that they don’t have to go out on a limb and assess who is right and who is wrong, or whether the viewpoints being presented are just or unjust. This is not to say that both sides should not be quoted, but the enquiry should not end once they are. In fact, ‘balance’ can be used as an excuse to avoid investigation, and even independent thinking.
Again a debateable assumption: Surely ‘balance’ should not mean that “they don’t have to go out on a limb and assess who is right and who is wrong, or whether the viewpoints being presented are just or unjust.” Balance should, by all logic, mean that they put all their energy into determining who is right or wrong; just or unjust, and deliver a clear, contextualised report based on this research. Why should we expect any less?
Indeed, ‘balance’ can be used as an excuse to avoid investigation and independent thought but so can plain laziness, lack of professionalism, ignorance, or the need to produce a piece against a pressing deadline. All are possibilities which undoubtedly occur all too often. Yet, we would wish to believe that journalists worth their salt would aspire to higher standards and not voluntarily succumb to the line of least resistance.
Take the Israel Defence Force claim that they bombed a UN school housing refugees from the conflict, because the rockets had been fired “from the vicinity of the school”. This explanation should raise red flags for any enquiring journalist, yet there is little evidence of the foreign media having probed this claim, as the story had been balanced, and hence concluded.
We will ignore the fact that Israel’s claim was indeed proven to be correct and assume that Prof. Duncan is merely using this as an example of a situation demanding authentication. However, reading between the lines there is a cynical suggestion that Duncan is not simply using this in order to illustrate the need for professional circumspection but is cynically suggesting that a probe from the foreign media would have, in all probability, determined that Israel’s claim was a lie. This is despite the spokesperson being the actual source and the information derived from those directly involved in the action. There is a clear insinuation that, because the IDF was the source of the information, it should be treated with circumspection. It is telling that Duncan fails to target any action by Hamas with the same suspicion. This constitutes a clear example of bias and pre-judgment.
Hamas are not angels; they have committed despicable acts. But then, significant struggles are rarely free from contradictions. Yet, in spite of its messiness, at a fundamental level, there is a right and a wrong in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Unquestionably, Israel is using force that is disproportionate to the level of threat it faces. It operates in a global climate of near impunity, disrespecting international law, but getting away with it, because it has powerful friends.
“At a fundamental level,” says Prof Duncan, “there is a right and a wrong in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.” What she fails to explain is how and by whom this right or wrong is determined. We must therefore assume that in her court of journalistic opinion, Israel is wrong and Hamas is right – simply because Professor Duncan says so. Though Duncan has undoubtedly never lived, month after month and year after year under the continual threat of thousands of rockets and mortars combined with the devastating consequences of having an attack tunnel appear in her back yard, she feels at liberty to pronounce on the level of proportionality of the force used by Israel to counter this level of threat – under the extreme methods and circumstances employed by her terrorist enemy. I have yet to find a critic of Israel’s so-called abuse of “proportionality” suggest what an acceptable level of proportionality might be. Perhaps Duncan will be the first.
In accusing Israel of operating “in a global climate of near impunity” she forgets that Israel waited 8 years before reacting to Hamas’ incessant rocket fire into the towns of Sderot and Ashdod. Would it not be fair to say that during that entire period Hamas acted with “near impunity”?
Duncan then proffers the standard and much abused trump card – Israel’s “disrespect for international law” without defining which aspects of international law Israel is guilty of disrespecting. I would venture to suggest that she hasn’t the slightest clue but remains safe in the knowledge that it generally sounds good. Tellingly, this fair-minded teacher of the noble art of journalism deems it unnecessary to charge Hamas with disrespecting international law as well as crimes against humanity, both of which it has transgressed by indiscriminately firing missiles into civilian areas and placing Gazan citizens directly in harm’s way. That is a matter of indisputable fact. At best she admits that “Hamas are not angels (and) have committed despicable acts” but sanitises the observation by offering no clarification with regard to the nature and extent of these acts.
The modern state of Israel was founded on the dispossession and displacement of Palestinians.
As noted by Benjamin Pogrund, Prof. Duncan is in serious need of exposure to the history of this conflict and, in particular, the origins of the State of Israel as she is in direct contravention of Principle No 1 of the Pew Research Centre, namely JOURNALISM’S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH. Misleading and uncontextualised claims like this are unbecoming of a Professor of Journalism.
