http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0423-02.htm
Biased Coverage of Israel Prolongs Conflict
By Salim Muwakkil
The Chicago Tribune
Monday, April 23, 2001
Wall Street may have lost its irrational exuberance about the Internet
and its miraculous properties, but I haven't. As a research tool,
it's still too good to be true. My cyberspace connection gives me
access to a remarkable range of publications from many spots on the
globe. And while much of the news content is similar to that found in
the U.S., the difference in emphasis is striking.
One of the more salient differences concerns coverage of the Mideast,
particularly the treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By
comparing other countries' coverage of the turmoil to that of the U.S.
media, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that our media are skewed in
Israel's favor.
Seldom do we read stories like the one published in Israel's Ha'aretz
newspaper that graphically detailed the routine brutality of Israeli
soldiers in occupied territories. Nor are we likely to read accounts
of a growing rebellion of reserve soldiers against Israeli military
service in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that appeared in both
England's Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post.
American publications rarely make serious efforts to get beyond the
formulaic coverage that portrays Israel as a beleaguered democracy
valiantly fighting off evil, anti-Semitic terrorists. There is another
perspective of the struggle that casts Palestinians as valiant
anti-colonialists fighting a legitimate struggle against illegal
occupation of their land by imperialist forces.
This latter view calls into question the priorities of U.S. foreign
policy, however, and is seldom highlighted in American media.
Publications from other, particularly European, countries provide
coverage that is more textured and contextual--often portraying
Palestinians as anti-colonialists.
But since U.S. opinion is so critical to Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians, American media's one-dimensional coverage is coming
under increasing criticism. Our relentless pro-Israel slant serves to
prolong the conflict, critics say.
Robert Fisk, one of Britain's most highly decorated foreign
correspondents, recently issued a call in the U.S. for more
"courageous" media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fisk
is a Beirut-based writer for the London Independent and has received
the British International Journalist of the Year award seven times. He
has been reporting from a number of the globe's hot spots for 30
years, but his primary focus has been on the Middle East. He argues
that journalists who fail to note the colonial character of Israel's
illegal occupation improperly frame the conflict and do a disservice
to those who depend on them for accurate information. By ignoring this
context, Fisk contends, journalists are giving sustenance to a system
that virtually is identical to the regime of apartheid South Africa.
"There's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army
in the occupied territories and that of the South African police," he
wrote in the April 17 edition of the Independent. "The apartheid
regime had death squads, just as Israel has today."
Where, he asks, are the U.S. journalists who will point out these
parallels? Even if the South Africa-Israel analogy is false, there are
enough similarities between the two systems at least to provoke a
serious media discussion of Israel's exclusionist policies. How, for
example, can Israel be "democratic" when it refuses certain rights to
its Arab citizens? But, Fisk laments, "our gutlessness, our refusal to
tell the truth, our fear of being slandered as `anti-Semites' . . .
means that we are aiding and abetting terrible deeds in the Middle
East."
In their zeal to provide coverage compatible with U.S. policy, the
American media ignore Mideast realities. "No matter how many youths
are shot dead by the Israelis, no matter how many murders--by either
side--and no matter how bloody the reputation of the Israeli prime
minister, we are reporting this terrible conflict as if we supported
the South African whites against the blacks."
Syndicated columnist Norman Solomon is one U.S. journalist who
concurs with Fisk's assessment. " . . .The Reporting on the
Israeli-Palestinian cycle of violence is badly skewed by an endless
cycle of media bias." Solomon writes that this bias is enforced
through a "not-so-secret weapon" that is brandished as a pre-emptive
threat: the charge of anti-Semitism. "Any Americans who speak out
against Israel's extreme disregard for human rights are liable to be
in the line of fire."
The prejudices condemned by Fisk and Solomon are more easily seen from
cyberspace, that remarkable realm where information can sometimes
escape the biased assumptions of its sponsors.
Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times
Copyright 2001 Chicago Tribune
