Israel-Palestine, endless conflict? File Several right-wing and far-right elected officials criticize the press agency for not adopting this adjective since the October 7 attacks, even equating it with Jean-Luc Mélenchon. It justifies this with its mandate to provide impartial information.
Did the public debate in France, already tense since Hamas militants massacred nearly 1,400 Israelis in attacks of unprecedented violence in that country on October 7, need this additional controversy? This weekend, Agence France Presse (AFP) faced a barrage of criticism from both the so-called “republican” right (Renaissance, LR) and the extreme right (RN), for one simple reason: in its broadcasts it does not classify Hamas as a “terrorist” movement.
“Okay, that’s enough, @afpfr! Hamas is a TERRORIST organization, not a “Palestinian movement” Saturday morning Benjamin GriveauxFigure of Macronism, former candidate for mayor of Paris on X (formerly Twitter), in response to a tweet from AFP which is effectively reminiscent of the “Palestinian Hamas movement”. Senator LR Stéphane Le Rudulier quotes the same tweet appreciate that The AFP participates in “trivializing terrorism.” As for RN MP Caroline Parmentier, she calls the Minister of Culture Rima Abdul Malak, because the AFP is “partly financed by the state” – about a third in 2016, the rest comes from subscriptions to French (including Libération) and foreign media, which then have the right to reproduce its broadcasts.
The “Figaro Magazine” in the first review
Benjamin Griveaux, Caroline Parmentier and the others have been boiling with anger towards the AFP for several weeks? Or were they betrayed by the publication of an article in Figaro Magazine the day before? On Friday, the right-wing magazine was actually moved by a memo from AFP management sent to teams this week saying that the term “terrorist” was “banned” to describe Hamas. The starting point of the article in Figaro Magazine: The fact that the AFP waited three days to mention in a cable the images of horror that the Israeli army projected to the world press in order to document the atrocities committed by Hamas. Too long a delay in the eyes of the weekly newspaper, which regrets that “there is no official at the head of the agency”.[it] apparently believed that the attackers’ conduct itself constituted information worthy of immediate dissemination.”
Given these suspicions, AFP justified its decision to “integrate these elements into a long story – in an extraordinary format of 2,000 words – broadcast on October 26, entitled “7.10: Israel’s Black Saturday”, and featuring numerous testimonies and observations Facts bring together ground.” It is enough to read this article (reproduced here, for example), which describes the Hamas attack hour by hour, to dispel any suspicion of a cover-up on the part of the organization. We read, for example, the following: “The vision, that bodies are being identified at the National Forensic Institute in Tel Aviv, where the AFP was able to penetrate, is unbearable.” The piled up corpses were horribly mutilated, often unrecognizable, sometimes charred, noted an AFP journalist.” In the second paragraph of the message we read also: “Hamas, a “terrorist organization” of the European Union, the United States and Israel, launches the bloodiest attack ever carried out on Israeli soil.” This provides information that some are calling Hamas a “terrorist.” becomes.
AFP development
Would it be the AFP’s job to take this on? No, explains the agency an update released on Saturday. “In keeping with its mandate to report the facts without passing judgment, the AFP does not qualify movements, groups or individuals as terrorists without directly attributing the use of that word or without using quotation marks,” it explains. A rule that is in line with its mission, which is to provide complete, verified and as impartial information as possible to dozens of media companies, who have enough time to edit it as they wish. When Le Figaro receives a program in which Hamas is mentioned, nothing prevents him from attaching the adjective “terrorist” to it. But what would the same Figaro say if, for example, every program that mentioned his ex-columnist Eric Zemmour directly called him a “racist” instead of pointing out, when necessary, that he has been condemned on several occasions for this reason?
In its statement, the AFP recalls that “this editorial rule has already been at the center of heated discussions when reporting on numerous deadly events in the past”, such as the Irish Republic Army (IRA) attacks on September 11th or the attacks in France in 2015. But it remains “firmly applied, even as our own colleagues were brutally killed in such circumstances.” And is not exclusive to the French agency. On October 11, BBC international correspondent John Simpson, a great reporter and a monument to the British public institution, justified its failure to apply the word “terrorism” to Hamas: “‘Terrorism’ is a liability. “ Word some people use to describe a group they consider morally unacceptable. The BBC’s role is not to tell people who to support and who to condemn. An observation shared by the AFP, noting that “the use of the word terrorist,” which sometimes refers to later rehabilitated figures such as Nelson Mandela, is “extremely politicized and sensitive.”
Excessive reporting on the conflict
This is proven by the controversy that pits France Insoumise (LFI) against almost all other political parties, as the movement founded by Jean-Luc Mélenchon refuses to use the word “terrorism” to describe the actions of Hamas, and prefers to call them “war crimes”. We must also see its direct extension in the dispute that is targeting the AFP today. “Are you from the Agence Mélenchon Presse?” wonders carefully Renaissance MP Anne-Laurence Petel. Conversely, the former presidential candidate jumped on the agency’s statements to greet “its semantic rigor,” and with it his own: “History proves us right.”
However, the AFP finds it difficult to explain that its mission is not to prove anyone right. It is simply a matter of providing something that then allows public debate to focus on generally accepted facts. In its update published on Friday, the agency recalls that it is mobilizing “a total of more than 40 reporters from the text, photo and video sectors, including 14 special correspondents” to cover the events of the last few weeks. An effort that is disproportionate to the rest of the French press and which, moreover, allows it to be one of the few media outlets reporting on what is happening in the Gaza Strip. That deserves a minimum of respect.