The Creation and Construction of the Enemy:  

            The media plays a central role in the projection of enemy images, a vital pre-requisite to war.[1]  In the beginning, the enemy is created and this is a crucial phase in media reporting because once the enemy is constructed, the depiction becomes a ‘fact’ and every event that involves the ‘enemy’ is seen as evil.  Often, Medias exaggerate the threat posed by the ‘enemy’ to justify use of force.  The media play an important role in sanctioning the resort to organized violence by not only suggesting the inefficacy of other options but also by presenting an enemy so threatening that it requires to be self-defensively engaged.[2]  In the case of Hezbollah, Western and non-Western Medias have long played an important role in creating an image of the group in accordance with what specific countries perceive it to be. 

For the US, Hezbollah has been described as “one of the most significant terrorist organizations operating today.”[3]  Hezbollah has been on the original list of the US government’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) since October 1997 and still remains up to date.  On the other hand, Hezbollah maintains that they are the resistance fighting against to occupant (Israel).  Thus, ever since their creation, they have held Israel and its backer, mainly the US, as the enemies trying to occupy and rule the region in whatever way they please.  In consequence, Medias have been involved in constructing and reinforcing the image that each side possesses on Hezbollah.  The construction of Hezbollah as either terrorists or resistance depends on the news media outlet.  In addition, the credibility of the image that each claims Hezbollah to be is not ‘correct’ or ‘true’ or even ‘more true’ than another media outlet.  Their construction of the identity of Hezbollah is simply different since Medias can be biased in choosing what ‘facts’ to show and what ‘facts’ to ignore.  Next, it is important to understand how and why Hezbollah emerged before assessing how each media depicts Hezbollah.

Hezbollah: Background   

            Islamic radicalism first erupted in Lebanon following the 1979 Iranian revolution and 1982 Israeli invasion.  These two events marked the start of Hezbollah, a movement that would acquire the support of the Lebanese Shiite and that would take on a crucial and defining post in Lebanese politics.  Hezbollah, meaning the Party of God and backed by Iran, emerged to become an important and pivotal force in Middle Eastern politics in general and particularly in Lebanese society.  Amal, a Shiite movement which means “hope” attained its historic roots in the social uprising of the Lebanese Shiite community in the late 1960s and early 1970s that took its inspiration from the charismatic leader Imam Musa Sadr who disappeared in Libya in 1978.  In 1982, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a group of Lebanese Shiite both dissatisfied with the current leadership of Amal and unhappy with the disappearance of Musa Sadr, felt threatened by foreign occupation, alienated by all other Lebanese sects, and in need of protection.  They adopted as their slogans a verse from the Quran; “and verily the Party of God is sure to triumph,” and officially declared themselves to be the Party of God.[4]  Their emergence was strongly due to the fact that the Shiite in Lebanon were constantly undermined and lacked sympathy from the government.  Hence, they felt the need of the creation of a movement that would stand out for their rights and protect their country from foreign occupation. 

            Next, in order to understand the Arab media’s depiction of Hezbollah as resistance fighters in Lebanon, it is crucial to comprehend the society structure within Lebanon and observe how the Shiite’s undermining led to the creation and rise of a movement which spoke up for this underrepresented community in Lebanese politics.

Hezbollah as Resistance:

Since the 19^th century, the Shiites of Lebanon were situated in the South and later also moved to North Lebanon.  Shiites fought hard for tens of years to keep the South a free region.  In fact, since the 17^th century, they fought wars mostly against the Ottoman rulers who committed horrible massacres against their community.

After the founding of the independent Lebanese state in 1943, the Shiite were the third largest community after the Maronite Christians and the Sunni Muslims.  In the Lebanese constitution, they were accorded the second political office as the speaker of the parliament.  In practice, however, they exerted little influence in Lebanese politics.  In the government, they were largely underrepresented in senior appointments.  In addition illiteracy and poverty was widespread amongst the Shiite community.  Until the 1940s, most Shiites were agricultural workers.  In the 1950s and 1960s, as education, mobility and the increased access to communications grew, political mobilization was essential for the Shiites.  Moreover, as agriculture was modernized and the Shiite population grew, many moved to Beirut.  However, as the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan in 1970, Yasser Arafat and members of the PLO settled in Beirut and Shiite-majority southern Lebanon and establishing a de facto state-within-a-state area.  Soon after, local Palestinians – mostly Sunnis – began fighting with Shiites over limited resources.[5]  Also, as the PLO attacked Israel from Lebanon’s southern border, Israelis retaliated by invading and furthering causalities amongst Shiites.  Moreover, during this time period, Shiites were relatively deprived in comparison to members of other sects, receiving inadequate access to social services and negligible government attention. [6] 