No other country in history has undergone a more legally-based creative process than Israel. From the Balfour Declaration 1917, to the ratification of the Jewish homeland at the San Remo Conference of 1920, to the recognition of a Jewish Homeland by the League of Nations in 1922, to the subsequent mandate granted to the British (tasked with the responsibility of bringing the Jewish homeland to fruition, but who ignominiously failed to do so), to the UN which finally sanctioned a state for Jews in 1947, the process is fully documented and legal in all respects making Duncan’s claim both puerile and disgracefully inaccurate. The displacement to which she refers was a direct consequence of the attack by 5 Arab states on the fledgling Jewish state and their subsequent defeat while the reasons for that displacement are complex and not due to any single policy or action. (Read ‘The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem” by Benny Morris)
Israel continued to expand its settlements and deprived Palestinian territories of substantial autonomy by controlling many basic functions that a sovereign state would otherwise control, and conditions have been aggravated by the blockade. Israel’s expansionist policies have fuelled deep resentment, and no lasting peace can come out of a fundamentally unjust situation.
These conditions have turned Palestinian life into a living hell. (Much abused cliché’) It is in this context that the Palestinian resistance movement has been launching rockets into Israel. An often-heard argument is that Israel has a right to self-defence, but somehow the same right doesn’t apply to Palestinians.
While I concur with Prof. Duncan that Israel’s settlement policy is unwise and detrimental in many respects, she falls foul of Principle No. 6 by failing to place this in any form of context.
Quote from Principle No. 6: “The news media are the common carriers of public discussion and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It should strive to fairly represent the carried viewpoints … and place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate.”
Contextually, one should not ignore the following:
- Prof Duncan’s designation of the Palestinian territories as a “sovereign state” is somewhat problematic, despite the granting to it of observer status by the UN General Assembly in 2012. In order to qualify as a bona fide sovereign state, this latter must be represented by one centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area; have a permanent population, defined territory, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While Resolution 242 has yet to addressed after almost 50 years and the final borders of both the state of Israel and the territories have yet to be finalized (never mind the uncertainty of Palestinian governmental unity) Duncan’s designation of sovereign status remains on shaky ground.
- Every inch of both the West Bank and Gaza was offered to both Jordan and Egypt following the Six-Day War in exchange for the recognition of Israel and a permanent peace. This offer was refused.
- The Palestinians were offered a sovereign state on no less than 95% of the disputed territories on four separate occasions. These offers were refused.
- Following the Oslo Accords in 1993, the PLO gained control of over 60% of the West Bank and 95% of the Palestinian population. With Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, complete control of this enclave fell to the Palestinian population.
- The blockade is a direct result of the unrelenting belligerence of Hamas who refuse to recognise the existence of the Jewish state nor enter into peace negotiations. There is no blockade on the West Bank. The entire situation could be reversed were the hostility against Israel to end.
- Gaza would have every right to defend itself were it being indiscriminately attacked by Israel. If Israel had planned to attack Gaza why would it have departed from the region in 2005, leaving behind a multi-million dollar hothouse facility to enable the Gazan’s to kick-start a vital new industry? Israel ignored Gaza’s rocket attacks for 8 years in the hope that they would cease before finally taking defensive action.
That, Prof Duncan, is the true context which, frankly, you should be aware of.
Occupied populations have a right to resist, including militarily, providing this resistance does not target civilians.
When Germany occupied France, Holland, Belgium, Hungary etc without provocation those populations had every right to resist. When Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights following a defensive war after being threatened with annihilation in 1967 and had its offer to return all captured territories for peace spurned by the Arab League, she had no choice but to remain in occupation in order to ensure that she would not be attacked again. Despite Resolution 242 calling for the negotiation of safe and secure borders acceptable to all parties involved, the Arabs have consistently refused to do so. So far, virtually all Palestinian resistance has been acts of terrorism aimed at the civilian population which places a huge question mark over Duncan’s observation.
In this regard, much has been made of the fact that Palestinian rockets have been targeted at civilians, but most of those killed by Israeli strikes have been civilians, which makes them guilty of the very crime they accuse Hamas of.
Duncan falls into the same trap as the vast majority of commentators who pass negative judgement on Israel’s actions against attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah by simplistically assuming that the deaths inflicted by both sides constitute a numbers game reflecting equivalence. Here, once again, context, fact and proper analysis are woefully ignored.
