The Media, Not Israeli Voters, Take the Hardline
January 23, 2013 15:55 by Simon Plosker
For several weeks we have been bombarded with international coverage of the Israeli election campaign. A common thread emerged: a surge to the right accompanied by the death of the peace process and even Israeli democracy itself.
The media simply took the figures from the polls and fit them to their own framework.
So the story became one based solely around the fight for votes taking place within the right-wing camp while ignoring developments in the center and left. The media took a particular glee in trying to prove that Israelis were, by and large, political fanatics hellbent on burying any possible prospects for Middle East peace.
Too many commentators in the international press viewed the Israeli elections purely through the prism of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians. Too many commentators treated the perceived preferences of the Israeli voters with scorn or outright contempt.
Some examples of recent coverage:
The Daily Telegraph, which featured a commentary from Peter Oborne, someone who believes in the presence of an all-powerful Israel lobby in the UK (including HonestReporting):
In light of the results, it looks like Oborne got this one wrong as well.
But not content with Oborne’s contribution, the Daily Telegraph published this the next day. Just what is the definition of a “hardline Zionist?”
And “hardline” also made an appearance on the Salon website:
For Sky News it was the “extremist right”:
Granted, not even the Israeli pollsters predicted the surprise results that saw the centrist Yesh Atid party led by former TV personality Yair Lapid emerge as the second largest party behind a weakened Likud Beiteinu of Benjamin Netanyahu. And this when the story was supposed to be about the rise of Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home), a party to the right of Likud.
This obsession with the right prevented the media from taking a balanced view of political developments that would have called into question the presumption that the electorate had made a dramatic rightward shift. On January 8, Foreign Policy’s Michael Singh saw the same polls as the media but drew very different conclusions that came very close to the reality:
What is noted less often, however, is that left-wing parties have also gained. The same poll shows gains not just for the Labor party, but for the far-left Meretz party as well as social-justice-focused Yesh Atid (which did not previously exist), as well as for Tzipi Livni’s “Movement” party. The losers are the Likud-Israel Beitenu coalition, projected to lose nine seats, and the centrist parties — Kadima, which had twenty-one seats but will cease to exist, and Ehud Barak’s “Independence” party, which will not field candidates with his retirement from the Knesset.
Despite this shifting within both the left and the right, the polls indicate an absence of movement between the two poles. The result, rather startlingly, is that despite the churn, the right-left balance is forecast to remain precisely as it currently stands. The data projects not a more right-wing Knesset, but a more polarized one. It also projects a weaker position for Prime Minister Netanyahu in coalition politics, which could well mean a more right-wing government than that he currently heads, though — depending on what deals he is able to cut — this is hardly a foregone conclusion.
In fact, Israelis did not make a dramatic surge to the right at all, instead leaving the left-right blocs virtually matched. Where the international media saw only extremism, Israeli voters chose moderation. In the cold light of day, the Canadian Globe & Mail‘s headline demonstrated the inability to break free from this fixation, coming as it did after the exit polls had been announced So according to this, every party classified as “right” is “hardline”:
And if you are looking for an even more dire prediction, how about this from MSNBC:
Some of the accompanying commentary from MSNBC’s Rula Jebreal sounds more like it comes from a radical Palestinian figure than a credible foreign policy expert with claims such as: “And if anyone dares to criticize the [Israeli] government, they are invariably accused of being anti-Semitic.”
This is the usual charge aimed at silencing legitimate criticism of Israel’s detractors. Of course, not all criticism of Israel is illegitimate and the anti-Semitism card is more often than not played by critics of Israel attempting to dismiss Israel’s defenders.
But if proof were needed as to the lack of understanding of these elections from some in the international media, look no further than The Independent:
Seemingly unnoticed by the journalist, this Israeli election was fought on domestic and social issues which relegated diplomatic issues to the background. That this was the case certainly did not illustrate a lack of desire for peace on the part of an electorate that has simply grown fed up of taking risks for peace and receiving rockets on their cities in return. In fact, in addition to Netanyahu, who has publicly endorsed a two-state solution, the other two parties in the top three also support this.