It was in this environment that a charismatic Iranian-born Shiite cleric of Lebanese descent, Musa Sadr launched a reform movement, harakat al-mahrumin (the Movement of the Deprived). By 1974, the Movement had attracted tens of thousands of Shiite.  During the period of pre-civil war Lebanon, Sadr also created afwaj al-muqawamah al-lubnaniyyah (the Lebanese Resistance Detachments), also known as Amal, a secular reformist movement that rapidly improved social, economic and political conditions for the Lebanese Shiite community.[7]  However, in 1978, during a trip to Libya, Sadr disappeared and speculations rose that he was murdered by his hosts. 

At this point, four main events occurred in 1978 that benefited to the emergence of Hezbollah.  First, after the strange disappearance of Sadr, members of Amal became even more alienated from the rest of the Lebanese.  Hence, the marginalization of the Lebanese Shiite community and its under representation in the government was a driving motive for the need to reform.  Second, in southern Lebanon, growing conflict and anger amongst Shiite with the armed Palestinian forces, who treated the population roughly and exposed them to Israeli attacks through their military actions, arose.  Furthermore, in 1978, when Israel invaded Lebanon, the Shiite felt they needed protection against the deadly Israeli-Palestinian cross-fire.  Hence, due to the Israeli-Palestinian war fought on Lebanese soil, the Shiite felt obligated to radicalize, and armed themselves mainly turning into militants to protect the Shiite community of Lebanon.  Thirdly, and most importantly the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini’s victory against the shah’s regime in 1979 provided proof to the Shiites in Lebanon that they could similarly attain power.  And fourthly, the turning point for the official creation of Hezbollah was the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Hence, as we can see, Hezbollah justify itself as a resistance because its whole emergence is based on the very undermining of the Shiites.  After 1982, they began a struggle to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon.  In May 2000, this aim was achieved largely due to the success of the party’s military arms.  In return, the movement won the respect of most Lebanese.  It now plays a crucial role in Lebanese politics.

Hezbollah as Terrorists: 

      To understand why Hezbollah is regarded as terrorists, it is important to take the Western and more specifically the US views of the party.  In the US State Department publication Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001, Hezbollah is described as follows:

Formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this Lebanon-based radical Shi’a group takes its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Majlis al-Shura, or Consultative Council, is the group’s highest governing body and is led by Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. Hizballah formally advocates ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon and liberating all occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem. It has expressed as a goal the elimination of Israel. Has expressed its unwillingness to work within the confines of Lebanon’s established political system; however, this stance changed with the party’s decision in 1992 to participate in parliamentary elections. Although closely allied with and often directed by Iran, the group may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. While Hizballah does not share the Syrian regime’s secular orientation, the group has been a strong tactical ally in helping Syria advance its political objectives in the region (US Department of State 2002).[8]

Furthermore, Hezbollah are described as:

known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut April 1983 and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Three members of Hizballah, ‘Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, and Ali Atwa, are on the FBI’s list of 22 Most Wanted Terrorists for the hijacking in 1985 of TWA Flight 847 during which a US Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires. In fall 2000, it captured three Israeli soldiers in the Shabaa Farms and kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant whom it may have lured to Lebanon under false pretences (US Department of State 2002).[9]

Hence, as we can see, the US depicts Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and completely disregards their very reason of being that is linked to Israel’s offensives in the region.  On the other hand, Hezbollah similarly completely denies the possible terrorist acts and solely hold that their raison d’etre is because they are resisting Israel whose aim is to control the region with the help of the US.   

Western Media and Hezbollah’s Depiction:

In an article written by Roger Hardy in BBC and titled “The Lebanese crisis explained,” Hezbollah is described to have been created by Iran in 1982.[10] Furthermore, Hardy states that “Israeli forces withdrew in 2000” with no mention that Hezbollah had anything to do with their withdrawal.  Already, we can observe how the West’s description of Hezbollah automatically and indirectly tells the readers that it is an illegitimate armed party operating within a state.  The Western media also bases its opinion on Hezbollah according to the description set by the US Department of State: First, the suicide truck bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut April 1983, second, the bombing of US barracks in Beirut in 1983, third, the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1992. 

