Terror victims’ dignity: Should bloody pictures go viral?

 

Halamish 3

When to show blood on the floor? Israeli officials examine the murder scene of members of the Salomon family in Halamish by a knife-wielding Palestinian. Controversy abounds about whether publishing pictures of the edge-to-edge blood-soaked floor by the IDF violates victims’ dignity (photo: ZAKA)

WHAT’S in a picture? The violence at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and the terrorist attack in the West Bank settlement Halamish on Friday raises questions about how much blood and gore should the general public see through photographs when civilians are killed.

The morning after the Halamish attack, in which Yosef Salomon and his two adult children were stabbed to death by a Palestinian with a knife during Shabbat dinner, the IDF released photographs of their kitchen floor, drenched edge to edge in thick blood. Another picture showed the attacker lying face down on the bloody floor.

An Israeli official posted it on Twitter, captioned, “This is the terrorist lying on the floor… full of the blood of three innocent family members…”

Arguments for and against such pictures’ release are many-sided. In this case, there was some discomfort in official circles and among ordinary Israelis.

A major humanitarian consideration is preserving the dignity and privacy of victims and family. From a policy viewpoint, Israel also wants to avoid creating an image of Israelis and Jews as “victims.” An Israeli official quoted this week in a national paper referred to the famous Holocaust-era Warsaw Ghetto photograph of a Jewish boy with his hands up, watched by a German soldier: “[Pictures of Jews being humiliated] makes our enemies happy, and demoralises us.”

People arguing that such pictures evoke sympathy for Israel and discredit the terrorists’ cause are only partially correct, since a myriad pictures are also published by Palestinians of their victims of Israeli attacks; it depends who is seeing them, and from what perspective. For some, the attackers are terrorists; for others, heroic martyrs.

Dramatic war photographs have sometimes had major effects on public perception of a conflict. Think of the famous Pulitzer Prize-winning picture of a nine-year-old Vietnamese girl running naked and screaming down a road in June 1972 after being burned by a South Vietnamese napalm attack during the Vietnam War. The war’s moral imperative was never the same after that. Or the picture in September 2015 of a three year-old Syrian boy’s miserable body washed up on a Turkish beach, becoming a symbol of the refugee crisis and the world’s ignoring of Syrian atrocities in which 400 000 have died in the six-year war, many of them civilians. The photograph went viral, shifting some attitudes towards migrants.

In South Africa, the image during the 1976 Soweto uprising by photojournalist Sam Nzima of the dying, bloodied 13-year-old Hector Pieterson shot by apartheid security forces, was published worldwide and became an emblem of the anti-apartheid struggle. Later, South Africa’s social problems shot to the headlines in May 2008 through the image of 35-year-old Mozambican Ernesto Alfabeto Nhamuave being set on fire in a village street during xenophobic attacks on foreigners by locals, causing an uproar about the society’s moral values.

After a terrorist attack in Israel, the IDF is often in charge of the site, with a say on what images are released. But it cannot control photojournalists working for global media, or civilians’ pictures taken on smartphones and tweeted out to the world.

Newspaper editors are themselves caught in a dilemma. They cannot publish only sanitised images giving no sense of the horror. Yet they cannot fill their pages with gory pictures which will make readers recoil. The balance is difficult to find.

In the Halamish case, the IDF had control of the scene, which was in a fenced-off West Bank settlement. Arguably, the violation of the family’s dignity with images of the Salomons’ bloody kitchen floor, could have outweighed any positive result of their publication. Yet, in the emotions of the moment, one can also understand the rage which led to the opposite decision.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

  • Read a review of the photo-exhibition Refuge  by Muslim photographers Hasan and Husain Essop, from arts critic Robyn Sassen

 

Advertisements

SA led to the cliff-edge: Whose fault?

MotorcadeMandelaZuma

Presidential motorcades friendly and fierce: Major segments of SA society want to remove President Zuma for undermining the state, some even willing to pay him R2bn to step down. Nelson Mandela was a more beloved president – the ‘big man’ who would solve all problems

EVEN with so many South Africans desperate to rescue this country from President Jacob Zuma’s train of destruction, last week’s report of a R2bn amnesty package offered to him from frantic private sources to leave office – including amnesty for 783 corruption charges and other misdemeanours – is wishful thinking. He apparently rejected the deal, said to have been proposed by a faction backing Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who aspires to be president. But maybe behind the scenes he is bargaining for more? Yet even if he accepted it, would it be worth it for the country?

The deal has a precedent in a similar settlement in Ireland in the 1990s that ended the civil war. And in the United States in 1974, President Richard Nixon, facing impeachment and removal from office, resigned and was pardoned for crimes committed while in office by his successor Gerald Ford, making it feasible for the country to rid itself of Nixon.

