Globalization, Cultural Identities, and Media Representations

Their Master’s Voice?The Coverage of Intifada II on Israeli Television

Their Master’s Voice? The Coverage of Intifada II on Israeli Television TAMAR LIEBES September 11 has transformed the world and caused me to rethink this essay. I was going to present a local case study—the Israeli case—in order to analyze the transformation undergone by media between the time of the first Intifada (one decade ago) and the present (ongoing) one. I argue that the transformation in the Israeli media environment during the 1990s, from national media, “ours,” to a more globalized, commercial model, and the Israeli acknowledgment that the other side—the Palestinians—have a legitimate point of view, had a major impact. Whereas in Intifada I the media were mostly Israeli and mostly kept out, in the present military struggle they became a central actor. The media, local and foreign, all but dictate military strategy and the local and global images of the war have become arbitrators in a struggle in which neither side can win. After September 11, 2001, my local case refused to stay local, and I have come to see it as a metaphor for global change. One decade ago, when Israel, equipped with rubber bullets, was fighting Palestinians armed with rocks and Molotov bottles, the U.S. was fighting the Iraqi army in the Gulf with M15s and smart bombs (Liebes 1997).The two wars (a thousand years apart in terms of military technology) still had some things in common. In both, the two sides were not equal, the fighting zone could be sealed off, the media at home were committed to the national mission, managed by the government and the military (at least as long as the fighting continued), and the phenomenon of television transmitting across borders was yet in the bud (with CNN joining the Schwarzkopf briefings, with networks such as BBC World and Al Jezeera and Abu Dabi yet to be born.The few exceptions of getting a glimpse of what “we” do to the other side, in the Gulf and in the Intifada, caused an outcry in public opinion at home. Recall Peter Arnet’s broadcast from the Baghdad bunker, and the one-of cases in which telescopic cameras of the BBC and ABC captured pictures of Israeli soldiers beating up Palestinian prisoners. In the U.S., Arnet 169 caused a fierce debate about the bombing (and about the legitimacy of screening what may well be enemy propaganda). In Israel a number of officers and soldiers were court-marshalled for what was labelled “deviant”acts. In hindsight, TV’s shift from marginality in Intifada I a decade ago to becoming a central actor in the second round in the fall of 2000, may be seen as a miniature demonstration of the dramatic change undergone by world media. I propose to first examine the Israeli case,and then look at the much larger mirror image of this switch in the two American wars, parallel in time—the first fought under the umbrella of tame media sounding their master’s voice, to the 2001 War against Terror fought in the constant glare of omnipresent images, on redundant channels, fiercely competing over viewers, constraining their former masters to play by the new rules. A dual comparison along time, and from an insider’s and outsider’s perspective , will be useful for pointing out the positive and the negative potential of the new globalized media during times of war. The first round of the Palestinian Intifada, at the end of the 1980s, marked the coming of age of the first Palestinian generation born after Israeli occupation (following the Six Day War of 1967). The daily humiliation the Palestinians suffered under an occupying army erupted in mass, often violent, demonstrations (Schift and Ya’ari 1990), viewed by Israelis on the single public television channel. TV’s coverage of Intifada I did the job of rallying the Israeli public around the way in which the conflict was handled, making sure there would be no suffering of any dissonance about which side was right. The conditions for the containment of the violent struggle were easy. TV’s schedule was never interrupted for anything less than a surprise attack (such as the Yom Kippur War). The lack of equipment made it difficult to broadcast from the field, and almost impossible to broadcast live, and the military had control over the “fighting zone,” keeping Israeli and foreign correspondents out. The only glimpse of the action was provided by the channel’s evening news, and the reports were...