Barriers to peace: Israeli settlements, Palestinian demands and the one-sided media narrative
MARCH 2010
Introduction
Since April 2009(1), the Israeli and Palestinian positions onre-entering bilateral negotiations have remained unchanged. Israel has offered to restart talks immediately without preconditions, whereas thePalestinians have refused to return to negotiations before a total cessation of all settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, their hoped-for future capital.
Given that the number of settlers has doubled since the 1990s, the issue is understandably one of high priority for the Palestinians in general. Nevertheless, the demand is an unprecedented one, given that no previous Arab-Israeli peace negotiations—from Camp David to Taba—have hinged on a freeze in settlement building. Rather, the issue of settlements has long been designated as one of the core issues to be resolved via peace negotiations, along with borders, security, the status of Jerusalem, water and Palestinian refugees.
However, Mahmoud Abbas took the position in April that he would not return to talks unless this condition was fulfilled. This report examines how the British broadsheets – The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times – have responded to this demand, as well as to Israel’s subsequent compromise offers. It focuses on a selection of key events since the end of October 2009 – when Netanyahu committed to restrain settlement building – and observes the prevalent trends in the coverage.
Key findings
The British broadsheets:
- Have not acknowledged that the settlement freeze demand is new and that no talks since the Oslo process have been preconditioned on a settlement freeze
- Do not question the Palestinian demand that Israel must freeze all settlement building before talks can take place
- Do not acknowledge domestic pressures on Netanyahu that might affect his willingness to compromise, but do acknowledge those on Abbas
- Do not question the Palestinian contention that continued settlement building automatically ruins any chance for a Palestinian state, despite previous examples of Israel giving up settled land for peace
1. Israeli pledge for settlement restraint
After months of diplomatic stalemate, on 31 October 2009 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the immediate resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, declaring that ‘What [Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu] has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements which he has just described - no new starts for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations.’(2) She acknowledged that the details of the offer remained to be ‘fully explained’ but restated her contention that it was ‘unprecedented’.
Having previously called on Israel to cease settlement building in the West Bank completely, this softening of the American stance was bound to not pass unnoticed. In fact, the response in the British media was extremely revealing, showing a near total assimilation of the Palestinian narrative on the issue.
In the week following the announcement, eighteen articles(3) were published in the broadsheets, carrying reaction to the move, as well as to the subsequent claim by Mahmoud Abbas that he was not planning on re-running for President. Of these, not one presented the US move as a compromise - an acceptance ofan Israeli partial concession on a Palestinian maximalist demand, ultimately in the name of restarting long-stalled peace talks. Instead, coverage focused on Arab anger and disappointment, giving the impression that a settlement freeze was always a pre-condition for talks and that Israel was simply being intransigent.
Only one article even mentioned the fact that a settlement freeze as a precondition for returning to negotiations was a new demand:
‘The US Secretary of State for the first time voiced support for Israel's argument that since a freeze on settlement construction had not been a precondition for previous peace talks, it should not be one during the negotiations the US is now trying to convene.’ (Ben Lynfield, ‘Clinton backs Israel on settlements stance,’ The Independent, 2 Nov 2009)
However, the same piece went so far as to portray Clinton’s move as an expression of support for Israeli settlement building. The opening sentence read:
‘Palestinian leaders angrily accused Hillary Clinton of undercutting Middle East peace prospects yesterday after she endorsed Israel's plans to continue expanding West Bank settlements.’
The following day, ‘Clinton backtracks on Israeli settlements after Arab anger’ by David Usborne appeared, also in The Independent, and was likewise framed according to the Palestinian perspective. It opened with the claim that Clinton was:
‘insisting to Arab foreign ministers that Washington had not capitulated to Israel's continuing hunger for new Jewish settlements even if statements she had made 24 hours earlier seemed to imply exactly that.’
The article also documented how ‘Arab anger had flared’ and ‘Fears are growing on the Arab side that Washington is going soft on Israel’. Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, was then quoted at length, saying how ‘disappointed’ the Arab world is ‘with the fact that Israel can get away with anything without any firm stand that this cannot be done’.
