Report on Palestinian-Israeli conflict EDITORIALS published in

 

The New York Times

 

between October 6, 2000 and June 5, 2001

 

Palestine Media Watch

http://www.pmwatch.org

 

Omar Barghouti

Jerusalem

 

June 10, 2001 

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

 

In this report – one of a series of reports examining coverage of the Middle East crisis in America’s leading newspapers – Palestine Media Watch analyzes the New York Times’ (henceforth the Times) editorial coverage of the conflict during the last eight months. 

 

Our conclusion is that the Times’ editorials have displayed a marked imbalance in favor of Israel and against the Palestinians.  Since the election of Israel’s new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, the Times quickly shifted from praising Barak’s wholesale approach to “ending the conflict” to favouring Sharon’s “wise” new “approach” in aiming for “small, confidence-building steps, not the kind of comprehensive settlement sought by Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Barak.” [March 10, 2001]  The Times’ justification for this about-face U-turn is that the two sides are “so far apart” on the main issues.

 

Another particularly disturbing theme in the analyzed editorials is the utter disregard for international law and an obsessive sensitivity for Israel’s “security,” which to the Times’ editors justifies even Israel’s serious violations of international law. The Times editorials strongly advocate Israel’s status as a state above the law, unaccountable to the U.N. due to its “unique” circumstances.

 

Since the United States provides is Israel’s main financial and political sponsor, it is incumbent upon the U.S. media to inform Americans about the various, often conflicting, perspectives regarding this conflict.  This would entail balanced editorials, well-informed, accurate and unbiased news reporting and a wide spectrum of opinions in the Op-Ed sections.  Unfortunately, the Times’ editorials have shown over the last eight months blatant bias towards Israel’s official viewpoints, almost complete disregard for Palestinian and Arab perspectives, and a serious lack of appreciation for international law and international human rights organizations’ views on the strife.  The following details should explain how we arrived at those conclusions.

 

 

The New York Times in this period published the following editorials:

 

ED #

DATE

TITLE

1

October 13, 2000

Days of Rage in the Mideast

2

October 14, 2000

The Occasion for Arab Diplomacy

3

October 16, 2000

The Mideast Summit Meeting

4

October 18, 2000

Mideast Crisis Management

5

October 23, 2000

Difficult Days for Mideast Peace

6

November 3, 2000

An Elusive Mideast Truce

7

November 21, 2000

Mideast Terrorist Provocation

8

December 27, 2000

Mr. Clinton’s Mideast Peace Plan

9

January 4, 2001

Negotiating Against the Clock

10

February 7, 2001

A New Leader for Israel

11

February 10, 2001

Starting Fresh in the Middle East

12

March 10, 2001

Mr. Sharon’s New Course

13

March 14, 2001

Barricading Ramallah

14

March 29, 2001

Arab League Belligerence

15

April 17, 2001

Israeli Airstrikes in Lebanon

16

April 21, 2001

America’s Mideast Responsibilities

17

May 19, 2001

A Gathering Storm in the Mideast

18

May 22, 2001

The American Mideast Initiative

19

June 5, 2001

Fragile Cease-Fire in the Mideast

 

 

In the presentation below, each editorial will be referred to by its number above; e.g., ‘Ed 9’ stands for “Negotiating Against the Clock,” published on January 4, 2001.

 

 

2.    THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

Mr. Joseph Lelyveld, Executive Editor

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor

Mr. Howell Raines, Editorial Page Editor (reports directly to the publisher)

 

 

3.    ANALYSIS OF THE EDITORIALS

 

The New York Times is famous for its influence on public opinion, especially that of decision-makers, and for its sophistication in conveying the news, or that which it deems “fit to print.”  Any analysis of the Times editorials, therefore, must take into consideration the audience being addressed and the not-so-obvious journalistic methods used to transmit a message to the readers.

 

In covering the “Middle East”, the New York Times presents a consistent, almost religious, set of messages, themes, which permeate in its editorials and reports alike.  It also has a patent appreciation for the power of omission, whereby it renders issues that do not fit into its overall view insignificant, or non-existent, by simply omitting them altogether.  This is a particularly potent method used to maintain the consistency and homogeneity of its propagated messages.  One hardly ever has to reckon with thinking deeply how best to reconcile conflicting messages or perspectives when reading the Times’ coverage of the ‘Mideast’; there aren’t any.  The main principles are naggingly repeated until they finally stick.

