Coverage of the Middle East Crisis

in the Opinion Pages of

The Washington Post

October 6, 2000 – July 6, 2001

A Palestine Media Watch Report

www.pmwatch.org

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 Washington Post between October 6, 2000 and May 18, 2001.

Our aim in preparing this report is to raise The Post's awareness of its own editorial and op-ed coverage of the Middle East crisis. Our aim is not to characterize or label The Post, but to examine its product and the quality and variety of what it is offering its readership.

Questions or comments about this report may be directed to PMWatchDC@mediamonitors.org

Questions or comments to The Washington Post may be directed to letters@washpost.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. Editorial Board

Members of The Washington Post’s editorial board are:

§ Mr. Fred Hiatt – Editorial page editor

§ Mr. Colbert I. King – Editorial page deputy editor

§ Mr. Jackson Diehl – Editorial page deputy editor

IV. Definitions

Three key terms will be used throughout this report to classify editorials and columns: “pro-Israeli,” “pro-Palestinian,” and “balanced.” This section spells out how these terms are defined.

By and large, it has been remarkably easy to qualify any given column as belonging in one of the three categories. Pro-Israeli columns are readily identifiable, since they reflect a well-defined worldview from which similar columns rarely deviate:

§ Palestinians are primarily to blame for the violence;

§ Israel has offered major concessions;

§ Palestinians should have accepted Israel's Camp David concessions; and

§ Palestinian refugees should have no right of return.

Beyond that, pro-Israeli columns are striking in their omission of extremely critical issues such as U.N. resolutions pertaining to the occupation and the findings of human rights organizations.

Pro-Palestinian columns tend to stress the basic realities that pro-Israeli columns ignore; they mainly highlight the illegal nature of Israeli actions (e.g., settlements) and policies (e.g., political assassinations), relying heavily on internationally-recognized agreements and standards.

Balanced columns usually avoid faulting either side; but when faulting, both sides are taken to task. Balanced columns tend to stress the morally obvious, the legally sound, and some very basic, factual realities.

Below are the stands taken by the three points of view on some key issues. (Note that the key issues vary from one category to another).

Pro-Israeli:

§ Arafat…

- Is responsible for the violence and can stop it at will.

- Is using the violence to pressure Israel.

§ Israel…

- Is using reasonable, not excessive, force.

- Is under great danger and must defend itself.

- Should not cede more land to the Palestinians.

§ Peace process…

- Is a failure. It is dead.

- Has shown that Palestinians are not serious about long-term peace.

- Has been a ruse used by Palestinians.

§ Barak…

- Has been very flexible, even too flexible.

- Has been courageous.

- Should rethink his strategy.

- Has been politically immature.

§ United States…

- Should always side, unconditionally, with Israel.

§ Intifada…

- Was not spontaneous.

- Is being orchestrated by Arafat.

§ Sharon’s visit to the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount:

- Was an opportunity the Palestinians were waiting for.

§ Palestinians’ right of return…

- Spells the extinction of Israel.

- Is being used by Arabs to destroy Israel.

- Is not Israel’s problem. Arab states should take in the refugees.

§ Jerusalem…

- Is the indivisible capital of Israel.

- Is not the most important Muslim city.

- Is being used by Palestinians to stall final negotiations.

§ Subtext:

- Conflation of the Palestinian people and their leadership.

- Reduction of the entire Palestinian leadership to a few individuals – often only one: Arafat.

- No expression of sorrow over the deaths of Palestinian children – only Israelis.

- Rare mention of Arab citizens of Israel.

- Rare mention of Israeli extremists.

- No mention of human rights reports’ findings.

- No mention of U.N. resolutions relevant to the occupation.

- No explanation of why the U.S. must stand unconditionally with Israel.

- No explanation of the potential underlying reasons for the Intifada from the Palestinian point of view.

Pro-Palestinian:

§ Right of return…

- Is a legitimate right of all refugees supported by the U.N. and international community.

- Should be recognized as a right, and is distinct from its actual implementation.

§ Settlements…

- Are illegal facts on the ground that exist in contravention of international law.

- Should be evacuated by Israel.

- Continue to be constructed and funded by the Israeli government.

§ Peace process…

- Negotiations should continue, using U.N. SCR 242 as their basis.

- Negotiations have collapsed because of Israeli intransigence on key issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.

- Is hindered by the U.S., which is not the “honest broker” many claim it to be.

- Fell through at Camp David because Barak did not offer far-reaching concessions.

§ Sharon’s visit to the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount…

- Was an intentional, premeditated provocation.

§ Palestinian suffering…

- Is due to Israel’s 35-year military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

- Is exacerbated by curfews, closures, and other movement-limiting policies.

§ Israel’s response to the Intifada…

- Has been disproportionate.

- Warrants an independent inquiry into the violence, preferably international monitors.

- Will only strengthen Palestinian resistance.

§ International law…

- Deems Israeli assassination of Palestinian political figures illegal.

- Deems Israeli settlements illegal.

- U.N. Resolution 242 should be the basis for peace negotiations.

§ Jerusalem…

- Should be an open city.

- Al-Aqsa is important for Muslims.

- Should not be used to transform a political conflict into a religious war.

Balanced:

§ Intifada…

- Was spontaneous, but has been used by the PA for political advantage.

§ Violence…

- Cannot be condoned from either side.

- Will not lead to victory for either side.

- Causing the death of anyone – Palestinian or Israeli – is condemnable.

§ Settlements…

- Are illegal, and construction should be halted.

- Were built as facts on the ground to compromise full Palestinian sovereignty.

§ Israel’s response to the Intifada…

- Has been excessive.

- Violence only fuels more violence.

§ Peace process…

- Offered Palestinians a homeland crisscrossed by Israeli settlements and Jewish-only bypass roads.

- Has failed due to Israel’s failure to implement many of its Oslo obligations.

- Has failed due to the PA’s failure to implement many of its Oslo obligations.

- Negotiations should resume.

V. Detailed Analysis of Middle East Editorials published in

The Washington Post between October 6, 2000 and July 6, 2001

A. Introduction

The Washington Post published eighteen (18) editorials on the Middle East crisis between October 6, 2000 and July 6, 2001:

Date	Editorial Title	Type
October 7, 2000	“The Clashes Continue”	Pro-Isr
October 11, 2000	“No Peace, No Process”	Pro-Isr
October 14, 2000	“Peace Partners”	Pro-Isr
October 18, 2000	“Cease Fire?”	Balanced
October 20, 2000	“Mr. Arafat’s Silence”