• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
One week reading the mouthpieces of Israel and PalestineBy Christopher HaynesWritten for menso.wordpress.com, the Menso Guide to War, from 09/6/09 to 16/6/09Since the media play such a large role in our perceptions of the world, and our  perceptions influence our opinions, and our opinions feed conflict, I have decided to readleading Israeli and Palestinian newspapers to try to make sense of the perspectives of the protagonists of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have decided to read several newspapersevery day for one week to get a decent balance of opinions and baises. I am mostlyinterested in news related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and learning local perspectives on it, although any more about the newspapers that could be relevant I willtry to take note of.I realise that there is more to the conflict than newspapers report, and that there are (or atleast, should be) more opinions than there are writers, but newspaper readers do notalways bear this in mind. I also realise that seven days is not long enough to get morethan a superficial understanding of the way people think. Nonetheless, it may be enoughtime to understand how a
newspaper 
thinks. I doubt I will learn any “true” history, but Ido expect to understand the purported grievances of the two sides of this endlessconfrontation. Over this week, I expect to become frustrated and tired, but that is thenature of resolving conflicts.Day 1The Palestine ChronicleThe leader is called “How much really separates Obama and Netanyahu?” Jennifer Loewenstein from the University of Wisconsin-Madison writes that the term “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” implies that both sides have equally reasonable grievances, and thatthis is why finding a fair resolution is so difficult. People who believe this have been, shesays, deeply indoctrinated.Loewenstein uses more charged language throughout her story. She calls the US andIsrael’s approaches to Palestinian statehood, with reference to a 1976 UN SecurityCouncil resolution recognising national rights for Palestine (which, incidentally, I couldnot find onthis page
 
), “rejectionist”. She calls Barack’s speech in Cairo “patronising”and “obsequious”. She says he supports “a depraved Holocaust industry”. And she all butaccuses him of a cynical approach to the two-state solution because he knows Bibi willreject it.The writer reminds us of the grievances of the Palestinians. She writes of the hypocrisy of condemning violence by Hamas when war in Gaza earlier this year was far deadlier. Andshe uses pathos to great effect, filling the readers head with images of children in Gaza,“[t]he rocketing, fire-bombing and bulldozing of entire neighbourhoods”, and asking whyObama failed to chastise Israel for attacking “hospitals, schools, ambulances, UN buildings and shelters, food warehouses, businesses, factories and family homes”. In theend, she says, Barack has told Bibi exactly what he wanted to hear.
 
Other articles are lighter on Barack. Several articles that claimed to be about Barack’sspeech were really just historical analyses of the inherently hawkish Israeli state and itsactions against Palestine. One said that the speech was encouraging, but it showed the president was not willing to go far enough. It was, he wrote, more of the same. Another article even praised him for bringing his country into the 21
st
century and well away fromthe policies of the Bush administration.The Chronicle website even had a picture of Ehud Olmert with the words “most corrupt”above it. The link took you to a story on Transparency International and corruption in theIsraeli state. However, the article did seem to twist the facts to make them sound as if theIsraeli government was hopelessly riddled with corruption, when what it really said wasthat 86% of Israelis said that the government’s fight against corruption was ineffective.That is not a sign of corruption, but of public perception. I wonder how many newspapersknow the difference between fact and opinion.The Jerusalem PostThe main editorial in today’s Post is called “Why Obama is wrong about Israel and theShoah”. It comments on Barack’s trip to the Buchenwald concentration camp, and hisstatement “[t]he nation of Israel [arose] out of the destruction of the Holocaust,” and hisnext, that “it is also undeniable that the Palestinians… have suffered in pursuit of ahomeland.”The editorial corrects Barack’s mistake immediately. “Barack Obama has been terriblymisinformed if he thinks Israel's legitimacy hinges on the Shoah.” (The Shoah is theHebrew word favourable to some people to “Holocaust”.) “What the Holocaust
 proved 
isthat the world is too dangerous a place for Jews to be stateless and defenseless.”The writer continues by citing the historical precedents for a Jewish state in Israel, since“long before Christianity and Islam appeared”. And yet, he says, if the US presidentcontinues to call Israel the state created to atone for Nazi genocide, Arabs will never accept the Jews’ three thousand year old claim to the soil, and peace will never come.While the Palestine Chronicle only had stories on Israel, Palestine, the US and theLebanese elections, the Jerusalem Post writes on business, politics, science, health andsports. That said, it is clear that the focus of the paper is on the same issues as theChronicle. It is clear that everyone considers the Israel-Palestine questions central to thenews of the region; it is equally apparent, however, that few are willing to admit their side has done anything wrong.An article on NGO fact-finding missions in Gaza dismisses the NGOs’ reports out of hand. One might be tempted to dismiss the article in the same way, though it proceeds tomake a good point about bias. According to the article, 500 NGO statements werereleased condemning the three-week war in Gaza in January 2009. During the same period, “less than six” (so five?) NGO statements condemned the violence ragingsimultaneously in the Congo. That said, this article sets the tone for any number of 
 
similar articles in the future, articles that reject all organisations investigating the war inGaza that find facts Israelis do not like.A lot was also in today’s Post about the defeat of Hezbollah in the Lebanese elections,mentioning its violent past and sidestepping the fact that these elections were peaceful.“Israel cautiously hopeful on Lebanon”, said one headline, while another quotedHizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah as saying “Hizbullah will fight Israel”. Itseems to have no desire to conceal its confrontational ideology, with one article on theBarack administration’s loyalty to Israel titled “Which side are they on?”, one headlineasking “Are Jews ready for Obama?” and a third, related article, “What’s best for theJews”.The Palestine TimesThe Palestine Times is based in London. The first headline reads “Last-ditch effort to endrift between Hamas and Fatah” at the talks in Cairo aimed at ending the violent rivalry between the two political factions representing the Palestinian people. It quickly blamesthe US for backing “Fatah security lords” trying to overthrow Hamas in Gaza andsurrender to Israel.The article quotes various Palestinian leaders as desiring a national unity government toconfront Israel. Highly contentious, however, is the matter of recognising Israel, whichcould lead the talks into deadlock. Curiously, at the end of the article, there is a seemingly perfunctory note that the “Israeli occupation army arrested hundreds of suspected political activists in the West Bank in recent weeks.” While I was scratching my headwondering what that had to do with Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, the next paragraph madeit slightly clearer. “Israel is holding thousands of Palestinian activists and political leadershostage in concentration camps all over occupied Palestine, mainly as a pressure tactic toforce Hamas to capitulate to the Zionist regime.”Some of the other leading articles are regarding Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. In a tone of slight accusation, Fatah is implied to be pro-Western, corrupt and less representative of the Palestinian people than Hamas. Abbas is shown as a divisive figure, even within his party. This may, of course, be common knowledge in Palestine.The first article in the “articles” section is about a massacre in 1948 by the Haganaattacked the village of a man who is still alive to talk about it. It cites the first Israeliminister of agriculture, Aharon Zisling, as having said of its brutality that “Jews, too,have committed Nazi acts.” The man who witnessed it all recalls all the brutal details,none of which are spared the reader. The whole article was written from an interviewwith one man, aged nearly 100.The second headline reads “Freed Palestinian woman speaks of ‘horrific mistreatment’ inIsraeli jails”. The third spits bitter poison as it outlines UN Security Council resolutions(one from 60 years ago) regarding Israeli occupation and continually addresses theQuartet (the US, the EU, Russia and the UN) as one might rap another’s head to wakehim up. And as with the Palestinian Chronicle, the Times details the brutal existence of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...