 

In this preliminary -far from academic- analysis, I shall present some of the most common themes emphasized (reinforced), or omitted, limiting the presentation mostly to self-explanatory, direct citations from the Times editorials mentioned above, with a minimal level of critical analysis, or comments.

 

 

4.            Emphasized Themes:

 

a.    The comparative value of Jewish vs. Arab-Palestinian human lives

 

The Times editorials did not start addressing the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Intifada, until an angry Palestinian crowd killed two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah.  This in itself announced out loud where the Times’ real interests and concerns were.  The tens of Palestinians murdered and the hundreds injured from September 29 until the first editorial (Ed 1) came out were largely ignored.  Their lives were clearly not of the same value as those of the two Jewish-Israeli soldiers killed in Ramallah, despite the fact that the great majority of Palestinian victims were civilians, a third of whom were children, shot in their heads by professional Israeli snipers, as various international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights reports have shown, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, B’Tselem, and LAW.

 

Besides the first editorial, the sixth (Ed 6), seventh (Ed 7), fourteenth (Ed 14), fifteenth (Ed 15), seventeenth (Ed 17) and nineteenth (Ed 19) were in direct response to attacks on Israelis (which are relatively few), whereas major incidents where Palestinians fell victim to Israeli brutality, like the exceptionally traumatic, cold-blooded, 45-minute murder of the child Muhammad Al-Durra in Gaza, was not deemed ‘fit to print’ in the Times’ editorials.  By focusing solely on Israeli deaths and injuries, while ignoring the far more prevalent Palestinian casualties, the Times’ editorials devalued the lives of the latter, as compared to those of the former.  So, unlike most other mainstream American papers, the Times was not satisfied with just equating occupier with occupied, it exclusively dedicated its sympathy and arguments to Jewish victims of the conflict.

 

Some examples:

 

-         The killing of the two soldiers was described as a “sickening lynch-murder”, where two “army reservists who had apparently lost their way were taken into custody, then beaten to death.”  “Palestinian police inexcusably did little to protect them.” [Ed 1]

 

-         Following the massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza, which injured more than sixty Palestinian civilians, of whom at least a fourth were children, the Times hailed the strikes as “predictably … a strong Israeli response” to a previous bombing of an Israeli settlers’ bus, which caused the death of two and injury of several children.  The Palestinian attack on the settlers’ bus was termed “unspeakable” and “terrorist outrage”. 

 

-         Sharon who was found ‘indirectly’ responsible for the horrifying Sabra and Shatila massacre is labeled, “the country’s most unyielding politician”, who has a “customary toughness” and “conservative credentials.”  Masterminding and supervising the massacre of two thousand Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, is therefore described as just displaying “toughness” and “conservatism”.  This clearly betrays a perception of the inferiority of Palestinian lives, as compared to Jewish lives.  I am consciously saying “Jewish”, rather than “Israeli”, since when 13 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel, or ‘Arab Israelis’, were shot dead by ‘their own’ police force, the Times never uttered a word of censure, or even the more diplomatic “concern”. 

 

-         When the Times mentions the number of victims in the current conflict, and unlike all the other papers in the West, says: “100 people were killed”, or “120 people” …etc., never identifying those “people”, for fear of uncovering the lop-sided share of Palestinians in those victims.  Almost all the others (including the Washington Post, CNN, LA Times) explicitly state the number of Palestinians and the number of Jewish Israelis killed or injured. Ha’aretz, actually, states the names and ages of all victims, Palestinian and Israeli alike, showing far more respect for all human life.  The uniquely insensitive ambiguity of the Times’ editorials on this straightforward matter of numbers only exacerbates the already stained reputation of the Times as a paper that consistently manifests contempt for Palestinian human life, and ethnocentric concern for Jewish life, above all others’.

 

This constant theme of dehumanizing Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims in general) is by far the most significant feature in the Times’ editorials under consideration.

