News Media and Peacebuilding:

Uncovering Opportunities That Can Facilitate Cooperation

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University

By

Rawhi Afaghani
Master of Arts
Charles University, 1998
Bachelor of Arts
Charles University, 1995

Director: Richard Rubenstein, Professor

Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Spring Semester 2011

George Mason University
Arlington, VA
Copyright: 2011 Rawhi Afaghani
All Rights Reserved

ii
 DEDICATION

To Sandy, my lovely wife, for her unconditional love and support

To Prague, the city that inspired me
To Balata Refugee Camp, the place that taught me

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to my committee chair, Dr. Richard Rubenstein, who inspired me to attend

the doctoral program at ICAR. Thank you for the valuable knowledge you shared with us
throughout the program and for your dedication and feedback. I thank Dr. Solon
Simmons for his patience in guiding me to overcome the tremendous challenges
associated with refining my research methodology and for his valuable comments. Thank
you Dr. Stephen Farnsworth for your dedication, support and punctual feedback you
provided throughout this work.

A large number of dedicated people provided me with the assistance and support needed
to accomplish this task. I would like to thank my professors and collogues at ICAR for
sharing with me their valuable experience. I would like to sincerely thank all the
journalists that gave me their valuable time to be interviewed for this study. Thanks to my
friend, Dr. Adina Friedman, who provided me with support and advice throughout the
doctoral program. A special thanks also goes to my friend Ali Younes for all the
brainstorming and discussions about my dissertation. And thanks to all my friends for
cheering me on and for all their unsolicited advice.

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help I received in facilitating
the interviews and collecting the data. I thank Gadi Kenny, Adi Timor, Riki Herzberg,
Zuzana Janku, Hanan Kanaan, Mazen Saade, Jamal Afaghani and Ashraf Dweikat.
Special thanks as well for my dear friend, Yael Shalem, for all her help in getting me
permits to enter Israel to conduct the interviews.

As if writing a dissertation was not sufficiently challenging, I opted to go through the

doctoral program and finalize the dissertation while working full-time. I want to thank
my colleagues at work who provided me with support and intellectual stimulation that
greatly helped inform this study. My greatest gratitude goes to Ramzi Abou Zeineddine,
Rouaida Hamade, Yara Youssef, Arman Saify, Riyadh Jarjis, Basimah Rowe, Samah Al-
Momen, Osama Abukatta and Shukria Dellawar.

I would like to express my appreciation to my immediate family for their support and
encouragement throughout the project. My parents, the late Madina and Mohamad
Afaghani, instilled in me early on the importance of education as a means of fighting
political occupation and oppression. I know that both of you are very proud of me, may
God bless your souls. I thank my siblings: Kamel, Jamal, Wissam, Weddad, Addlah,
iv
Jamil, Jumaa, Khamis, Yousef, Kamal and my beautiful sister, the late Wijdan. Each one
of you is a source of inspiration for me, and as your youngest brother I see this
accomplishment as an extension of our family’s aspirations. I am grateful to my mother-
in-law, Mary Lou Ruckstuhl, and my father-in-law, Robert Ruckstuhl, for their
unconditional support. I also thank my two sisters-in-law, Kristen and Sharon, and my
brother-in-law Mark for their encouragement.

Lastly, I would like to convey my deepest appreciation to my wife, Dr. Sandy Ruckstuhl.
Having completed your own doctoral degree, I thank you for sharing with me all your
insights and experiences, and for reading and commenting on every single page of this
dissertation. Beyond your support in this process, thank you for your love, unconditional
giving, and for believing in me.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Tables............................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ x
1. Introduction: Toward Peacebuilding Journalism ............................................... 1
2. Literature Review: Assumptions of News Media role in Conflict .................... .12
Media and Conflict-Making .............................................................................. 13
Journalistic Ethics and Values ............................................................................... 14
Indexing the News and Setting the Agenda .......................................................... 16
Media and Peace ................................................................................................ 21
Peace Journalism .................................................................................................. 22
Media and Conflict Resolution .......................................................................... 25
Media’s Role in Conflict Resolution .................................................................... 26
Journalists are Mediators ...................................................................................... 28
Media’s Role in Peace Processes .......................................................................... 30
Media and Intervention ..................................................................................... 33
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 36
3. Research Methods: Examining Media Role in Peacebuilding ......................... .38
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 39
The Case Study ................................................................................................... 44
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 46
Key Informant Interviews .................................................................................... 47
Archival Review of Media Outlets ....................................................................... 50
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 52
Data Analysis – Key Informant Interviews ............................................................ 53
Data Analysis – Archival Review ......................................................................... 56
Limitations and Experiences in Implementation ............................................... 60
4. Pattern of Media Practices in Conflict-Affected Societies................................. 62

vi
 External Factors ................................................................................................. 65
Media and Political Decision-Makers .................................................................... 66
Unclear Political Narratives .................................................................................. 70
Weaker Party Dependent on the Stronger Party ..................................................... 74
The issue of no-normalization ............................................................................... 77
Internal Factors ................................................................................................. 79
Self-censorship ..................................................................................................... 80
Politically-Affiliated Journalistic Practices ........................................................... 85
Perceptions of the other......................................................................................... 90
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 93
5. Journalists and their Positions in Conflict ......................................................... 95
Roles and the Dilemma of Impartiality and Objectivity .................................. 97
Media Bias ........................................................................................................ 100
The Journalists’ Rights and Duties – Positions ............................................... 105
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 110
6. Peacebuilding Journalism: Toward a Media Role in Peace ............................ 112
Components of Peacebuilding Journalism ....................................................... 115
Reporting about the Other Side ........................................................................... 116
Alternative Reporting.......................................................................................... 119
Creative Reporting ............................................................................................. 124
Obstacles to Peacebuilding Journalism............................................................ 126
Peace Must First Exist ........................................................................................ 127
Regional Media Influence on the Peace Process .................................................. 131
Reporting on Peace can Backfire ........................................................................ 135
Training Journalists in Principles of Peacebuilding ........................................ 138
Problem-solving Workshops on Media and Peace ............................................... 138
The Common Ground Journalism ....................................................................... 140
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 144
7. Peacebuilding Journalism and Content Sensitive to Conflict Dynamics ........ 146
Refugees and the Right of Return ................................................................... 148
Discourse about Water Issue ............................................................................ 153
Settlements and Borders Issues ........................................................................ 158
The Battle over Jerusalem ................................................................................ 162
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 167
8. Methods of Peacebuilding Journalism ............................................................ 169

vii
 Peacebuilding Journalism and Conflict Mapping .......................................... 170
Peacebuilding Journalism and Conflict Prevention ....................................... 175
Peacebuilding Journalism and Cross-border Cooperation ............................ 182
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 189
9. Conclusion: Beyond Peacebuilding Journalism .............................................. 194
Journalists Limitations in Peacebuilding ......................................................... 196
Exploring Opportunities for Peace .................................................................. 199
Potential Applications of Peacebuilding Journalism ....................................... 203
Further Research .............................................................................................. 204
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 205
Appendix A Major Events in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict .................................. .207
Appendix B Stages of Conflict and Media Impacts .................................................. .210
List of References ..................................................................................................... 213

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Interview Questions ................................................................................................ .49
2 Conflict Framing of Core Issues ............................................................................. .58
3 Media Review Database ......................................................................................... .59
4 Storylines and Journalists’ Limitations.................................................................... .63
5 Conflict Mapping for Journalists ........................................................................... .172

ix
 ABSTRACT

NEWS MEDIA AND PEACEBUILDING:

UNCOVERING OPPORTUNITIES THAT CAN FACILITATE COOPERATION

Rawhi Afaghani, PhD

George Mason University, 2011

Dissertation Director: Dr. Richard Rubenstein

Researchers and practitioners in the field of conflict analysis and resolution have realized

the significant role that the news media can play in avoiding, containing or resolving

conflicts. Yet there are scant guidelines on how to take full advantage of the news

media’s role in conflict-affected societies. Empirical research on the topic of media and

peacebuilding has focused on ways of altering journalistic practices to advance fairer and

more accurate journalism in reporting war and peace. However, the literature stops short

of providing an account of limitations that journalists face in their endeavor to advance

peacebuilding. Additionally, the existing research does not fully elaborate on how

journalists understand their positions in a conflict-torn society. To address this gap the

research asks: “What are the opportunities in which media can contribute to

peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies? And, furthermore, how can journalists

reconsider their positions in conflict situations in order to advance peacebuilding?”

 This research studies the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and addresses the

above research questions by analyzing journalists’ understandings of their “positions”

(identified as a cluster of rights and duties) vis-à-vis their “role” in conflict situations. In

addition, it explores the obstacles that limit their abilities to support peacebuilding.

Through this approach the study defines a practical framework termed as “peacebuilding

journalism”, which is informed by the journalists’ limitations and understandings of their

positions in conflict-affected societies.

The study identifies two clusters of external and internal factors that limit the

journalists’ capacity to advance peacebuilding and which lead the journalists to an act of

self-positioning to appear loyal to the national cause and to gain their groups’ trust.

Additionally, the research finds that journalists are more prone to cooperate in the efforts

of peacebuilding by emphasizing their rights and duties (positions) as members of the

society. The significant contribution of this study is the defined, practical concept of

peacebuilding journalism, which combines conflict resolution and journalism practices to

help advance a positive news media role during active conflict. The framework first

synthesizes three components to address the journalists’ limitations. These are: (i)

coverage of the other side, (ii) alternative media coverage, and (iii) creative reporting.

The concepts also puts forward three instruments of peacebuilding journalism to guide

the journalists in identifying stories and content that support peace between conflict

parties. These are: (i) conflict mapping for journalists, (ii) an early warning system, and

(iii) cross-border cooperation to facilitate exchange of news and information.

 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION:
TOWARD PEACEBUILDING JOURNALISM

The news media play a central role in exposing conflict situations by bringing

conflicting parties and disputed issues to light. Media contribution during the buildup

period to a conflict and throughout the conflict’s course is widely acknowledged by many

authors as an important tool to uncover the conflict’s dynamics and expose its complexity

to local actors and the international community. Other academics and researchers argue

that the media also may play a destructive role in conflict situations. The media are very

powerful in reinforcing, destroying or constructing audience perceptions. During conflict

situations, this particular role may become more emphasized to the degree that it is

impossible for media sources to only continue playing the role of a ‘watchdog.’ Thus,

media often become a tool in the hands of the conflict parties leading to conflict

escalation.

The media’s role in conflict resolution has been increasingly recognized by

academics and researchers arguing that the news media can be an instrument to facilitate

peacebuilding. 1 By spotlighting issues and events, journalists can highlight the parties’

1
There are a number of studies that deal with the role of media in conflict resolution (Adam and Holguín
2003; Beaudoin and Thorson 2002; Bennett 1990; Curran, Gurevitch, and Wollacott 1986; Davison 1974;
Galtung 1998; Himelfarb and Chabalowski 2008; Howard 2002; Lynch 2005; McCombs and Shaw 1972;
Melone, Terzis, and Beleli 2002; Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994; Shinar 2002; Wal 2002; Wasburn
2002; Wolfsfeld 1997b; Wolfsfeld 2004).
1
interests, help them set clear goals, and ultimately – hopefully – contribute to

constructive dialogue. Furthermore, media representatives often have unequaled access

to conflict parties’ decision-makers, giving them the ability in some cases to help bring

the decision-makers to the negotiating table. This specific role of the media can greatly

contribute to peacebuilding efforts.

Research Assumptions and Structure of the Dissertation

Existing analysis on media and conflict resolution, though scant, suggests the potential

for building peace between a conflict’s parties by using the media as a tool to inform

them on alternatives to violence and to promote confidence building. This role of the

media requires innovation and commitment from the journalists in conflict-affected

societies. In that effort, from academic and popular conflict literature a broad debate has

emerged expressing the need for fairer and more accurate journalism when reporting on

war and peace. Researchers and academics have identified a possible media role in

peacebuilding and have focused their analysis on how to alter or modify journalistic

practices to advance a constructive media role in conflict resolution. Yet research has not

fully explored the way journalists in conflict-torn societies understand their positions in

active conflicts. Furthermore, the existing literature has not surveyed the range of factors

that can affect the journalist’s abilities to contribute to peacebuilding in conflict settings.

The research described in this study aims to narrow this gap by asking: “What are the

opportunities in which media can contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected

2
societies? And, furthermore, how can journalists reconsider their positions in conflict

situations in order to advance peacebuilding?”

The study adopts the theoretical concept of “positioning”, which is advanced by

Harré and Langehove (1999). They identify positions as a cluster of rights and duties that

exist among group members, and which define behavior in a group. Positioning theory is

“the study of local moral orders as ever-shifting patterns of mutual and contestable rights

and obligations of speaking and acting” (Harré and Lagenhove 1999, 1). This research

studies the journalists’ understanding of their “positions” instead of their “roles” in

conflict situations, for positions are flexible and depend on the context and the

environment of the conflict while roles are fixed and associated with journalism as a job.

Through this approach I define and analyze a concept I call “peacebuilding journalism”,

which is informed by the journalists’ limitations and understandings of their rights and

duties (positions) in conflict-affected societies. The research methodology and findings

are outlined below.

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Assumptions of News Media Role in Conflict

This chapter reviews existing literature outlining assumptions concerning the role of

news media in conflict. The literature review has been organized in four groups, which

allows the emergence of two distinct themes of theoretical concepts on media and

conflict. The dominant theme in the literature emphasizes the role of media in conflict

making. The literature explains the dynamics in which news media tend to report on war

and violence during conflict situations while paying little attention to news events that
3
could facilitate de-escalation and conflict termination. The debates focus on journalistic

practices arguing that the strict definition of conventional journalism and its focus on

objectivity, neutrality and impartiality often contributes to fueling conflict situations.

The second theme identified in the literature review focuses on the role of media

in conflict resolution. Researchers and experts in the field of conflict analysis and

resolution recognize the powerful role that media can play in resolving conflicts. The

most acknowledged theoretical concept in this literature is Johan Galtung’s concept of

peace journalism. Peace journalism gained popularity in the field for its demand of

“fairer” and “more accurate” ways of reporting on conflict. The review further discusses

concepts and assumptions for constructing a positive media role in avoiding, containing

or resolving a conflict. Lastly, the chapter discusses assumptions concerning media

intervention; these include frameworks for planning and implementing media projects in

conflict zones.

The chapter also highlights gaps in the existing research on the role of media in

conflict resolution, which for the most part lacks an analysis of factors that limit

journalists’ abilities to contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies. Existing

theoretical frameworks on the role of media in peace consider opportunities for

journalists to intervene during conflict. Nonetheless, the literature devotes little attention

to how local or indigenous journalists understand their rights and duties as members of

the societies involved in active conflicts.

4
Chapter 3: Research Methods: Examining Media Role in Peacebuilding

This chapter describes the methodology of the research, which includes a case study

analysis of journalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The research examines

opportunities for building constructive relationships between media and peacebuilding by

using key concepts in positioning theory (Harré and Lagenhove 1999). To encourage a

constructive media-peace relationship, this research asks: “What are the opportunities in

which media can contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies? And

furthermore, how can journalists reconsider their positions in conflict situations in order

to advance peacebuilding?”

Data collection consisted of two separate components: key informant interviews

with Israeli and Palestinian media professionals, and archival review of two Israeli and

two Palestinian newspapers. I conducted key informant interviews with media

professionals to understand how journalists comprehend their positions in conflict

situations and to uncover the journalists’ limitations in contributing to peacebuilding.

Then I conducted an archival review of Israeli and Palestinian newspapers to explore how

journalists can produce content informed by the conflict’s dynamics. The chapter also

reflects on limitations in collecting and analyzing the data, which includes researcher

objectivity and boundaries of a theory-driven approach.

Chapter 4: Patterns of Media Practices in Conflict-Affected Societies

Chapter 4 lays down the bedrock of the dissertation and describes two sets of external

and internal factors that, according to findings from the case study, limit journalists’
5
abilities to contribute to peacebuilding during active conflicts. The analysis of these

factors unraveled narratives and storylines through which journalists understand their

positions in conflict. The findings show that clusters of both internal and external factors

led the journalists in this case to self-position themselves in the effort to gain credibility

among their societies and to express their personal identities.

In the chapter I explain that the external factors can force the journalists to

position themselves to appear supportive of the popular political agenda. In this regard,

self-positioning by the journalists is an act of showing support to their cause. Journalists

tend to support their leaders during periods of high tension of a conflict, and they often

fall victims to the politicians’ unclear narratives about the conflict’s dynamics.

Consequently, journalists apparently lack credibility and reliability, as they convey to the

public the politicians’ ambiguous conflict narratives.

Internal factors are primarily different from the external factors in that they lead

the journalists to intentionally position themselves by explicitly subscribing to an

ideology and/or a political view. Internal factors that affect the journalists’ capabilities to

advance peace include: self-censoring their own content and choosing stories in

accordance with their political ideology and what is acceptable to their group’s political,

cultural and social norms. Additionally, I explain in this chapter that journalists in

conflict-affected societies identify with a political party or a media institution through

which they can express their political views. I describe this practice as politically-

affiliated journalistic practice.

6
Chapter 5: Journalists and their Positions in Conflict

My findings suggest an innovative way to address the issue of objectivity and impartiality

in journalism. As explained in Chapter 2, some of the literature on media and conflict

resolution attributes media’s shortcomings, when it comes to peacebuilding, to certain

traditional journalistic practices and ethics such as objectivity and impartiality. My

analysis argues that debating the traditional journalists’ “role” associated with being

objective and impartial is unhelpful to encouraging a media-peacebuilding dynamics. The

chapter explains that instead of focusing the debate on the role of journalists (e.g., what is

their “job”) in the society, it is more constructive to discuss how journalists understand

their positions during active conflict. Roles are fixed, long lasting, and describe the

person’s actions throughout the span of their lives, while they disregard the fact that

actions are changeable and that they can be adjusted according to the circumstances of

conflict situations. In contrast, positions, identified as a set of rights and duties, are

situational and take into consideration the environment and conditions in which

journalists are claiming to be “impartial” and “objective.”

In this research, when I asked journalists about how they understood their roles in

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they did not hesitate to use an obvious and customary

answer: to objectively report on the news. However, as I explain in the chapter, when

they were asked about their positions (as a set of rights and duties) in the conflict, their

analysis went beyond journalism as a “job” and presented opportunities for journalists to

regard themselves as mediators in their societies.

7
Chapter 6: Peacebuilding Journalism: Toward a Media Role in Peace

Chapter 6 introduces the concept of “peacebuilding journalism” to address the challenges

that journalists face in conflict-affected societies and to facilitate constructive media-

peacebuilding dynamics. I put forward a definition of peacebuilding journalism, which is

a framework in which journalists support civil society initiatives and promote alternatives

to violence by producing content that is sensitive to the conflict’s dynamics.

Peacebuilding journalism also includes journalists providing contextually complex

information about the conflict in a way that the public can understand. Peacebuilding

journalism combines journalistic practices and conflict resolution concepts. It is

comprised of three components that allow journalists to advance peaceful attitudes: (i) the

need for media reporting about the other side; (ii) alternative media coverage during low

points of peace processes; and (iii) the use of creative reporting in covering peace to

address journalism requirements of immediacy, drama and simplicity.

The chapter also describes challenges that journalists can face in peacebuilding

journalism. Among these is that journalists regard their role in peacebuilding as

secondary arguing that peace must first exist so that they can support peaceful attitudes.

Moreover, local journalists can be limited when practicing peacebuilding journalism due

to outside/regional media influence concerning the inside parties’ public opinions. For

example, in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, pan-Arab media have more

influence over Palestinian public opinion than the local Palestinian media. Lastly,

although reporting peace is the ultimate goal of peacebuilding journalism, the concept

8
considers that exclusive reporting on positive peace outcomes, while disregarding the

limitations of a peace process, can lead to conflict escalation.

The chapter also includes a summary of media projects that have been

implemented in Israel and Palestine to serve as examples of how media professionals

could be trained on practices of peacebuilding journalism. The described sample projects

are being implemented by the Search for Common Ground (SFCG) Jerusalem office.

Chapter 7: Peacebuilding Journalism and Content Sensitive to Conflict Dynamics

In this chapter I describe findings from my analysis of content produced by journalists in

the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peacebuilding journalism emphasizes that

content should be informed by people’s perceptions of underlying conflict causes and

conditions and should help the parties modify their positions and underscore their needs.

My research analyses media content on the five core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict (Refugees, Jerusalem, Water, Settlements and Borders), and found that both

parties share similar grievances. The chapter explains that media content, which can

contribute to conflict resolution, requires the journalists to understand the deep “second

layer” of the conflict. During the interviews, journalists on both sides presented to me

their arguments as to why the core issues are non-negotiable. They based their arguments

on concepts such as threat to identity, religious symbolism, and sense of pride and

nationalism. Yet, in the media review, these essential causes and conditions of the

conflict were communicated as journalists' secondary afterthoughts.

9
Chapter 8: Methods of Peacebuilding Journalism

In this chapter I describe three practical methods of peacebuilding journalism. In so

doing, I combine conflict resolution and media practices and suggest unique techniques

that can help journalists advance peacebuilding. These techniques are: (i) conflict

mapping for journalists, (ii) an early warning system in the media as a conflict prevention

tool, and (iii) cross-border journalist cooperation to facilitate exchange of news and

information.

Conflict mapping for journalists is a tool to conduct improved analysis of a

conflict situation in order to guide the journalists in producing content sensitive to the

parties’ needs. As I explain in this chapter, the tool is adopted from work done by The

Network for Conflict Resolution Canada and combines the traditional journalism formula

known as the “five W” questions with conflict resolution concepts. An early warning

system in peacebuilding journalism is a conflict prevention tool and is intended to help

the journalists to be pro-active in analyzing and detecting conditions that can lead to

violence. Cross-border cooperation between journalists is an instrument designed to

foster the exchange of news and information between journalists from opposing parties to

empower them to produce professional and objective reporting.

Chapter 9: Conclusion: Beyond Peacebuilding Journalism

In the concluding chapter I summarize the challenges facing journalists in conflict-

affected societies, specifically those in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and their efforts to

contribute to peacebuilding. It also sums up the concept of peacebuilding journalism and

10
considers its potential application in conflict situations. I also underscore research

opportunities for further development of peacebuilding journalism and discuss other areas

for future research that have emerged in this study.

Conclusion

This study is potentially important to conflict resolution practice that is concerned with

media intervention efforts in conflict-affected societies. The research is specifically

useful in two ways: identifying journalists’ limitations and abilities to contribute to

peacebuilding in particular conflict situations; and helping local and indigenous

journalists overcome these obstacles by incorporating peacebuilding journalism into their

journalistic practices.

11
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW:
ASSUMPTIONS OF NEWS MEDIA ROLE IN CONFLICT

Researchers and academics have contributed to the body of literature on the role

of media in conflict, emphasizing that news media during violent conflicts tend to report

mostly on war and violence. Consequently, alternative voices calling for de-escalation are

marginalized. These debates have prompted scholars in both fields of journalism and

conflict resolution to break new ground in exploring ways of advancing a positive media

role in peacebuilding. The existing body of literature on media and conflict resolution is

less developed compared to literature on media and conflict-making. For the most part,

empirical research on media and peacebuilding has focused on journalistic practices and

their positive or negative consequences on conflict situations. However, the literature

lacks debates about how local or indigenous journalists understand their positions in a

conflict-torn society and how they are limited in their practices to contribute to

peacebuilding during active conflict. My research first seeks to fill this gap and then

suggests a media peacebuilding framework that is informed by the journalists’

understandings of their positions and limitations during active conflicts.

In this chapter, I review theoretical contributions on media and conflict and

organize those frameworks into four groups. The first section of the chapter reviews

theoretical discussions with regard to the role of media in conflict-making. This section
12
of the literature illustrates that the traditional approach to reporting on conflict often

contributes to fueling conflict situations. In the second part, I consider existing theoretical

concepts of peace journalism originally suggested by Johan Galtung in 1998. Peace

journalism is widely debated in the field of conflict analysis and resolution for its demand

to a new approach of reporting on conflict. In the third section, I explore concepts and

assumptions for constructing a positive media role in conflict resolution. Lastly, I tap into

assumptions concerning media interventions; these include frameworks for planning and

implementing media projects in conflict zones.

Media and Conflict-Making

One cannot overlook the vast literature devoted to the role of media in conflict-making.

Much of the literature examines the link between media and conflict according to a strict

definition which springs from the notion that the role of journalists is to objectively report

on the conflict’s events. Journalists believe they are mainly neutral with respect to the

dynamics between the conflicting parties or with respect to a third party trying to

intervene (Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994, 1). While the basic values of

journalism require professionals in the field to adhere to impartiality and objectivity,

contemporary conflict situations around the world have shown that objectivity and

impartiality are often compromised in conflict-affected societies. In this context, parties

involved in a conflict can use media to mobilize people and rally support for their own

13
causes. Examples of media misuse in a conflict situation include Rwanda2 and

Yugoslavia3.

Journalistic Ethics and Values

News media professionals often argue that they are objective and report only on facts. In

this regard, journalistic practices are grounded in the ideology that objectivity and

impartiality are required values to establish the credibility and reliability of the

journalists’ reporting. Curran, Gurevitch and Wollacott (1986) explain that early

challenges to journalism as a profession originated in sociological studies, which

highlighted the concern as to whether the news media possess qualities of “ethics” and

“ideology.” Sociologists argue that these qualities are necessary to define the “beliefs”

and “values” of a profession (Curran, Gurevitch, and Wollacott 1986, 19). Nonetheless,

social democratic demands such as freedom of speech and the right of the society to

acquire knowledge have allowed journalism to flourish and to develop professional

values and ethics including the notions of objectivity and impartiality. These

assumptions, however, have also been challenged:

Powerful institutions and groups in society have privileged access to the media,

because they are regarded by the media as more credible and trustworthy, and

2
A recent example of the use of media to mobilize people in regard to a negative conflict situation is in
Rwanda. Government-controlled radio broadcasts played a pivotal role in the genocide (Frohardt and
Temin 2003).
3
Slobodan Milosevic, during his ten years as President of Yugoslavia and later as President of Serbia,
relied on the media to further his beliefs and ideology. Through radio and TV Serbia he was able to
empower a sense of nationalism and promote Serbian identity. The media responded by taking part in the
conflict and helped strengthen Serbian national identity and racism toward other ethnicities (Frohardt and
Temin 2003).
14
 because they have […] information […] tailor-made to fit the requirement of the

media (Curran, Gurevitch, and Wollacott 1986, 20).

Curran, et al.’s argument continues against the profession of journalism, as they explain

that while journalists truly try to be impartial and objective they do so to protect

themselves against criticism of the impact that their work might have on the society. To

avoid such criticism journalists often place primary responsibility on their sources

(Curran, Gurevitch, and Wollacott 1986, 20).

This is not to claim that journalists are inherently unable to be objective and

impartial. Journalists go through vigorous training to learn how to maintain these

qualities. Belsey (1998) argues that journalists are facilitators of the democratic process

and that: “All the virtues associated with ethical journalism – accuracy, honesty, truth,

objectivity […], are part of, and required by, journalism as located within the democratic

process” (1998, 10). Journalism gained popularity in political science theories such as

democratic theory, which argues: “Society needs journalism to perform three main

functions: to act as a watchdog of the powerful and those who want to be powerful; to

ferret truth from lies; and to present a wide range of informed positions on key issues”

(McChesney 2004, 57). However, contemporary journalism fails to fulfill the three

functions outlined by McChesney. He explains that a 2003 US study shows that most

Americans (53%) believe that news organizations are biased, while just (29%) say they

are careful to remove bias from their reports. Whatever the percentage may be, bias in

journalism has dominated the debates about the ethics of this profession.

15
 Media professionals find comfort in claims by liberals and conservatives alike

that the media are biased. Their rationale posits that if both camps argue that the media

are biased, then certainly the media are not consistently supporting one camp or the other.

However, in democratic societies, as well as in conflict-affected societies: “Partisan bias

is [described as] one of the most controversial aspects of media bias” (Tuyll and Tuyll

2007, 35). Supporters of this notion argue that media professionals reflect bias based on

their political beliefs and ideology. According to Tuyll and Tuyll (2007), media bias can

be evident during elections in the way that one political party member can be treated

differently than another political party member. Nonetheless, they argue that this type of

bias is easy to detect and fix, but bias stemming from word choice that purposefully

influences the public is more menacing and difficult to detect (Tuyll and Tuyll 2007, 36).

I have found in my research that in conflict situations bias in journalism is not

necessarily a result of the journalists’ ideologies or political affiliations. This study

identifies another type of journalism bias in protracted conflicts, which comes from the

narratives and storylines used to describe the conflict’s dynamics (see Chapter 5). This

type of bias is very complex and hard to detect because it is often institutionalized within

the media establishment.

Indexing the News and Setting the Agenda

Another significant theme in the literature on the role of media in conflict-making is the

notion that policy-makers often adjust their decision-making according to what can be

adequately and positively reported in the media. An important contribution made in this
16
regard is Lance Bennett’s indexing theory (Bennett 1990). In an effort to explore ways in

which media can achieve a balanced “voice” in the news, Bennett hypothesized that:

Mass media news professionals, from the boardroom to the beat, tend to “index”

the range of voices and viewpoints in both news and editorials according to the

range of views expressed in mainstream government debate about a given topic

(Bennett 1990, 106).

His assumption postulates the notion that journalists receive their political news mainly

from government officials. During the process of obtaining the news, media professionals

tend to index the topics on which they report in accordance with the issues that are

debated by the political mainstream; while issues debated outside the mainstream are

often ignored (Bennett 1990, 106). Indexing, according to Bennett, is not intentional and

is not a sought objective by media professionals. Indexing is a result of practical

decisions made by the journalists and their editors.

Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston (2007) argue that when journalists index the

news they outline the “press narrative, within which various news sources are sorted

primarily in terms of their ability to affect the political process and to spin the media most

aggressively and effectively” (Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston 2007, 49). In this

context, news channeled by the elite or the government to the media is often shaped to go

alongside with the journalists’ decision to index the political news. Bennett et al. explain

that journalists in democratic countries meet their responsibility when “information

obtained from the administration is challenged by information obtained independently

from other sources” (2007, 195). Bennett’s indexing theory is practical in explaining the
17
role of media in conflict-making. The news coverage in conflict-affected societies is

indexed according to opinions and issues debated among the politicians. Unless peace

efforts and attitudes are discussed by the political elite, reporting about peace might not

make the front pages; thus, alternative “voices” offering ways of de-escalating or

resolving the conflict can be marginalized.

Along the same veins, in their account of agenda-setting theory, McCombs and

Shaw (1972) suggest that media have significant power in influencing the public agenda

by highlighting specific issues in the media (McCombs and Shaw 1972, 176-187). Topics

of importance for the media are emphasized not in the sense of supporting one view or

another, but by spotlighting issues that appeal to the media. The theory explains that

media are often not successful in telling us what to think about, but they are effective in

telling us about issues that they believe are worthy of our interest:

The daily news alerts us to the latest events and challenges in the large

environment beyond our immediate experience […]. Through their day-by-day

selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention

and influence our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day.

This ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to

be called the agenda-setting role of the news media (McCombs 2004, 1).

The notion of agenda-setting is found in another social science concept of framing. The

basic assumption of framing is that the media underscore particular issues and promote

them according to a set of interpretations and meanings. In this context, media do so “by

organizing complex news topics around distinctive arguments and themes while
18
concurrently downplaying others, journalists help to shape an issue’s deeper meanings

and implications for the public” (Shah et al. 2002, 343). Consequently, the public adopts

the media framing of an issue and perceives it in that context.

In their content analysis of negativity in international news, Beaudoin and

Thorson (2001) studied the Los Angeles Times and found that 39 percent of headlines

were negative and 11 percent positive; and story impact on the reader was 51 percent

negative compared to 28 percent positive (Beaudoin and Thorson 2001, 88). They also

found that news about developing countries is discussed “in more negative terms” when

compared with stories about the developed world. In conflict situations, the framing of

events and issues emphasized by the media has an amplified affect on the people who are

participating in the conflict. Beaudoin and Thorson (2002) explain: “Media coverage of

[…] war and peace is especially influential because the public cannot rely on other

sources of information, such as personal experience” (Beaudoin and Thorson 2002, 45).

Taking into consideration news framing of social issues such as crime, drugs or elections,

the conflicts’ news events have a wider reach, since they affect larger audiences, and

have immediate consequences on the parties participating in the conflict.

In his study on news media and peace processes, Wolfsfeld (2001) stressed that

journalists during conflict situations tend to frame the conflict according to a set of norms

that are “professionally useful and culturally familiar” (2001, 12). He explains that when

an agreement among a party’s elite is widely mutual, then one frame of the conflict

situation tends to be emphasized by the media (Wolfsfeld 2001, 12). The end results are

highly competitive positions between the conflict’s parties. In peacebuilding, the role of
19
the media in this situation should be largely to deconstruct the other party’s framing of

the conflict and to focus on internal debates of peace frames instead of violence frames.

Wolfsfeld, however, links the success of this potential role of the media to the extent of

how much “shared news media is able to reach the other sides of the conflict, the greater

the extent of shared media, the more likely the news media will play a constructive role

in a peace process” (Wolfsfeld 2001, 14). The author’s hypothesis is an appropriate

transition to the next section in this chapter.

The above debates illustrate how aspects of news media contribute to conflict-

making. It explains the premises of journalism and its tendencies to emphasize conflict

settings. The literature emphasizes theoretical concepts, such as indexing and agenda-

setting assumptions, which promote the media’s propensity to cover war. However, it

falls short of explaining why media often lack fair coverage of news about peace in

conflict situations. In some conflicts, such as in the Israeli-Palestinian case, peace

processes have been active for a long time and are constantly part of debate among the

politicians. Nonetheless, peace reporting has not been a priority for news media. In these

efforts, my research is concerned with the opportunities in which media can contribute to

peacebuilding by understanding the obstacles that undermine the journalists’ ability to

support peace in conflict-torn societies. In this study I combine my knowledge of

journalistic practices and conflict resolution concepts in an effort to advance a notion of

peacebuilding that includes the role of the media.

20
Media and Peace

Academics and researchers, like journalists, see a clear connection between media and

conflict, as it is more “exciting” to report on conflict situations than peace. Supporters of

this argument believe that reporting on conflict is less obscure than reporting on peace

processes. In this regard, the link between media and peace is vague since reporting on

peace processes requires long-term attention and does not account for media

requirements of immediacy. Wolfsfeld (1997a) found inherent contradiction between

journalistic practices and peace. He explains:

A peace process is complicated; journalists demand simplicity. A peace process

takes time to unfold and develop; journalists demand immediate results. Most of a

peace process is marked by dull, tedious negotiations; journalists require drama.

A successful peace process leads to a reduction in tensions; journalists focus on

conflict. Many of the significant developments within a peace process must take

place in secret behind closed doors; journalists demand information and access

(Wolfsfeld 1997a, 67).

Nonetheless, media professionals have demonstrated that they can push for peaceful

attitudes when the time is right. For example CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite’s

interview with leaders of Egypt and Israel led to Anwar Sadat’s famous 1977 trip to the

Israeli Knesset (Pauli 2006, 8). Another example of media support of peaceful attitudes in

conflict was ABC Ted Koppel’s town meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian

negotiators during the first Intifada (Pauli 2006, 8).

21
 In my study I discuss the lack of media reporting on peace, but also explain that

journalists understand their role in peacebuilding as secondary. They argue that for them

to contribute to overall peace through their reporting, peacebuilding activities or peace

processes already must be in motion and in good standing. Additionally, the study also

cautions that in peace processes journalists have focused their coverage on positive peace

outcomes, while disregarding the limitations and the possibility of negative outcomes of a

peace process. This can lead to conflict renewal and escalation.

Peace Journalism

During the last few decades many academics and researchers in the field of conflict

analysis and resolution have recognized the need for a departure from the traditional

journalistic assumption that journalists are neutral to conflict dynamics. Nevertheless,

media experts argue that, by using the media as a means for supporting peace, journalists

risk compromising their objectivity and impartiality. However, this was “countered with

the argument that the changing function of the media in international relations are part of

ongoing erosion of mythical ‘objectivity’ and of the acceptance of subjective reality

construction concept” (Shinar 2002, 288).

An important contribution to the body of literature on the role of media in peace

has been highlighted in Johan Galtung’s concept of peace journalism (Galtung 1998).

Galtung explains that the news media look at conflict in two ways: “the high road” and

“the low road” (Galtung 1998). Media tend to follow the “low road” in reporting conflict

by chasing wars and the people who run them, while presenting the conflict dynamics in
22
a zero-sum perspective. According to Galtung, reporting is about who is winning, and

losses are reported in terms of number of casualties and material damage. Galtung urges

the media to take the “high road” of peace journalism, which focuses on conflict

transformation: “Peace journalism tries to depolarise by showing the black and white of

all sides, and to de-escalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as much as

violence” (Galtung 1998). Peace journalism has been introduced as an alternative way for

journalists to report on conflicts. Galtung suggests:

New types of knowledge would be needed, such as identifying the conflict

formation, the parties, their goals and the issues, without falling into the trap of

believing that the key actors are where the action (violence, war) is (Galtung

1998).