The Israeli perspective, namely that the Palestinians are wrong to refuse to return to negotiations without preconditions, is simply absent.
The Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, reasoned that Abbas’ dramatic announcement on 5 November that he did not plan to run for re-election as President of the Palestinian Authority, ‘is a clear sign he has been put in an impossible position by Israeli and American pressure to renew peace negotiations.’ He described Clinton’s altered stance on the Palestinian demand for a total settlement freeze as ‘her bombshell’ and demonstrated an absolute acceptance of the Palestinian perspective that asking the Palestinians to compromise was totally inequitable. 
2. Reaction to Israeli announcement of 10 month settlement moratorium
Three weeks following the announcement of a policy of restraint, Israel set out its commitment in full on the 25 November: a ten-month freeze on residential building in West Bank settlements. The media reported the swift and total Palestinian rejection of the offer, citing Abbas’ view that it did not go far enough, and emphasising the fragile political position of the Palestinian leader. However, there was virtually no attention paid by journalists to the implications of making the offer for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, given the prominence of pro-settler elements in his governing coalition.
Of the five broadsheet articles covering the development, only one alluded –indirectly- to the Israeli Prime Minister’s domestic position and the risks he faced by the move. The Financial Times noted in ‘Netanyahu offers freeze on West Bank settlements’: ‘Mr Netanyahu, who heads a governing coalition that includes mostly pro-settler rightwing parties, has resisted implementing a complete halt on settlements, saying that ’natural growth‘ of settler families must be accommodated.’ Much more pronounced in the media coverage was the potential damage to Mahmoud Abbas’ standing, were he to accept the compromise and resume talks. Ben Lynfield of The Independent wrote:
‘That leaves Mr Abbas in an even tighter bind, having staked his credibility on a vow not to return to the negotiating table unless there is a total freeze, as had been originally advocated by Washington. Mr Abbas said early this month that he is inclined to not seek re-election.’
The Times’ coverage also gave weight to Abbas’ predicament, whilst not mentioning Netanyahu’s. Middle East correspondent James Hider noted:
‘Yossi Beilin, a prominent Israeli liberal and former MP, said that the partial temporary freeze would further undermine President Abbas, who has said he will not stand for re-election next year because of the lack of progress in peace efforts: "The Americans are indirectly legitimising construction in east Jerusalem.”’
No one was cited to reflect on the possibility of an Israeli backlash against Netanyahu for making the offer.
Furthermore, when stories did emerge of a domestic backlash against the Israeli PM by settlers vehemently opposed to his commitment to restrict building in the West Bank, British journalists took a cynical view. In ‘Settlers step up the pressure on Netanyahu,’ Financial Times Middle East correspondent Tobias Buck theorised:
‘In diplomatic terms, the protests by the settler movement may prove helpful to Mr Netanyahu. Both the Palestinians and the US administration say they want Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including in occupied East Jerusalem - a step that Mr Netanyahu has rejected. The prime minister can argue even the limited steps he has taken so far have whipped up a political storm, meaning that he cannot be expected to go further without Palestinian concessions.’
The Daily Telegraph’s Adrian Blomfield concurred, writing, ‘Some observers believe that the confrontation with the settlers, many of them his natural constituents, will suit Mr Netanyahu by allowing him to point to the sacrifices made in his push for peace.’
Such cynical interpretations of Israel’s outlook stand in direct contrast with the acceptance at face value of the Palestinian position. For instance, no broadsheet journalist has insinuated that a potential domestic backlash against President Abbas in the event of a compromise would ‘suit’ the Palestinian leader.
Elsewhere, Netanyahu’s domestic political row was treated at face value. The New York Times reported on the unrest caused by Netanyahu’s policy shift in ‘Israel Arrests Settlers Fighting Freeze’ on 2 December 2009. Isabel Kershner wrote:
‘The settlers, however, view the pause as a grave threat. Scuffles have broken out in the past two days at numerous settlements as residents have tried to block inspectors sent by the Israeli Defense Ministry from reaching construction sites and handing out stop-work orders. The top members of the settler leadership gathered Wednesday in the settlement of Efrat, in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, and poured concrete foundations for a new synagogue in defiance of the ban.’
