of Mustafa Abdelkarim –
The conflict between Israel and Palestine, characterized by continuous and intense hostilities for more than four weeks, is revealing several key considerations. It is imperative to join the chorus of voices condemning Hamas’ actions on October 7. While it may seem obvious to do so, it is essential to state this unequivocally. In the current European media landscape, not condemning Hamas’ actions upfront often hinders constructive discussions on the conflict. This is also a personal step for me, a way to free myself from the influence of growing up in Sudan, under an Islamic dictatorship that constantly propagated a pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine narrative. However, condemning Hamas’ actions on 7 October remains a fundamental position, and should not need to be repeated in every discussion of the conflict. With over 15 years of experience carefully observing information, it is evident that the Middle East media maintains a consistent narrative on the conflict. The term “Zionist Occupation Forces” is much more widespread than “Israeli Army”, a term which is almost non-existent. This persistence in the media narrative reflects the perspectives rooted in the region. While government-controlled media are obliged to follow their respective authorities, so-called “independent” media, such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabyia, openly acknowledge their ideological leanings. This division is in many ways expected.
On the other hand, European media presents a slightly surprising contrast. They often emphasize their independence and impartiality in their coverage of events such as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, highlighting their support for Ukraine against Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship. Yet the surprising element emerges in their coverage of the current escalation between Palestine and Israel, which has transformed media outlets into arenas of passionate debate among supporters, as if the conflict began on October 7.
Having regular access to the media in Italy, Belgium and Spain, I have found that claims about freedom of expression and media independence are conditional. They appear to apply only to certain topics and are quickly negotiable when dealing with complex historical and political issues. While recognizing the complexities of the conflict between Palestine and Israel, it is essential not to overlook the historical context, which also includes condemnation of Hamas’ actions on 7 October. Questions and statements such as “Are you pro-terrorists or pro-democracy?”, “Is Hamas comparable to ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda?”, and “If you mention historical implications, you are justifying Hamas,” have become common. These simplifying questions appear to be systematically distributed among politicians and journalists. During television and radio broadcasts and discussions, these questions have become almost cliché. While I have no intention of aligning myself with any particular group, I find myself forced to address these issues. I am not here to address the self-centered bias of the European media, which I have criticized in the past. I have reproached some of my European left-wing friends for self-blaming and self-victimization, even though they bear no responsibility for the biases present in media discourse. However, the ferocity with which the UN secretary general was attacked for simply stating that the October 7 attack was part of a long-standing conflict, rather than an impulsive act by Hamas, raises concerns. I am not questioning politicians who often express positions aligned with their own interests. My concern is with journalists who seem to refuse to acknowledge simple historical facts, whether out of ignorance or intent. This raises even more significant questions about their professionalism and responsibility.
