|
Assessment of Coverage of Israel-Palestine Crisis
in Editorial and Op-Ed pages of Wall Street Journal October 1, 2000 – October 31, 2001 Palestine Media Watch Report Prepared by Alex Kuo I. Definitions and Preliminary Notes
Editorials by definition
must express a simplistic opinion, and one cannot fault editorials for
deciding to support one side in a conflict.
An editorial board can decide to advocate
one position; it would be unreasonable to expect the voice of a publication
to endorse a view it does not hold.
However, such advocacy should be based on recognition of objective
facts and the merits of opposing arguments.
Systemic ignorance of either would indicate an unwarranted bias. A newspaper editorial board may happily
accept allegation of that bias, but its readers should be aware of
distortions or selective ignorance that is required to reach that position. 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
discuss Israeli actions (e.g., settlements) and policies (e.g.,
political assassinations), relying heavily on internationally-recognized
agreements and standards. This review presents
evidence of systematic ignorance and dismissal of relevant facts and
arguments in the Wall Street Journal
editorial position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. II. Overview of Editorials
In the Wall Street Journal’s 18 editorials on
the Israel-Palestinian conflict published between October 1, 2000 and October
31, 2001, all 18 editorials displayed a prominent pro-Israel bias. A “Pro-Israel” stance does necessarily
mean the editorial advocates the policies of the Israeli government, but
rather broadly it espouses the arguments used by the Israeli government.
Overall, the Journal’s editorials
display a selective ignorance of opposing arguments and facts to arrive at
their conclusions in support of Israel.
III. Brief Editorial Summaries Summary of 10/11/00: The Palestinians are to
blame for the current political crisis and violence. The Clinton administration has assisted
Israel in making too many concessions to the PA, and must support Israel in
regaining the balance of power. 10/13/00: Clinton’s Middle East
policy, by coddling Arafat, has brought about the current political crisis. 10/17/00: Palestinians are to
blame for the current violence, which occurred despite numerous Israeli
concessions. Israel’s best response
is ‘clear-eyed deterrence.’ 11/30/00 Israeli policy under
Barak has been concessions without any positive response from the United
States, Arab neighbors, or the Palestinian population. This is the political context for why
Barak will lose the election. 12/11/00 Barak’s concessions over
the last year have only made Israel less secure; his failures have compelled
him to resign. 12/27/00 Clinton and Barak have
paid exclusively to political considerations at the expense of Israel’s
security. 2/7/01 Bush and Sharon must
demonstrate the US will not be beholden to short-term political gains to
guarantee Israel’s security. 2/28/01 Powell’s praise of
Sharon should be praised; this indicates his recognition of Middle East
reality. 3/29/01 Israel must fight
Arafat’s propaganda war that Israel is an aggressor; Israel must
unfortunately choose between a low-intensity drawn out war or a massive war
to crush Arafat’s regime. 4/18/01 Arab states have an
incentive to keep the low-intensity war going; Israel must increase economic
and military tactics to end the conflict. 5/22/01 Bush made take a more
principled stance on Israel than Powell and stand for a more intense Israeli
course of action to end the conflict. 6/4/01 While Sharon has been
prudent in the handling of the crisis, Bush should stand by Sharon should he
execute more intense action. 6/22/01 European leaders and
human-rights activists are using the Sabra and Shatilla massacre as an excuse
to score political points against Sharon. 8/2/01 Israel’s struggle is one
of simply right and wrong, like the Cold War. 8/10/01 Bush should assist
Israel in targeting terrorists. 8/17/01 Bush should not
interfere and object when Israel attempts to stop terrorism, for that only
undermines Sharon’s political position. 8/28/01 US should cease all
funding to Palestinian Authority. IV. Evidence of Bias
Selecting key sentences
do not capture how the thrust of each editorial is biased, but they provide
direct evidence of selective ignorance.
Systematic or frequent emphasis on a key position to the exclusion of
contrary arguments or facts indicates a degree of bias. The following are prominent categories
(followed by evidence from the WSJ editorials in the time period): 1. Israel
has not played a role in causing the current crisis, and Arafat and/or
Palestinians are to blame for the status quo “Surely blame for the
violence must fall squarely upon those who started it, which in every
instance so far seems to have been the Palestinians.” (10/3/00) “Who among the top
leaders of the Palestinian Authority authorized—or at least did nothing to
stop—the violence?” (10/3/00) “In visiting the Temple
Mount, Mr. Sharon was simply exercising his right to visit a site open to the
public.” (10/3/00) “Far from being a
spontaneous outburst of rage, the Palestinian violence has been calculated.”