 

 

b.    Peace is defined as security for Israel

 

In all the editorials mentioned above, the term ‘peace’ has a peculiar definition, which may not be readily comprehensible by the average (not-yet-converted) reader.  No other term competes with this in its prominence in those editorials, but also none is quite as abused. 

 

The Times type of peace in this context means “peace and quiet”, rather than a just and mutually accepted end of a conflict, as most of the rest of the world probably understands it.  “Ending the violence” is upheld as the immediate and most urgent objective of any negotiations, even though the causes of the ‘violence’ may remain intact; what must be achieved is tranquility, above all other things.  This unnatural dichotomization between peace and justice is the most fundamental, yet subtle, theme underlying the Times perspective on this matter.  In fact, justice, or anything that may remotely evoke it in the readers’ minds, is entirely and incessantly censored out of the discourse, leaving the reader with an empty definition of peace, which reduces it to the natives’ submissive acceptance of the oppression of the occupier, in this case Israel.

 

Some examples:

 

-          “restoring tranquility” is mentioned as a higher goal [Ed 1], indicating that the status quo prior to the Intifada is some how a noble objective to seek, or “restore”.  Mildly disagreeing with Baraks’ so-called ‘separation plan’, the Times warned that if such plans are implemented, “it is hard to see how Israel will be able to achieve lasting security, or stable relations with its Arab neighbors.” [Ed 5]

 

-          “A negotiated peace, however long it takes to achieve, is the only realistic way out.” [Ed 6]  One might interject, ‘but justice delayed is justice denied,’ well who is talking about ‘justice’.  The ‘peace’ process is the goal, since it assures the best of both worlds, tranquility and perpetuated occupation.

 

-         Peace with Israel is put forth as a condition for “modernizing” Arab countries, and for countering “threats” to their rule [Ed 2].  A normal definition of peace may not succeed to explain the linkage between normal relations with Israel and stability of Arab regimes; however, the Times definition explains it well: by accepting Israel’s ‘security’, i.e. perpetual domination and occupation, those regimes will spare themselves its wrath.  If they keep insisting on the nonsense of Palestinian rights, Israel may well punish them, as it frequently has done in the past.

 

-         The only stated objective of Sharm el Sheikh summit meeting, according to the Times, was “restoring calm in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza”, or “halting the violence”, which would help Barak, by giving him “more freedom of action” in confronting his right-wing opponents in the Israeli parliament. [Ed 3]

 

-         Although America’s own “security interests” are discussed once [Ed 3] in relation to peacemaking, when those interests are in conflict with Israel, the Times unabashedly sides with the latter.  The Times recalls [Ed 11] when the former administration of George Bush Sr. was in conflict with the fanatic right Israeli government led by Itshak Shamir, warning the new president that he ought to avoid repeating such “mistakes”.  Specifically, it describes the Bush Sr. attitude towards Israel then as “petulant chilliness”; it also denounces the “haughty instruction” given by former secretary of state, James Baker, when he addressed the Israeli government saying, “when you are ready for peace, call us.”  Baker was then fed up with Israel’s insistence on proceeding with its colonial settlements project in the West Bank, despite all indications that those were illegal and an “obstacle to peace,” as defined by the US administration.  Evidently, the Times definition of peace does not intersect with that defined by the American policy makers, when it comes to Israel.  Only Israel’s own definition of its security qualifies as a “genuine” definition of peace, acceptable to the Times editorial board.

 

-         In most editorials, the Times translates the requirements of peace, or ‘end of violence’, into patronizing injunctions to Arafat to “rearrest the dozens of violent Islamic militants …., order his followers to pull back from further confrontations and see to it that the Palestinian police are no longer passive bystanders or participants in combat but a force for restraint.”  The Times is basically asking the Palestinian leadership to work towards peace by playing an active role in protecting the well-entrenched Israeli soldiers, and restrain stone-throwing. [Ed 3]  In another editorial [Ed 4], it calls on him to “rein in Palestinian fighters …, clamp down on Hamas and calm the broader Palestinian community.”  Those are his clear instructions to build towards ‘peace’.  This is all with a view to “repairing the immense damage inflicted on the peace process by the violence ...”  All what the Israelis are required to do is to “reciprocate by withdrawing Israeli tanks from Palestinian population centers.” [Ed 3, 4]