Furthermore, the journalist claimed:
‘The recent decision by the Israeli government to prohibit new housing starts in the settlements for 10 months was meant to help the Obama administration’s efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. So far, it has succeeded only in pitting the settlers against the state.’
3. UK press doesn’t report Egyptian FM’s praise for Netanyahu, and the ensuing Palestinian-Egyptian spat
Another facet of the British media’s handling of the settlement freeze and the Palestinian refusal to return to peace talks is its tendency not to report developments which challenge the preferred narrative. A key example of this trend is the failure in December 2009 to report Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit’s public praise for Netanyahu’s efforts to get the peace process back on track following bilateral talks in Egypt.
Israeli daily Ha’aretz covered the story in ‘Egyptian foreign minister offers rare praise for Netanyahu’ on 30 December, quoting Gheit’s comments, saying: ‘I can't talk about details, but the prime minister was discussing positions that surpass, in our estimate, what we've heard from [the Israelis] in a long time’ and ‘Everything is on the table’. Reporters Avi Issacharoff and Barak Ravid said: ‘Aboul Gheit said Netanyahu left the impression that he genuinely wants to get diplomacy moving again.’
Israeli news site Ynet also reported this progress in ‘Netanyahu, Mubarak hold "friendly" meeting’ (29 Dec 2009). ‘Egypt's foreign minister said he was encouraged by Netanyahu's visit. He said the Israeli leader was serious about restarting peace talks with the Palestinians, but refused to share details of what Netanyahu proposed. He did say Netanyahu presented proposals that "surpassed" Israel's previous positions.’ Furthermore, some of the complimentary comments were reported by Arab media outlets; for example, the English-language Jordan Times quoted Abul Gheit saying, ‘The talks were very positive,’ and ‘We have seen that the Israeli prime minister wants to move ahead’ (30 Dec 2009).
None of the British broadsheets reported this meeting and the positive feedback offered by Egypt. Instead, Israel-related stories focused on Palestinian rights in the West Bank (‘"Apartheid Road" opened toPalestinians,’ The Independent, 30 Dec 2009), and the arrest of Mordechai Vanunu (‘House arrest for Israeli nuclear whistleblower,’ TheGuardian, 30 Dec 2009; ‘Israel arrests man who told the world of its nuclear arms,’ The Daily Telegraph, 30 Dec 2009).
Regional pressure on the Palestinians to drop their maximalist demand of a total settlement freeze and resume talks immediately was also ignored by theBritish media. In particular, Egypt’s frustration with the seemingly immovable Palestinian leader has not been incorporated into the narrative of the ongoing diplomatic situation.
On 26 January 2010 Ynet reported the contents of an article published in the London-based Egyptian newspaper, al-Quds al-Arabi, which claimed Abbasis under ‘a direct threat that he will be completely ignored by the Egyptian leadership.’ Roee Nahmias stated: ‘According to the newspaper, a series of reports have claimed that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak threatened the Palestinians that his country would completely give upon the Palestinian issue if Abbas failed to accept Cairo's demand and fully cooperate with the Egyptians.’ ‘Abbas offended by Egypt, turns to Saudia Arabia’ also reported how the Palestinian president has apparently now ‘turned to Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and asked him to intervene in order to find a way out from the Egyptian pressure.’
However, none of these developments was addressed in the British media. One article in the Financial Times published on 27 January referred to how ‘both Israel and the US - with some support from Arab states such as Egypt - have ratcheted up the pressure on the Palestinians to start a new peace process’, clearly de-emphasising the Egyptian role. But that article, ‘Middle East set for another fraught year’, did not refer directly to the regional spat.
4. The refusal to acknowledge the Gaza withdrawal as precedent for Israeli willingness to give up occupied and settled land
Another notably absent strand of the settlement freeze media narrative is any sort of acknowledgment that Israel has in fact uprooted settlers en masse from occupied territory in recent years and handed over that land directly to the Palestinians. The removal of all 8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza in August 2005 is virtually excluded from all media debate about the likely impact of a failure to secure a total settlement freeze in the West Bank.