(10/11/00) “What’s needed now is
not an international investigation into Arafat’s war, whose causes are clear
enough.” (10/11/00) “…we need to publicly
recognize and say that Yassir Arafat has decisively violated the very premise
of the Oslo accords – that both sides renounce violence – and declare that
America supports Israel in whatever measures it deems necessary to restore
order.” (10/11/00) “The Clinton
Administration, however, has averted its gaze from Arafat’s warmongering of
recent years.” (10/11/00) “Even now, Mr. Clinton
has not unambiguously demanded that Arafat call off his war.” (10/13/00) “…it collapsed entirely
when Palestinians resorted to what turned out to be an orchestrated campaign
of violence beginning in September.” (2/28/01) “What’s really at work
here is a deliberate and cynical strategy to provoke Israel into responses
that will in turn provoke sanctions from the international community…”
(3/29/01) “…the war Yasser Arafat
has launched” (8/28/01) Commentary: ·
There is no mention
of Israeli failure to honor agreements, expansion of settlements, or refusal
to comply with UN resolutions.
Overall there is little acknowledgement of the role of Israeli
occupation and historical circumstances that made the conditions for the most
recent intifada possible. ·
There is no
consideration or Arafat’s own political constraints. Broad, sweeping statements are made of
Arafat’s “unwillingness,” his “inflexibility,” his “maximalist demands,” and
his many “failures” with no effort at allto clarify what the Palestinian
demands actually are. 2.
Israel has been making concessions “…just as the Israeli
government seems prepared to make unprecedented concessions on the redivision
of Jerusalem” (10/3/00) “One Israeli
administration after another was pushed to cede more territory to the
dictator.” (10/11/00) “His [Barak’s]
willingness to concede all the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem at Camp David
in July showed once and for all that Arafat has no intention of
compromising.” (10/11/00) “In the Middle East, he
[President Clinton] was reckless enough to gamble that having the region's
only democracy surrender the defensible borders it acquired through defensive
wars against repeated Arab aggression was the path to peace.” (10/13/00) “Last anyone checked,
Israel has been ceding territory, not taking it…It returned enough of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip to ensure that 97% of Palestinians now live in areas
controlled by Mr. Arafat. It withdrew its forces from its security cordon in
southern Lebanon. It was prepared to make substantial concessions over East
Jerusalem….Some reward for good behavior.” (10/17/00) “Israeli concessions
have created an impression of weakness, which has whetted Arab ambitions.”
(10/17/00) “Palestinians have
largely achieved self-rule—and they are angrier than ever.” (10/17/00) “The offer is said to
have included 90% of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem.” (11/30/00) “Israelis…are learning
that the international support generated by territorial concessions can last
only as long as it takes the Palestinians to gin up another grievance…They
are learning that goodwill gestures are taken by their enemies as a sign of
weakness, not goodness.” (11/30/00) “The Palestinians,
having rejected his most generous overture last summer, will not now settle
for less.” (12/11/00) “Mr. Barak had made
Arafat a very generous offer and was refused.” (12/27/00) “Mr. Arafat rejected
last summer the most viable Palestinian state compatible with the continued
existence of Israel.” (3/29/01) “There are some things
that cannot be settled by diplomacy, and the kind of terrorist war that
Yasser Arafat has launched against Israel is one of them. That he launched it
in the face of an offer from then Prime Minister Ehud Barak that was for more
generous than anyone had a right to expect only underscores the point.”
(6/4/01) Commentary: ·
No mention is made
of the fact that West Bank and Gaza settlements have increased 50% since the
signing of the Oslo Accords, a blatant Israeli violation of that agreement
that is consistently overlooked in favor of pointing to Palestinian
violations only. ·
No mention is made
that even the most “generous” of Barak’s proposals have offered to relocate
no more than 20% of the existing settlements in the West Bank. ·
No mention is made
of the military occupation. 3. Insensitive/inaccurate treatment and
characterization of Palestinians “Had his [President
Clinton] Mideast policy been one of encouraging Israel to hold onto the
balance of power…illusory hopes wouldn’t have been raised, and appetites
wouldn’t have been whetted by displays of weakness.” (10/13/00) “We’ve lived among
Arabs; there’s a volatile mix there of nationalist and Islamist ideas; and
filling their metaphorical stomachs isn’t necessarily going to warm their
hearts.” (2/7/01) “Palestinians seem more
radicalized, and their military resources are plainly far from exhausted.
Israel will thus have no choice but to ramp up economic blockades, increase
the intensity of its military strikes, and perhaps occupy more territory.”
