CNN's language use in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to present the Israeli occupation as a Palestinian point of view.

Dear CNN,

One can't help but wonder if CNN's failure to notice an 8-year-old closure might have been too subtle a point to make in light of today's report:

"Israeli celebrates independence, Palestinians mourn deaths"
found at http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/04/26/israeli.patrols.02/index.html
Web posted at: 2:56 p.m. EDT (1856 GMT).

Although it was commendable of CNN to do a report that highlights the contrasting events taking place in the Israeli and Palestinian communities on Israel's Independence Day, paragraph six repeats a now endemic CNN practice of obfuscation of the Israeli military occupation:

"But the Palestinians blame Israel for the violence, saying they employ heavy-handed methods to control Palestinian protesters -- and that the presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank and Gaza amounts to an occupation of Palestinian territory."

It doesn't "amount to" a military occupation. It is a military occupation.

The United Nations Security Council adopted its last resolution on this matter, UNSC1322, on 7 October 2000, point 3 of which:

"Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949."

The US State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 - Occupied territories," released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in February 2001, uses the terms "occupied", "occupation", or "occupying" to describe the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza no less than 40 times, including in the document's title.

Israel's military occupation has been an international fact since 1967 -- not eight years ago like the closure but one-third of a century ago.

In October 2000, I wrote to you to point out that CNN had become a byword for biased coverage "among Middle Eastern professionals and activists" ("CNN as a byword", 22 October 2000).

This was not a perception pulled out of thin air. Here are two similar citations to today's one, from 17 October 2000 and 11 April 2001:

"Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi told CNN that Palestinians were "enraged" by the agreement and believed it did nothing to end what they see as Israel's occupation of their land."

"Erakat said peace will only be obtainable through the end of what he called the Israeli "occupation" of the Palestinian territories."

This sadly all-to-common practice of presenting unpalatable facts about Israel as 'Palestinian opinion' is one of the reasons that CNN has become a byword.

In October 2000, this was true of Middle Eastern professionals and activists.

In April 2001, just six months later, it is starting to become true of your media colleagues.

In an April 9 article, "Israel wins war of words", Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker's concluding sentence was:

"A recent report in the Times, following in the tradition of CNN, said that 'Palestinians regard' Gilo as an illegal settlement. Indeed they do, but then so does international law."

The norm in reporting should be that every reference to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or East Jerusalem should be prefaced by the word "occupied".

This minimal effort not only would make it immeasurably clearer to your viewers the core reason for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but it would also go a long way to promote some faith in CNN as a responsible news source.

Nigel Parry

Related Links

• Action Items from The Electronic Intifada, including ones related to CNN.
• Coverage Trends from The Electronic Intifada.
• Media on Media, articles by journalists and organisations about the media coverage of the conflict, from The Electronic Intifada.