The
Greatest Story Never Told
By Stephen Lendman
13 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
No
issue is more sensitive in the US than daring to criticize Israel. It's
the metaphorical "third rail" in American politics, academia
and the major media. Anyone daring to touch it pays dearly as the few
who tried learned. Those in elected office face an onslaught of attacks
and efforts to replace them with more supportive officials. Former five
term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney felt its sting twice in 2002 and
2006. So did 10 term Congressman Paul Findley (a fierce and courageous
Israeli critic) in 1982 and three term Senator Charles Percy in 1984
whom AIPAC targeted merely for appearing to support anti-Israeli policy.
DePaul University Professor
Norman Finkelstein has long been a target as well for his courageous
writing and outspokenness. Depaul formally denied him tenure June 8
even though his students call him "truly outstanding and among
the most impressive" of all university political science professors.
It's why his Department of Political Science endorsed his tenure bid
stating his academic record "exceeds our department's stated standards
for scholarly production (and) department and outside experts we consulted
recognize the intellectual merits of his work."
It didn't help, and on August
26 got worse. The university acknowledged "Professor Finkelstein
is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher." Yet it issued
a brief statement canceling his classes and placing him on administrative
leave "with full pay and benefits for the 2007-8 academic year
(that) relieves professors from their teaching responsibilities."
For now, Finkelstein's long struggle with the university ended the first
day of classes, September 5. Both sides agreed to a settlement, and
a planned day of protests was curtailed. But as Chicago Tribune writer
Ron Grossman put it in his September 6 column headlined "Finkelstein
deal ends DePaul tiff....the underlying struggle between supporters
of Israel and champions (like Finkelstein) of the Palestinians continues,
not just at the North Side campus but across the academic world."
That struggle is nowhere
in sight in the dominant media that includes major print publications,
commercial radio, television and so-called Public Broadcasting and National
Public Radio both of which long ago abandoned the public trust in service
to their corporate and government paymasters.
In all parts of the major
media, no Israeli criticism is tolerated on-air or in print, and any
reporter, news anchor, pundit or on-air guest forgetting the (unwritten)
rules, won't get a second chance. Support for Israel is ironclad, absolute,
and uncompromising on everything including its worst crimes of war and
against humanity. Open debate is stifled, and anyone daring to dissent
or demur is pilloried, ridiculed, called anti-semetic, even threatened,
ostracized, and finally ignored. In his seminal work on Middle East
affairs, "Fateful Triangle," Noam Chomsky put it this way:
"....Israel has been granted a unique immunity from criticism in
mainstream journalism and scholarship...."
Call it the myth of the free
press in a nation claiming to have the freest of all. It's pure fantasy
now and in an earlier era, journalist A.J Liebling said it was only
for "those who own(ed) one." Today, they're giants operating
the way Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explained in their classic book
on the media titled "Manufacturing Consent." The authors developed
their "propaganda model" to show all news and information
passes through a set of "filters." "Raw material"
goes through them, unacceptable parts are suppressed, and "only
the cleansed residue fit to print (and broadcast on-air)" reaches
the public. The New York Times calls it "All The News That's Fit
to Print." By its standard, it means sanitized news only leaving
out the most important parts and what readers want most - the full truth
and nothing else.
The same goes for the rest
of the dominant media that serve as collective national thought control
police gatekeepers "filtering" everything we read, see and
hear. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, and
effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy
democracy. In America, that's nowhere in sight.
The problem is most acute
in reporting on Israel. Criticism of the Jewish state is stifled in
an effort to portray it as a model democracy, the only one in the region,
and surrounded by hostile Palestinians, other Arab/Muslim extremists
and whoever else Israel cites as a threat, real or contrived. The truth
is quite opposite but absent from corporate-controlled media spaces.
How "The Newspaper
of Record" Reports on Israel
This article focuses mainly
on the media's lead and most influential voice, The New York Times.
It's been around since 1851 when it quietly debuted saying "....we
intend to (publish) every morning (except Sundays) for an indefinite
number of years to come." Today, it's the pillar of the corporate
media and main instrument of fake news making it the closest thing in
the country to an official ministry of information and propaganda. But
here's the Times 1997 Proxy Statement quote media critic Edward Herman
used in his April, 1998 Z Magazine article titled "All The News
Fit to Print (Part I)." Its management then (and now) claimed The
Times to be "an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free
of ulterior influence and unselfishly devoted to the public welfare."
It leaves one breathless and demands an earlier used quote - "phew."
No media source anywhere
has more clout than the Times, none manipulates the public mind more
effectively, and where it goes, others follow. It's most visible supporting
all things corporate, foreign wars of aggression, and everything favoring
Israel it views one way. That's the focus below - how the New York Times
plays the lead cheerleading role for Israel even when its actions are
unjustifiable, unconscionable and criminal.
