Global Arab Network | British Media Portrayals of Egypt & the Gaza Blockade

Translate this article to your language:

GANPublications

e-Publications

Add Site to Favorites

Add Page to Favorites

Make Homepage

Share This Page

RSS Feed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |

British Media Portrayals of Egypt & the Gaza Blockade

Arab Media Watch

Wednesday, 16 June 2010 09:34

During the reporting of the Gaza flotilla attack, the Israeli blockade loomed large. However, also frequently mentioned was Egypt, which in the main has kept its border crossing with Gaza closed for the duration of the blockade.

This Arab Media Watch study looks at the way in which Egypt has been portrayed in British media coverage of the story, and finds that although the country may well be identified as, or thought to be, the junior partner in the blockade, in many cases responsibility is shared between Egypt and Israel.

This study looks at reporting of the story during the period 31 May - 11 June 2010, and looks at all British mainstream newspapers except the Financial Times.

Whose blockade?
The most common way of expressing responsibility for the blockade, or at least identifying the principal actors in the existence of the blockade, is rendered as „Israel and Egypt.‟ Although Israel alone is commonly identified in the opening paragraphs of an article, Egypt is then mentioned in the body of the article. Newspapers to formulate the idea this way include the Times, Daily Telegraph, Independent and Daily Mail.

Other ways it was expressed include:
“Egypt too is complicit” (Editorial, Guardian, 1 June)
“Israel, supported by Egypt” (Ian Black, Middle East editor, Guardian, 1 June)
“...the blockade maintained by Israel and Egypt” (Ian Traynor and Dorian Jones, Guardian, 1 June)
“Egypt...has largely enforced the siege that was imposed” (David Usborne and Donald Macintyre, Independent, 2 June)
“Egypt, the junior partner in the blockade” (Seumas Milne, columnist and associate editor, Guardian, 3 June)
“Egypt, which has supported Israel‟s blockade of Gaza” (Catrina Stewart, correspondent, Independent, 8 June)

These simple formulations frequently tend to apportion Egypt equal blame for the blockade, with the unavoidable conclusion that Egypt is part of the problem.

Daily Express columnist Frederick Forsyth (11 June) is clearer than most on this point:
“...which country has the most draconian prohibitions against anything entering Gaza? Actually Egypt, fellow Muslim, fellow Arab.”

Why blockade?
In addition to the more common statement of responsibility, a number of articles described why the blockade was imposed. The common factor linking these reasons is opposition to Hamas‟s political leadership of Gaza. Stated reasons include:

“...in a strategy aimed at undermining the government” (Independent, 1 June)
“...used the siege of Gaza deliberately...to try to undermine Hamas” (Ian Black, Middle East editor, Guardian, 1 June)
“...in a bid to weaken the Islamist movement Hamas” (Catrina Stewart, correspondent, Independent 5 June)
“...to put pressure on the Islamist militants to recognise the existence of Israel, deal with its Government and end the barrage of rockets against towns in southern Israel.” (Editorial, Times, 1 June)

A few journalists noted Egyptian domestic concerns resulting from the power structures in Gaza:
“Hosni Mubarak‟s hostility to Hamas is linked directly to his hostility to the Muslim Brotherhood, his principal domestic opponent.” (Ian Black, Middle East editor, Guardian, 2 June)

“...the Islamists are allied to the Muslim Brotherhood, the chief internal threat to the regime.” (Editorial, Sunday Times, 6 June)

“...aims to isolate the Hamas regime deemed to be a terrorist organisation linked to the Muslim Brotherhood party, banned in Egypt.” (James Hider and Alexander Christie-Miller, Times, 7 June)

Has the blockade ‘worked’?
Beyond the „who‟ and „why‟ of the blockade, some articles question whether it has been effective, and as is the general consensus, state why not. The primary reason is the circumventing of the blockade via the network of tunnels under the border with Egypt, which forms an interesting counter-point to previous assertions of Egyptian government complicity.

An editorial in the Times (1 June) noted:
“The restrictions have been largely ineffective because of the network of tunnels under the border with Egypt through which a vast array of weapons, as well as other goods, have been smuggled.”

Middle East correspondent James Hider added in the same newspaper (2 June):
“Everything from windscreen wiper motors to camera parts have to be ordered from smugglers and brought from Egypt, whose police take a cut, further pushing up prices in an enclave where unemployment is estimated to run at 50 per cent.”

David Williams in the Daily Mail (2 June) also noted an economic angle:
“Critics say the blockade has failed to weaken Hamas but further strapped an already impoverished economy.”

An editorial in the Independent (5 June) linked the tunnels to power in the Gaza Strip:
“Hamas‟s control of the smuggling tunnels into Egypt - the strip‟s economic lifeline - has reinforced its power.”

Guardian Middle East editor Ian Black wrote (2 June):
“Outside Israel and the US, it is widely acknowledged that the policy of isolating Gaza has failed.

He added a humanitarian note:
“Numerous reports by the UN and other agencies have documented deteriorating living conditions, malnutrition and deprivation.”

In a similar vein, Independent correspondent Catrina Stewart noted (5 June):
“...the smuggling tunnels have brought some relief.”

Egypt’s motivations for opening the border
Egypt‟s border with the Gaza Strip at Rafah was temporarily opened following the flotilla attack. This section looks at how Egypt‟s motivation in doing so is portrayed. There is a sense that the attack has thrown an unwelcome spotlight onto Egypt‟s role in the blockade.

An editorial in the Guardian (1 June) wrote:
“The Egyptian government will not welcome the intense embarrassment that Israel has caused it.”

In the same newspaper, Middle East editor Ian Black wrote that Egypt is “evidently embarrassed by accusations of complicity with Israel” (2 June).
James Hider and Alex Christie-Miller in the Times noted that Egypt appears “keen to avoid the backlash,” and suggested that opening the border is “a tacit recognition of blame likely to be directed Egypt‟s way” (2 June).

Black reported (2 June):
“Mubarak...is regularly attacked in the Arab world for effectively colluding with the Israeli blockade of Gaza.”

Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian (2 June) likewise noted an Arab world angle, suggesting that the move was:
“...a response to increasing Arab anger at what is perceived as Egyptian complicity in the blockade.”

David Williams in the Daily Mail characterised opening the border as “breaking ranks” with Israel (2 June), while Black described it as “bow[ing] to international pressure” (2 June).

An editorial in the Independent (5 June) took a longer-term view, noting that the current opening of the crossing was only likely to be a temporary measure:
“...the US must put pressure on Egypt to open Gaza‟s southern border.”

In the only example of its kind, Kevin Toolis in the Daily Mirror felt that Egypt‟s President “smashed the Israel blockade by summarily opening Gaza's southern border” (2 June). The result, according to Toolis, is that weapons no longer need to be smuggled into Gaza:
“Now Hamas, and their Iranian backers, will just drive into Gaza by truck.”

Ultimately, political manoeuvring - rather than choice and the humanitarian impulse - was seen as the motivation behind opening the border. Guardian columnist and associate editor Seumas Milne wrote (3 June):
“Egypt...has been forced to open its border with Gaza.”

Global Arab Network

By Guy Gabriel - AMW adviser

Add comment

The opinions of the authors in articles published are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Arab Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published comments are the opinions of private individuals and do not reflect the views of Global Arab Network