Peace journalism encourages journalists to reconsider their standards and attitudes when

covering conflict or peace (Lynch 2005). The basis of peace journalism is that

professionals in this field should use conflict analysis and resolution approaches to alter

their reporting and to include awareness about the consequences of violence while

promoting nonviolence. McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) further develop the concept of

peace journalism and put forward an elaborate definition:

Peace journalism is a broader, fairer and more accurate way of framing stories,

drawing on the insights of conflict analysis and transformation. The Peace

Journalism approach provides a new road map tracing the connections between

journalists, their sources, the stories they cover, the consequences of their

23
 reporting and the ethics of journalistic intervention (McGoldrick and Lynch 2000,

6).

Critics of peace journalism, however, passionately reject its merit; they argue that it lacks

an epistemological base and claim it is redundant. Hanitzsch (2007) argues: “It seems

that peace journalism oftentimes reinvents the wheel to the extent that it repeats ‘classic’

debates on quality in journalism that has a long tradition in communication and media

research” (2007, 7). Other critics say that peace journalism is a departure from the basic

journalistic values, including objectivity, which could undermine the integrity of

journalism. The British Broadcasting Corporation reporter David Loyn dismisses peace

journalism, arguing that it “describes an active participation that is simply not the role of

a journalist, and is based on a flawed notion that the world would be better place if we

reported wars in a certain prescribed way, encouraging peacemakers rather than reporting

warriors” (Loyn 2007, 2). He makes a compelling argument that while journalists seek

“truthfulness,” objectivity is not the aim of the reporter, but rather is the tool to extract

the truth. He adds: “If we accept that objectivity is at least a worth aspiration, […] then

peace journalism fails a key test by imposing other expectations onto journalists” (Loyn

2007, 4).

Hanitzsch’s and Loyn’s arguments are challenged in an article by Peleg (2007).

He collapses their arguments into two notions that peace journalism defies the “true

nature of journalism and that it is redundant because it really means good or better

journalism” (Peleg 2007, 2; Lynch 2007). On the issue of objectivity, Peleg defends

peace journalism by stressing that instead of seeking objectivity peace journalism calls
24
for “fairness” and “accuracy”. He adds that in this context taking sides is allowed

providing that the taken side is presented accurately and the other side has a chance to

respond (Peleg 2007, 2). On the issue of redundancy, Peleg does not offer a thorough

analysis, as he claims that peace journalism is different from good journalism. He

emphasizes that it requires reporting not just on what is seen, but also on what can be

seen. It necessitates exploring reality and capturing the readers’ attention without

manipulating it (Peleg 2007, 7).

Debates between opponents and proponents of peace journalism have already

teased out a valuable contribution to a more comprehensive understanding of media roles

in conflict resolution. My research takes into consideration the assumptions of peace

journalism, but it is unique in its attempt to understand the way in which journalists

interpret their positions in conflict-affected societies. I address the objectivity dilemma in

journalism by arguing that emphasizing the “role” of journalists as being “objective” is

an unhelpful departure point of discussion, as roles are stagnant and long lasting. Instead,

this study examines the journalists’ understanding of their positions (identified as a

cluster of rights and duties) in conflict-affected societies, since positions are based on the

context and take into consideration the environment in which someone is claiming to be

impartial or objective.

Media and Conflict Resolution

Researchers in the field of conflict analysis and resolution are realizing that the media’s

role in conflict resolution is significant, for they can help avoid, contain or resolve
25
conflicts. As a departure point of discussing the literature on the role of media in conflict

resolution, it is useful to make a general distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ media.

Gardner (2001) refers to ‘bad’ media as hate media and defines it as:

[Media that] encourage violent activities, tension, or hate between race, ethnic or

social groups, or countries for political goals and/or to foster conflict by offering a

one-sided or biased view or opinion, and/or resorting to deception (Gardner 2001,

304).

In contrast, Gardner refers to ‘good’ media as peace media and describes it as:

[Media that] promote peaceful conditions of life and resolution of conflict, or

counter hate media by presenting issues fairly, offering alternative sources of

information and broadcasts nullifying or mitigating messages of hate media

(Gardner 2001, 306).

While the above distinction between bad and good media is broad, it offers an array of

possibilities in which media can support the effort of conflict resolution.

Media’s Role in Conflict Resolution

In conflict situations, patriotism and a sense of “we-ness” among party members are

emphasized as a means to protect their own beliefs and identity. Media’s role in this

regard serves as a “catalyst for unleashing violence, rather than de-escalation and

constructive non-violence” (Kempf and Luostarinen 2002, 60). Authors interested in the

topic of media and conflict resolution stress that if media representatives respond to their

26
professional requirements – accuracy, impartiality and independence – media can be

valuable tools for conflict resolution (Howard 2003, 1).

According to Howard (2002), potential media contributions to conflict resolution

can be outlined in three parts. First, media can function as an early warning system before

a conflict escalates. Focused media reporting on human rights violations, rising political

tensions, government corruption, increased differences between groups or a decline in

civil society are all indicators of pre-conflict settings (Howard 2002, 7). Second,

journalist can report on active conflict with the idea of peace journalism in mind. This

means framing the stories about conflict to advance conflict resolution. Lastly, media can

have a clear function in post-conflict settings as they can support efforts of emerging

“good governance and democratic development” (Howard 2002, 9).

When reporting on peace, media can offer the parties involved in conflict

alternatives to violence and other ways to realize their needs. Media can encourage a

sense of responsibility among the parties and others involved in promoting peacebuilding.

For instance, government institutions, NGOs and third parties contributing to resolving a

conflict will be more responsible in their conduct if the media focus reporting on

peacebuilding initiatives. Melon, Terzis and Beleli argue that media sources have the

potential: (i) to educate the conflicting parties on alternatives to violence; (ii) to promote

confidence building measures between the parties by serving as a communications

medium; and (iii) to continue fulfilling the function of ‘watchdog’ by reporting on

peacebuilding and reconciliation processes in order to hold those responsible accountable

for their conduct (Melone, Terzis, and Beleli 2002, 3-4).

27
 Building on these assumptions, this study argues that the media can be highly

effective by offering the parties involved in a conflict access to (a) information about

alternatives to violence and (b) information about the parties involved in a conflict. In

this regard, I explain in this dissertation a theoretical concept of peacebuilding

journalism, which I have developed from my findings. This theoretical concept includes

the idea that journalists can support civil society initiatives and promote alternatives to

violence by producing content informed by the conflict’s dynamics. Consequently,

people are likely to be better informed and less inclined to participate in violence.

Journalists are Mediators

Media can help conflict resolution by, at the very least, making sure that both conflicting

parties clearly understand the other’s position. Davison (1974) argues: “If each side of the

dispute is willing to acknowledge publicly in its own media that it understands the

position of the other side […], agreement is likely to be facilitated” (Davison 1974, 42).

Such a role, if noted by the media, unravels essential similarities between media

professionals and conflict resolution specialists. Rubenstein, Botes and Stephens (1994)

illustrated major similarities between journalists and mediators. Both groups need to

perform a preliminary analysis of the conflict in order to determine the parties, the

disputed issues, the underlying causes of the conflict and a possible outcome that each

party in the conflict is trying to attain (Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994, 6). Similar

to mediators, journalists also try not to take sides in efforts to “accurately” and “fairly”

tell the story (Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994, 6). Journalists, in this context, are
28
encouraged to adopt new approaches to their analysis in conflict situations. Rubenstein et

al. suggest that “good reporting and news analysis should look beyond stated positions

toward the interests and needs of the parties” (Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994, 15).

As an example, they refer to a suggestion made by Joann Byrd, who encourages

journalists to add an “S” for Solutions and a “C” for Common Ground to the list of

questions known as the “five Ws” in journalistic practices (Rubenstein, Botes, and

Stephens 1994, 15).4

In a similar veins, borrowing from the teaching of journalism, the type of analysis

needed for understanding a deep level issue in a conflict can be carried akin to what is

known in journalism as answering the “five W” questions, but with a conflict resolution

twist. Researchers in the field of conflict analysis and resolution (Sandole 2007; Wehr

1979; Hocker and Wilmot 1995) identify the need for conducting analysis of a conflict

situation as an essential step in realizing potential compromise and resolution. Conflict

mapping is necessary to inform the mediators of possible resolution, but it is also critical

in providing the conflict parties the chance to understand the needs and interests of the

perspective of the other side. For example, Wehr (1979) provides a Conflict Mapping

Guide to give “both the intervener and the conflict parties a clearer understanding of the

origins, nature, dynamics, and possibilities for resolution of conflict” (Wehr 1979, 19).

The five W questions used in journalism can be easily adopted as a conflict mapping

method for media professionals. The analysis can be conducted by asking: who is

4
In journalism the “five W” questions are used as a basis for gathering information about news events. For
example, a journalist will ask: Who is it about? What is the story about? When did the story take place?
Where did it take place? Why did it happen? And how did it happen?
29
affected by the conflict, what caused the dispute, when did it begin, where did it take

place, why do the parties hold their positions and how can the conflict be resolved (Adam

and Holguín 2003).

This study regards journalists’ thorough analysis of conflict as essential to their

understanding of how they can contribute to peacebuilding. Journalists, like conflict

resolution specialists, need to conduct conflict analysis to maximize their roles. As part of

the peacebuilding journalism concept, developed in this study, I include a conflict

mapping tool to help journalists produce content sensitive to the parties’ needs (See

Chapter 8). The tool combines the “five W” questions with conflict resolution concepts.

Media’s Role in Peace Processes

The role of media in conflict resolution is a topic that has garnered the attention of many

researchers over the last two decades, yet there are scant guidelines for professionals in

this regard. In an attempt to shed more light on the role of media in conflict resolution, an

Israeli professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Gadi Wolfsfeld (2004), puts

forward a useful concept. He compares media coverage of the Oslo peace process with

the 1998 peace process in Ireland. Wolfsfeld argues that the news media can impact

peace processes in four ways: (i) media define the political atmosphere of the peace

process; (ii) they influence the nature of the negotiation; (iii) they affect the conflict

parties’ strategy and behavior; and (iv) lastly, they can raise or lower the public standing

and legitimacy of the parties’ participating in a conflict (Wolfsfeld 2004, 11).

Nonetheless, according to him, the nature of the media profession and its need for
30
immediacy, drama, simplicity and ethnocentrism often leads the media to play a

destructive role in reporting peace (Wolfsfeld 2004, 15). In this context, inherently a

conflict situation fits the media requirements and gets its attention, while the peace

process does not fit the media’s criteria, and thus peace reporting does not get the

necessary attention (Oates and Andrew Williams 2006, 4).

Unlike other studies (Bennett 1990; Davison 1974; McCombs and Shaw 1972;

Galtung 1998; Lynch 2005; Robinson 2002), Wolfsfeld does not entirely blame the

media for the shortcoming of reporting on peace. He acknowledges that the way in

which media report on peace processes is contingent on the conflict’s dynamics, such as

the intensity of violence and the level of political elite support to the process. On this

particular point, Wolfsfeld hypothesizes that: “The greater the level of elite consensus in

support of a peace process, the more likely the news media will play a positive role in

that process” (Wolfsfeld 2004, 26). As I explain in Chapter 6, my study reached a similar

conclusion. My analysis found that, according to journalists in Israel and the West Bank,

when peace is at its lowest points media can hardly contribute to its advancement.

Journalists that I interviewed for this study argued that media cannot ‘ignite’ a peace

process, but they will report on peace if it is active.

In earlier work, Wolfsfeld (Wolfsfeld 1997b) developed a theoretical concept

called the Political Contest Model in which he described the role of news media in

political conflict. He argues that during political conflict the antagonists’5 level of control

5
Wolfsfeld defines the term of “antagonist as any group, institution or state involved in a political dispute”
(Wolfsfeld 1997b, 2).
31
over the political environment6 determines their ability to promote their messages and

views through the media; the more control the antagonists have over the political

environment, the more control they have over the media (Wolfsfeld 1997b, 3-6). In this

context, when the authorities have control over the political environment the news media

are hardly able to be independent. Whereas, when the authorities lack control over the

political environment, then the media are more independent because they rely on various

information sources. He explains that the reason behind this dependency relationship is

that the production of news is a reactive process (Wolfsfeld 2004, 25).

In my study, I take into consideration the political elite’s ability to have control

over the media as a consequence of their control over the political situations. However,

my findings suggest that the journalists’ abilities to contribute to peacebuilding in conflict

situations are also subject to two sets of internal and external factors that limit their

independence. In addition to relying on the politicians as a source of information,

journalists often are victims of the unclear and mixed political narratives put out by the

officials. Additionally, media professionals in conflict situations are affected by the

political ideology or leanings of their media institutions, which also invite self-censorship

practices by journalists (see Chapter 4). In the section below I discuss literature in which

researchers attempt to explore methods to aid the media’s role in conflict resolution.

6
Control over political environment, according to Wolfsfeld is “the ability of the authorities to initiate and
control political events, to regulate the flow of information and mobilize elite support” (Wolfsfeld 1997b,
25).
32
Media and Intervention

With more recognition for the media role in conflict resolution, academics, researchers,

nonprofit organizations and think-tank institutions embarked on planning and conducting

intervention media projects in conflict zones. The United States Institute of Peace in 2008

suggests a framework to guide the planning and implementation of peacebuilding media

projects (Himelfarb and Chabalowski 2008). The framework explains that a “media

project’s impact is proportional to the number of media strategies it uses,” and it lists five

strategies for media intervention projects: (i) conflict-sensitive and peace journalism, (ii)

peace-promoting citizen media, (iii) peace-promoting entertainment media, (iv)

advertising or social marketing for conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and (v) media

regulation to prevent incitement of violence (Himelfarb and Chabalowski 2008, 2). The

framework of peacebuilding media also suggests that media will have utmost positive

affect when it is incorporated into the broad conflict resolution and peacebuilding effort.

Similarly, in their article reflecting on media coverage of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission in South Africa7, Baumann and Siebert (1997) argue that

“journalists mediate conflict, whether they intend to do or not.” They suggest a set of

mediation skills for journalists to use in the overall effort to help promote peaceful

attitudes among the conflict’s parties. Additionally, they propose that journalists can help

moving the parties away from positions toward interest by underlining the parties’

interests in resolving their conflict instead of underlining their rigid positions. Journalists

7
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in South Africa after the abolition of
apartheid. Stories by victims of violence and human rights violations were documented and some of them
were heard publicly. It is argued that these hearings were a milestone in the reconciliation efforts in South
Africa.
33
also can clarify and eliminate misconceptions that the parties have of each other.

Additionally, the piece encourages journalists to question their own assumptions of

reporting about the conflict (Baumann and Siebert 1997).

Along the same lines, Ross Howard (2002), who writes extensively on the topic

of media intervention, argues that media can be a valuable instrument for conflict

resolution, and that peacebuilding projects implemented in conflict-torn societies are

doomed to fail if they ignore media-related intervention efforts (Howard 2002, 2). He

presents a framework to help media practitioners and third parties’ efforts to support

planning, execution and evaluation of media initiatives in conflict situations. The

framework provides “indicators that reflect some consequences of internal conflict upon

the local or indigenous media in pre-, overt and post-conflict environments” (Howard

2002, 4). The framework also offers scenarios in each stage of the conflict and suggests

how the media is impacted. For further detail, see Appendix B for Howard’s table of

“Stages of Conflict and Media Impacts.”

Howard also puts forward five ways in which media intervention projects can be

implemented in any stage of the conflict:

Type one: Basic journalism training “addresses unskilled, inaccurate, conflict-

obsessed, or highly partisan media” (Howard 2002, 10).

Type two: “Responsible journalism development beyond basic skills. Tools

include developing investigative, explanatory and specialist reporting, and well-

informed analytical reporting” (Howard 2002, 10).

34
 Type Three: “Transitional journalism development [in which] journalists and

media managers redefine whom and what is newsworthy to better inform and

encourage reconciliation” (Howard 2002, 11).

Type Four: “Pro-active media-based intervention, usually designed for a highly

specific audience and purpose” (Howard 2002, 11).

Type Five: “Intended outcome programming is specifically intent upon

transforming attitudes, promoting reconciliation and reducing conflict” (Howard

2002, 11).

The realization of positive media potential in conflict resolution has prompted a handful

of NGOs to implement media intervention projects in conflict zones. Similar media

projects, as outlined above by Howard, have been implemented in conflict cases such as

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I include a summary of these projects in Chapter 6, which

describes media projects carried out by the Search for Common Ground Jerusalem

Office. Through these projects the organization trains journalists in Israel and Palestine

on conflict resolution and methods for advancing peace.

The most respected media intervention work has been done by Search for

Common Ground and the European Center for Common Ground, often referred to as the

“Common Ground Approach.” Their work has included a variety of media prevention

projects in conflicts in Rwanda, Angola, and Bosnia, as well as in the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict. Their projects have included training local journalists, joint media projects,

dialogue between media owners, and original radio programming to promote dialogue

35
and cooperation between conflicting parties (Melone, Terzis, and Beleli 2002, 4-5). The

Common Ground approach ultimately seeks to bring the conflicting parties to the

negotiating table, but also seeks to sustain the continuity of a peace process.

My research addresses the topic of media intervention in two ways. In efforts to

combine conflict resolution methods and media practices as a concept of peacebuilding

journalism, my findings suggest that journalists can use conflict mapping tools to conduct

analysis of party interests and positions. Consequently, there could be two potential

methods of media intervention: early warning system and cross-border media

cooperation.

Conclusion

Dividing the literature on media and conflict into four groups reveals several themes and

trends in existing research. The most significant focus of the literature is on the role of

media in conflict-making. Researchers explain the dynamics by which media tend to

cover war and violence during conflict while ignoring other voices calling for de-

escalation and ending of conflict. This phenomenon led to another body of literature that

emphasizes the need for an alternative media role in conflict resolution, arguing that

reporting peace is as important as reporting war. The most developed concept in this

regard is peace journalism, which demands a new type of journalistic practice in which

journalists are encouraged to be fairer and more accurate in their reporting. Beyond peace

journalism, researchers in the field of conflict analysis and resolution grew more aware of

media’s potential to avoid, contain or resolve conflict. In this context, practitioners in the
36
field identify the significant role of media in all stages of conflict and suggest ways of

planning and implementing media-based projects in conflict-torn societies.

While the literature on the role of media in conflict resolution largely focuses on

how news media behave in conflict situations and how they can contribute to

peacebuilding, the literature does not fully explain factors that limit the journalists’

abilities to contribute to peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Existing theoretical

frameworks have focused on journalistic practices as the main obstacle in the way of

advancing a positive media-conflict relationship. However, there remains a need to

understand how local or indigenous journalists understand their positions during active

conflicts. In subsequent chapters, I analyze how the dynamics of social episodes in

conflict settings can shape the journalists’ act of conveying information to the public. My

findings inform my framework of peacebuilding journalism, which is informed by the

journalists’ understanding of their positions and limitations in conflict-affected societies.

37
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS:
EXAMINING MEDIA ROLE IN PEACEBUILDING

The purpose of this research is to expand on the concepts of conflict analysis and

resolution to consider the constructive media role in conflict de-escalation and

termination. The positive role that media can play in conflict situations has not been

widely discussed in the field of conflict analysis and resolution (see Chapter 2). Here I

attempt to underline conflict resolution methods that could be coupled with media work

in efforts to advance a practical framework of peacebuilding journalism. Researchers and

academics underscore the need for new journalistic approaches in reporting on conflict

situations, and they argue that reporting on peace is as important as reporting on violence.

They emphasize the conventional journalistic practices, such as the concepts of neutrality

and impartiality, as the main cause behind the media’s failure to advance peacebuilding

in conflict settings. Although the literature is successful in illuminating the potential and

important role that the media can play in conflict resolution, it falls short in explaining

how journalists’ abilities to advance peacebuilding are limited during active conflict. This

research seeks to understand the obstacles journalists face with regard to advancing

peacebuilding, and then it suggests methods to overcome these obstacles. To encourage

journalists to advance a constructive media role in conflict resolution, this research asks:

What are the opportunities in which media can contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-
38
affected societies? And, furthermore, how can journalists reconsider their positions in

conflict situations in order to advance peacebuilding?

My research posits that reconsidering the way in which journalists interpret their

positions in conflict situations can encourage a constructive media role in conflict.

Journalists follow rigid journalistic standards to give credibility to their work. In the

process they intentionally position themselves and others to apparently fulfill the role of

being “neutral” and “objective” with respect to the conflict’s dynamics. Nonetheless,

journalists’ ethics tend to be blurry in conflict-torn societies. Journalists often use their

influential role as catalysts to support their party’s cause. This study suggests an

alternative approach in an effort to define the potential media role in conflict resolution.

First, it explores the journalist’ limitations in supporting peacebuilding. Second, it

clarifies the journalists’ understanding of their “positions” vis-à-vis their “role” in the

conflict-torn society. Third, it advances a practical framework of “peacebuilding

journalism” to address the journalists’ limitations in advancing peace.

Theoretical Framework

The research has theoretical implications that inform the media’s role in conflict de-

escalation and conflict prevention. To explore opportunities for media contributions to

peacebuilding, this research draws on the concept of positioning theory to understanding

the dynamics of social episodes and narratives in conflict settings, and how they affect

the journalists’ abilities to help the parties reach compromise. Positioning theory provides

insight into existing patterns of media reporting that shape the journalists’ understandings
39
of their positions in conflict. Positioning is an alternative approach to the static concept of

“role” in which members of a group relate to their surroundings (Harré and Langenhove

1999, 14). While journalists emphasize that their role in society is to convey information

to the public, positioning theory tries to understand people’s positions in a given setting

rather than the role that they assume. Roles, as used to define recurring social

relationships, such as the journalists’ role in the society, are criticized because they are

relatively static concepts that do not fully describe the way those relationships are

actually experienced and performed (Harré and Slocum 2003a, 126-27).

Positioning theory is a relatively new approach to study the dynamics of human

relationships within a social constructivist paradigm. Positioning theory, as referred to by

Harré and Lagenhove (1999), is “the study of local moral orders as ever-shifting patterns

of mutual and contestable rights and obligations of speaking and acting” (Harré and

Lagenhove 1999, 1). Positioning theory describes three basic elements that make up the

interactions between individuals or groups of individuals: (i) positions, (ii) acts, and (iii)

storylines. These three elements are found in everyday interaction and are always present.

Positions are a set of rights and obligations that exist among the individuals in the group.

These positions define the behavior of group members through the granting of rights and

the assigning of obligations. These rights and duties are necessary to “perform certain

actions with a certain significance as acts, but which also may include prohibitions or

denials of access to some of the local repertoire of meaningful acts” (Harré and

Moghaddam 2003, 5-6). Acts are either speech acts or other acts that have social

significance. They are every socially significant action, spoken through literal speech or
40
communicated through body language or other manifestations (Harré and Moghaddam

2003, 6). Thus, acts in the context of this study include the journalists’ written content

and broadcasts. Storylines are patterns of action that are identifiable in narrative. They are

the existing patterns through which meaning is interpreted by the individual’s actions.

Interactions between parties unfold within these meanings; they are never truly random

but are interpreted as having specific meaning based on a system of rules (Harré and

Moghaddam 2003, 6).

In their efforts to understand people’s participation in social settings, Linehan and

McCarthy describe positioning theory as an “analytic tool that can be used flexibly to

describe the shifting multiple relations in a community of practice” (Linehan and

McCarthy 2000, 441). They argue that positioning is a helpful way “to characterize the

shifting responsibilities and interactive involvements of members in a community”

(Linehan and McCarthy 2000, 441). This makes positioning theory a practical tool to

help the journalists in conflict zones to redefine their participation in peacebuilding in the

context of other positions that they assume in society. This research probes the

journalists’ understanding of their rights and duties (positions) as part of a society in a

conflict. The research finds that the journalists associate these concepts with nationalistic

values such as the “duty to defend the national cause” and the “right to freely report the

news” (see Chapter 5). Journalists can assume a position or a position can be imposed

upon them. Similarly, a person can confront a position assumed by others or challenge a

position imposed upon them. In this context, journalists’ coverage of a conflict’s

encounters is affected by external forces, such as the political leaning of their media
41
institutions or internal factors such as the journalists’ ideology or political aspirations. In

this understanding the journalists’ responsibilities are constantly shifting in accordance to

positions they assume or positions imposed upon them. Positions are continuously

defined relative to other positions.

There are four different modes of positioning that can occur in discursive

practices: (i) first and second order positioning; (ii) moral and personal positioning; (iii)

self and other positioning; and (iv) tacit and intentional positioning (Harré and

Langenhove 1999, 20-22). Relevant to this research, in conflict analysis and resolution

the latter mode of positioning can give insight into the storylines and narratives that

define the journalists’ abilities to participate in peacebuilding. There are four different

sets of situations in which intentional positioning can happen: (a) deliberate self-

positioning is an expression of personal identity; (b) forced self-positioning is when the

initiative of positioning lies in the hands of others; (c) deliberate positioning of the others

is a result of talking about the others in their absence or presence where a person can

accept or reject the positioning; and finally (d) forced positioning of the others occurs as

a result of a complex settings, where one person forces another person to position another

(Harré and Langenhove 1999, 23-28). Deliberate self-positioning and forced self-

positioning were identified in this research. In this context, journalists position

themselves to appear loyal to the national cause and to morally justify their actions.

The three components of positioning theory (positions, acts and storylines) help

explain the media-conflict relationship and also allow us to explore how media can

contribute to peacebuilding. Journalists understand their rights and obligations as

42
explained by their media institution or through their political worldviews and journalistic

ethics. Journalists utilize these sets of rights and duties to define their positions in the

society. The journalists’ positioning then define criteria for them to perform their work

while also enabling them to position others and leading to a possible limitation of access

to meaningful acts. The acts are the journalist’s spoken or written content and are directly

affected by their understanding of their rights and duties. Storylines are the existing

patterns of meaning through which the journalists interpret their understanding of their

positions. In other words, storylines are the existing outlines within which journalists

perform their work. For example, concepts such as impartiality and objectivity in

journalism are considered the existing patterns of meaning through which journalists

assume their positions and define their practices.

During active conflict, the media becomes the public’s main source of

information about the conflict’s day-to-day predicaments. Positioning theory highlights

the intergroup dynamics and its relationship to media. The media helps the parties to

develop a perception of an outcome that the parties can expect from participating in a

conflict. The parties’ members do so through their understanding of a particular narrative

emphasized by the media, which is often incompatible with narratives understood by the

other group. Consequently, individuals in each party adjust their positions to maximize

their outcomes. Ideology and beliefs about the “others” become socially shared within a

conflict group through the media and the language used by the journalists.

Violence is then likely to accrue when a conflict party engages in positioning the

other and claims access to or make use of their rights and duties to dominate the
43
unfolding events (Harré and Moghaddam 2003, 7). I find that media, in this case study,

become an essential actor in defining power relationships between the groups. Power

relationships become understood and interpreted by the parties through storylines and

narratives conveyed by the media and refer to the notion that group rights, duties and

obligations are unequally distributed.

The Case Study

The nature of this research as an inquiry into the phenomenon of media role in

peacebuilding necessitates a creative approach. The research attempts to merge concepts

from two fields, journalism and conflict analysis and resolution, to advance a practical

framework that could facilitate opportunities for a positive media role in peace. In this

qualitative research I use a case study approach. I examine the opportunities for building

a constructive relationship between media and peace in the context of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict. As described by Yin: “Case study is an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context,

especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

evident” (Yin 2009, 18). In this research, the case study approach was used to understand

the ‘real-life’ experience of the journalists in the conflict-affected societies and to realize

the contextual meanings that shape the journalists’ abilities to advance peaceful attitudes.

Patton argues that a well developed and constructed case study is “holistic and context

sensitive” (Patton 2001, 447). These two characteristics are essential components of

qualitative research. Patton explains that the holistic approach to a case study is the art of
44
treating the phenomenon under investigation as a “complex system” and

“interdependent” relations, that cannot be meaningful unless studied as a whole (Patton

2001, 59). Context meanings in studying conflicts are greatly important because they

become the framework and the reference point, which people in conflicts use as a

resource for justifying their actions.

To understand those contextual meanings I use concepts in positioning theory to

enhance my study of the Israeli-Palestinian case. Druckman (2005) encourages the use of

the enhanced case study approach because it is “interpretive and analytical.” He explains:

“By viewing the case through the lens of an interpretive framework or particular

concepts, the researcher provides a broader understanding of what happened. The case

then serves as an example of the application of those concepts” (Druckman 2005, 167). I

selected the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for this research because I am well

acquainted with the conflict’s dynamics and also I am very familiar with media practices

on both sides due to the fact that I grew up and worked as a journalist in the West Bank.

Additionally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict includes abundant examples of media

cooperation across boundaries. The most recent examples are found during the Oslo

peace process8 following the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Israelis and

8
The Oslo Accords, signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians, were designed based on a framework
called “interim stages.” The Accords allowed the Palestinians to gradually take control over parts of the
West Bank, while delaying for later discussion many core issues. Borders, the Palestinian refugee issue,
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, water, and the status of Jerusalem were issues that represented the
spine of the conflict, yet were set-aside until final phase of negotiations. During the interim stages the West
Bank was divided into clusters. To travel from one city to another Palestinians had to go through Israeli
checkpoints. This created two problems: limitation of movement between West Bank cities and the
underdevelopment of the Palestinian territories. In addition, the Accords created a Palestinian economy
largely dependent on Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel were on the rise and
45
Palestinians in 1993. The peace process allowed the establishment of media institutions

on the Palestinian side and has encouraged cross-border media cooperation to empower

the peace process. However, this research finds that media cooperation drastically

decreased after the eruption of the Palestinian second Intifada in 2000. Media projects,

until then, have been mainly carried out in the form of traditional problem solving

workshops between Israeli and Palestinian journalists.

For the purpose of this research, “the media” refers to the news media and is

limited to “traditional” media—print, TV and radio. Additionally, when I refer to

journalists or journalism I am referring to the Israeli and Palestinian journalists

interviewed for this case study.

Data Collection

My data collection methods for this research included two parts. First, I conducted key

informant interviews with media professionals to understand how media professionals

perceive their positions in conflict situations, and to uncover the storylines through which

journalists are limited in their acts of contributing to peacebuilding. This part of the

research informed me of the journalists’ understandings of their positions and limitations

in conflict-affected societies, and the data further allowed me to develop my framework

of peacebuilding journalism.

created a major security concern for Israel. In 2000 a second Palestinian Intifada began; the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict was ripe for another cycle of violence which has greatly undermined the peace process.

46
 Second, I conducted an archival review of Israeli and Palestinian newspapers to

explore how media content, informed by the conflict’s dynamics, can positively affect the

journalist’ role to advance peace. An integral part of peacebuilding journalism is the

media content. Journalists can be encouraged to rethink their positions in a conflict

situation, but they also need guidelines to positively influence de-escalation of a conflict.

An analysis of ways to reframe the journalists’ positions without taking into

consideration the media content would stop short of efforts to encourage a positive media

role in conflict resolution. This analysis intends to assist the journalists in producing

content sensitive to the conflict dynamics and encourage de-escalation.

I conducted these two phases of data collection sequentially with the key

informant interviews preceding the archival review. This sequential approach allowed me

to conduct more informed media review process. It permitted me to focus my data

collection of the archival review around key events in the conflict that were mentioned by

the interviewees. This approach also allowed me to identify the primary disputed issues

that were described by the interviewees.

Key Informant Interviews

For the first part of the data collection process I conducted 30 key informant interviews.

The interviewees included Palestinian and Israeli media professionals (e.g., journalists,

columnists, editors and reporters). Additionally, I interviewed representatives from local

and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who are managing projects

related to media in Israel and Palestine. Finally, I interviewed government officials from
47
both sides, who dealt with media at some capacity. I conducted six interviews during the

summer of 2008 in Israel and the West Bank. The rest of the interviews (a total of 24)

took place during the following summer of 2009, where I spent one month conducting

those interviews in Israel and the West Bank.

I selected my initial interviewees through my personal network of professionals

working in the Israeli and Palestinian media. I also engaged subsequent interviewees

using a snowballing method. In those cases, I either: (i) “cold-called” the subjects; or (ii)

contacted the subjects by way of an introduction from previous interviewees or other

personal contacts. Additionally, an interviewee introduced me to a booklet produced by

his NGO, which includes names and contacts of Israeli and Palestinian journalists

covering or concerned with the conflict. I used the booklet and the snowballing method to

select additional interviewees.

I asked the interviewees structured and semi-structured questions in order to

capture specific narratives, which represent the respondents’ comprehension of their

rights and duties (positions) as media professionals. Additionally, in an effort to examine

obstacles standing in the way of the media’s contributions to peacebuilding, the

interviews probed how journalists interpret their positions through existing patterns of

journalistic practices (storyline). Consequently, this helped me to ask informed questions

about the journalists’ deciding factors for producing their content (act). The questions and

their purposes are presented in table 1.

48
 Table 1: Interview Questions
Components Questions Purpose
Storyline – 1. Decision-makers tend to modify their Question 1 and 2, asked in all
existing patterns decisions to what can be adequately and interviews, allowed the interviewee
of media positively reported in the media. How do to share his/her narratives about
practices you think that this process affects media practices and limitations
journalists’ objectivity? facing media professionals.
2. Do you think journalists tend to frame Question 3, asked in all interviews,
conflicts according to arguments probed specific limitations to cross-
emphasized by the political elite? And border media cooperation between
does this affect your coverage to reflect the two sides. Question 4 was
the interest of the political elite? secondary and was asked depending
3. What are the obstacles standing in the on how elaborate the interviewee’s
way of cooperation between the Israeli response was to the third question.
and Palestinian journalists?
4. Do you perceive news from media
sources of the other side
(Israeli/Palestinian) as negative or
positive and why?
Positioning – 5. How does the discourse of journalism Question 5 and 6, asked in all
Journalists’ impartiality affect your work? interviews, intended to investigate
understanding of 6. How do you think your understanding of the media professionals’
rights and duties your rights and duties as a journalist understanding of their positions in
affect your reporting and work? the conflict. Question 7, asked in all
7. Do you think that there is a possibility interviews, intended to explore a
for creating a constructive relationship constructive relationship between
between media and peace? How? media and peacebuilding, while also
8. How do you think media can contribute exploring the interviewees’ specific
to peacebuilding and reconciliation narrative about their duties toward
between Israelis and Palestinians? peace. Question 8 was secondary
and was asked depending on the
depth of the response to question 7.
Act – 9. Do you think that media can function as Questions 9 and 10, asked in all
Journalists’ an early warning system to uncover interviews, intended to capture the
content sources for potential conflict? How? interviewee’s initial thoughts about
10. Can the media act as a safeguard to conflict resolution methods that can
contain conflict escalation, for example be coupled with media work.
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Questions 11 and 12 were asked in
11. How did the Israeli/Palestinian media all interviews to capture the
cover the Oslo Accords following its interviewee’s narratives about two
signing? milestone events in the conflict, one
12. What kind of coverage did the ended with signing a peace
Israeli/Palestinian media produce during agreement and the other led to
the year prior to the eruption of the conflict escalation. Probing about
second Intifada in 2000? the two events helped the media

49
 review process.
Other questions 13. Do you know of any organization in the Question 13, asked if time
media field that contributed or that permitted, intended to generate
contributes to advancing peacebuilding more insight into media’s
between Israelis and Palestinians? If contribution to peace.
any, what was your role in that effort?

The interviews were conducted in the form of regular conversations wherever the

interviewee felt secure and not intimidated or bothered. I interviewed the subjects in their

offices or in public settings such as hotel lobbies and coffee shops. I asked the

interviewees to sign the Human Subjects consent form. All interviewees agreed to be

recorded by formally signing the consent form.

Setting up interviews with professionals in the media field was relatively easy.

The subjects were amenable to talking and showed great interested in the topic of my

dissertation. Nonetheless, the research found that overall the journalists were pessimistic

about opportunities in which media can contribute to peacebuilding (see Chapter 6). In a

few cases the interviewees were annoyed by the concept of achieving “peacebuilding

through media” and often they protested that the role of media is not making peace, but

rather is to inform the audience. Some journalists even described such endeavors of

media contribution to peace as potentially using the media for “propaganda.”

Archival Review of Media Outlets

The second part of the research was aimed at assisting journalists in producing content

informed by the parties’ perceptions of the conflict’s underlying causes and conditions to

50
help them modify their positions and underscore their needs. 9 I reviewed two Palestinian

newspapers, Al Hayat Al Jadidah (www.alhayat-j.com) and Al Ayyam (www.al-

ayyam.ps)10 and two Israeli newspapers, Haaretz (www.haaretz.com) and The Jerusalem

Post (www.jpost.com).11 The outlets were selected based on their political orientation.