Anyone who still denies that Hamas and Hezbollah place their civilian populations in direct danger (admitted to by Fathi Hammad, a Hamas Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council on 29 February 2008 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs); Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas on July 8 201 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6SO-03uFl) as well as UN OCHA Director, John Ging, does so wilfully, driven by a wish to ignore the truth and adopt a stance designed to portray Israel in the worst possible light. How anyone with a modicum of integrity and common sense can, in the face of all the evidence provided ignore the fact that Israel does everything it can to protect its citizens (Iron Dome, safe rooms, air-raid shelters, warning sirens etc) while concurrently making every effort to minimize civilian casualties on the opposing side in the face of Hamas’ blatant abuse of its citizens, can only be taking this position by choice and not integrity. Clearly, Hamas makes no effort to protect and shelter its civilians and deliberately places them in harm’s way, solely for purposes of propaganda. If this is the manner in which Prof Duncan encourages her students to examine and pronounce on situations I have no more to add.
Pro-Israel supporters will no doubt cry ‘bias’ if journalists make these points, but the situation is inherently unbalanced. If journalists point this out, they are not being biased; rather, they are being balanced in a much more meaningful sense.
Refer to above. It appears that “balance” only becomes acceptable when it is aimed at vilifying Israel.
Journalism should be defined by values, rather than by strategic rituals; otherwise it risks becoming an unthinking, unreflective practice. These values should include a commitment to truth telling, particularly in situations where powerful actors want to hide the truth to maintain their grip on power. If journalists fail to recognise the fundamental rights and wrongs in the situation, then they abdicate their democratic responsibilities to society. The journalism of objectivity and balance should not trump the journalism of justice and truth.
For a change Prof Duncan and I find common ground. Sadly, so much of what she has written contradicts these sentiments.
Journalism will also be a lifeless activity without a commitment to democracy and social justice. This means prioritising the stories of people who are silenced or marginalised by mainstream discourses, as they often tell us a great deal about how social power really functions.
Provided the authenticity of these stories are checked and verified against reliable sources and not simply accepted as fact without subjecting them to this stringent process. (Remember Mohamed al-Dura and the “Jenin Massacre”)
Yet the public sphere tends to be an elite space, which means that all too often, media discourses come to us already inherently unbalanced. The Israeli state has tremendous traction in the mainstream foreign media, which places an obligation on journalists to seek out the voices of those displaced and disadvantaged by its policies, and social media make this much more possible than it was six years ago, when Gaza flared up before.
I sincerely hope that Duncan is not proffering that age-old canard that Jews control the media. Hopefully not; for how would this explain the historic antipathy of the New York Times (the ‘newspaper of note’) towards Israel while also considering its campaign of silence about the plight of Europe’s Jews during the Holocaust. While admittedly, journalists should seek out the voices of those displaced and disadvantaged in any situation they still bear the responsibility to report those voices in proper and true context utilizing all principles of journalism and not merely succumb to the Pavlovian reaction of classifying them as underdogs.
There are those who are queasy about condemning Israel’s actions too loudly, given the historical context in which the country was established. As pro-Israeli Jews turn into oppressors themselves, they destroy the moral authority of this argument and fuel the very danger that they claim to want to protect themselves against, namely anti-Semitism.
With the surge in the world-wide levels of anti-Semitism there is little proof of the “queasiness” referred to by Prof Duncan. The levels of Israel/Jew hatred have never been higher and more widespread in modern times. One of the reasons lies with the media’s portrayal of Jews as oppressors in a situation where the search for peace and accommodation has never waned. What has placed impossible demands on this quest are the double standards imposed on the Jewish state predominantly by the international media, the UN, the UK and Europe and Left-wing academia, coupled with an unwillingness to recognise the true facts that dictate the course of events in this region and only see everything that Israel does in the worst possible light. I am prepared to bet that Professor Duncan would never suggest that her students tackle an article placing Israel in a positive light based on its treatment of 180,000 Palestinian patients in her hospitals during a single year, or her ongoing delivery of hundreds of truckloads of humanitarian aid to Gaza, even during the times of war. Under the circumstances the reference to “Israeli oppressors” is both simplistic, offensive and untrue.
The Israeli state is on a road to nowhere, and the status quo is unsustainable in the long term. Yet journalists, in fact all civil society, must condemn anti-Semitism as and when it occurs, as it is antithetical to basic democratic values.
I see no connection between ‘the Israeli state being on the road to nowhere” and the call to condemn anti-Semitism.
Global mass action, including through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, is an important force for change in the region. This is where global public opinion becomes important, as do media framings of these events, as they can make or break global movements.
