“B’Ivrit: A Hebrew Language Media Roundup” is a monthly look at the news through the eyes of Israeli media consumers.
1. Gaza Takeover? Great Idea
The scene at the White House last Tuesday night was unusual, to say the least. Even by the standards of the second Trump era, in which the unexpected is the only thing to expect, Trump succeeded in stunning his listeners. Reporters heading out of the White House East Room late in the evening tried to make sense of what they had just heard at the president’s joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Did Donald Trump just declare that the United States is taking over Gaza? And that all its Palestinian inhabitants will be removed? Permanently? Without their consent?
Some White House correspondents turned to their Israeli and Arab colleagues who attended the press conference to try and figure out what had just happened. Others rushed to file stories, highlighting the unprecedented nature of Trump’s proposal, its unlikeliness to ever materialize, and the legal and moral issues the idea of mass displacement raises.
The Israeli press, however, saw it differently. Judging by the headlines of daily publications and the tone taken by anchors on TV news networks, the Israeli media had just experienced a revelation.
“The Trump Revolution,” exclaimed Israel’s most-read newspaper Yediot Aharonot, which devoted its front page to a huge photo of Trump and Netanyahu at their joint press conference. “The plan that stunned the world; The euphoria in Israel; The shock in the Arab world,” were the lines the paper ran alongside the headline.
Maariv, a centrist daily, explained how the plan “sent shockwaves across the world” and provided two front-page opinion columns, both praising the president’s bold idea.
At Israel Hayom, the popular Miriam Adelson-owned right-wing daily, editors went with “Trump presents: the Gaza revolution,” accompanied by no fewer than six opinion columns celebrating the move.
Only the liberal-leaning Haaretz chose a different tone. Alongside the matter-of-fact headline stating that “Trump declares that the U.S. will take over Gaza, creating an international uproar,” the paper referred its readers to the editorial board’s opinion, which stated, “This is not serious.”
National evening news on Israel’s leading networks, which are widely watched, especially in a time of war, also shared a sense of amazement at Trump’s displacement idea. Endless reports and TV studio discussions with experts and pundits all drove the same point: Trump is thinking outside the box; Trump is making the dreams of Netanyahu and the Israeli right-wing come true; Trump is reshaping the Middle East, in Israel’s favor.
Skeptics were hard to find. Palestinian voices were absent. Dissenting views from Arab countries were met with explanations along the lines of “Colombia also said ‘no’ to Trump, but then caved to his pressure.” The fact that nearly the entire world spoke out against a plan that would amount to the largest human displacement of the 21st century was mentioned only in passing.
In other words, the majority in Israel is fully on board with Trump’s plan, and the Israeli media is leading the way.
2. Translating Trump into Hebrew
Once Donald Trump uttered the idea of removing 1.8 million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to neighboring countries (or, as he later stated, to up to a dozen other locations),the Israeli media struggled to find the right term to describe the move, in what turned out to be a linguistic, and political, minefield.
Some media outlets, especially those right of center, chose neutral terms such as “transferring” or “moving” the population. Others opted for “relocation,” a foreign term that took root in Israel’s booming hi-tech industry, where it refers to employees being posted in overseas locations, a move usually seen as a perk.
But many have decided to go with another English-based term, “transfer” (it’s pronounced as in English, except for the rolling R sound and the emphasis on the last syllable.) In English, it is a baggage-free word simply describing moving objects or people from one place to another. But in Hebrew, it is an extremely loaded term,
popularized by the American-born Jewish nationalist Meir Kahane, who used the term “transfer” to describe his wish for an Arab-free Israel in which all its non-Jewish residents would leave for neighboring Arab countries. Later, the term was picked up by Rehavam Ze’evi, another extreme-right politician who advocated for the removal of all Arabs from Israel, though he emphasized it would be done “by consent.”
The Hebrew term “transfer” is, therefore, used to describe a measure akin to ethnic cleansing.
Does it apply to Trump’s proposal? It’s hard to tell, since the U.S. president did not provide any substantial details about his plan, and failed to address thus far the key questions relating to the manner in which he expects Gazans to leave their homeland and if they’ll ever be allowed to return.