Ultimately, there was a marked failure to appreciate that, while other countries in the Middle East are holding elections, there is still only one true and vibrant democracy in the region.
EthanP
5:51 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Let’s not forget for one second that the real goal of the MSM, was to provide as Obama friendly Israeli government as possible.
If you have any doubt, all that is needed for proof is the fawning, worshipfull coverage of O’s 2nd inaugaration. I often thought I was listening to coverage of the 2nd comming. Oh that’s right! Many of O’s admirerers think he is!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
30 
5
Ira
6:03 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Why is it “extremist” to take the Palis at their word and believe them when they say they want Israel gone and the Jews dead? Why isn’t it called being realistic instead? And how can anyone who isn’t hell bent on Israel’s destruction see it any other way?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
44 
1
batya dagan
8:57 am
Feb 25, 2013
While they are lying about everytrhing they do tell the trurth when they say that they want all
Jews to leave and go back to Europe .Some add shameleassly that they should go back to the ovens.
So they do know about the Holocaust but they want it to last forever.They simply want our country to be theirs.
But that does not mean that we should accomdate them.Enough proprty was stoen from us in
the Arab diaspopra and in Europe.It is over.NOT HAPPENING AGAIN.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Sid
6:04 pm
Jan 23, 2013
This analysis clearly shows that these reporters who produced this junk, yes tripe, had not even set foot in Israel prior to the elections. Had they been here in the streets of Jerusalem they would have hardly noticed an election was taking place. All they picked up was the media pre coverage and the polls. Coming two months after the recent defensive action against missiles from the “independent state of Gaza” one would have thought this would have been an election issue – but this was an election of inaction. The public were not provided with party manifestos, no hustings, no palour room meetings – what did the majority of people vote for – themselves not the good of the country.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
1
judith cummings
6:25 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Agree or Disagree:
0 
12
Sid
8:28 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Yes – so what if the Times (not a friendly newspaper towards Israel- with left leaning Jews in prominent positions) had two jounalists in Israel – bet they only spoke English and did not understand a word of Ivrit. Probably, their stories filed were based on their staffers feeding them translations of the Hebre media.
As it is apparent you don’t live in Israel your accusations are based on nothing but hersay.
As for Lapid – wonder if your country would accept a journalist as a party leader. You certainly don’t understand the nub of the problem
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
ScottM
9:14 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Unfortunately, you have put yourself up as a good example of the resulting problem due to what is clearly manifest bias, conducted by large portions of the Media. It must be galling to have to confront reality.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
judith cummings
6:22 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Agree or Disagree:
0 
12
L’occhio dei media | Federazione Sionistica Italiana
6:42 pm
Jan 23, 2013
[...] QUI Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Mi piaceBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Media and tagged benjamin netanyahu, campagna elettorale, centro, daily telegraph, destra, ehud barak, elettorali, internazionale, israele, kadima, knesset, lapid, likud, linea dura, lobby, media, medio oriente, naftali, naftali bennet, netayahu, pace, pace in medio oriente, peter oborne, regno unito, salon, sinistra, sionismo, sky news, società, stampa, stampa internazionale, storia, tzipi livni, web, yehudi, yesh atid on gennaio 23, 2013 by driz88. [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
John
7:08 pm
Jan 23, 2013
The American media has become far craftier than the international media. They are focusing more on Netanyahu’s victory as a defeat. See the article:
Netanyahu claims election win despite losses
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-set-elect-netanyahu-shift-further-010055035.html
Here in America the media is in a full court press against its only real enemies, Conservatives. Unlike the English media which feels defeated by Israel’s victories since the establishment of the seperation barrier.
Propaganda is news… control the flow of information and you control the keys of power…
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
EthanP
7:36 pm
Jan 23, 2013
John; As I see it, it’s not about foreign vs domestic media. As I stated in my earlier comment, concerns the one sided slant of almost all of the MSM. While there are some exceptions (Fox News, WaTimes, etc.) most people get there news from sources almost entirely on the left. Thus Israel, with a right wing govt, is demonized. Almost forgotten is the interfearence from the far left outside of Israel. The Clinton administration succeeded in getting Barak elected as PM. Remember how well that worked!