 

In other places, it continues with the incessant orders to Arafat [Ed 5]: to “pull [Fatah] members back from further confrontations with Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers” – “instruct the large and well-armed [?] Palestinian police force to prevent stone-throwing teenagers and adults from approaching Israeli [army] positions.”  Note that the Israeli army positions, erected during the Intifada near ‘Palestinian-controlled’ territory, are considered legitimate, even untouchable, and therefore worthy of not just Israel’s defense but Arafat’s as well.  This can only be explained if we accept that anything Israel defines as “necessary for its security” constitutes the very core of peace.

 

-         Although it gets boringly predictable, the Times still repeats the same instructions to Arafat in following editorials, insisting that he must “keep stone-throwing teenagers and armed Palestinians away from Israeli positions.” [Ed 6]  The Times probably expects the readers to think by now that the vicious “well-armed” Palestinian soldiers are attacking the benign Israeli positions.  Note that those positions are never further defined by any clarifying adjective, such as “military”, lest we should, God forbid, think that the Palestinians are perhaps defending themselves against the Israeli army.  To top it all off, the Times complained “Mr. Arafat has not yet personally appealed to the Palestinians for peace.”  Clearly, this Freudian slip gave away what the Times always meant by “peace”.

 

-         When Arafat finally appealed for ‘peace’, the Times described this ‘peace’ as follows: “Yasir Arafat issued his first direct order to Palestinian gunmen to stop firing at Israelis …”  That did not spare Arafat though from yet more pestering orders to “work to restrain violence”.  And if any of us, Times readers, may suffer from short memory, it kindly reminds us that Arafat must also “re-arrest the 20 members of violent Islamic organizations whom he recklessly released from … jails..” [Ed 7]

 

-         When former president Clinton came up with “his” peace proposals, the Times was finally compelled to spell out the long-hidden issues of peace, as even Barak and Clinton saw them: borders, refugees, Jerusalem, ..etc.  But it did so without undermining its long-held positions and “themes”.  It called the proposals “creative” and “realistic”, praising Barak for accepting them, thereby “showing commendable dedication to pursuing peace despite the political difficulties” [Ed 9] (ignoring of course the fact that they initially had initiated from his own office, not Clinton’s).  On the other hand, it highlighted and criticized the Palestinian conditional acceptance of the proposals, calling their reservations “a daunting challenge”, and calling upon them to demonstrate “maximum flexibility in the remaining differences.”

 

-         Last, but not least, when finally Arik Sharon was elected as Israel’s prime minister, in order to deflect mounting criticism of his past, the Times chose to applaud Barak as a leader who “deserves credit for his energetic pursuit of peace;” [Ed 10] this of course was the culmination of a period during which almost four hundred Palestinians were killed and more than 14,000 were injured as a result of this “energetic pursuit of peace.”  As if this were not enough, the same editorial again criticized Arafat who “unwisely spurned Mr. Barak’s proposals and then encouraged a Palestinian uprising,” which “assured Mr. Sharon’s electoral triumph.”  So, even when electing Sharon, the Israelis are still seeking peace, but the Palestinians under occupation were the ones responsible for electing a warmonger to lead their occupying state.

 

-         Supporting Israel’s internationally-condemned deadly attack against Syria’s radar station in Lebanon, the Times cautioned Israel not to indulge in such actions, not because they were illegal, but because “deliberately expanding the boundaries of the conflict carries dangers for Israel … .” [Ed 15]

 

-         The Times has advocated a more involved American intervention in managing the conflict because, “Since the days of Harry Truman, America has been consistently committed to Israel’s security and its right to live in peace with its Arab neighbors.” [Ed 16]  It urges “upholding those principles,” not any others.

