PALESTINE MEDIA WATCH

Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The New York Times Opinion Pages

June 1, 2002 – August 31, 2002

 

 

Executive Summary

This report reviews the New York Times (NYT) Guest Opinion page from June 1, 2002 to August 31, 2002.  The report examines eleven pieces published during that period related directly to the conflict.  

 

An analysis of the conflict by any party reveals a series of arguments on both sides that together encapsulate their respective world views.  Palestine Media Watch (PMWatch) used those as a benchmark against which they compared the NYT’s opinion pieces during the relevant period.  Pieces were also analyzed in the context of the events that occurred in the days preceding their publication to determine if they could be seen to be a response or a failure to respond to events.

 

In this report, Palestine Media Watch (PMW) has come to three fundamental conclusions:

 

1.      The choices made by the NYT opinion page editors and their staff subtly assign blame for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Palestinians.  Some of the evidence that will be provided to support this includes::

·        Six pieces that argue that terrorism is the source of the conflict and two others that support that argument;

·        Two guest opeds written by Israeli government officials but no opeds from Palestinian government officials. 

·        Conspicuously absent guest editorials by Palestinians describing the effects of the occupation on the lives of ordinary Palestinians to balance the pro-Israeli pieces.

 

2.      As a result of [1] the NYT’s only holds Palestinians accountable for the conflict.  This is demonstrated by the publication of seven pieces out of eleven that offer authors supportive of Israel following both Israeli atrocities AND Palestinian atrocities.

 

3.      The two previous conclusions make it impossible not to draw the conclusion that the NYT opinion page is hindering the potential for a peaceful resolution in the conflict.  By taking sides and then failing to hold both sides accountable for their actions, the NYT’s opinion page helps to perpetuate an imbalance of power in the

 

 

public relations war.  PMWatch believes that the failure to hold both sides accountable and the resulting imbalance of power is one aspect of what keeps the sides from the negotiating table.

 

I.        Introduction

 

This report details the findings of an analysis conducted by Palestine Media Watch examining how the Middle East crisis has been covered in the opinion pages of The New York Times between June 1, 2002 through August 31, 2002.

 

Our aim in preparing this report is to raise The NYT’s awareness of its choices of opinion pieces covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Our aim is not to characterize or label The NYT, but to examine its product and the quality and variety of what it is offering its readership.

 

This is the second report by Palestine Media Watch on the NYT’s opinion page.  The first also covered editorials and was published on June 10, 2001.

 

Questions or comments about this report may be directed to pmwatch@zworg.com

 

II.        About Palestine Media Watch

 

Palestine Media Watch (http://www.pmwatch.org/) is a grassroots media watch group that monitors the American media's coverage of the Middle East.  To fulfill its mission of closely monitoring news and editorial coverage by major US media outlets and pushing for a more balanced and informed portrayal of the Middle East conflict, Palestine Media Watch has officers across the United States, in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and boasts an active and growing membership of over four hundred people.

 

Palestine Media Watch’s Advisory Board consists of:

 

·        Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and Secretary General of Miftah (Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy) in Jerusalem.  Former Spokeswoman for the Palestinian Delegation to the Madrid Peace Conference.

 

·        Prof. Noam Chomsky, Professor of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

·        Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein, Political Science Professor, Hunter College, City University of New York

 

·        Prof. Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania

 

·        Prof. Tanya Reinhart, Professor, Tel Aviv University

 

·        Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, Palestinian refugee expert and author.  Former member of the Palestine National Council.

 

·        Dr. Mustapha Barghouti, President of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees.

 

III.    Methodology

This report argues that the choices the NYT’s has made in its opinion pages have contributed to the continuing nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Paper has done so by mostly holding the Palestinians accountable for the conflict.  This failure to hold the Israelis accountable promotes a world view that the Israeli positions are the truth and the Palestinians are lying.  This world view, deepens an imbalance of power that has already been established militarily and adds it to the battlefield of public relations.  As long as both sides are not accountable on the field of public relations, they have less incentive to compromise.

 

The evidence that will be provided to support this argument consists of the language used  in the opinion pieces and the timing of said pieces. 

