REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY beyaz zemin siyah zemin beyaz zemin Edited by Dr. Tarek Cherkaoui siyah zemin turkuaz zemin REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Edited by Dr. Tarek Cherkaoui Project Coordinator Hajira Maryam beyaz zemin siyah zemin © TRT WORLD RESEARCH CENTRE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PUBLISHER TRT WORLD RESEARCH CENTRE APRIL 2021 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Edited by: Dr. Tarek Cherkaoui Project Coordinator: Hajira Maryam Photo Cover: Anadolu Agency Design: Ekrem US TRT WORLD İSTANBUL AHMET ADNAN SAYGUN STREET NO:83 34347 ULUS, BEŞİKTAŞ İSTANBUL / TURKEY www.trtworld.com TRT WORLD LONDON PORTLAND HOUSE 4 GREAT PORTLAND STREET NO:4 LONDON / UNITED KINGDOM www.trtworld.com TRT WORLD WASHINGTON D.C. 1620 I STREET NW, 10TH FLOOR, SUITE 1000, 20006 WASHINGTON DC / UNITED STATES www.trtworld.com researchcentre.trtworld.com www.trtworld.com Printed by: HERMES TANITIM OFSET BASKI HİZ. KAG. LTD. ŞTİ. BÜYÜK SANAYİ 1. CAD. NO: 105 İSKİTLER / ANKARA Certificate Number: 47869 ISBN: ????????? REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Edited by Dr. Tarek Cherkaoui Project Coordinator Hajira Maryam beyaz zemin siyah zemin 4 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY FOREWORD This book on war coverage by the TRT World Research Centre is an invaluable addition to the literature on the topic. The book’s personal and enlightening perspectives display a different side of conflicts and their many dynamics to the reader. This is especially so because of the fact that reporting on wars has always been a precarious endeavour, a fact that has still not stopped TRT World journalists from scouring the globe to deliver their journalistic mission. They have been to many di- verse battlegrounds, including but not limited to: Syria, Palestine, Lib- ya, Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. These countries have suffered from enduring conflicts that have unfortunately led to countless deaths and widespread destruction, with some conflicts having no end in sight. The journalists’ primary purpose has been to report on the human sto- ries that are oft-forgotten in the quagmire of war, with ordinary civilians taking the brunt of the impact. War coverage is not a passive process, and many aspects are required to ensure that it is conducted responsibly. A narrative needs to be con- structed, and TRT World journalists work tirelessly to discover the facts and define fast-moving events faithfully for their viewers. This is an im- portant facet that characterises TRT World’s overall aim of contributing “to the narrative of how stories are told and to provide new perspectives of thought”. How events affect people on the ground are critical, with TRT World putting an “emphasis on the humanitarian angle of each REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 5 story, prioritising how the event influences the people rather than the stakeholders”. This book embodies those sentiments. In it, journalists have documented their personal experiences in war reporting, hoping to inform readers of the effects of their coverage and the potential ob- stacles that can arise. The characteristics of an individual journalist can also be important in war coverage. The personality, experience, education, and location of the journalist, all play a role in how a story is reported. Likewise, their knowledge of the social, cultural, and political background of the con- flict, can help improve the standard of their journalism. As they be- come more abreast of the many nuances, they distinguish which stories are urgent and how to sift through the many sources of information. Countless risks are taken every day, and their bravery is only equipoised by their desire to perform their jobs effectively. Each journalist makes tremendous sacrifices when attempting to inform viewers on develop- ments, including the high risk of becoming collateral damage in wars where often no one is held accountable. It is an admirable and chal- lenging career, but it is also one that is pivotal and indispensable. By showing events on both sides, the international community is better informed to take proactive measures to bring an end to wars that have devastating consequences. This book is also an effort to display the lessons learned by TRT World journalists, and to offer recommendations for news media outlets on best practice. Conflicts occur in complex regions where nuance is crit- ical, and some media often fail to provide a balanced and faithful view of developments. Western coverage can be tainted by orientalist or jingoistic undercurrents, while regional outlets can sometimes resort 6 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY to binary constructions that neglect the facts. Conversely, TRT World journalists aim to go beyond the established agendas and the contest of narratives by using their journalistic acumen to report events as they truly occur. This book can help aspiring war correspondents under- stand the multifaceted nature of war coverage, and be better prepared for their own deployments. This can be rewarding, as there will always be a place for objective reporting, especially in the current environ- ment where false or misleading information is pervasive. Overall, war coverage is a crucial part of journalism. This book exhibits the personal experiences of TRT World journalists as they went about their jobs in different countries, and it also serves as an educational as- sessment of the various dynamics of war. That they aim for objectivity in their coverage is a testament to their desire for ethical journalism, and it is likewise a demonstration of TRT World’s aim of facilitating hon- est perspectives, alongside war’s humanitarian angle. Ultimately, this book is a valuable addition to the literature on the topic, benefitting casual readers, aspiring war correspondents, and policymakers alike. İbrahim Eren, Director General and Chairman of TRT REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 7 PREFACE This book, compiled by the TRT World Research Centre, emphasises the importance of war coverage. It is a compilation of different personal ac- counts of TRT World journalists in their experience covering conflicts, such as in Syria or Kashmir. In providing a voice for the voiceless, TRT World journalists endeavour under dangerous conditions to uncover the truth behind the conflicts of today. There are many victims of war, and the consequences need to be highlighted through responsible journal- ism that allows viewers to be better informed. This is an indispensable role as it allows for the unravelling of events and provides a basis for the international community to understand and react to developments on the ground. Objectivity is crucial for journalists attempting to faithfully report on conflict and its various dynamics. As a result, TRT World journalists aim to ensure that any potential biases are removed to provide an accurate view into fast-moving events, allowing the audience to make up their own minds. This is a fact that our team prides themselves in, as there will always be a place for journalism that is uninhibited by distorted agen- das. Furthermore, the phenomenon of fake news, while not novel, has grown at a tremendous rate due to the proliferation of unaccountable mediums such as social media. This has only increased the importance of objectivity and news that represents events on the ground as they happen, and not how the outlet would have preferred them to happen. The main aim of TRT World has been, and always will be, the delivery of high-quality journalism. The media environment has never been as competitive as it is today, increasing the value of outlets which offer ex- 8 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY cellent and truthful coverage. While war conditions are particularly diffi- cult for journalists to gather reliable information safely, our team sees no