(4/18/01) “The Palestinians have
made it plain they will not stop fighting until 100% of their demands have
been met.” (5/22/01) “Israel’s government
must now make unpalatable choices that promise no definite solution, and only
varying levels of grief. This is a
fact that ordinary Israelis are going to be forced to accept.” (4/18/01) “And until such time as
the Palestinian Authority is willing to accept a solution compatible with the
continued existence of a Jewish state, they can wait.” (2/7/01) Commentary: ·
The editorials
uniformly treat Palestinians and Arabs in a pejorative tone without considering
the nature of ‘their’ demands. 3.
Adopting the Israeli government’s position on the
recent conflict:
“This despite the fact
that Israeli soldiers have in the present crisis acted only defensively or
reactively…”(11/30/00) “They [Israelis] are
learning that Palestinian demands are non-negotiable, calling into question
the utility of negotiation…they are still fighting a war for independence.”
(11/30/00) “And there can be little
doubt that the war of attrition will continue so long as Israel restricts
itself to exactly the kind of ineffectual responses Mr. Arafat so badly wants
aired…” (3/29/01) “For while Israel easily
could put an end to Palestinian aggression, it is held back by the
consideration that such a move might prompt devastating Western
condemnation…” (5/22/01) “Far from being
reckless, its turns out that Mr. Sharon has been exceptionally prudent in his
conduct of the country’s leadership…” (6/4/01) “…there is a right and
wrong in this struggle, which at bottom is an attack on the West and on the
idea of democracy.” (8/2/01)
“No wonder it is so easy
for Mr. Arafat to mobilize bitter youths in these slums to throw rocks at
Israeli troops as cover for Arab snipers.” (12/27/00) “The President [Clinton] has also failed to
rebuke, much less punish, the Palestinians for building up their arsenal of
weapons vastly in excess of what Oslo allowed, one reason why the current
battle is so bloody.” (10/3/00) “Thus stone-throwing
children are sent to the front lines of gun battles with Israeli soldiers in
hopes they will be caught in the crossfire.” (3/29/01) “Arafat’s intransigence
at Camp David and his now undisputed role in sponsoring the second intifada
make clear that he has not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist.”
(4/18/01) “Why are Palestinians
pushing their children into harm’s way?” (5/22/01) “Forgetting the blind
eye the State Department has been turning to Palestinian violations of Oslo…”
(8/17/01) Commentary
·
These statements
ignore the numerous condemnations that Israel has received from various
human-rights group regarding its actions since September 2000. ·
There is no
exploration of what Palestinian ‘demands’ are, only rejection of them and
unfounded declarations that those objectives are non-negotiable. ·
Overall the
editorials simply adopt the Israeli government’s justification without
criticism. 5. Downplaying Sharon’s History “Ariel Sharon…[is] a far
more skillful politician…wants a peace deal as well…” (12/27/00) “Mr. Sharon has been
pressing his counterattack with a subtlety and shrewdness that has confounded
those who like to caricature him for the invasion of Lebanon.” (8/2/01) 6. Comments that display consideration
of Palestinians
“Thanks to the Arab
states and the U.N., these horrid camps have been maintained for a
half-century to preserve Arab claims to the land occupied by Israel.”
(12/27/00) “The pitiful Gaza Strip
residents, used by Arab states as political hostages for decades, have a per
capita GNP of only $1,000 a year, compared with $19,000 for Israeli Jews.”
(12/27/00) “One party in this
conflict came to find odious the task of occupying land acquired accidentally
in a defensive war; the other party, understandably, was sick of being
occupied.” (2/7/01) “The Palestinian
population is also filled with decent, educated people who also yearn for
peace.” (8/10/01) Commentary: ·
The above
statements are the only statements that have considered factors related to
Palestinian livelihood in the conflict.
However, they are often presented in the context of statements in
categories 1-5, and in the 12 months of editorial commentary of the conflict,
the above statements were among the only ones considering a non-Israeli view
of the conflict. V. Mentions of Aspects of Conflict
Key Points
VI. Conclusions
Between October 2000 and
October 2001, the Wall Street Journal editorials
(excluding guest opinion/editorial pieces) published 18 editorials on the
Middle East conflict, all of which explicitly advocated the Israeli
position. None of the editorials
considered the impact of the conflict on Palestinians; none of the editorials
considered facts or arguments that might have undermined their stance. While this overall conclusion should be
unsurprising to readers following the coverage of the conflict in the US
press (including readers and editors of the WSJ), this report (and accompanying media reports that have
chronicled similar systematic bias in other US papers) displays the selective
ignorance required to achieve such a bias. |