A free people, in a free state, needs/requires a press that tells all sides of the issues of the day. In this, I believe Israel is still free. In the USA and Europe, it’s Pravda!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
13 
0
Frank Adam
11:10 pm
Jan 23, 2013
Very interesting and a deserved kick in the wedding kit of the press pundits. These foreign visitors especially, read only the papers they favour and – in translation without enough stringer halep to keep an ear open to what is being said in watering holes and streets or transport then get half their story off the bull.
A journalist as effectively and ambassador, is supposed read all the papers and interview people from all parties and it does help to have a some of the local language for innuendos and local references before writing with some balance openly distinguishing between what favours their masters and what is likely to actually fall out.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Frank Adam
11:12 pm
Jan 23, 2013
For proof the US near enough deserved the Tehran Embassy siege because – anecdotally – there was not a single Farsi speaking US staff member there!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
7 
0
Not Right: why did the BBC get the Israeli elections so wrong? | BBC Watch
7:42 am
Jan 24, 2013
[...] mistakes are, of course by no means the exclusive territory of the BBC, but they are also not confined to the subject of the Israeli [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Al Neuman
8:00 am
Jan 24, 2013
Really who cares what the “international media” says anyway? These people routinely bash and demonize Israel, often in completely dishonest ways. At the root of it, this repetitive, systematic bias toward Israel can only come from antiSemitic assholes. Don’t know why anyone in their right mind can respect their Mideast reporting.
And unfortunately that characterization is accurately applied to the NY Slimes–oops-Times, TIIME (Karl Vick is beyond horrible), Reuters, CNN (“Certainly Not the News”), and G-d help us, the ridiculous bunch of clowns @ MSNBC with the likes of Rachel Madcow and her sidekick surely the most repulsive person on “mainstream” TV, fat bigoted pig Ed Schultz!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Fe Jones
4:34 pm
Jan 24, 2013
I do not watch major networks for news because they are all anti- Israel!
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
Robert Skole
5:31 pm
Jan 26, 2013
Hardline definition, from “Journalese — A Dictionary for Deciphering the News” by Paul Dickson and Robert Skole: Used by reporters or editors who don’t like the guy’s position or attitude. If they like him, he’s committed, determined, solid, firm steadfast or resolute.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Dafna Yee
8:51 am
Jan 27, 2013
I am an Israeli as well as an American and if I were in Israel now, I would have voted as far right as possible. (For example, i think Israel should annex Judea and Samaria and stop working toward that farce aka “two-state solution” with so-called “moderate” Arabs!!) That doesn’t mean I would vote for Romney and the other women-hating Republicans! (For the record, I didn’t vote for Obama either!!) The main reason that the media, as well as most government employees, are anti-Israel is because Americans (and British) people have been indoctrinated with pro-Arab propaganda from elementary schools through graduate schools that is financed by the Arab leaders (particularly the Saudis)!!!