Freelance journalist Alison
Weir founded "If Americans Knew" as an "independent research
and information-dissemination institute (to provide) every American
(what he or she) needs to know about Israel/Palestine." That includes
"inform(ing) and educat(ing) the American public on issues of major
significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the
American media." Below is an account of her in-depth study of how
the New York Times betrays its readers by distorting its coverage on
Israel.
It was in her April 24, 2005
article called "New York Times Distortion Up Close and Personal."
It drew on the findings from her 23-page report, and 40 pages of supportive
data, titled "Off the Charts - Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine
(by) The New York Times." To be as objective as possible, the study
"count(ed) the deaths reported on both sides of the (Israeli-Palestinian)
conflict, and then compare(d) these to the actual number....that had
occurred." The findings showed a "startling disparity....depending
on the ethnicity of the victim(s)."
The study covered two periods.
The first was from the September 29, 2000 beginning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque
(or second) Intifada (ignited by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to
the Temple Mount Al-Aqsa Mosque site) through September 28, 2001. The
second ran from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. Deaths counted
were only those resulting from Israeli - Palestinian confrontations.
The first study showed the
New York Times reported 2.8 times the number of Israeli deaths to Palestinian
ones when, in fact, three times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis.
In the second one, the ratio increased to 3.6 adding further distortion
to the coverage. Reporting children's deaths was even more skewed, coming
in at a ratio of 6.8 for Israeli children compared to Palestinian ones
and then at 7.3 in the later study. The latter ratio is particularly
startling since 22 times more Palestinian children were killed, in fact,
than Israelis in 2004 according to B'Tselem - the Israeli Information
Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Terroritories. The Times simply
ignored them.
In all its reporting in both
periods, the Times distorted the facts egregiously. It highlighted Israeli
deaths by headlining and repeating them. In contrast, there was silence
on most Palestinian ones. The impression given was that more Jews died
than Arabs or at times the numbers were equal on both sides. Most often,
they weren't even close.
It was startling to learn
that Israeli and other human rights groups documented 82 Palestinian
children killed at the Intifada's outset (most by "gunfire to the
head" indicating deliberate targeting) before a single Israeli
child died. The Times willfully ignored this in its coverage the same
way it obsessed last summer over Hamas' capture of a single Israeli
soldier while ignoring around 12,000 Palestinian men, women and children
political detainees held by Israelis illegally. For the Times, they're
non-persons, but everyone in Israel and many outside it know that soldier's
name and still do.
Weir calls this coverage
a "highly disturbing pattern of bias." She presented her findings
("complete with charts, spread-sheets, clear sourcing, and extensive
additional documentation") to the Times' Public Editor, Daniel
Okrent, in a face-to-face meeting, but came away disappointed. It was
because of a 1762-word column Okrent wrote in response. It ignored or
misrepresented the facts, was unconcerned that most Times reporters
covering Israel/Palestine are Jewish, all live inside Israel, and the
paper claimed it's impossible finding "sufficient numbers of high
quality journalists of Muslim or Arab heritage to work on this issue."
It is when you don't look.
Yet, it's worth noting what
Weir believes was a "personal confession" in a single line.
Okrent may have slipped up saying: "I don't think any of us (at
the Times) can be objective about our own claimed objectivity."
Confession or not, it led to no change in the Times' reporting.
Weir updated her report to
include Palestinian children's deaths in 2004 and 2005 from documented
information on the "Remember These Children" web site. It
uses Israeli and other human rights organizations' sources with these
findings through June, 2007:
-- 118 Israeli children under
18 years years of age killed compared to 973 Palestinian youths, most
shot in the head or chest indicating deliberate targeting by Israeli
soldiers. This information never appears in Times' reports.
Instead, The Times "marginalizes
Palestinian women and Palestinian rights" according to a November
17, 2006 Electronic Intifada (EI) report. Its authors (Patrick O'Connor
and Rachel Roberts) state: "The New York Times pays little attention
to human rights in Israel/Palestine, downplays....violence against Palestinian
women and generally silences (their) voices."
Since the second Intifada
began, B'Tselem, Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW)
published 76 reports documenting Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights
and four others on Palestinian violations against Israelis or other
Palestinians. The Times, however, wrote only four articles on them all
- two on Israeli abuses and two others on what Palestinians did suggesting
both sides shared equal guilt.
Three other Times articles
on the conflict focused on a Human Rights Watch report criticizing Palestinian
suicide bombings, another HRW one on Israeli actions in Jenin in 2002,
and a B'Tselem report on the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) exoneration
of soldiers for killing a Palestinian child. The Times also published
one article criticizing Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon and one other one
critical of Hezbollah during that conflict. It's the Times' idea of
fairness and balance, that distorts facts, ignores truth, and in every
instance betrays its readers.
