|
Report on Palestinian-Israeli conflict
EDITORIALS 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
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 its first four months.
Our conclusion is that the Times’ editorials have
displayed a marked imbalance in favor of Israel and against
the Palestinians.
Our aim in conducting this survey is to raise the
Times’ awareness of its own coverage. The situation in the
Middle East is complex, involves important American interests,
and the United States provides Israel more foreign aid than
any other state. For
all of these reasons, balanced editorials are necessary
to help Americans reach fair conclusions about the issues
surrounding the conflict.
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
|
In the presentation below, each editorial will be
referred to by its number above; e.g., Ed 1 means ‘Days
of Rage in the Mideast’, published on October 13, 2000.
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 message. You hardly ever have to reckon with thinking
deeply about 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 direct citations from
the Times editorials mentioned above, with a minimal level
of critical analysis, or comments.
3.1
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 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) and seventh (Ed 7) 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 ‘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, 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.
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.
This constant theme of dehumanizing Palestinians (and Arabs/Muslims in
general) is by far the most significant feature in the Times’
biased 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 submissive acceptance
of the oppression of the dominant side, 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.
c.
Israel
naturally seeks ‘peace’ (as defined above), Arabs, who are
somewhat irrational, are addicted to war/bloodshed
-
After
drilling into our 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”.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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”.
3.2
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.& | 