In times of crisis, many policymakers and journalists pay special
attention to the editorializing from America's most influential papers.
The spin of news coverage and the mix of individual opinion pieces
usually indicate the outlooks of the media establishment, but the
editorials by powerhouse newspapers convey more direct messages.
The spin of news coverage and the mix of individual opinion pieces
usually indicate the outlooks of the media establishment, but the
editorials by powerhouse newspapers convey more direct messages.
With carnage a daily reality in Israel and the West Bank, some
editorials have been entirely predictable. The Wall Street Journal, true
to ideological form, applauds Israel's iron fist and urges the White
House to stand firm behind Israeli leaders. In contrast, more refined
Washington Post and New York Times editorials tell us a lot about common
U.S. media reactions.
For editorial writers at the Post and the Times, an
incontrovertible fact is that Yasser Arafat must be held responsible for
the suicide bombings of recent weeks. "It cannot be forgotten that Mr.
Arafat refused to take serious action to stop a sickening wave of
suicide bombings against Israel, and that Israel has a right to
self-defense," a Post editorial proclaimed on April 3.
Countless other commentaries also echo officials in Washington. Few
have any use for a point that Zbigniew Brzezinski made on the PBS
"NewsHour" as this month began. "It's absolute hypocrisy to be claiming
that Arafat can put a stop to the terrorism," the former national
security adviser said. "And it's -- let's put it mildly -- poor
information on the part of the president to be maintaining that. This
guy (Arafat) is sitting isolated. Sharon is trying to repress the
Palestinians and terrorism is not stopping. How is Arafat supposed to
put a stop to it?"
Typically, both the Post and the Times fixate on the strategic
efficacy of the Israeli military offensive rather than its flagrant
illegality and fierce cruelty. "Like Mr. Sharon's previous attempt to
destroy Palestinian national aspirations through an invasion of Lebanon,
this strategy is doomed to failure," the Post editorialized. A day
earlier, the Times had clucked that Sharon mistakenly "seems determined
to end terrorism by military means alone."
The Times could not resist clanging a timeworn bell about
terrorists who "aim to drive Israel and its Jewish inhabitants straight
into the sea." Such hyper-rhetoric punches old emotional buttons. (Cue
Hollywood's "Exodus.") But as Michael Lerner, an activist American
rabbi, observed days ago in an open letter, "Israel is in no danger of
going out of existence -- it is the fourth largest military power in the
world, and it faces a Palestinian people who have no tanks, no
airplanes, no heavy artillery." Lerner was cogent: "Let us be clear that
Israel is using its power today to preserve the occupation, not to
preserve its safety."
While quite properly calling for an immediate halt to the
horrendous suicide bombings, New York Times editorials are notably
patient and rather equivocal about bringing an end to Israel's
occupation. In the first paragraph of a March 30 editorial, the Times
recommended "a commitment to withdraw from occupied lands." In the
closing paragraph, the newspaper declared: "Israel must make clear that
it recognizes the need to relinquish the bulk of the territories it took
in 1967."
Translation: Even at this late and bloody date, the New York Times
can't bring itself to forthrightly call for an immediate and total end
to the occupation. Instead, the paper resorts to ambiguity; Israel
should recognize the need to leave "the bulk of the territories." If a
foreign power had been occupying your home for 35 years, how would you
feel about the idea that it should "recognize the need" to leave most of
it -- merely remaining in control of, say, all the hallways and doors?
Most editorial writers seem determined to detour around obvious
parallels with apartheid-era South Africa. Evasions and apologetics for
basic elements of Israel's policies dominate so much of the U.S. media
landscape that insightful comments by Brzezinski were conspicuous: "The
Israelis are becoming increasingly like the white supremacist South
Africans, viewing the Palestinians as a lower form of life, not
hesitating to kill a great many of them."
Parrot-like, highly selective media use of the "terrorism" label is
providing top U.S. and Israeli officials with invaluable propaganda
cover. Meanwhile, Brzezinski has it right: "You cannot define the loss
of human life in terms of the number of Israelis killed by brutal,
savage, inexcusable Palestinian terror. And it does take place. The fact
of the matter is that three times as many Palestinians have been killed,
and a relatively small number of them were really militants. Most were
civilians. Some hundreds of children."
The New York Times ended an April 3 editorial with this sentence:
"Only the most bankrupt leadership -- spiritually, intellectually and
politically -- allows this macabre, self-delusional act of ruin to pass
without anguished condemnation." Those words referred to a recent
suicide bombing. But they also apply to the U.S. government and major
media outlets continuing to wink and nod while the Israeli military
slaughters Palestinian people.
_______________________________________________
Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
His syndicated column focuses on media and politics.
_______________________________________________
Background link:
www.tikkun.org