During the 2006 July war, Western Medias described the conflict as if it had just started and was a result of Hezbollah’s abduct of the two Israeli soldiers.  However, they completely failed to acknowledge that this conflict goes back ages ago.  Western Medias stated that Hezbollah initiated the war by capturing and killing the Israeli soldiers across the border.  This ‘fact’ can be considered true when it is put in this way, however, what they ignored and failed to mention is that since the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Southern Lebanon in May of 2000, there were ongoing issues between the Israelis and Hezbollah.  First, Shebaa farms remain occupied. Second, Israelis still hold Lebanese prisoners in their jails and are not prepared to release them.  Additionally, Israelis have been constantly violating Lebanon’s sovereignty by crossing and flying Lebanese lands, seas and air.  Thus, when the Western Medias cover the ‘facts’ they want to and leave other crucial ‘facts’ out, it becomes completely understandable to blame Hezbollah.  Next, the emphasis that Israelis in northern Israel have been living with Katyushas flying over their heads and are in a state of complete insecurity further tells the viewers and readers that Israel, as a sovereign state, has every right to defend itself against ‘terrorists’ threatening its existence.  Here, once again, some basic ‘facts’ are left out; no Israeli town had ever been under fire until the Israelis began its relentless bombing of Beirut starting with the destruction of Beirut International Airport.  Next and another fundamental ‘fact’ that western Medias used was that Israel could not be blamed for the death of Lebanese civilians.  It is solely Hezbollah that is to blame since they hid behind civilians, using them as human shields and placing them in the firing lines.  In addition they emphasized that their war was with Hezbollah and not the Lebanese people.  If this ‘fact’ emphasized by the media was true then how about counter ‘facts’ about the destruction of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure including its power stations, and aside from cutting  off electricity to the whole nation, it caused the worst ecological disaster of the Mediterranean Sea due to the crude oil run-off from the destroyed plants.  Dumping 13,600 metric tons of crude, the slick has so far covered two thirds of Lebanon‘s coastline crippling its fishing industry to a complete halt.  Furthermore, Hezbollah never fired rockets from Beirut, and yet civilian suburbs were all destroyed.  When you include more ‘facts’ it become clearer that Western media missed important points and helped reinforced the construction of Hezbollah’s identity as ‘terrorists.’  Moreover, Israel’s condition of the disarmament of Hezbollah and the return of the captured soldiers showed the viewers that Hezbollah operates as a Syrian and Iranian proxy and that it did not abide to UN resolution 1559 that states that they have to disarm.  They made no mention that Israel too does not abide to UN resolutions in the region.

            During the July war, CNN, BBC and other Western Medias have also produced a documentary titled: “inside Hezbollah” which was shown at least twice a day.  Their documentary was aimed to explain who and what Hezbollah were.  The images they projected showed Hezbollah as a militant organization with radical ideas such as the destruction of Israel.  They did not show that their emergence may have been in some way also caused by Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.  Hezbollah’s depiction across the Western Medias was one of a highly well organized militant and radical group whose only existence was the destruction of Israel.  In the eyes of the viewers who does not know Hezbollah or have no links with the “other” side, they would assume that Hezbollah are terrorists and illegitimate.  The media creation of Hezbollah as an “other” and dangerous militant organization sets the public agenda and reinforces the West construction of the identity of Hezbollah as terrorists.  Furthermore, as David Campbell puts it, US foreign policy and through media, “gives rise to a boundary rather than acting as a bridge.”[11]  The media, thus, serves as a reinforcement of the image that the US seeks to construct about Hezbollah.  Based on this image, they created the identity of Hezbollah as ‘terrorists’ and blamed them for the outcome of the war stating that Israel, as a sovereign state, has the right to defend itself.  The death of civilians in Lebanon was also blamed on Hezbollah since Israel claimed they were hiding among the civilians and using them as shields.  Therefore, we can conclude that Hezbollah as ‘terrorists’ justifies Israeli extraordinary measures.