obstacle that is too challenging. Indeed, the pressure has only led TRT World journalists to new heights to cover the world’s many conflicts. This book exhibits that, and is an exceptional and personal testament to the many aspects that go into war coverage. TRT World is an award-winning public broadcaster that acknowledges the value of an informed citizenry. It is one of the requirements of a co- hesive society, and TRT World does its part by covering pertinent news every day. While media has become over-commercialised, TRT World strives to offer its viewers comprehensive and informative coverage that is free from the market forces from which many suffer. Increased knowl- edge that is rooted in an accurate understanding of current politics and policy also helps build a civic nation. Overall, TRT World presents this book on war coverage as an invaluable contribution to the literature on the discourse. The unprecedented in- sights of journalists from the ground makes for an instructive read, with the consequences of war well defined. While this may not stop future conflicts from developing, decisions that have a wide-reaching impact should never be taken lightly moving forward. Pınar Kandemir, Director of Research and Training REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 9 Foreword 4 Preface 7 Editor’s Note 10 Covering Palestine (1999-2013) 18 by Bora Bayraktar Syria’s Swan Song 40 by Shamim Chowdhury Reporting Syria 66 by Sara Firth Reporting Afghanistan 82 by Tanya Goudsouzian The Last Prayer: Surviving Christchurch Massacre 104 by Ali Mustafa Reporting Kashmir, a Forgotten Conflict 132 by Baba Umar Contributors 152 References 156 10 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY EDITOR’S NOTE Over the past forty years, global news television has been a critical fea- ture of media coverage, particularly when it comes to war coverage. Large audience segments still rely on global news television as a central conduit to obtain their news and shape their worldviews. The role of global news television has continued on the path started by major global news agencies two centuries ago. It is worth noting that AFP was founded in 1835 (under the brand name of Havas), while Reu- ters was established in 1851. Many experts assert that the framework of global news television is closely connected with the process of globali- sation (Boyd-Barrett, 2000: 300). REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 11 The widespread acceptance of globalisation by the ruling elites throughout the world has precipitated patterns of worldwide connect- edness through the consistent flow of people, trade, ideas, technologies, finance, social movements, and cross border movements etc. (Shome & Hegde, 2002: 174). Consequently, the phenomenon of globalisation has not only exponentially increased international trade and cultural ex- change but has also profoundly transformed world societies and econ- omies, as it has blurred, in many ways, political, economic and cultural boundaries. With the planet digitally connected, television was for a long time, the primary source of foreign news for the majority of the population (Thus- su, 2002: 203). Global television corporations capitalised upon this state of affairs and radically altered the news business. As a result, news became broadcasted 24 hours a day around the clock and in real-time. Also, it became live-event-oriented (Gilboa, 2002). The genesis of global news television happened in the wake of the Gulf War of 1990-91. During that major international conflict, CNN became not only the channel of communication between the warring parties but also the instant chronicler of the conflict (Moisy, 1996: 7). The result was –as described by Time magazine- “an exceptional and perhaps unprec- edented, live account of the start of the war from inside an enemy cap- ital” (Zelizer, 2002: 71). CNN triumphed with that scoop, and its ratings probably exceeded a billion worldwide (Hall, 1997: 33). In the process, CNN outsmarted its over-spending competitors like ABC, which lost contact with its crew in Baghdad, and CBS, which could only provide studio comments and not first-hand accounts of war (The Economist, 1991: 26). At that point, CNN became known as ‘the war channel’ (Camp- bell, 2000: 11). 12 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Since then, several international outlets have joined the global news broadcasting industry, competing with some of the more established and primarily Western news organisations. Networks from countries such as Turkey, Qatar, China, Russia, Brazil and others also started broadcasting via satellite in English, furthering their footprint worldwide. This rising competition has managed to alter somewhat a deeply en- trenched trend, namely the fact that global media outlets tend to echo primarily Western political, economic and cultural agendas. Such state of affairs was criticised by the UNESCO via the MacBride Report, which was published in the early 1980s. The report concluded that internation- al communication was a one-way highway and called for more diversity, inclusiveness, and equality. TRT World, Turkey’s first English-language news channel, has been an integral part of this change. The channel has certainly filled an existing international communication gap. It has been proactively acting to pro- mote international goodwill, spread awareness about key areas of inter- est, and clarify certain policy positions, which could – if left ambiguous – fan the flames of conflict and misunderstanding in an already volatile region. Despite its recent inception, TRT World features in the same league as some of the pioneers of global news. A testimony to this feat is the cour- age and passion of the TRT World journalists and correspondents in the different theatres of war and conflict. Through their professionalism, the network has managed to position itself as an authentic voice for the global South, avoiding not only some of the stereotypical political and cultural representations disseminated by corporate mainstream news media but also by challenging them. Countries in the South, which in- clude numerous nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, are highly REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 13 exasperated by the existing international economic and political order, and the widening gaps between North and South. In bringing an alter- native voice, TRT World has managed to change perceptions and partic- ipated in setting the global news agenda. There is no doubt that the media have a significant impact in conflict set- tings. Driven by robust journalistic codes, the media can “escape from the war propaganda trap of symbolically constructing armed conflicts as polarised, black and white, zero-sum games” (Nohrstedt and Ottosen 2008: 13). Such in-depth journalism and nuanced reporting are precise- ly what the TRT World reporters and correspondents aspire to offer to their international audiences. In this book, some of TRT World’s finest journalists, correspondents, newsmakers, and producers have outlined their experiences in various war zones and conflict areas. These insights are significant not just to understand the journalistic craft but also to grasp the complexities fac- ing journalists as they report the stories. Through their narrator role, the journalist becomes part of the story. He/she defines what is at stake for the audience and frames the contours of the conflict at hand. Therefore, the various chapters of this book not only contribute to the existing liter- ature on war reporting but also help us comprehend the multiple obsta- cles, internal and external, that accompany war reporting. The first chapter by Dr Bora Bayraktar exemplifies the numerous intri- cacies and challenges faced by the war correspondent. Bayraktar be- longs to a unique breed of Turkish journalists, who go the extra mile to report on a story. While he is currently the manager of TRT World’s pro- grammes department, he