Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East Israel media bias dishonest reporting

November 24, 2009

KBRM files formal complaint about TVNZ programme ‘Across the Divide’

On Nov. 1, TVNZ showed a programme that painted a false picture of the Israeli-Arab conflict (see Nov. 1 post). KBRM filed the following formal complaint:

We wish to lodge a formal complaint with TVNZ about the documentary ‘Across the Divide’ which screened on the Sunday programme, 1 November 2009. We maintain that this documentary breached the following standards of the Broadcasting Standards Authority:

Standard 4. Controversial Issues — Viewpoints

This 16-minute programme provided a one-sided and highly emotive view of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and criticism of Israel. Arab Palestinian complaints were accepted and treated with sympathy, while answers to them were challenged or met with scepticism, the ratio between the two being about 11-1. Following are some examples of the one-sided nature of the programme:

The programme opened with a montage of scenes showing an Arab family being forcibly evicted and a house being demolished. All in all, 11 of the 16 minutes, including the first 7½, were devoted to Arab complaints and accusations against Israel.
The only rebuttal to these charges, other than a six-second comment from an unnamed ‘man on the street’, was one minute of an interview with Michael Kuttner shown in the second half of the programme. Mr Kuttner attempted to answer questions about these charges, but living in Efrat he had no involvement in the East Jerusalem property disputes. His answers were undermined by sympathy-inducing images of Palestinian children, superimposed without his knowledge. This cannot reasonably be considered as providing a ‘significant point of view’ to answer the anti-Israel claims.
The other four minutes (all times are approximate) of the Kuttner interview were devoted to showing life in Efrat, with emphasis on the supposedly harsh treatment of Arabs. No mention was made of the hardships experienced by the people of Efrat, such as suicide attacks by Palestinians.
No effort was made to verify the Arab complaints by consulting Israeli authorities about house ownership and rent arrears — the real issues in the controversy — as was done, for example, by CNN when the Hanoun eviction occurred in August. (See interview with spokesman Mark Regev, below, easily found on the web.)
This eviction received a great deal of media coverage at the time in Israel, but little mention was made of the story in the New Zealand media. Accordingly, most viewers could not reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage.
No mention was made of the regular evictions of Jewish Israelis who build unauthorised structures or fail to pay their rent, nor was the demolition of unauthorised Jewish ‘settlements’ by Israeli authorities cited.
No mention was made that the Hanoun family had been asked repeatedly over an extended period of time to pay rent or vacate, but they openly resisted, displaying a sign ‘We will not leave’ in their window.
The statement ‘an Israeli court decided that the land was in Jewish hands back then and so it should return to Jewish hands today’ should have been accompanied by a statement that the land was seized without compensation from its Jewish owners, who were forcibly driven out. In Western societies it is the norm to restore stolen property, no matter how long the delay.
Throughout the programme, both the tone and content of questions indicated strong sympathy for the Arab cause and disdain or scepticism for Israeli responses.

Standard 5. Accuracy

TVNZ made little effort to ensure that the programme content was accurate. Following are some examples of how viewers were misled, either through out-and-out errors or the failure to provide relevant facts:

