Dubai and the media portrayal of Britain-Israel relations
19 February 2010
With the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh still leading the news agenda, much of the media focus has narrowed to the potential impact of the affair on Britain and Israel’s bilateral relationship. The alleged involvement of Mossad and the use of forged British passports in the operation led to Israel’s ambassador to the UK Ron Prosor being asked to appear at the Foreign Office yesterday to account for his country’s role.
But how serious is the diplomatic situation between the two allies? And do some media outlets elect to depict it as more severe than others? Below is a brief comparison of the most recent coverage which uncovers revealing variations between different media organs, particularly between the press and the BBC.
Press
Today’s two-page spread in The Guardian demonstrated a keen willingness to portray the relationship as seriously compromised. Middle East Editor Ian Black’s article, ‘Troubled alliance: Period of crisis worsens already strained relations’ opened with the bold claim that ‘Britain's relations with Israel are entering a period of crisis over the apparent use of cloned UK passports in the assassination of a Hamas official in Dubai.’ Similarly, the cover story of The Guardian’s daily supplement G2 by the same author, ‘The truth about the Mossad’, alleged ‘a white-hot diplomatic row between Israel and Britain’.
Conversely, The Times makes no such sweeping claims about a serious rift between the two nations. Its two-page spread includes coverage of the diplomatic ramifications but the central claim of the article, ‘I know nothing, says Israeli Ambassador as London demands help with passports’ by Diplomatic Correspondent Catherine Philp and reporters David Sharrock and Roger Boyes, is muted compared with the opening gambit of The Guardian’s corresponding piece. The lead assertion is merely that ‘Britain told Israel yesterday that it expects “full co-operation” with an inquiry into the fraudulent use of British and European passports by suspected Mossad agents on their assassination mission to Dubai.’ The article makes no claims of a major diplomatic rift.
The Independent also devotes a two-page spread to the story, with a remarkably similar headline to that featuring in The Guardian. The Independent – likewise keen to emphasise pressure on Israel’s relationships with foreign governments as a result of the use of forged passports in the assassination – reads: ‘West turns diplomatic screw – but Israel refuses to crack’. The Guardian’s central headline was ‘Pressure grows but Israel stays tight-lipped on passport affair’.
Most notable in The Independent’s coverage was its editorial cartoon, which depicts a castrated David Miliband presenting his testicles on a plate to a grinning Ron Prosor with the caption: ‘A courageous stance…’. This visual delivers the sense that Israel has the upper hand in the bilateral situation and that Britain is debasing itself before Israel.
But it was the Financial Times which made the boldest claim regarding the state of Britain-Israel relations, opening its news piece, ‘UK warns Israel over fake passports’ with the bold assertion:
‘Relations between Israel and Britain slid towards a 20-year low yesterday as London delivered a stern warning over the “outrage” of faked UK passports being used by alleged assassins in Dubai.’
Political Correspondent Alex Barker cites ‘mounting diplomatic tension’ and speculates that ‘These exchanges could be the prelude to a more damaging turn in UK-Israeli relations.’ Crucially he contends that the very fabric of the bilateral relationship could be in jeopardy:
‘If proven true, this could damage the framework of trust underpinning the alliance with Israel.’
A second article in the Financial Times by Middle East Correspondent Tobias Buck focuses exclusively on the repercussions for the bilateral relationship, describing it as ‘already strained’.
BBC
Generally speaking, BBC organs were less alarmist than other sections of the media regarding the impact on Britain-Israel relations of the potential use by Mossad of faked British passports in the assassination.
The PM radio programme, which on Thursday led with the story, described how ‘Ron Prosor was invited to discuss things at the Foreign Office’ – as opposed to ‘summoned’ as elsewhere in the media. Jonathan Spyer of Global Research in International Affairs, Israel was interviewed by presenter Eddie Mair on the subject of the possible impact on the relationship between Israel and Britain. He argued that he did not expect the issue to ‘turn into a major rift between the two countries’.
On the BBC News at Ten, security correspondent Gordon Carrera was also clear about the official status of the meeting:
‘In diplomatic terms he was invited rather than summoned, asked to share information, rather than to be accused or given a dressing down.’
This contrasts directly with The Guardian’s, ‘A dressing down in the headteacher’s office’ by Diplomatic Editor Julian Borger who speculated that Ron Prosor’s experience at the British Foreign Office would have been ‘mildly humiliating, like being called into the headteacher’s office.’ Similarly, on the BBC News at Six, when presenter George Alagiah aske George Carrera: ‘Just how damaging could this be for the two countries?’ The reporter answered: ‘Well so far the diplomatic fallout has been fairly limited.’