Journalists should not be put off by false arguments. One of the more prominent is that critics tend to pick on Israel, while staying silent about conflicts in Syria and Iraq, because they are anti-Semitic. These arguments are based on the fallacy of relative privation, or ‘whataboutery’, which asserts that Israel’s problems should be ignored as there are more important problems in the world, especially the Muslim world.
This line of argument should be recognised for what it is: as an attempt to deflect criticisms of one of the most longstanding regional conflicts in the world, and one that is eminently capable of being resolved if its primary financiers committed themselves to doing so in a just manner. Furthermore, ‘whataboutery’ proponents should also be put the test, to see if they themselves act on their criticisms and mobilise against the very injustices they decry. In any event, many of Israel’s critics do criticise other unjust regimes.
What about another line of argument, being the call by Mahmud Abbas, President of the PA condemning BDS and calling for it to stop in the interests of the Palestinians. Who should know more about what is good for the region and its people – the Duncan’s of this world, comfortably seated 6000 miles from the conflict, or a man responsible for the required growth and stability to ensure that his citizens are able to put food on their tables?
BDS might be pleased to know that the Soda Stream factory endorsed by Scarlett Johansen has decided to close its West Bank factory which currently employs 900 Palestinians, and move it to the Negev where all-important soda can be produced in peace and quiet. This is too far distant for the 900 Palestinian employees to maintain their employment but I am certain that the hardships they and their families will now experience will be of little concern to Duncan and others who will regard this as some sort of feel-good, moral victory, albeit empty and destructive.
Were BDS honest in its pronouncements, it would admit that its true aim is not to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories but rather the total destruction of the Jewish state. What else can be deduced from one of its senior officials leading a chorus of “Kill the Jews” at a concert by an Israeli pianist at Wits University.
While BDS might allow Duncan and others to feel vindicated in their noble intent, they should understand that Israel and its people are going nowhere as they have nowhere else to go. Unlike Duncan, who I would venture has never had to fight a war for the survival of her country, the Israelis are fully aware of what that means and the sacrifices it demands.
Journalists should also encourage South Africans to take positions on the conflict on the basis of what is right and wrong, rather than on more dubious bases, such as racial or religious solidarity. Journalists are also in a unique position to promote forward-looking debates on the conflict and other countries’ roles in its resolution, given the country’s own experience of oppression, followed by transition (however incomplete).
Prof. Duncan should realize by now that the comparison between South Africa and Israel is fallacious and false. In South Africa the battle was never about two parties (one fully democratic and free (Israel) with the other cynically democratic and hardly free (SA)) contesting the ownership of land, but rather about how to fairly share the land already owned by all of its people. Contesting nationhood played no part in finding a solution, not to mention another invisible elephant – religious differences. Were Duncan sincere in her role as an advocate for change in Israel/Palestine she would encourage her students not to focus on the non-relevant experience of our country vis-à-vis conflict resolution, but to approach the subject in such a manner that by fair, contextualised and unbiased reportage and analysis, future journalists might bring forth a greater awareness of a complex situation and inject useful and constructive dialogue into the minds of the general public.
Hamas has also demonstrated an openness to political solutions to the conflict, which is often lost in the Western-mediated framing of the movement. In this regard, it is pretty clear that the two-state solution is not viable, given Israel’s de facto control over the Palestinian territories. Yet the South African government continues to cling to the two-state solution; so engaging with this debate is important for foreign policy reasons.
Obviously, either Prof Duncan is not familiar with, or simply wishes to ignore, the Hamas’ charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews wherever they may be. While Duncan will in all likelihood dismiss this as irrelevant, Jews have learned not to ignore the utterances of those who clearly state their genocidal intent.
Duncan’s reference to Hamas’ “openness” to finding political solutions must be apparent to Duncan alone, as Hamas’ refusal to talk to Israel and recognise its existence has never been rescinded. Duncan’s conclusion that the two-state solution is non-viable is based on no more than her apparent naive belief that Hamas is amenable to sharing the land on an equitable basis, as well as Israel’s de facto control over the Palestinian territories. How, in the face of the lengthy history of hatred and hostility and the enormous cultural and religious differences, a single state could provide a viable solution is debateable, to say the least, and a far less likely alternative for a lasting peace. From the viewpoint of objectivity and balance, does so intractable a problem not deserve a greater level of debate?
Support is growing internationally for a one-state solution, which could involve a bi-national state or a secular, unitary state. A bi-national solution would appear to be the more realistic of the two options, but will entrench Palestinian and Israeli identities as separate, increasing the likelihood of sub-national conflict in the future. This solution will also undermine Palestinian’s inalienable right of return to the territories that they were displaced from.
