'Anti-Israel agenda in global media has personal motivations'

There is a distinct change in terminology with regards to the way global media is covering Israel and the regional conflict, Daniel Pomerantz, CEO of HonestReporting, a watchdog group that monitors the media for bias against Israel. But can the tides change? Speaking with Israel Hayom, Pomerantz says not all is lost.

Q: You made aliyah when you were 36, and lost all of your money after launching Playboy Israel. After this the story starts to get interesting.

“I completed my legal studies and I opened a law firm in New York. In 2011 I made aliyah, and it’s true that I was the franchisee of Playboy magazine in Israel, which at a certain point closed. During that period I didn’t have any money, and I started volunteering with the IDF. Aged 40, I answered a job advertisement from HonestReporting, which works for fair coverage of Israel in the global media, and from there one can say that the turning point began. The experience I gathered, my familiarity with the nature of America and the connection to Israel, together with my experience as a lawyer and my desire to help and to have influence, landed me the job, and the rest is history.”

Q: And since then, there’s been no shortage of work. We’re at the end of 2021, and the end-of-year data about coverage of Israel isn’t very optimistic.

“The picture is complicated. We found, for example, that the word ‘apartheid’ was mentioned 704 times, an average of twice per day; ‘war crimes’ 570 times, with a twice-a-day average; and ‘genocide’ 494 times, an average of once per day. These concepts were mentioned in a way that didn’t apply to the situation. On the other hand, references about Israel and its actions against the coronavirus were also common, with 7,000 mentions.”

The Abraham Accords were mentioned more than 700 times, and Israeli high-tech was mentioned 36 times, he said. “We established an initiative called ‘Israeli Wednesday’: every Wednesday we publish content that can be shared in order to promote Israel. When we form a critical mass of people working together, we’ll make a significant difference.”

Q: As a trend, in the last few years do you see an improvement or a deterioration in the coverage?

“Because of the transition to social media, even if objectively we didn’t see a deterioration in the data – things are experienced more prominently. We see an organization like Human Rights Watch, which works in conjunction with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and wants to prove that we are an apartheid state that carries out genocide and crimes against humanity. This is the reason that they published nine reports in 2021 that were covered in the mainstream media. The things that are happening in The Hague and with international NGOs are frightening because it’s really a mission against Israel.”

 

“I am happy that there’s the high-tech, the vaccines and the Abraham Accords to balance the picture, because someone who doesn’t know Israel might think that it’s a country of war and religion. When you say what we’re not, for example not racists or Nazis, the message doesn’t penetrate. But when you show what we are doing, then the story begins to change.”

Q: Is there a media organization that one can say worked most openly against Israel?

“Amongst the mainstream, we saw a lot of unfair coverage from well-known media – the New York Times, the Washington Post, BBC, CNN. On the other hand, we also took action against this coverage. I am happy that we’re considered to be a reliable organization, whose information media outlets can rely on.”

What’s happening with Ben & Jerry’s?

Q: Recently you’ve been very busy – opposition to approving the budget for Iron Dome in the United States Congress, the controversy surrounding Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Operation Guardian of the Walls.

“During Operation Guardian of the Walls, for example, we worked day and night. I was interviewed on television programs, even when there were sirens, from the bomb shelter, it had a great impact. There are those who are ready to listen to us when they give us the opportunity to speak. Even in the case of Ben & Jerry’s – many states in the United States are imposing sanctions on the parent company Unilever thanks to the different hasbara efforts. We also presented an official complaint to the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, since the boycott of a foreign state isn’t considered freedom of speech. We worked in a similar way regarding the Airbnb boycott, who ultimately caved and cancelled the ban against [renting] apartments in Judea and Samaria.”

Q: Beyond the activities vis-à-vis the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, you are working in parallel against the media. How do they react to your complaints?

“It depends on the journalist. There are those who consider our criticism deeply, but there are also those who are less interested in it.”

Q: And what do you do then?

“It’s possible to put a bit more pressure on. At the end of the day, journalists care about their image.”

Q: Tell me a bit about a conversation like this with a journalist.

“A month ago, NBC website published a headline which said that an Israeli policeman fatally shot a Palestinian woman, without mentioning that she was a terrorist who tried to harm people. We made contact with the journalist who was responsible for the article, showed him the footage of the event and made it clear to him that they had to change the news item. He of course agreed, and also thanked us.

“Another example happened two years ago, when during the riots on the border with Gaza it was written that the IDF had shot demonstrators, while there were Hamas and Islamic Jihad members present. After many conversations that we had with the media, including the New York Times and CNN, we saw a change in terminology. They stopped writing ‘demonstrations’ and began writing ‘violent riots.’ And this is a very important change. Just this year, for example, the AP agency stopped using the word ‘activists’ in relation to Hamas members carrying out disturbances on the Gaza border.”

Q: Are there also cases when there is no cooperation and you are forced to go to the top of the pyramid – the chief editor or publisher?

“It happens a lot, although from my perspective the secret of success is not to go to the boss of the boss, but that journalists know that everything we say has a factual basis.”

Q: Do you encounter journalists with a clear agenda?

“Of course, and most of them will only talk about it behind the scenes. There are also personal motivations. I heard about a journalist who visited a kosher meat restaurant in Israel, and at the end requested milk. The waiter shouted at him in a way that wasn’t very polite, and it changed his coverage. Sometimes the small interactions between people can have a big impact.”

Q: A while ago you said that, through a short video, you succeeded in increasing the rate of support for Israel among 18–24-year-olds by 32 percent. What actually works and has a positive impact on public opinion?

