published
in
The New
York Times
between
October 6, 2000 and February 10, 2001
Palestine
Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org
Omar Barghouti
Jerusalem
Feb. 22, 2001
Introduction:
In the period from October 6, 2000 to February 10, 2001, The
New York Times published 29 columns in its Op-Ed section
related to the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The columns are tabulated below.
This report aims to present a quantitative analysis
of those columns, from the following dimensions:
a.
Political
line: Columns
are categorized according to their support for Palestinian
rights, as defined in the pertinent UN Resolutions,
especially 242, 338 and 194. Those briefly state that Israel’s occupation
of Arab territories since the 1967 War is illegal, and
therefore that Israel is obliged to withdraw from those
territories. Israel’s
withdrawal from the Egyptian Sinai can be considered as
a legal precedent which ends the debate on whether Israel
must withdraw from “lands” or “the lands” occupied; the
Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement opted for the latter,
the more strict requirement for full withdrawal. As a result, 242 is fairly interpreted to require
full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip and
the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem, as defined
by the June 4th, 1967 borders.
UN General Assembly Resolution
194 calls for the return of Palestinian refugees who were
expelled by Israel (or were compelled to leave) in and
after the 1948 War to their homes in what is now Israel.
Accordingly, each of the
Op-Ed columns is categorized into one of the following
general groups:
1-
Supportive
of a just peace, based on relevant UN resolutions
and international law; most of the so-called ‘pro-Palestinian’
columns would fit here.
2-
‘Balanced’,
or not taking any specific position on occupation, but
in general blaming both parties or equally advocating
both sides.
3-
Supportive
of a modified occupation (accepting some
but not all of the legal rights of Palestinians). Those who do not state their position on occupation
but insinuate disdain for Arabs/Muslims in general are
given the benefit of the doubt and categorized here, rather
than in the final, extreme category.
4-
Supportive
of occupation. All those who blindly support the official
Israeli line are grouped here.
Moreover, all those who blame the Palestinians
for starting the ‘violence’ certainly belong here as well,
as they ignore the fundamental and initial violence of
the occupation is the ultimate cause of the ensuing violence.
Although
the distinction between the third and fourth categories
is not always clear, or significant, it sometimes is.
A writer who supports some Israeli withdrawal
from the West Bank and Gaza but rejects the right of return
is categorized into the third group; whereas one who opposes
anything but minor withdrawal and also rejects the right
of return is placed in the fourth category.
In this case, the distinction is important, especially
since almost all of Israel’s peace camp belongs (in various
degrees) to the third category, whereas
a significant portion of the Labor Party and all of Likud
can accurately be placed in the fourth. But why are Labor and Likud mentioned when discussing columns in
an American paper? Well,
a thorough reading of those columns will beyond doubt
show that the Times concept of debate on the Middle East
means allowing differences between Labor (represented
by Mr. Thomas Friedman et al) and Likud (represented by
Mr. William Safire et al).
Democrat vs. Republican, progressive vs. conservative,
left vs. right are clearly irrelevant dichotomies in analyzing
those columns.
I
cannot claim that my three categories above are 100% inclusive
or accurate, but from my perspective they fairly present
the major differences between the various columnists who
are allowed to publish in the Times.
b.
Identity
of the Author:
Authors belong to the following
general categories:
1)
American
2)
Israeli
3)
Arab
4)
Other
Although the ‘national’
identity of the author is not always relevant, as will
be shown below, it still is important to mention to show
whether there is any discrimination against authors from
a particular ethnic/national group. If in four months of coverage of the anti-apartheid movement in
the former South Africa the Times had featured 90% white,
5% black (African) and 5 % miscellaneous others, many
readers would be furious, even if some of the white authors
may indeed be opposed to apartheid in various degrees. The mere sensitivity to letting the oppressed
speak for themselves has evolved as an essential
measure of fairness and objectivity in modern journalism,
despite the fact that these oppressed may disagree, as
they should, on tactics, strategies, or even identity.