previously worked for various international and local news channels covering several conflict zones, ranging from Afghanistan to Kosovo. He spent 15 years reporting on the Palestinian 14 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY issue, interviewing some of the renowned Palestinian leaders, such as Yasser Arafat, as well as Israeli leaders, such as Shimon Peres and Ne- tanyahu. It is clear from his journey that he is exceptionally passionate about his work, always striving to contextualise the conflicts he was as- signed to, particularly Palestine. Bayraktar’s chapter offers a general overview of the Palestinian conflict from the prism of a seasoned correspondent at a particular junction. At the same time, the author narrates the difficulties and constraints he faced while covering one of the critical turning points of the Palestini- an cause. This testimony is precious for emerging journalists and media professionals to grasp some of the root causes of this conflict and build on such expertise to hone their skills and understanding of the Palestin- ian predicament. In the second chapter, Shamim Chowdhury, a seasoned journalist and war correspondent with a long track record for the international news broadcast industry, provides her account on some crucial episodes of the Syrian war. Particular focus was placed on the fall of Aleppo and the subsequent Turkish military operations, such as Operation Olive Branch and Operation Euphrates Shield, which came to protect Turkey’s bor- ders and clear the adjacent zones from terrorist activity. While the Assad regime only granted access to those networks that were in sync with its theses, Chowdhury highlights the difficulties in operat- ing in such an environment. The news outlets that opposed the Assad regime’s narratives had to take incredible risks for their crews to report from the ground. Such hazards came at a heavy toll. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 137 newspersons were killed since the beginning of the uprising in Syria. However, for Chowdhury, the situation changed after Turkey’s intervention, as she was able to cov- REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 15 er the situation in Northern Syria and shed light on the horrors of war and the destruction that these regions suffered under the yoke of the Assad regime, as well as the immense suffering of the populations at the hands of different terrorist organisations. Syria is also the theme of Sara Firth’s chapter. Firth is an accomplished war correspondent that regularly covers hot spots, including the wars in Syria and Libya. In her section, she offers a captivating take on some of the high risks that confront war correspondents in these locations, such as kidnapping. Firth’s account contributes to the recurrent debate on war reporting, and particularly how to report a conflict objectively and safely. By covering the region for a decade for different news outlets, Firth un- derstands the layers of complexity that face the correspondent’s duties every day. Knowledge of the terrain and in-depth appreciation of the roots of the conflict are only one part of the equation. The other part re- lates to his/her adherence to the journalistic code of ethics. Sometimes, as Firth succinctly reveals, the journalist’s objectivity represents the best way out from the most dangerous situations. In the next section, Tanya Goudsouzian, who came to TRT World with a solid track record in covering the Middle East and Central Asia, relates her own experience in Afghanistan. While this country continues to suf- fer from an 18-year war, reporting this war is particularly problematic as Goudsouzian explains. It combines issues of access, conflicting interna- tional agendas, and deep-seated local, national and regional mistrust, which continuously fuel the spiral of violence. One of the fascinating aspects of Goudsouzian’s account is her analysis of the gradual change of the narratives surrounding the Taliban. As the United States progressively withdraws from the country, the depiction 16 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY of the Taliban in Western mainstream media has slowly shifted. Goud- souzian explains the rationale behind this change while providing a con- text for the war in general and how the emergence of the so-called citi- zen journalism has given the Taliban an easy access to multiple podia. Ali Mustafa is an international news correspondent with extensive expe- rience reporting from conflict zones, such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In his highly engrossing and compelling section, he captures the scene of one of the most heinous Islamophobic attacks that ever took place, namely the Christchurch terrorist attacks. This horrific assault, which took place on 15 March 2019, resulted in at least 50 casu- alties and many more injured. Even as the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern identified this episode as an act of terror, most Western mainstream media refrained from following her example, preferring to adopt the ‘lone gunman’ and ‘shooting’ frame. Mustafa’s testimony is an excellent tribute to the victims. He produces some of the most memorable and moving reports about the Christchurch terror attacks. His reporting stands in contrast to most Western main- stream media, which tends to follow an agenda dominated by talk of in- vasion and swarms to describe migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Unlike such chauvinistic reporting, Mustafa provides the deceased with background, humanises them, and focuses on the immense human cost that is still being paid today by their families and loved ones. By doing so, he places the victims at the centre of the coverage, paving the way for deeper inter-faith and inter-community understanding and harmony. In the next chapter, Baba Umar, a senior producer at TRT World with a good track record in covering the Middle East and South Asia, provides his insights about reporting the Kashmir conflict. The latter has been one of the most protracted conflicts in modern history, and its roots date REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 17 from before the births of the two countries that have fought two wars over this territory, namely India and Pakistan. However, media coverage of the Kashmir dispute has been less than adequate, and most interna- tional media allocate little coverage to this prolonged dispute. Therefore, Baba Umar provides essential elements to understand what is behind the headlines, and particularly the numerous impediments fac- ing free journalism that are put in place by the Indian occupation. Such an important, yet oft-ignored, aspect that accompanies every occupa- tion is the media war. The war of narratives and the control over seman- tics is of paramount importance to the occupying force, which strives to pass its messaging and control the masses by convincing them that any resistance is futile. In Kashmir, though, journalists are doing their utmost best to convey the truth, often at the cost of their lives. All in all, this book is an essential step towards providing journalists and media professionals, who have extensive experience in covering some of the most dangerous hot spots in the globe, to share their vantage points on key events. More importantly, they share their insights into what happens behind the headlines, and the toll these conflicts are tak- ing on human beings and journalists. Tarek Cherkaoui, Manager, TRT World Research Centre 18 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY COVERING PALESTINE 1999 - 2013 BORA BAYRAKTAR REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 19 Covering war has always been a dream for journalists at the beginning of their career. Reporting from a warzone seems really cool, and a journal- ist who has this opportunity feels privileged. I was no exception to this when I joined a Turkish national television channel in 1995 as their inter- national desk reporter. I was still a third-grade student of International Relations at university in Istanbul, and the job I started was directly re- lated to what I studied at that time. My first days in the newsroom were spent covering the withdrawal of Serbs from Banja Luka in the Bosnian war, Chechen separatist leader Dzhokhar Dudayev’s revolt1 against the Russian army, and Israeli-Palestinian talks. This was when I started mon- itoring Palestine closely. 