Kyler Kronmiller and Dr. Bruce Chadwick, Sociology

In the fifty-three years since its birth, the state of Israel has been in perpetual conflict with its Arab neighbors. On this small piece of disputed land, too many peoples compete for too little space. Both Israelis and Arabs claim religious roots and heritage in the same small piece of real estate. The original United Nations boundaries between Israel and Palestine have been altered through a succession of wars, mainly in 1948, 1967, 1973, and two intifadas.

Throughout the prolonged conflict, news coverage in the United States has been influenced by a powerful Jewish lobby and has thus been highly favorable towards Israel. Americans, who are mainly Christian, recognize the historical and religious ties Jews have to the Holy Land and thus favor the Israeli cause. Most are not aware of the Arab and Islamic cultural and religious claims to the same territory. It is suspected that Arabic news coverage emphasizes the Palestinian claim to the land and their grievances at the hands of the Israelis.

This project sought to understand the Arab/Israeli conflict from the Arab point of view through Arabic newspapers. The purpose was to identify the issues as they are portrayed to the Arab population in their own media. It is acknowledged that most Middle Eastern countries practice some degree of press censorship. Interviews with Syrian and Egyptian journalists revealed that ultimately government agencies shape the news that is delivered to the public. The Israeli and American presses are less constrained by government agencies, but are influenced by pressures from government and other interest groups.

A second objective of this study was to compare the differences in the news coverage of the conflict between the Western press and the Egyptian press.

The research was conducted in Cairo, Egypt, but time was spent in Syria, Jordan and Israel. Al-Ahram, a widely-read Egyptian newspaper which is printed in both Arabic and English, was selected for the research. Both the “New York Times” and “USA Today” served as American papers against which to compare coverage. The newspapers were read over a two-month period and content was coded into three categories. Articles were first coded as to the geographic area they covered: international, Middle East, Egypt or local (Cairo). The content was coded into the following categories: politics/conflict; business/economics; sports; entertainment; technological progress; law/crime; traditional culture; and social issues, including a sub-category for religious articles. The coverage of politics/conflict was then coded as to whether it was pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel, pro-American, neutral or opposed to each of these groups. This determination was made by looking for phrases which praised or laid blame for the events surrounding the conflict. The praise or blame was sometimes directed against the entire nation, at other times against groups identified with them and at other times towards individuals, usually political leaders such as Sharon. The activities reported in these articles ranged from political statements to military action, to economic sanctions and to individual attacks.

Many differences exist between coverage of the conflict in Egyptian and American sources. American newspapers covered only major events in the peace process and violent flare-ups. Every edition of Al-Ahram had a front page article and photo dealing with the violence and the peace process, plus follow up articles in the paper about Israeli raids, Palestinian responses, and U.S. intervention. There is no doubt that the conflict is more important to Arabs. They suffer from the situation, and it remains top news over extended periods of time.

Coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict in Al-Ahram contained mostly statements that criticized Israel in general, criticized Israeli leaders and condemned Israeli military strikes. In fact, articles were eighty percent more likely to mention specific instances of Israeli attacks than Western sources, and sixty percent more likely to criticize specific Western and Israeli leaders. Al-Ahram was also forty percent more likely to make negative comments about Israel and international participation in the peace process. Such criticism does not bode well for important Western concerns in the Middle Eastern, such as tourism and oil. American newspapers contained no praise for Palestinian resistance efforts, although Al-Ahram commended the Palestinians in slightly more than half of its articles. Western sources were seventy percent more likely to criticize Palestinians in general. Western articles also contained sixty percent more neutral statements of fact than did Al-Ahram.

Interestingly, American newspapers contained sixty percent more praise for individual Arab leaders than did Al-Ahram, and they contained ninety percent more criticism for those same individuals. Perhaps because newspapers are government controlled, Arab sources do not hold their leaders responsible for their failures or their successes. This demonstrates a dramatic difference in how Arabs perceive the conflict. The responsibility for the situation is shifted to America and Israel, while regional Arab leaders are free to act as they see fit.

The tone of voice used in Al-Ahram articles was often sarcastic. American efforts in the peace process were discussed with contempt. A journalist mentioned that Israeli helicopters used in raids against Palestinians were made in America, indirectly linking the damage to the United States. When discussing Israeli policy, Al-Ahram’s journalists showed outright contempt. In one instance, responding to Ariel Sharon’s ambiguity when discussing Jewish settlements, a journalist stated that “all are aware hell will freeze over before Sharon would freeze expansion or uproot the outposts…” (Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 July 2001, page 6).

Another difference was the number of religious articles in Al-Ahram. Religion plays a more visible role in Arab societies than it does in the West. Every edition of Al-Ahram contained articles dealing with religious issues. This could account for Arab determination in the face of the frustration of their losses over the past fifty years, as Arabs might view the conflict in terms of a “holy war” or struggle to prove religious superiority.

Both Arabic and Western sources contained mostly national news. In Al-Ahram, national news focused on social issues like health, education and development. Few articles discussed national politics. In Western papers, more articles appeared on sports and national politics. Because the papers involved in this research aimed at as wide an audience as possible, very few articles discussed local issues. Weather news was entirely absent from Al-Ahram. Both Western papers and Al-Ahram dedicated approximately forty percent of their space to advertisements and classified, and two percent to letters to the editor and opinion pieces.

This research reveals unique Arabic media interpretations of events occurring in the Holy Land. Arabic sources discuss the issues in a different light than Western sources, which reveals some of the reasons that Palestinians respond the way they do to developments in the situation. According to their news, little hope exists if they depend on foreign help. Perhaps for this reason, they are willing to make the sacrifices they do to wage a war against Israel.