Here’s a link to a powerful article (in the Harvard/MIT journal International Security) on the tremendous damage done to the U.S. by faulty press coverage of Israel/Palestine, by Jerome Slater, a scholar at SUNY Buffalo. Apropos of my posts on the Camera conference, Slater says that the Israeli press has provided a true picture to its readers of the moral crisis that Israel is in due to the occupation while the American press has provided a "mythology." This mythology has had dangerous consequences: it has deeply affected our politics, made Americans think that Israel is the good guy and Palestinians are the bad guy, cast an unfair offer at Camp David (a "water-starved" state without the Muslim holy sites) as generous, and so sharply narrowed American policy choices, resulting in disaster for the U.S. in the Arab world.
Titled "Muting the Alarm Over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," the article’s deeper point is that the many prophetic voices in the Israeli press–generally leftwingers who have cried out against the horrors of the occupation–have served a vital political function there of ringing alarm bells. But they have been completely redlined out of the American discourse, so that we have little idea how desperate matters are. Slater specifically compares Haaretz and the New York Times, and notes that while editorial writers and Thomas Friedman routinely scored the settlements, they looked away from the larger rot:
Until recently…the Times was largely silent about the overall Israeli occupation—of which the settlements are but one manifestation—and it repeatedly downplayed the devastating consequences of the occupation on the Palestinians. The most important consequence, of course, has been the killing and wounding of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Beyond that are the political costs to the Palestinian people of being ruled by others, the psychological costs of the daily humiliation and harassment associated with the occupation, and, of course, the economic costs.
Slater’s article is further evidence of the Walt and Mearsheimer effect. Though no newcomer to this field, he owes some of his thinking re the Israel lobby to Walt and Mearsheimer, whose huge impact he acknowledges. Yet he also thinks that W&M went too far in the powers they ascribe to the lobby. I think Slater is unpersuasive here; and that for all the achievements of his moral/journalistic investigation, he is blind to the sociological/religious component of the lobby’s presence in American elite life. (Do you notice all the coverage of the Christian right on TV lately? What about the Jewish right? Zilch). Yet there is nothing defensive or obstructionist in Slater’s response to Walt and Mearsheimer. He has worked hard to expand our field of knowledge on a crucial issue. There is something breathtaking about an independent intellectual…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=916300&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
Rosner's Blog
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent www.haaretz.com/rosner Biography | Email me
Posted: October 23, 2007
Is Haaretz really better than the New York Times?
A new article by a distinguished professor claims that the NYT is not critical enough of Israel's policies in the occupied territories. His proof: Haaretz. His problem: ignorance
Here is a better, no login/registration required, link to the essay:
http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/17560/muting_the_alarm_over_the_israelipalestinian_conflict.html?breadcrumb=%2Fproject%2F58%2Fquarterly_journal%3Fparent_id%3D46
Richard Witty: Rosner is quite right wing and supports Giuliani and attacks on Iran and has argued that the Palestinians already have a state in Jordon.
Shmuel Rosner doesn't belong in Haaretz. It's not just his right-wing views, it's the mindless attitude that permeates his writing that expects the United States to unconditionally support Israel. I'm shocked that he hasn't been hired by the Jerusalem Post.
By the way, Phil doesn't do full justice to Slater's discussion of Walt-Mearsheimer. He points out that there are many factors that influence America's pro-Israel policy – a historic sense of Christian guilt; Israel's capturing of the American imagination; cultural affinities between the United States & Israel, which is seen as part of the West; the post-9/11 perception that Israel is a useful ally in the war against Islamic radicalism (I think Slater would agree with M/W that this perception is factually dubious, but, subjectively, it exists). Slater's point is not that the Israel lobby is unimportant, but that there's a convergage between the Lobby & these historic factors that makes the United States so pro-Israel
This is Slater writes: "It is thus the remarkable convergence of felt moral obligations, political and cultural afªnities, religious beliefs and identications, perceived common or parallel national interests, economic power, and domestic politics that accounts for the nearly unconditional support that Israel has enjoyed in the United States in general."
I read both the New York Times and Haaretz daily.
I find that relying on either solely or even primarily, gives me an incomplete view.
Rosner's point was that the reason that there is more diversity in Haaretz about perspectives on Israeli policies and Palestine is that it is closer to it.
Are there Palestinian newspapers that you find reliable?
I also read European papers daily, but they also often contain much of their local news, and its occassionally hard to distinguish between the European flavor of selection if not ignorance, and the American.
I like the Christian Science Monitor (often very critical of Israel). I also like the New York Times. They're an establishment newspaper, writing for an audience of busy movers and shakers, people in some degree of power or responsibility.
Their orientation is to their readership, but at least they are accountable, and their readership is generally bright,urban, and not particularly gullible.
Witty wrote: "Are there Palestinian newspapers that you find reliable?"
The Palestine Times was pretty good until it ran out of funds. The Palestinian economy is so dead that no money can be made from the advertising running in one (at least in English.)
There are two newspapers called the Palestine Times. I am referring to the one described in this Wikipedia article that has since ceased publication due to lack of funds, not the one published monthly in London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Times
I think another issue that should be discussed in this venue is the rampant corruption in Israel. Olmert is under investigation for fraud. Former President Katsav had to resign charged with rape. The head of the IDF sold all his shares before invading Lebanon… It goes on and on. Sleeze on this level is significant when held up along side the occupation and the relationship with the USA.