Agree or Disagree:
2 
1
EthanP
7:26 pm
Jan 27, 2013
You chose to concentrate on “one” issue. By helping Obama win, (and you did), you helped elect a man with a long history of anti-Zionism. And while I doubt Obama is personaly an anti-semite, can you doubt 20 years of the Rev Wrights anti-semitism and friendship with the openly anti-semitic Hitler lover Louis Farakan.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Stephen
1:03 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Dafna – I was formerly the Chair of Governors of a London state Secondary school and my daughters both went through the British education system. I know of no finance from “Arab leaders”, in fact there was very little if anything in the syllabus of any subject concerning Arabs or Israel. The Holocaust is studied and Religious education does include information on Judaism and Islam amongst other religions. So Dafna I have no idea where you got your information from about the British education system but wherever it was, it’s incorrect
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
Sid
5:16 pm
Jan 27, 2013
To Stephen,
Please don’t take your institution as a typical case to argue about the funding – just have a look at the Said school funding at Oxford University as an example and then consider how similar funding goes to Islamic UK schools – if you don’r know such a method exists then you have NOT been following what has been going on in the last 10 years in the UK. If you cannot get the information from the web try asking the UK Department of Education under the Freedom of Information Act 1996
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Brian Jones
1:58 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Can somebody define “terrorist”? Also, if, as the article claims, the Knesset has become more polarised, it can hardly also be described as more moderate. The whole question of left and right is relative in any case, each country has its own conception of what constitutes ‘the centre’. From my own, of course subjective, point of view, Netanyahu is certainly not centrist, but pretty far right. As for Israel being a vibrant and true democracy…maybe when it doesn’t exclude parties from forming coalitions due to their ethnic identity, deny voting rights to many of those who live under its rule etc etc etc…I’m sure you all know and dismiss the arguments. Just offering my opinion.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
4
Sid
5:27 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Brian,
Preumably you don’t live in Israel so in reality you cannot judge the political stance of Neyanyhu. Did you read the Likud Beitanu party manifesto before classifying him as far right? Far right in the UK is a reference to racism like Mosley in the 1930′s – this is not the case in Israel. Obviously you have not visited Israel otherwise you would not make such accusations. Today I visited the offices of the Jerusalem Municipality and there were Arabs in the same queue to gain access. The only difference was they did not speak Hebrew but Arabic (taught in the Islamic schools in Jerusalem – paid for out of the municipal taxes of ther city), forms are in Hebrew and Arabic as are road sign
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Brian Jones
10:15 pm
Jan 27, 2013
No, I don’t necessarily deem the far right to be racist. I’m mostly judging Netanyahu on his foreign policy to be fair, not domestic. I would actually consider the very project of creating a state based around a particular ethnic/religious identity to be inherently racist, however, along with the removal of one ethnic group to make way for another. I don’t want to get into an argument with anybody, I’m actually genuinely interested in your views. Obviously, the maj. of people here are fairly pro-Israel. Given that, I’d be interested to know what criticisms (if any) you’d make of the Israeli state and its conduct vis-a-vis Palestine.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Brian Jones
2:00 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Can somebody define “terrorist”? Also, if, as the article claims, the Knesset has become more polarised, it can hardly also be described as more moderate. The whole question of left and right is relative in any case, each country has its own conception of what constitutes ‘the centre’. From my own, of course subjective, point of view, Netanyahu is certainly not centrist, but pretty far right. As for Israel being a vibrant and true democracy…maybe when it doesn’t exclude parties from forming coalitions due to their ethnic identity, deny voting rights to many of those who live under its rule etc etc etc…I’m sure you all know and dismiss the arguments. And Dafne…get real.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
3
EthanP
7:19 pm
Jan 27, 2013
It’s really quite simple Brian. A freedom fighter is one who attacks military targets. A terrorist is one who deliberately attacks civilian targets, especially women and children.
An example of both occured on 9/11. The targeting of the Pentagon was a military target. Doing it with a commercial aircraft full of civilians made it an act of terror.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Brian Jones
10:06 pm
Jan 27, 2013
So, presumably then you’d classify Israel’s numerous false flag operation, e.g. the Lavon Affair, or possible involvement in bomb attacks in Iran as terrorist operations? Or Israel’s taking hostage of a Syrian passenger jet in 1954? Or the UN report which concluded that in 2009 “Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians”? Certainly Baruch Goldstein would be deemed a terrorist. This does not mean I condone Hamas attacks. Just wanted to know your views on the above, to name a few. Regarding Hamas, we should also consider why an initially peaceful intifada of civil protest became a violent terrorist movement.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Stephen
6:51 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Sid – Oxford university is the tiniest part of the British education system and there aren’t many Muslim state schools in UK. To extrapolate that and then state that the UK education system indoctrinates British children to be anti-Israel with ansolutely no evidence is truly bizarre. Furthermore I doubt if Muslims are exactly supportive of British foreign policy having fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Stephen
7:05 pm
Jan 27, 2013
Sid – ps
The institution with which I am familiar is in common with all other state schools in UK funded by central government so it was and is a “typical” case.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0