If Only There Were A Way To Link Palestinian Incitement With Violence

By the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, Times of London, CNN, CBS News, Globe and Mail, Independent, and Los Angeles Times

Responsible journalists know that jumping to conclusions about the causes of an event only muddies the picture. That is why our organizations and others operating in the Israel-Palestine theater eschew direct mention of the unceasing incitement to violence produced and disseminated by official Palestinian sources, and instead hew to the trope of Israeli occupation as the cause of the attacks.

History itself will be written using the records we newspeople create, and the burden of that knowledge dictates that we exercise utmost integrity. The fact that not a single attacker has cited the occupation before or after perpetrating the stabbings, shootings, firebombings, vehicular assaults, or other assaults might make lesser intellects think something is going on besides resistance to occupation, but we cannot rush to judgment.

The narrative of vengeance for the deaths of earlier attackers, or the explicit invocation by Palestinian assailants of alleged Israeli designs on Al Aqsa, must of course be observed, but under no circumstances may we allow such data to influence the prevailing editorial line. Focusing on what the Palestinians themselves say in their media can only distract from the primary story as established by generations of journalists. If there were some evidence that Palestinian incitement were contributing to the violence – aside from the daily broadcasts in praise of attackers; the pensions paid to families of attackers; the streets and public facilities named for attackers; the official visits of Palestinian dignitaries to the families of attackers; the myriad social media posts by attackers citing all sorts of motives and not the occupation; and glorification of martyrdom in general – we would of  course consider including it in our reports.

Until more concrete evidence emerges, however, we must continue to relegate mention of those data points to dismissive paragraphs that depict them only as assertions of Israeli organs of state. Allowing them to pollute the purity of the occupation narrative will only do a disservice to our readers and viewers who, after all, have now become accustomed to the simplified picture that the occupation lens produces. It would be unfair and confusing to force our audiences to assimilate this unfamiliar set of facts and possibly reframe their entire understanding of the situation. Such a drastic move can only be justified in the face of overwhelming evidence.

What would constitute such evidence? Quantifying that poses a serious challenge, but we can say with confidence that if the Palestinians or their allies obtain an atomic weapon and use it to wipe out Israel, we will most assuredly reconsider the way we cover the conflict.

Please support our work through Patreon.