1 Dudayev was a Soviet Air Force General who initiated a separatist movement in Chechnya during the last days of the Soviet Union. He was killed by an air strike on April 21st, 1996. 20 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Bora Bayraktar In the compound of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 21 The definition of my job was to write and edit television packages on a daily basis, using international news agencies’ footage and information. Internet-based websites were very rare or very difficult to access due to the slow connection. Alternative sources of information like social media did not exist either. Mainstream media used a western-orient- ed narrative and presented cases according to their perspective. This sometimes distorted my understanding, but I was eager to learn more. I started reading more books to understand issues more in-depth than the rhetoric offered by some news networks with built-in agendas. During the 1990s, Israel-Palestine was one of the top stories on the world news agenda. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were meeting mostly at the Erez border checkpoint. I was writing short news articles, getting to know the main actors, and getting familiar with certain places by look- ing at the pictures and following the negotiations. Simultaneously, vio- lent incidents were taking place. An extremist Jewish settlers’ horrible attack in a mosque in Hebron in 1994 was a huge blow to the Peace Pro- cess. Baruch Goldstein killed tens of Palestinians (official Israeli and Pal- estinian numbers vary) during a Ramadan morning prayer and triggered a blood feud. Radical Palestinian groups retaliated with suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, starting a cycle of violence. The extremists on both sides actually had a common goal: Killing the peace process. In 1995, despite all these attempts to stop peace negotiations, Israe- li Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat reached an agreement, and their representatives signed a very impor- tant document known as the Interim Agreement or Oslo II, extending Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank. Although this agreement fell far short of Palestinian expectations, it was also too much for the Israeli right-wing. And they made it clear with a very bold move. 22 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY On November 4, 1995, when I was working a night shift, breaking news appeared on my computer screen stating “Rabin was shot.” There were only a few international news televisions, and they started live coverage from the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv (Now Rabin Square.) There was a huge peace rally there where Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had unknowingly given his final speech and had joined singers in their songs for peace. After the rally was over, while Rabin was walking to his car, a young man approached him and shot one of the most well protect- ed leaders of the world. It did not take much for Israeli officials to declare the death of their Prime Minister. The murderer was not a Palestinian, as most people expected in the first moments after the attack. He was Yigal Amir, a Jewish settler who accused Rabin of betrayal because he “sold Holy Land.” Amir’s aim was not only to murder the Israeli Prime Minister, but also to kill the peace process. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said, “my partner was killed,” reiterating his commitment to the peace pro- cess with Rabin’s successor. My interest in Israeli-Palestinian affairs soared after this incident. As a reporter, I was eager to go to Palestinian territories and cover the devel- opments. After the assassination, a right-wing politician took over and Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies further provoked the Palestinian side. His opening of new settlements in Har Homa, Jerusalem and starting excavations under Haram Sharif caused violent incidents. I increasing- ly became more attached to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as I followed these incidents on a daily basis, regularly watched the footage from Pal- estinian territories, and edited packages for the main news bulletins. My job helped me to understand the main parameters of the conflict and, in a way, encouraged me to study its history. Thus, I was prepared for my first assignment to Israel to cover the 1999 May elections in which La- bour Party Leader Ehud Barak was challenging Likud Party Leader and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr Barak’s campaign was based on a vague promise of peace, while Netanyahu was defending his hawk- REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 23 ish policy. My first mission before covering the conflict was to cover the struggle for peace. It helped me to understand the multifaceted dynam- ics of peace and war, which are interrelated. First visit to the Holy Land “Barak will bring peace,” said my Israeli driver, when I first landed in Is- rael. But he had no idea about what he meant by peace. Indeed, I think Barak himself did not have a detailed idea either. The peace elected Is- raeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak discussed was vague and was far from the expectations of Palestinians. Israel was looking for security guaran- tees while Palestinians were working for an independent state based on the ‘67 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital. The gap between the two sides was wide, and the disappointment would potentially be devastat- ing. Even as a junior journalist I could see that. Hope existed, but a road map to reach an acceptable solution was not forthcoming. My first visit to Jerusalem took place under these circumstances. Palestine in the 1990s was completely different than it is today. Check- points were less visible, and tension was low. Driving from Jerusalem to Ramallah was possible within 15 to 20 minutes without interruption. The wall separating the neighbourhoods and streets did not exist, and neither did most of the checkpoints with heavy security measures at the entrance of Palestinian cities. Although on-going issues about the occupation conditions created problems from time to time, Israelis and Palestinians were more integrated. Palestinians were widely working in businesses in Israel, and the East Jerusalem Arab identity was strongly felt. The Old City smell of food, spices, and incense from churches dif- fusing in the narrow alleyways could easily make one feel as if they were in another world at another time. As if all the history, love, and pain were vested in the walls of the Old City. Al Aqsa Mosque and the Golden Dome 24 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY of the Rock, the places I used to see from agency footage while prepar- ing television packages, stood tall with their grandiosity. Breathing that air, feeling the tension, understanding the centrality of the holy places in world politics, meeting with prominent Israeli and Pal- estinian politicians, including Shimon Peres, at a very young age as a journalist further motivated me to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian ques- tion. Dying Hope and road to violence In July 2000, the Israelis and Palestinians met in Camp David under the auspices of U.S. President Bill Clinton to talk about final status issues; borders, status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, and refugees. The talks lasted two weeks and, for the first time, the Israeli and Palestinian lead- ers