The eviction was presented as part of a political move regarding ‘Jewish settlement’, whereas it was actually a property dispute between two private parties that had gone through the Israeli judicial system right to the Supreme Court. The demolition was presented the same way, despite statistics that show the demolition rate is not substantially different in Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods.*
The Hanoun house was originally owned by Jews who were driven out during anti-Jewish Arab riots in 1929; it was then taken over by Arab squatters. The Hanoun family never paid for the property and did not have a deed of ownership; they had lived rent-free for years. Failure to mention these facts gave a misleading picture of the eviction.
Viewers were not told that the family had at least six months to find alternative accommodation, as the first eviction notice was served in February. Instead they actively resisted, putting up a poster ‘We will never leave’ (in English). This also puts an entirely different perspective on the events.
Ms Hanoun said the police forced their way into the home. She should have been asked if she and her family had refused to open their doors. Faced with such resistance, the police would be left with no other option but to ‘force’ their entrance, as would be the case even in New Zealand.
In the home video, Jana Hanoun called out in English, ‘Don't touch my Mum, don't touch my Mum’, yet the family and the police all spoke Arabic or Hebrew. She should have been asked why she spoke in English. Anyway, it's difficult to see how a person who is resisting eviction can be taken out without touching her.
The charge made by Jana Hanoun that Israel practices ‘ethnic cleansing’ was not refuted. Population statistics show that there are far more Arabs living in East Jerusalem in 2009 than there were in 1967 — very far from ethnic cleansing.
When Ms Hanoun said her tooth was broken by Israeli police, the interviewer turned it into a plural, saying, ‘they broke your teeth’. When asked to show where, she said it had been fixed; judging from what could be seen, the damage must have been a very slight chip. The interviewer did not ask her if she had physically resisted eviction. It is not uncommon for minor injuries to occur when police must use force against people who resist them
The interviewer said that Palestinian home demolitions happen ‘hundreds of times a year’. Yet statistics from the Jerusalem Municipality show that as of June 2009, 20 demolitions orders had been issued in (Jewish) West Jerusalem and 21 orders in (Palestinian) East Jerusalem.
The statement that East Jerusalem was originally Arab is false. Jerusalem has a long history, and Jews were there long before the Arabs.
No conflict in the Middle East can be divorced from its history. Viewers were not told about the deadly 1929 anti-Jewish riots in Jerusalem or the 1948 ‘ethnic cleansing’ of East Jerusalem and the Old City, when Jews were killed or expelled and their property seized by Arabs. Nor was it mentioned that the first Arab attack on Jews in 1947 took place in the same neighbourhood, Sheikh Jarrah, with shots fired on a Jewish ambulance. Sheikh Jarrah was also the site of an infamous Arab massacre in April 1948, when a Jewish convoy to Hadassah hospital was ambushed and 77 people, including distinguished scientists, scholars, doctors and nurses, were burned to death. Knowledge of this history would have provided a different perspective on what happened last August.
Complaints about water shortages imposed on Arabs were made, but without mentioning the drought that has caused water shortages throughout Israel, affecting Jewish communities as well. This gave the false impression that Israel is unfairly depriving Arab Palestinians of water.
Clips of the evicted families were shown during the interview with Michael Kuttner, giving the false impression that he was responding to the specific claims by Ms Hanoun and Mr Higgins. In fact, he had no direct knowledge of those claims.
The protective barriers and security guards in and around Efrat were shown as if they were examples of Israeli oppression of Arabs, with the narrator saying ‘apparently friendship has its limits’. It was not explained that the reason for the security guards is that two suicide bombings by Arabs had occurred in Efrat. It was also not stated the Efrat community had provided funding for education, a medical clinic and water services for a nearby Arab village, or that it is the Palestinians who want to evict Jews from the area, not the reverse. These facts were all suppressed or edited out, giving a complete misrepresentation of the attitude of Israelis toward Arabs.

Standard 6. Fairness

When, on 1 October 2009, Dale Owens approached KBRM by email about the proposed documentary, he described the project as follows: ‘I work for Television New Zealand's current affairs show ‘Sunday’. Shortly we will be heading to Israel to cover a number of stories there for the show. One of which is a historical piece on the Anzac's and their involvement in World War One. For the other piece we would like to film a story about New Zealanders in modern day Israel. This would include kiwi families who have moved there to make Israel their home. Kiwi's who have made Aliyah. I wondered if you would be able to point us in the direction of Kiwi settlers in Israel, they I'm sure will have great stories to tell, of starting new lives in these lands, their views on what Israel means to them and the future for the region. We often hear stories in the media about Israel, but we feel that we never get to hear the personal stories. Especially from New Zealanders with strong connection to Israel. I hope you can help us with our search.’ (Email received 1 October 2009)

KBRM gave TVNZ details of New Zealand Israelis who could be contacted, including Michael Kuttner, but according to Mr Kuttner, ‘It was NEVER made clear to me that the brief had changed from New Zealanders in Israel to evictions.’

Whether intentionally or otherwise, TVNZ misrepresented the use of the interview with Mr Kuttner, and gathered information and pictures through this misrepresentation. Mr Kuttner opened his home and the community of Efrat to TVNZ in the clear understanding that TVNZ wanted to record stories of New Zealanders who had settled in Israel, and particularly their stories ‘of starting new lives in these lands, their views on what Israel means to them and the future for the region’. He was not informed that his interview was going to be edited and used to represent a response to the accusations made against Israeli authorities by Jana Hanoun et al. Instead of a candid and extensive interview with a New Zealander living in an Israeli ‘settlement’, something that has never been seen on New Zealand television, the New Zealand public was given a heavily edited and distorted version of such an interview that adds nothing new to an understanding of the Middle East conflict.

