FIRST, REFUTE THE
DEFAMATION
By ANDREA LEVIN
Almost simultaneously in
early April, separate news stories underscored
Israel’s public opinion quandary.
A new BBC poll of more
than 17,000 people in 34 countries reported only
Iran ranked worse than the Jewish state in
having a "mainly negative influence in the
world." North Korea, Pakistan and China rated
more favorably.
Another report told of
conflicting public relations endeavors by
Israeli governmental departments; the tourism
ministry argued for its campaign to disseminate
positive images via YouTube to attract visitors,
while the Foreign Ministry contended graphic
photos of the terrorist attack on Merkaz Harav
had to be displayed to communicate what Israel
endures.
At the very same time, a
new UN World Health Organization report entered
the information stream, harshly condemning
Israel for allegedly inhumane conduct toward
Gazan Palestinians – the very kind of ostensibly
objective study by an international body that
has incrementally helped undermine Israel’s
global reputation.
The 54-page document is
familiar fare from the UN in its lack of
neutrality and fairness, its disregard for
Israeli concerns and scapegoating of that
country for difficulties Palestinians themselves
have plainly caused. An introduction entitled
"Collective Punishment of the Weakest" by
Ambrogio Manenti, head of the WHO’s Gaza and
West Bank office, enumerates factors relating to
Palestinian difficulties gaining admission to
Israeli hospital care.
It omits completely the
ongoing rocket attacks and terrorist assaults on
crossing points by Gazans that kill and maim
Israeli civilians and necessitate Israeli
countermeasures, including close monitoring of
the entry of Palestinians – even those in
ambulances.
(Nor, obviously, is there
any hint of irony in the WHO’s excoriating
Israel for not doing a better job in caring for
the medical needs of a people whose leaders are
sworn to the destruction of the Jewish
state.)
What is notable about the
WHO story in the context of Israel’s struggle to
communicate the facts about its actions, is that
media coverage of the UN report greatly
benefitted from swift and effective response by
Israeli officials. The New York Times, for
example, noted in its second paragraph that
"Israeli officials rejected the [WHO] findings
on Wednesday. They said that the people who had
compiled the report had never asked them about
the cases, that Israeli officials had no records
of entry permits being sought in some of the
cases and that details of other cases were
inaccurate."
Col. Nir Press, commander
of the Israel Defense Forces’ Gaza Coordination
and Liaison Administration, was heavily quoted
debunking the report.
The Times,
Associated Press, Chicago Tribune and
others cited various of his statements. He
responded specifically to a WHO claim that
Israeli delays had caused the death of a
critically ill boy. Disputing the charges, Press
said Israel approved an application for the
patient’s transfer to an Israeli hospital the
same day it was received, but that delay ensued
at the behest of a Palestinian doctor seeking to
stabilize the boy’s condition before moving
him.
Many of the news stories
also included Press’s reminder that delays in
admitting Palestinian patients are unavoidable
for security reasons. The Tribune
reported: "Press said in May 2007 two Gaza
women who received permits to travel for
treatment were discovered under interrogation to
have been sent to carry out suicide bombings. In
June 2005 a woman allowed into Israel for
medical care was discovered in a border security
check to be wearing explosives."
Elsewhere, Press was
quoted saying: "They [Hamas] use humanitarian
needs to attack us. We have to check every
request."
Much more can and should
be said about the shoddy, indefensible WHO
report. (A haphazard chronology for one patient
is suggestive of the careless attention to
accuracy. A woman is said – in the study dated
April 2008 – to have died on November 11, 2008
after a fall on September 24, 2007 for which she
sought treatment on September 6, 2007.)
But Press’s rejoinders
and their reverberation in the media’s coverage
of yet another distorted attack on Israel are a
reminder that nothing in the war of ideas and
images takes the place of the all-important work
of refuting defamation. One day perhaps
journalists will interject a caveat whenever
writing about a UN study on Israel cautioning
readers that the contents are very likely
propagandistic and unreliable.
Meanwhile, Israeli
officials should follow Press’s example and
respond rapidly and in detail to false,
poisonous claims against the Jewish state from
any source.
