Peace in the Middle East as Represented by Times Magazine Mira Zaghbour, Lebanon

Peace in the Middle East as Represented by Times Magazine

By Mira Zaghbour, Lebanon

Figure 1. TIME Cover Magazine, July 2006.

Introduction

A lone figure, seemingly that of a man, struggles to walk through the rubble of the destroyed city surrounding him. Shot from behind, the man is walking away from the viewers, heading towards more rubble and destroyed buildings. The city is Beirut, shot during the 2006 war with Israel on July 20th of that year. The retreating figure of that man, placed right in the middle of the frame, was put on the cover of TIME magazine with the title, in bold uppercase letters, “THE WAY OUT”, followed by “… OF THIS MESS. THE SIX KEYS TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST” (DworzakMagnum, 2006). The war with Israel was raging in full force at the time of the shot. I remember distinctly the feeling of dread I got as a child when I saw dust covered mutilated corpses – many of them children like me – shown on TV as they were dug up from underneath their bombed homes. Back then, I could not understand why the Israeli army was bombing people in their homes and what could possibly justify such actions. The war between Israel and Hezbollah (who had kidnapped two Israeli soldiers at the border and triggered the war) went on from 12 July - 14 August 2006. The United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spearheaded diplomatic efforts with the aim to create a “New Middle East” out of the ashes of the war, fuelled by the Bush administration (Chaitou and Ghandour, 2008). By focusing on the usage of visual elements in the cover as well as textual categorisation and framing methods. I will examine the means by which the TIME cover and its 28

associated cover story contributed to justifying the brutality of the Israeli invasion and Israel’s murder of the Lebanese population.

Visual analysis of the TIME cover

The depiction of Arab bodies as bodies that are used to conflict, bloodshed and destruction is a common narrative that contributes to their dehumanisation. It also helps outside onlookers feel more comfortable when seeing their pain, since they’re supposedly accustomed to it. The TIME cover depicts a man walking through the rubble of a destroyed Beirut, but we can only see his back. We’re unable to look at his face and assess his facial expression. There is no address from the man towards the viewers: this image is an offer (Kress and Leeuwen, 2005). Offers tend to depict those in it as if they were “specimens in a display case” being observed from afar, sometimes without their knowledge, or consent, which is the case in the TIME cover (Kress and Leeuwen, 2005, p. 367). TIME offers the image of a man lost in the rubble. We are invited to look at him as if he were living in another world where conflict ruled, compared to a world whose viewers could buy a magazine and look at a war happening somewhere far away to people who are ‘used’ to it. TIME positions these individuals as if destroyed cities were their natural habitat. This offer is situated within geopolitical power relations between the West and the Middle East– or more broadly, between what is considered ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’-- in which viewers in the West can comfortably witness such scenes of destruction and move on with their day. TIME further solidifies this barrier by creating distance between the photographer and the man through a “very long shot” (Kress and Leeuwen, 2005, p.369). This makes it impossible for the viewer to perceive any details about the man that might get them to identify with him. This further reinforces the notion that this conflict is ‘far away’ from the West, something that happens ‘over there’ in the Arab world and not ‘over here’, in Europe or the United States for instance. Finally, being pictured from behind highlights the vulnerability of the man and crystallises the power relations between viewers/photographer and the photographed. He is probably unaware that he is being photographed and has no say in the matter, erasing thus his identity and agency from how he is represented in a magazine cover that will be seen by millions. The vanishing point towards which he is walking to (shown by the yellow arrows in Fig.1) could indicate his refusal to acknowledge “The Way Out” proposed by the Americans, with the title placed behind him. The cover therefore arguably sets the scene for the justification for U.S. intervention by depicting the Lebanese Arab man as a vulnerable victim refusing aid while remaining comfortable in his destroyed environment.

Categorisation: righteous West vs. terrorist Arabs

The accompanying cover story, written by former TIME editor Michael Elliott, outlines the six keys necessary to establishing peace in the Middle East, all of which are steeped in U.S. interventionism (Elliott, 2006). There is a common thread running throughout this article that aims not only to depict the Middle East as a region in need of saving, but also as one deserving of ‘punishment’ for provoking Israel. Using the lens of Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA), one can see how membership categories of ‘us’ vs ‘them’ are formed with the use of certain terminologies and labels, providing fertile ground for the normalisation and justification of violence against the innocent in Lebanon (Leudar, Marsland and Nekvapil, 2004). U.S. and Israeli actors are positioned as the subjects of the story with which readers are supposed to identify with since many of them are named directly, and thus humanised: for instance, ‘Prime Minister Olmert’ (of Israel) and ‘Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’ are written with their 29