 

 

c.     Israel naturally seeks ‘peace’ (as defined above), Arabs, who are somewhat irrational, are addicted to war/bloodshed

 

-         After drilling into the readers’ heads the above curious notion of ‘peace’, we cannot but logically conclude that Israel by definition always seeks peace.  Also by definition, Palestinians tend to oppose it, since they are more concerned about such petty things as justice and political rights, rather than dedicating their energies to the noble and haughty ‘peace’, that is to Israel’s security and ‘peace’ of mind.  A constant theme in the Times’ editorials was Barak’s commendable efforts for peace, as contrasted to Arafat’s insincerity in that pursuit.  “As angry as he appeared yesterday,” one editorial said [Ed 1], “Mr. Barak seems prepared to do what he can to halt the bloodshed.  Mr. Arafat has shown no such inclination in recent days, even though everyone knows that he can break the cycle of violence.”

 

“Palestinians spoke of a war of independence,” says one editorial [Ed 6], but on the other hand, the “Israeli forces were [only] preparing to shed restrictions that now limit their attacks on Palestinians areas.”  This commendable “restraint” that they had shown to that date was not missed by the Times.

 

-         In all their admonitions to Arafat to keep Palestinians away from Israeli positions, the assumption is Palestinians irrationally go to those positions, throwing stones at soldiers, as if “asking for it”.  One cannot escape such a hinted conclusion, for lack of any other context or rational motive that can otherwise explain this “strange” Palestinian behavior of almost desiring to “get killed”.

 

-         Even Sharon’s flat rejection of Barak’s negotiated agreements with the Palestinians is portrayed by one editorial as a new, “more incremental approach to reducing tensions.” [Ed 12]  Several editorials praised Sharon’s “wisdom,” “overtures,” ….


 

d.    Israeli politicians are magnanimous, Palestinians are insatiable and ungrateful

 

-          “Yasir Arafat unwisely spurned Mr. Barak’s [peace] proposals and then encouraged a Palestinian uprising against Israel.” [Ed 10]

 

-          “Mr. Arafat’s response to the American proposal remains in doubt … .  Some of his spokesmen now suggest that he cannot agree to barring the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.” [Ed 8]  This last unreasonable position, of course, is the most surprising to the Times.

 

-          “[T]hat will require a greater spirit of compromise than Mr. Arafat has yet demonstrated.” [Ed 9]

 

-          “Mr. Barak offering many concessions.  But in the end, Mr. Clinton could not overcome the unwillingness of the Palestinian leader … to make reciprocal compromises.  Instead of negotiating, Mr. Arafat encouraged a new round of Palestinian violence.” [Ed 11]

 

 

e.    Arabs always attack, Israel invariably just ‘retaliates’

 

-          “Retaliatory Israeli air strikes  against targets in Palestinian-ruled areas” [Ed 1]

 

-         In ‘response’ to Palestinian attacks, “Israel must see that its army and police use the minimum force necessary and make sure that its civilians, including settlers, avoid vigilantism …” [Ed 5]  Note that the extremely fanatic attacks by the heavily-armed Israeli settlers (categorized here as ‘civilians’) are dubbed “vigilantism” – or retaliatory.

 

-          “[M]ore forceful retaliatory strikes” [Ed 6]

 

-          “Yesterday’s Palestinian terrorism and Israeli retaliation …” [Ed 7]

 

-          “Ehud Barak … is in a difficult political situation, but he also must show restraint. … [He is] under attack by right-wing parties for not responding forcefully enough to Palestinian violence.  Mr. Barak must defend and protect Israeli lives.  But he should do his best to bring an end to the cycle of violence.” [Ed 7]  Note that this last gesture is to Likud, not to the Palestinians.

 

-         “…yesterday’s deadly terrorist bombing in Israel and the retaliatory Israeli air strikes [using F-16s].” [Ed 17]

 

The main problem in all these examples is not just that they smack of bias, but that they do so by setting a time frame that takes a Palestinian ‘action’ as the start, the point of initiation of violence, and any Israeli ‘action’ that follows that in time as ‘retaliatory’.  In all such cases, of course, one can just shift the time frame back in time a little bit to discover an Israeli action which prompted the Palestinian reaction.  After all, Israel is the power that is illegally maintaining a military occupation on Palestinian lands, and occupation is by definition inherently violent.  Almost any Palestinian act of violence, as horrible as it may be sometimes, can logically and legally be seen as a reaction, or ‘retaliation’ to Israel’s overwhelming violent actions.