 

PMW has reviewed each opinion piece published during the defined period that deals with the conflict.  Those pieces are listed here:

 

#

Date

Title and Author

1

June 9, 2002

The Way Forward in the Middle East by Ariel Sharon

2

June16, 2002

Why Security Must Be Globalized by Shimon Peres

3

June 26, 2002

Making Bush’s Vison Realistic by Dennis Ross

4

July 9, 2002

How to Reform Palestinian Politics by Khalil Shikaki

5

July 12, 2002

Illusions of a Separate Peace by David Grossman

6

July 13, 2002

Silencing a Palestinian Moderate by Anthony Lewis

7

July 20, 2002

A Boyhood Friendship in a Divided Valley by Ben Kamin

8

July 27, 2002

Costs of Targeting Civilians by Caleb Carr

9

July 30, 2002

Easing Palestine’s Humanitarian Crisis by Peter Hansen

10

August 1, 2002

In Hebron, Death and Life by June Leavitt

11

August 12, 2002

A  Difficult but Hopeful Journey by Azzam Al-Araj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following information was used to determine whether a piece was presenting the Israeli world view or the Palestinian world view.

 

 

 

 

Israeli World View

Palestinian World View

Israeli atrocities can be justified and condoned and Palestinian atrocities cannot

Israeli atrocities cannot be justified and Palestinian atrocities can be justified but not condoned.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are acceptable and not a part of the problem.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and a primary component of the problem

Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal undivided capitol

Jerusalem should be formally shared by Palestinians and Israelis

The conflict is driven by terrorism and will only end when terrorism does.

The conflict is driven by the occupation and will only end when the occupation does

A Palestinian state needs to be earned

A Palestinian state is a human right

Yasir Arafat has to be removed from power  for there to be peace

Arafat is the freely elected leader of the Palestinians and no foreign power has the right to remove him.

Arafat is the problem

Sharon is the problem

 

 

 

IV.        Assessment of Content of Opinion Pieces

 

June 9, 2002:  The Way Forward in the Middle East by Ariel Sharon

 

This piece was published after five days of violence.  This included a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed 17, Israeli attacks on civilian areas of Jenin with helicopter gunships and the Israeli assault on Yasir Arafat’s headquarters that left no building in the compound intact.  It was the only opinion piece published by the NYTs this week.  As such, only the Israeli view of the conflict was offered in the opinion pages during a week when the conflict was featured heavily in the NYT’s news coverage.

 

Israeli Theme:  The conflict is driven by terrorism and will only end when it does

“The Palestinian leadership decided to initiate the current war against Israel after the failure of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Rather than resolve Israeli-Palestinian differences peacefully, it deliberately promoted a wave of terrorist attacks against the people of Israel. It failed to implement its written obligations to dismantle international terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Instead it provided them with sanctuary in the area under its jurisdiction. It also unleashed some of its most loyal forces, like the Tanzim militia of the Fatah movement and the presidential guard, Force 17, against Israeli civilians. Finally, Yasir Arafat's personal financial adviser, Fuad Shubaki, not only paid for many of these attacks, but also organized a consortium of Middle Eastern terrorism built on the Palestinian Authority, Iraq and Iran.”

 

June 16, 2002: Why Security Must Be Globalized by Shimon Peres

 

Like the Sharon piece, Peres was published after five days of violence from both sides.  On June 10, Israeli forces made a pre-dawn raid on Ramallah and declared a curfew.  On June 11, a Palestinian roadside bomb was detonated injuring three Israeli teenagers.  Meanwhile, policy makers in the United States, that are informed by the NYTs, continued to debate the focus of President Bush’s proposed policy speech.  So again, the Israeli view of the conflict was the only one offered by the Times promoting the opinion that blame for the violence laid at the feet of the Palestinians and the Israelis did not bear responsibility. 