Before Americans praise the Israeli press too much, they should read "The Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising" by Daniel Dor.
There are often material differences between stories that appear in English language and Hebrew language editions of the same story if the original is ever translated.
And I have noticed an ongoing tendency to revise the language.
When I first started to work in the Occupied Territories, genocide was hashmadat am (a less strict definition), by the time the project was abandoned genocide was retzah am (a much stricter definition), and Haaretz had an article that argued that Palestinians constituted and occupied ukhlasiyah (population) and not an am (people, folk). It was in my opinion the sort of thing that could have been found in "Das Schwarze Korps," but one would have to understood in detail both Hebrew and German Nazi discourse to grasp the true meaning of the text.
Israeli discourse is highly controlled, but the control parameters are different from those in the USA, and understanding the Hebrew newspaper text often requires a degree of understanding of Modern Israeli Hebrew nuance that can in general only be obtained by going through the Israeli government Hebrew school system.
By the way hafradah as in separation fence (geder hafradah) has changed in its meaning space as well. When I first started to work in Israel, it was the normal translation or definition of Apartheid. Nowadays Hebrew writers use Apartheid for Apartheid while Hafradah is invariably translated into English as separation.
A perhaps relevant book:
'Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East', by Richard Falk and Howard Friel.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-Record-Misreports-Conflict-Middle/dp/1844671097
Haven't read it yet myself, but I've heard good things about it.
BTW, Richard Silverstein recently posted this link to an interesting lecture by Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz–
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=209509&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
More AIPAC at James Fallows' blog, in fact a Commentary-Fallows spat:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/now_this_truly_amazes_me_comme.php
Thanks David for pointing out that Haaretz essay, it was informative.
Phil – Read this – this is in the Jerusalem Post – Imagine this appearing in the Washington Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626043&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"Do you notice all the coverage of the Christian right on TV lately? What about the Jewish right? Zilch"
Well, Christianne Amanpour took a stab at it on CNN and got nothing but abuse for it — from both left and right. Yet for CNN, it was pretty brave.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=917003&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=2#article917003
The voice of the old Bush
…The new Bush is going to Annapolis, but the voice of the old Bush is issuing from the mouths of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, and in effect from all the top-shelf Republican candidates with the exception of Senator John McCain of Arizona. His position is similar to Bush's, and perhaps even more similar to that of Senator Hillary Clinton of New York….
This is huge, and it needs wide distribution:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html
This really destroys the case for attacking Iran.
Definitely an important voice, though not the slam-dunk that you imply.
Livni does not regard Iran as benign, and the article did not describe in what context she considers the Iranian prospect of nuclear arms to not be a threat.
The headline is catchy though.
Its hard to know what she actually stated, to whom, and why it is not being stated overtly and consistently now.
Oh Richard you are becoming too transparent. If your lust for Persian blood is so great, maybe you should pull your boys out of the IDF and put them in the American air force?
Besides the war profiteering and territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinians and Lebanese, is there anything in spilling Persian blood for us, the average American? Does Persian blood smooth the skin and erase wrinkles? If I drink some every day will I live to 100? Does it matter if the blood comes from babies, grandmothers, or soldiers?
Explain to us, please, dear Richard, why Persian blood is so much better than Iraqi. The market has become saturated with the latter and we may need to make the hard sell.
That was a bit of a projection MM.
I wish that the headline of Livni's comments in a private conversation three months ago, stated out of context, were generally true.
I'm not confident of it.
I've never proposed bombing or invading Iran, so if you wish to put those inferences on my words, you MISREPRESENT.
I don't know why you would do that.
Richard, the headline of the article in reference, and the headline of the article that Haaretz recommends right below it, state everything one must know about Israel and about the way the U.S. and its entourage conduct foreign affairs: say one thing behind closed doors, and another thing to the media (the people).
Livni knows full well that nuclear Iran won't strike Israel, just as you do. But you both rattle your sabors and talk about the Iranian threat.
I don't know why you would do that. (Unless you have an interest in Eretz Israel, possible once the region is free of those pesky Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups.)
Interesting Rosa Brooks has written an article in the Los Angeles Times calling Bush clinically insane and it looks like the piece has been pulled by the editors. There is a link:
link to latimes.com
/>
but when you get to there, there is no there there. It was online earlier as there are blog quotes from it. Looks like the paper has lost its nerve.
I found the Brooks column at link to latimes.com
.
Has the content been changed?
MM,
So why would you misrepresent my comments?
Have you ever heard me advocate for any military action against Iran?
There are MANY options as to how to address a potential threat to friend, short of military.
While press prophets provides profits, the ads advisor administers a damnation.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1525686433&size=o
Phil, I can't thank you enough for drawing attention to this brilliant article by Jerome Slater. I'm only halfway through it but I just had to stop for a moment and say thanks. For those of us who read Ha'aretz and NYT regularly, it expresses everything we've been feeling — and more. Reading the article makes me experience all the resentment that has built up in me over these past few years, resentment that has made me question my long-standing support for the Israeli project. If Bush were smart (too bad he isn't), he'd take advantage of the fact that the wheels are coming off the Lobby and use this time to create a legacy that would be the envy of every president who's sought to make his mark by doing something positive about the disgraceful Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I wish I could put a copy of this article in the hands of every North American — including and especially every reporter and columnist in the MSM.