“In many places in the world, and of course in America, the discourse is about victim and aggressor, and the basis of this is that the ‘White Jews’ are the aggressors. But if we change this discourse into one where the Palestinians live under a terror organization against which action has to be taken – the effectiveness of the message is greater. Despite this, what doesn’t work for young people, for example, is to say that Israel is the little victim, or to say that we are operating in self-defense. After all, they understand that Israel has the IDF. The discourse has to be that Israeli and Palestinian lovers of peace are the victims of the terror organization.”

Q: Also on the subject of young people – recently the Foreign Ministry recruited online influencers to improve Israel’s image. Is it an important step?

“It’s an important step because we need to operate in every type of media. Social media is important just like traditional media is important. We know the way in which media operates – and if Human Rights Watch claims that Israel is an apartheid state, this can of course also be publicized on CNN and on social media.”

Q: One platform balances the other, and things require a speedy response. But in the past, you noted that Israel and some of its supporters don’t always respond to damaging events until it’s already too late for the diplomacy and the hasbara.

“During the last round, Israel attacked a Hamas building in Gaza, where Al Jazeera and AP were also located. In a case like this, we need to report to the global media within minutes and to explain why and who we attacked. In this case, things were released a little too late, and those were critical moments. During Guardian of the Walls, I saw American Jews who began to understand that the American discourse is sometimes antisemitic, which led to a deeper understanding of Israel.”

Q: So American Jews understand us better, and this connects to another thesis of yours, according to which being antisemitic or anti-Israel isn’t a matter of right or left.

“I think that there are extremists on both sides of the debate in America. During Operation Guardian of the Walls, we saw the most extreme right-wing Americans supporting Hitler and Nazism, while Americans on the extreme left were speaking in favor of human rights, but on the other hand, were attacking Jews – sometimes even physically in the street. It’s important to reach both the Democrats and the Republicans, and also the European states – with facts, depth, warmth and a kind of emotion. When I was interviewed from the bomb shelter, for example, it created an emotional impact.”

Asia’s Interest

Q: Let’s talk about more specific cases. The New York Times recently published a story about a Gazan teacher, Refaat Alareer, who is described in the article as advancing understanding and empathy between Israelis and Palestinians, but essentially supports violence and terrorism, and calls Israelis “Nazis.” In the end they apologized for the article. How exceptional is an apology like that?

“The apology isn’t exceptional, because when a journalist writes something that contradicts reality, he needs to take a step back. But truthfully, I am less inclined to celebrate something like this, because what’s more important is a general, deep change in the way in which a media outlet gives expression to things, to the words it uses, as I noted beforehand.”

Q: A part of the change is liable to also cause antisemitic journalists not to slander the state from the outset. Is it possible?

“Thanks to our work, five antisemitic journalists were fired from the mainstream media. Is it possible to stop journalists like that from slandering Israel? It’s a complicated task. In the past, for example, Twitter’s curator for Middle East news wrote terrible things about Israel, and then when they were revealed she apologized. So we’re definitely not ignoring this, and sometimes there is a contribution to our work.”

Q: As part of your direct work with the journalists have you identified an improvement from round to round in the conflict with Hamas in coverage of Israel?

“Generally, there’s a deterioration in coverage. Recently it’s become harder and harder to tell the story as it is. In parallel, there are more people who are beginning to understand the truth, and this is despite the coverage in the traditional media. As for the Palestinians, in the eyes of most of the world they are weaker than Israel, and that’s the whole story. Generally, their image in the world is good, since they are seen as the victim.”

Q: Does Israel invest enough in public diplomacy?

“In my opinion we need to do much more. In my opinion we need to invest not only in coverage by television channels or newspapers in Israel, but also the coverage of CNN and the New York Times. There’s been an encouraging start on the issue, and history teaches that everything we’ve invested in has ultimately been a success. And if we don’t succeed – apparently we didn’t invest enough.”

Q: There are those who claim that Israel doesn’t have real and authentic coverage of Israel in the world, that essentially we also don’t cover ourselves well, truthfully or favorably enough. Do you agree?

“It’s a delicate subject. Alongside the internal discourse and criticism that exists here, there are issues that we can all agree on. Take, for example, the existence of a Palestinian Martyrs Fund. From all ends of the political spectrum, there is agreement that it’s problematic, that it goes against the way of peace. But unfortunately, there’s not enough emphasis on how problematic it is.”

Q: What’s happening in Europe, in Asia and in other places in the world regarding coverage of Israel?

“In Europe, I identify extremely hostile, pro-Palestinian coverage, but there is someone to talk to. The Belgian and Dutch governments opened an investigation of the Palestinian Authority after we wrote about how European Union funds were routed for terror. In Asia I identify an interest in the conflict, there are a number of journalists who come to our press conferences and write about Israel.”

Q: They’ve been writing about us all over the world for a long time. But when, in your opinion, was support for Israel at its highest?

“Before 1967 Israel won much more support because it was seen as small and weak. After that things began to change, and now I identify a popular philosophy that is called ‘wokeism,’ from ‘awakening,’ according to which there’s no room for nuance, and there is only aggressor and victim. This is another reason why we need to continue to work even harder, with more funding and people. From my perspective that’s the dream, to continue in this work. When I was a child, I heard great and amazing things about Israel, and when I came here, I felt like I was among real celebrities. And when I work today for the sake of the country, for me it’s worth everything. It has made my life truly meaningful.”