It is telling, however, that in the past week many in the Israeli media have been using the term in its literal sense, disregarding the ideological history it carries. In a way, this normalization of the idea of deliberately displacing an entire population explains why Trump’s idea was welcomed so warmly in Israel. While the world still views the plan as outrageous and illegal, Israelis, as reflected in mainstream media, see no issue with committing a “transfer” (again, with the rolling R) on the Gaza population.
3. Bibi Talks to Fox News, Angers Israeli Press
Netanyahu met with Trump for two hours at the White House on Tuesday, but he spent the entire week in Washington. And while Israelis engaged in a heated debate on the merits of the prolonged absence while the country is still in the midst of a war and a hostage deal, Netanyahu’s traveling press had another bone to pick with the Israeli leader.
During his stay in Washington, which captured the headlines in Israel every day, Netanyahu gave an interview to Sean Hannity at Fox News, then sat down with Mark Levin, also at Fox News, and then, to top it all off, he gave an exclusive interview to Israel’s Channel-14, a network that is seen as Israel’s equivalent of Fox News and is known to be in lockstep with Netanyahu on all issues. All three interviews were extremely friendly to Netanyahu. Not one tough question was presented by the supportive interviewers.
Netanyahu did not speak to any legit Israeli media outlet, nor did he sit down with any of the dozens of reporters who traveled with him from Israel. The prime minister also avoided holding the traditional off-the-record briefing Israeli leaders usually do with the Israeli reporters after a White House meeting.
The reporters, needless to say, were furious. In private conversations and in WhatsApp group chats they called the move “unprecedented,” some even threatening to boycott his future trips.
It’s been 15 months since the Gaza war began. In these 15 months, Netanyahu has given several interviews to Channel 14, held only a handful of press conferences, and declined each and every invitation by Israeli mainstream media outlets. Some of the reporters who traveled with the prime minister to Washington joked that thanks to Trump, Netanyahu was forced, for the first time in months, to actually take questions from the Israeli press during the joint press conference at the White House.
4. The Joy and Horror of Hostage Return
There’s a ritual that has developed in the Israeli media when covering the weekly release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Each batch of hostages being freed is welcomed by 24/7 coverage on all TV channels and news websites. The studios are packed with experts, activists and family members, and reporters are dispatched to every relevant location. Viewers, glued to the screens from the early hours of the morning, follow every step of the process live: Hamas terrorists parading the prisoners onto a makeshift stage and handing them “certificates” indicating they are being released; Red Cross vehicles approaching and making the transfer; the convoy crossing from Gaza into Israel; first photos of the released hostages being embraced by their loved ones; and finally their arrival by helicopter at hospital facilities in central Israel.
It is usually a moment of national catharsis. Teary-eyed Israelis, worn out after months of anticipation, cannot help but follow every moment of this process, sharing the families’ joy, just as they shared their anguish throughout all of these long months.
Saturday was different. The reporters were all out in the field, the screen was filled with streaming video from Gaza and from the other stations the hostages would pass through on their way, but the images were gut-wrenching. Or Levy, Eli Sharabi and Ohad Ben Ami emerged from Hamas captivity a mere shadow of themselves. Pale and starved, they hardly walked across the yard to the vans waiting to take them to freedom.
For the first time in this excruciating process of bringing the captives home, Israelis were exposed to the horrific state of the hostages. For many in the Israeli media, the first image that came to mind was that of Jewish Holocaust survivors exiting the liberated Nazi concentration camps.
The tone turned from celebratory to somber. The joy of watching Levy, Sharabi and Ben Ami fall into the arms of their family members was overshadowed by their frail and tortured look—and by the suddenly vivid fear for the remaining 76 hostages.
5. Rethinking Gaza Coverage
The future of the hostage deal is unclear. Netanyahu has signaled he is not committed to implementing the second phase, and today Hamas announced it was postponing the next hostage release. Assuming the deal does continue, as so many Israelis hope, it is clear that the media will be rethinking how it covers the process. Each release will become more difficult. More hostages will come out in terrible physical and mental condition. And some, who have either been killed by Hamas on October 7 or have died in captivity, will be released to their families for burial.
It is an entirely different situation now, and a test for the Israeli media, which will have to prove its ability to balance the instinct to cover the news from all angles with the need to allow privacy and solace for the hostages and their families.
Top image credit: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0).