Apartheid leaders got away scot free with an amnesty from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Nelson Mandela led the process, believing it was preferable to civil war.

Leadership is a complex concept with multiple meanings about where power lies. One of the world’s great Talmudists, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, on a 1999 South African visit, commented to a Jewish gathering: If a man is walking a dog on a leash, with the dog in front, the dog appears to be the leader. But he can only go where his master lets him.

Countries get the leaders they deserve, says the old adage. South Africa, including its political parties and civil groups, agreed to Mandela reconciling with apartheid villains. But, bizarrely, it has also allowed Zuma to lead it to the cliff-edge, threatening to destroy the country. It must seriously examine why. All are to blame – not just the ANC, as popular opinion claims in many quarters.

The marking earlier this week of Mandela’s birthday is a reminder of the weakness in looking for solutions in one man. Some gym devotees will recall an unforgettable sunny afternoon in 2002 at Old Eds gym in Houghton, Johannesburg. People in shorts and sneakers bustled through the doors, overlooking the cricket field, as a military helicopter arrived and landed on the field. A police car, a brown car containing three black security men, and a silver Mercedes drove to the ‘copter.

A familiar face appeared from inside, instantly recognisable. Madiba. He stepped down to the grass, waving and smiling to all. People shouted from the gym: “We love you, Madiba!”

A blonde-haired white woman in a red track-suit dashed across the field towards him. The guards intercepted, then let her through. She threw her arms around Madiba, kissed him, then ran back across the field, beaming. The cars pulled off, driving to Madiba’s house a few blocks away. South Africa’s saviour embodied in one man.

Now it is 2017. Imagine a helicopter landing on that cricket field with Zuma, on his way to the Gupta family – the ‘mafia-chiefs’ – mansion in Saxonwold, also a few blocks away. Hordes of security would have searched the gym before his arrival, and surrounded him as he stepped down.

No gymmers would applaud, or young girls run to hug him. His blue-light convoy of at least ten very-expensive cars and motorbikes with sirens blaring, would convey him to the Guptas, freezing other traffic. He would not wave – nobody would wave back. The country’s problems embodied in one man.

Will R2bn go-away money for Zuma start fixing things, or be yet another pot of money down the drain? SA society needs to make sure the next ‘dog on the leash’ will go where it is best for the country, not just where it suits him.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

Paid-for racism: SA democracy shows its teeth

AtulGuptaBellPottinger

Sabotaging South Africa’s non-racial dream: Atul Gupta, a member of the family accused of looting state coffers and controlling President Zuma’s government for their own enrichment, has been helped by London PR firm Bell Pottinger to stoke racial tensions in the country

WHILE it seems incredible that in a racially charged society like ours someone would purposely stoke black-white tensions, for enough money some people will do anything. The London-based public relations firm Bell Pottinger (BP) has done that for a fee of about $170,000 a month: it fashioned racially divisive slogans, speeches and activities for the mafia network of President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family, to divert South Africans’ attention so they could continue looting state coffers behind the smokescreen.

This perilous ethnic baiting is familiar to Jewish ears. For centuries, when they were on good terms with their gentile neighbours, they suddenly heard someone say: “Jews are vermin and Christ-killers.” The Holocaust is the most blatant example of the violence that followed, but there are others. It also happened in Rwanda in 1994 when Tutsis were called “cockroaches” as part of a campaign of delegitimisation, and some 800 000 were slaughtered by their Hutu neighbours.

It boggles the mind that so soon after Mandela’s rainbow-nation dream seemed within reach – South Africa’s black-white relations have improved, despite huge problems – someone should purposely undermine it by dredging up racist hatred from colonialism and apartheid.

Hired by the Gupta family in 2016, BP has advised them and their associates about how to protect their image. Attacks on their pervasive corruption were blamed on “white monopoly capital” and other populist slogans which resonated with the angry masses. White journalists who criticised them were called racists and threatened by groups such as Black First Land First, reportedly funded by the Guptas and tutored by BP.

In the past, BP has helped shine the images of dictators such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile and oppressive regimes in Belarus, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Then it saw an opportunity in South Africa and grabbed it.

It may seem inappropriate in this gloomy atmosphere to drink a toast to ourselves. But we should. Because although the war to rescue the country from the Guptas and Zumas and their henchmen has not yet been fully won, there have been significant partial victories.

After being exposed, BP has crawled on its knees and publically apologised, admitting to unethical tactics and expressing “profound regret.” Its apology is clearly insufficient and reflects only the tip of the iceberg. The saga should be used to expose other saboteurs of South Africa’s vision and force them to make amends.