Conclusion

While the items listed above are important, this is a case where the whole was much greater than the sum of its parts. No reasonable person watching ‘Across the Divide’ could possibly see it an objective, informative documentary. It never bridged ‘the divide’, but remained strongly on the Arab side. If the intent of TVNZ was to provide accurate and impartial coverage, it completely failed.

In accord with Broadcasting Authority standards, KBRM requests that TVNZ make ‘reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view in other programmes within the period of current interest.’ KBRM would be happy to assist with this. Perhaps an interview with a representative of the Israeli embassy could be used. Or perhaps a (sympathetic) story about KBRM could be presented, or a story about a KBRM member who spent 10 years working and teaching in Arab and Israeli hospitals and knows the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood.

We also request that TVNZ make a public apology to Mr Michael Kuttner for the way they betrayed his confidence and distorted and twisted his interview.

Yours faithfully,

Rodney Brooks, Chairman
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
kbrm@ihug.co.nz
Printed copy to follow by post

*References for all facts stated herein will be supplied upon request.

Following are excerpts from a CNN interview with Mark Regev, Spokesman for the Israeli PM. This interview is easily found on the internet (google ‘cnn mark regev 2009’)and illustrates the kind of rebuttal that TVNZ should have supplied.

Regev. Well, I think a lot of the criticism is simply not fair. You had a legal dispute between two private parties. The Israeli government was not involved over who had title to a particular property there in East Jerusalem. And it went up the Israeli court system all the way to our Supreme Court, with both groups, both sides, putting all their documents, all their claims in front of the court.

As you know, the Israeli court system is independent and professional. Many times it rules in favor of the Palestinian side, if that's where it thinks justice lies. In this case it ruled in favor of the Jewish side.

The timing of this event was because the court order was implemented. And I think anyone who lives in a democracy knows that rule of law means that the court's decision must be upheld. Does anyone really think that the Israeli government can overrule its own Supreme Court and pass some sort of racist law that forbids Jews from buying apartments or property in Jerusalem?

I think peace, and I have heard my Prime Minister Netanyahu say this, peace has to include a situation where Jews in Jerusalem can live in Arab neighborhoods and Arabs in Jerusalem can live in Jewish neighborhoods. Isn't that what peace and coexistence is all about? The whole idea that East Jerusalem has to be free of Jews, surely that is something that no one in the international community can accept.

Listen, I of course have empathy for people who are being evicted from houses that the court says they have to leave. I think in any situation like that you have empathy for people who have to leave the house. But of course there is rule of law. And in America, in Europe, in all democratic countries we know that the courts look at the evidence, they hear from both sides and they make a distinction, they make a decision. And that decision has to be upheld by the police, by the executive branch. In this case the court objectively heard all the evidence. Now people are tying to play politics here, but this isn't politics. This is rule of law.

Interviewer: So you deny that there is a systematic policy in place, whether or not it is acknowledged as a policy. But there are systematic actions taking place to move Jewish families into East Jerusalem and to move Palestinians out. Would you deny that?

Regev: There is no such government policy. On the contrary, here you have a situation where private people bought private property. And that is what it is. The court dealt with a land dispute between two private groups of people.
But let me make something clear here. Since Israel united the city in 1967, for the first time in the history of that city all great religious groups, whether it is the Christian community, the Jewish community or the Muslim community, have full freedom of religion, freedom of worship. Only under Israeli rule have democratic rights been maintained and guaranteed for all.
And I would ask those Arab residents who go the Israeli Supreme Court and go against these sorts of rulings, where else in the Arab world do you have a situation where the courts are free and independent and truly professional as they are in Israel?

Interviewer: Well, a state has a duty of care to its citizens. So what happens now to those residents that are sleeping on the streets?

Regev: Well to be fair, and I understand and have empathy for them, but this was no surprise. I mean, this has gone through all the courts in Israel up to the Supreme Court, and they knew that this court order had come. They were asked to leave voluntarily because the courts had decided it was not their property. They did not have the right to be there, and yet they chose this political statement. Really, they should have known this was coming and made the correct preparations.