First suicide bomb in Eilat, Israel: press coverage

Citation

Levinson, D.J. (2007), "First suicide bomb in Eilat, Israel: press coverage", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2007.07316caa.002

First suicide bomb in Eilat, Israel: press coverage

1.1 Wednesday, March 7, 2007

In the mid-morning hours of Monday, 29 January 2007, an Israeli driver picked up a hitch-hiker north of the resort city of Eilat. The driver quickly became suspicious of the passenger, let him off on the outskirts of town, and immediately notified the police. According to police sources, two squad cars were dispatched at once, but seven minutes later the passenger entered a bakery in a commercial center and detonated a 4-8 kg bomb. A security camera in a neighboring shop showed the bomber passing by, then several moments later the camera recorded the breaking of windows and a wall from the force of the explosion. Three Israelis were killed, as was the bomber. It was later established that the bomber left Gaza in a tunnel dug under the border with Egypt, then crossed into Israel and headed for Eilat.

In the evening, some ten hours after the bombing, Israel Television Channel 1 aired a story about the effects that the bombing might have in discouraging tourism. The story carried interviews with people in Eilat who had yet not heard about the incident. On the following day the Jerusalem Post ran a story whose main thrust was that the bombing would not mean a decline in tourism. The Post quoted the bomber’s parents as saying they knew he was setting out on a suicide mission and wished him well. The mother was quoted as saying that she is willing to sacrifice all of her children in similar fashion.

The Jerusalem Post also quoted the head of the Eilat ambulance service as saying that other than the dead there were no casualties at the scene. Those treated at the local hospital for shock were evacuated in vehicles not belonging to the ambulance service.

Yisraeli, a gratis newspaper, showed a front page picture of the explosion, taken from the camera in the neighboring shop. Inside the newspaper there was a picture of responders crowded around the bakery. The newspaper also covered speculation about a possible decline in tourism to the city.

An article in the International Herald Tribune (Tel Aviv printing) quoted a witness to the explosion as saying that the bomber aroused suspicion because he was dressed in a coat on a very warm day. The Tribune surmised that part of the bomber’s motivation might have been unemployment and the recent death of his baby daughter.

The English edition of Haaretz reported that at first it was thought the explosion was a gas cylinder. Only later was it established that the explosion was a bomb. (It is quite reasonable that it took the police about an hour to make the determination, since it was based upon technical findings and not mere impression.)

Haaretz also printed an interesting quote from the driver who picked up the bomber. He said that he was 99 percent certain that his passenger was a suicide bomber, but because of the 1 percent chance that the passenger was innocent or mentally deranged, he did not run over the passenger when he alighted from the vehicle. In the Hebrew edition of Haaretz there was the same quote from the driver, and much more political analysis. The newspaper also reported that the explosives used were taken of standard military manufacture in the FSU. Two pictures showed the bomber passing by the neighboring store and the force of the explosion. Another picture showed response workers cleaning the area of human remains. The accompanying article mentioned sending psychologists, but without further detail.

Maariv showed contrasting pictures of people sitting at the beach and a disaster responder walking through the bakery. The coverage showed a basic misunderstanding of police hierarchy and disaster response. One picture showed a police evidence technician and a police bomb squad technician at work. Although the bomb squad worker wore clearly labeled one-time overalls, the caption stated that both responders were from the office responsible for evidence collection/examination.

The coverage in Yediot Aharonot was very similar to that in Maariv, quite understandable since the two newspapers compete for more or less the same audience. Yediot did have one picture of disaster responders, Zaka (removal of small pieces of human remains) volunteers from the Southern District of the Israel Police. There was no real explanation given of their job function.

As a general note, large labels on uniforms (including one-time protective clothing) were very helpful in identifying job functions.

The internet edition of the (Beirut) Daily Star had no coverage of the bombing. The internet edition of the Jordan Times was concerned to a very large degree with denying the Palestinian claim that the bomber came to Eilat from Jordan. The Palestine Times, published in Ramallah, said that for the first time the Israelis published the number of people killed; to the contrary, newspapers have always covered not only the number of fatalities, but also their names and biographies.

Dr Jay LevinsonJerusalem, Israel(E-mail: Jay_Levinson@hotmail.com)