 

Israeli Theme:  The conflict is driven by terrorism and will only end when it does

“Terrorism now stands in the way of a true peace with the Palestinians and with the Arab states. Every time a Palestinian faction rejects the peace process or carries out a bombing or a shooting, the credibility of the Palestinian side is ruined. Egypt and Jordan entered into peace treaties with Israel, receiving territory and water, without the use of terrorism. The Palestinians had a chance to reach a settlement, but their rejection of the settlement offer at Camp David destroyed trust and good faith.

 

June 26, 2002 - Making Bush's Vision Realistic by Dennis Ross

From June 21 to June 26, there were no suicide bombings.  There were, however, ongoing attacks by Israel on Palestinians.  This included four Palestinian civilians who were “mistakingly” shot in Jenin and the storming of Hebron by Israeli forces.  At the same time, the political debate in Washington was raging over the conflict amidst anticipation of President Bush’s speech which finally came during this week.

The NYTs opinion page chose Dennis Ross as its commentator on the policy issues.  Mr. Ross offers his thoughts on President Bush’s proposal and lays most responsibility with the Palestinians again promoting the Israeli worldview.

Israeli Theme: Palestinians must earn a state and terrorism is the source of the conflict.

“Only when the Palestinians demonstrate that they can reform their government can the creation of a state be possible.  Acts of terror like last week's suicide bombings will continue to produce Israeli responses. No country would be passive in the face of such attacks. But the Israeli responses are inevitably placing Palestinian towns, villages and cities — indeed, the whole Palestinian population — under an increasingly tight siege. In such circumstances, simple movement, not to mention institutional reform, will be impossible to carry out.

 

Therefore, the first order of business has to be stopping the violence. The Israelis will not pull back unless they have a reason to believe that the terror will abate. And certainly at this point they will not trust Palestinian promises.”

Israeli Theme: An end to the conflict depends on an end to terrorism

“Since it is neither practical nor realistic to assume that such efforts are possible throughout all of the West Bank and Gaza, why not try a rolling approach to new security measures, starting in Gaza? This rolling approach could then be linked to the beginnings of a reform process in Palestinian state-building. This approach would not expose the Israelis to new threats of terror and would provide some proof of Palestinian intentions. [What about Israeli intentions?]  Assuming Palestinian performance, we should insist on reciprocal Israeli moves designed to provide the Palestinians the space to develop.

If the Palestinians are not ready to accept this challenge, the probable outcome will be Israeli reoccupation of Palestinian areas or unilateral separation.”

July 9, 2002 - How to Reform Palestinian Politics by Khalil Shikaki

This piece is viewed by PMW as an effort by the NYTs Opinion page editors to present a Palestinian viewpoint on President Bush’s policy speech in June.  It is one of only two editorials written by Palestinians during the entire period that is covered.

The piece does not argue the Palestinian positions on the occupation, Israeli atrocities or settlements as most of the other pieces covered in this report do from the Israeli point of view.  Therefore, it does nothing to balance those pieces in the overall coverage by the Opinion page editors.  It is a good policy piece written by a strong reformer and PMW appreciates that it presents a positive image of Palestinians.  

July 12, 2002:  Illusions of a Separate Peace by David Grossman

On July 9, the Israelis moved to silence Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, who had endeared himself to Israelis late last year when he suggested Palestinians give up the right of return for refugees as part of a peace deal. Dr. Nussibeh was arrested, his boxes of files, student and personnel records and research were carted away from al-Quds University in east Jerusalem.

At the same time, the Israelis were constructing a fence between the West Bank and Israel.   As a commentary on the fence, the piece is largely a policy critque arguing that the fence won’t achieve its goal of protecting Israelis from terrorism.  In no way does it address the Palestinian view that an end to the occupation would negate the need for a fence all together.

There are some arguments that PMW believes are balanced in this piece.  Specifically, the mention that any effort to remove Arafat must be justified in terms of the outcome that the policy makers believe will follow.  In general, Grossman seems to make an attempt to point out that Sharon bears responsibility for some of the violence. 

 

Israeli Theme:  The conflict is driven by terrorism and will only end when it does

“The distress Israelis feel is plain and comprehensible. It derives from the inhuman cruelty of the suicide bombings and from the feeling that there is no way out, given the huge support for terrorism among Palestinians.