 

 

f.      Palestinians are to blame for their own hardships

 

-         Arafat is called upon to keep stone-throwers away from “Israeli positions”, in order to “protect Palestinian lives,” implicitly blaming the stone-throwers and the Palestinian leadership for any Palestinian deaths, blatantly precluding the Israeli responsibility.

 

-         The Palestinian leadership is commanded by the Times to “stop the violence,” since “Renewed confrontations would only invite a strong Israeli military response and create more suffering among Palestinian civilians.” [Ed 12]

 

 

g.    Palestinian leadership must always undergo a test to verify whether it really wants ‘peace’

 

-          “[I]f Mr. Barak is satisfied over the next day or so that Mr. Arafat is trying as hard as he can to rein in Palestinian fighters …., Israel will withdraw tanks from major Palestinian population centers…” [Ed 4]

 

-          “Mr. Arafat’s commitment to peace seems uncertain.” [Ed 3]

 

-          “If Mr. Arafat wants Israelis to believe that he is sincere to bring about a truce, he must see to it that …” [Ed 7]

 

-         Arafat “needs to give unambiguous instructions to armed militias … . He needs to do so now …” [Ed 5]

 

-         Even after Arafat met with Peres and signaled some “peaceful” messages, suspecting his true motives, the Times says, “It is not yet clear what brought about this more responsible position.”  Keeping true to its style in not keeping the reader in so much suspense as to force her/him to actually think for her/himself of the answer, it rapidly volunteers that answer, hinting that Arafat may have been intimidated by the “Israeli military preparations for intensified retaliatory attacks against Palestinian-ruled areas …” [Ed 6]

 

-          “The real test of the latest truce talks will be whether Mr. Arafat effectively uses the well-armed Palestinian police to keep stone-throwers …” [Ed 6]

 

-          “To give substance to [his] pledges, Mr. Arafat should rearrest …” [Ed 3]

 

-         “Israel’s continued military restraint will depend on whether Mr. Arafat quickly follows his words with deeds … he can do a lot more than he has been doing.” [Ed 19]

  

 

h.    Terrorism is an Arab-Muslim trademark; Israeli fanatics are just politically ‘hawkish’

 

-         Palestinian militants are described in the following terms: “Violent Islamic militants” [Ed 3]; “Hamas terrorists” [Ed 5]; “Hamas and other declared enemies of peace” [Ed 5]; “Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorists” [Ed 6]; “violent Islamic organizations” [Ed 7].

 

-         Israeli militants who are rarely mentioned are described as follows: “Jewish settlers” (without any other adjective).  Sharon, who was described by Peres as an Israeli “Mussolini”, and by Barak as a “warmonger”, and by almost every other center and left Israeli politician as an irresponsible fanatic, with a tainted history received a excellent welcome in the Times.  The editorials strove to beautify him by associating his name to “unity”, “conciliation”, “creative approaches to the Palestinians.”  And as mentioned above, not once was his bloody history mentioned; instead, he was called “tough”, “conservative” and “unyielding”.  He was even compared to Nixon, who opened peaceful relations with China.  Any leader around the world with the same “conservative credentials” as Sharon, would instantly be called a war criminal by any fair and objective newspaper.  The Times has no claim to either attribute.

 

-         Sharon, who was found “indirectly responsible” for the infamous Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinians in 1982 by an Israeli court is described in one editorial as “an unexpectedly pragmatic negotiating partner [for Arafat].” [Ed 12]  In another, he is a “consistent advocate of tough military responses to Arab pressures.” [Ed 15]

 

 

 

 

 

i.       Support for Israel’s Ethnocentric Character

 

The New York Times stood solidly behind the Zionist argument that the Palestinian refugees who were expelled (or otherwise compelled to flee) from Palestine in 1948 should not be allowed to return to their homes.  It says, “Israeli leaders understandably oppose the demographic shift this would entail, which would threaten Israel’s character as a Jewish state.” [Ed 8].  By supporting such a racist statement, the Times has basically declared in principle its support for “pure ethnic” states, and maintaining this “purity”, in contravention of international law.  Why then was the Times furious over Austria’s Jorg Haider?  This ethnocentric discourse is reminiscent of ugly racist ideologies that threatened the whole world during World War II.  It certainly should not be “fit to print” by a paper that always had a consistent stance against “ethnic cleansing”.