Arab Media and Hezbollah’s depiction:

            In the same way that Western Medias construct a portrayal of Hezbollah that is terrorist, Al Jazeera and other Arab Medias especially Al Manar –  Hezbollah’s official News channel, were equally in the business of constructing an identity for Hezbollah. In addition to Al Manar, Hezbollah operates a radio station Al Nour.  Also, Kabdat Alla (the fist of God) is their monthly magazine.  Al Manar broadcasts news in Arabic, English, French and Hebrew and is widely watched both in Lebanon and in other Arab countries. Its transmission in France (by via satellite, not by any station based on French territory) is controversial.  It has been accused of promoting religious and racial hatred against Jews, which is a criminal offense in France.  On December 13, 2004, the French Conseil d’État, acting on the request of the French TV authorities, issued an injunction to Eutelsat to cease the broadcasting of Al Manar in France.[12] 

 In March 1997, an article in Beirut’s Al-Safir newspaper drew attention to the “psychological warfare” being employed by Hezbollah.[13]  In the article, Hezbollah’s Al Manar television was described as their corrective to the Israeli’s mis-education of Western publics:  

        Psychological warfare can be used as a weapon of war to be added to the military materiel, not only to repulse the aggression, but also to confront the enemy’s deceptive policy toward the world public. Although this war has many faces, it has one head only, namely the media. Hizballah entered this field through a wide door via the international Internet network two months ago, and precisely via the al-Manar television station. Hizballah’s step is primarily aimed at refuting the fallacies Israel has been spreading abroad concerning the occupation of south Lebanon. According to a Hizballah media source, one of the fruits of such Israeli fallacies is that a broad sector of the West believes that the ‘security belt’ falls within Israeli territory. Hence, the defense becomes an offensive by demonstrating the dimensions of the Israeli occupation and the legitimacy of resistance.[14]

Furthermore in a September 2001 interview, Hassan Ezzieddine, head of Hizbollah’s department of Media Relations at the time, stated:

We feel that the media can be effective in creating a special climate in public opinion on the main issues of interest…We are heading toward a new sensitive security situation (in the region) which means we need to follow events very closely so that we can informatively help shape international and Arab public opinion…We believe that the media has an important role in the conflict, as important as the military wing.[15]

As we can observe, Hezbollah places great emphasis on the role of media for the creation and construction of their image and who they are.  Furthermore, they seek to deny the image and construction of Western media regarding their depiction as terrorists and constantly show that Israelis – supported by the US – is an occupant force that seeks to obtain power and gain control of the entire region.  Thus, Hezbollah are resisting the ‘evil’ force and that is why they have to remain armed. 

During the July war, several media commentators and journalists have alleged and intentionally distorted coverage of the events, in favour of Hezbollah, by means of photo manipulation, staging by Hezbollah or by journalists, and false or misleading captioning.[16]  On 18 July 2006 Hezbollah Press Officer Hussein Nabulsi took CNN’s Nic Robertson on a special tour of southern Beirut. Robertson noted that it was clear that Hezbollah had sophisticated media relations and were in control of the situation. According to his reports, there was no doubt that the bombs were hitting Hezbollah facilities, and while there appeared to be "a lot of civilian damage, a lot of civilian properties," he restated that he couldn’t verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings.[17]  Furthermore, CNN‘s Charlie Moore described a Hezbollah press tour of a bombed-out area in southern Beirut on 23 July 2006 as a "dog-and-pony show" due to perceived staging, misrepresentation of the nature of the destroyed areas, and strict directives about when and with whom interviews could take place.[18] 

Additionally, Reuters withdrew over 900 photographs by Adnan Hajj, a Lebanese freelance photographer, after he admitted to digitally adding and darkening smoke spirals in photographs of an attack on Beirut.[19]  Photographs submitted to Reuters and Associated Press showed one Lebanese woman mourning on two different pictures taken by two photographers, supposedly taken two weeks apart.[20]  Questions remained as to whether the images were mistakenly captioned or purposely staged.

Also, the vast amount of pictures of civilian deaths shown on Al jazeera, Al Manar, and other Arab televisions further served for the anti-Israeli sentiments across the Arab world.  CNN, on the other hand, showed fewer images, but concentrated more on every incident that took place in Israel.  Consequently, the creation of Hezbollah as either ‘terrorist’ or ‘resistance’ is fabricated.  Here, Hezbollah as resistance justified their celebration as heroes after the war.   