On each side, one rightwing and one center/leftwing newspaper were selected. The

diversity of the newspapers’ political orientations permitted easy data cross-checking

between the outlets and allowed me to capture broad debates about the core issues.

I utilized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s core issues (Israeli settlements in the

Palestinian Territories, dispute over Jerusalem, Palestinian refugee problem, borders and

water issues) as the units of analysis for studying the media content. After signing the

1993 Oslo Accords between the Israelis and the Palestinians, these issues became known

as the “final status issues,” which were postponed for a later stage of negotiation. Each

one of those core issues has been an essential part of the ongoing peace negotiations

between the two parties, while they have also been catalysts for conflict escalation.

9
The media influence the parties involved in a conflict through their choice of events to be considered as
newsworthy (McCombs and Shaw 1972). Emphasizing one conflict frame or another, media can positively
or negatively affect the parties’ expected outcome from participating in a conflict.
10
The top three read Palestinian newspapers are Al Quds, Al Ayyama and Al Hayat Al Jadidah. Al Quds is
based in Jerusalem and has the largest circulation of 20,000 in the Palestinian Territories. I did not select Al
Quds as part of the media review due to the fact that I was not able to access the archives. Al Ayyam
newspaper is based in Ramallah, West Bank. It has the second largest circulation of 10,000 and is “directed
at a discerning readership of intellectuals, containing more in-depth exclusive reports” (BBC News 2006b).
Al Hayat Al Jadidah is also based in Ramallah and is considered a semi-official newspaper with the least
circulation of 5,000 copies. Al Hayat Al Jadidah “is the most critical of Israeli and US policies” among the
three dailies (BBC News 2006b).
11
Haaretz Newspaper is Israel’s oldest newspaper with circulation of 50,000 and “it identifies itself as
‘elitist’ newspaper and has a reputation for quality reporting” (BBC News 2006a). The Haaretz editorial
line leans more toward the left. It is based in Tel Aviv and is published in Hebrew and English. The
Jerusalem Post is an English-language daily with circulation of 15,000 daily copies and 40,000 on the
weekend. The newspaper is based in Jerusalem and leans toward the right with a “tougher line on issues
such as security” (BBC News 2006a).
51
 This part of the research required collecting data that are particularly rich in

content concerning the core issues. I collected the data based on past events that triggered

media attention. Thus, data sampling in this study focused on information-rich cases for

in depth analysis. Patton explains that: “Information-rich cases are those from which one

can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry”

(Patton 2001, 230). He uses the term purposeful sampling for conducting such studies. In

this context, the focus of the collected data was mainly on major events that took place in

the past decade, during which these core issues garnered great media attention. These

events include: the Annapolis Conference held in 2008, the Road Map initiative, the

Saudi peace initiative, the 2008 drought, and the disengagement plan from Gaza executed

in 2005. For a complete list of the events and a short summary see Appendix A. Each one

of the events allowed rich discussions of the core issues in the media.

I collected a total number of 40 articles about each core issue: 20 articles were

collected from the Israeli newspapers and 20 from the Palestinian newspapers, which

brings the total number of collected articles to 200. The media review included editorials,

columns, and op-ed pieces, which allowed for the extraction of the particular discourse

about each core issue and how the framing of those issues affected the parties’

understandings of their needs.

Data Analysis

As I mentioned above, this research asks: What are the opportunities in which media can

contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies? And, furthermore, how can

52
journalists reconsider their positions in conflict situations in order to advance

peacebuilding? From the research I developed a practical framework of peacebuilding

journalism, which describes the process in which journalists become aware of the

significant role that they can play in conflict resolution. In my framework I use

components of existing media and conflict theories to clarify a media-peacebuilding

relationship, informing a theory of practice that can be utilized in conflict resolution. I

categorized and grouped the collected data from the interviews and the media review.

The two parts of the research, the key informant interviews and archival review, might

not seem interconnected when they are studied and analyzed separately. However, this

research examines the journalists’ positions in a conflict situation and their produced

content as one unit.

Data Analysis – Key Informant Interviews

This research draws on the literature on media and conflict (Richard E Rubenstein 1994;

McChesney 2004; Bennett 1990; McCombs and Shaw 1972; Wolfsfeld 2001; Wolfsfeld

2004; Howard 2002), as described in Chapter 2, to identify categories that helped

organize the collected data. The interviews were transcribed in their original languages

(English and Arabic) and were entered into a Microsoft Access database. I included in the

database two tables: one for interviews with Israeli subjects and another for interviews

with Palestinian subjects. The interview questions (see Table 1) served as an outline for

grouping the interviewees’ answers. I created 13 categories, which represented the

interview questions, in addition to one more category called “other,” which grouped the
53
interviewees’ narratives that did not fit under the 13 interview questions. I printed two

master documents, one for interviews in Arabic and another one for interviews in

English, in which I had organized all the interviewees’ answers under the 14 categories.

I used a narrative analysis method to examine this set of data. Most scholars treat

narratives as discrete units, with clear beginnings and endings that are detachable from

the surrounding discourse, rather than as situated events (Riessman 1993, 17). Patton

explains that narrative analysis methods vary from one study to another and therefore

researchers need to develop their own approach (Patton 2002). Narrative analysis focuses

on the production of meaning and attempts to reduce the told story to a set of elements

that can unravel a certain issue in a particular time or space.

The method discussed above generated a considerable amount of data that

required thorough analysis. Narrative analysis of the data was appropriate because it

permitted a holistic approach to narratives and examined meanings in the context of the

peacebuilding journalism framework. The main components of positioning theory

(storylines, positioning and acts) serve as the three main frames for analyzing narratives:

1. Journalists’ storylines: In this category I captured narratives and storylines, which are

defined as the patterns of meanings through which media professionals interpret their

positions in conflict situations. Understanding these narratives and meanings

informed the research about the obstacles that the journalists face in advancing

peacebuilding. The analysis of these narratives was aimed at identifying factors that

lead the journalists to practices of self-positioning in their efforts to show loyalty to

their society and support to their national causes. In the Israeli-Palestinian case,
54
 journalists tend to support issues debated within the political mainstream, while they

ignore issues debated outside the political mainstream. The conflict’s parties use

narratives and frames emphasized in the media to interpret the conflict’s dynamics.

Consequently, they adjust their expected outcome based on those narratives. When

journalists are limited in emphasizing the peace narrative in the media, then parties

are also limited in advancing peacebuilding.

2. Journalists’ positions: In this category I grouped narratives about the journalists’

understanding of their rights and duties (positions) in conflict situations. Journalists

believe they are neutral to the conflict dynamics between the conflict’s parties. This

process of self-positioning by the journalists is a result of their efforts to maintain

credibility of their work, while they appear faithful to their cause. Analyzing the

narratives about the journalists understanding of their “positions” (right and duties)

vis-à-vis their “roles” in the conflict shows potential ways in which journalists can

contribute to peacebuilding. Journalists, in this case study, emphasized their role as

being impartial in conveying what is happening on the ground. However, when

analyzing their positions in the conflict the journalists’ narratives of their rights and

duties were associated with other values than journalistic values, such as the sense of

we-ness, national identity and the duty to protect their community through their

media work.

3. Journalists’ actions: In this category I clustered narratives about journalists’ potential

for contributing to peacebuilding and producing content sensitive to conflict

dynamics. Journalists, in this case study, see an obvious connection between media
55
 and conflict because it is more “exciting” to report on. On the contrary, the

connection between media and peace is seen as unclear and requires more attention

and time. In this context, the analysis of the journalists’ narratives in this category

explored conflict resolution methods that could be joined with media work to

contribute to conflict de-escalation. I captured initial thoughts by journalists about

how media can functions as a safeguard and/or an early warning system to show

indicators for violence ‘before it catches on fire.’ Under this category I also

expanded on the concept of conflict mapping combined with what is known in

journalism as the “W questions,” to present a method of analysis for journalists to use

in studying conflict’s dynamics and its underlining causes and conditions.

My intent when analyzing the data under these categories was to advance a practical

framework of peacebuilding journalism by exploring the relations between the

journalists’ understanding of their positions, acts and storylines. This part of the analysis

attempted to study how journalists can reconsider their positions to allow opportunities

for a constructive media role in peacebuilding.

Data Analysis – Archival Review

Analyzing media content can be an effective tool to explore how media, informed by the

parties’ perception of the conflict’s dynamics, can lead to positive outcomes. This form

of analysis demands a comprehensive approach that can examine not just the media

content, but which also considers the context in which they were produced. In an effort to

meet this requirement, I used discourse analysis to examine this set of data. In the field of
56
conflict analysis and resolution the methodology of discourse analysis gained popularity

for its ability to present a “methodology- not just a method- that embodies a ‘strong’

social constructivist view of the social world” (Phillips 2002, 3). Discourse analysis as a

method and methodology is different from other qualitative approaches by its

commitment to social constructionist view of the world as it tries to explore the relation

between text, discourse and context.

As defined by Phillips and Hardy, discourse analysis is “an interrelated set of

texts and the practices of their production, dissemination, and reception that bring an

object into being” (Phillips 2002, 3). It defines categories for the analysis of media text in

a systematic way. It is not a summary or paraphrase of what is in the material, i.e.

narrative or anecdotal reconstruction of the events covered in the media; it analyses the

structure of the text and draws conclusions of the information contained in these texts in

the mind of the people who read, see and process them (Wal 2002, 435). To define

categories for analyzing this data I developed a set of frames for each core issue in the

context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as there were understood and reflected by the

parties (see Table 2). I relied on open source literature to develop these frames about each

core issue. The purpose of conducting the media review through explicit framing of the

core issues was to narrow the complex debates surrounding those issues. Additionally,

the specific framing of the issues allowed me to examine similar arguments expressed by

the journalists on both sides with regard to the core issues.

57
 Table 2: Conflict Framing of Core Issues
Core Issues Israeli frames Palestinian frames
Jerusalem 1. Undivided Jerusalem as the capital of 1. A two-state solution with East
Israel Jerusalem as the capital
2. Historic and religious entitlement 2. Historic and religious
3. Symbolism of defeat and victory entitlement
3. Symbolism of defeat and
victory
Settlements 1. Right for the land according to religious 1. Prevent a two-state solution
beliefs and undermine the need for
2. Government economic incentives with nationhood
affordable housing 2. Lost of property by land
3. Source for internal political conflict confiscation
3. Sense of no security
Refugee 1. Demographic threat 1. Loss of their homes and land
2. Threat to the Jewishness of Israel 2. The right of return
3. Sense of nationhood 3. Sense of homelessness and
exile
Borders 1. Security barriers 1. Separation wall
2. Land swap 2. Settlements in East Jerusalem
3. Settlements in East Jerusalem 3. State within the 1967 borders
Water 1. Sovereignty over the resources as an 1. Right to water as specified in
independent state; water security to the Oslo Accords
accommodate water growth and 2. Occupation and limitation on
industrialization movement make it difficult to
2. Increasing water scarcity and the need for manage water resources
agricultural water 3. Israelis are not transparent and
3. Palestinians are mismanaging their water are taking more water than
their fair share

I sorted and stored the articles in a Microsoft Access database under five categories,

which corresponded to the five core issues. While reviewing relevant articles I recorded

the following components: newspaper, genre, headline, author, publish date, and article

content. Each article was assigned to one category and was tagged with one frame as

explained above in Table 2. Additionally, when relevant the collected article was

assigned to one event, as outlined in Appendix A, and I assigned it an overall score of

58
positive, negative, or neutral. Table 3 bellow provides a snapshot of the database with all

components that were either collected from the article or assigned to the articles.

Table 3: Media Review Database

Collected Components
Assigned components Newspaper Genre Headline Author Publish Date Content
Core Issue (i.e. Jerusalem)
Frame (i.e. Undivided
Jerusalem)
Overall scoring (Positive,
Negative, Neutral)
Event (i.e. Annapolis
conference)
Link (URL)

The methodology of discourse analysis informed the research by studying the different

discourses presented in the media content, the nature of their production, and how they

are made meaningful (Phillips 2002, 3). This allowed the research to identify the deeper

layer of the conflict causes and conditions in relation to the five core issues. To explore

relationships between different discourses, I produced two documents for each category,

one included articles in Arabic from the Palestinian newspapers and the other contained

articles in English collected from the Israeli newspapers. Furthermore, each document

grouped the articles under one relevant frame of one core issue, and was analyzed

separately.

59
Limitations and Experiences in Implementation

The research faced limitations in three areas: researcher objectivity, limitations to the

theory-driven approach and access to interviewees. I have previously worked as a

journalist; this experience allowed me to bring my professional insights into the research

predicament and gave me a relatively clear and practical picture of the relationship

between media and conflict. However my bias as a journalist might have been

problematic for the research. My critical approach to media and its role in conflict

situations might have preempted the research from finding other narratives that are not

produced by the media, but yet influence the media-peace relationship. In other words,

my bias against media practices may have influenced the research. Another limitation is

in the fact that this case study approach was theory-driven. The subject nature of the

research mainly based on positioning theory might have produced too narrow

methodology. Analyzing the media-peace relationship in the context of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict made it difficult to separate the case from the theoretical concepts.

I noticed another limitation in my methodology while working in the field. The

main difficulty I faced was security challenges. On one hand, my movement within the

West Bank was physically limited due to checkpoints maintained by the Israeli Defense

Forces (IDF) between the West Bank cities. On the other hand, I was restrained from

freely traveling into Israel. As a Palestinian I needed a special permit from the Israeli

authorities to facilitate my entry into Israel. Although the permits I received allowed me

to cross through the main checkpoints into Israel, it did not allow me to stay overnight. I

was required to leave Israel and return to the West Bank by midnight. Traveling in and
60
out of Israel can be time consuming, especially as some trips lasted 4-5 hours due to

lengthy security measurements taken by the Israeli authorities at these major crossing

checkpoints. Consequently, I was limited in accommodating the tight schedules of Israeli

interviewees, and also I was not able to conduct more than one or two interviews a day.

61
 CHAPTER 4
PATTERN OF MEDIA PRACTICES IN
CONFLICT-AFFECTED SOCIETIES

“Any news that happens in Tel Aviv, Gaza or Ramallah is like a

coin with two faces. If there is a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv,
reporting will include stories about a young Palestinian man
carried out an attack and the victims are Israelis. If there is a
military attack in the West Bank or Gaza, the reporting will
include stories about the Palestinian victims and the Israeli army
as the attacker.”12

The speaker’s account of news reporting unravels essential dynamics of media

reporting in conflict-affected societies. Journalists follow patterns of reporting through

which they interpret what their stories about particular events should look like. Media

reporting in conflict situations is shaped by these narratives and storylines, which are a

result of complex episodes in the conflict.

In this chapter I describe storylines and narratives that I identified in my study of

the Israeli-Palestinian case. These storylines and narratives capture how journalists in

conflict situations understand their positions in the society. As I describe in Chapter 5,

journalists are mediators who handle information about the conflict’s dynamics and they

could play an influential role by offering alternative storylines for the groups involved in

a conflict, hoping to advance peacebuilding (Tan and Moghaddam 1999, 185). This

12
Interview PS-J9:1. Note: I have produced keys for each interview and included the codes in these
footnotes to archive the location of the original interview transcripts. These notes are intended for the
author’s record for future use and are designed to keep the interviewees’ identities confidential.
62
chapter explicitly focuses on understanding the dynamics of social episodes that interplay

in conflict settings, and how those dynamics shape the journalists’ acts of conveying

information to the public in the Israeli-Palestinian case. My research finds that journalists

in the Israeli-Palestinian case are subject to internal and external factors that limit their

abilities to contribute to peacebuilding and conflict resolution (see Table 4).

Table 4: Storylines and Journalists’ Limitations

External Factors Internal Factors
Forced self-positioning Intentional self-positioning
· Media and political decision-makers · Self-censorship
· Unclear political narratives · Politically-affiliated journalistic
· Weaker party dependent on the other practice
party · Perceptions of the other
· The issue of no-normalization

External factors suggest that journalists in this context are forced to position themselves

as being supportive of a political agenda to further their group’s national cause (Harré

and Langenhove 1999, 26). There are four components of external factors. First,

journalists heavily rely on political decision-makers to obtain insights into the conflict’s

dynamics. I find that during high tension, journalists are obligated to support their

political leaders’ agendas and expected to rally support around them. Second, political

decision-makers often communicate to the public unclear political narratives about the

conflict’s dynamics, which leads to inconsistent media discourse about the conflict’s

63
episodes. Consequently, the vague political narrative and lack of transparency by the

politicians undermine the journalists’ credibility and reliability. Third, external conditions

that force the journalists’ self-positioning include the issue of no-normalization. This

issue is exclusive to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and certain other conflicts involving

extreme power and status disparities. In this case study, the issue of no-normalization

means that the Palestinians are not permitted to normalize relations or directly

communicate with the Israelis. Palestinian journalists are forced to adopt the same

positions, which prevent any possible cooperation with the Israeli journalists. Fourth,

external factors that shape the journalists’ positions are characterized by power

asymmetry between the two conflicting parties, where the weaker party’s media depend

on the stronger party’s media.

I also found that there are internal factors that force the journalists to intentionally

position themselves as a form of expressing personal identity (Harré and Langenhove

1999, 24). There are three components of internal factors: First, journalists in this case

practice self-censorship by refraining from producing content or choosing stories that are

not consistent with their political ideologies. Second, journalists’ sympathies with the

ideologies and political views of one political party or another encourage politically-

affiliated journalistic practices. 13 Journalists are positioning themselves to show

13
The term of politically-affiliated journalistic practice, in the context of this study, is used to describe the
journalists’ tendency to produce content that ideologically acceptable by their political parties or by their
media institution. The Arabic term “Al eelam al hizby” is used in Arabic to explicitly describe “media
affiliated with political parties.” The Palestinian interviewees, however, used the term very loosely to
describe media that are officially affiliated with one political party or another. But also they used it to
describe journalists, who informally identify with ideological and political views of a political faction or
media institution.
64
commitment to the national cause to prove loyalty to their political party. Third, in the

case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I found that journalists’ perceptions of media from

the “other” side are perceived as untrustworthy and unreliable. These perceptions lead the

journalists, on both sides of a conflict, to be cautious about the source of information

coming from the other side.

External Factors

The evidence suggests that the Israeli and Palestinian media heavily rely on the political

decision-makers due to high demand by the public for information about the conflict’s

dynamics. In this context, the research finds that journalists are required to support the

politicians’ agendas. The relationship between the political elite and the media, in this

case, is mutually dependent. On one hand, decision-makers utilize the media to

communicate their policies and ideology to positively or negatively affect the conflict.

On the other hand, the media, which influence public opinion, use the information to

either challenge the decision-makers or to mobilize support around the politicians’

agendas.

Additionally, the analysis suggests that in a situation where the political narrative

given by the political elite is unclear and inconsistent, journalists as the mediators of this

narrative consequently produce an incoherent media discourse about the conflict, which

compromises their journalistic practices of reliability and credibility. Journalists, in this

situation, seek other means to embrace the ethics of journalism. In this context, I found

that in a conflict situation where power is highly asymmetrical, media from the weaker
65
party depend on media from the other party to examine and comprehend the conflict’s

dynamics. Nonetheless, this journalistic practice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is

rather limited, as the Palestinian journalists are not permitted to directly communicate

with Israeli media institutions due to the unwritten policy of no-normalization.

Media and Political Decision-Makers

My research found that journalists in conflict-torn societies are expected to support their

party’s political agendas, and as a result they emphasize patriotism and national identity.

During heightened tension in a conflict, people rally around their political leaders to seek

explanations and make sense of the conflict’s developments. This sense of we-ness

among the people forces journalists to position themselves to appear as patriotic and to

emphasize their role in the society as supportive of the collective. Additionally, the sense

of strong national identity influences the journalists’ perceptions of the conflict’s

predicaments, and during high peaks of the conflict they too are tempted to back their

government’s agendas. An Israeli journalist illustrated this point as saying: “If [a

journalist] writes something against the government, then he could be perceived as not a

traitor but someone who is not patriotic enough…In time of war you should be a

patriot.”14 In this context, journalists are careful of what to report on, as they fear that

they could be judged by their society, which in turn can compromise their balanced

media coverage of the conflict.

14
Interview IL-J4:2-3.
66
 However, according to a staff person from the Search for Common Ground

(SFCG)15 Jerusalem office, these journalistic practices are not necessarily unique to

conflict-affected societies: “Such a phenomenon is not exclusive to the Israeli-

Palestinian case. Following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, US journalists unsupportive

of the wars were demonized and looked at as anti-American.”16 Nonetheless, I found that

“demonizing” journalists in conflict-affected societies happens more often due to the

vicious cycles of violence. These episodes that force the positioning of the journalists as

“unpatriotic” or as “traitors” may prompt the journalists to compromise their work ethics

and integrity in the effort to show loyalty to their society.

Covering the “other” side requires demands from the conflict parties who are

consuming the media. These people need to be interested in acquiring knowledge about

the other side, but the media also need to attract their audience’s curiosity about the

“other.” The Israeli media in this regard are not supplying enough coverage about the

conflict with the Palestinians due to low demand by the Israelis. This naturally leads to

less reporting about the conflict’s dynamics and more exposure of statements and

narratives of the political leaders, which is highly demanded by the Israeli population. An

Israeli TV correspondent elaborated: “For the Israelis, whenever there is no violence you

don’t really hear from the media… [On one hand] the media is representing the people,

but [on the other hand] the media is [following] the general public. The problem is that

15
SFCG office in Jerusalem initiated a number of media projects in Israeli and Palestine, with cross-border
cooperation projects between the two communities.
16
Interview NGO1:13.
67
the public is not demanding what should be demanded.”17 The Israeli press has been

described as “hawkish,” in relation to domestic issues. Israeli media utilize very critical

approaches to covering internal affairs. They investigate and question the politicians’

intentions. However, when the issues are concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the

media tends to be less critical and more forgiving of the Israeli decision-makers.

Israeli media professionals blame this practice on the politicians who are not

concerned with the conflict’s dynamics on the other side of the Israeli border. An Israeli

official at the foreign ministry said: “Israeli politicians are mostly concerned with

domestic issues and do not even take into account our neighbors anymore…We don’t

have foreign policy, we have only domestic policy…and the media follows the same

policies.”18

I found that media professionals in Israel are highly skilled and are confident that

the media serve as watchdogs to monitor the politicians. Israeli journalists are well

trained in investigative journalism and have strong expertise in exposing political

corruption. Media in Israel have been the reason behind the resignation of high officials

in the Israeli government. The most recent example is former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud

Olmert who was dogged by allegations of corruption that were exposed by the media.

Despite dissimilarities in media coverage in Israel when it comes to domestic

affairs and coverage of the conflict with the Palestinians, my analysis did identify some

examples in which the Israeli media sharply criticized their government in the broader

17
Interview IL-J7:2.
18
Interview IL-O1:7-8.
68
context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, following the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese

war, the Israeli government formed an investigation committee,19 to probe the war’s

shortcomings. The committee harshly criticized top Israeli decision-makers for

mishandling the war. An Israeli journalist explained: “Following the [committee’s]

report, the Israeli media was campaigning against the government.”20 Nonetheless, within

this framework, media disapproval of the government’s performance mainly came as a

reaction to a major failure by the political entity in the context of the conflict.

According to agenda-setting theory, politicians constantly adjust their decision to

be positively reflected in the media so as to influence their followers (McCombs and

Shaw 1972, 167-87). The media-politician relationship is mutually dependant: media can

be used by the politicians to further their policies. However, these policies can also be

examined and criticized by the media. A long-time Israeli journalist with Yedioth

Ahronoth explained: “The politicians are making all the efforts to channel what they want

[to the public]…They are using television, newspapers, and holding press conferences…I

have to listen to them because I know that today they are talking and tomorrow they will

pay [for what they say], because afterward we [the journalists] are writing” about what

they say with critical approach.21 In this understanding, the flow of information from the

political leadership to the media goes in cycles. The politicians are putting statements out,

19
The Winograd Commission, the commission of inquiry into the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, released its
first report in April, 2007. The report sharply criticized key officials in the Israeli government. It
highlighted “severe failures” of “judgment, responsibility and prudence” by former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert. It also found him “too hasty in deciding to go to war, that he proceeded without a detailed military
plan, that his goals were unrealistic and that he failed to consult beyond an inner military circle of true
believers” (The New York Times 2007).
20
Interview IL-J4:3-4.
21
Interview IL-J8:5.
69
which are picked up by journalists who accordingly inform the public. However, the

journalists also can use the information to challenge the politicians.

The majority of the interviewed Israeli journalists agree that the politicians

package their information to influence public opinion with the help of the media. They

also believe that they know how to ferret truth from lies. However, this mutually

dependent relationship undermines chances for media to positively affect the conflict’s

dynamics. The frequency of journalists’ dependency on the political decision-makers in

conflict-affected societies is high. Decision-makers during conflict try to frame their

decisions in an effort to mobilize the people and rally their support behind their ideas and

actions. Politicians, in this regard, can frequently modify their decisions and their tactics

to what can be positively covered in the media. The media rely on the decision-makers to

find answers on how to deal with the issues at hand and become less interested in

challenging the politicians.

Unclear Political Narratives

The research found that the media on the “weaker” sides of the conflict, in this case the

Palestinian side, faces more severe challenges by the group’s political elite. Palestinian

journalists are often described as unreliable due to the politicians’ inconsistent narratives

about the conflict’s encounters and lack of transparency with the media. Framing issues

by the Palestinian decision-makers is not different from framing by the Israeli side.

However, deep political divisions among the Palestinians have created unclear and

chaotic political narratives, which have been mirrored in the Palestinian media. A leading
70
independent Palestinian organization, The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of

Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH),22 suggests that the political rift between

Fatah and Hamas, in addition to reflecting political disagreements among Palestinian

factions, distorted the political narratives communicated by decision-makers. This in turn

led to an unclear Palestinian media discourse that lacked credibility and reliability.

A MIFTAH staff member explained that the organization monitored media

reactions in the Palestinian press during the “Israeli unilateral disengagement plan,”

which led to the Israeli military withdrawal and settlement evacuation from Gaza in

August 2005.23 Israel decided to withdraw from Gaza without consulting or cooperating

with the Palestinian Authority. MIFTAH, as a media monitoring institution, adopted the

term “Israeli unilateral disengagement from Gaza” to describe the plan. The organization

monitored three Palestinian newspapers and found that the Palestinian politicians differed

in their understanding and definition of the plan. Some officials used the term “Gaza

liberation” to describe the plan, while others called it the “Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.”

According to a MIFTAH staff member, some Palestinian officials explained that the

Israeli withdrawal came as an outcome of the “Palestinian resistance,” while others said

the plan came as a result of “international pressure” on Israel. MIFTAH reached the

conclusion that “the lack of a clear political narrative and unified political speech among

the [Palestinian] political leadership directly affected the media,” as they reflected

22
MIFTAH mission is “to promote the principles of democracy and good governance within various
components of Palestinian society; it further seeks to engage local and international public opinion and
official circles on the Palestinian cause. To that end, MIFTAH adopts the mechanisms of an active and in-
depth dialogue, the free flow of information and ideas, as well as local and international networking”
(MIFTAH 2006)(MIFTAH 2006).
23
Interview PS-ORG1:3-4.
71
unclear narrative of issues other than the conflicts’ core issues (e.g., Jerusalem, water,

etc.).24 The incoherent political narratives with regard to the plan, as described by various

Palestinian politicians, were reflected in the Palestinian media, which in turn introduced

unclear and unreliable accounts of what the Palestinian leadership set out to do about the

plan.

Credibility and reliability of information are essential ingredients for producing

news. The goal of the journalist should be to inform the people about issues, but with

credibility. Credibility in journalistic practices requires verification of the story from

more than one source. However, in the Palestinian case, if a politician denied the story,

even though the journalist verified it from other sources, it would not find its way to the

public. A journalist working for Palestinian Al Ayyam newspaper explained: “Even if I

am 100% sure about the information I have, I still cannot publish it if the official denies

it…In the Israeli press journalist will risk it and publish it with no boundaries….if there

was a free press [in Palestine], you could risk it and publish it anyway.”25 In this

framework, most likely the decision-makers do not want such information to reach the

public. If the Palestinian journalist publishes a story that is denied by a politician, then

the journalist could be described as non-reliable.

In some cases where the politicians are not media savvy and are less experienced

in utilizing the press, they tend to be obscure in their messages that they communicate to

the media. As a result, the politicians appear to lack transparency, which negatively

24
Interview PS-ORG1:3-4.
25
Interview PS-J2:3.
72
affects the conflict. Following the 2009 Israeli war on Gaza, the United Nations Human

Rights Council established a fact-finding commission to investigate human rights

violations during the war (UN Human Rights Council 2009). The Palestinians were

expecting that the UN report to harshly criticize Israel for human rights violations and

war crimes committed in Gaza. The Palestinian media were ready to reap the benefits

coming out of the report, which ultimately could have referred the issue to the UN

Security Council and the International Criminal Court in The Hague. However, while the

report, known as the Goldstone Report, was scheduled for the UN Human Rights Council

vote on October 2, 2009, the Palestinians were shocked to learn that the long awaited

report was postponed for voting. Based on a request by the Palestinian Authority, the

report was postponed until the Council’s 13th session in March 2010. A Palestinian

journalist explained:

The Palestinian leadership lacked transparency and did not prepare the Palestinian

public, which was ready to condemn Israel for its wrongdoing in Gaza. The

politicians did not deal with the issue in a serious way [by communicating with

the public] through the media as they lack a clear mechanism on how to utilize the

media and how to deal with it.26

The ambiguous political narrative among the Palestinian politicians and their lack of

experience to address or deal with the media resulted in a Palestinian media that lacked a

comprehensive strategy and reliability. In this case, as I explain below, the Palestinian

26
Interview PS-J11:2.
73
media searched for other sources of information in the effort to gain the public’s trust,

even though the source of information could have been the “enemy.”

Weaker Party Dependent on the Stronger Party

The analysis suggested that in a conflict where power is asymmetrical, the media from

the weaker party, in this case the Palestinian side, depend on the media from the stronger

party, the Israeli side, to understand and explain their own accounts of the conflict’s

episodes. The Israeli media are influenced by Western models, and journalists identify

with Western media more than with media in the Middle East. The Israeli journalist will

most likely read the New York Times or La Figaro instead of the Egyptian Al Ahram or

Jordanian Al Rai to learn about regional issues. In contrast, the Palestinian journalists are

well acquainted with the Israeli media, as Palestinian newspapers, television and radio

stations on a daily basis translate and feature headlines, articles and opinion pieces from

the Israeli media. The translated materials, however, are mostly critical of Israeli policies

related to the conflict and mainly are featured in the Palestinian media, because they

probably further or benefit the Palestinian cause. Examples of the translated materials are

articles protesting the construction of settlements in the West Bank or articles that are

critical of Israel’s military operations in the West Bank or Gaza.

There were similar initiatives of translated articles from the Palestinian side that

were tested by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The newspaper translated into Hebrew and

published one or two commentaries from the Palestinian press per week. An Israeli

74
interviewee explained that the initiative lasted for two years and was dropped by the

newspaper due to lack of demand by the Israeli readers.

The Palestinians’ interest in translating stories from the Israeli media is not

necessarily a reflection of Palestinian public demand. The media is careful in selecting

stories that are relevant to the Palestinian cause and are not intended for “understanding

the enemy.” An Israeli journalist whose articles are regularly translated into Arabic and

published in the Palestinian press explained:

[The translated articles] can be much more extreme than the Palestinians’

opinions…We write what we think, but not what we think is good [or bad] for the

Palestinians. The Palestinians translate articles from the Israeli media not for the

purpose of understand the Israeli people or what is happening on the other side.”27

However, the Palestinians use the translated articles as a tool to politically motivate their

readers and to convince them that “even the Israelis think like us. Even the Israelis want

to get out of the West Bank,” other Israeli journalists explained.28 Supporters of this

journalistic practice suggest that featuring Israeli content in the Palestinian media allows

the Palestinians to learn about the Israeli society and to become more familiar with trends

of media reporting in Israel. Nevertheless, some Palestinians cautioned against this

journalistic practice.

Palestinian journalists strongly believe that the Israeli media operate according to

a politically motivated agenda. A Palestinian correspondent explained: “What is more

27
Interview IL-J8:15.
28
Interview IL-J8:15.
75
dangerous is that Israeli media and political decision-makers are aware of this fact [that

the Palestinian media are featuring translated Israeli content], and are able to influence

the Palestinian decision-makers, the media and the Palestinian reader.”29 Journalists who

support this argument explain that media on both sides have become an essential tool to

influence public opinion of the opposing side.

A Palestinian journalist gave an account of how the Israeli media influences

Palestinian decision-makers. He explained that during a 2009 visit to the West Bank by

US peace envoy George Mitchell, a former Palestinian minister announced: “Despair and

frustration is filling the hearts and minds of the Palestinian Authority because there is a

feeling that the Americans have let the Palestinian Authority down on the issue of

settlement freeze.” The journalist explained that the Palestinian minister heavily relied on

the Israeli media to obtain information about American plans for the region. According to

the journalist, the Israeli media at that time was very organized and followed a clear

agenda: “First it launched a sweeping attack against US President Barack Obama. And

second, the media were united behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was

portrayed as tougher and as stronger than President Obama.”30 The message sent by the

Israeli media was that Israel is winning on the issue of freezing settlement construction.

Those who oppose featuring Israeli media content in the Palestinian media argue that the

materials affect the Palestinian readers’ perceptions and understanding of the disputed

issue, as if they would comprehend the conflict through an Israeli political framework.

29
Interview PS-J3:2.
30
Interview PS-J3: 2.
76
 Both of the above contradictory opinions about featuring news from the Israeli

media in the Palestinian media have their own merit. However, even though the

Palestinian media can benefit from this journalistic practice, the Palestinian media are

limited in terms of how far they can go to cooperate with the Israeli media.

The Issue of No-normalization

The no-normalization rule is an unwritten policy on the Palestinian side and is defined as

“the process of building open and reciprocal relations with Israel in all fields, including

the political economic, social, cultural, educational, legal, and security fields” (Salem

2005). The no-normalization policy forbids any form of communication with Israelis,

including cooperation with NGOs, academic institutions and the media establishment.

Palestinians generally believe that the no-normalization policy can be used as a

bargaining chip during negotiations with Israel. 31

My analysis found that the issue of no-normalization with Israel has prevented the

Palestinian journalists from cooperating with their Israeli counterparts, in turn

undermining the possibility of a media contribution to peacebuilding. A monthly

newspaper called Al Hall, issued by the Bir Zeit University Media Centre, was one of the

first Palestinian newspapers that featured original articles written by Israeli journalists,

such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hiss. But according to one of the newspaper’s staff

31
During the summer of 2009 I participated in a meeting held in Jerusalem between Palestinian and Israeli
peace activists. The issue of no-normalization was high on the agenda. During the meetings it became
evident to me that the Israeli participants were unclear on how the policy would actually hurt the Israelis.
The Palestinians consider the no-normalization rule as a means for depriving Israelis of the benefit of direct
communication with Palestinian society.
77
members, this experience was risky for the newspaper; at any point the newspaper could

have been accused of normalizing with the Israelis.32 The staff member elaborated that

some Palestinian journalists criticized the newspaper, explaining that the Palestinian

media should not serve as a platform for the Israelis to express their opinions even though

journalists like Levy and Hiss are known for their sympathy toward the Palestinians.

However, Palestinian journalists are caught in the middle between the no-normalization

policy and their moral duty to push the boundaries within Palestinian society, which

could include explaining that the no-normalization policy may hurt the Palestinian cause.

A number of Palestinian journalists that I interviewed expressed concern that the

no-normalization policy toward Israel is most threatening on a grass-roots level. In this

regard, Palestinian pro-peace organizations, which frequently cooperate with Israeli pro-

peace organizations, are accused of normalizing relations with the Israelis. As a result,

Palestinian journalists are careful not to work with these organizations in an effort to

protect their reputations.

Other Palestinian journalists are convinced that the issue of no-normalization is an

obstacle to the ultimate Palestinian objective to achieve an independent state. This

opposing argument has encouraged liberal Palestinian journalists to call for the expansion

of the debate and rethinking of the concept of no-normalization. A prominent Palestinian

writer criticized the no-normalization policy, as he explained:

I am convinced that achieving a Palestinian state requires a joint struggle with the

Israelis and the Palestinians side-by-side […]. For me the most important

32
Interview PS-J10:3.
78
 elements of power are international legitimacy, human rights, respect for historic

cities and non-discrimination against women. If an Israeli tells me ‘I am with you’

then those worldviews are not related only to the Palestinian people alone, but the

whole world including Israel. 33

Liberal Palestinian journalists deal with the issue of no-normalization from an intellectual

perspective, seeking to discredit it as a weak and destructive policy. The no-

normalization rule is a major obstacle to Palestinian journalists’, as it limits potential for

cooperation and learning from the Israeli media experience and practices. The policy also

hinders the media’s perceptions of peace organizations, which can potentially help to

advance conflict resolution.