 

 

j.      Supporting & Advocating Israeli Violations of International Law

 

In several editorials, the Times came out openly, unabashedly in favour of Israeli violations of clear-cut international laws.  This dangerous theme fits well with the Times’ view of Israel as a state above the law.

 

-         Despite the fact that Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories are considered illegal and/or “obstacles to peace” according to international law (the Fourth Geneva Convention), the great majority of states at the U.N. and standing U.S. policy, the Times stood alone among major American papers justifying the presence and expansion of these settlements.  One editorial urged Sharon to prohibit “any significant expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.” [Ed 12]

 

-         Another justifies Sharon’s position on “expanding” settlements, saying he “has agreed not to build new settlements, but he is committed to expanding those already in place as their populations grow.” [Ed 17]  And again, an editorial claims that “New settlement building is already frozen, but Israel now permits the expansion of existing settlements to allow for population growth.” [Ed 18]  This position negates what B’Tselem has revealed recently, that Sharon’s government has effectively built several new settlements, which are defined accordingly because of the great distances separating them from the established settlements, which they are supposed to be expansions of.  It also omits the huge controversy raised in Israel itself on this “natural growth” claim.  Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, among many others, have called such claims “insincere,” if not outright “deceptive.”

 

-         The Times also advocated administering internationally-prohibited forms of collective punishment against the civilian Palestinian population, for the sake of Israel’s “security.”  An editorial argued that the threat of Palestinian “terrorist attacks” obliged the Israeli government “during times of high tension to limit the movement of Palestinians into Israel.” [Ed 13]  It urges Israel, however, to impose such punishment “sparingly,” in order to keep the Palestinian population “calm.”  Angry masses could burden Israel’s security!

 

-         The Times even opposed the U.S State Department’s position in condemning Israel’s “excessive use of force,” when it used F-16s to attack Palestinians, when it hit the Syrian radar station and when its tanks briefly reoccupied Gaza, before U.S. pressure forced them out.  An editorial said, “Strong Israeli defensive actions are justified.” [Ed 15] 

 

 

5.            Omitted Themes:

 

a.    Pertinent UN Resolutions and Israel’s obligations under international law

 

Any mention of those would be devastating to the carefully sculpted messages propagated as shown above.  The most obvious challenge would be the illegal status of the Israeli occupation, which would instantly justify Palestinian resistance “by all means”, as the UN Charter holds.  Another serious challenge lies in UN Res. 194, which calls for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.  Since the Palestinian position is unambiguously robust in view of international law, the Times decided to omit that law altogether to avoid such invitation to dissent.

 

 

b.    Palestinian rights and political aspirations

 

The Times often confuses its identity, speaking on behalf of Israel, by saying things like, “if Mr. Barak is satisfied over the next day or so that Mr. Arafat is trying …, Israel will withdraw tanks … .” [Ed 4]  In many other similar examples, the Times just goes on threatening the Palestinians that unless you do so and so, Israel [as if saying ‘we’] will ‘retaliate’ by so and so.  This recurrent theme leaves no doubt about this chronic case of mixed identity.

 

On the other hand, Palestinians are never given a right to ‘speak’ in the Times editorials.  The readers are never told what Palestinians say they want, they deserve, they desire or they detest.  The editors always make that call on their behalf, further promoting a dehumanizing image of Palestinians as simply “terrorists”, “stone-throwers”, “militants”, …etc.

 

 

c.     Human rights organizations’ reports on the conflict

 

Despite the volume of reports issued by various highly-respected human rights organizations condemning Israel’s “excessive use of violence” and “combat tactics”, and “intentionally targeting children’s heads and knees”, …etc., the Times editorial board enforced a gag rule, banning all such reports from its sanitized pages.  Even the Times reporters recognized that unwritten rule to a large extent.  Those reports simply contradict the Times ‘truths’ about the conflict in an irreconcilable way; they had to be omitted.

 

 

d.    The plight of the Palestinian citizens of Israel

 

When the Times speaks of Israel, it only is concerned with Israel’s Jews.  The Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel don’t count.  In fact, they received a worse t