Tehreem Fatima
In Western media, particularly when it comes to reporting on conflicts involving Israel and Palestine, a clear bias often emerges, reinforcing narratives that favor Israel while downplaying or distorting the experiences of Palestinians and Arabs. This media bias is not just the result of political pressure but also a reflection of the ingrained prejudices that color much of the coverage in mainstream news outlets. A prime example of this can be seen in how the French news agency AFP, along with other media outlets, has covered the recent altercation in Amsterdam between Palestinians and Jewish supporters of the Israeli football team, Maccabi Tel Aviv, following a match with the Dutch club Ajax.
In the aftermath of the incident, which occurred last week, AFP’s coverage painted a clear picture of Palestinians and other Arabs as the aggressors in the situation, while presenting the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters as the innocent victims of a hate-fueled attack. The report emphasized that several Maccabi fans were hospitalized after being beaten following the match, describing the attackers as “Muslims” and attributing the violence to anti-Semitism. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof was quoted as condemning the incident as an example of “unadulterated anti-Semitism,” while far-right politician Geert Wilders, known for his extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric, declared that the perpetrators should be prosecuted for terrorism.
The depiction of Palestinians as perpetrators of violence is hardly surprising, as it fits neatly into a broader narrative pushed by many Western politicians and media outlets, which often portray Palestinians as violent, irrational, and hostile. This narrative is part of a long-standing effort to delegitimize Palestinian resistance to Israel’s occupation and to obscure the reality of Israel’s own violent actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. It is particularly troubling when this biased framing is perpetuated by news agencies that are supposed to be impartial and objective.
What the AFP report conveniently omits, however, is the context that sparked the confrontation. The article briefly mentions the “tension heightening events,” such as anti-Arab chants by Maccabi supporters, who also burned a Palestinian flag in Amsterdam’s central square and vandalized a taxi. Yet, this mention is buried deep in the article, and no serious effort is made to explain how these provocative actions—such as chanting “no children left in Gaza” and tearing down Palestinian flags—served as a direct provocation to Palestinian and Arab bystanders. The article fails to include any mention of the injuries sustained by Arabs at the hands of Israeli hooligans, instead portraying them as the primary aggressors. The framing of the incident in this way reflects a broader trend within Western media to downplay the injustices faced by Palestinians while inflating the perceived victimhood of Israeli supporters.
This selective reporting is part of a wider pattern that consistently minimizes or ignores the systemic violence and oppression faced by Palestinians. The Israel-Palestine conflict is complex, but Western media often reduce it to simplistic narratives that either entirely erase the Palestinian experience or demonize them as violent extremists. This type of coverage plays into official narratives that seek to absolve Israel of any responsibility for the atrocities committed in Gaza and the West Bank, allowing Israel to maintain its image as a victim while obfuscating its role as an occupying power engaged in brutal repression.
Journalists who attempt to challenge these narratives and present a more nuanced, unbiased account of events often face significant risks. In some cases, they may be reprimanded or even fired for refusing to toe the line set by their media organizations or political elites. This stifling of honest reporting is a reflection of the broader cultural and political pressures that shape Western media’s coverage of Israel and Palestine. In fact, journalists working for outlets that might otherwise offer a more balanced view are often under strict editorial constraints that make it difficult to present an honest portrayal of the conflict.
For instance, Sky News initially provided a more balanced account of the Amsterdam altercation. Their coverage described how Israeli supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv tore down Palestinian flags from outside homes, leading to a confrontation with Palestinians who were marching with their own flags. Sky News highlighted that the Israeli fans, many of whom were linked to far-right groups known for racism and violence, had assaulted Palestinians and shouted racist, anti-Arab slogans. However, the backlash to this report was swift. The coverage was removed from the Sky News website within hours, reflecting the enormous pressure placed on Western media to conform to pro-Israel narratives.
This incident underscores the limits of free expression within Western media, especially when it comes to covering issues related to Israel and Palestine. Despite claims of upholding freedom of the press, the reality is that media outlets are often complicit in perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biased narratives that serve the interests of powerful political actors. The removal of Sky News’ impartial report shows how easily the press can be silenced when the content challenges the dominant narrative.
The broader political context behind these media biases is also crucial to understanding the way stories are framed. In Western countries, particularly those with significant Jewish lobbying influence, political leaders and media outlets often align with Israel’s interests, either out of ideological support or to appease powerful domestic interest groups. This alignment often leads to the vilification of Palestinians, who are portrayed as a threat to Western values and security, while Israeli actions—such as the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Gaza—are downplayed or ignored.
Moreover, there is an unspoken agreement among many Western governments and their media to avoid scrutinizing Israel’s role in perpetuating the conflict. By framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism and focusing solely on violence perpetrated by Palestinians, the media obscures the larger geopolitical forces at play, including Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the systemic nature of its violence. The fact that much of this violence is perpetrated by Israeli military forces or right-wing extremist groups is conveniently left out of the equation.
The biased reporting of the Amsterdam incident is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of media coverage that seeks to dehumanize Palestinians and marginalize their suffering. While there is no denying that violence occurred during the confrontation, the full context—the provocative actions of Israeli fans, the role of far-right groups, and the broader political dynamics—must be acknowledged to understand the situation accurately.
In conclusion, the biased portrayal of the Amsterdam incident in AFP and the removal of Sky News’ more balanced coverage highlight the deep-seated media bias that continues to shape Western narratives on Israel and Palestine. The framing of Palestinians as aggressors, without providing the necessary context, perpetuates harmful stereotypes and prevents a deeper understanding of the realities on the ground. Until Western media and political leaders confront this bias and begin reporting the full truth, the world will remain misinformed about the ongoing struggles faced by Palestinians under Israeli occupation.