discussed the status of Jerusalem. According to the Israeli narrative, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a state to Palestinians and was ready to make concessions about Jerusalem, but Arafat refused this “gener- ous” offer – a word spread by the western mainstream media, televi- sions, news magazines, and papers. However, from the Palestinian point of view, this so-called generous offer was not something they could ac- cept. The Israeli offer was short of the ‘67 lines, offered no sovereignty over the Haram Al-Sharif, and had nothing about the return of refugees. The offer was not an independent state; it was nothing more than limited autonomy. Palestine would continue to be under the full control of Israel, without fulfilling the minimum expectations of Palestinians. But lacking alternative media outlets, their voice was not heard enough. Following the failure of Camp David Talks, I was assigned to cover Israe- li presidential elections in Jerusalem. It was a great opportunity to ob- serve the local mood in Israel and Palestine, obtain fresh comments from REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 25 prominent figures, and understand the reality on the ground for myself. I had the opportunity to talk to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was Arafat’s aide at Camp David, and Faisal Husseini, a well-known Pal- estinian politician and a Jerusalem resident who joined official talks in the 1990s. Both men were optimistic about the future of negotiations be- cause, although the talks failed at Camp David, for the first time, they said Israel had opened the Jerusalem dossier. Erekat told me that the talks will continue and that “if there is a will there is a way.” Husseini was meeting with European diplomats when I visited him at the Orient House in East Jerusalem, which served as a Palestinian government office for years. In the Israeli Knesset, on the other hand, one could feel the anger against Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He was under fire by the main opposi- tion leader Ariel Sharon since he discussed the status of Jerusalem. For right-wing parties, Jerusalem was the “eternal and undivided” capital of the state of Israel and what Barak did was “unacceptable.” Obviously, there was a big difference between the Israelis and Palestinians vis-à-vis the results of Camp David and the future of the talks. While Palestini- ans expected to discuss Jerusalem more and other issues, the feeling in Israel was the opposite. For them, putting Jerusalem into the equation was a terrible mistake and should have been corrected. The presidential election at the Knesset was proof of this negative atmosphere against Barak. His strong candidate, Shimon Peres, surprisingly lost against the opposition candidate Moshe Katsav. One of the best things about journalism is that once you are in the field, you can independently observe, analyse, and feel. This assignment al- lowed me to see what was really going on in Israel and Palestine. Today, with the help of social media and more direct access to the field, it is easier to get the feeling without actually being there. Still, I believe in the benefits of walking in the streets, discovering different places, and actually talking to people directly to gain a clearer vision of the political situation in a country. To get an idea from ordinary people about their 26 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY thoughts on Camp David and the negotiations, I went to the Wailing Wall. Of course, the place I picked was packed with right wing, Orthodox Jews and, not surprisingly, they were very angry with Barak and his con- cessions. They had no sympathy for the idea of sharing holy places with Palestinians. On top of the Wailing Wall, the sentiment was no different. It is adjacent to Haram Sharif, where Al Aqsa Mosque and the Golden Dome of the Rock are located. I got there in the afternoon after a long day. Muslims were preparing for the sunset prayer. It was the last hours of a hot July day, with a nice breeze as the sun was going down. A young Palestinian in his late twenties was preaching to a small crowd. Although I could hardly understand Arabic, it was clear that he was talking about Jerusalem, its importance to Muslims, and the grace of fighting for the homeland. I felt the sorrow, anger, and determination in his voice. At that time, I strongly felt what was about to come to the Holy Land. When I got back to Istanbul, I told my boss that we should get ready for violence in Palestine. Why we cover war The news business is expensive, and competition is stiff. Even if you invest in stories that you believe in, success is not guaranteed. Media is a crucial part of democracy and it is one of the most effective ways of global political communication. Media is also a battlefield for narra- tives. States and leaders try to win public opinion and get support for the legitimacy of their actions. For news outlets, wars and other military operations offer a great opportunity to increase their authority, improve their credibility, polish their brand, and strengthen their impact. Having accurate information in times of crisis is critical for decision-makers. The Israeli-Palestinian question has always been a sensitive issue, es- pecially for the governments in the region. Any government that stays REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 27 indifferent to Palestine and Jerusalem will likely have legitimacy issues at home. Jerusalem is the third holiest place for Muslims. Turkey is his- torically attached to the region. It is also an issue for the Christian world. Ordinary people have concerns about the desecration of holy places, while the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and the situation of refugees represent a concern for human rights activists. For these reasons, mon- itoring developments in the Holy Land has always been crucial for re- gional governments. In Turkey, private televisions started their operations in the 1990s. Many companies launched televisions and were in strong competition – especially in the news business. Managers saw a great opportunity to strengthen their brand by reporting from conflict zones around Turkey. Palestine was one of the most important issues for this competition. It was close to Turkey, and people from all political factions were interest- ed in Palestine. Leftists had sympathy for the Palestinian struggle, and some left-wing political leaders had been trained in their camps. Mus- lims were also interested in Jerusalem, so ratings of news from this con- flict were always promising. My network started its broadcast in October 1999. So, when the Sec- ond Intifada broke out in 2000, it was considered a great chance for the brand to gain prominence by reporting from the hot spots. From an indi- vidual journalist point of view, although it is a great opportunity to devel- op your name, there are certain challenges, too. These challenges also vary depending on where you are from, which channel you work, and the environment in which you operate. In 2000, while the Turkish tele- vision business was competitive, it was far from international standards in terms of security of journalists. Most of the reporters were working for entertainment television stations’ prime time main news bulletins, and the priority was ratings. For many news managers, what was more important was not getting accurate information and insight, but rather 28 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY good pictures and flare-ups. Consequently, the coverage of the report- ers was superficial. Sometimes reporters concocted situations in which they were the subject of the story. Instead of reporting war, the suffer- ing of the people, and what was happening in the region, they made it a spectacle. Competing with this was a big challenge for those who were trying to engage in decent journalism. In addition to this, Turkish news crews were very small, comprising only a reporter and a cameraman. There are more challenges when covering the Israeli-Palestinian ques- tion. It is more than a conflict between two nations as it involves the re- ligious sentiments of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Israeli officials can accuse one of being anti-Semitic at any time whenever one criticises the difficult living conditions under occupation or the mistreatment of Pal- estinians. Similarly, when you need to cover a suicide attack that target- ed Israeli civilians, there is a chance that you could be accused of being pro-Israeli. In addition to this, in 2000 in Turkey, the political atmosphere was prob- lematic, as Turkey’s relations with Israel became part of domestic poli- tics. It was used against Necmettin Erbakan’s conservative government when it was forced to step down by the so-called post-modern coup.2 Indeed, a journalist had to walk a tight rope when covering the situation in Palestine. 