search
Jonathan Shavit

The art of omission

Many news outlets highlight different aspects and use various angles, when discussing the war. In the Netherlands, you have left-leaning and right-wing media, just as you would have in Israel or the US. But, we have public broadcasting as well. The Dutch public broadcaster NOS airs the eight o’clock evening news and has been doing so for decades. It is a trusted news source, respected. Considering that it is publicly funded, it is considered to be unbiased. While complete objectivity is an illusion – we are all human – the public broadcaster needs to strive for objectivity as much as possible. Sometimes, that seems to be a bridge too far, as it was last Saturday when Nasrallah’s elimination was discussed.

The evening news started with this event. The destruction caused by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon was shown, Gallant’s explanation that Nasrallah was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians was aired, and the crying Al Mayadeen anchor appeared on screen. To be fair, it was clarified that Al Mayadeen is a Hezbollah-affiliated network.

Then, the correspondents were asked to describe the situation. The correspondent in Israel explained that no one mourned Nasrallah, but that they felt safer. Yet, Israelis were not celebrating, though they did feel that Israel’s damaged deterrence had been restored after the Hamas terror attack on October 7 – yes, he explicitly called it a terror attack – had shattered their sense of security.

It gets interesting when looking at the reaction offered by the correspondent in Lebanon. She described how Hezbollah’s supporters were angry, grieving, and went out into the streets in disbelief, comforting each other over the loss of a “father figure.” She shared that not everyone in Lebanon regretted his death, but that those people remained mostly silent. His death would have a large impact in Lebanon and beyond.

This was not the best part, though. The item included a short profile on Nasrallah, including stock footage. The narrator explained that Nasrallah had ruled Hezbollah for more than thirty years. At a young age, he had received a religious education. After Israel invaded Lebanon, he joined Hezbollah to resist Israel. After the latter’s retreat in 2000, he became very popular.

It goes on to explain that Hezbollah became a political party in Lebanon, maintaining good relations with Iran, which supports it financially and militarily. They even facilitate education and health care. The weapons he received from Iran were used for attacks on Israel and Nasrallah supported Hamas. A clip was then shown of Nasrallah’s speech, in which he explained support for Hamas after October 7: “if Israel achieves a swift and decisive victory over Hamas in Gaza, who will stop them?” It ends with sharing that Nasrallah had avoided public speaking for years, because he feared being targeted by Israel. On Friday, his luck ran out.

To be fair, the broadcast was not fabricated. Nasrallah was certainly very popular among Lebanese Shiites and beyond the country’s borders. Hezbollah is a political party as well and it does provide public services. However, certain details about Nasrallah were conspicuously absent. For instance, footage was shown of Iranians crying, angered by the death of Nasrallah. What was not shown, was the positive mood in Idlib, where Syrian civilians were celebrating his death, due to Nasrallah’s active support for Bashar al-Assad. If Israeli news was showing these images on Saturday morning, how did they escape the NOS editors? Moreover, a few other details about Hezbollah’s actions during Nasrallah’s tenure were ignored:

  • The AMIA bombing in 1994.
  • The Burgas bus bombing in 2012.
  • The killing of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others in 2005.
  • Ongoing involvement in the Syrian civil war, in which Hezbollah actively supports Bashar al-Assad and has been accused of carrying out massacres and crimes, such as starvation tactics, against Syrian opposition forces and civilians
  • Nasrallah’s unilateral decision to support Hamas on October 8, by firing rockets at Israel from Lebanese soil.

For some reason, none of the above details made it into his profile. On the contrary, without knowing these facts, the average viewer would come to believe that an educating, health care providing, Israeli invasion resisting father figure had been killed on September 27.

The Dutch public broadcaster could have done better with this one. Hassan Nasrallah was revered by many in the region, it is true. But, he was a deeply divisive figure in Lebanon and hated by many in the Middle East. His involvement in the murder of Rafik Hariri, as well as his involvement in the Syrian civil war have cost him tons of support among Arabs in the Middle East. Not to mention his involvement in terror attacks against Jews and Israelis. But no references were made to these details. Ah, the art of omission.

About the Author
Born in Israel and raised in the Netherlands, I have studied history in the past. Though I still live in the latter, the former continues to amaze, frustrate, encourage, worry, enlighten, and move me. Whenever and wherever, Israel is on my mind.
Related Topics
Related Posts