Hezbollah as a Media-Constructed Image: 

“I don’t think you can fight a war today without taking into account the media focus, that’s a reality today. So you have to plan how to handle your media strategy, just as you plan your operational strategy for any campaign.” (Col P.J. Crawley, spokesman National Security Council)[21]

As Colonel Crawley puts it in the above quote, media planning and organization is a must when you fight any war because public opinion and perception of the conflict is central to gain and maintain support.  The role of the media shapes public opinion and sentiments as it can either be a patriot or a propagandist, a laptop or a watchdog, an observer and participant or a catalyst.  The media becomes part of the conflict as it reports in matters of minutes, by using satellites, the ‘facts’ it wants to show.  Policy-makers in developed countries (and later elsewhere) have always exploited the media to gather public support for their domestic and foreign policies.  Many governments, both democratic and authoritarian, have also used the media, mainly international broadcasting, to influence foreign public opinions, what is often referred to as “public diplomacy”.[22]  Furthermore, the media often conveys Government’s policies to the public and push their own agendas.  The power of the media is such that they have been credited on a number of occasions with encouraging foreign interventions or for being responsible for national setbacks.[23] 

With the emergence of global media, policy-makers now face the difficult tasks of explaining their policies to the public via a large number of often critical media outlets and of trying to stem the impact of the latter, particularly of television, on their freedom of action.  Television pictures, with their potent emotional content, have completely

transformed the general public’s relation to news and its perception of international

affairs.  Hence, that is why during the Lebanon-Israel war in July, increasing pressure was placed on world leaders to reach a resolution.  Yet, both Western and Arab Medias used the pictures in their best interest to fabricate an identity for the enemy;  for the West, they concentrated on Israelis victims and hence making Hezbollah look as a ‘terrorist’ group and for Arab Medias, they showed all the innocent Lebanese civilians killed to portray Israel as the ‘enemy’ and Hezbollah as the ‘resistance.’   

            Hence, with the vast range of media controversies, one asks what then is the identity of Hezbollah?  Are they a legitimate political entity? A terrorist group? Or maybe both?  As we have seen, since the media plays the role of creating an image for Hezbollah- one that suits the Government’s or owner’s best interest-  there is then no real image to associate them with.  Hezbollah’s identity has been fabricated by various Medias trying to prove who they really are.  Thus, Hezbollah is going to be regarded according to one’s beliefs and stances, and based on the media coverage one chooses to trust.  Throughout the Arab and Moslem world, Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[24]  In addition, the Lebanese government regards it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.  On the other hand, the United States, Israel, the Netherlands, Australia and Canada consider Hezbollah wholly or partly a terrorist organization.  The United Kingdom says the military wing of Hezbollah is a terrorist group, but not the political side of the organisation.[25]  The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" but does list Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s senior Intelligence officer and one of its founders as a terrorist, on its list of wanted terrorists.[26] In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to sort Hezbollah a terrorist organization.  Nonetheless, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.[27]  Hence, we can examine the different views on Hezbollah based on every country’s foreign policy and the media role in fabricating the image they wish to convey.

Next, it is imperative to analyze how the respective Medias’ construction of the identity of Hezbollah manifested itself in the viewers and readers’ public opinion.  According to a survey released by the "Beirut Center for Research and Information" on 26 July during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hezbollah’s fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February.   More remarkable, however, is the level of support for Hezbollah’s resistance from non-Shiite communities.  80 percent of Christians surveyed supported Hezbollah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.[28]  According to another poll in July 2005, 74 percent of Christian Lebanese viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization.[29]  This shows how public opinion varied during the war and, in consequence, can be linked to media reporting and its portrayal of Hezbollah.  Before the war, less Lebanese Christians supported the resistance, however, increased support came about after Israeli massive attacks on Lebanese territory.  In addition, Arab Medias especially Al Manar and Al Jazeera extensively displayed photos of civilian casualties which benefited to the support of Hezbollah as the central Lebanese resistance.  Another poll carried on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip pointed out that 79.6% had a ‘very good view’ of Hezbollah.[30]  Additionally, a poll conducted on Jordanians in June 2006 demonstrated that 63.3% considered Hezbollah a legitimate resistance movement.[31]  Moreover, these polls show Arab support for Hezbollah and hence Arab Media is successful in constructing the identity of Hezbollah they seek to show their viewers. 