Internal Factors

My analysis found that journalists working in this particular conflict context intentionally

position themselves to appear loyal to the national cause as a form of expressing personal

identity. They support the views offered by the political mainstream by reporting those

views. My analysis of internal factors suggests that journalists practice self-censorship on

the content they produce in an effort to avoid accusations of being unpatriotic or

unfaithful to the national cause. Consequently, journalists deliberately affiliate

themselves with political parties and media institutions that represent their ideologies and

political views. I use the term “politically-affiliated journalistic practice” in this

dissertation to describe the way in which journalists intentionally subscribe to a political

33
Interview PS-J8.
79
party or a media institution to advance a specific political agenda. Politically-affiliated

media, however, are found in this analysis to be a major challenge to freedom of

expression and media independence. Journalistic practices, including self-censorship and

politically-affiliated media, are fertile soil for breeding misconceptions about the “other.”

My research found that journalists from the two polarized sides (Israeli and Palestinian)

have perceived the media of the opposing side as untrustworthy and purposefully trying

to advance a political agenda in an attempt to undermine their opponents.

Self-censorship

I found that journalists in these particular conflict-affected societies, in Israel and the

West Bank, can consciously self-censor the content they produce. In conflict situations

journalists often tend to censor themselves “because they expect to be censored, because

they or their editors decide that it is not in the ‘national interest’ to publish [or] because

of their commitment to a cause” (Kevin Williams 1992, 118). Journalists in conflict are

aware of the sensitive role the media can play in affecting the parties’ perceptions of the

disputed issues. They are able to underscore alternatives for conflict de-escalation by

clarifying the underlying causes and conditions of the conflict. Journalists should rely on

their training and work ethics in efforts not to censor information about the conflict.

Media practitioners in conflict situations often force themselves to hold back

information or choose not to write about particular events in an effort to not overstep the

social and political boundaries of their parties. Additionally, in some cases they practice

self-censorship because they fear for their wellbeing. A former Palestinian Authority
80
official explained: “Palestinian newspapers mostly lack professional journalism and are

not independent. Press [in Palestine] is often driven or financed by the government.

Newspapers are headed by people who belong to a political party, especially the ruling

party.”34 In this context, journalists intentionally position themselves to produce content

aligned with the ideologies and political agendas of their media institution or political

faction. Consequently, as explained by the former Palestinian official: “This comes at the

expense of the journalists’ professional practices.”35 Palestinian journalists are cautious

not to produce content that falls outside of their parties’ political mainstream and cultural

boundaries.

The majority of the interviewed Palestinian journalists agree that the practice of

self-censorship has restricted their choice of stories to write about. A long-time

Palestinian journalist elaborated:

Reporting about the conflict’s politics and dynamics overshadows media coverage

about social issues such as women’s empowerment, government corruption and

sexual liberation. Journalists, [choose to cover the politics and] ignore social and

cultural issues. Therefore media does not contribute to social development and

community effectiveness to enhance the peoples’ intellectual capacity. 36

In this framework, Palestinian journalists consider disagreements and challenges to the

Israeli occupation as the guide to what they can or cannot cover. Ending the occupation is

the main unifying aspect across the Palestinian society from the grassroots to official

34
Interview PS-O1:5.
35
Interview PS-O1:5.
36
Interview PS-J7:2.
81
level. In my research I found that self-censorship is very evident when discussing the

core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders

and water). The narrative about these issues is unified among politicians and journalists

alike. For instance, on the issue of Jerusalem if a journalist adopts a narrative different

from the general Palestinian demand for a “state with East Jerusalem as the capital,” then

he or she could be described as a “traitor.”

Self-censorship practices can lead to a weak and dependent media, which

undermine the foundation of good journalistic practices. Members of the Palestinian press

blame the weakness of the Palestinian media on the notion that media institutions are not

financially independent due to a frail economy and dependency on donor countries. They

argue that newspapers are not financially independent due to low advertising demand.

The issue of dependent journalism is associated with a weak economy and a weak private

sector to the extent that newspapers are not able to finance themselves through

advertising. A Palestinian interviewee elaborated: “To help media institutions to become

financially independent, which [could] lead to professional and political independence,

they need to be self-sufficient through advertising and other independent income.”37

Financial independence of the Palestinian media could be a lasting dilemma, as this

problem is associated with the absences of a final status agreement which could allow

economic development in Palestine.

The practice of self-censorship by Israeli journalists did not specifically come up

in my interviews. However, I speculate that Israeli journalists practice self-censorship

37
Interview PS-O1:5-6.
82
due to rigorous Israeli military censorship on content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Military censorship in Israel has been in effect since the creation of Israel, and it

“monitors, prior to publication, media content pertaining to the security of the state as

well as any additional issues that the government has decided are sensitive”(Nossek and

Limor 2001, 2). According to this perspective, Israeli journalists may practice self-

censorship knowing that the content they produce is also subject to a military censorship.

Additionally, Israeli journalists rely heavily on information channeled by the

Israeli military establishment. In Israel, information regarding the conflict is streamed

through a military public affairs office. Israeli media professionals explained that the

process of information flow from the military to the journalists restricts the information

that the journalists receive. Israeli correspondents reporting on the conflict are considered

military correspondents and therefore primarily cover the conflict from a military

perspective. A formal Israeli correspondent, who covered the events of the first

Palestinian Intifada, elaborated:

All [Israeli] journalists who report on the military issues have been part of the

military system before…So when there is dramatic situation like war, the feeling

and the mentality of siege [Israel is being surrounded by Arabs], in addition to the

fact that everybody has relatives in the army, [all affect the journalists’] feeling

that we are unified under the same destiny. 38

Another Israeli interviewee who worked as a news editor at Haaretz newspaper

explained: “Israeli citizens receive their information about Palestine by Israeli military

38
Interview IL-ORG1:8.
83
correspondent or experts on Arab affairs...Very little information are independently

obtained…I think the average Israeli newspaper give only 5% credibility to information

that is obtained from Palestinian sources and probably Israeli military sources receive

95% credibility.”39 The media see the conflict through the eyes of the military. The strong

military influence over information that is channeled to the Israeli journalists, combined

with the Israeli military culture, indirectly affects the journalists’ choices in reporting.

Debates about self-censorship include the argument that it is not exclusively

practiced in conflict-affected societies. Supporters of this notion argue that, most likely,

self-censorship is also practiced in conflict-free Western societies where media are

commercially driven. In this understanding, media outlets limit the journalists’ choice of

stories, as these stories should not interfere with the institution’s revenue stream. An

Israeli journalist argued:

Self-censorship is found among journalists in general as they sit down to write a

story. He or she must decide and choose what goes in and what goes out of the

story. There are several different considerations that go through the journalist’s

mind when thinking about the story. Some may argue that the same think happens

everywhere in the world in any media institution.”40

However, conflict situations are abnormal, and journalists in this context have more

demands put upon them than journalists in conflict-free societies. Reporting on conflict

dynamics is much more frequent and has direct impacts on the audience. The media

39
Interview IL-J5:4.
40
Interview IL-J3:6.
84
effect is magnified with the conflict’s dynamics and daily occurrences. Thus self-

censorship is also more frequently practiced in conflict-affected societies, which

undermines the journalists’ integrity and prevents them from playing a more constructive

role in the society.

Politically-Affiliated Journalistic Practices

This analysis found that the media in Palestine are clearly divided along political lines,

were media institutions are sympathetic to the ideologies and political views of one

political party or another. Politically-affiliated journalistic practices are common among

Palestinian journalists. Following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 the

Palestinians were allowed to establish media institutions. The surge in media institutions,

following the peace agreement, allowed the emergence of new types of journalistic

practice: Journalists used their media outlets as a platform to convey the political

narratives and views of their parties. Until the eruption of the second Intifada in 2000, the

media mainly fulfilled the demand of streaming detailed information about the peace

process. The Palestinian Authority’s political agenda was to move forward the peace

process, and the media was used as a catalyst to fulfill this requirement. During the

second Intifada the Palestinian media became heavily censored by the Palestinian

Authority. Journalists were judged for expressing views outside of their political parties’

views. As a result they intentionally affiliated themselves with political factions, which

contributed to the deterioration of journalistic professionalism and freedom of expression.

85
 The major political standoff between the two main Palestinian factions – Hamas

and Fatah – caused a rift in the Palestinian media and encouraged the use of politically-

affiliated journalistic practices. For example, Al Aqsa Television, broadcasting from

Gaza, is considered Hamas’s mouthpiece. Al Hayat Al Jadidah newspaper and the

Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, which are launched from the West Bank, are

media institutions affiliated with the Palestinian Authority. “Independent” media in the

West Bank, such as Al Ayyam newspaper, are generally very loyal or close to the

Palestinian Authority. Interestingly, as a way of positioning, in the West Bank the term –

“politically-affiliated media” is used by journalists to describe media institutions

associated with Hamas.

Hamas’ Al Aqsa TV is widely watched by Palestinians in the West Bank and

Gaza. Hamas-run media have been described as professional and effective. A staff

member from a Palestinian NGO explained: “Professional and well organized Hamas

media outlets are a reflection of Hamas leadership, which has a unified political narrative

with a consistent message. Reports published by Hamas media are more effective with

wider reach than reports published by the Palestinian Authority media.”41 As an example,

in November 2009 Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked the UN to postpone

voting on the Goldstone Report. Hamas-affiliated media accused Abbas of being a

“traitor,” while at the same time the Hamas media outlets justified their leadership’s

decision not to finalize a reconciliation deal with Fatah. A Palestinian journalist

elaborated on this example when he said: “Hamas’ politicians used the political event and

41
Interview PS-ORG1:2.
86
utilized the media as a tool in order not to sign the reconciliation agreement with Fatah,”

which was scheduled to be signed by both parties during the same week.42

In these circumstances, when the media discourse is aligned with the political

discourse, media tend to focus their coverage on the mainstream political narrative.

Meanwhile, they may ignore the opposition, which for example was an essential factor

that caused the major Palestinian party Fatah to lose the 2006 legislative elections. A

Palestinian journalist explained that the Palestinian mainstream media was busy covering

the political “stars” such as Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian Authority figures,

while it ignored Hamas candidates. 43 Hamas leaders were well known for the

Palestinians since Hamas was strong on a grassroots level and very close to the

Palestinian public.

Palestinian journalists don’t deny the existence of politically-affiliated

journalistic practices. However, they also explain that the Palestinian media did not yet

reach a level of independence sufficient to assume the role of being a watchdog of the

politicians instead of supporting their political agendas. An Israeli expert on the

Palestinian issues explained: “I can compare the Palestinian media to the Israeli media

during the British Mandate. To criticize the [Israeli] leadership [at that time] it meant to

be a traitor. So the Palestinian media is on the same level now. They have to support the

national effort to reach an independent state, to be a nation, and to get independency.”44

42
Interview PS-J6:2.
43
Interview PS-J7:3.
44
Interview IL-ORG1:11.
87
The national cause becomes the focus of the journalists, which undermine the journalists’

values and ethics “in the name of the cause.”

Politically-affiliated media practices can be regarded as another form of self-

censorship practice. For example, politically-affiliated journalistic practices are an

obstacle to freedom of expression and media independence in Palestine. Journalists loyal

to their parties feel obligated to protect their parties’ political interests at the expense of

their journalistic integrity. A Palestinian journalist explained that during the Oslo peace

process from 1993 to 1999 he received information that, according to him, could have

harmed the national cause or benefited Hamas. He added: “At some points of that period,

I believed that if I publish some of this information, it might have helped other parties

that are against the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas…I practiced self-censorship and

chose not to publish some of this information because I did not want to benefit Hamas’

interests.”45 Self-censorship is not only a result of political, social and cultural

boundaries, but it is also the journalists’ understanding of his own boundaries.

In the context of the Israeli media, the analysis found that journalistic practice

of politically-affiliated media is less prominent. The political structure in Israel, with a

multiparty system, is a reflection of wide disagreement over political issues within the

Israeli society. However, Israelis do not disagree over the future of their country as a

Jewish State. An Israeli journalist explained:

[Israel] is a democracy and there are so many [political parties] here which shows

that we have a lot of disagreements…because we don’t have consensus over all

45
Interview PS-J3:1.
88
 political issues [concerning the conflict] … [But] everybody here is going to fight

for the existence of this country as a Jewish State... that is the only thing that we

have consensus over.”46

The strength of the Jewish identity in Israel stems from the fact that Israel’s population is

comprised of people of multiple backgrounds who are still united behind one cause: to

maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. Consequently, the media in Israel are a reflection of

the wide spectrum of political views among the public, which explains the political

diversity in the media. In this regard an Arab-Israeli journalist explained: “For example

in an Israeli family you will find the father leaning toward the extreme right, and he

would be reading Maariv. The mother might be leaning toward the center-right and she

would read Yediot Ahronot, while the sun might be leaning toward the left and he would

read Haaretz.”47 The diversity of the Israeli media along with the wide spectrum of

political views presents a challenge to politically-affiliated journalistic practices in Israel.

The above analysis of politically-affiliated media does not necessarily mean that

it is contrary to the conventional concept of “objective” and “impartial” journalistic

practices. Schudson (2001) uses the term of partisan journalism to describe journalistic

practices similar to those discussed above and argues that partisan journalists, just like

objective journalists, “reject inaccuracy, lying, and misinformation, but partisan

journalists do not hesitate to present information from the perspective of a particular

party or faction” (Schudson 2001, 165). Journalists, who are affiliated with a political

46
Interview IL-J8:4.
47
Interview PS-J2:9.
89
party, are not necessarily seeking to avoid objectivity. Nonetheless, their understanding

of being objective falls within the boundaries of their political and ideological views.

Perceptions of the other

My findings reinforce the generally known fact that there is great mistrust between the

Israeli and Palestinian media due to the perception that the media of the opposing side

serve a political agenda. Israeli journalists trust their media and believe that the media are

serving democracy in a free society. They are not convinced, however, that the media in

Palestine serve the same purpose. An Israeli correspondent, for example, explained that

Israeli journalists question the reliability of the Palestinian media and they don’t trust it.48

Media professionals in Israel consider the Palestinian media as a means for spreading

propaganda of the Palestinian politicians.

Israeli journalists who cover the conflicts have the perception that Palestinian

politicians don’t understand how media function in Israel and don’t understand the Israeli

audience. An Israeli correspondent who covers news from the Palestinian Territories for a

major Israeli newspaper claimed: “[The Palestinian politicians] don’t think it is important

to reach the Israeli public opinion, and maybe they are right, I don’t think that the Israeli

public is willing to hear them now.”49 Similarly, the Palestinian journalists deem the

Israeli media as being guided by the political entity and serve a political agenda.50 The

48
Interview IL-J3:5.
49
Interview IL-J1:8.
50
Interview PS-J1:1.
90
Palestinian journalists don’t trust the Israeli media coverage, especially when reporting is

about Israeli military operations in Palestine.

Not only is collecting information from hostile territories considered risky for any

journalist, but the information may also lack reliability. Israeli correspondents covering

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have more access to Palestinian sources than their

Palestinian counterparts have access to Israeli sources. These Israeli correspondents

receive their firsthand information from Palestinian journalists and officials, but they are

cautious of the source. They fear that journalists on the other side might feed them false

information to support Palestinian propaganda. They are also worried that Palestinians

might deliberately deliver wrong information to embarrass the Israeli news establishment.

Other reasons stem from preconceived notions about one another. An Israeli journalist

explained: “The Palestinians don’t really take responsibility… [Even if] you are talking

about the conflict between Hamas and Fatah, they blame Israel.”51 Israeli journalists

perceive the Palestinians as being “complainers” and playing the role of “victims,” while

also “blaming” all their problems on the occupation.

As explained above, journalism in Israel follows Western model of operation,

where each journalist is specialized in one field, such as diplomatic, political, military or

international affairs. Political and diplomatic correspondents rely heavily on Israeli

military and political sources, whereas the Palestinian and Arab affairs reporters seek

information directly from their Palestinian sources. Nonetheless, Israeli journalists

reporting on the conflict are aware of their limitations. Although journalists who have

51
Interview IL-J7:8.
91
direct access to Palestinian sources might be confident about their information, they still

need to convince their editors of the reliability of their sources and information. An Arab

affairs journalist working for an Israeli newspaper clarified:

Let’s not be naïve. Of course the editors have the most crucial part. It is crucial

because I can send the editor 500 words with the Palestinian point of view. They

will take 50 words and the entire article will be based on the Israeli [military]

source. So, yeah, of course the Israeli media tend to trust the Israeli side more,

[for example when reporting is about policies related to the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict].52

The Palestinian journalists often consider the news coming from the Israeli press as

negative; however they give credit to the Israeli media for being reliable and professional

when the news does not directly concern the conflict. In this regard, a Palestinian

journalist explained, the Israeli media are strong and work as a watchdog on behalf of

Israeli society. Journalists often conduct “investigations about banks and government

corruption, journalists write about failure or corruption of the Prime Minister53, which

makes the media function in a constructive way.”54 However, the Palestinian journalists

consider Israeli news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as skewed and mostly

inaccurate. For example, a Palestinian journalist said that when he reads articles in the

Israeli press about specific issues in the conflict he searches for clues to uncover the

Israeli politicians’ agendas. He explained in an interview: “If the Israeli press starts

52
Interview IL-J1:5-6.
53
While I was conducting the research, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was accused of corruption,
and the Israeli media played a pivotal role in uncovering those charges.
54
Interview PS-J4:7.
92
writing about Abu Alaa55, then we can predict that the Israelis are not satisfied with Abu

Alaa in the peace negotiation, and that the Israeli politicians are leaking information to

the Israeli press to undermine him as a senior Palestinian negotiator.”56 The Palestinian

journalists believe that the Israeli media are purposefully advancing a political agenda.

Conclusion

In this chapter I have described the external and internal factors that influence the

journalists’ practices in conflict situations, specifically analyzing my findings from the

Israeli-Palestinian case. The analysis of these factors uncovers certain narratives and

storylines through which journalists comprehend their positions in their conflict-affected

society. The study of the external factors found that journalists are forced to position

themselves as part of the political mainstream in an effort to be accepted by their group

(colleagues, media consumers, politicians with whom they sympathize). In this case,

journalists feel obligated to support their parties’ political agendas. Although, journalists

tend to support their leaders during the conflict’s high peaks, they often fall victim to the

politicians’ unclear political narratives of the conflict’s dynamics. Accordingly,

journalists lack credibility and reliability as they transmit a similarly inconsistent political

narrative to the public.

In conflict situations where power distribution between the parties is unequal,

journalists from the weaker party tend to partially depend on the media from the other

55
Abu Alaa was a Palestinian senior negotiator, and was implicated in a scandal of selling Egyptian cement
to Israel for use in building the separation wall. Many Palestinians believe that the scandal was made up by
Israeli politicians to undermine Abu Alaa as a key Palestinian negotiator.
56
Interview PS-J4:8.
93
side for information about political episodes between their parties. This is the case with

the Palestinian media in the West Bank, which is highly dependent on the Israeli media

for certain information. This system however is not really effective because media

cooperation is limited. Palestinian journalists are constrained when it comes to

cooperating with the Israeli media establishment, as they fear that they could be accused

of normalizing relations with the Israelis.

My analysis of internal factors shows that journalists intentionally position

themselves by subscribing to an ideology and political view in order to express their

identity. They practice self-censorship with regard to the content they produce, and they

shape their story choices according to their group’s political, cultural and social norms.

Self-censorship limits journalists from furthering intellectual development and critical

thinking in their societies, as it prevents them from promoting alternative storylines that

could positively affect the conflict. Moreover, self-censorship supports a media system

that is affiliated with political parties and ideologies. Journalists in conflict identify with

political parties or media institutions through which they can express their political

views. These journalistic practices regrettably influence the journalists’ perceptions of the

other party, which in turn undermine opportunities for conflict resolution.

The above analysis was a necessary step to obtain an account of how journalists

understand their rights, duties, and obligations during an active conflict. In the next

chapter I deconstruct the concepts of impartiality and objectivity in journalism in an

effort to shed light on the journalists’ comprehension of their positions as mediators in

conflict settings.
94
 CHAPTER 5
JOURNALISTS AND THEIR POSITIONS IN CONFLICT

“Professional journalists do not set out to reduce conflict. They

seek to present accurate and impartial news. But it is often through
good reporting that conflict is reduced.” Ross Howard

This chapter puts forward an elaborative discussion of the journalists’

understanding of their “positions” vis-à-vis their “role” in conflict-affected societies. The

analysis deconstructs one of the most rigid concepts of journalism, the role of journalists

as impartial and objective in their communities, in an effort to advance a more

constructive analysis about the journalists’ position in the society. My analysis finds that

emphasizing the traditional concept of a journalist’s “role” as being objective and

impartial is unhelpful in constructing a positive media role in peacebuilding.

In this research I asked media practitioners to share their understanding of their

roles as members of their societies. My analysis found that journalists in this case

associated their professional role with notions of objectivity and impartiality, and that in

their professional work they struggled to stay objective and impartial in order to give

credibility to their work. In contrast, I probed the journalists’ understanding of their

positions (identified as a cluster of rights and duties) in their societies and my

investigation yielded more in-depth analysis about how journalists can contribute to

peacebuilding. Instead of focusing on what is the role of journalists (e.g., what is their

95
“job”) in the society, I found that when discussing the journalists’ positions they were

predisposed to explain the narratives surrounding their rights and duties in their societies.

This allowed a more thorough discussion beyond journalism as a “job” and presented

opportunities for journalists to regard themselves as mediators in their societies.

Journalists emphasize their role in society as being objective and impartial in

conveying information to the public. Impartiality and objectivity are key components of

journalistic ethics, and journalists claim objectivity and impartiality in the effort to

maintain integrity in their work and to avoid criticism (Tuchman 1972, 660-61). Hackett

(1984) observes traditional studies of bias and objectivity in journalism and finds that

they collectively assume that:

The ideal of objectivity suggest that facts can be separated from opinion or value

judgment, and that journalists can stand apart from the real-world events whose

truth or meanings they transfer to the news audience by means of neutral language

and competent reporting techniques (Hackett 1984, 232).

Journalists believe that they require objectivity and impartiality to fulfill their role in the

societies. However, my research found that journalists faced difficulties in maintaining

impartiality and objectivity in conflict situations due to their own bias - associated with

narratives about the conflict’s dynamics and the conflict’s core issues.

My research was based on the assumption that roles are static, long lasting, and

associated with the member’s official or unofficial actions throughout their lives (Harré

and Moghaddam 2003, 127). Roles describe the action of members of a society in the

span of their lives and disregard the notion that actions are unpredictable and that they
96
can be modified according to the circumstances of a conflict’s events. To encourage

opportunities for the media’s contribution to peacebuilding, this analysis examines the

journalists’ assumptions of their positions in conflict-affected societies, as positions are

situational and take into consideration the environment and conditions in which someone

is being “impartial,” “objective” or “biased”.

Roles and the Dilemma of Impartiality and Objectivity

An Israeli journalist defined objectivity as conveying information to the public as

comprehensively as possible, without allowing the journalists’ ideology and views to

dictate their choice of materials and reporting.57 Impartiality in journalism has been noted

as a fundamental requirement for the media in order to enable the production of objective

reporting; the most essential function of the media is to report, analyze and evaluate

events that directly affect members of the society (Kieran 1998, 23). For instance, the

media informs us about political issues, natural disasters, government corruption, and

most relevant to this paper, in conflict situations the media become the main sources of

information about the conflict’s current predicaments. In this context, the news media

fulfill the function of being the unofficial fourth estate (Kieran 1998, 23), which requires

them to follow an impartial approach in an effort to maintain the public’s trust and

uphold credibility.

Although most of the Palestinian and Israeli interviewees agreed that objectivity

and impartiality are necessary qualities in journalism, they also argued that journalists in

57
Interview IL-J7:4.
97
conflict situations are not able to be objective and impartial. I found that in this case

journalists’ objectivity and impartiality are frequently challenged, as journalists struggle

to accept or reject their parties’ political narrative. A 2008 report by The Center for the

Protection of Democracy in Israel (KESHEV)58 entitled The Israeli Media and the War in

Gaza noted:

The Israeli media’s coverage of the first days of the fighting [The 2009 Israeli war

in Gaza] were characterized by feelings of self-righteousness and a sense of

catharsis following what was felt to be undue restraint in the face of attacks by the

enemy, along with support for the military action and few expressions of

criticism” (KESHEV 2009).

Paradoxically, impartiality and objectivity, essential requirements for journalists to

maintain their role in the society, are quickly compromised in the Israeli-Palestinian case

when the conflict is at high peaks of tension. 59

While Israeli and Palestinian media practitioners agreed that they are not able to

maintain absolute objectivity, both sides deferred in defining what are the qualities that

should govern the integrity of journalism in order to keep reporting balanced. An Israeli

journalist suggested seeking “fair journalism” instead of objective journalism would be

the ideal option. He defined “fair journalism” as reporting on events despite their

locations, whether in Palestine or in Israel, and despite information on which party the

58
KESHEV is a civic organization that researches and gathers information on threats to democracy,
ideologically based incitement and violence, and the conduct of the media in Israel.
59
The Israeli-Palestinian conflicts witnessed several cycles of violence such as the first and the second
Palestinian Intifadas, during which media practitioners often undermined journalism qualities such as
objectivity and impartiality.
98
news would affect.60 The journalist gave an example of “fair journalism” which took

place during the 2006 Israeli Summer Rains Operation61 in Gaza. The Israeli military

operation left a high number of Palestinian casualties. The journalist at that time was

head of the news department at a prominent Israeli newspaper, and he decided to include

the number of Palestinians killed as a major front-page headline for three consecutive

days. According to him, other Israeli newspapers focused their reporting on the daily

events of the military operation.

In her comments on the Israeli operation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at

that time reaffirmed that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” But Secretary Rice did not

elaborate further on her support, as she otherwise did by ‘exaggerating the American

stance toward Israel.’ According to the journalist, hours after Secretary Rice’s statement,

the Israeli operation in Gaza ended. The correspondent who covered the operation in the

first place called the US embassy in Tel Aviv to ask if the US helped stop the operation.

The American Embassy told the reporter that they had not stopped the operation, but

rather it was his newspaper that had stopped it because the newspaper decided to headline

the Palestinian casualties.62 The above example not only describes how media

practitioners can be fair in their reporting, but also demonstrates how journalism can

60
Interview IL-J5:7.
61
On June 27, 2006, less than a year after the Israel withdrawal from Gaza, Israel launched a large scale
military operation on the Coastal Strip to pressure Hamas into freeing Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who
was abducted by Hamas two days earlier. The number of Palestinian causalities exceeded 400 and the
infrastructure of Gaza suffered a total destruction. Israel was not able to free Shalit and suffered seven
casualties.
62
Interview IL-J5:7-8.
99
contribute to stopping violence through balanced reporting of events or impacts on both

sides of the conflict.

The Palestinian journalists I interviewed also agreed that total objectivity and

impartiality in media coverage are unattainable, but they argued that objectivity and

impartiality are requirements for the integrity of the media profession as a whole. A

Palestinian journalist elaborated: “To be objective is to be objective in your profession, to

show all opinions and to give all relevant details.”63 Journalists believe that news

coverage should be neutral and objective, but my analysis shows that objectivity and

impartiality are strongly challenged in conflict due to the existing biases coming from the

journalists, in addition to biases emerging from the conflict’s underlying realities, which

is rooted in the media outlets.

Media Bias

My analysis finds that journalists in conflict situations are not aware of bias coming from

narratives and storylines that are part of the conflict’s dynamics. Protracted conflicts,

such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, produce cycles of violence. Each time, the

conflict’s cycle generates new causes and conditions for another dispute (Kriesberg 1998,

349). Following my analysis of media content on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict (see Chapter 7), I found that the media on both sides pressed hard their own

narratives about each particular core issue. The media’s discourse on each side was a

product of existing narratives in the conflict that took shape throughout the history of the

63
Interview PS-J2:5.
100
conflict and was influenced by the conflict’s dynamics. This type of bias is very complex

to resolve and can be hard to control because it is often institutionalized within the media

establishment.

On the contrary, journalistic bias that comes from the journalists’ understanding

of worldviews and ideologies can, to a large extent, be tuned out by those journalists.

Bennett (2002) explains that journalists’ bias coming from their ‘partisan views’ can be

avoided “by the professional ethics codes of journalists, by the editors who monitor their

work, and by the business values of the companies they work for” (2002, 44).

Nonetheless, bias stemming from narratives about the conflict’s core issues cannot be

marginalized and ignored. In the effort to advance a constructive media role in

peacebuilding, journalists in conflict-affected communities should be aware of their

“controlled bias” – bias coming from their understanding of world views and ideologies –

and “uncontrolled bias”, which is a result of the conflict’s narratives that are produced

over time and are rooted in media outlets.

My research found that bias in the Palestinian media is rooted in the media

outlets, which are often ideologically aligned with a political party and encourage the

practice of politically-affiliated journalism. A journalist at the Palestinian semi-

independent Al Ayyam newspaper explained: “If the media outlet is biased, then it is hard

for the journalist to be objective and impartial […the journalist] can write a story, but the

editor might decide not to publish it if he suspects that the information you wrote might

101
be against the national cause.”64 In this specific case, journalists are struggling to

maintain impartiality and objectivity due to the bias of the media outlets. A Palestinian

journalist interviewee told me about this type of bias, explaining that following Hamas’

takeover of Gaza in 2006 information was leaked to him confirming that Washington

rejected an Egyptian proposal for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. His

newspaper did not publish the information because, according to the journalist: “It was in

the interest of the newspaper to show that Hamas was responsible for obstructing

reconciliation efforts.”65 In similar cases, where media are objective and impartial, the

editor should have asked the journalist to verify the story by checking more sources or

requesting official comments from the Egyptian government. Nonetheless, according to

the journalist, it was better for the newspaper to decide not to publish the leaked

information, as this reinforced the political position of the outlet.

I found that bias on the outlet level can also be a result of weak laws that govern

journalism. A journalist working for the Palestinian pro-government Al Hayat Al Jadidah

newspaper argued that: “there is no official interference in the Palestinian press, and there

is no censorship or guidance [by the Palestinian Authority]. On the contrary, if there

would be interference it would be in favor of de-escalation.”66 The journalist’s statement

is not too far from the truth. There are no laws that legally permit the Palestinian

Authority to censor the media. Nonetheless, limitations on media outlets and journalists’

work have been directly affected by lack of laws that protect and regulate media. Media

64
Interview PS-J2:4.
65
Interview PS-J2:4.
66
Interview PS-J1:2.
102
in Palestine is still in a pre-state phase, where media lack the needed legislation that can

govern the media’s work. Although Palestinian laws call for freedom of the press and

define the rights and obligations of the media, these laws are outdated. In fact, some date

back to the time of the British Mandate. A 2005 report by The Palestinian Initiative for

the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) recommended the

following:

The [Palestinian] Press Law lacks clarity, direction and adequate provisions to

guarantee that the media provide independent and plural coverage. A new law

with adequate provisions for the press and the audiovisual media in general

should be drafted and should replace the existing framework for both broadcast

media and the press to provide solid foundations for the development of the media

(MEFTAH 2005, 13).

Lack of press laws that can protect the journalists and their work has drastically

undermined journalistic practices and has encouraged bias among media outlets and

journalists.

The Israeli journalists that I interviewed explained that bias has come from

decision-makers at their media outlets as well. In this context bias is illustrated in the

framing of the article by choosing the headline and the sub-headline. A staff member

from KESHEV elaborated on this issue, explaining that his organization conducted an

analysis of bias in the Israeli media and found that headlines often do not reflect the

article’s content. He explained: “By comparing the information that appeared in the body

of the articles with the title and subtitle, which is created by the editors and should be
103
based on the body of the article provided by the correspondent, I found a very big gap

and that is bias.”67 The bias in this circumstance is intentional by the editor because that

person is aware that the headline should be a summary of the article. The headline and

the sub-headline are the most remembered parts of the article, and the readers often walk

away with the main idea that is reflected in the headline and the sub-headline. “If the title

tells a different story from the text, then we have a problem. This bias is not coming from

the conflict’s reality; it is coming from the editors,” KESHEV’s staff member added. 68

Media bias in conflict situations has more dramatic influence than in conflict-free

societies. Media reporting on political and social issues such as crime, rape, gay rights

and women’s empowerment influences specific audiences. Nonetheless, media reporting

about predicaments such as peace, war, violence and terror influence wider audiences;

and the consequences of this kind of reporting are more immediate.

The above discussion of the journalists’ role in the society was limiting as it

focused the analysis on the issue of impartiality and objectivity in journalism as qualities

need for the journalists to perform their jobs without bias. Below I present a discussion of

the journalists’ understanding of their rights and duties in conflict zones in the effort to

expand the debate to include the journalists’ “positions” in the society.

67
Interview IL-ORG1:11.
68
Interview IL-ORG1:11.
104
The Journalists’ Rights and Duties - Positions

Tan and Moghaddam, in their account of positioning in intergroup relations, identify two

types of roles that members of groups in a society can play: representatives and

mediators (Tan and Moghaddam 1999, 184). In its traditional understanding,

“representatives” are people who are “specifically made more explicit by the speaker’s

claim, by the acknowledgment of others, or by the situation or context” (Tan and

Moghaddam 1999, 184). More relevant to my analysis of journalists is the “mediator”

role of individuals or groups functioning in conflict-affected societies. These individuals

and groups include media professionals who manage and disseminate information that

the public needs in order to make sense of events happening around them. Mediators in a

social group “often explicitly or formally position themselves as ‘impartial’ and

‘disinterested;’” nonetheless, claiming that someone is objective or impartial can still be

regarded as adopting a position (Tan and Moghaddam 1999, 185). As such, when

journalists are described as ‘trustworthy’, ‘fair’ and ‘impartial’ they have very powerful

positions in terms of their rights, duties and obligations in the society (Tan and

Moghaddam 1999, 185).

As clarified by Harre and Slocum: “Rights are expressed as anticipatory or

retrospective justification for the propriety of demands or requests for action by someone

else. Duties are expressed as anticipatory or retrospective expression of demands for

action by oneself” (Harré and Slocum 2003b). Journalists in Israel and Palestine defined

their rights as having freedom of expression and their duties as informing the public

about events, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

105
 Examining the journalists’ positions (their rights and duties) instead of their roles

in conflict situations allows one to unravel narratives told by the journalists about the

process in which they become impartial, objective or biased. Israeli journalists explained

that their understanding of their rights and duties was shaped by the context of their sense

of national identity.

Israel is a small country surrounded by the Arab world and is constantly

threatened by some of regional leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

who on several occasions vowed that Israel would be “wiped off the map.” Israeli media

practitioners that I interviewed often referred to the army service in Israel as being deeply

rooted in the society and an essential component of Israeli national identity. The army

culture and the notion of a constant security threat in Israel continuously strengthen a

collective sense of threatened national identity. An Israeli journalist elaborated in this

regard:

The army is a very big part of the Israeli society. I have a kid in the army. Does

that impact me? Of course it impacts me. My colleagues have young age kids that

just got out of the army. It certainly impacts me. To understand the Israeli society

you have to understand the conditions that everybody lives under in this

country.”69

The sense of collective identity becomes more salient during violent conflicts. In the

context of Israel, a constant fear of the country’s enemies has strengthened the Israeli

national identity. Media practitioners in this context are aware of what is politically

69
Interview IL-J3:3.
106
appropriate to publish or not to publish. In violent conflicts, journalists often find

themselves reacting the same way the society reacts. They take on the responsibility of

defending their threatened national identity as their duty.

In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the sense of national identity is

salient, and the conflict discourse affects the journalists’ perceptions of their rights and

duties in their societies. A former Israeli journalist, who covered the first Intifada for a

major Israeli newspaper, explained: “In continuous conflict, [and] continuous war, it is

more difficult for Israeli journalists to be pure journalists.”70 To illustrate, he told a story

about a letter he sent to an editor at Maariv newspaper, one of the top three newspapers in

Israel, in which he complained that the newspaper failed to report about Palestinian

civilian casualties in an Israeli air raid on Gaza.71 The journalist received a written

response from the editor stating: “Before I am a journalist, I am an Israeli citizen, I am

patriot.”72 This statement underscores that in defining their duties the Israeli journalists

strongly relate to their national identity, which is deeply affected by the army culture.