2 On 28 February 1997 Turkish National Security Council, dominated by military leaders, issued a memorandum against “anti-secular movements” and initiated a process that forced the government of conservative Welfare Party leader Necmettin Erbakan to resign. Under the pressure from military leaders, Prime Minister Erbakan signed the memorandum and many of Turkey’s private Muslim institutions, businesses, schools and associations had to stop their activities. Prime Minister Erbakan resigned after a while and this episode became known in Turkey as the “post-modern coup.” REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 29 Al Aqsa Intifada On September 28, 2000, when the main opposition party leader Ariel Sharon visited Haram Al-Sharif to underline that he denied the so-called concessions given to Palestinians and wanted to ensure that Israel did not give up its claims on the holy places, he triggered a wave of protests in Palestine. Sharon was known for his responsibility in the Sabra and Shattila massacre in Lebanon in 1982, confirmed by an Israeli court in the past, and Palestinians regarded his visit as a provocation. The pro- tests started at the courtyard of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Israeli soldiers killed many Palestinians. On the following day, after the Friday prayers protests continued and spread to all Palestinian cities and mosques. Israeli soldiers used exces- sive force to suppress protests. People were killed every day, and their funerals subsequently set off more protests. A cycle of violence started, and the second Palestinian uprising known as the Al Aqsa Intifada be- gan. I was sent to the territories once again to cover this conflict. My assignment was a combination of covering the dovetailing social un- rest, military conflict and diplomatic developments. I was travelling to various cities in the West Bank, such as Ramallah, Nablus, Qalqiliya and Gaza, every day. The Intifada basically meant Palestinian youth gathering in certain plac- es of their cities where Israeli soldiers patrol. After a confrontation, they threw stones and challenged their authority. In return, Israeli soldiers came to the zone where they were confronted and used tear gas, plas- tic bullets, and even live ammunition from time to time to disperse the crowd. One of the first challenges for a journalist was to find a secure place to watch, film, and report about these clashes. It was a surreal experience. Palestinians were coming together, erecting barriers from scrap cars and waste containers. Israeli soldiers were shooting while the 30 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY cameramen filmed those who got shot. It was eerie to spot which protes- tors would be taken down by the Israeli soldiers next. Ambulances were waiting nearby and would take the wounded immediately to hospitals. In the first days, I found that standing behind Israeli jeeps was more se- cure – if a stone hits me, it was more manageable than a bullet, which could be fatal. After a couple of days of covering similar protests, I un- derstood that there were also disadvantages to my location. This is be- cause when we were filming as described, in Ramallah in October 2000, Palestinians attacked so intensely that Israeli soldiers decided to get on their jeeps, put them in reverse, and leave the area quickly, leaving us in the cross-fire. Another security issue was tear gas. There was no professional equip- ment for protestors as well as most journalists to protect themselves from the effects of Israeli tear gas. To breathe when everything went grey, Palestinian protestors used toothpaste or sniffed onions. I was not sure if those were helpful or not, but in any case my Palestinian driver in Ramallah was always propping a piece of onion to my nose. In the first weeks of the Intifada, Israeli officials declared that they held the Fatah Secretary-General in the West Bank, Marwan Barghouti, re- sponsible for the violence. He was accused of running a military organ- ization called Tanzim and of supporting terrorism. To understand this man, I began following him in meetings and protests and interviewed him a few times. He denied all the accusations and said he would resist the occupation, which was his right by international law, and accused Israel of trying to silence him with these false allegations. Barghouti was regarded as one of the candidates who could be the next Palestinian leader after Arafat. To get a more comprehensive picture, I did not miss any important pro- tests or meetings in Palestine or Israel. Personally, I believe in order for REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 31 journalists to cover a war faithfully, they must be aware of the political and social developments, too. The slogans during the funerals or rallies discussed regional politics as well. “Al intifada mustamirra” (The intifada will continue) was a classic slogan. Palestinians also praised Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Lebanese Hezbollah. When we look at the situation today, it shows how much things have changed since then. Iraq is no longer a player in Palestine and Hezbollah lost its credibility after sup- porting Bashar Al Assad in the Syrian civil war. During the first days and weeks of the Al Aqsa Intifada, the Palestinian territories were full of journalists from all around the world. We were based in Jerusalem since we could go live and send our material via SNG trucks. It was easier doing it in there and staying in Jerusalem enabled our back-and-forth travelling to the West Bank and Gaza. Journalists who cover conflict and war walk into trouble. When there is an explosion or something wrong, people try to run away from the scene; a journalist has to run the other way. I asked myself “what I am doing now?” a few times in such situations. Indeed, I will never forget an incident that happened one night in Jerusalem. On that day, my camera- man and I had worked all day in Ramallah as usual. We woke up early in the morning to make a live shot for the morning show, drove to Ramal- lah to cover a Palestinian’s funeral, reported a clash between protestors and soldiers, and then got back to Jerusalem for another live shot for the main news bulletin at night. Subsequently, we went to our hotel room to get some rest. Not long after, we watched the news on Israeli air raids in Gaza City. I remember I then said to my cameraman Aydin: “We have to get to Gaza City before the bombardment is over.” In the middle of the night, we passed the Erez crossing point and rushed to Gaza City as bombs were falling around us. The only fear you have when you cover a war story is missing the action. You know that if you survive, you will have plenty of time to think about “What did I do?” “Why did I do that?” 32 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY And then you will commend yourself for your courage and know that you would do it again. Question of objectivity Covering war is not only about military hostilities, explosions, and bombs. It is more about covering