A secular, unitary state, similar to the one that South Africa adopted is likely to be resisted by many pro-Israeli supporters, who see in it the destruction of Israel by other means. But the word ‘destruction’ conjures up images of a violent path to building the nation, which ignores the fact that what is being proposed is a democratic path.
After claiming that a bi-national state would appear to be the more realistic option Duncan contradicts her own premise by admitting that it would increase the likelihood of sub-national conflict in the future. While the proposal of a secular unitary state might fit the description of a democratic route to a newly-found Regional Spring, there is little chance of that cheery season ever seeing the light of day, never mind the warmth of summer. While democracy fits comfortably with the Jewish experience it has proven to be problematic when applied to the general Middle Eastern psyche.
It must not be assumed that Palestinian and Israeli identities are so fixed that they are incapable of progressive transformation towards a more shared identity. Democratic theories of nation-formation, including African theories, demonstrate that this is very possible. In any event, a state where Jews are persecuted will not be a democratic secular state, but an authoritarian nationalist one.
South African journalism is dominated by the professional model with its strategic rituals of objectivity and balance. But there are welcome signs of a greater diversity of journalism practices, including civic journalism and advocacy journalism. These alternative models do not betray basic journalistic tenets: on the contrary, they enrich journalism.
Assessments of the state of South African journalism are often filled with doom and gloom, given recent threats to media freedom and the evisceration of many newsrooms. But this should not detract from the fact that the sector is also filled with great promise, and a real potential to contribute to positive changes to some of the world’s most intractable problems.
…………………………………………………………………….
I have chosen to add a letter I submitted to the Mail & Guardian in response to one written by Prof. Duncan and published on September 12. It is relevant to the above discussion.
THE MAIL & GUARDIAN
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Refers: “Don’t muzzle the media”
Prof. Jane Duncan’s assessment of the history that led to the establishment of the State of Israel is based on some erroneous and warped assumptions.
She is correct in pointing out that the UN General Assembly’s Resolution 181 was only a recommendation and therefore not enforceable. It did, however, open the door to Israel’s declaration of independence that followed. This is not unlike the 2012 unilateral application for recognition of statehood by the Palestinian Authority before the same GA.
In claiming that by achieving partition, “Israelis (gained) more than half of this territory”, Duncan overlooks a succession of legal processes enshrined in international law which started with the Balfour Declaration (1917) followed by the supremely important San Remo Conference (1920) that was key to recognising Jewish claims to sovereignty over the entire region of Palestine as defined following WW1. This was further ratified by the League of Nations (1922) followed by the granting of the Mandate over Palestine to the British in 1922 and the recognition of the Sovereign State of Israel by the UN General Assembly in 1948, making Israel the most legally constituted state ever been brought into being.
No aspects of these internationally recognised treaties and resolutions have ever been abrogated making Israel a legally constituted sovereign state, recognised as such by 160 members of the UN.
In simplistically attributing Israel’s very existence to the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians, Duncan merely starts history from a date of convenience.
In truth, if any party had been dispossessed of land it was the Jews to whom the entire region of “Palestine” had been allocated through the legal process outlined above, only to be robbed by the British of 80% of the territory for the establishment of the Kingdom of Transjordan in 1921. Of the remaining 20%, the Jews were forced to accept a further dissection of half the land through the process of partition of which 60% of this so-called “majority” of land to which Duncan refers was the arid Negev desert.
Although the overall majority of the population in the entire original area of Palestine set aside for the Jews, were Arabs, by the time we reach the final 10% remaining, ( which constituted Israel), that area accommodated a majority of Jews and was allocated by the UN with that demography clearly in mind. This accounts for the un-defendable hour-glass- shaped territory that originated from partition in 1947.
What Jeremy R. Hammond omits in his overview of the legality or otherwise of the Jewish state is that most sovereign states are de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). Israel is no exception and has been so for the past 66 years. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Here Israel complies in all respects. The existence of a state is a question of fact. It can therefore exist without being recognised by other sovereign states.
Despite the obvious antipathy of Jane Duncan and others, the sovereign state of Israel has existed for the past 66 years in every legal and practical form and is not destined to disappear. Those who find this an uncomfortable reality should finally learn to live with it and move on to other issues of greater pertinence.
Victor Gordon
P.O.Box 23542
Brooklyn
0181
Media Team Israel 