In addition to the sense of national identity, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict I found that the journalists consider defending their community as part of their

rights and duties. A well-known Israeli journalist explained: “I am an Israeli; you have to

understand that… I want the best for my people and I am fighting for my ideas of what is

the best for my country. That is my duty…In order to build a Jewish democratic state I

70
Interview IL-ORG1:8.
71
Prior to the 2009 Israeli war in Gaza, the Israel military regularly conducted air raids on the densely
populated Coastal Strip targeting Palestinian militants. The targeted assassinations have also claimed the
lives of civilians.
72
Interview IL-ORG1:7.
107
need to separate from the Palestinians.”73 Interestingly, the journalists’ narratives of their

rights and duties include the need to: (i) support proposals to resolve the conflict, and also

(ii) to report on the opposing side. One Israeli correspondent explained: “I think it is my

duty to tell the Israelis what is happening on the other side.” He was very proud to tell his

story about the 2009 Israeli war in Gaza, as he exposed fraud committed by some Israeli

soldiers during the war in Gaza. He explained:

The only journalist who was able to…send [an Israeli] soldier to prison was me

because I…published the truth about soldiers who stole credit cards [from

Palestinian houses during the invasion] and use them…those soldiers were

arrested, they were sent to central prison. So, yeah, this is my duty and it is a good

story.”74

The journalist linked his understanding of his rights and duties to informing the public of

what is happening on the opposing side. Nonetheless, in order to fulfill his duties, he

added the event must be newsworthy.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I found that journalists’ rights and duties are

frequently contested by their audiences. While journalists are expected to be patriotic,

they are also expected not to promote the opposing party’s cause. An Israeli journalist

working for a major newspaper wrote a story about a Palestinian intelligence officer who

had escaped assassination attempts by Hamas members in 2006. According to the Israeli

journalist, Hamas militias killed his three children instead. The journalist added: “I

73
Interview IL-J8:8-9.
74
Interview IL-J1:9-10.
108
published the story and I got a response [from the Israeli readers] ‘why do you write

about the Palestinian children and you don’t write about the Israeli children.’”75

Palestinian journalists also understand their rights and duties in the context of the

conflict and its dynamics. Although they comprehend their duties as being responsible for

informing the public about the conflicts happening without discriminating information,

they also believe that their duties are to benefit the Palestinian cause. A Palestinian

interviewee explained: “Palestinian journalists consider themselves not required to be

impartial because doing good to the cause is considered to be their duty.”76 In this

context, journalists in conflict situations understand their rights and duties according to

“unwritten laws” and “norms” of journalistic practices; their rights are to publish and

their duties are to cover the news, including investigations and reports that are demanded

by the public. Nevertheless, in the case of the Palestinian media, journalists do not enjoy

full freedom in choosing what information to convey to the public. They are restricted by

their media outlets, as their editors determine what “acceptable information” for

publishing is.

A number of Palestinian journalists expressed their understanding of their duties

and rights as the ability to practice freedom of opinion and expression. Such values can

contribute to good journalism, where journalists provide information to the public and the

public decides the course of action in response to the news events that are covered.

However, Palestinian journalists also believe that not bringing harm to their people is also

75
Interview IL-J1:9.
76
Interview PS-J11:3.
109
their responsibility. One journalist gave an example from the 2009 Gaza war, as he

justified not reporting the names of neighborhoods in Gaza from which the Palestinian

militia fired rockets on Israeli nearby towns. The militias often fired rockets from

neighborhoods populated with civilians, and Israeli forces retaliated by firing back on

these neighborhoods, which mostly resulted in the death of civilians. The journalist

justified not mentioning the names of these neighborhoods in his reporting; he viewed

this as saving civilian lives even though the militants’ act of using human shields was a

violation of international law and human rights. In this case study, Palestinian journalists

expressed the fear of being accused as “anti-nationalistic” or “traitors.” For example, this

particular journalist argued that it is his duty to save civilians by not mentioning the

names of these neighborhoods, but added that he would write about how the phenomenon

of using civilians as human shields is unethical and violates human rights.77 The

responsibility of the journalist is to convey facts in general; however in this case

journalists feel responsible for the wellbeing of their people.

Conclusion

In this chapter I explained that media practitioners in conflict-affected societies associate

their role with impartiality and objectivity in order to give credibility to their work.

Nonetheless, my analysis found that discussing the journalists’ “roles” in a society is

unhelpful in conflict situations, since roles are fixed and describe the person’s actions

throughout the span of their lives. The analysis further suggested that journalists are often

77
Interview PS-J2:5.
110
challenged to maintain impartiality and objectivity in conflict situations due to bias

stemming from their ideologies and worldviews, and also due to bias imposed by the

narratives about the conflict’s dynamics and core issues. In the case of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict the bias coming from the conflict’s realities is rooted in the media

institutions and has more affect on the journalists because they cannot control it.

To uncover how media practitioner can contribute to conflict resolution, I

analyzed the journalists’ positions as a cluster of rights and duties in a conflict situation.

Positions describe the process in which journalists become “dependable,” “impartial” or

“biased”. Discourse around the journalists’ rights and duties, as an alternative to roles,

brings narratives of conflict dynamics and conditions to light. The analysis of journalists’

positions in my case revealed that the journalists understand their rights and duties in the

context of narratives about their national identities and national causes.

The above discussion of the journalists’ positions in conflict situations was

essential to addressing the inflexible concept of the journalists’ role as impartial and

objective. Impartiality and objectivity have often been obstacles to the media’s ability to

contribute to peacebuilding. In the next chapter I discuss opportunities for journalists to

contribute to peacebuilding in active conflicts zones.

111
 CHAPTER 6
PEACEBUILDING JOURNALISM:
TOWARD A MEDIA ROLE IN PEACE

“If media ought to contribute to peace, then peace must first

exist.”78

“If we were in a peace atmosphere maybe it will be easier for us.

But I don’t think that we [the journalists] have the power to ignite
or start peace. First it needs to exist.”79

In Chapter 4 I presented an analysis of how storylines and narratives in conflict

situations shape the journalists’ understanding of their position in the society, and how

the journalists’ acts of conveying information to the public are influenced by the

conflict’s dynamics. In Chapter 5, I analyzed the journalists’ understanding of their

“positions” vis-à-vis their “role” in the society and found that the discussion about the

journalists’ role (e.g., what is their “job”) in the society is limiting. As an alternative, I

examined the journalists’ assumptions of their positions (identified as a cluster of rights

and duties) in conflict-affected societies, which allowed more comprehensive discussion

beyond journalism as a “job.” The two chapters helped us to understand the obstacles that

undermine the journalists’ abilities to contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-torn

societies.

78
Interview PS-J4:5.
79
Interview IL-J1: 5.
112
 In the next three chapters I introduce the concept of “peacebuilding journalism” as

a means to address the above challenges and expand opportunities for journalists to

contribute to peacemaking. I define peacebuilding journalism as an approach in which

journalists support civil society initiatives and promote alternatives to violence by

producing content that is sensitive to the conflict’s dynamics, and by providing

contextually complex information about the conflict in a way that the public can

understand. In that respect people are likely to be better informed and as a result may be

less inclined to contribute to an escalation of a conflict.

Peacebuilding journalism combines journalistic practices and conflict resolution

concepts in an effort to advance peacebuilding in conflict-torn societies. The framework:

(i) is aimed at addressing the obstacles that journalists face in conflict-affected societies

to facilitate a constructive media-peacebuilding dynamics; and (ii) is intended to guide

the journalists in identifying stories and content that support peacebuilding between the

conflict parties.

In this chapter, I first analyze journalistic practices observed in the Israeli-

Palestinian case and synthesize three components needed for achieving peacebuilding

journalism. These include: (i) the need for more media “reporting of the other side” in the

effort to strengthen peaceful attitudes. This means to expose the conflict parties to more

information about each other and to clarify the conflict’s predicaments so as to allow the

parties to widen debates about peace and to help “humanize” the other. Moreover, (ii) my

analysis found that “alternative media coverage” during low points in the peace processes

(e.g., stories about human rights violations) is essential in peacebuilding journalism in

113
order to strengthen voices calling for the use of nonviolent means to resolve conflict.

Lastly, (iii) my analysis of peacebuilding journalism suggests that the use of “creative

reporting” in covering peace processes can help address the notion that reporting about

peace is not “exciting.”

The chapter then highlights the challenges facing peacebuilding journalism in an

effort to better assist the journalists contribute to peacemaking in conflict-affected

societies. First among these obstacles is the fact that many journalists understand their

role in peacebuilding as secondary. Media professionals argue that peace processes must

first be in motion in order for them to usher peaceful attitudes among the conflict parties.

Second, in the Palestinian context pan-Arab media have more influence on public opinion

than the local Palestinian media. This has allowed regional political agendas, including

those opposing peace, to affect Palestinian politics. Lastly, my analysis of peacebuilding

journalism found that the media have generally focused their coverage on positive peace

outcomes, while disregarding the limitations of a peace process, which can lead to

conflict escalation.

The last part of this chapter deals with training journalists on the concept of

peacebuilding journalism. My summary describes media projects that have been

implemented in Israel and Palestine by the Search for Common Ground (SFCG)

Jerusalem office. The summery of the projects provide examples of how practitioners in

the field of conflict resolution can implement media projects that can include what I refer

to as components of peacebuilding journalism. This section does not evaluate the SFCG

approach, nor does it recommend a specific design for training journalists on conflict
114
resolution methods. However, I include this summary to serve as an outline for how

media professionals could be trained in peacebuilding journalism.

Components of Peacebuilding Journalism

Peacebuilding journalism, as an approach, includes three components: (i) coverage of the

other side, (ii) alternative media coverage, and (iii) creative reporting about peace. Media

“coverage about the other side” helps clarify the parties’ perceptions of the conflict’s

dynamics and illuminates narratives and storylines to which the conflict parties usually

do not have access. This component of peacebuilding journalism indicates that the more

there is reporting about the other side, the more people are informed about opportunities

for peace, and as a result the probability for conflict de-escalation is higher. The

component of “alternative media coverage” is essential when peace processes reach their

lowest point and are not sustainable. Alternative reporting, such as stories about human

rights violations or stories that emphasize a shift in the parties’ ideologies, allow the

media to highlight conditions that could lead to violence, and engage the parties in

constructive debates about one another’s viewpoints. This in turn encourages the conflict

parties to reevaluate their positions toward peace.

Lastly, I define “creative reporting”, which is reporting on peace in ways that

makes the subject more “exciting,” interesting, and relevant to media professionals and

audiences alike. Journalists regard peace processes as uninteresting to report on; they

view them as lengthy and not lucrative (Wolfsfeld 1997a, 67). I explain that creative

reporting can be achieved through strategic story choices and good packaging.
115
Additionally, creative reporting can be achieved by underscoring common peace

narratives that are debated among the political elite and by emphasizing peaceful

cooperation between the two conflict parties.

Reporting about the Other Side

My analysis finds that coverage of the “other side” is an essential component of

peacebuilding journalism. The Israeli journalists I interviewed argued that by exposing

the Israelis to the conflict’s predicaments from the Palestinian side, the Israeli public

could become more informed and more engaged in the peace process. Contextual

information about the other side, they explained, is likely to help the conflict parties make

more informed decisions. An Israeli journalist argued:

The Palestinians media deal with Israeli problems more than the Israeli media

deal with the Palestinian problems. Maybe it is natural because always the weaker

party knows more about the stronger party [rather] than the other way around. But

I think if the Israeli media wants to contribute to peace, then it needs to make the

public aware of issues on the other side, including little problems, casualties,

destruction and even problems that we tend to completely ignore such as the

[Palestinian] refugee problem.”80

Nonetheless, this has been judged as “utopian” by another Israeli journalist who argued

that the Israeli public is not interested in hearing about the Palestinians and their

problems: “Our readers don’t want to hear about the Palestinians…they don’t want to

80
Interview IL-J5:5.
116
hear about the suffering, basically they don’t want to hear about anything coming from

behind the wall.”81 However, in peacebuilding journalism I suggest that it is the

journalist’s duty to bring diverse information about the conflict, including reporting about

what are the conditions on the other side. By reporting about issues on the other side,

journalists help to shed light on issues that otherwise the reader might not have access to.

In a conflict situation, lack of adequate information about the conflict’s dynamics from

the other side leads to ambiguity and more misconceptions about the other conflict party.

Journalists I interviewed asserted that narratives used in the media to report about the

conflict have more influence on the average person who is involved in a conflict, whereas

in other situations where conflict is not present, the narratives used in the media to report

on social issue are not dramatically influential.

I suggest that since media narratives about the conflict are influential, as they

directly shape the conflict party’s public opinion, then media narratives about

peacebuilding and peace processes should also have significant influence on the people.

The media can effectively create an anti-peace atmosphere or contribute to conflict de-

escalation by positively or negatively influencing public opinion. A peace process

requires the support of the public in order for peace to survive and to be sustainable. An

Israeli journalist who covered the first Palestinian Intifada for a major Israeli outlet

explained: “If media brings at least a partial picture of the reality [from the other side],

then it is very easy to legitimize and humanize the other conflict party. You can’t develop

81
Interview IL-J1:5.
117
any real peace process without the massive support from the public opinion.”82 But the

same journalist also argued that: “Peace is not an item that brings ratings to the media

outlets. You can’t photograph peace.”83 In this regard, the media in Israel has been

described as highly commercial, and this motivation sometimes has more influence over

the media outlets than political motivations. Thus, reporting about the other side needs to

fit within the political or commercial requirements of the media outlet so that the news

can sell. Media outlets take into consideration that if they go against mainstream public

opinion in times of war or escalation, then they risk losing their audiences.

The main obstacle to peacebuilding journalism, as I explain in the section below,

is that peace processes are not lucrative stories for media outlets to cover because they

require more time and resources and are considered by consumers to be less exciting.

When I asked an Israeli television reporter about the media’s role in peacebuilding, he

explained: “Reporting about peace is boring, it is not interesting… it is harder for me to

convince my editor to make [a story about peace].”84 However, he also explained that

journalists can still report on peace, but that it must be “sexy.” He gave an example of a

news story that he produced, which was aired during prime time:

I went to a West Bank village next to Ramallah, where women were making

kippah, Jewish kippah [Yarmulke]…I made the story about them, because I was

trying, during the news, to bring other voices, to bring something else not just that

82
Interview IL-ORG1: 6.
83
Interview IL-ORG1:6.
84
Interview IL-J7:1-2.
118
 all Palestinians are murderers. That story was something else and interesting for

the audience.85

This journalist evidently was trying to present the “sexy” story by combining creative

coverage of the economic hardship on the Palestinian side with the human aspect,

showing that Palestinians and Israelis can work and live together. In the two sections

below I explain that “alternative reporting” and “creative reporting” are key elements of

peacebuilding journalism intended to overcome the issue of peace reporting being not

lucrative and exciting.

Alternative Reporting

Palestinian and Israeli journalists during the Oslo peace process contributed to

peacebuilding by glorifying the peace process and magnifying major events such as the

handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin86 during the signing ceremony of

the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn in 1993. However, when the peace process

was at its lowest points, journalists were not motivated to report on peacebuilding since

political events and activities about the peace were scant. In this understanding,

journalists need alternative and “exciting peace” stories to report on in order to help move

forward the peace processes.

85
Interview IL-J7:1-2.
86
On the White House loan in 1993, former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and former Palestinian
Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat signed a peace treaty, which came to be known as the
Oslo Accord. The two formally staunch foes shook hands in a good faith to end the conflict. The handshake
became a symbol of peace between the two parties.
119
 Reporting on conflict issues such as human rights violations, especially during

high intensity conflict situations, allows the media to broadcast voices expressing

alternatives to violence. An Israeli journalist asserted that when he writes about human

rights violations, such as Israeli soldiers’ treatment of Palestinians at check points in the

West Bank, his intentions stem from his sense of moral and ethical conduct: “I want my

people to behave as human beings. And I think the minute I am writing about these

issues, I am letting my people [the Israelis]…to understand that there are also human

beings living [on the other side].”87 Along the same lines, an Israeli television news

producer complained that Israeli journalists are not freely allowed to enter the Arab

countries to cover stories about social issues, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, as

Israel has signed peace treaties with those countries. The producer explained that peace

with his “neighbors” (e.g., Jordan and Egypt) is at its lowest point, and if he was allowed

to cover human rights violations in Egypt or Jordan for the Israeli audience, then he

would be able to engage the Israelis in conversations about those countries, which

consequently could lead them to also engage on peace issues.88 Israeli journalists criticize

their neighbors because they are only allowed to interview politicians in the context of

the conflict, but they are not allowed to produce stories about human rights violations or

social issues in Egypt or Jordan.

I also found that journalists can positively affect peace processes by introducing

political leaders from the other side to their audience. To encourage peacebuilding

87
Interview PS-J7: 9.
88
Interview IL-J2:3.
120
journalism, media practitioners can interview political leaders to discuss specific political

issues or to develop a portrait story. An Israeli journalist elaborated: “Exclusive

interviews with political leaders allow the audiences the opportunity to hear a firsthand

account about the conflict’s dynamics from the other side.” As I explained in Chapter 4,

parties involved in conflict settings rely heavily on their political leaders to seek

information about the conflict’s predicaments. Interviewing leaders from the other side

permits the conflict parties to comprehend the contextual information about the political

obstacles that the other side faces, instead of hearing them by their own politicians. These

reporting alternatives permit the people involved in the conflict to challenge their

perceptions of the other, and ask questions such as who are the people on the other side

and how are they suffering?

In peacebuilding journalism, journalists can also benefit from major shifts in

public opinion, such as peaceful attitudes and public support around the peace processes.

A Palestinian reporter explained that journalists should deal with reporting about peace in

two ways. First, journalists should cover negotiations that are happening behind closed

doors to strengthen the people’s sense of ownership over the peace processes and to gain

their trust to support negotiations.89 Journalists, in this context, can extensively include

“factual reporting” about the peace negotiations, whether they are leading to positive

developments or obstructing peace, so that people can be fully informed about the

realities of the peace process. For instance, the journalists added: “You would report that

there are discussions about the future of Jerusalem [even though the talks might not be

89
Interview PS-J2:1.
121
going anywhere]. In any case you are involving the public in the negotiations process.”

Second, journalists need to expose and discuss issues that could harm the peace process.90

In this understanding, journalists can be encouraged to sway public opinion against

certain practices that can negatively affect the peace process.

In the Palestinian case, violent means, such as rocket launching from the Gaza

Strip onto nearby Israeli towns and suicide bombings, evidently have harmed the

Palestinian cause. Palestinian journalists that I interviewed argued that the reduction of

suicide bomb attacks in Israel was not merely a result of building the Israeli separation

wall, but that it was also due to a key change in Palestinian public opinion. The

Palestinian journalists do not claim that the Palestinian media were the primary force

behind the change in the Palestinian public opinion. However, they argue that the media

utilized the change in public opinion against violent means, such as suicide bombing, to

convince Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who are responsible for the bulk of the suicide attacks

in Israel, that this kind of means are no longer considered acceptable by the Palestinians.

Amid war, public opinion might not be receptive to journalists who are inclined to

write about alternatives to violence. The public might not be interested in reports about

peaceful means, and journalists potentially face harsh criticism if they choose to cover

them. Nonetheless, as explained by a Palestinian correspondent who works for a foreign

news agency:

Stories about peace have a unique audience, which are mostly intellectuals and

probably can influence public opinion. The number of audiences who are

90
Interview PS-J2:1.
122
 interested in reading about peace is usually limited. But those readers are usually

the shapers of public opinion, like professors at universities, teachers or opinion

writers in newspapers. This type of audience has direct influence on the people.”91

On the contrary, in conflict-affected societies the average audience is concerned more

with reading material that reinforces national pride, glory, nationalism and a sense of

belonging. In this context, several Palestinian journalists that I interviewed have linked

the possibility that journalism can contribute to peacebuilding with the need to convince

and mobilize Palestinian intellectuals to take on the role of educating the people about

peaceful means.

Creative Reporting

Journalists interviewed for this research affirmed that reporting about peace is “boring”

and is not “lucrative” (see section below on Obstacles to Peacebuilding Journalism for

further discussion). Journalists are disposed to reporting on things that make people

excited, and so this raises the question how can stories that promote peaceful attitudes be

made “exciting?” Peacebuilding journalism requires creativity and untraditional ways of

reporting. The process of producing a story by deciding what needs to be covered and

why it needs to be covered is essential to creative reporting in peacebuilding journalism.

A long-time Israeli television news correspondent gave me his account of how his

television’s creative reporting contributed to the Israeli pullout from Lebanon in 2000.92

91
Interview PS-J4:3-4.
92
On May 27, 2000 Israel completed the withdrawal of its troops from South Lebanon after 18 years of
warfare. Israel invaded South Lebanon in 1982 to defeat the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),
123
The correspondent decided to produce a portrait story about each Israeli soldier killed

during the fight in Lebanon. The story covered every soldier’s funeral and showed

footage of the soldier’s family and ordinary life. The journalist explained: “Whenever a

soldier was killed [in Lebanon], there was news about him…it started with a short story I

did about one nice sergeant who was killed in the fight, and the public loved it.” 93 The

journalists explained that although they did not deliberately choose to cover the stories of

the killed soldiers as a means to push the Israeli troops’ withdrawal from Lebanon, the

reports generated lots of reactions and questions among the Israelis about their soldiers’

presence in South Lebanon, which in turn mobilized them to pressure the government to

reconsider its position on the war.

Creative reporting in peacebuilding journalism needs to inspire the public debate

of ideas and proposals about how to resolve the conflict – both among the political elite

and the people. The media then can effectively advise the public one way or another on

how to achieve a sustainable resolution. In the Israeli-Palestinian case the option of a

two-state solution, one for Israel and one for the Palestinians, has been regarded among

journalists on both sides as the most optimal choice for a future, final settlement of the

conflict. However, journalists on both sides lack a clear and common understanding of

the two-state solution. They show interest in the two-state solution, but they have not

been able to clarify a common peace discourse about the two-state solution. The peace

discourse on the Israeli side is concerned with land and security, while the Palestinian

which posed a great threat to Israel by conducting cross-border attacks on Israel. The Israeli invasion
forced the PLO to leave Lebanon, but the conflict escalated as several Lebanese groups, including the
Hezbollah and Amal movements, took on the duty to liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli occupier.
93
Interview IL-J6:4.
124
peace discourse is focused on ending the occupation in all its forms. In this regard, the

two perspectives are counterproductive to peacebuilding journalism.

To illustrate the above point, an Israeli journalist from Yedioth Ahronoth shared

his account about the separation wall that was built by Israel to separate the Palestinian

Territories from Israel in order to bring security to the Israelis. He explained that he wrote

several articles in support of building the wall not because he thought it was going to

bring security for Israel, but according to him the wall entrenched the idea of a two-state

solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians, as it forced a semi-official border between

the two nations. He explained: “Before the wall it was one country. Today it is two states.

There is something on the west side of the wall and something on the east side of the

wall”94 Despite the fact that the separation wall has been identified by the Palestinians

and by some Israelis as a major obstacle to a two-state solution, the journalist’s framing

of the story, that a peaceful solution requires the demarcation of borders and physical

separation, might be considered a creative way of promoting a two-state solution. 95

Creative reporting as part of peacebuilding journalism includes focused stories

about grass-roots cooperation between peace camps on both sides of the conflict. In this

regard, journalists allow the audience to know about communities in their parties that are

involved with the other side, but also can offer unique information about the other side’s

94
Interview IL-J8:7.
95
Media in Israel supported and contributed to the construction of the wall under the pretext that it was
going to bring security to the country. The wall has been an issue of wide disagreement in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. On one hand, the Israelis argue that the wall was necessary to protect Israel from
Palestinian terrorism by stopping the infiltration of Palestinian suicide bombers. On the other hand, the
Palestinians argue that the wall has been constructed inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories and was
deviated from the Green Line, which violates an essential requirement for a two-state solution.
125
comprehension of possible peaceful solutions. Creative reporting, in this understanding,

holds that journalists can inform their audience of diverse news, including news about the

economy, security, and peace cooperation. An Israeli journalist explained: “I have no

chance to know what is going on in Gaza unless the Israeli media tell me. So if you ask

me…what the Israeli media can do to promote peace? [My answer is] to cover what is

going on the other side.”96 The ultimate goal of peacebuilding journalism is to provide

more background information about the conflict, and it assumes that the more people are

informed about the conflict, the more they are able to self reflect and to look at the

situation in a more balanced way to make their own decisions.

Obstacles to Peacebuilding Journalism

Peacebuilding journalism faces three distinct challenges. First, journalists are convinced

that they are not able to contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected zones unless

peace processes are underway and are supported by the conflict parties. Journalists argue

that peacemaking is not their task, but rather it is a function that should be fulfilled by the

politicians. This journalists’ job, as they describe it, is simply to cover the events and the

dynamics of the peace process. Second, I explain that in the Palestinian context the

regional media influence Palestinian public opinion and politics more greatly than the

local media, and this can in turn affect peacebuilding opportunities. Pan-Arab media

outlets, such as Al Jazeera, influence Palestinian public opinion more than local

Palestinian media, because they have the larger Palestinian market share. This in turn can

96
Interview IL-J4:9.
126
allow regional political agendas, including anti-peace agendas, to affect the Palestinian

political scene and peaceful attitudes. Lastly, I explain that peacebuilding journalism

requires balanced coverage of both positive and negative outcomes in peace processes. I

argue that a media focus on providing positive coverage during the peace process, while

ignoring its limitations, could contribute to conflict escalation. In the Israeli-Palestinian

case, shortcomings in the design and implementation of the Oslo peace process, which

received little media attention, culminated in another cycle of violence in 2000.

Peace Must First Exist

My analysis found that Israeli and Palestinian media practitioners are not convinced that

the media can play a constructive role in advancing peacebuilding unless the peace

process is in motion and is positively regarded by both parties. Journalists understand that

their role is to report on the conflict’s events, whatever those are, but not to facilitate the

peace process. In this context, a Jerusalem Post Israeli correspondent explained: “My

role is reporting on the peace process. If that facilitates [peace], great, but I don’t see that

helping [peace] is necessarily my primary objective.”97 Hence, journalists regard their

role solely as messengers to deliver news about the conflict’s events or the conflict’s

political narrative to the public. An Israeli news television producer explained: “Media

cannot deliberately cover certain events because the stories about them might help peace

between us [the Israelis and the Palestinians].”98 Otherwise, according to the news

97
Interview IL-J3:1.
98
Interview IL-J2:2.
127
producer, if the journalists are deliberately contributing to peacemaking, then they are

“making propaganda” to advance certain politicians’ agendas.

Journalists and academics alike see an obvious connection between media and

conflict because it is more “exciting” to report about conflict. Reporting on peace

activities and processes requires more attention and more time for observation. In the

case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, media professionals strongly oppose the notion

that journalists can support peacebuilding, as they believe that making peace is the task of

the politicians. The journalists’ narrative about their role, with regard to peacebuilding,

was well illustrated by a long-time Israeli journalist who explained:

My job is not to create peace. I am not a politician, I am a journalist. My job is to

cover [events], to show the people, and make them understand [that] in four years

when they go to vote, they [are informed and] know what they are doing. That’s

my job, to give them information as much as I can about the situation, about the

government, to criticize the government, to show them how we can have better

life here [in Israel]. That’s my job.”99

My research found that Palestinian media professionals also do not regard the media as

playing a larger role in peacebuilding. The research furthermore analyzes why journalists

cannot compete with the politicians’ role in this regard. Palestinian journalists argue that

peacemaking is a function that can mainly be fulfilled by the politicians, as they have

stronger influence over the public. According to a media adviser to the Palestinian Prime

Minister, Salam Fayyad:

99
Interview IL-J8:6.
128
 The media can positively or negatively influence public opinion, but the media is

not…an alternative to the fundamental and essential factors that would allow

making peace…Factors such as the real intentions of the parties and convictions

of the leaders on both sides [must first exist], then the media becomes a catalyst to

assist and encourage [peace].100

In this context, Palestinian media professionals view their role in contributing to

peacebuilding as secondary to an already existing and defined political peace agenda.

They argue that the basic requirement necessary for peace must first be available so that

the media can play a positive and important role in enhancing the chances for a

successful peace process.

Palestinian media practitioners differed in their understanding of the possibility to

advance peacebuilding. Many journalists believe that the media can greatly contribute to

conflict de-escalation and peacebuilding. However, they explained that the circumstances

of the conflict ought to be right for the journalists in order for them to contribute to

peacebuilding. In this regard, Palestinian journalists explained that violence in Palestine

is prominent and has become part of the peoples’ daily lives. On the contrary, the peace

process in this case has a very soft affect on the peoples’ daily lives, as it takes a longer

time and needs tremendous effort to convince the people of its feasibility. A staff member

of a Palestinian media organization explained: “In a time of peace it is easier to build a

constructive relation between media and peacebuilding.”101 However, as was explained

100
Interview PS-O1:1.
101
Interview PS-ORG1:4.
129
by a former Palestinian Authority official: “Although I agree that conflict attracts the

media more than peace; [but] if peace elements are evident then they [the elements]

would have succeeded in attracting the media attention, which would allow the media to

help advance the peace process.”102 In this context, Palestinian media professionals don’t

see opportunities for journalists to advance the peace process because elements that

support peace, such as a clear peace narrative and consensus among the public, are

missing. The Palestinian former official added: “In the Palestinian experience, we cannot

hold the media responsible for the failure of peacemaking because fundamental factors

needed for peace are absent and the media cannot replace or create those factors needed

for peacemaking.”103

As my discussion above indicates, and as I found in my interviews, in the case of

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the media is heavily influenced by the public opinion. On

one hand, if the public leans toward war and violence, then media professionals are

tempted to follow the war rhetoric. On the other hand, if the public is tired from long

wars and needs “to rest,” then the media get their chance to explore peace options. A

Palestinian journalist working for a foreign news agency explained it this way: “Media

here [in Palestine] tend to follow public opinion more than being able to influence it.”104

The journalist gave an example from the second Palestinian Intifada, in which the

discourse of violence and war dominated the Palestinian media’s attention. 105 He

102
Interview PS-O1:2.
103
Interview PS-O1:3.
104
Interview PS-J4:2.
105
The majority of the Palestinian journalists interviewed for this research attributed the failure of the
second Intifada to the use of weapons by the Palestinians, who are no match to the Israeli military
130
explained: “Following the second Intifada, the media partially contributed to calming the

conflict as some authors wrote about how the Palestinians lost in war and in peace and

that it is time to explore other options.”106 The Palestinian media professionals that I

interviewed agreed that during the second Intifada, Palestinian journalists followed a

common theme of reporting that incited violence and encouraged resistance against the

Israeli occupation.

After the second Intifada subsided, the Palestinian media emphasized the need for

stability and nonviolent means. A Palestinian journalist explained: “Circumstances will

not allow the journalists to write about [nonviolence] while the political power does not

support this approach. Environment that encourages journalists to write about peace must

exist so they can be influential…But journalists usually write [about peace] only after

periods of violence or war that have not been successful [in changing the conflict’s

dynamics].”107 The shift in reporting from the media’s war discourse during the second

Intifada to a peace discourse following the Intifada warrants further study. However, my

analysis finds that journalists in the conflict zone consider their abilities to contribute to

peacemaking during violence as limited.

Regional Media Influence on the Peace Process

My analysis finds that Palestinian public opinion is greatly influenced by regional media,

which in the Palestinian case have played a negative role in the peace process between

capabilities. The journalists argued that when comparing the two Intifadas, the first Intifada empowered the
Palestinians because it was largely conducted non-violently.
106
Interview PS-J4:1.
107
Interview PS-J4:5.
131
the Palestinians and Israelis. The media in Israel are highly professional and have strong

audience bases without much serious Hebrew-language competition from outside the

country. However, the Palestinian media has a narrow, local reach, and its influence on

Palestinian public opinion is undermined by regional pan-Arab media outlets. Prior to the

establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the Palestinian media were subject to

Israeli censorship, with constant targeting of Palestinian journalists and their outlets

(Jamal 2000, 47). From the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords, until the start of the second

Intifada in 2000, the Palestinian media was utilized by the Palestinian Authority as an

important tool for introducing and promoting the Oslo peace agreement to the

Palestinians. One Palestinian journalist elaborated: “Before the start of the [second]

Intifada [in 2000], the Palestinian media discourse was calling for protecting and

advancing the peace agreements while also calling for the need to open dialogue and to

resolve issues in non-violent ways with the Israelis.”108 The new era of the Palestinian

media witnessed more informal censorship, this time by the Palestinian Authority, which

was keen to press the peace process as the main agenda.109

The Palestinian media continued to suffer under the Palestinian Authority, which

allowed pan-Arab media outlets, such as the popular Al Jazeera News Channel, to

108
Interview PS-J1:1.
109
Criticism by Palestinian journalists against the Oslo peace process brought strong reactions from the
Palestinian Authority, which sometimes included imprisonment. A Palestinian journalist explained: “The
pre-second intifada period was the worst period in the history of the Palestinian press because more pro-
Palestinian Authority newspapers were established…The Palestinian Authority seized absolute control over
the press and suppressed the media that opposed the political discourse.” Journalists practiced self-
censorship to make sure that their stories were in line with the Palestinian Authority political peace
discourse.
132
become the main source of information for the Palestinians.110 A Palestinian media

adviser and former official argued:

If you look at the media ratings [in Palestine], at the top you will find the pan-

Arab media, such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, then second in line are the Israeli

media, [and lastly] the Palestinian media…To positively use the media in

peacemaking, it is necessary to first develop the media infrastructure in Palestine.

First you need to have media that influence Palestinian public opinion, [and] then

you could figure out how to use the media as a tool [to make peace].”111

In this context, the Palestinian media in their current state are not able to persuade

Palestinians and shift public opinion toward peace.

A 2008 study conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre

found that Palestinians highly depend on pan-Arab media as their main source of

information, and at least 76.2% of the Palestinians receive their news mainly from

television (Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre 2008). According to the study,

pan-Arab Al Jazeera News Channel ranked the highest as the most viewed news channel

programs in Palestine with 54.2%, while 11.1% of the Palestinians watch the Palestine

Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) and only 8.8% of the Palestinians receive their news

from the PBC. Additionally, the major three Palestinian newspapers – Al Quds, Al
110
The rapid spread of satellite televisions in the Middle East during the 1990s revolutionized media in the
region. News channels, including Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, helped educate Arab audiences about social
taboos, such as violence against women, human rights violations and political oppression. Most
importantly, it also introduced a new kind of journalism in the form of talk shows and debates, to which
Israeli politicians, analysts and journalists were invited as expert speakers. Until the launch of Al Jazeera
News Channel in 1996, Israel was placed behind curtains. Arabs did not see or hear Israelis addressing
them through the televisions in their homes and work place. This media evolution helped raise the Arabs’
awareness of Israelis’ perspectives on the political situation.
111
Interview PS-O1: 4.
133
Ayyama and Al Hayat Al Jadidah – have low circulation rates of between 35,000 to

50,000 copies combined and are read mainly by the political elite and intellectuals (BBC

News 2006b).

Until the start of the peace process in 1994, most of the Palestinian journalists

were political activists who worked for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

They were also considered important members of the Palestinian intellectual elite, which

was influenced by concept of the “Palestinian revolution” and were thus unwilling to

compromise. The period following the peace process allowed the emergence of

journalists with fresh perspectives on the conflict and with more willingness to explore

alternative options to the conflict. Nonetheless, the Palestinian journalists are certain that

during this period the Palestinian media was the least influential source of information for

the Palestinian public. A Palestinian journalist explained: “During the 2009 Israeli war in

Gaza, Al Jazeera was the main source of information coming from Gaza.” Foreign and

regional media outlets, including Israeli ones, where not allowed into Gaza.

The wider reach of the pan-Arab media to the Palestinian public has been part of

the structural problem in how the local Palestinian media can be positively utilized in

peacebuilding. Political views of pan-Arab media outlets such as Al Jazeera are often

inconsistent with the Palestinian vision for peace. According to a Palestinian media

adviser, “It [Pan-Arab media] leaves the Palestinian public opinion vulnerable for foreign

and regional agendas that are different from the Palestinian political agenda.”112 In this

respect, the lack of strong and wide-reaching Palestinian media, in addition to the heavy

112
Interview PS-O1:2.
134
influence of regional media on Palestinian public opinion, frustrates Palestinian

journalists’ attempts to contribute to peacebuilding.