the suffering of the people in or near the warzone. Refugees, orphans, and the lack of food, water, clothes, and shelter are the real story. While bombings and destruction take place quickly, their impact lasts for weeks, months, and even years. Death can be a quick end to all sufferings but staying alive after one’s home turns into rubble and bearing the premature loss of family members is intol- erable. In Palestine, one of the most striking experiences for me was visiting the refugee camps. Before visiting territories, I imagined refugee camps as big tent cities. But in the West Bank and Gaza camps are neighbour- hoods. Millions of people live in camps and buildings that show the ago- nising life and suffering of refugees. Under these circumstances, a chal- lenge for journalists is to decide on what is objectivity. While one side is living under the shadow of guns and miserable occupation conditions, and the other is using excessive force, is it possible to approach the story “objectively?” If you stay neutral in such a case, I do not think it would be fair. I think one lacks fairness if he or she approaches both sides as if they were equal when, in fact, they are not. Fair reporting is very impor- tant. So, when I covered the Israeli-Palestinian disagreement, I tried not to capitulate to the Israeli narrative and prioritize Israel’s security needs but also consider the issue of occupation and mistreatment. However, concurrently, when Israeli civilians were targeted, I tried to report it ac- cordingly. REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 33 As mentioned earlier, competing narratives are also a part of the Israe- li-Palestinian conflict. By using the media, parties try to build domestic and international consent for their future actions. The Israeli narrative has always portrayed the problem as a security issue with Israeli officials justifying their actions as self-defence, downgrading occupation condi- tions, and claiming that there was no partner to discuss peace. Regularly accusing Palestinians of terrorism was designed to silence their counter- part and their legal right to resist occupation according to international law. This became the strategy after the Camp David talks, too. The Israeli side put the onus of failure on Palestinians, and their rhetoric was “we gave everything to Arafat and made a generous offer, but Palestinians refused it,” which meant, “Palestinians do not want peace, so we have to find a way for our security.” So, the aim of the Israeli narrative was to facilitate a way to act unilaterally, neuter the process, and put the blame on Palestinians. And my aim as a journalist was to search for the truth. In December 2001, the Israeli army besieged Palestinian leader Yass- er Arafat in his compound in Ramallah. The Ariel Sharon government took the decision on the basis that Arafat failed to stop attacks in Isra- el. The Palestinian leader condemned these attacks targeting civilians many times, but Prime Minister Sharon had already made up his mind. Arafat was portrayed as a terrorist mastermind by Israel. At that time, I tried to figure out if this was really the case and why the PNA Chairman refused the so-called generous offer during the talks at Camp David a year ago. After days of effort, I was able to get an appointment from Ara- fat’s office, but I needed to walk through lines of Israeli tanks to get into the compound. Disregarding all the risks, we managed to get in. Arafat and his staff welcomed us as journalists from Turkey. In our interview, I asked him why he refused the Israeli offer. He explained the offer in detail, pointing places on a poster of Haram Sharif. He was offered no sovereignty over the Haram Sharif; instead, the deal stipulated Israeli 34 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY control of Palestinian borders, air space, and over the Armenian Quar- ter in the Old City. He said these were not acceptable to Palestinians or Christians, and asked, “Can you accept?” This version of the Camp Da- vid story became known after more than a year following the summit. However, Israel had used this time to reoccupy Palestinian territories, build checkpoints, and tighten its grip on the West Bank. My interview with Arafat was an important journalism success. After we completed the interview, we had another task of leaving the compound with our recording. My cameraman and I walked through the tanks again and walked kilometres in the rain to get out of Ramallah, which was locked down. We managed to overcome all the obstacles that night and sent our video to Istanbul, along with my interview with Israeli right-wing leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. My network broadcast- ed both interviews on the same day. We also heard Netanyahu’s harsh criticisms against Palestinians. Overall, I think it was fair enough. Life under curfew, Ramallah 2002 Palestinian territories turned into a war zone within a few months in 2000. Two Israelis, who were accused of spying, were thrown out from the windows of a Palestinian Police Station in Ramallah. Israel immedi- ately bombed the building. Subsequently, the Palestinian security forces were declared an enemy by Israel. Israel began targeting notable Pales- tinian leaders, including Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Palestinian radical groups started a sui- cide-bombing wave in Israel as retaliation. Indeed, it was a difficult time for journalists. After hopefully following Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for years, it was hard to believe talks were over, and that the region had entered a new cycle of violence. I define this period as Israeli unilateral- ism, and behind this was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 35 Sharon’s vision was well known and unambiguous. He wanted to end the peace process, reoccupy the West Bank, draw the borders according to Israel’s security needs, and impose his will by changing facts on the ground. In 2002, another escalation took place. Following a series of suicide bombings, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield. Israeli troops en- tered Palestinian cities and attacked Arafat’s compound. As a journalist, I was in Palestine once again to cover the operation. I reported from the outskirts of Bethlehem as the Israeli army was preparing to enter. Israeli soldiers were praying, and nearby supporters harassed foreign journal- ists as they thought they all supported Palestinians. Palestinians inside the city were praying too – not to be hurt by Israeli soldiers. Ramallah was declared a military zone and was cordoned off. As a group of foreign journalists, we came together near the Qalandiya checkpoint at the outskirts of Ramallah. My team, along with some Spanish journal- ists, tried to approach the Israeli military post to ask if we could enter the city. We showed our accreditation cards given by Israeli authorities. The reply we got was bullets; Israeli soldiers shot at us and forced us to go back. We decided to find a vacant spot between the military lines and, from an empty field, walked into the city. It was a very risky mo- ment given the mood of the Israeli soldiers, but luckily no one attacked us, and we went into Ramallah to a television studio to make live shots directly from the occupied city. There was a curfew, and we could not go out until the lockdown was over. We spent two weeks in that studio with a group of western and Arab journalists. There were times when Israeli tanks moved close to our building, conducting operations and firing shots, and we were waiting, worried. A few times Israeli soldiers intimidated journalists, raided media buildings, and broke equipment. Nobody wanted to relive this experience. 