…These people will not be Israeli citizens. Israel does not want them. They will have no clear legal status and will not be able to participate in elections. Does anyone seriously believe they will not turn to terrorism? When that happens, they will be inside the fence, not outside it, and they will have unobstructed passage to Israel's city centers. Or will Israel confine them behind yet another, second fence?:”

Neutral Theme:  Arafat is the problem vs. Sharon is the problem

“But even if we assume that Yasir Arafat is not a negotiating partner — by the way, it certainly hasn't been proved that Ariel Sharon is a partner — we need to examine the practical implications of building a barrier fence without an agreement.

Israel must not be tempted by the fiction of security behind a wall. Instead, it must invest its energy in the recommencement of negotiations. If Mr. Arafat is unacceptable to Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush, let those leaders explain to us how they can create a better situation. Until they can do so, they bear the responsibility — no less weighty than Mr. Arafat's responsibility — for the immobility, the insensibility and the despair on both sides.

July 13, 2002:  Silencing a Palestinian Moderate by Anthony Lewis

The NYTs chose to run a piece by Anthony Lewis as a commentary on the arrest of Dr. Sari Nusseibeh.  This is one of the few choices the NYTs made in its opinion page that PMW believes promotes a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  If Israel was called to task more often in the opinion page of the NYTs then PMW believes that they might be more likely to make peace.

It is important to note that while opinion pieces by Israeli leadership such as Sharon and Peres follow extreme Palestinian actions, it seems the most Palestinians can hope for from the Times is supposedly neutral authors following outrageous acts by Israelis. 

Palestinian Theme: Jerusalem should be shared

“Jerusalem is a second part of the disinclination to negotiate. Mr. Landau and others on the political right oppose giving up any part of Israel's claimed sovereignty over greater Jerusalem. But Palestinians say they must have the capital of their state in East Jerusalem, which is overwhelmingly Palestinian in population.

No Palestinian leader would, or politically could, accept a final agreement without at least a small, symbolic Palestinian piece of Jerusalem. The previous Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, recognized as much at Camp David two years ago when he offered the Palestinians sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem. Israelis like Mr. Landau who say they will refuse to negotiate about Jerusalem are in effect saying there will be no negotiations.”

 

Palestinian Theme: Sharon is the problem

“In short, he is the perfect example of the new kind of leadership, peaceful and pragmatic, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and President Bush have said the Palestinians must have before there can be political negotiations on an end to the conflict. Why target him?

The answer is that important elements in the Israeli government do not want a real two-state solution and do not want political negotiations with a reformed Palestinian leadership. They prefer the present situation: the West Bank occupied or tightly controlled by Israel, with an increasing number of Jewish settlers. The last thing they want is a respected Palestinian interlocutor.

…Mr. Sharon has made clear that his idea of a "Palestinian state," if he ever agreed to its creation, is very different from the viable state that international negotiators have had in mind. He envisages islands of Palestinian territory, not contiguous, surrounded by Israeli settlements, highways and military units. It would not include any part of Jerusalem.”

July 20, 2002:  A Boyhood Friendship in a Divided Valley by Ben Kamin

On July 17 both sides engage in violence, the Israelis bombing Gaza and Palestinians engaging suicide bombings in Tel Aviv with casualties on both sides.  On July 19 the Israelis round up relatives of twenty-one suspected militants and blow up their homes.

In the shadow of this violent decay, the Times opinion page seems to have attempted to throw some light on the human potential for peace and the sadness of the conflict.   Kamin’s piece is generally positive and PMW appreciates the sentiment behind it.  However, his piece opens by only placing blame for the failure to achieve piece on one side once again promoting exclusively the Israeli world view.  His categorization of Palestinian actions as outrages and Israeli actions as responses is exactly the kind of characterization that the Times promotes in its opinion pages that PMW believes is contributing to the conflict.

Israeli Theme: The conflict is driven by terrorism and will only end when it does

“The carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings in Tel Aviv and the ambush of
a bus in the West Bank this week make hope for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians seem impossible. Yet each outrage, followed by unending grief
and fierce response, makes me think even more about a little dialogue I had
long ago with a Palestinian neighbor of mine.