Reporting on Peace can Backfire

Israeli and Palestinian journalists argue that the media’s support of the peace discourse

during the Oslo peace process overshadowed the agreement’s shortcomings, which in

turn greatly contributed to the eruption of the second Intifada in 2000. While my research

is rooted in the belief that journalists in conflict-affected societies should or can take on a

more active role in peacebuilding efforts, my analysis also finds that when media give

extensive and focused coverage of peace processes while ignoring their failure to address

the conflict’s core issues, such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g., Jerusalem,

water, etc.), this can lead to violence. In this understanding, the Israeli and the Palestinian

media played vital roles in pushing the Oslo peace agenda, but due to the failure of the

Oslo Accords, journalists on both sides argued that it might have been a mistake that they

strongly pressed forward the Oslo peace agenda. A Jerusalem Post journalist elaborated:

Media can help leaders to accomplish a political goal or push their agenda when

the media believe that the politicians have good intentions. Some people say

because the Israeli press pushed the Oslo agenda it did a big disturbance to the

Israeli country and the society…Oslo was a disaster because Yasser Arafat wasn’t

135
 a peacemaker and by building him up as a peacemaker, which the [Israeli] press

did to a certain extent, it led to more conflict and less peace.113

In this context, the Israeli media professionals argued that while media in Israel can

effectively promote a political agenda, a “peace agenda” should not be part of their

discourse.

The Israeli media covered the Oslo peace process with great enthusiasm that the

agreement would lead to the termination of the conflict, bring security to Israel, and open

the door to the Middle East. An Israeli journalist elaborated: “I think the media bought

into the whole atmosphere. This was something that was positive and it needed to be

pushed forward. Oslo was good and the role of the media was to report that Oslo was

good. The problem with that whole atmosphere was when the Palestinians were not

abiding by certain parts of the Oslo Accords…but it didn’t matter because peace was

good. So the media led in that direction.”114 Israeli journalists suggested that during the

Oslo peace process the media raised the Israeli public’s expectations with regard to the

process. Instead of having a lasting peace, as was expected, Palestinian suicide attacks

inside Israel ultimately went on the rise and the Accords’ implementation was stalled.

On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian Authority used the media as a marketing

tool to push the Oslo peace process. The Palestinian media helped “[improve] the image

of Oslo and marketed the Agreement as the first step toward ending the occupation and

establishing a Palestinian state.”115 The media supported the Palestinian Authority’s

113
Interview IL-J3:2.
114
Interview IL-J3:3.
115
Interview PS-O1:7.
136
political narrative, and was able to rally the support of public opinion around the peace

process. Nonetheless, while interest in the peace process declined as both sides failed to

deliver on their promises, the conflict parties grew frustrated. The Palestinian media,

however, continued to support the peace process as a reflection of the Palestinian

Authority’s peace narrative. A Palestinian journalist explained: “Media were not honest

and accurate in portraying the Oslo [peace process] to the public. The media provided a

chance for the Palestinian politicians to present the Oslo [Agreement] as an

improvement,…[which] led to high public support to the Agreement. But when it was

applied, it was clear that the Accords were not what exactly were present in the

media.”116 Consequently, the positive image presented by the media about the peace

process faded out.

The Palestinian journalists’ narrative about the Oslo peace process was similar to

the Israeli narrative. The Palestinian media embraced the peace discourse in the years

following the signing of the Oslo Accords as part of a state and nation building plan. A

long-time Palestinian journalist explained: “The media focused reporting on the peace

discourse as the roadmap to state-building and strengthening democracy, while the reality

on the ground of continuing settlement building in the Palestinian Territories and around

East Jerusalem were not showing progress for peace.”117 The media, in this case, raised

Palestinian expectations for the peace process since the dominant storyline was about

peace negotiations, while it ignored other narratives including the main conflict issues

116
Interview PS-O1:7.
117
Interview PS-J7:2-3.
137
(refugees, borders, settlements, Jerusalem and water). Alas, when the time came to

negotiate the final status agreement at the 2000 Camp David Summit, negotiators from

the two sides were not ready to compromise on the conflict’s core issues. This led to the

failure of the Camp David Summit, and consequently expedited the eruption of the

second Intifada in 2000.

Training Journalists on Principles of Peacebuilding (The Common Ground

Experience)

To encourage journalists in conflict-affected societies to contribute to peacebuilding

journalism they need proper training on conflict resolution methods. In this section, I list

a few training projects that have been implemented in Israel and Palestine as examples on

how journalists have been trained on conflict resolution concepts. I start by describing the

concept of a traditional problem-solving workshop, and then I discuss two projects

conducted by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Jerusalem office. The examples

below should be regarded as only an outline for training media professionals on

peacebuilding journalism.

Problem-solving Workshops on Media and Peace

Some Israeli and Palestinian journalists often meet in workshop settings, where they have

the opportunity to get to know each other and to share experiences. Short-term problem-

solving workshops have been widely encouraged among journalists on both sides

following the Oslo peace Accords. SFCG, Jerusalem office, has organized several
138
workshops for Palestinian and Israeli journalists with the goal of training them in the use

of constructive language in their reporting in order to avoid language that perpetuates

“propaganda and sensationalism language.” In this context the journalists were

encouraged to think about the terms and language they used in their reporting. To

illustrate, a SFCG staff members explained:

If the journalist is constantly calling the other side as ‘the enemy,’ then you will

expect conflict. The media do not only make people think about an issue, but also

it tells them what to think about. So if we are telling them what to think about,

and we are constantly telling them to think about the enemy, then what do we

expect? We expect conflict.118

These workshops have probed the underlying question of whether the journalists’ reports

support community development or push people closer to conflict. Journalists who

participated agreed that these workshops have helped them on a professional level. An

Israeli journalist reflected on a few workshops he attended:

First of all, it breaks walls between the Israeli and Palestinian journalists. And of

course, it helps professionally because now you know people and have direct

contacts. For instance, if you know a journalist from Hebron or from Gaza, and if

something happened there and you need to verify it, it is better to contact

someone who you already know and have built trust with them. 119

118
Interview NGO1: 6.
119
Interview IL-J1:1-2.
139
In addition to the opportunity of creating contacts on the other side, journalists are able to

build trust between each other and to learn that journalists from the other side are also

committed to a peaceful solution. The same journalist added: “It makes me understand

that if I will have to ask for their advice and if I want to verify some information with

them, I will get probably the facts and not propaganda. [The workshops] allowed me to

create that bond and I saw it with my eyes that they [the Palestinian journalists] believe in

journalism.”120

Despite its immediate effectiveness, problem-solving workshops are flawed in

following up with the participants after they go back to their communities. Journalists

returning back to their communities are faced with the conflict’s harsh reality. On the

Palestinian side, the journalists struggle with the unwritten “no-normalization” policy,

which forbids them from normalizing relations with the Israelis (see Chapter 4, which

describes the no-normalization issue in greater detail). Below I describe two media

projects that address the shortcomings of problem-solving workshops.

The Common Ground Journalism

The SFCG Jerusalem office developed creative ways to support journalists after they

completed their training in short-term workshops. SFCG designed two projects: (i)

training journalists on “common ground journalism,” and (ii) Common Ground News

Service (CGNews). The journalists’ training consisted of two “self development”

sessions followed by a three-month period of mentoring and coaching during which the

120
Interview IL-J1:2-3.
140
journalists are required to write for CGNews. CGNews is an ongoing project, which

promotes “mutual understanding,” and provides constructive articles that suggest and

“facilitate peaceful resolution” of conflict (Common Ground News Service n.d.).

Journalist Training

SFCG, in cooperation with USAID, designed two training sessions that included 60

Palestinian and Israeli mid-level journalists who were trained on common ground

journalism. A SFCG staff member explained to me that common ground journalism:

“Focused on training journalists on not to sensationalize, not to use buzzwords, and not to

incite. Although we don’t believe in the word objectivity, but we [train them] as much as

possible on avoiding bias in their piece.”121 The reason mid-level journalists are targeted

for training is because they have existing, rich experience in the field, and they have

established audiences. Another SFCG staff member further elaborated: “We don’t want

to teach them on how to write their news package. We want to take their package and

show them why it is not a good package in the sense of common ground journalism.” 122

The project’s strength, according to the organization’s staff, is constituted in its

two-stage approach. The first stage consists of training and self development, during

which journalists are trained in common ground journalism and are mainly challenged to

reflect on their role in their society. Additionally, they receive basic training on

121
Interview NGO1:1.
122
Interview NGO1:2.
141
journalistic practices, such as investigative journalism and how to present the news. A

SFCG staff member explained:

There has been so much training in this part of the world and nothing gets

changed. Along with that kind of training, we are also going to inspire self

development [to encourage] responsibility among journalists. That it is their duty

as journalists, local journalists to help the society, to inform the society in a

proper manner…the training and self development sessions would help the

journalists’ interests in common ground journalism to grow.123

The second stage involves mentoring and coaching over a three-month period, during

which journalists are required to write for CGNews so that they practice what they

learned during those training sessions. During this period the journalists work closely

with CGNews editors to use common ground language. A SFCG staff member explained

that the combination between the self-development training and the practical part [writing

for CGNews] during the mentoring and coaching period is a new component of training

journalists in conflict zones. 124

As explained by a SFCG staff member: “Journalists will provide their societies

with more diverse information and not to just feed them with what they think that they

should know.”125 The main aim behind this multi-stage training is to allow the journalists

to independently realize that it is in their best interest to give society the information

without incitement and to support informed decision-making.

123
Interview NGO1:2.
124
Interview NGO1:1.
125
Interview NGO1:3.
142
Common Ground News Service

CGNews is a news service that publishes “solution-oriented news, op-eds, features and

analyses” on the Arab-Israeli conflict, written by local and international experts in

various fields; the project started in 2000, and it aims to promote “mutual understanding

and offer hope, opportunities for dialogue and constructive suggestions that facilitate

peaceful resolution of conflict” (Common Ground News Service n.d.). On a weekly basis,

the service suggests articles featured in three languages (English, Arabic and Hebrew) for

republication in major media outlets in the Middle East regional and international press.

According to a CGNews staff member: “The service has been successful in highlighting

these constructive stories that usually do not get the chance to reach the mainstream

media.”126 Today the service has around 34,000 subscribers, a network of “contributing

authors and major media partners who regularly reprint CGNews articles and special

series” (Common Ground News Service n.d.).

The project’s strength lies in its two-fold process: (i) the editing of the articles and

dialoguing with the authors, and (ii) the opportunity to hear the other side’s perspective

on the conflict issues. The editing process requires working closely with the author,

during which CGNews editors try to educate the author to avoid language that incites

hatred. A CGNews staff member explained: “We work with the authors over the use of

words that affect the other side. We dialogue with them and ask them to change words

such as ‘colonization,’ and ‘terrorists,’ and in a sense we're actually educating the

126
Interview NGO2:1.
143
journalist through CGNews…In a sense, we are acting as mediators.”127 The purpose of

this process is to make the authors aware of how their writing could affect readers from

the opposing side. In addition to educating the authors about the use of language,

CGNews allows the authors from each side to interact through their articles, which are

published side-by-side on the CGNews website. In this context, the authors are able to

widen their horizons with regard to the “other perspective,” by reading articles from other

writers on the same issue.

Conclusion

In this chapter I have introduced peacebuilding journalism as a framework in which

journalistic practices can be combined with conflict resolution concepts in the effort to

advance peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies. I described three components

essential for peacebuilding journalism. First, there is a need for more reporting about the

other side in order to make people from the conflict parties knowledgeable about each

other. This in turn could, hypothetically, encourage nonviolent attitudes, as the conflict

parties would know more about each other’s narratives. Second, peacebuilding

journalism encourages alternative media coverage of peace process, which informs and

enables constructive debate about peace. Finally, peacebuilding journalism involves

creative reporting in order to make reporting about peace more “exciting” to the

audience.

127
Interview NGO1:10-11.
144
 Practitioners in the field of conflict resolution put emphasis on the essential role

that journalists can play in peacebuilding. In this regard my analysis uncovered valid

challenges facing peacebuilding journalism, which is highlighted in the journalists’

common belief that their role in peacebuilding is insignificant. Some journalists argued

that peace processes need to be under way in order for them to contribute to

peacemaking, while others insisted that peacemaking is not a task for journalists, and that

it is achieved only by politicians. I also explained that regional media influence on

Palestinian public opinion is an obstacle for the local Palestinian media to positively

sway public opinion toward peace. My research also found that reporting about peace

processes needs to be balanced and inclusive of coverage of positive and negative

outcomes.

In the last section of this chapter, I listed media projects observed during my

research, which illustrate how conflict resolution training can be conducted with

journalists. I highlighted short-term and long-tem projects conducted by Search for

Common Ground (SFCG), Jerusalem office, which can serve as guidelines for designing

trainings based on the principles of peacebuilding journalism.

145
 CHAPTER 7
PEACEBUILDING JOURNALISM
AND CONTENT SENSITIVE TO CONFLICT DYNAMICS

In Chapter 6, I introduced the concept of peacebuilding journalism and suggested

that journalists can help de-escalation and violence prevention by producing content

sensitive to the conflict’s dynamics, and by providing contextually complex information

about the conflict. In this chapter I examine media content produced by journalists in

conflict-affected societies to explore ways in which journalists can contribute to

peacebuilding journalism. Producing media content informed by the parties’

understanding of the conflict and its dynamics requires the journalists to conduct

thorough analysis of the conflict as suggested in Chapter 8. A major benefit of

conducting the analysis is to allow the journalists to develop an understanding of

contextual information about the conflict’s dynamics, thus leading to more balanced and

conflict-sensitive news content.

I researched media content on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s core issues

(Refugees, Jerusalem, Water, Settlements and Borders) in two Palestinian and two Israeli

newspapers. To explore how journalists can produce content informed by the conflict’s

predicaments I used the method of discourse analysis to examine the articles collected

from the four newspapers. I also considered the context in which these articles were

produced. In this regard, I examined the journalists’ writing about each core issue
146
according to a set of frames I developed for each core issue (see Table 2 in Chapter 3 for

a complete list of the frames) in order to narrow the complex debates surrounding the

core issues.

In the context of the peacebuilding journalism practices, producing media content

informed by the people’s perceptions of the conflict’s drivers can help the parties alter

their positions or actions, leading to collaboration and the promotion of joint benefits.

Conducting an analysis by journalists about what pushes people to participate in the

conflict is an essential requirement for producing content that encourages conflict de-

escalation. For instance, in case of conflict situations, where power imbalance between

the conflicting parties is evident, journalists can produce content aimed at capacity

building of the weaker party as long as they think of the ethical implications and risks of

empowering one party or another.

The media review of the conflict’s core issues unraveled theoretical concepts that

can inform the realities and the underlying cause and conditions of the Palestinian-Israeli

dispute. Although the Israeli and Palestinian journalists highlighted each side’s

arguments and understanding of the core issues, the discussion underscored a deeper

layer of intricacy. For example, the Palestinian press described the refugees’ return to

their homes in current Israel as a fulfillment of the Palestinian identity, while the Israeli

media highlighted the return as a threat to the Jewish identity. In the case of Jerusalem,

both sides emphasized the religious symbolism attached to the city and claimed their

historical rights to the city. On the water issue, the Palestinian media discourse described

the problem in the Palestinian Territories as a result of the Israeli occupation, without
147
taking responsibility for water scarcity. The Israeli press showed more willingness to

cooperate over water issues and offered more constructive discussion about the need to

address water scarcity in the region. In the context of the Jewish settlements in the West

Bank, the Palestinian media discourse was clear that they are illegal and an obstacle to a

two-state solution. Meanwhile, the Israeli media’s more complex discourse referred to a

sense of pride and nationalism that stems from the religious belief that Jewish people

have the right to the land. The border issue was discussed by both sides in the context of

the separation wall, and the settlements were described as an obstacle to a future

Palestinian state.

Refugees and the Right of Return

Following the 1948 war, around 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes,

and during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war additional Palestinians fled to neighboring

countries. The estimated number of Palestinian Israeli framing of refugee issue:

1. Demographic threat
refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza and 2. Threat to the Jewishness of Israel
3. Sense of nationhood
neighboring countries is 4 million (Alpher and Palestinian framing of refugee issue:
1. Loss of their homes and land
2. The right of return
Shikaki 1998, 7). Palestinians demand they be 3. Sense of homelessness and exile

permitted to return to their homes in current Israel in accordance to United Nations

Resolution 194128. Israel strongly rejects the idea of refugees’ returning to their homes in

128
According to the UN Resolution number 194, Article 11: “The [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return
to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable
date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of
or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by
the Governments or authorities responsible” (United Nations 1949).
148
Israel, as they fear the threat of demographic change and a possible Arab majority in

Israel would put an end to Israel as a Jewish State.

After analyzing the collected articles from the Palestinian and Israeli newspapers I

was able to surmise that the refugee discourse is presented not only as a major obstacle

for a final status agreement, but also as a threat to each other’s identity. In this context,

each side offered an account of their arguments of how to go about resolving the issue of

the Palestinian refugees while sweeping under the rug the other side’s viewpoint.

The Palestinian articles I studied emphasized the discourse of refugees as an

essential component of the Palestinian social identity, arguing that Palestinians in the

Palestinian Territories and the diaspora regard the right of return as an uncompromisable

demand and an essential component of the overall Palestinian cause. An article by Al

Hayat Al Jadidah published on 5/16/2005 and entitled “Gaza’s children dream of

returning to villages and cities they heard about in stories by their displaced

grandfathers,” explained that “Children in Gaza no longer view the Nakba129 as the issue

of the refugees alone, but it is the cause of the entire Palestinian people, and everyone is

responsible for protecting this cause until the right of return is realized” (Al-Bakri 2005).

Two years later another article in the same newspaper read:

The return of refugees in accordance to international resolutions [United Nations

Resolution 194] is sacred, legal, political and morally right…and cannot be

neglected or become a bargaining chip. Achieving [the right of return] is the only

129
Nakba in Arabic means “catastrophe” and is used by the Palestinians to describe the events of 1948, and
it marks the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes in current Israel.
149
 right approach to a just and lasting peace and the gateway to security and stability

in the region (Moussa 2007).

The observed Palestinian dailies in my research showed a rigid stance on the refugee

issue. Headlines read “PLC: the right of return is a red line and any solution that does not

include it is not binding for our people,”130 (Moussa 2005) and “Refugees in Gaza: the

joy is incomplete after Israel’s withdrawal and insistence on the right of return” (Al

Ayyam 2005). These headlines underlined another discourse surrounding the issue of the

Palestinian refugees. Due to the unclear political narrative put out by the Palestinian

politicians, as discussed in Chapter 4, journalists often reminded their readers and leaders

of the need for a unified narrative about the refugee issues. In the run up to the Annapolis

Conference, which convened between the Israelis and the Palestinians in November 2007

under the United States auspice, the Palestinian media doubled the effort by calling on

the Palestinian politicians to adhere to the right of return and refugee cause. On

6/12/2007 an article by Al Hayat Al Jadidah stated:

We need to review and audit [our official statements] and unify our political

language so that we have less spokespeople. […] Reviewing our political

statements is an immediate task for our leadership to unify our official line in

efforts to have more accurate and deeper understanding of responses to the Israeli

political trends (Al-Kashef 2007).

130
The acronym “PLC” stands for “Palestinian Legislative Council”. This is the parliament of the
Palestinian Authority.
150
Articles I researched in the Israeli newspapers highlighted the Palestinian refugee issue,

particularly the demand of right of return, as a threat to the identity of the Jewish State

and a major risk that would change Israel’s demography. On 10/25/2007, an editorial in

The Jerusalem Post read:

Sixty-nine percent of Palestinians want all 4.4 million refugees and their

descendants relocated to Israel…Yet given Israel’s current population of roughly

5.7 million Jews and 1.3 million Arabs that is a clear recipe for eliminating the

Jewish state demographically (Gordon 2007).

On several occasions Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that the

Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State before talks on final status agreement were

to take place. The Palestinian media content I reviewed for this research reflected the

Palestinian official line in this regard stressing that recognizing Israel as a “Jewish State”

does not “concern the Palestinians.” This was furthermore explained by Palestinian

Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks in

2010. Nonetheless, an article published by Al Ayyam on 6/5/2010 highlighted the

Palestinian fear from the Israeli demand:

Recognizing Israel as a “Jewish State” or as a state “of the Jewish people” is an

obstacle in the way for the refugees to return […] Agreeing that Israel is a Jewish

State means that anyone who wants to return to his home […] should be a Jew,

which is impossible (Mattar 2010a).

The Palestinian newspaper articles underscore the right of return as a “just” and “natural

right,” however they disregarded consequences that the influx of Palestinian refugees
151
could bring an end to the current status of Israel being the homeland for the Jewish

people.

The Israeli writers often argued that the right of return contradicts the notion of a

two-state solution for two nations. An op-ed piece in The Jerusalem Post published on

10/23/2007 explained:

Palestinians have to understand that despite their understanding of “justice” -

meaning to them that Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their

original homes this is simply impossible. […] [There is a] fundamental

contradiction in seeking “two states for two peoples” while adhering to the “right

of return” at the same time (Baskin 2007).

While the Palestinians emphasized that a “just” resolution of the refugee issue is the only

way to reach a peaceful settlement, the Israeli writers also argued that recognizing Israel

as a Jewish State is a requirement for a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Israeli writers

explained that such recognition is parallel to the Palestinian demand for an independent

state. As one writer explained in an opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post, the Palestinians

need “to come to terms with the rights of the Jewish nation in this land and the

consequent necessity to relinquish the demand for a right of return” (Horovitz 2007). The

same article blamed the Palestinian leadership for their failure to confront the Palestinians

with the Israeli demanded and cited opinion poll that showed “overwhelming opposition

to compromise on the refugee issue” by the Palestinians.

Other Israeli writers blamed both the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership for

using the refugee issue as a bargaining chip. An article published on 6/9/2006 by the
152
liberal Israeli daily Haaretz argued: “Generations of cynical politicians have exploited

and are still exploiting the issue of the right of return in order to brainwash unfortunate

refugees and to terrify anxious Israelis” (Eldar 2006). The refugee issue, in this context,

has been exploited by politicians on both sides in order to rally public support and to gain

leverage for compromise on other core issues.

The discourse of the Israeli and Palestinian media underlined the refugee issue as

a threat to each other’s social and political identity. The Palestinian dailies supported the

discourse of refugees as the underlying cause for the Palestinians, which cannot be

compromised. Meanwhile, the Israeli press I reviewed highlighted the demand for the

right of return as inconsistent with the notion of Israel being a Jewish State. The two

competing views discussed on the front pages of the Palestinian and Israeli newspapers

undermined constructive content that could go beyond uncompromised requirements in

the efforts to contribute to peacebuilding journalism.

Discourse about Water Issue

Water has been a source of major contention between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Water scarcity is a growing problem in the region, and yet the two sides are poorly

managing their shared water resources. According to a recent World Bank study, Israeli

water consumption per capita averages four times that of a Palestinian (World Bank

2009, 13). Israel argues that it is an industrialized country and it requires more water than

the Palestinians. Nonetheless, the Palestinians claim that they have the right to a certain

quantity of water that was specified in the Oslo Agreement. According to the Palestinian
153
Water Authority, currently these quantities have not been met. Additionally, Israel has

been operating wells inside the Green Line131 without sharing associated data (e.g., water

pumping rates) with the Palestinians. Israel also Israeli framing of water issues:
1. Sovereignty over the resources as
argues that the Palestinians are mismanaging an independent state; water
security to accommodate water
their water by being wasteful and polluting the growth and industrialization
2. Increasing water scarcity and the
need for agricultural water
resources. In contrast, the Palestinians blame 3. Palestinians are mismanaging
their water
Israel’s policies, including the occupation and Palestinian framing of water issues:
1. Right to water as specified in the
Oslo Accords
limitations on movement, for their water 2. Occupation and limitation of
movement make it difficult to
management and service problems. manage water resources
3. Israelis are not transparent and are
My review of the Israeli and Palestinian taking more water than their fair
share
media discourse surrounding the water issue

yielded less antagonistic accusations between the two sides in comparison to the refugee

issue. I attribute this factor to the notion that journalists on both sides are less educated

about the threat of water scarcity in the region, while also the topic does not attract the

reader’s attention. Additionally, the issue of water in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less

closely linked to both parties’ threatened identity and therefore is less explosive.

Nonetheless, the reviewed articles gave a sufficient and clear account of how both sides

frame the water issues. On the Palestinian side the media discussed the water problems in

the context of the Israeli occupation, while the Israeli dailies discussed the water issue

131
Green Line refers to the 1949 Armistice Line, which was established under a set of agreements signed in
1949 between Israel and its neighbors, including a ceasefire.
154
from a regional perspective emphasizing the need for regional cooperation to resolve

water scarcity in Israel and neighboring countries.

The Palestinian media review presented water scarcity in the West Bank and Gaza

as a result of Israeli occupation. The authors blamed Israel for “stealing” water from

aquifers beneath the West Bank and explained that the occupation policies and

settlements in the Occupied Territory have limited the Palestinians’ abilities to manage

their water resources. An editorial featured in Al Ayyam on 4/25/2005 read:

In this strategic area [the Jordan Valley] there is a conflict going on, but it is not

visible and [there] needs an effective resistance to overcome the new invaders.

This vicious war over land and water began the first day of the occupation, and is

still at its peak […]. At a time when the settlers’ farmers use the stolen Palestinian

water, Palestinian farms suffer from thirst (Al-Najar 2009).

Head of the Palestinian Water Authority, Shaddad Attili, was often quoted in these

articles holding Israel responsible for the water crisis. On 6/10/2010, Al Hayat Al Jadidah

quoted Attili as saying Israel “denies the Palestinians their rights to share the Jordan

River water and most of the aquifers in the West Bank and Gaza, while it also prevents

[the Palestinians] from drilling new wells” (Khaled 2010). In contrast, the Israeli dailies

explained that Israel has met its obligations agreed upon under the 1993 Oslo Agreement,

and highlighted the Palestinian’s shortcomings in meeting their obligations. An editorial

in The Jerusalem Post published on 4/22/2010 read:

Israel charges the Palestinians have ‘significantly violated their commitments’ by

failing to build sewage treatment plants, by drilling unauthorized wells, refusing

155
 to purify and reuse sewage for agriculture, dumping sewage into streams and not

taking advantage of water desalination opportunities (Bloomfield 2010).

In this regard, the Palestinian media frequently cited a World Bank Report, published in

2009, which explained: “Water resources availability in the two neighbors [Israel and

Palestine] is far apart, with fresh water per capita in Israel about four times that of WBG

[West Bank and Gaza]” (World Bank 2009, 9). The report, which was requested by the

Palestinian Authority but also involved consultations with Israeli authorities and other

Israeli stakeholders, triggered wide debate in the Israeli and Palestinian press. The

reviewed Palestinian articles discussed the report in detail and underscored its finding

that: “Whereas Israel is known for efficient water infrastructure and management,

Palestinians are struggling to attain the most basic level of infrastructure and services of a

low income country” (Arnauti 2009). The report asserted that the understanding reached

under the Oslo Agreement fell short of helping the Palestinians to develop water sources.

Several articles in the reviewed Palestinian press outlined the shortcomings of the

Oslo Agreement regarding the water shortage even before the World Bank report came

out. An editorial featured by Al Hayat Al Jadidah on 6/24/2008 explained:

The interim agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis allowed the

Palestinians to drill a number of groundwater wells, and develop some of the old

wells […] to cover the water deficit in the West Bank and Gaza. […] However,

Israel did not and will not allow well drilling (Abu Al-Rub 2008).

The Palestinians argue that Israel is not allowing them to drill for water located in the

aquifers under the West Bank, while Israel is consuming 90% of the aquifer’s yield.
156
Nonetheless, the Israeli press accused the Palestinians of conducting several illegal

drillings for water in the West Bank. An article in Haaretz published on 11/26/2004, said:

After the start of the current confrontation in the fall of 2000 [the second

Palestinian Intifada], it was discovered that in the area of the northeastern aquifer

the Palestinians had carried out 17 unauthorized drillings. The water agreement

between the Palestinians and Israel held that a request must be filed with the Joint

Water Committee132 prior to the drilling of a well. This was not done (Schiff

2004).

Although the Palestinian and Israeli media continued to blame each other for the water

crisis, the reviewed Israeli press offered a more constructive discussion on the water

problems in Israel and the region as a whole. They suggested regional cooperation is an

eminent requirement to address water scarcity. On 2/2/2010, an editorial in The

Jerusalem Post entitled “Water: A source of conflict or peace?” read:

We should be aware that, given the constraints of global warming and growing

populations, the political and geopolitical dimensions of the problem have to be

harnessed in such a way that water can serve as the basis for regional cooperation

rather than the spark for renewed conflict (Newman 2010).

In this context, the monitored Israeli dailies were critical of the Israeli policies in the

West Bank and Gaza when compared with discussions about other core issues such as the

refugee problems. An article entitled “The water belongs to all, all must protect it,” was

132
The Joint Water Committee, established under the Oslo Accords, is a committee that includes both
Israeli and Palestinian representation of party water interests and expertise. The Committee is required to
unanimously approve water infrastructure and initiatives in particular parts of the West Bank.
157
published in Haaretz on 5/15/2002 and argued: “During the [second] intifada reality has

proved that regarding the water resources, both sides have maintained a sane attitude by

cooperating and not trying to deliberately cut off supplies” (Rinat 2002). In this regard,

the Israeli dailies were more critical of Israel’s water policies in the Palestinian territories

and the region.

Settlements and Borders Issues

The Palestinians demand that Israel withdraw from all land it conquered during the 1967

war. This includes all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They

argue that the Israeli settlements are an obstacle

Israeli framing of settlements:
1. Right for the land according to
to a viable Palestinian state and are a threat to religious beliefs
2. Government economic incentives
peoples’ security and property. On the Israeli with affordable housing
3. Source for internal political
conflict
side the settlements are understood as part of a Palestinian framing of settlements:
1. Prevent a two-state solution and
religious vision of returning to “Eretz Yisrael” - undermine the need for
nationhood
the land of Israel (Mnookin and Eiran 2005, 2). 2. Lost of property by land
confiscation
3. Sense of no security
Nonetheless, many Israeli settlers choose to live

in settlements not just for religious beliefs, but also to take advantage of associated

economic incentives offered by the government for affordable housing. Additionally,

settlements are frequently a source of internal political contention in Israel; in the event

that Israel would pull out from all land occupied in the 1967 war, Israel will face the

problem of settler influx into Israel.

158
 The reviewed Palestinian dailies reflected strong and clear arguments against the

settlements in the Palestinian Territories: the settlements are illegal, obstruct a two-state

solution and threaten the Palestinian population. An editorial in Al Hayat Al Jadidah,

published on 12/6/2009, argued:

The Zionist settlements in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal,

and contradict international resolutions and laws, […] because it is the territory of

the future Palestinian state, which is blessed and supported by the whole world

(Abdul Rahman 2009).

Another article explained that the “Terror by settlers is as dangerous as the Israeli

occupation” in the West Bank, adding that: “Attacks by the settlers, who are protected by

the Israeli army, became more frequent against […] the Palestinian civilians by burning

mosques, uprooting trees, cutting off roads and running over pedestrians” (Mattar 2010b).

In this context, the Palestinian press claimed that Jewish settlers are playing an essential

and supportive role to the Israeli government’s policy in the Palestinian Territories.

The Palestinian dailies blamed settlement expansion on the Oslo Agreement.

They argued that postponing to a later stage of negotiation over the core issues -

including the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Territories - gave Israel time to expand

settlements. An article in Al Ayyam, published on 6/25/2009 contemplated that the

expansion of settlement has taken place under the umbrella of the peace negotiations:

The settlement expansion contradicts the signed agreements. Oslo said [to the

parties] ‘do not cause any change that would affect the final status negotiations’

159
 and the ‘settlement expansion cannot exceed the structural limits of existing

settlements’ (Awad 2009).

In contrast, the Israeli press presented a complex discourse of religious and political

meanings attached to the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian Territories. The religious

argument asserts that the Jewish people have a ‘divine’ right to the ‘ancient Kingdom of

Judea and Samaria,’ which was used to encourage settlement building in the ‘new land’

conquered by Israel as a consequence of the 1967 war. Although, the majority of the

Israeli public has accepted the fact that settlements in the West Bank do not serve peace,

this is by all means not the case among Jewish settlers. An editorial in Haaretz on

12/30/2009 explained: “The settlers love to describe themselves as pioneers, heroes who

are mounting the hills of Samaria and Judea to settle ancient parts of the homeland and

fight the Arabs” (Benn 2009). This strong belief and sense of pride by the settlers “made

possible the establishment of an independent Israel as the result of the UN Partition

decision and victory in the ensuing War of Independence,” according to an opinion piece

published on 6/2/2006 in The Jerusalem Post (Goell 2006).

The issue of settlements, however, was also highlighted by the Israeli press as a

source of dispute and potential cause for ‘intra-Jewish violence’. Following the Israeli

pullout from Gaza and the evacuation of settlements there in 2005, the Israeli dailies

emphasized the violence between the settlers who refused to evacuate their homes and

the soldiers who were torn between following orders of evacuating the settlers and not

going against the will of their spiritual Jewish leaders (Horovitz 2009). During the pullout

160
from Gaza, Jewish rabbis called on the Israeli soldiers not to assist in evacuating the

settlers for Gaza, warning that they would be going against Jewish religious teachings.

According to the Israeli media, the growth of settlements in the West Bank is not

only attributed to a religious ideology, but also to financial reasons. “It is not Land of

Israel ideology that has attracted the haredim133 - a group which had not traditionally

been part of the settlement network - but cheap housing. They would be prepared to

evacuate for the right economic compensation,” an article in Haaretz explained (Benn

2009).

Settlements are also a main obstacle to reaching an agreement over the borders to

mark a future Palestinian state. In this context, border issues became more complex

following Israel’s finalization of plans for the Israeli framing of borders:

1. Security barriers
“separation wall”, as called by the Palestinians, 2. Land swap
3. Settlements in East Jerusalem
or “security fence”, as referred to by Israelis. Palestinian framing of borders:
1. Separation wall
2. Settlements in East Jerusalem
The 26-feet high wall separates Israel from the 3. State within the 1967 borders

Palestinian Territories. The Palestinians are calling for a state within the 1967 borders,

but the wall goes deep inside the 1967 borders on the east side. The wall also weaves

around East Jerusalem and now includes large parts of Israeli settlements in East

Jerusalem (Trottier 2007, 111). Israel hopes that in a final agreement the land that is now

on the west side of the wall, which includes large settlements, would be swapped with

less-populated land in Israel along the Green Line (Al Ayyam 2008).

133
Haredim is a group of ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are not considered right-wing nationalists.
161
 The settlements, according to the Israeli press, remain an obstacle to a final

agreement on boarders. On 7/28/2009, The Jerusalem Post published an editorial that

argued:

Even a redrawing of the Israel-Palestine boundary to include many of the

settlements close to the Green Line, while the Palestinian state would receive

parcels of empty land in exchange, does not solve the problem. Whatever the

extent of potential territorial exchange, there would always remain a hard core of

the settlement network deep inside the West Bank which would have to be

evacuated (Newman 2009).

The separation/security wall dominated the Palestinian media discourse on the borders

issue. “Palestinian officials do not conceal their fears of the Israeli settlement activities

and building of the separation barrier around Jerusalem,” an article by Al Hayat Al

Jadidah explained (Hamdan 2005). The Palestinian press argued that the Israeli fence is a

tool to force its plans that the separation wall will be the future border of a Palestinian

state, while keeping major settlements close to the Green Line inside Israel.

The Battle over Jerusalem

Both Israelis and the Palestinians claim rights to have control over Jerusalem. The

Palestinians argue that a two-state solution is not viable without East Jerusalem becoming

the capital of a future Palestinian state (House of Commons 2009, 73). Meanwhile, the

Israelis insist that the city cannot be divided and should remain under Israel’s control.

Additionally, Jerusalem has important religious and historic implications for both nations.
162
The city is the ancient capital of Judea and the place where the holy Jewish Temple once

stood. In contrast, for the Palestinians Jerusalem is the home of the third holiest Muslim

shrine, Al Aqsa Mosque.

Israeli framing of Jerusalem
1. Undivided Jerusalem as the
My media review of Jerusalem as a core
capital of Israel
2. Historic and religious
issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict highlighted
entitlement
3. Symbolism of defeat and
two primary meanings: the city as a strong religious victory
Palestinian framing of Jerusalem
symbol for both communities and the city as a 1. A two-state solution with East
Jerusalem as the capital
source of nationalism and pride. Both, Israeli and 2. Historic and religious
entitlement
Palestinian authors consider the issue of Jerusalem 3. Symbolism of defeat and
victory
as a must-win battle. Unlike other core issues, the

research showed that both sides reflected a similar discourse in framing the issue of

Jerusalem. The most obvious component of this discourse was the religious significance

of Jerusalem. An article published in The Jerusalem Post on 5/11/2010 illustrated the

meaning of Jerusalem for the Jewish people: “For Jews, Jerusalem’s walls evoke a

profound mix of nationalism and religion, glory and tragedy, spiritual fulfillment and

political redemption, longevity and longing” (Troy 2010). Similarly, in an editorial

featured in the Palestinian Al Hayat Al Jadidah on 10/31/2009, the author evoked the

significant meaning of Jerusalem for Muslim and Christian Palestinians:

Jerusalem is the soul, mind and heart of Palestine and its eternal capital. It is the

first kiblah134 [the direction to which Muslims pray] and the third holiest site.