Since the 31 October announcement by Israel of restraint in settlement building and the subsequent slew of media coverage, only one broadsheet article has mentioned the Gaza withdrawal in the context of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. In The Times’ ‘Clinton praises Israel's 'peace offer' (2 Nov 2009) Middle East correspondent James Hider wrote of Secretary State Hillary Clinton:
‘She did not give details of the concessions but even under the Oslo peace talks in the 1990s Israel never halted the expansion of settlements.The first serious reversal came in 2005 when Ariel Sharon forced thousands to leave the Gaza Strip.’
Given Israel’s willingness to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in the last five years, one would think that the media would be more forthcoming as to the possibility of its making a similar concession again. The unprecedented move by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon clearly acts as a rebuttal for the claim that unless a total settlement freeze is implemented, a Palestinian state would cease to be a possibility.
Conclusion
Given the prospect of a renewed Arab-Israeli peace initiative, these findings raise questions about the British broadsheets' ability to examine the Palestinian narrative as critically as that of the Israelis. As demonstrated in this report, there has been a comprehensive failure onthe part of the press to treat critically the idea that Israeli settlements constitute the biggest obstacle to getting either side in a decades-long conflict to sit down with each other. A new Palestinian precondition has thus been uniformly accepted and, where Israel has tried to accommodate it, the reaction in the press has been one of hostility and dismissal.
Endnotes
1. ‘Abbas: No negotiations without settlement freeze,’ Jpost.com, 27 Apr 2009; ‘Abbas: No Peace Talks Until Settlement Construction Freeze,’ Huffingtonpost.com, 27 Apr 2009; ‘Abbas won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state,’ Ynet.com, 27 Apr 2009.
2. Remarks made at a joint press conference in Jerusalem with Benjamin Netanyahu, 31 Oct 2009.
3. ‘Clinton asks Palestinians to accept Israeli settlement work,’ The Independent on Sunday, 1 Nov 2009; ‘Clinton praises Israel's 'peace offer' ,’ James Hider, The Times, 2 Nov 2009; ‘Settlements were non negotiable. Until now ...,’ Giles Whittell, The Times, 2 Nov 2009; ‘Clinton backs Israel on settlements stance,’ Ben Lynfield, The Independent, 2 Nov 2009; ‘US drops demand for Israel settlement freeze,’ Adrian Blomfield, The Daily Telegraph, 2 Nov 2009; ‘Palestinian ire as Clinton backs Israel on settlements,’ Vita Bekker, Financial Times, 2 Nov 2009; ‘Clinton backtracks on Israeli settlements after Arab anger,’ David Usborne, The Independent, 3 Nov 2009; ‘Arab anger forces Clinton to row back on settlements,’ Ian Black, The Guardian, 3 Nov 2009; ‘US shift on peace talks increases Abbas isolation,’ Tobias Buck, Financial Times, 3 Nov 2009; ‘Settlement by stealth belies promises of restraint,’ Donald Macintyre, The Independent, 4 Nov 2009; ‘Obama's year of vitriol and rebuff at home, deadlock abroad. Not a bad start,’ Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, 4 Nov 2009; ‘Abbas derails peace plan,’ James Hider, The Times, 6 Nov 2009; ‘Abbas makes shock decision not stand in Palestinian poll,’ Donald Macintyre, The Independent, 6 Nov 2009; ‘Palestinian president: A dream turned sour,’ The Guardian, 6 Nov 2009; ‘Grave blow to fading hopes of a two-state solution,’ Ian Black, The Guardian, 6 Nov 2009; ‘Peace plan in tatters as Abbas says he will quit,’ Adrian Blomfield, The Daily Telegraph, 6 Nov 2009; ‘US had better hope he changes his mind,’ Adrian Blomfield, The Daily Telegraph, 6 Nov 2009; ‘Abbas confirms he will not seek re-election,’ Tobias Buck, Financial Times, 6 Nov 2009.