On the other hand, ABC News and Washington post conducted a poll in the US and the results were that 46% said that Israel and Hezbollah are both responsible for the conflict in Lebanon, 39% said Hezbollah is most to blame, whereas only 7% said Israel is.  6% were unsure, and 1% felt otherwise.  The same poll found that 58% blamed Hezbollah for the civilian casualties in Lebanon for locating its fighters and rocket launchers in civilian areas, while 21% blame Israel for bombing Hezbollah targets in those areas.  10% said both, 9% were unsure, and 2% felt neither were to blame.[32]  Moreover, a worldwide online poll conducted by journalist, commentator, columnist and television personality Bill O’Reilly in August 2006 indicated that of the over 50,000 (mostly Americans) voters, 96% said that Israel should not negotiate with Hezbollah on their demands.[33]  From these polls conducted in the US and by Western Medias, it is clear to distinguish that Western Medias’ depiction of Hezbollah is believed by most Westerners.  They view Hezbollah as ‘terrorists’ based on the portrayal that the media reinforces and, hence, believe that Israel should not negotiate with these ‘terrorists.’ 

            We can observe the popularity and significance the media possesses over forming and reinforcing public opinions regarding the particular perception of a group, here being Hezbollah.  It is obvious to note how the different framing of issues and conflicts determines public understanding.  Additionally, the diverse construction built by respective Medias, leads to enhanced debates on Hezbollah’s identity.  Thus, more importance is given to what and who Hezbollah are rather than a broader depiction of causes and solutions. 

The most powerful weapons in media coverage are images and myths told about conflicts.  Theorists who write about images, myths and stereotypes mostly focus on pre-existing, value-laden groups of ideas derived from culture and transmitted by communication.  Kuhn discusses how elements of images and representations produce meanings within social and historical contexts which are spread through mass media through narratives and myths.  Roach states that images and myths sustain beliefs that justify war-making and the need to view the ‘other’ as the enemy.[34]  In consequence, viewers and readers believe in the media’s construction and representation of the enemy and its depiction of the identity of Hezbollah based on their cultural norms and values.  Hitherto, Hezbollah as a media-constructed image produces meaning, and while this meaning might appear to be natural, it is in fact produced.  As Barthes notes, meanings are constructed through identifiable processes of signification in all representations.[35]       

Conclusion:

            In this essay, I have argued that Western and Arab Medias construct a portrayal and identity for Hezbollah – by picking certain facts and ignoring other facts – that suits their cultural beliefs and norms.  Their different construction is not ‘correct’, or ‘true’ or even ‘more true’ than the other construction.  I have additionally observed that Hezbollah as terrorists justifies Israeli extraordinary measures while Hezbollah as resistance justifies their kidnappings and their celebration as heroes.  Furthermore, Bernstein argues that News discourse is based not merely on facts, but also on information that is invariably interpreted in a subjective way.  He also claims that “stereotyping is an ideological process that works to the advantage of the powerful groups in society.”[36]  From this, we can draw that media in general constructs and creates stereotypes based on ‘facts’ they choose to display on television and/or news articles.  Thus, Hezbollah has been stereotyped and interpreted to be something that conforms to norms and beliefs of a certain community.  Consequently, neither construction can demonstrate greater weight on truth that the other. 

Based on the respective stereotypes of the ‘enemy’ and the media’s construction of the identity of Hezbollah, it becomes easy to speak about the image of Hezbollah perceived without systematic assessment.  In order to resolve the issue, a gradual deconstruction of stereotypes is necessary.  However, this process cannot simply be achieved by adopting a new political discourse.  It involves the development of a strong civil society.  Images that illustrate how the government and the media relate to simplistic personifications of the enemy as threats further compound the problem of the misunderstanding over Hezbollah’s identity since it is media-constructed.  There is no news or background whatsoever that explains Hezbollah’s gradual rise, but simple interpretations of its identity based on a couple events that they were held accountable for.  In the case of the West, they held them accountable for the bombing attacks directed at the US embassy and barrack, in addition to other events against Israel; and for Arabs, they are perceived as heroes for the continuous fight and struggle against the ‘enemy’ Israel.  Finally, when identifying Hezbollah as either a ‘resistance’, or a ‘terrorist’ group, it is imperative to assess the sources of information and whose media network it is.  Also in order to be more objective, one must look at a broad range of reliable sources coming from both sides of the conflict to obtain different views on the perception of Hezbollah.  In doing so, one will be able to be fairer in depicting the real nature and identity of the group as opposed to just listening to a particular media network.  At the end, rationality remains hard and questions will always arise on whether someone can be completely rational when assessing a conflict.  Thus, one has to try to be as balanced as they can for the sake of truth.      