36 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY My cameraman and I dared to go out occasionally to film empty neigh- bourhoods, running into Israeli patrols in dust-covered streets. I wit- nessed Palestinian youngsters cuffed, leaning on the ground or a wall, under the watch of Israeli troops. While we wondered about their fate, we tried to report the situation from Ramallah. Although I do not smoke, I remember that I lit one after we ran across an Israeli tank near Ara- fat’s compound and it slowly pointed its gun to our vehicle, making us wait for a while. Roads were blocked by rubble and tanks flattened cars, usually unnecessarily. When U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell came to visit Arafat to ease the tension, many journalists rushed to the com- pound despite the curfew. Israeli military troops and tanks surrounded it. One Israeli soldier stopped our car to check our IDs and said, “Wel- come to Israel,” expecting us to smile. During a month-long siege, Israeli forces offered a three-to-four hour break every four days so that people could go out and purchase essen- tials. They were very valuable for journalists to film, get people’s opin- ions and thoughts, and feel the mood. At the same time, like the Pales- tinians, you had to get what you needed, like food and clothes. Once, I remember Israeli soldiers fired at me as a warning not to walk close to them. Moreover, when we were filming, we were very careful not to be targeted by snipers, walking near the walls of buildings and attempting to work speedily. We did not have time to worry about the quality of our shots. During the day under curfew, we had a lot of time to discuss our views about the issue with our colleagues. Watching the news, smok- ing hubble-bubble, and joking and discussing were the only activities. Sleeping on the floor was not easy, but for a journalist to be there when all the world was watching from far away was priceless. We had to keep up not only our physical strength but also our mental health. The uncer- tainty, not knowing how long it would continue and what would happen next, always made things more difficult. REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 37 The 2002 operation was actually an open war against Palestinians, and its political aim was to discredit Arafat, remove him from the political and diplomatic scene, kill the peace process and make agreements meaningless, turn the Palestinian question into a security issue for Isra- el, and allow Israel to implement its planned unilateral steps. One of the most controversial policies was building walls around Palestinian cities, which made life more difficult for Palestinians by limiting movement, discouraging them from working in Israel, and determining borders and the status of Jerusalem by altering the facts on the ground. Israel used the word “fence” to define the wall to make it more acceptable for the in- ternational community. Even politicians like Peres, who was considered a “dove,” supported the “fence.” With support from U.S. President George W. Bush, Arafat was side-lined. Sharon consequently wanted to strike a deal with Mahmoud Abbas, forc- ing him to accept his version of peace and deny Palestinians the right to return. A summit was held in Aqaba in 2003, but it was not enough to stop the Palestinians’ resistance. Ariel Sharon adeptly used the sui- cide attacks to legitimise his actions. For most ordinary Palestinians, the waves of attacks against civilians by hawkish groups were a big mistake that delegitimised their rightful resistance because they provided a ba- sis for Israel to use harsher methods. At that time, a journalist covering suicide attacks without harming the resistance rights of Palestinians was a challenge. I interviewed a young Israeli student who lost her ability to walk due to a suicide bombing attack at Hebrew University to display that we wanted to show the full picture of the conflict. Likewise, I did a package on the story of a café on Ben Yehuda Street, which was targeted three times and where several people got killed. In 2004, Sharon continued the assassination of Palestinian leaders. Mis- siles from Israeli helicopters killed Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yasin and his successor, Abdelaziz Rantisi. Arafat also died in November that 38 REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY year; according to most Palestinians he was poisoned. His funeral was a farewell to old times, and his death left the future of the Palestinian cause in question. All political factions, including long-time rival Hamas members endorsed Arafat’s legacy. Hamas members went to the extent of chanting “Shaheed Al Quds” (Martyr for Jerusalem) in his memory. This was to honour his stance at Camp David and his refusal to give up Jerusalem by saying that “I will not be the Arab who gave up Jerusalem.” The assassination of important leaders was in preparation of the Israeli government’s pulling out from Gaza. In 2005, Ariel Sharon decided to disengage from Gaza. He decided to dismantle 21 settlements in the Strip. It caused great controversy in Israel and right-wing politicians criticized Sharon heavily. Sharon was a strong supporter of settlements, and he was regarded as the “father of settlers.” He was, in a way, excom- municated by his party Likud, and decided to leave his party and estab- lish a new one under the banner of Kadima. I entered Neve Dekalim, the biggest settlement in Gaza, at midnight together with the Israeli army. Settlers were praying, cursing Sharon in grief. They called the Israeli army “Nazis” and resisted. They even watered the lawn as if they would not leave their homes at all. Settlers accused Ariel Sharon of betrayal, but soldiers reluctantly did their job. The evacuation took all day long while Palestinians celebrated the Israeli withdrawal as a historic victory. The Gaza disengagement boosted support for Hamas. After the death of the leaders, Palestinians went to elections early in January 2006. I was assigned to cover these historic elections. I travelled to Palestinian cit- ies in the West Bank and picked Gaza City for the election day. There was a competition between Fatah and Hamas for years, and they were competing for seats again this time. Hamas was regarded as a terrorist organization by Israel, and their participation in elections became an important international issue at that time. But they were committed to the political process and planned to show that they could run govern- REPORTING WAR AND CONFLICT IN THE 21ST CENTURY 39 ment offices to the world. I interviewed many Hamas and Fatah leaders during the campaign. My impression was that international media was downgrading the possibility of a Hamas victory. This is because Hamas rallies were dynamic and energizing, while Fatah seats were empty. The result ended up being as I expected. Covering elections in Palestine was essentially no different to covering armed conflict, with Hamas mem- bers celebrating victory by shooting their AK 47s in the air. Indeed, there were very tense moments when I was making rooftop live shots while Hamas members celebrated down the street. Final words For me, covering Palestine at a very critical junction in history has been a privilege. Meeting with historic figures, being in the middle of a glob- al crisis, and understanding, reporting, and talking about it has been a unique experience. It was a great challenge to compete with colleagues and other networks and trying to maintain fairness and quality, but also trying to be on the right side of history. Deciding when to include emo- tions in the story, or when to stay calm and act with reason, are of critical importance. To be able to use one’s cultural and intellectual background, benefit from one’s studies, and be rewarded for one’s commitment, has been gratifying. Overall, if we go back to the main question: Why would a network send a journalist to a conflict zone? What can a correspondent offer? I think the answer is clear: Managers expect their journalists to express what agencies and other networks cannot, or do not. They trust their jour- nalist’s courage and their professionalism, and in the end, want a true perspective of the story from on the ground.
US