134
Muslims believe that Jerusalem was the first kiblah, the direction to which Muslims pray, before Prophet
Mohammed ordered Muslims to pray toward the Holy Shrine of Ka’aba in Mecca.
163
 Jerusalem is where the cradle of religions and holy places are, where Al-Aqsa

Mosque and the Holy Sepulcher Church stand (Al Massri 2009).

These religious narratives presented in the media review not only revealed the deeply

rooted causes of the dispute about Jerusalem, but also underscored the political meanings

attached to the city. The Israeli monitored press utilized the Jewish religious history of

Jerusalem to explain why it is unacceptable to divide the city; a condition that the

Palestinians demand to create viability for a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as the

future capital of a Palestinian state. In this context an article published in The Jerusalem

Post, on 7/20/2010 demanded: “As we move forward in our quest for peace it is

imperative that a united, undivided Jerusalem remain in our hands as well as in our

hearts” (Harow 2010). The Israeli discourse of undivided Jerusalem as the capital of

Israel has been a famous and voter-winning slogan for many Israeli politicians. In 2009,

at a state ceremony to mark Israel’s national Jerusalem Day, Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted in Haaretz as stating: “United, Jerusalem is Israel’s

capital. Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours; it will never again be

partitioned and divided” (Shragai, Coren, and Mualem 2009).

Several Israeli writers, however, argued that the holy city has already been

demographically divided. Palestinians are living in East Jerusalem and Jews are living in

West Jerusalem and some certain neighborhoods, or “settlements” as called by the

Palestinians, in East Jerusalem. An opinion piece carried by The Jerusalem Post on

7/21/2009, explained that Jerusalem is one of the most “segregated cities in the world,”

adding that:
164
 Jerusalem is almost two separate cities […]. It is true that there is a Jewish

majority, not only in west Jerusalem but also in what is called east Jerusalem. The

divide in Jerusalem is clearly on national-ethnic lines - there is an Israeli

Jerusalem and there is a Palestinian Jerusalem (Baskin 2009).

From a Palestinian perspective, the reviewed articles underscored a discourse of a

systematic Israeli plot to empty the city‘s Palestinian neighborhoods in the effort to

‘Judaize’135 Jerusalem. Approximately 250,000 Palestinians, living in marginalized and

neglected neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, are presented as the Palestinian’s ‘Trojan

horse’ by the Israeli media and as the guardians of Jerusalem by the Palestinian press.

“[Israel] is working hard to distort the cultural identity of the [Palestinian] citizens of

Jerusalem […] through its control over schools and social services to erode their

steadfastness in the city,” an article in the Palestinian Al Ayyam explained (Asaad 2009).

Palestinian authors also criticize the Muslim word, to whom Jerusalem is equally

significant, for turning a blind eye to the Israeli actions against Palestinian Jerusalemites:

“If a Palestinian negotiator discusses Jerusalem, a Sheikh comes out of nowhere to

declare that Jerusalem is an Islamic site for all Muslims, but no one will help the

Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem,” an article in Al Hayat Al Jadidah argued (Barghouti

2006).

In addition to the plan of getting rid of the city’s Palestinian citizens, the

Palestinian press emphasized that Jewish settlements surrounding East Jerusalem is an

135
“Judaize” is a term used in the Palestinian and Arab media to describe Israel’s actions to force
Palestinians out of Jerusalem and building settlements in the eastern part of the city where the Palestinians
hope to have their future capital.
165
attempt by Israel to impose control over the city. Al Ayyam carried an editorial on

6/29/2010 explaining:

The Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee is preparing to approve

the blueprint of ‘united’ Jerusalem, under which all Jewish settlements and

surrounding Palestinian territories will be included as part of Jerusalem […]. The

adoption of this plan means theoretically and practically annexing East Jerusalem

(Abdul Hamid 2010).

Despite the multilayered and complex discourse exerted by the press on both sides, the

Palestinian and Israeli press I reviewed underscored the need for a viable solution to

Jerusalem. An opinion piece entitled “One Jerusalem for two nations,” published in the

liberal Israeli Haaretz newspaper on 6/11/2005, emphasized:

Eliminating the option of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem means the end of the

two-state solution. If any possibility for a solution on the basis of this principle

exists, what is being done now in Jerusalem is destroying it (Rubinstein 2005).

The Palestinian media used stronger language as was evident in an editorial published in

Hayat Al Jadidah: “Jerusalem is the essence of […] a Palestinian state. There is no

Palestinian state or entity without Jerusalem and as long as it is occupied, the conflict will

continue” (Al Qazzar 2005).

The Israeli and Palestinian media reviewed in this research showed a more rigid

stance on the issue of Jerusalem compared to the other disputed issues. Both sides relied

on strong religious symbolism, nationalism and pride to prove their points. While the

Israeli media emphasized that Jerusalem is already a divided city between the Israelis and
166
the Palestinians, the media discourse highlighted the religious nuances of the Jewish

people’s right to Jerusalem. The Palestinian media also underlined the city’s religious

significance for Muslims and Christians in order to counter the Israeli argument.

Conclusion

My media review of these Israeli and Palestinian newspapers informs the concept of

peacebuilding journalism and helps media professionals produce content sensitive to a

conflict’s underlying causes and conditions. I found that while media on both sides

presented their arguments as to why the core issues are uncompromised, the journalists

based their arguments on notions such as threat to identity, religious symbolism and a

sense of pride and nationalism. Yet, these concepts were suppressed in their narratives.

Media content that can contribute to conflict resolution requires the journalists’

comprehension of this deep ‘second layer’ of the conflict’s complexity. In the context of

the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the media discourse on both sides presented the core issues

as difficult to compromise on, and arguments were strong on each side. However, as the

media review showed above, the conflict’s parties do share similar grievances, such as in

the case of the refugee issue. The Palestinian media, like the Israeli media, presented the

refugee issue in the context of the two parties’ social identities. The Palestinian media

discourse highlighted the refugees’ right of return as part of their national cause and

asserted that its realization cannot be compromised. In this context, the Palestinian press

defined the refugees living in the Palestinian territories and the diaspora as an essential

component of the Palestinian identity. Equally, the Israeli media portrayed the refugees’
167
return to current Israel as a threat to Israel’s demography and conveyed fear that

Palestinian refugees’ return would threaten the Jewish identity. Media content that can

contribute to conflict resolution would consist of analysis similar to that discussed in the

above reviewed articles. The analysis in this chapter underscored each party’s grievances

and perceived threats to the parties’ identities. However, examples of peacebuilding

journalism would also include analysis that underscores the parties’ options for

compromise and ways of addressing their grievances.

168
 CHAPTER 8
METHODS OF PEACEBUILDING JOURNALISM

This research seeks to answer the question: What are the opportunities in which

media can contribute to peacebuilding in conflict-affected societies? And, furthermore,

how can journalists reconsider their positions in conflict situations in order to advance

peacebuilding? In Chapter 6, I introduced the concept of peacebuilding journalism, in

which media professionals combine journalistic practices and conflict resolution concepts

in an effort to advance peacebuilding in conflict zones. I offered three components

necessary for achieving peacebuilding journalism (reporting about the others side,

alternative reporting and creative reporting). In this chapter I introduce three methods of

peacebuilding journalism to suggest ways in which journalists in conflict situations can

advance peacebuilding. Those are: (i) conflict mapping for journalists, (ii) an early

warning system in the media as a conflict prevention tool, and (iii) journalists’ cross-

border cooperation as a means to facilitate exchange of news and information.

Conflict mapping for journalists is a tool intended to assist them in producing a

thorough analysis of the conflict situations in order to produce informed content with the

least bias, and to provide the conflict parties with analyses that go beyond their

uncompromised interests and which emphasize alternatives to violence. An early

warning system in peacebuilding journalism is a tool intended to empower the journalists

169
in conflict-affected societies to be proactive in analyzing and detecting conditions that

could cause the next conflict or violent events to spiral and escalate. This intervention

tool strongly depends on the journalists’ abilities to analyze past and current events to

predict violence. Cross-border cooperation between journalists in conflict-torn societies is

a necessary tool to foster the exchange of news and information between journalists from

opposing parties and to increase the public’s awareness.

Peacebuilding Journalism and Conflict Mapping

In peacebuilding journalism we are concerned with producing news content that is

sensitive to the conflict dynamics as was explained in Chapter 7. This can be done by, at

the very least, making sure that both conflict parties clearly understand each other.

Understanding the conflict parties’ positions requires the journalists to perform a careful

analysis of the conflict’s dynamics to examine the underlying causes of an escalating

violence. Such a role reveals essential similarities between media professionals and

conflict resolution specialists. Both groups need to perform a preliminary analysis of the

conflict in order to determine the parties, disputed issues, underlying causes of the

conflict, and a possible outcome that each party in the conflict is trying to attain

(Rubenstein, Botes, and Stephens 1994, 6). To illustrate the need for understanding the

causes of a conflict, an Israeli official working on media projects at the Israeli Foreign

Ministry explained: “First of all, we have to know the motivations of the Palestinians,

why do they fight with us, what is the source of their pain, and why we are not able to

170
compromise.”136 In an effort to understand the role of media in conflict resolution, one

should first understand the basics of the conflict that journalists are covering. Therefore,

journalists should develop a detailed understanding of the conflict’s dynamics and its

underlying causes and conditions to convey information about the conflict’s predicament,

but also to offer the conflict parties’ deeper comprehension of the choices available to

them in regard to alternatives to violence.

Practitioners in the field of conflict resolution underscore the need for analyzing

the causes and conditions of a conflict as an essential and first step before suggesting

certain plans for possible resolution. In conflict resolution, doing a thorough analysis

starts with mapping the conflict. For example, in his Three Pillar Approach, Sandole

offered conflict mapping tools for third parties to understand the drivers behind a conflict

as a first step in designing a peacebuilding plan (Sandole 2007). Mapping the conflict’s

causes and conditions, or even smaller scale mapping of the causes of a violent episode in

a conflict, can provide journalists with a powerful tool to produce informed content with

the least bias, while also providing the conflict parties with analyses that go beyond their

uncompromised interests toward possible conflict pacification and violence de-escalation.

To assist the journalists in conducting mapping of conflict situations as a method

in peacebuilding journalism, I introduce a conflict mapping tool known as the

“Alternative 5 Ws,” which was developed by The Network for Conflict Resolution

Canada. The concept combines the traditional journalistic formula, known as the “5

W’s,” with a useful conflict analysis approach; these are merged in an effort to enable the

136
Interview IL-O1:13.
171
“journalists [to] inform and educate the public about conflicts in the news through

effective conflict analysis” (Adam and Holguín 2003, 3). Adam and Holguín introduced

the tool during a media conference in Columbia, and cited the efforts put forward by The

Network for Conflict Resolution Canada. They explain that: “Journalist[s] should

develop a thorough understanding of the conflict and convey that understanding to their

audiences in a way that reflects the truth of the conflict in all its complexity” (Adam and

Holguín 2003, 4). Table 4 below offers a list of questions that can help journalists

conduct an analysis of the conflict situation by asking: Who is affected by the conflict,

What caused the dispute, When did it begin, Where did it take place, Why do the parties

hold their positions, and How can the conflict be resolved. Each question, which serves

as a unique category for analyzing a conflict’s dynamics, is then further developed by

offering a set of alternative sub-questions, which can help journalists conduct a

comprehensive conflict analysis.

Table 5: Conflict Mapping for Journalists

5 W’s Alternative 5 Ws for Conflict Analysis
1. Who? (Who is Who is affected by this conflict?
involved?) Who has a distinct stake in its outcome?
What is their relationship to one another, including relative
power, influence and affluence?
2. What? (What is What triggered the dispute?
the story? What drew it to your attention at this time?
What issues do the parties need to resolve?
3. When? (When did When did this conflict begin?
it take place?) How often have the circumstances existed that gave rise to
this dispute?
4. Where? (Where What geographical or politic jurisdictions are affected by the
did it take place?) dispute?
How has similar dispute handled in other places on different
172
 settings?
5. Why? (Why did it Why do the parties hold their positions?
happen?) What needs, interests, fears and concerns are the positions
intended to address?
6. How? (How did it How are they going to resolve this? (e.g. negotiation,
happen?) mediation, arbitration, administrative hearing, court, armed
warfare)
What are the costs/benefits of the chosen method?
7. Options What options have the parties explored?
How do the various options relate to the identified interests?
8. Common Ground What common ground is there between the parties
What have they agreed to so far?
This Table was adopted from Adam and Holguín’s conference paper presented at a media conference in
Barranquilla, Colombia in 2003.

Adam and Holguin also assert that journalists should add “options” and “common

ground” to their analysis of the 5 W’s. The journalists need to examine the options

available to the parties participating in the conflict and whether the parties have explored

other alternatives to resolve the conflict. Additionally, journalists are encouraged to

explore common interests between the conflict parties to allow their readers and

audiences to envision a possible settlement of their dispute.

The above conflict mapping tool is innovative in its attempt to combine familiar

journalistic practices with conflict resolution concepts in order to encourage the

journalists to conduct a thorough analysis of a conflict’s dynamics. Its strength lays in its

relevance to the basic journalistic practices required to write a news story. The tool offers

the journalists a familiar method they use regularly in producing a news story by

augmenting the usage of the five W questions. Meanwhile, the tool also provides the

journalists with sets of comprehensive sub-questions to be used for conducting their

173
analysis. However, journalists in conflict-affected societies may require further

instructions to learn skills, such as understanding a conflict’s causes and conditions.

These skills can be acquired in short training projects such as those carried by Search for

Common Ground as described in Chapter 6.

Taking into consideration the seven categories in the above chart (see Table 5),

the training course could consist of seven separate sessions in which each alternative sub-

question – Alternative 5 Ws for Conflict Analysis – are utilized to guide the journalists’

analysis. For instance, one training session could be designed to address the question

“who is involved in the conflict” by answering the following alternative questions:

1. Who is affected by this conflict?

2. Who has a distinct stake in its outcome?

3. What is their relationship to one another, including relative power, influence and

affluence?

The above “Alternative 5 Ws” conflict mapping tool is intended as a departure

point for developing a more thorough instrument to guide the journalists in their analysis

of a conflict’s dynamics. The sub-questions of each category are designed to be broad in

order to capture the basic elements needed for conducting conflict analysis. A more

comprehensive conflict mapping tool should take into consideration the uniqueness of

each conflict and its predicaments.

174
Peacebuilding Journalism and Conflict Prevention

Conflict prevention has been a central aim for practitioners in the field of conflict

resolution, as they seek to mitigate conflict situations before they escalate. Conflict

prevention approaches are widely discussed in two categories of practice: (i) operation

prevention, which deals with immediate crises, such as sending high-level diplomats to

mediate between conflict parties; and (ii) structural prevention, which tries to address the

root cause of potential conflict (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall 2005). In the

context of peacebuilding journalism, I am concerned with the latter category of conflict

prevention. I introduce the method of an early warning system in the media as an

instrument to avoid violent conflicts before they catch on fire. An early warning system

as a preventative method is not a new technique; early warning systems have mainly been

used to predict natural disasters, such drought and its effect on refugee movements.

However, interest in early warning systems has been growing, as they are a means to

detect violent conflicts “for the purpose of making possible the use of preventive action

instead of reactive action” (Doom 1997). An early warning system in peacebuilding

journalism is a method that encourages media professionals in conflict-affected societies

to be proactive in analyzing and detecting conditions that could cause the conflict to

spiral or escalate. In this understanding, the prevention method refers to the journalists’

ability to produce “predictive analyses” of social and political dynamics of the conflict,

which could help avert escalation in conflict settings.

Peacebuilding journalism, as defined in Chapter 6, suggests that media content

should be sensitive to the conflict’s dynamics and should not be limited only to content
175
that primarily conveys what has happened. In this regard, journalists are encouraged to

take on the responsibility of bringing balanced analysis of the conflict, and to attempt to

uncover political and social indicators for conflict’s escalation. A Palestinian journalist I

interviewed explained: “Journalists differ from the ordinary citizens in the notion that

journalists have access to information and they have the tools to publish this

information.”137 Thus, journalists have the means to make their readers and audiences

aware of the contributions that would affect their decisions to participate in a conflict. To

clarify the use of an early warning system as a method in peacebuilding journalism, the

director of a local Palestinian television station emphasized: “There are two types of

journalism. First, reporting on the news, which should be relaying events as they

happened, absent of bias. Second, analytical and opinion articles through which

journalists and authors can analyze events and predict violence.”138 Journalists, in this

regard, can greatly contribute to peacebuilding by offering debates about indicators to

conflict escalation. Meanwhile, as the same interviewee elaborated: “The idea is that if

the journalists can point out what is going wrong, then their analysis can be indicator[s]

for the politicians to prevent escalation, instead of reacting to already escalated

situations.” 139

As I explained in Chapter 5, Israeli and Palestinian journalists were careful to

emphasize that their duty is to primarily inform the public and convey the events as they

evolve. When asked about the possibility of media functioning as an early warning

137
Interview PS-J11:4.
138
Interview PS-J6:4.
139
Interview PS-J6:4.
176
system to prevent conflict escalation, an Israeli journalist was firm in his position that:

“The [media’s] function here is just to reflect what is happening rather than predicting

what is going to happen. I don’t think the press has any great success in predicting what

is going to happen.”140 Another Israeli journalist agreed that: “It is considered as the

journalist’s accomplishment and achievement to prove that something happened; [such

as] the use of [internationally] forbidden weapons [during the 2009 Israeli war in

Gaza].”141 Although the nature of prevention methods is based on the concept of

predictability, predictive analyses as an early warning system are usually based on a

number of political events and predicaments that have been playing in the conflict. In

protracted conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, violent episodes repeat

themselves throughout the life of the conflict, and each episode of violence offers new

experiences from which journalists can learn about the patterns of hostility in the conflict.

Palestinian media professionals pointed out that in the case of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict, which has witnessed several cycles of violence, the media have the

advantage of learning from these patterns of violence and predicting outcomes for current

and future conflict dynamics. A Palestinian journalist working for a foreign press agency

elaborated: “I think it is possible [for the media to function as an early warning system].

As we noticed from our experience in the second Intifada, which failed due to the use of

violent means by some Palestinian factions, the press can function as a [early warning]

140
Interview IL-J3:4.
141
Interview IL-J1:10.
177
system by showing the misdemeanors of violent actions or retaliation.”142 Another

Palestinian journalist further illustrated:

In one of my articles I wrote that the policy of continuing settlements by [the

Israeli] government, which is backed by the international community, will push

the Palestinians toward extreme ideas such as those suggested by [Iranian

President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, who vowed on several occasions ‘to wipe

Israel off the map.’ [Palestinian] people are receptive to these ideas because they

see the expansion of the settlements and they believe that the existence of Israel

will destroy the Palestinians. So, you can conclude that this [Israeli] policy will

lead to more extremism and irrationality. 143

Early warning analysis, when present as part of the media discourse, is effective in

making the public aware of the choices they made in previous violent conflict events,

while also providing the conflict parties the opportunity to evaluate their current options

with regard to participating in future violent events.

Emerging signs of violence led Palestinian journalism during the second Intifada

to warn against the use of arms by Palestinians, based on the notion that nonviolent

means used during the first Intifada furthered the Palestinians’ cause. An editor-in-chief

of a Palestinian newspaper explained: “Because of my experience in the [first] intifada, I

warned at the beginning of the Second Intifada against the use of weapons by

Palestinians.” He warned that Israelis would react violently if the Palestinians used arms

142
Interview PS-J4:6.
143
Interview PS-J8:6.
178
and called for maintaining “the peaceful nature of the Intifada without firing a single

shot.” In this context, journalists in Palestine pointed out that “Israel has long experience

in wars and that the Intifada should be the only weapon, to be used by the

Palestinians.”144

Among the Palestinian journalists early warning systems are understood in

association with the political situation. Journalists are not purposefully attempting to find

indicators for the possible eruption of violence. However, when decision-makers increase

debates about negotiations, then media correspondingly advance more predictions about

political scenarios that might play out. A Palestinian journalist explained: “We don’t have

this system as if it is intentional. However, in the Palestinian media we predict possible

scenarios of confrontation or negotiation. If the politicians raise expectations for political

outcomes, then the [media content] articles will also push in the same direction.”145 In

this regard, the conflict’s manifestation dictates the media’s ability to warn against the

possible eruption or escalation of violence.

Media in Palestine, as explained in Chapter 4, are often politically-affiliated, and

therefore they reflect the political narrative of the parties’ officials. Conceivably,

journalists in these situations can be highly effective in predicting political outcomes, as

the margin between the media discourse and the politicians’ discourse is narrow. A

Palestinian former official and media adviser explained: “In the Palestinian case, the

media function as a means for early warnings because the media is influenced by the

144
Interview PS-J1:4.
145
Interview PS-J7:3.
179
decision-makers and therefore it reflects the intentions and thinking of the officials.

Consequently, the media give early impressions not just in terms of the current trends in

public opinion, but also in terms of the politicians’ intentions.” 146 In this understanding, I

found that an early warning system as a prevention method was emphasized in the

Palestinian case due to political standoff between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West

Bank. Media close to Fatah are trying to prove that Hamas is wrong, and the same is

being attempted by media aligned with Hamas. For example, a Palestinian journalist

commented on the issue of Hamas firing rockets from Gaza onto nearby Israeli towns

prior to the 2009 Israeli war in Gaza: “The Palestinian Authority official press warned

against the rockets’ [firing] in an effort to prove to the people that Hamas’ approach was

going to be catastrophic for Gaza.”147 In this instance, the warning against launching

rockets from Gaza was not the intention of the journalists aligned with Fatah.

Nonetheless, according to the same journalist, it resulted in debate among the Palestinians

that the outcome of rocket launching from Gaza would bring upheaval to the Palestinians.

While my analysis of early warning system as a prevention method yielded more

promising results on the Palestinian side, I did not find significant interest among the

Israeli journalists with regard to utilizing an early warning system as a method for

preventing violence from erupting between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As I

explained in Chapter 4, the Israel media is powerful in exposing domestic issues such as

political corruption, economic issues, and security problems. Nonetheless, when it comes

146
Interview PS-O1:6.
147
Interview PS-J2:7.
180
to predicting violence in the conflict with the Palestinians, Israeli journalists point out

that the conflict often escalates rapidly, which makes it difficult for the journalists to

predict what will cause the eruption of the next cycle of violence. An Israeli reporter

noted: “It is difficult to predict because the situation here is so fragile. It is like an

explosive barrel, anything can ignite it. So it is very difficult to predict what will create

the next explosion [escalation].”148 Another Israeli reporter gave an example from the

last Israeli war in Gaza, which emphasized the same point:

Before the war in Gaza there was a quite intensive bombing of Israeli settlements

on the border [coming from Gaza]…When the entire [Israeli] town is forced

inside shelters, this is a red line, and for that Israel will go for war. So, this was

very [clear] example in which the media can hardly do anything, because the

government has been forced to rescue those people.149

In this charged situation, even if the journalists would point out that going to war would

bring devastating results; their voices are not the “dominant voices.” The same journalist

explained: “The media in such a crucial moment wait to see what is going on so the

journalists can have the chance to do their job. This is how it works.” 150

One interesting finding, however, that emerged from my interviews with the

Israeli journalists deserves further analysis. Employing an early warning system as a

prevention method in peacebuilding journalism, depends on the volume of media

coverage about certain events or dynamics in the conflict; the higher the volume of media

148
Interview IL-J1:10.
149
Interview IL-J4:8.
150
Interview IL-J4:8.
181
coverage about the other side, the better the chances to detect indicators for outbreaks of

violence. In this regard a former news editor in an Israeli newspaper explained: “If the

coverage of the Palestinian side is so limited then the ability to predict that something bad

is going to happen [will also be very limited]…if the newspapers are producing everyday

reports showing that the situation in Nablus [a city in the West Bank] is bad, then you

will predict that something very bad is going to happen there.”151 Reporting about the

other side, as a component of peacebuilding journalism, will empower parties by

providing them with a foundation on which they can make informed decisions about their

involvement in the conflict. The more reporting about each other, the more the conflict

parties are informed about the conflict dynamics. With the higher volume of reporting

about the other side, journalists are able to detect more clues about conflict escalation.

Peacebuilding Journalism and Cross-border Cooperation

Cross-border cooperation between journalists from the conflict parties is intended as a

means to facilitate the exchange of news and information between media professionals.

This can increase the public’s awareness of current events and generate a better

understanding of the conflict’s complexity. In this section on peacebuilding journalism, I

present cross-border cooperation as a method to help advance professional and objective

coverage in the media and to increase dialogue between journalists. Cross-border

cooperation may empower journalists from both sides to understand the parties’

narratives about the conflict by exchanging information and verifying stories. It could

151
Interview IL-J5:11.
182
also allow the journalists to explore common ground between the conflict parties to help

them make informed decisions about their positions in conflict situations.

In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I found that cross-border cooperation

happens mainly in the form of sharing information and verifying sources for stories. On

both sides, reporters responsible for covering the conflict explained that they share

information and verify stories with each other on a regular basis. Journalists from both

sides do communicate and cooperate despite restrictions, such as the issue of the no-

normalization policy maintained by the Palestinians and the lack of Israeli journalists’

trust in the Palestinian media (explained in Chapter 4). A Palestinian journalist

elaborated: “This type of communication benefits both sides in terms of exchanging

sources for stories, and it mostly exists in the field as we chat and share information.

Nobody denies it. The question remains how each journalist will use the information

from the other side.”152 Regardless of doubts about each other, Palestinian and Israeli

journalists expressed their willingness to work together. An Israeli journalist explained:

One thing that I honestly learned when I started working [as a journalist], I felt

more Israeli than being a journalist…I used to say off course it is [the

Palestinians’] own fault, they brought it upon themselves. But when you start

working [with them], and knowing them, you see that it’s not black and white and

that both sides share responsibilities [for the conflict].153

152
Interview PS-J11:4-5.
153
Interview IL-J1:14.
183
I found that cross-border cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian media

professionals is limited in the Israeli-Palestinian case, as it takes place mainly between

those reporters that specifically cover the conflict for their media outlets.

Throughout the Oslo peace process and until the eruption of the second

Palestinian Intifada, Israeli and Palestinian journalists regularly cooperated with each

other on sharing information and sources. In this regard, both sides contributed to

peacebuilding, as they swapped sources and stories and worked together in joint media

projects such as those held by Search for Common Ground. With the outbreak of

violence in the second Intifada, journalists from both sides were restricted from freely

traveling to the other side, which interrupted cooperation. A Palestinian journalist

elaborated: “Before the second intifada there was an exchange of information. We had

contact with the Israeli press. They were visiting us and we visited them. This exchange

of information began with the peace process and evolved until the beginning of the

second Intifada [in 2000]… We do still call each other, but that is not enough.”154 Israeli

correspondents who are covering the Palestinian side shared the same concerns regarding

restrictions on their movement in the West Bank and Gaza.

A correspondent working for an Israeli news television station relayed his account

of restrictions of movement, as he was covering an Israeli military operation around

Birzeit University in the West Bank. He received a permit from the head of the university

to cover the story and explained: “When I was on the scene I was stopped by Hamas

militants, along with my crew, and was forced to erase the tapes. Even though the story

154
Interview PS-J1:4.
184
could have benefited the Palestinians in exposing the brutality of the military operation,

you try to give the other side a chance to make it right, but they abuse it instead of using

it.”155 Israeli journalists, and for that matter Palestinian journalists as well, are not free to

be physically present on the scene where the news event is taking place, and thus they

cannot verify the story and witness the event. Palestinian journalists are not allowed into

Israel unless they have permits from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and the Israeli

journalists frequently put themselves in unsafe situations when entering the Palestinian

Territories, as they can be threatened by militants or angry mobs.

Palestinian journalists explained that they are compelled to cooperate with their

Israeli counterparts, as Israeli politicians themselves are not interested in talking with the

Palestinian journalists. Israeli officials give priority to interviews with the Israeli

journalists. A Palestinian correspondent from Jerusalem156 who worked for a Palestinian

newspaper elaborated:

I tried for a long time to establish connections with Israeli officials…If I want to

make sure that my information is accurate, I need to verify it directly from the

sources. But [the way it is happening now], I call an Israeli journalist and ask him

to investigate a particular news [item] with the Israeli politicians, and then he

comes back and tells me the information that he wants to communicate to me.

Israeli officials don’t want to cooperate with the Palestinian press.157

155
Interview IL-J2:5.
156
Palestinian journalists from Jerusalem are considered Israeli citizens and are freely allowed to move in
Israel. They work closely with and rely on Israeli journalists as a main source for information.
157
Interview PS-J2:4.
185
In this understanding, Palestinian journalists are forced to rely on second-hand

information conveyed to them by the Israeli journalists. The same Palestinian journalists

added: “Israeli officials usually communicate information to the Israeli media because

they believe that news about Israel must come from the Israeli media. Even if the Israeli

politicians agreed to discuss political issues with a Palestinian or Arab journalist, they

give the mainstream political narrative without giving you any details.”158 Regardless,

Palestinian media professionals are persuaded that cross-border cooperation with their

Israeli counterparts, whether through exchange of information and sources or by holding

problem-solving workshops, would increase their professional capacity and advance their

capabilities in addressing the conflict’s complexity.

Palestinian journalists expressed interest in communicating with their Israeli

counterparts and regarded their cooperation with the other side as essential for increasing

the readers’ and audiences’ trust in media reporting on both sides. A Palestinian editor-in-

chief for a major Palestinian newspaper explained:

Communication and working together [with the Israelis] would strengthen peace.

If I go with an Israeli journalist to cover an event, for example an explosion in Tel

Aviv or an attack here [in the West Bank], then the story would be told directly

from the field based on sources known to the readers. The Israelis trust and know

their Israeli journalists who cover the news about the Palestinians and the other

way around. The result would be more professionalism. 159

158
Interview PS-J2:4.
159
Interview PS-J1:4.
186
In this framework, the readers will have the opportunity to compare stories from both

sides, which will hold the journalist accountable for their content. Consequently, the

journalists would be encouraged to report more objective and provide thorough

contextual information about the conflict’s event.

Israeli journalists that I interviewed also regard their contact with the Palestinian

media professionals as an important source of information. They don’t see any obstacles

in cross-border cooperation with the Palestinian journalists in terms of collecting

information or verifying stories. In fact, several Israeli journalists I interviewed

acknowledged that they have contacts with Palestinian journalists affiliated with Hamas,

Islamic Jihad and Fatah. An Israeli correspondent elaborated: “Everyone who is willing

to talk to us [from the Palestinian side], we are willing to talk to them…but the thing that

you are always cautious from is the source [of information]… I have no restrictions or

limitations. On the contrary, I prefer to speak with journalists from Hamas and everyone

else, and I have to admit I hardly felt any problems from the other side as well.”160 The

same journalist shared an interesting story about the type of cooperation taking place

between media professionals from both sides. He explained a unique and indirect

technique of cooperation that is specific to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “The

Palestinian journalists often are not able to publish stories about political [scandals

happening within the Palestinian Authority]. The Palestinian journalists then leak the

information to an Israeli journalist, who in turn would write a story about the event and

publish it.” It is most likely that the article will be picked up and translated by the

160
Interview IL-J1:11.
187
Palestinian press. The Palestinian journalist who first leaked the information is then able

to write about the story by quoting the Israeli journalist, and has the freedom to write and

criticize the political encounter without fear of being harmed or fired by his/her media

outlet.161

As explained in Chapter 4, Israeli journalists receive most of the information

about the conflict from the Israeli military while very little comes from a direct source

from the Palestinian side. The former news editor at an Israeli newspaper explained:

There is a lack of interest [on the Israeli part] and lack of seeing why it is

important [to get a direct source]…I think an average Israeli newspaper will get

5% from a Palestinian source and probably 95% from the [Israeli] military. If a

journalist goes to his editor saying there was something terrible happening in

Nablus [a city in the West Bank] and say that his source for information is a

Palestinian, the editor would say ‘get someone from the military to confirm it’. 162

In this regard, I found in this analysis that Israeli reporters covering the conflict are

unsuccessful in having a large effect on public opinion with regard to compromise. The

average Israeli reader or audience receives the bulk of its information about the conflict

from the mainstream media, and not from those reporters who are able to offer more

details about the conflict. An Israeli news television reporter explained:

I cooperate on a daily basis with my partners on the Palestinian side. All Israeli

correspondents who cover the Palestinians are in a sense unique. I am unique

161
Interview IL-J1:6-7.
162
Interview IL-J5:9.
188
 because I am the only correspondent from [my media outlet] that can get there

and talk to the Palestinians and deliver footage to the Israelis. But generally the

Israelis don’t receive [their information] from me, they receive their information

mostly from journalists working in the mainstream Israeli media, who don’t really

care about the Palestinians and don’t really appreciate the Palestinian reports…So

no one is really interested in this cooperation or dialog with them [the Palestinians

journalists].163

The conflict’s narrative, as seen by the mainstream media, does not fall far from the

narrative put forward by the politicians. In the Israeli case, journalists in the mainstream

media are careful to highlight the Palestinians’ shortcomings in delivering on promises in

the peace process, while disregarding information about tasks that have been performed

by the Palestinians.

Conclusion

In this chapter I introduced three methods of peacebuilding journalism to help journalists

in conflict-torn societies contribute to peacemaking. I first introduced conflict mapping

tool to assist media professionals produce content that is informed by a comprehensive

analysis of conflict situations. The conflict mapping tool was adopted from the work done

by The Network for Conflict Resolution Canada, which combined the traditional

journalism formula known as the “five W’s” and conflict analysis concepts to assist the

journalists in producing stories that go beyond the conflict parties’ adamant positions.

163
Interview IL-J7:7.
189
The tools combine the five W’s journalistic method, which is familiar to the media

professionals, with a more developed cluster of questions that attempt to uncover the

causes and conditions of the conflict’s events.

Second, I presented a conflict prevention method in which journalists use an early

warning system as a means to detect conditions that can lead to violence. Employing

early warning systems in peacebuilding journalism relies on the journalists’

understanding of past and current events to produce predictive analysis to alarm the

public about potential outbreaks of violence. It helps the journalists make their readers

and audiences conscious about their decisions to participate in conflict situations.

Third, the analysis advanced cross-border communication between journalists

from opposing sides as a means to assist them in making the conflict parties aware of

alternative choices to violence. Cross-border cooperation increases the exchange of

information and sources between journalists, while also empowering them to conduct

professional and objective coverage in the media.

An interesting topic that deserves further study is the ability of media to function

as a safeguard that can contain violence and prevent it from spreading during conflict

situations. I asked the interviewees whether the media can act as a safeguard in violent

conflict in order to contain the conflict or episodes of violence from further escalation. I

hypothesized that media in conflict-affected societies can intervene by offering analysis

of what went wrong and what caused a conflict’s events to escalate. For example, while I

was conducting my research in Israel and Palestine in 2009, clashes between Palestinian

rioters and the Israeli police erupted inside the vicinity of the Dome of the Rock in
190
Jerusalem after a group of 15 religious Jews tried to enter the complex. The incident

reminded the Palestinians of a similar act by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

who entered the vicinity; according to the Palestinians, Sharon’s actions led to the

eruption of the second Intifada in 2000 (Reuters 2009). Clashes during the 2009 incident

spiraled very fast and were close to escalating into a “third” Palestinian Intifada.

Palestinian and Israeli journalists that I interviewed underlined this incident to

demonstrate that the media in this situation was not effective in attempting to contain the

violence. On the contrary, as one Palestinian journalist explained: “The media want to

raise the issue.”164

Journalist on both sides dismissed the notion that media can function as a

safeguard that defuses violence. An Israeli journalist elaborated: “We witnessed this

during the last war in Lebanon [in 2006]…the Israeli media, all media outlets supported

the military act in the first days without giving any other options.”165 The Israeli

journalists link the safeguard function with its ability to serve as watchdog over the

politicians. An Israeli journalist explained: “[In Israel] we have very active press and it

works as a safeguard for democracy, government and human rights violations. It

definitely serves that purpose.”166 The safeguard function, in this context, is understood

as the process in which journalists examine and criticize policies and ideologies

communicated through the media. However, in the event of violence the initial media

reaction is to support the government’s actions.