Bibliography:

Angus Reid Global Scan, (July 14,2006) ‘Hamas, Hezbollah Legitimate for Jordanians,’

Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan.

Website: http://www.angus-r     eid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12527

Angus Reid Global Scan (July 29, 2006), ‘Palestinians Hold Hezbollah in High Regard,’

An-Najah National University.

Website: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12694

BBC News, (2004) ‘France Pulls Plug on Arab network’

Website:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4093579.stm

BBC News (August 22, 2006) ‘Quick Guide: Hezbollah.’

Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5262484.stm

BBC World TV, “How the war was spun” 10 June 2000

Beirut Center for Research & Information (July 29, 2006), ‘Poll finds support for

Hizbullah’ retaliation Opinions diverge on sectarian lines – but not completely.’

            Website: http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?contentid=692&MenuID=46

Blanford, N. (2001). ‘Hizbullah Steps up Psychological Warfare: Party believes that the

Media Plays Critical Role in Palestinian Uprising.’ Daily Star (Beirut) 8 September.

Website: http://www.hizbollah.org/english/press/p2001/p20010908a.htm.

Blanford, Nicholas (2006-07-28), ‘Israeli strikes may boost Hizbullah base,’ Christian

Science Monitor.

Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

Campbell, David (1998). ‘Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics

of identity.’ UK: Manchester University Press.

Carruthers, Susan L., ‘The Media at War: Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth

Century,’ MacMillan Press LTD (2000)

CNN Reliable Sources (23 July, 2006), ‘Coverage of Mideast Conflict’

Website: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/23/rs.01.html

Conway Maura, ‘Cybercortical Warfare: The Case of Hizbollah.org,’ Department of

Political Science, Trinity College (2003)

Website:https://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/edinburgh/ws20/Conway.pdf

Dhimmi Watch, ‘EU lawmakers label Hizbollah ‘terrorist’ group, but still seem to court

negotiations.’

Website: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005325.php

European Union, ‘The EU’s Relations with Lebanon.’

Website: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/lebanon/intro/

Fachot Morand, ‘The Media Dimension in Foreign Interventions,’ BBC World Service.

Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) (1997). ‘Hizballah’s al-Manar TV on

Internet.’ FBIS-NES-97-043, 3 March

Gross Tom (2006), ‘Media Missiles: Working for the Enemy,’ National Review Online

Website:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVlMmRjNDllNzhkZmE1OWM3NmE1OGQ4OGQxMDA1YjQ=

Hardy Roger, ‘The Lebanese Crisis Explained,’ BBC News (22, November 2006)       Website: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6173322.stm

Hermann Steve (August 8, 2006), ‘Trusting Photos,’ BBC News.

Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/trusting_photos.html

Jamail Daher, (july 20, 2006), ‘Hezbollah’s Transformation,’ Asia Times online.

Website: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG20Ak02.html

Jorisch Avi, “Beacon of Hatred; inside Hizballah’s Al Manar Television,” Washington

Institue for Near Eastern Policy.  (Washington, DC, 2004)

Mandelzis Lea, ‘ The changing image of the enemy in the News Discourse of Israeli

Newspapers, 1993,1994’ Conflict & Communication Online, 2003 – cco.regener-online.de

Website: http://www.cco.regener-online.de/2003_1/pdf_2003_1/mandelzis.pdf

Maxwell E. McCombs; Donald L. Shaw, ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,’

The Public Opinion Quarterly , Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer, 1972), pp. 176-187

Moore Charlie (July 28, 2006), ‘Ancient Hatreds Hardening in Middle East’

Website:http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/archives/2006_07_23_ac360_archive.html

O’reilly Bill (August 9, 2006) ‘The O’reilly Factor,’ Fox News.com

Website:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207574,00.html

Peter Viggo Jakobsen, Focus on the CNN Effect Misses the Point: The Real

Media Impact on Conflict Management Is Invisible and Indirect,’ Journal of peace research, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Mar., 2000), pp. 131-143

Polling Report.com accessed at: http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

Reuters (2006), ‘Reuters withdraws all photos by Lebanese freelance