July 27, 2002: Costs of Targeting Civilians by Caleb Carr

Carr’s piece is the ONLY piece published on the Opinion page that comments on the Gaza bombing by an F-16.  As with the Lewis piece, the Times Opinion page editors made a choice to go with a supposedly neutral figure following an Israeli atrocity rather then present the injured party’s view as we are commonly given after a suicide attack.

Carr does condemn the murder of civilians but from a cold strategic standpoint.  His argument is that it is a strategy that does not work for either side.  While PMW would welcome a moral equivalent argument between the use of F16s on a civilian population and suicide bombings, Carr does not offer that.  He describes it as an Israeli response to suicide bombings.  Finally, by likening it to examples throughout history of the murder of civilians for military goals he minimizes the extraordinary nature of this attack letting the Israelis off the hook.

Israeli Theme: Israeli Atrocities can be justified

“The continuing suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and Israel's military response, which has killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians since March, have pushed both sides into stalemate.”

July 30, 2002: Easing Palestine’s Humanitarian Crisis by Peter Hansen

In the three months that PMW studied the Opinion page of the Times, this is the only piece the Times published that PMW feels unequivocally presents the Palestinian side of the conflict.  We applaud the Times for running it amidst what was ongoing violence by both sides that week. 

Because this piece deals exclusively with the humanitarian arguments there is no language for us to quote.  However, we will say that by presenting the suffering of the Palestinian people, the article has a whole presents the Palestinian world view.

August 1, 2002:  In Hebron, Death and Life By June Leavitt

In contrast to the Hansen piece published just two days earlier, the Leavitt piece presents entirely the Israeli worldview.  The piece comes following the suicide attack at Hebrew University and another suicide attack in Jerusalem.  Most relevant, it follows the death of a Palestinian girl after Israeli settlers rampaged through Hebron during a Jewish funeral.

This piece highlights a pattern demonstrated in this report of the NYTs Opinion page editors choosing authors supportive of Israel or at least neutral following Israeli atrocities AND following Palestinian atrocities.  Such choices do not hold Israel accountable and perpetuate the dominance of the Israeli worldview as the only truth when in reality the two pieces by Lewis and Carr demonstrate that there is more to the conflict and its resolution.

 

In short, this entire piece is revolting, in that it allows only the Israeli narrative to be told of the sad events that took place in Hebron that day and seeks to provide some sort of an explanation for the death of the Palestinian girl.  It makes PMW ask why Palestinians are never afforded space in the NYTs Opinion section to explain away atrocities committed in their name?

Even as Leavitt blames the rioting on Palestinians, there were reports to the contrary.  Those reports were cited in several letters to the editor following publication of this piece.  PMW would like to thank the NYTs for running one of those letters but strongly reminds the Times that such publication does not compare with the damage done to the public’s opinion by such a biased and unfair piece.  PMW believes that the letter published on August 8, makes a sufficient argument for the flaws of the piece. 

August 12, 2002: A Difficult but Hopeful Journey - By Azzam Al-Araj

PMW sent a thank you to the Times Opinion page staff for publishing this piece.  We appreciated this effort to publish a Palestinian’s first hand account of life under occupation especially since he is clearly someone dedicated to peace. 

Palestinian Theme:  The conflict is driven by the occupation

“I am not going to describe in detail the killing of Palestinians, the stifling curfew, the malnutrition among Palestinian children, the house demolitions going on around me, or my wife's daily trauma when each member of my family leaves to go to work or class and she remains home to pray that we all return home safely. Instead, I am going to tell you a story about hope overcoming occupation. It is a mundane tale, really, compared with all that is happening here, and yet in a small way it is important.”

Contact Information

Palestine Media Watch looks forward to working with the New York Times to address the concerns presented in this report.  PMWatch can be reached through one of the following:

David Nassar, the NYT coordinator can be reached at dfnssr@yahoo.com and 703-981-9922.  Ahmed Bouzid, the Founder of Palestine Media Watch, can be reached ahmed_bouzid@yahoo.com.