Table 1. The New York Times Op-Ed Columns in
the Considered Period
|
#
|
DATE
|
TITLE
|
AUTHOR
|
|
1
|
February 9, 2001
|
Peace, One Very Small Step at a Time
|
DENNIS ROSS
|
|
2
|
February 8, 2001
|
Sharon, Arafat and Mao
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
3
|
February 8, 2001
|
The 'New' Sharon?
|
WILLIAM SAFIRE
|
|
4
|
January 24, 2001
|
Jerusalem in My Heart
|
ELIE WIESEL
|
|
5
|
January 11, 2001
|
The Impossible Partition
|
JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER
|
|
6
|
January 6, 2001
|
Let Palestinians Govern Palestinians
- Now
|
AMOS OZ
|
|
7
|
January 4, 2001
|
Clinton Divides Jerusalem
|
WILLIAM SAFIRE
|
|
8
|
January 2, 2001
|
Three Blind Eyes
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
9
|
December 27, 2000
|
The New Parameters of Reconciliation
|
RASHID I. KHALIDI
|
|
10
|
December 22, 2000
|
The War Within East Jerusalem
|
YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
|
|
11
|
December 21, 2000
|
Land of Comebacks
|
WILLIAM SAFIRE
|
|
12
|
December 1, 2000
|
Clinton's Syria Memo
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
13
|
November 26, 2000
|
Enmity Is Not Inborn
|
KIRK DOUGLAS
|
|
14
|
November 24, 2000
|
Senseless in Israel
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
15
|
November 8, 2000
|
The Pain Israel Must Accept
|
DAVID GROSSMAN
|
|
16
|
November 3, 2000
|
Diplomacy by Other Means
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
17
|
October 31, 2000
|
Ritual Sacrifice
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
18
|
October 27, 2000
|
Coexistence Is the Only Choice
|
MERON BENVENISTI
|
|
19
|
October 20, 2000
|
The Arabs' Road Map
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
20
|
October 18, 2000
|
A U.S. Role Is Crucial for Peace
|
CHAS. W. FREEMAN, JR.
|
|
21
|
October 17, 2000
|
Where U.S. Power Is Beside the
Point
|
FOUAD AJAMI
|
|
22
|
October 17, 2000
|
The Wrong Answer
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
23
|
October 14, 2000
|
The Price of America's Naďveté
|
REUEL MARC GERECHT
|
|
24
|
October 14, 2000
|
But There Is No Peace
|
ANTHONY LEWIS
|
|
25
|
October 13, 2000
|
Arafat's War
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
|
26
|
October 12, 2000
|
Israel Needs an Ally
|
WILLIAM SAFIRE
|
|
27
|
October 11, 2000
|
A Failure With Many Fathers
|
Lawrence S. EAGLEBURGER
|
|
28
|
October 10, 2000
|
Israel's Deadly Errors
|
RAMI G. KHOURI
|
|
29
|
October 6, 2000
|
Time to Choose, Yasir
|
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
|
Each of these columns is categorized into the two
general sets mentioned above:
a.
Political
Line of the Column (vs. occupation and Palestinian rights)
b.
National/Ethnic
Identity of the Author
Special care is taken not to assume that a particular
author’s columns will invariably be classified in one
constant category, a priori.
Each column is read and analyzed on its own merits,
regardless who the author is. Of course, in several cases, as shown below,
it turns out some authors are highly consistent in their
positions, while a few show relatively more flux.
Table 2. Categorization of Each Column into the
Two Sets of Categories: the Political Line and the National/Ethnic
Identity of the Author
|
|
POLITICAL LINE
|
NATIONAL IDENTITY
|
|
#
|
Pro
Just Peace
|
Balanced
|
Modified
Occupation
|
Pro
Occupation
|
American
|
Israeli
|
Arab
|
Other
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