titles to give them authoritative importance, whereas ‘Bush’ and ‘the President’ are written separately, perhaps to evoke a sense of familiarity and closeness with Americans (Elliott, 2006). Allied political figures are called in to solidify the legitimacy of U.S. interventionism and the Israeli assault, starting with a “French official involved in counterterrorism” (Elliott, 2006). This official argues that Israel is entitled to react this way when provoked in such a manner by Hizballah (Elliott, 2006). Arab figures, such as “the Saudis” – with the naming invoking familiarity once again – “King Abdullah II of Jordan” and “President Homsi Mubarak of Egypt” are brought up to add regional legitimacy to the Israeli attack by quoting their condemnation of Hezbollah's actions and the necessity for the latter to bear responsibility for their actions (Elliott, 2006). Furthermore, affective categorisation is used when speaking of Israelis to invoke sympathy for their cause with terms such as “its people will be safe”, “to convince Israelis that they and their children can sleep easy at night” (Elliott, 2006). Adding to that, the Israeli army is portrayed as one inspiring respect with terms such as “The Jewish state’s superb armed forces” (Elliott, 2006). Turning to the ‘other’ side, Hizbollah and Hamas are described as one would expect: “suicide bombers,” “cells of well-trained militias energised by religious fervour,” “guerrillas,” and “today’s irregular foes” (Elliott, 2006). They are also accused of using civilians as shields with terms such as “live in villages, hide in houses and are sheltered by civilians (or force civilians to shelter them)” (Elliott, 2006). The relationship between the ‘us’ category (the U.S., Israel, and allies) and the ‘them’ category (Hezbollah and Hamas) is one that portrays the latter as having forcibly dragged the former into conflict, which left the ‘protagonists’ with no choice but to retaliate with full force. Indeed, passive language such as “Israel has to fight a war”, “Israel finds itself in a dilemma” seems to allude to Israel’s supposed reluctance to engage in a war (Elliott, 2006). Therefore, it is clear how, with the abundance of actors in support of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, the protagonists of the story, the Israelis, are set up to be righteous and backed by legitimate forces, both western and Arab, while the ‘others’, the enemies, are reduced to Hezbollah and Hamas, with no mention of other actors (such as the government, civil society groups, civilians) who are deserving of punishment for their provocation. This membership categorisation clearly serves the author’s purpose of justifying the Israeli assault upon civilians as one that is necessary in reaction to Hezbollah's terrorism.

Framing: modernity of the West and barbarity of the Arabs

Events such as war and violent conflict will inevitably be framed in particular ways that suit specific political and economic interests. The 2006 war in Lebanon is not immune to that. The categorisation set up by Elliott (2006) in which western actors and allies are grouped together in opposition to the terrorism of Hizbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinians allows for a framed storytelling of the 2006 war events that depicts the Israeli response to Hizbollah’s kidnapping as not just appropriate but deserved, and the “collateral damage” as a mere unfortunate consequence. As such, the first frame within this article that I will call ‘Blame and Justification’ is a direct result of the categorisation process developed by Elliott (2006). This frame is episodic in the sense that it describes certain events with “the use of negative stereotypes” (Papacharissi and de Fatima Oliveira, 2008). This frame focuses entirely on the initial provocation by Hizbollah’s kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, the threat posed by Hamas on innocent Israelis and the threat that Iran’s backing of Hizbollah poses to Israel’s existence. It conveniently ignores the suffering endured within Lebanon during the war, with 1,109 Lebanese people murdered, 4,399 people injured and 1 million displaced within a single month (Human Rights Watch, 2007). It serves to justify the brutality committed by Israelis against the people in Lebanon.

Moreover, a thematic frame is found within the text and the visual that I will call ‘Normalisation of Arab Conflict,’ which depicts the Middle East as a region in constant conflict that must be solved with external intervention, such as that of the U.S. Such thematic frames tend to provide political or social context for the event at hand (Schwalbe, 2006). The visual contributes to this framing with the selection of a part of Beirut that was completely destroyed, as opposed to other parts of it that remained functional. Furthermore, the article itself begins with painting a brutal picture of the Middle East, described as “drenched in blood and covered in the dust of bombedrubble” (Elliott, 2006). Elliott also emphasises the seemingly unending history of conflict in the Middle East with terms such as “Year after year, decade after decade” and “a small sliver of land in which ancient grievances are played out again and again” (Elliott, 2006). Finally, a more generic frame named ‘Modernity’ envelops this article. It portrays the U.S. as “the policeman to which those in any tough neighbourhood eventually turn”, who gets dragged into the region as the saviour for its woes, “whether it wants to be or not” (Elliott, 2006). The portrayal of the West, specifically the U.S., as the saviour, is a pillar of modernity discourse that sees regions such as the Middle East as backwards and incapable of saving themselves. As such, western powers are needed to bring in peace and progress. This generic frame of ‘Modernity’ spans across time and space and can successfully convince both westerners and Arabs of the latter’s need for western intervention.

Conclusion

The coverage of wars does not come without its socio-political, military, and economic influences. Pieces of media that portray conflict are situated within these power relations and formulate specific realities for viewers who may view media differently depending on their social position. Such is the case for the coverage of the 2006 war of Lebanon in the TIME cover. The practice of categorisation, whether conscious or not by the author, provides a solid foundation for the justification of Israeli brutality upon the people in Lebanon through the development of episodic, thematic, and generic frames. Therefore, the justification of Israeli violence is contained within a framing of the Middle East as an area in constant conflict, all of which stems from a discourse of modernity.

References

Chaitou, K. and Ghandour, T. (2008). Lebanon is Not Two Camps Part 1. [online] Middle East

Institute. Available at: https://www.mei.edu/publications/lebanon-not-two-camps-part-1. (Accessed: 27 June 2022). Dworzak-Magnum, T. (2006). The Way Out of this Mess. The Six Keys to Peace in the Middle East.

TIME Magazine. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060731,00.html. Elliott, M. (2006). Six Keys to Peace. [online] TIME. Available at: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1218058,00.html. (Accessed: 27 June 2022). Human Rights Watch (2007). Why They Died: Civilian Casualties in Lebanon during the 2006 War. [online] Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/05/why-theydied/civilian-casualties-lebanon-during-2006-war. Kress, G. and Leeuwen, T.V. (2005). Visual Interaction. In: The Discourse Reader. Routledge: pp. 362–384. Leudar, I., Marsland, V. and Nekvapil, J. (2004). On Membership Categorization: ‘Us’, ‘Them’ and

‘Doing Violence’ in Political Discourse. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3), pp.243–266. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041019. Papacharissi, Z. and de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2008). News Frames Terrorism: A Comparative

Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), pp.52–74. doi: 10.1177/1940161207312676. Schwalbe, C.B. (2006). Remembering Our Shared Past: Visually Framing the Iraq War on U.S.

News Websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), pp.264–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00325.x.