When foreigners come visiting, their local hosts tell them things look bleak. A corrupt president clings to power, a foreign family pulls government strings, the economy is plunging, violence is rising, whites feel like a threatened minority, and so on. The old question, “should I stay or go?” hangs in the air. Many have left the country; more would leave if they had the resources.

Yet if the foreign visitor was Canadian and had read last Friday’s Globe and Mail newspaper in Toronto, he might have a more positive view. The paper described the “humbling” by the country of Bell Pottinger which had “met its match in the free-wheeling democracy of South Africa” with its “vibrant media and civil-society sector.”

The positive angle has lots of truth in it. Widespread public outrage and action in civil society and some parts of government are rising sharply as more evidence of the Zuma-Gupta contagion emerges. And although the scary spectre of the country sliding towards a Zimbabwe-style kleptocracy has seemed less outlandish recently than it once did, South Africans are not passive Zimbabweans and will not let it happen.

Hopefully, one day visitors from abroad will toast the success of this wonderful country with South Africans and celebrate the vanquishing of criminals such as the Zumas and Guptas and their enablers, BP.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

J’Accuse! – No-one can say we did not know

 

PeterBruce&BLF

Is it safe to be a journalist in SA today? A Black First Land First member confronts journalist Peter Bruce outside his Johannesburg home last week for his stories criticising corruption and the Gupta family

A FAMOUS example of a journalist bravely speaking truth to power, regardless of personal consequences, comes from Jewish history in 1898, when French writer Emile Zola (a non-Jew), published a front page open letter in the paper L’Aurore to the French President headlined “J’Accuse…!” (In English: “I accuse…! Letter to the President of the Republic”). It was about the notorious Dreyfus affair, and became a benchmark for journalistic daring towards people in high office.

A Jewish officer in the French army, Alfred Dreyfus was accused of selling military secrets to the Germans, convicted of treason and jailed, though there was no direct evidence. Zola risked his career by accusing the army of obstruction of justice and anti-Semitism. He wanted a libel case to be opened against him so evidence disproving Dreyfus’ guilt would be made public. The case divided France bitterly between the army and Catholic Church, and liberal society.

Zola was tried and convicted for criminal libel. He fled to England, saying: “The truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it.” In 1906, the Supreme Court exonerated Dreyfus. Zola’s 1898 article marked a significant journalistic victory.

In South Africa today, the thousands of leaked Gupta-family emails incriminating public officials in self-enriching sleaze are a foundation for the “J’Accuse” of this country. It comes amidst growing intimidation of journalists.

Last week Suna Venter (32), an SABC journalist fired for resisting censorship at the public broadcaster died. She had been harassed, shot with a pellet gun, threatened by phone and assaulted. Her car’s tyres were slashed and brake cables cut, and her flat broken into. She was diagnosed with “Broken Heart Syndrome”, a cardiac condition from stress which weakens heart muscles.

And also last week, the group Black First Land First (BLF) – a mob of black fascists parading as ‘activists’ with reported links to the Gupta family – harassed respected journalist Peter Bruce outside his home, and published a list of white journalists they would target, including the country’s finest: Peter Bruce, Sam Sole, Adriaan Basson, Stephen Grootes, Max du Preez, Barry Bateman and Alec Hogg. All were critical of the Zuma government and links to the Guptas. BLF also said “black” journalists such as Ferial Haffajee, Karima Brown and Eusebius McKaiser who mimic these “white agents of white monopoly capital… must repent, ask for forgiveness from black people for being used by white monopoly capital.”

South Africa has a short tradition of democracy. Its young plant of freedom could still be uprooted. One does not need a long memory to recall apartheid, when journalists took extreme personal risks to write truthfully about the goings-on. One well-known example was Ruth First – wife of underground activist Joe Slovo – who was murdered in exile by apartheid forces in 1982 by means of a parcel bomb.

Fortunately, the freedom struggle is sufficiently recent so many who fought it are still around. They will not go quietly into the night. And younger journalists are coming up unafraid to tell the truth, at personal risk.

ANC bigwigs say “irresponsible” journalists badmouth people in authority unjustly. In Jewish terminology, they accuse the media of lashon hara – malicious gossip-mongering. A Yiddish parable likens gossip to taking a feather mattress up a mountain and cutting it open: the feathers, like loose talk, fly in the wind and cannot be pulled back. This is doubly apt in the Twitter age.

In our current political context the concept must be inverted. The feathers from the leaked Gupta emails being released are grains of truth. Bluster and arrogance from the ANC cannot pull them back. In South Africa today, we can no longer say we did not know about the corruption and lies. The question is: what will we do about it?

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )