Detailed Report on
EDITORIALS dealing with the
Palestinian-Israeli
conflict
published in
The Boston Globe
between
October 6, 2000 and Feb 7,
2001
Palestine Media Watch
03/20/2001
1.
Introduction
The Boston Globe
published ten (10) editorials on the Middle East crisis between October 3, 2000
and February 7, 2001:
|
Date |
Editorial |
|
|
|
|
October 11, 2000 |
“Mideast Keg” |
|
October 18, 2000 |
“Salvaging Mideast Peace” |
|
October 24, 2000 |
“A failed Mideast Summit” |
|
November 30, 2000 |
“Risky Moves in Lebanon” |
|
December 12, 2000 |
“Barak’s strategem” |
|
December 20, 2000 |
“Israel’s Carousel” |
|
December 27, 2000 |
“Avoiding the abyss” |
|
January 26, 2001 |
“Mideast Manipulator” |
|
February 3, 2001 |
“Unlikely Peacemaker” |
|
February 7, 2001 |
“Israel’s Detour” |
This report examines in detail the content of these
editorials.
2.
The
Editorial Board
The members of The Boston Globe’s editorial board
are:
· Editorial Page Editor: Renee Loth
· Deputy Editorial Page Editor: Robert Turner
· Op-Ed Page Editor: Marjorie Pritchard
3. Detailed Analysis of BG Editorials
The BG only slightly deviated from the standard
Israeli account of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, on the whole reiterating
the Israeli perspective of how events occurred, the Israeli notion of who was
to blame, and the Israeli position on how to best resolve the conflict.
The following is a detailed breakdown of exactly how
BG editorials failed to represent all points of view in the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict.
Yasser Arafat was explicitly blamed for the unrest
in 5 out of the 10 editorials.
“As an editorial in the
mainstream weekly Jerusalem Report concluded: ‘Israelis will be voting not so
much for Sharon, and not even against Barak, but against Yasser Arafat.’.”
(02/03/01).
“Arafat is taking an
awkward for of revenge against Clinton because Clinton blamed Arafat in public
for the failure of last summer’s Camp David talk.” (01/26/01)
“The most confounding
possibility of all is that Arafat may hold in his hands the key to the outcome
of Israel’s election.” (12/20/00)
“When the
smoke clears, the world may remember the current calamities in the Mideast as
Arafat’s final blunder” (10/24/00)
“If Arafat's intention now
is to employ the tactic of armed struggle with the aim of unilaterally
declaring an independent Palestinian state, his people will end up much worse
off than if he continued negotiating at Camp David.” (10/24/00)
3.2. Barak criticized
Ehud Barak was explicitly criticized in only 1 out
of the 10 editorials. The editorial in
question was published the day after his election defeat.
The thrust of the criticism, however, was merely
over his negotiating style. No
criticism was voiced over the substance of his offers during negotiations, or
over his crackdown on the uprising.
“… Barak’s
primary error was impatience rather than his choice of a negotiated peace as
Israel’s best strategic option…” (02/07/01)
Ehud Barak was explicitly praised in 2
different editorials: 10/11/2000 and 02/03/2001.
“Barak’s decision… may be read as a positive sign that he is willing to
heed the counsel of Clinton and the others…” 10/11/2000
“Because Barak met with blatant failure in his audacious pursuit of
peace…” 02/03/2001
Arafat was not praised in any
of the editorials.
By and large,
Ariel Sharon was portrayed negatively, although euphemisms were often used to
describe his negative aspects, such as “hawkish”, “superhawk”, “hardlines”.
“Hence the
large majority of Israeli voters who cast ballots yesterday for the hawkish
Ariel Sharon as prime minister were entitled to feel that they were
correcting the errors they attributed to the losing incumbent, Ehud Barak.”
(02/07/01)
“Sharon has responsibility for the war that
initiated Israel's disastrous 18-year sojourn in Lebanon and for the siting of
some of the West Bank settlements that have been flashpoints for the recent
violence.” (02/07/01)
“It is now
up to Sharon to offer the moderates acceptable terms…” 02/07/01
“Israel's
72-year-old superhawk, Ariel Sharon, has been campaigning on the motto,
'’Ariel Sharon, a leader for peace’.” (02/03/01)
“… the
probable election of hardliner Ariel Sharon in Israel.” (01/26/01)
“… and then
Prime Minister Ehud Barak is replaced by the hardliner Ariel Sharon”
(12/27/00)
“For now, it appears that
outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Barak will run against Likud leader Ariel Sharon,
who is despised by many Israelis for his role in allowing a Lebanese Maronite
militia to massacre Palestinians in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982 …”
(12/20/2000)
Ariel Sharon’s election is by
and large viewed as an “interlude”, a “mistake” that will eventually be unmade.
Sharon's election may turn out to be
temporary detour from a destination that remains inevitable. 02/07/01
Fortunately, the Israeli voters who corrected
the mistakes of Benjamin Netanyahu and Barak will sooner or later have a chance
to correct for Sharon. 02/07/01
As long as Sharon is at the helm of an
Israeli government, however, all the peoples of the Middle East will have to
hold their breath and hope they can muddle through a dangerous interlude.
02/03/01
“the prospect of no agreement, no peace, and
no recognized Palestinian state during the span of a Sharon government.”
(12/20/00)
“Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the
Temple Mount plaza three weeks ago.” (10/18/00)
The United Nations was mentioned in any substantive
way in only 1 editorial (11/30/00). In
that editorial, the BG calls on the United Nations to pressure Syria and Iran
to reign in Hezbollah and to observe UN resolution 425 – which it mentions twice
explicitly.
“The UN drew its frontier between the two
states with fastidious care. Under UN Resolution 425, calling for Israel's
withdrawal from Lebanon, that border should be patrolled and protected by a
Lebanese government.” 11/30/00
“They cannot fulfill their obligations under
UN Resolution 425 because, at present, it does not suit the rulers of Iran or
Syria to replace Hezbollah guerrillas in the south of Lebanon with Lebanese
troops.” (11/30/00)
“Those raids also defy the writ of the UN and
violate the border it drew in consultation with both states.” (11/30/00)
“Every member of the UN Security Council that
wants to avoid a dangerous conflagration in the Middle East needs to pressure
Syria and Iran to call off their Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon.” (11/30/00)
3.8
Bill
Clinton (28)
Bill Clinton received
consistently positive marks for his performance during the crisis. He presented as having exerted himself for
bringing forth an equitable resolution to the conflict. He is presented as having bee fair in
presenting both sides of the issue.
“No sooner does Bill Clinton leave the White
House than Yasser Arafat's negotiators issue a memorandum blaming the Clinton
administration's peacemaking exertions for the failure of Israel and the
Palestinians to make peace.” (01/26/01)
“Instead of merely
facilitating dialogue and encouraging the parties to reach understandings on
their own, Clinton has submitted ideas about a final-status agreement that
challenge Israel to concede more land in the West Bank and more sovereignty in
East Jerusalem than it has ever volunteered, while asking Yasser Arafat's
Palestinian Authority to accept a difficult, historic renunciation of the right
of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper.” (01/26/01)
“PRESIDENT CLINTON'S offer of ''bridging
proposals'' for a comprehensive peace accord between Israel and the
Palestinians amounts to a risky, last-second effort to rescue the two peoples
from their own worst impulses.” (12/27/00)
“Despite the risk and the peremptory,
last-second quality of Clinton's intervention, it is the right thing to do
under the circumstances that prevail now in the Mideast.” (12/27/00)
“In other
words, Israel will have to choose not merely between a comprehensive accord
with the Palestinians and more civil unrest, but rather between Clinton's
proposed compromises and the prospect of eventual war with other states in the
region.” (12/27/00)
“Although
both sides, in a reflex that was to be expected, have asked for clarifications
and the privilege of making changes in the American proposals, Clinton has
properly responded that only minor alterations will be permitted.” (12/27/00)
“Clinton has
done exactly what a statesman should do. For the sake of all the peoples in the
Mideast…” (12/27/00)
“President
Clinton was doing what a statesman must be willing to do when he extracted
pledges from Israel and the Palestinians yesterday to cease the violence that
has unraveled the peace process and threatened surrounding states with a
general conflagration.” (10/18/00)
“Clinton's effort to stop the current cycle
of Mideast violence and vengeance deserves support not only from the principals
but from all America's allies and clients in the Middle East and around the
world.” (10/18/00)
The word “occupation” was used
only once to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
“while Arafat goes on acting as though there
is no difference between Israeli hawks and doves, the two peoples are deprived
of a negotiated peace that could end the Israeli occupation in the West Bank
and Gaza and make possible a tolerable level of security for both communities.”
(12/12/00)
No mention was made of
Palestinian suffering as a result of the Israeli crackdown.
2 editorials explicitly dealt
with the condition of Palestinians (10/24/00) (01/26/01), but the conditions
described do not refer to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, but
rather to the tension between Palestinians and their leadership.
“The people who need that gift the most are
his own. Facing one change of government in Washington and the probable
election of hardliner Ariel Sharon in Israel, Arafat may soon come to rue his
resistance to Clinton's diplomatic charms.” (01/26/01)
This is why Palestinian demonstrators at a refugee
camp in Gaza were chanting at a funeral yesterday for a 14-year-old boy, ''The
summit is a failure. The summit is a failure.'' (10/24/00)
The Intifadha is not presented
as an uprising of an occupied people.
Instead, it is talked about in vague terms as “spate of senseless
violence”, “civil unrest”, “cycle of Mideast violence”, etc.
“the current spate of
senseless violence in the region could get much worse.” (12/27/00)
“Israel will have to
choose not merely between a comprehensive accord with the Palestinians and more
civil unrest…” (12/27/00)
“to cease the violence that has unraveled the
peace process and threatened surrounding states with a general conflagration.”
(10/18/00)
“Those measures include public calls to stop
the violence from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat.” (10/18/00)
“Clinton's effort to stop the current cycle
of Mideast violence and vengeance deserves support.” (10/18/00)
The word “Intifadha” was used only once, and then
only indirectly.
“the daily
violence that Palestinians call the Al Aqsa Intifada.” (02/03/01).
The Boston Globe in 2 instances called for the
United States to pressure both sides equally.
“President Clinton was doing what a statesman
must be willing to do when he extracted pledges from Israel and the
Palestinians yesterday to cease the violence that has unraveled the peace
process and threatened surrounding states with a general conflagration.” (10/18/00)
“All
the carrots that can be offered to the antagonists must be offered, and all the
sticks must be brandished.” (10/11/00)
The Palestinian right of return was mentioned only
once in all of the editorials examined.
The mention, however, was made in the context of calling on Palestinians
to renounce that right.
“while asking Yasser
Arafat's Palestinian Authority to accept a difficult, historic renunciation of
the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper.” (12/27/00)
Various striking euphemisms were used in the
editorials.
1. “Sojourn”
instead of “Occupation -- “Sharon has responsibility for the war that initiated
Israel's disastrous 18-year sojourn in Lebanon…” (02/07/01)
2. “parochial religious
parties” to refer to coalitions that include racist parties that call for the
expulsion of Arabs -- “they can prevent the creation of a narrow government
dependent on right-wing extremists and parochial religious parties.” (02/07/01)
3. “swashbuckling rightist”
to describe Sharon’s violent leanings, and “Occupation” is referred to as a
“misadventure” -- “[Sharon] is the swashbuckling rightist responsible not only
for the Lebanon misadventure…” (02/03/01)
4. “The current
requirement - that a party gain a mere 5 percent of the popular vote -
encourages parochialism, fragmentation, and political blackmailing.” (12/20/00)
5. See 3 above -- “Toward
this end, Israel should enhance political stability by making it much harder
for parochial special-interest parties to win seats in the Knesset.” (12/12/00)
6. See 3. above -- “The
current system, in which parochial parties can blackmail the larger parties,
has fostered not only fragmentation in the Knesset but the perpetuation of
anachronistic vendettas region wide.” (12/12/00).
4. Mentions
The following table summarizes the number of times
some key points and issues were raised in the 10 editorials:
|
Description |
mentions |
|
|
|
|
Pro-Palestinian U.N. Resolutions |
0 |
|
Pro-Israeli UN resolutions |
2 |
|
Human rights reports’ findings |
0 |
|
Arafat blamed |
5 |
|
Barak blamed |
1 |
|
Arafat praised |
0 |
|
Barak praised |
2 |
|
Palestinian suffering |
0 |
|
Israeli suffering |
1 |
|
Palestinian hospitals |
0 |
|
Journalists killed/injured |
0 |
|
Medics killed/injured |
0 |
|
IDF sniper policy |
0 |
|
IDF assassination policy |
0 |
|
Palestinian children killed |
0 |
|
Economic suffering |
0 |
|
Town blockades |
0 |
|
Control of population movement |
0 |
|
The Right of return |
1 |
|
Israeli use of firepower against civilians |
0 |
Noteworthy is the total absence of any mention of
the various UN Resolutions condemning Israel’s use of military force against
civilian populations. This is
especially disturbing given that a whole editorial (11/30/00) was dedicated to
UN resolution 425 in the context of clashes between Hezbollah and the IDF in
the Lebanese border.
Equally noteworthy is the total absence of any
mention of reports issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Peace
Now, B’tselem, and others that squarely place the blame on Israeli forces for
using excessive military force on civilians, condemn the killing of children,
decry the economic blockade by Israel on the Palestinians, violence against
journalists, and strongly challenge the official Israeli line that was
unequivocally adopted by the BG’s editorial writers.
5.
Conclusions
On balance, the Boston Globe’s editorials reflected
a worldview that is closely in tune with the Israeli rendering of the
situation. For instance, little space
was given to Palestinian arguments over excessive violence, or the insistence
that Israel abide by UN resolutions calling for the withdrawal from all
occupied territories and the return of refugees, or Israel’s use of live
ammunition against civilians, in violation of International law, etc.
The BG’s editorials also completely ignored a wealth
of facts, readily available, from the UN, independent journalists, and dozens
of respected human rights groups who have published detailed reactions to the
crisis considering its various social, political, economic, and humanitarian
dimensions.
The BG should present its opinions in a context that
acknowledges the reality on the ground and that takes into account the basic,
essential parameters that fuel the unrest: the fact that Israel is an
occupation, that Palestinians are enduring severe economic hardship, that
Israel is violating fundamental international law when it engages in collective
punishment of civilian populations and when it uses live ammunition against
rock throwing demonstrators. No opinion
can be proffered as informed, let alone fair, without taking these basic
realities into account.