164
Interview PS-J11:4.
165
Interview IL-ORG1:10.
166
Interview IL-J3:4.
191
 In the case of the Palestinian media, journalists explained that the media is not

influential enough to have an immediate effect on the Palestinian public opinion and to

avert violence, as regional media outlets have more pressing and direct influence on

public opinion (see Regional media Influence on the Peace Process in Chapter 6 for more

discussion). A Palestinian former official and media adviser explained: “The Palestinian

politicians do not have influential and powerful media tools to utilize media as a safety

valve in dealing with the Palestinians because the Palestinian public opinion is subject to

regional media influence.”167 In this context, when violence escalates “the Palestinian

media follow public opinion, so that if there are indications of a war and the public is

supporting such option, the media will also support it and promote it.”168

I observed further criticism against the use of the safeguard function in the

media. For example, a Palestinian journalist explained that the safeguard function is

problematic when confronting social taboos. He elaborated: “In the effort to preserve the

unity and integrity of the [Palestinian] community, the Palestinian media does not dare to

discuss social taboos such as honor killing. You might be able to get away with

criticizing President Mahmoud Abbas, but can you dare to write about a woman who was

raped? No you can’t.”169 In the case of the Palestinian media, social issues such as honor

killing or sexual harassment are considered secondary topics to be discussed in the media,

while coverage of the conflict and the Israeli occupation comes as primary. Another

Palestinian journalist explained: “Issues related to women, sexual liberation or children,

167
Interview PS-O1:7.
168
Interview PS-J4:6.
169
Interview PS-J11:4.
192
come at the bottom of the news coverage, and are often ignored […] There is a belief

[among journalists] that they should not show contradictions in their community and

[they need] to discuss the image of society as always being cohesive.”170 These

journalistic practices can be a real challenge for conflict-affected societies seeking to

develop democratic and civil values.

Another criticism with regard to media functioning as a safeguard is that media

professionals could undermine journalistic ethics by holding back certain information

about violence to promote peaceful attitudes. In this situation, journalists explained that

the media would serve a particular motive, thus becoming propaganda.

170
Interview PS-J7:2.
193
 CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION:
BEYOND PEACEBUILDING JOURNALISM

Because I designed this research as a case study, I do not claim that my findings

are applicable to all conflict cases that experience limitations of the media’s role in

peacebuilding. As Yin (2009) explains, researchers are concerned about the case study

approach because it is limited in offering “scientific generalization” (Yin 2009, 15).

However, Yin adds that case studies are generalizable in the context of “theoretical

proposition” in the effort to expand and generalize a theory, instead of attempting to

generalize the research finding to the population or the world. George and Smoke (1989)

also suggest that researchers in case studies seek contingent generalizations, which can be

applied in cases that share similar conditions (George and Smoke 1989, 171). I was

careful to present the case study in a holistic way, while also being sensitive to the

context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, patterns of media reporting and

behavior in conflicts around the world have similar and shared characteristics.

This research seeks to extend the debate beyond the limitations of journalistic

practices in conflict settings and contribute to a more constructive approach in

understanding how journalists in conflict-torn societies regard their positions – identified

as a cluster of rights and obligations that exist among groups’ members – in advancing

peacebuilding. The existing literature recognized the significant role that media can play
194
in peacebuilding by suggesting the need for fairer and more accurate journalism in

reporting on war and peace. Researchers have focused their analysis on ways to

encourage journalists to reconsider their journalistic values, such as objectivity and

impartiality, in order to advance peaceful attitudes among conflict parties. Nonetheless,

the literature stopped short of recognizing the limitations that journalists face in

contributing to peacebuilding during active conflicts. This study identifies a cluster of

factors that affect the journalists’ participation in advancing peaceful attitudes, which

informs a practical framework of “peacebuilding journalism.”

This research studied opportunities for media role in peacebuilding in the case of

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by conducting key informant interviews with media

professionals from both parties. In addition, I conducted a media review of two Israeli

and two Palestinian newspapers. The research identified external and internal factors that

constrained the journalists in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from fully utilizing their

powerful role in supporting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The analysis

yielded a framework of peacebuilding journalism that recognizes the journalists’

limitations in peacebuilding. It also combines conflict resolution methods with

journalism to suggest a set of tools to aid journalists in producing content sensitive to the

conflict’s dynamics and to offer the conflict’s parties an alternative to violence. The main

findings of this research are summarized in the sections bellow.

195
Journalists Limitations in Peacebuilding

The research findings describe two clusters of external and internal factors that influence

the journalists’ abilities in conflict-prone societies to contribute to peacebuilding. The

analysis of these factors emerged from studying the narratives and storylines, in the

context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, through which journalists interpret their

positions in the conflict. These factors lead the journalists to practice an act of self-

positioning in the effort to be accepted by their societies. These external factors include:

1. Journalists’ dependency on political decision-makers: The study found that

journalists in conflict situations in many cases are forced to support their party’s

national cause as framed by the political elite. During heightened tension in a conflict,

people tend to support their political leaders to make sense of the conflict’s dynamics.

Journalists in this situation tend to position themselves as being patriotic and

nationalistic in order to belong to the collective. The strong sense of national identity

among people in this context affects the journalists’ practices, which in turn

influences their abilities to advance peacebuilding.

2. Inconsistent and unclear political narrative: This, which leads in turn to inconsistent

media discourse, was identified as another limitation. The study found that during

active conflict when the political discourse outlined by the political elite is vague,

inconsistent and lacks transparency, the media discourse tends to be perceived as

unreliable. In this situation, I found that journalists seek other means to embrace the

ethics of journalism and to make sense of the conflict’s developments. These

196
 resources include journalists’ relying on media sources from the other side to gather

information and to analyze the conflict’s political occurrences.

3. Weaker party dependent on the stronger party: The analysis showed that in conflict

situations where power is asymmetrical, journalists from the weaker party, in this

case the Palestinian side, depend on media from the stronger party, the Israeli side, to

understand and explain their own accounts of the conflict’s dynamics. This

journalistic practice of gathering information was criticized by several Palestinian

media professionals who argued that it is dangerous, as the journalists run the risk of

interpreting the conflict through the eyes of the “enemy.”

4. The no-normalization rule: The last external factor that affects the journalists’

abilities to contribute to peacebuilding is the so-called “no-normalization” rule. It is

an unwritten policy on the Palestinian side, which prohibits Palestinians from having

relations with Israelis in all fields, including relations between journalists. This policy

limits journalists on both sides from directly and openly communicating or sharing

resources, which can undermine any possible collaboration toward peace.

The internal factors that limit journalists in conflict situations from contributing to

peacebuilding are less obvious and can lead the journalists to deliberately position

themselves to subscribe to an ideology and political views as a means to express their

personal identities. These internal factors are:

1. Self-censorship: The research found that journalists in this case are consciously self-

censoring the content they produce. Journalists practice self- censorship in conflict

situations by holding back information or choosing not to write about particular

197
 events to avoid overstepping the social and political boundaries of their parties. In

some cases journalists practice self-censorship because they fear for their lives. Self-

censorship practices can undermine the foundation of good journalism, which

consequently limits journalists’ potential contribution to peacebuilding.

2. Politically-affiliated journalistic practice: The analysis found that when media

institutions are sympathetic to the ideologies and political views of one political party

or another, journalists use those media sources as a platform to convey the political

narrative and views of their parties. In this understanding, journalists who express

views outside of their political party’s ideology are judged as disloyal and

untrustworthy. This journalistic practice leads the journalists to deliberately affiliate

themselves with a political party in the effort to appear loyal to their political parties

and ideology.

3. Perceptions about the other side: The study found that the Palestinian and the Israeli

journalists perceive each other’s media as unreliable and in service to a political

agenda. Although in some capacity both sides share information, and in the

Palestinian case journalists depend on the Israeli media, the two sides do not trust

each other, which in turn undermine opportunities for conflict resolution.

My research suggests an innovative way to addresses the issue of objectivity and

impartiality in journalism is by probing the journalists’ understandings of their

“positions” vis-à-vis their “role” in the society. The analysis argues that debating the

traditional journalists’ “role”, which is associated with being objective and impartial, is

unconstructive in encouraging a positive media role in peacebuilding. Meanwhile, the

198
analysis found that journalists are more likely to cooperate in the efforts of peacebuilding

when framing the objectivity and impartiality issues in the context of their rights and

duties as members of the society. By exploring the journalists’ understandings of their

positions in society, identified in this research as a cluster of rights and duties, the study

pinpointed possibilities for the journalists to regard themselves as responsible for

advancing peaceful attitudes among their parties.

Exploring Opportunities for Peace

Understanding what are the limitations facing journalists and how they interpret their

rights and duties (positions) in conflict settings allowed the emergence of a practical

framework of peacebuilding journalism. I define peacebuilding journalism as an

approach in which journalists support civil society initiatives and promote alternatives to

violence by: (i) producing content sensitive to the conflict’s dynamics, and (ii) by

providing contextually complex information about the conflict in a way that the public

can understand. Peacebuilding journalism aims to address the obstacles that journalists

face in conflict-affected societies, to facilitate constructive media-peacebuilding

dynamics, and to guide the journalists in identifying stories and content that support

peacebuilding between the conflict parties.

The above objectives of peacebuilding journalism are addressed by the three

components of this framework. Those are:

1. The need for more media reporting about the other side: This helps the parties’

clarify perceptions of each other and spotlight narratives and storylines to which the
199
 conflict parties usually do not have access to. This element of peacebuilding

journalism suggests that the more reporting journalists do with regard to the other

side, the more people will be informed about each other, and this can facilitate

opportunities for peace.

2. Alternative media coverage during low points of peace processes: This component of

peacebuilding journalism is essential when peace processes are not sustainable. In this

context the public is not interested in peace. Journalists can offer alternative

reporting, such as stories about human rights violations, interviews with political

leaders from the opposing side, or stories that emphasize a shift in the parties’

ideologies. This type of unconventional reporting during low points of peace

processes allows the media to highlight conditions that could lead to violence. It also

can serve to engage the parties in constructive debates about one another’s

viewpoints.

3. Creative reporting: Peacebuilding journalism encourages the use of creative reporting

in covering peacebuilding-related events to address journalism requirements of

immediacy, drama and simplicity. Creative reporting, means reporting on

peacebuilding in ways that makes it more exciting and interesting to inspire debate

among the political elite and the parties about how to resolve the conflict. Israeli and

Palestinian journalists that I interviewed regard peace processes as “boring” and view

them as lengthy and not lucrative. I explain that creative reporting can be achieved

through strategic story choices and good packaging. Creative reporting as part of

peacebuilding journalism can include focused stories about grassroots initiatives,

200
 underscoring common peace narratives, and emphasizing peaceful cooperation

between the two conflict parties.

The three parts of peacebuilding journalism can guide the journalists in their decision to

choose stories about peacebuilding and support peaceful attitudes between the conflict

parties. To do so, peacebuilding journalism combines methods of journalism and conflict

resolution to offer tools that can help the journalists in implementing one or all of the

components of peacebuilding journalism. These are:

1. Conflict mapping for journalists: This is a tool that was adopted from the work done

by The Network for Conflict Resolution Canada, which combines the traditional

journalism formula known as the “five W” questions with conflict resolution

concepts. The tool is aimed at helping the journalists in conducting a comprehensive

analysis of the news event or the conflict setting to produce content sensitive to the

conflict dynamics. The journalists can map a conflict or an event by asking: who is

affected by the conflict, what caused the dispute, when did it begin, where did it take

place, why do the parties hold their positions, and how can the conflict be resolved.

2. An early warning system in the media: This is a conflict prevention tool and is

intended to help the journalists be proactive in analyzing and detecting conditions that

can lead to violence. Early warning analysis as part of media discourse is effective in

making the public aware of the alternatives they have in considering their choices for

participating in violence.

3. Journalists’ cross-border cooperation to facilitate exchange of news and information:

Cross-border cooperation between journalists is intended as a means to foster the

201
 exchange of news and information between journalists from opposing parties in order

to empower them in producing professional and objective reporting. It is also

intended to increase the parties’ understanding of current events and assist a better

understanding of the conflict’s complexity.

In efforts to assist the journalists in producing content sensitive to the conflict’s causes

and conditions, I conducted an analysis of the five core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict (Refugees, Jerusalem, Water, Settlements and Borders) to illustrate how the

content of peacebuilding journalism can be focused on the parties’ areas of concern.

Peacebuilding journalism emphasizes the need for content informed by the underlying

causes and conditions to help the parties modify their positions and underscore their

needs. The analysis explains that media content, which can contribute to conflict

resolution, requires the journalists to understand the deep ‘second layer’ of the conflict.

Peacebuilding journalism takes into consideration some main challenges. First,

journalists regard their position in peacebuilding as secondary. They are convinced that

they cannot contribute to peacebuilding unless peace processes exist and are supported by

their parties. Journalists argue that peacemaking is not a task that can be fulfilled by

them, but rather they can cover the events and the dynamics of peace processes. Second,

an obstacle to peacebuilding journalism, particularly in the Palestinian context, is the

regional media sources, which have more influence on public opinion and politics.

Palestinian journalists that I interviewed suggested that pan-Arab media usually support

regional political agendas, including anti-peace agendas, which affect the Palestinian

political scene and peace opportunities. Lastly, although reporting on peace is the
202
ultimate goal of peacebuilding journalism, it requires balanced coverage of both positive

and negative outcomes of peace processes. Exclusive coverage of positive peace

outcomes, while disregarding the limitations of a peace process, can backfire and lead to

conflict escalation.

Potential Applications of Peacebuilding Journalism

Given the flexibility of peacebuilding journalism outlined in this research, it can be

broadly applied in (i) building the capacity of journalists and (ii) monitoring and

evaluation of media projects in conflict-affected societies. The three components that

make up peacebuilding journalism are comprehensive, which can allow innovative

approaches in designing and implementing training projects. For instance, practitioners in

the field of conflict analysis and resolution can use the three parts of peacebuilding

journalism as a guideline for enhancing training on investigative journalism. 171 The

nature of investigative journalism, which requires thorough analysis, can be enhanced by

using the conflict mapping tool for journalists outlined in this research to come up with

ways for creative peacebuilding reporting to address the journalism requirements of

immediacy, drama and simplicity.

Another way of using peacebuilding journalism is in monitoring and evaluation of

projects. The three components of peacebuilding journalism can serve as an indicator for

whether the media is contributing to peacebuilding in a particular conflict situation. This

171
Investigative journalism is a form of journalism that requires through analysis of news event and topics
to draw attention to social, cultural, economic and political issues in the effort to afflict social change.
203
can be done by conducting monitoring of media sources to look for content that includes

the three components. The results of media monitoring can be organized in a report to

guide workshop design aimed at training journalists. Additionally, it could be outlined in

a report to inform donors on progress made by local media sources with regard to

advancing peace.

Further Research

It is essential to emphasize that my explanation of the concept I term as “peacebuilding

journalism” is, at the conclusion of this dissertation, only a skeleton. Defining this term

and modeling its primary components, as I have done in this dissertation, provides the

opportunity for future research that could further refine this practical framework through

the integration of additional methods and concepts from the fields of conflict resolution

and journalism. Further exploration could entail more study of the three peacebuilding

journalism components with in-depth analysis about how to achieve each one of them.

Moreover, peacebuilding journalism can be further developed by studying other

conflict cases. This can be done by testing the application of peacebuilding journalism in

conflict situations similar to the Israeli-Palestinian case, such as ethnic conflicts in Iraq or

sectarian conflict in Lebanon. The analysis of peacebuilding journalism is powerful in its

attempt to identify the challenges that limit the journalists in advancing peacebuilding.

Second, it is innovative in its three comprehensive components that suggest an array of

options in reporting on peacebuilding.

204
 An interesting question that deserves further study is whether the media can

function as a safeguard to stop violence from spreading in conflict situations. During my

interviews, I probed the journalists on the ability of media in conflict-affected societies to

intervene by offering analysis of previous conflict events that led to escalation. I

hypothesize that the safeguard concepts can be used as an intervention instrument in

peacebuilding journalism by conducting an analysis of these events to identify patterns of

violence escalation. Journalists on both sides dismissed the notion that media can

function as a safeguard to defuse violence. Israeli journalists argued that the media in

Israel is already proactive in examining and criticizing policies and ideologies

communicated through the media. In the case of the Palestinian media, journalists

explained that they are not influential enough to have an immediate effect on Palestinian

public opinion in order to stop violence.

Nonetheless, the notion that the media can function as a safeguard to contain or

prevent violence from spreading has a merit. Journalists are not only the link between the

masses and their leaders, but they are also an integral part of the intellectual elite that

defines the parties’ aspirations and needs in conflict-affected societies. Journalists in this

context are very effective in educating the parties by making them aware of the

consequences of their participation in violent acts.

Conclusion

Journalism has long traditions and is a well-established field. In the Israeli-Palestinian

case I examined, media practitioners are among those members of society that have
205
access to powerful decision-makers and the public. They are the middle tier that functions

as intermediaries between the top and bottom of the social pyramid. However, even with

this role being widely acknowledged by researchers, we in the field of conflict analysis

have a long and difficult way to travel before we fully understand how to utilize the

power of the media in conflict resolution. Our analysis and methods of how to cooperate

with other fields are often regarded as utopian. To encourage the practice of

peacebuilding journalism, professionals in the field need to know how to treat the media

as a “client” and understand how to “sell” stories about peacebuilding. As an Israeli

journalist explained to me “it takes two fields to tango.”

206
 APPENDIX A
MAJOR EVENTS IN THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Major events that allowed rich discussions about the conflict’s core issues and their

framing in the media:

· The Annapolis Conference, which convened between the Israelis and the

Palestinians in November 2007 under the auspice of former US President George W.

Bush. The aim of the conference was to outline principals of a peace agreement base

on President Bush’s peace Road Map (see below). The conference gave both sides an

ultimatum of one year, to the end of 2008, to reach a settlement. During the year of

2008, the peace process witnessed a spike in peace talks between both sides due to

high-level meetings between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

· Camp David Summit convened in July 2000 followed by the eruption of the second

Palestinian Intifada in September 2000. According to the Palestinians, the second

Intifada, or Al Aqsa Intifada, was ignited by former Israeli Prime Minister Arial

Sharon’s visit to the vicinity of Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest

place for Muslims. Israelis believe that the second Intifada started when former

Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat walked out on the negotiation at the

207
 Camp David Summit. The Israelis argue that Arafat rejected a generous offer from

former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

· The Road Map for peace: released in 2003 by the Middle East Quartet – The US,

Russia, The EU, and the UN. The map did not present details to resolve the conflict,

but it suggested how a settlement of the conflict could be approached. The plan was

hard-pressed by the Bush administration, which demanded an end to the Palestinian

terrorism and a freeze on building Israeli settlements as a precondition for a peace

agreement.

· The Saudi Peace Initiative, which was released during the 2002 Arab League

Summit. The initiative was re-endorsed in 2007 during the Arab Summit in Riyadh.

The plan suggested that the Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange

for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, creating a Palestinian state with East

Jerusalem as the capital and a “just solution” for the Palestinian refugees’ issue.

· A major Drought during the summer of 2008 in the region directed the spotlights on

disagreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians over water issues.

· Israel’s unilateral Disengagement Plan, which authorized the Israeli military

complete withdrawal from Gaza. The plan was proposed by former Israeli Prime

Minister Ariel Sharon and adopted by the Israeli government in June 2004. In August

2005 the Israeli army pulled out of the Gaza strip and evicted Israeli settlers, who

refused to voluntarily leave their homes. The disengagement plan was fully

implements without coordination with the Palestinian Authority.

208
· Indirect and Direct Talks between Israel and the Palestinians. US Middle East

envoy George Mitchell back in May, 2010 secured a nod from both sides to start a

US-mediated talks. Proximity talks were designed to bring the Israelis and the

Palestinians closer on core issues, while also attempted to level the playing field

between the two parties (Afaghani 2010).

209
 APPENDIX B
STAGES OF CONFLICT AND MEDIA IMPACTS172

172
Ross Howard, An operational framework for media and peacebuilding (Vancouver: IMPACS – Institute
for Media, Policy and Civil Society, 2002), 7-8.
210
211
212
REFERENCES

213
 REFERENCES

Abdul Hamid, Muhannad. 2010. Jerusalem’s battle will settle everything. Al Ayyam, June
29.

Abdul Rahman, Adel. 2009. Pulse of Life – the shameless game played by Netanyahu
and the settlers. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, December 6.

Abu Al-Rub, Atef. 2008. Water crisis exacerbated…and Israel denounces agreements. Al
Hayat Al Jadidah, June 24.

Adam, Gordon, and Lina Holguín. 2003. The media's role in peace-building: asset or
liability? In . Barranquilla, Colombia: Media Support.
http://www.mediasupport.org/papers,-reports-and-articles-g.asp.

Afaghani, Rawhi. 2010. Proximity Talks should be maximized. News. Al Arabiya News
Channel. March 11. http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2010/03/11/102746.html.

Al Ayyam. 2005. Refugees in Gaza: the joy is incomplete after Israel withdrawal and
insistence on the right of return. Al Ayyam, August 4.

———. 2008. According to Haaretz: Israel and the PA reach understanding about
borders and security arrangements. Al Ayyam, May 21.

Al Massri, Hani. 2009. Jerusalem is the heart of the conflict ...We are losing Jerusalem.
Al Ayyam, October 31.

Al Qazzar, Yousef. 2005. Jerusalem first. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, June 8.

Al-Bakri, Nofuth. 2005. Gaza’s children dream of returning to villages and cities they
heard about in stories by their displaced grandfathers. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, May
16.

Al-Kashef, Hassan. 2007. Attention-two states: Palestine and Israel...Not two states for
two peoples. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, December 6.

Al-Najar, Abdul Naser. 2009. Do you taste steadfastness. Al Ayyam, April 25.
214
Alpher, Joseph, and Khalil Shikaki. 1998. The Palestinian refugee problem and the right
of return. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.

Arnauti, Abdel Rauf. 2009. World Bank: water quotas allocated to the Palestinians under
the "Oslo" did not meet their needs. Al Ayyam, April 20.

Asaad, Haifa'a. 2009. Jerusalem and the memory of the place. Al Ayyam, March 17.

Awad, Abdullah. 2009. The settlements’ war...what is the Palestinian plan?! Al Ayyam,
June 25.

Barghouti, Hafez. 2006. Our live is screwed. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, March 7.

Baskin, Gershon. 2007. Peacemaking truths and lies. The Jerusalem Post, October 22.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=79347.

———. 2009. Oh no, Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Post, July 21.

Baumann, Melissa, and Hannes Siebert. 1997. A paradigm Shift: Point for a new kind of
Journalism. Rhodes Journalism Review, no. 14 (May).

BBC News. 2006a. The press in Israel. BBC, May 8, sec. Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4969714.stm.

———. 2006b. The Palestinian press. BBC, December 13, sec. Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6176691.stm.

Beaudoin, Christopher E, and Esther Thorson. 2001. LA Times offered as model for
foreign news coverage. Newspaper Research Journal 22, no. 1 (Winter): 80.

Beaudoin, Christopher E., and Esther Thorson. 2002. Spiral of Violence? Conflict and
Conflict Resolution in International News. In Media and Conflict: Framing
Issues, Making Policy, Shaping Opinions, ed. Eytan Gilboa. Ardsley, NY:
Transnational Publishers.

Belsey, Andrew. 1998. Journalism and Ethics: can they co-exist? In Media ethics, ed.
Matthew Kieran. London: Routledge.

Benn, Aluf. 2009. Settlers are addicted to government money. Haaretz, December 30.

Bennett, Lance. 1990. Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States.
Journal of Communication 40, no. 2 (6): 103-127.

215
———. 2002. News: the politics of illusion. Longman, December 31.

Bennett, Lance, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. 2007. When the Press
Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. University Of
Chicago Press.

Bloomfield, Douglas. 2010. Could water ignite the next war? The Jerusalem Post, April
22.

Common Ground News Service. n.d. Common Ground News Service.

http://www.commongroundnews.org/about.php?lan=en.

Curran, James, Michael Gurevitch, and Janet Wollacott. 1986. The Study of the Media:
Theoretical Approaches. In Culture, Society and the Media, ed. Michael
Gurevitch, Tony Bennett, James Curran, and Janet Wollacott. New edition.
London: Routledge.

Davison, W. Phillips. 1974. Mass Communication and Conflict Resolution: the Role of
the Information Media in the Advancement of International Understanding. New
York: Praeger Publishers.

Doom, Rudy. 1997. Early warning and conflict prevention: Minerva’s Wisdom? Journal
of Humanitarian Assistance (July 1). http://jha.ac/1997/07/01/early-warning-and-
conflict-prevention-minervas-wisdom/.

Druckman, Daniel. 2005. Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Eldar, Akiva. 2006. A time for them to speak. Haaretz, June 9.

Frohardt, Mark, and Jonathan Temin. 2003. Use and Abuse of Media in
Vulnerable Societies. United States Institute of Peace, October.

Galtung, Johan. 1998. High Road, Low Road: Charting the course for Peace Journalism.
Track Two 7, no. 4: 7-10.

Gardner, Ellen. 2001. The Role of Media in Conflicts. In Peacebuilding: a Field Guide,
ed. Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Inc.

George, Alexander L., and Richard Smoke. 1989. Deterrence and Foreign Policy. World
Politics 41, no. 2 (January 1): 170-182. doi:10.2307/2010406.

216
Goell, Yosef. 2006. The full pioneering spirit. The Jerusalem Post, June 2.

Gordon, Evelyn. 2007. The Palestinians don't want a state. The Jerusalem Post, October
25.

Hackett, Robert. 1984. Decline of a Paradigm? Bias and Objectivity in News Media
Studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1, no. 3: 329.

Hamdan, Muntaser. 2005. The apartheid wall is suffocating Jerusalem and put the peace
process in jeopardy. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, March 27.

Hanitzsch, Thomas. 2007. Situating peace journalism in journalism studies: A critical

appraisal. Conflict and Communication Online 6, no. 2.

Harow, Ari. 2010. Why Jerusalem matters. The Jerusalem Post, July 20.

Harré, Rom, and Luk van Lagenhove. 1999. The Dynamics of Social Episodes. In
Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action. Wiley-Blackwell.

Harré, Rom, and Luk van Lagenhove, eds. 1999. Positioning in Intergroup Relations. In
Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action. Wiley-Blackwell.

Harré, Rom, and Luk Van Langenhove. 1999. Introducing positioning theory. In
Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action, ed. Rom Harré and Luk
Van Langenhove, 14–31. Blackwell Oxford, UK.

Harré, Rom, and Fathali M. Moghaddam, eds. 2003. Introduction: The Self and Others in
Traditional Psychology and in Positioning Theory. In The self and others:
positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts.
Greenwood Publishing Group, November.

Harré, Rom, and Nikki Slocum. 2003a. Disputes as Complex Social Events: on the Uses
of Positioning Theory. In The self and others: positioning individuals and groups
in personal, political, and cultural contexts, ed. Rom Harré and Fathali M.
Moghaddam. Greenwood Publishing Group, November.

———. 2003b. Dispute as Complex Social Events: On the Uses of Positioning Theory.
In The Self and Others: Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal,
Political, and Cultural Contexts, ed. Rom Harre and Fathali M. Moghaddam.
Praeger, November 30.

Himelfarb, Sheldon, and Megan Chabalowski. 2008. Media Conflict Prevention and
Peacebuilding Mapping the Edges. USIPeace Briefing. Washington DC: United
217
 States Institute of Peace, October.

Hocker, J.L., and W.W. Wilmot. 1995. Interpersonal Conflict. 4th ed. Madison, WI:
Brown and Benchmark.

Horovitz, David. 2007. The 'Jewish Israel' genie. The Jerusalem Post, November 16.

———. 2009. Wanted: Wisdom. The Jerusalem Post, December 18.

House of Commons. 2009. Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian
Territories. The Stationery Office, July 30.

Howard, Ross. 2002. An operational framework for media and peacebuilding.

Vancouver: IMPACS – Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society.

———. 2003. The media’s role in war and peace-building. In Postconflict development:
Meeting new challenges. Budapest: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of
Armed Forces (DCAF), February.

Jamal, Amal. 2000. The Palestinian Media: An Obedient Servant or a Vanguard of

Democracy? Journal of Palestine Studies 29, no. 3 (Spring): 45-59.

Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre. 2008. Palestinians’ opinions towards the
media. Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, October.

Kempf, Wilhelm, and Heikki Luostarinen, eds. 2002. Journalism and the New World
Order: Studying War & the Media. Goteborg, Sweden: Nordicom, Goteborg
University, April 30.

KESHEV. 2009. The Israeli Media and the War in Gaza: Second Review. Keshev -
Keshev Publications. January.
http://www.keshev.org.il/siteen/FullNews.asp?NewsID=132&CategoryID=9.

Khaled, Haneen. 2010. Attili confirmed that the work of the Water Authority under
current situation is difficult and seems closer to crisis…He warns of a
humanitarian tragedy in Gaza due to the water crisis. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, June
10.

Kieran, Matthew. 1998. Objectivity , Impartiality and good Journalism. In Media ethics,
ed. Matthew Kieran. London: Routledge.

Kriesberg, Louis. 1998. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
218
Linehan, C., and J. McCarthy. 2000. Positioning in practice: Understanding participation
in the social world. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30, no. 4: 435–
453.

Loyn, David. 2007. Good journalism or peace journalism. Conflict and Communication
Online 6, no. 2.

Lynch, Jake. 2005. Peace Journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press.

———. 2007. Peace journalism and its discontents. Conflict and Communication Online
6, no. 2.

Mattar, Muwafaq. 2010a. Question - refugees between a Palestinian state and a Jewish
state. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, May 6.

———. 2010b. Question – the fox Netanyahu and the settlers. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, May
11.

McChesney, Robert Waterman. 2004. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication
Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

McCombs, Maxwell. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion.
Cambridge, UK: Polity.

McCombs, Maxwell, and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36, no. 2 (Summer): 176-187.

McGoldrick, Annabel, and Jake Lynch. 2000. Peace Journalism - How to Do It?
TRANSCEND. www.transcend.or.

Melone, Sandra D., Georgios Terzis, and Ozsel Beleli. 2002. Using the Media for
Conflict Transformation: The Common Ground Experience. In Berghoff
Handbook for Conflict Transformation. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for
Constructive Conflict Management.

MIFTAH. 2005. Public Discourse and Perceptions- Palestinian Media Coverage of the
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. MIFTAH-The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion
of Global Dialogue.

———. 2006. About us. The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue
and Democracy. http://www.miftah.org/AboutUs.cfm.

219
Mnookin, Robert H., and Ehud (Udi) Eiran. 2005. Discord 'Behind the Table': The
Internal Conflict Among Israeli Jews Concerning the Future of Settlements in the
West Bank and Gaza. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2 (April 12).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=704022.

Moussa, Nael. 2005. PLC: the right of return is a red line and any solution that does not
include it is not binding for our people. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, May 16.

———. 2007. Our people and its leaders assert central issue of refugees and their right
to return. Al Hayat Al Jadidah, May 16.

Newman, David. 2009. The myth of a settlement freeze. The Jerusalem Post, July 28.

———. 2010. Water: A source of conflict or peace?”. The Jerusalem Post, February 2.

Nossek, Hiller, and Yehiel Limor. 2001. Fifty Years in a" Marriage of Convenience":
News Media and Military Censorship in Israel. Communication Law and Policy 6,
no. 1: 1–35.

Oates, Sarah, and Andrew Williams. 2006. Comparative Aspects of Terrorism Coverage:
Television and Voters in the 2004 US and 2005 British Elections. In Political
Communication Section Pre-Conference of the Annual Meeting of the American
Political Science Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Available online at
http://www. media-politics. com/publications. htm. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
The Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.
http://www.media-politics.com/publications.htm.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2001. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Sage
Publications, Inc, October.

———. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.

Pauli, Carol. 2006. News Media as Mediators. Dispute Resolution Magazine 13: 8.

Peleg, Samuel. 2007. In defense of peace journalism: A rejoinder. Conflict and

Communication Online 6, no. 2.

Phillips, Nelson. 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social

Construction. Qualitative research methods v. 50. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications.

Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. 2005. Contemporary conflict
220
 resolution: the prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts.
Second Edition. Polity.

Reuters. 2009. Palestinians warn Israel after Jerusalem clash | Reuters. Reuters,
September 27. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58Q0RF20090927.

Richard E Rubenstein, ed. 1994. Frameworks for Interpreting Conflict: A Handbook for
Journalists. ICAR report #2. Fairfax, Va: Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution, George Mason University.

Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Qualitative research methods v.

30. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rinat, Zafrir. 2002. The water belongs to all; all must protect it. Haaretz, May 15.

Robinson, Piers. 2002. The CNN effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and
intervention. Routledge.

Rubenstein, Richard E, Johannes Botes, and John B. Stephens. 1994. Frameworks for
Interpreting Conflict: A Handbook for Journalists. ICAR report #2. Fairfax, Va:
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University.

Rubinstein, Danny. 2005. One Jerusalem for two nations. Haaretz, June 11.

Salem, Walid. 2005. The Anti-Normalization Discourse in the Context of Israeli-

Palestinian Peace-Building. The Palestine-Israel Journal 12, no. 1.
zotero://attachment/431/.

Sandole, J.D. Dennis. 2007. Peace and security in the postmodern world: the OSCE and
conflict resolution. Taylor & Francis.

Schiff, Ze'ev. 2004. A threat to the West Bank pullout. Haaretz, November 26.

Schudson, Michael. 2001. The emergence of the objectivity norm in American

Journalism. In Social norms, ed. Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp. Russell
Sage Foundation, February.

Shah, Dhavan V., Mark D. Watts, David Domke, and David P. Fan. 2002. News Framing
and Cueing of Issue Regimes: Explaining Clinton's Public Approval in Spite of
Scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly 66, no. 3: 339 -370. doi:10.1086/341396.

Shinar, Dov. 2002. Cultural Conflict in the Middle East: the Media as Peacemaker. In
Media and Conflict: Framing Issues, Making Policy, Shaping Opinions, ed. Eytan
221
 Gilboa. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers.

Shragai, Nadav, Ora Coren, and Mazal Mualem. 2009. PM: I told Obama Jerusalem will
never be divided. Haaretz, May 22.

Tan, Su-lan, and Fathali M. Moghaddam. 1999. Positioning in Intergroup Relations. In

Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action, ed. Rom Harré and Luk
van Lagenhove. Wiley-Blackwell.

The New York Times. 2007. A harsh, healthy verdict on Israel's war in Lebanon. The
New York Times, May 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/opinion/02iht-
edisrael.1.5531730.html.

Trottier, Julie. 2007. A wall, water and power: the Israeli ‘separation fence’. Review of
International Studies 33, no. 01: 105–127.

Troy, Gil. 2010. Jerusalem: Celestial and earthly - but not stereotypical. The Jerusalem
Post, May 11.

Tuchman, Gaye. 1972. Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's

notions of objectivity. American Journal of sociology 77, no. 4: 660–679.

Tuyll, Hubert P. Van, and Hubert P. van Tuyll. 2007. Political Partnership. In Media
bias: Finding it, Fixing it, ed. Wm. David Sloan and Jenn Burleson Mackay.
North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.

UN Human Rights Council. 2009. Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on
the Gaza Conflict. September 15.

United Nations. 1949. 194 (III). Palestine - Progress Report of the

United Nations Mediator. October 25.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenD
ocument.

Wal, Jessika Ter, ed. 2002. Racism and Cultural Diversity in the Mass Media: An
Overview of Research and Examples of Good Practice in EU Member States,
1995-2000. Vienna: EUMC.

Wasburn, Philo C. 2002. The Social Construction of International News: We're Talking
About Them, They're Talking About Us. Praeger series in political
communication. Westport, Conn: Praeger.

Wehr, Paul Ernest. 1979. Conflict regulation. Westview Press.

222
Williams, Kevin. 1992. Something more Important than Truth: Ethical issues in war
reporting. In Ethical issues in journalism and the media, ed. Andrew Belsey and
Ruth Chadwick. Psychology Press.

Wolfsfeld, Gadi. 1997a. Promoting Peace through the News Media: Some Initial Lessons
from the Oslo Peace Process. International Journal of Press/Politics 2, no. 4: 52-
70.

———. 1997b. Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. Cambridge
University Press, April 28.

———. 2001. The News Media and Peace Processes: The Middle East and Northern
Ireland. Peaceworks. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

———. 2004. Media and the Path to Peace. Cambridge University Press, February 9.

World Bank. 2009. West Bank and Gaza: Assessment of Restrictions on Water Sector
Development. Washington, DC: World Bank, Middle East and North Africa
Region, Sustainable Development Department, April.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/WE
STBANKGAZAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22145826~pagePK:1497618~piPK:2178
54~theSitePK:294365,00.html.

Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case study research: design and methods. SAGE.

223
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Rawhi Afaghani holds a Master of Arts in Journalism and Political Science and a
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism with a Specialization in Television News Production from
Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Rawhi was born and raised in a
Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and worked as a journalist and media
professional for more than fourteen years in Palestine, Czech Republic and the United
States. Currently, he is working as a political and media analyst and possesses a
comprehensive understanding of contemporary political, economic, and cultural affairs in
the Middle East and North Africa, the United States, and Europe. Rawhi’s personal
experience in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has inspired his dedication to peacemaking
and conflict resolution in the Middle East; he seeks to raise awareness among the public
through writing op-ed pieces, giving lectures on conflict dynamics and facilitating
problem-solving workshops for Israeli and Palestinian participants.

224