U.S. diplomacy and journalism on the Arab-Israel conflict

A.P. photo/ Ariel Hermoney -- Barak, one hand approves, another rejects

How realistic and fair are U.S. diplomacy and reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict?

Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports that Israel’s Defense Min. Barak has approved building 28 public and educational institutions in Jewish “settlements” in the “West Bank.”  He ordered a temporary freeze of other Jewish construction there.  The freeze does not apply to Jerusalem.  “Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of the city; the “Palestinians” want the eastern part as the capital of a future state  (11/28, A5).

The U.S. asked Israel for a complete freeze and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to “crack down on anti-Israel violence” and the Arab states to somewhat normalize relations with Israel.  The Arab states refused.  Israel offered a partial freeze, more than any predecessor had offered, but less than Pres. Obama wished, and Abbas rejected the Israeli compromise.  The opportunity to restart negotiations was lost.  “At some point, extremists will try to provoke another war…”  (Ed., 11/28.)

The framework of those presentations is slanted to obscure Israel’s high legal and ethical position, the Arabs low position, and U.S. Executive branch exceeding its jurisdiction.  One method of injecting bias is the terminology devised to make the Arabs seem justified in their demands:

(1) “Settlements,” for Jews building in their historical homeland in an area that the Palestine Mandate reserved for them, including in their own capital, and not calling Arab construction “settlements. 

(2) “West Bank,” a term coined after Jordan seized Judea and Samaria, as those provinces have been known for thousands of years and still are officially named.  This is another attempt to de-Judaize them;

(3) “Palestinians,” coined for certain Arabs in a pretense of their having a nationality which notion they had rejected in my lifetime, until they found it expedient.  This follows the Roman re-naming of the Jewish country, so as to de-Judaize it, but in this case, to give Arabs more of a national claim there;     

(4) “Extremists,” a flexibly applied word that seems to cover both sides, but Jews never provoked wars in modern times, the Arabs did.  Unstated by the Times is the news I reported that the P.A. is planning its third Intifada.

In another omission of what might lend truer perspective, Ms. Kershner ignored Israeli complaints that the public approval for more schools in Judea-Samaria was of an early stage in a series of approval steps, but that Min. Barak already had denied the next stage.  These figures are misrepresented for domestic politics.

Israel doesn’t just claim sovereignty over its whole capital, it has it, via annexation through a normal process.  That the international lynch mob disapproves does not make truth.  To mention what Arabs want of Jerusalem as if on a par with it actually being Israel’s capital, is an attempt to equate what is not of equal right or entitlement.  This is a similar technique to using those loaded terms mentioned earlier.

Nor is it candid to refer to the Arabs wanting eastern Jerusalem.  By covenants, maps, school and TV presentation, Islamist ideology, and Arafat’s phased plan for the conquest of Israel, the Arabs signify their intent to take over all of Jerusalem and of Israel.  Is the New York Times assisting the Arabs’ next phase?

Notice that the Times referred to Israel and the Arab states not meeting Pres. Obama’s requests, but did not refer to the P.A. not meeting it.  The newspaper puts it as the P.A. is supposed to “crack down on anti-Israel violence.”  That is disingenuous, being incorrect and vague enough to allow claims that the P.A. fulfilled its obligation.   The Oslo Accords, which have a legal basis, and the Road Map, which is advisory, both state that the P.A. must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.  Oslo does not require a building freeze.  The Road Map suggests one after P.A. action.  As many of my articles show, the P.A. has not done that. 

Instead, the P.A. raised a new demand, the freeze, as a pre-condition for negotiation.  If U.S. diplomacy and media reporting were fair, they would admit that the onus for non-negotiation is on the Arabs.  (Not that I expect negotiation to bring peace with Arabs who use diplomacy to pursue Arafat’s phased plan for the conquest of Israel).  And some of the onus is on Pres. Obama, whose suggestion for Israel facilitated making it an Arab pre-condition for negotiating.

Both U.S. diplomats and the Times make another false equivalency between the Arabs and Israel, in suggesting that both sides need to prove good faith before negotiation.  The Arabs walked out of earlier negotiations, refused to negotiate, and set pre-conditions for it.  Israel long has been willing to negotiate and without pre-conditions.  That shows which side demonstrates bad faith.  The New York Times reportage demonstrates advocacy journalism, in which it steers, rather than informs, the public.