http://www.timesofisrael.com/ngo-releases-guide-to-covering-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

NGO releases guide to covering Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A major international press organization released a guide for journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The International Press Institute, a Vienna-based organization that advocates freedom of the press and expression and journalistic standards, published “Use with Care: A Reporter’s Glossary of Loaded Language in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” which it calls “a preliminary attempt to redefine the language with which the media, whether Israeli, Palestinian, or foreign, refer to the conflict, in the interest of accuracy and fairness.” 

The guide, compiled with the help of six veteran Israel and Palestinian journalists and published in late October, contains more than 75 potentially problematic terms journalists may encounter when covering the region. Each word is presented in English with Hebrew and Arabic translations, and an explanation of why the term is controversial or offensive to one or both sides. It then offers in most cases a less loaded alternative.

Instead of “apartheid wall”, IPI suggested “ separation barrier” for the combination fence-and-wall security barrier running along much of the Green Line separating Palestinian areas of the West Bank from Israeli communities.

“Israeli activities in the Palestinian Territories are sometimes referred to by Palestinians and pro-Palestinians as acts of Apartheid,” the study explained, “which is offensive to many Israelis because it implies that Israel has a clear and formal policy that regulates the superiority of one group over another. Israeli legislation punishes discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, or ethnicity, and Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel have an equal right to vote and be elected.

“Palestinians, on the other hand, argue that the comparison to Apartheid is applicable in connection to Israeli policies that enforce a separation between Israel and the West Bank, severely limiting the movement of Palestinians within the West Bank and into Israel.”

In the complicated issue of what to call the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, the guide suggest using the specific geographic designation, such as  the West Bank or the name of the town, instead of disputed or occupied territories.

The word “terrorist” is seen as similarly problematic by many journalists. The report does not recommend an alternative, but offered a discussion on the use of the word by the two sides.

“There is an Israeli view that says it is therefore accurate to use the word terrorism or terrorist to describe some acts and actors.

“On the other hand, there is a Palestinian view that considers the use of the term terrorism and terrorist by Israeli and international media problematic, because they believe these terms are applied disproportionately to attacks carried out by Palestinians..”

“Journalists should describe incidents specifically,” the guide recommended, “using phrases such as suicide bombing, firing rockets at civilians, or airstrikes that killed civilians and specify what actions were committed by a specific person or group. Terrorism and terrorist should be used only in instances that meet the widely accepted definition of acts of violence against civilians carried out in order to advance political goals.”

“Use with Care” also tackled some of the most inflammatory terms used by some Palestinian media.

“Some factional Palestinian media refer to Israeli control of the West Bank as the ‘Nazi occupation’, or to Israeli soldiers as ‘Nazi soldiers’, or make casual comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, often with images. Israelis consider this deeply ignorant and offensive, as well as anti-Semitic.”

“This term should not be used in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.”

The guide also recommended using “Israel” instead of “enemy” or the “entity,” and “suicide attack” in place of “heroic action” or “martyrdom operation.”

The report also addressed terms commonly used by Israeli journalists. Instead of referring to a “targeted strike” on a suspected terrorist, Use with Care called for “airstrike,” “killing,” or “assassination.”

“The language that reporters use in covering this or any conflict can perpetuate stereotypes, can incite hatred or can simply deflect from more pressing issues,” wrote IPI. “How this conflict is covered is important, almost as important as what is covered.”