EI's writers refer to thousands
of New York Times articles on Israel/Palestine since the second Intifada
began September 29, 2000. Yet in them all, it "quoted, cited or
paraphrased just 4187 words....from human rights organizations in 62
articles, snippets (only) averaging just 69 words per article."
In the same articles, far more space was given to Israeli government
denials even when clear evidence proved them false.
Other research shows The
New York Times op ed page marginalizes Palestinian voices and completely
shuts out its women who are portrayed as passive, docile and at the
mercy of men. Readers aren't told they "balance their dual commitment
to the national (and feminist) struggle(s)" by courageously leading
the fight against domestic and Israeli violence in the Occupied Territories.
The Times also ignores Amnesty International's emphasis on the occupation's
harmful effects on women in detention centers and from "military
checkpoints, blockades and curfews" even though they cause sick
and pregnant women to die for lack of aid.
It's part of the same pattern
of selective disclosure and distortion so readers don't know what's
happening and are led to believe victims are the victimizers. Facts
are ignored, international law is unmentioned and reporting "contributes
to the dangerous pattern of Western disparagement of Muslim society,"
made easy post-9/11.
EI sums up its article stating
"If the Times cared about human rights in Israel/Palestine, (balanced
reporting, and) valued independent third party perspectives, (it) would
have published more than 6256 (total) words....of major human rights
organizations (reports) in its thousands of articles" for the past
seven years. Instead, the impression given is Israeli crimes are marginal,
sporadic, inconsequential, acts of self-defense and not crimes at all.
This type reporting sets the (low) standard for the rest of the dominant
media and highlights why few Americans question their government's full
and unconditional support for Israeli policy.
The Times willfully ignores
the following type information B'Tselem posts and updates on its website
(www.btselem.org). From September 29, 2000 through August 31, 2007,
it documented 4274 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces or
civilians including 857 children. That compares to 1024 Israelis killed
by Palestinians including 119 children.
Throughout this period, The
Times low-keyed Israeli violence in its coverage but featured dozens
of articles on Palestinian suicide bombings and other acts of self-defense
it portrays as "terrorism" against innocent Israelis. Left
out is what B'Tselem, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), AI,
HRW, ICRC and other human rights organizations report:
-- willful violations of
the Fourth Geneva Convention's protections of civilians in times of
war and under occupation by a foreign power.
-- excessive use of force
and abuse;
-- policy of collective punishment
and economic strangulation;
-- growing numbers of expanding
illegal settlements;
-- home demolitions;
-- random IDF invasions,
air and ground attacks;
-- many dozens of extrajudicial
assassinations;
-- administrative detentions
without charge and routine use of torture of thousands of Palestinians
including young children treated like adults;
-- land expropriation;
-- crop destruction;
-- policies of closure, separation,
checkpoints, ghettoization and curfews;
-- denial of the most basic
human rights and civil liberties; and
-- an overall Kafkaesque
"matrix of control" designed to extinguish Palestinians' will
to resist.
The Times willful distortion
and indifference to Palestinian suffering highlights its coverage. Like
others in the dominant media, it displays no sense of fairness, accuracy
or balance in portraying Palestinians as militants, gunmen and terrorists
- never as oppressed human beings under occupation struggling for freedom
in their own land. In sharp contrast, Israelis are seen as surrounded,
beleaguered, and innocent victims acting in self-defense. It's sheer
fantasy, the facts on the ground prove it, but Times readers aren't
given them.
They're also not told how
Israel discriminates against Palestinian Arab Israeli citizens. Patrick
O'Connor explained in his March 30, 2006 Electronic Intifada article
titled "The New York Times Covers Up Discrimination against Palestinian
Citizens of Israel." He noted the rise to prominence of Israeli
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman
and his extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party. It advocates "transferring
a number of Palestinian towns in Israel to Palestinian Authority (PA)
control," thereby revoking the legalized status of hundreds of
thousands of its own citizens. They're already second class ones and
are treated unequally under Israel's Basic Law that affords rights and
benefits to Jews only.
O'Connor notes the Times
plays "a leading role collaborat(ing) with this strategy."
It characterizes all Palestinians as militants, gunmen and terrorists
while suppressing their "experiences under....occupation (victimized
by) Israeli state terrorism, and (the) systemic Israeli discrimination
against Palestinian (citizens) living in Israel...."
An instance of Times distortion
was from a March 21, 2006 article by Dina Kraft. In it, Israel dismissively
refers to "Israeli Arabs" and so does Kraft. They're not called
Palestinian Israeli citizens "to divide and rule, and to cover
up the familial, historical and cultural relationship between Palestinians"
inside Israel to those in the Territories and diaspora. The Times goes
along without challenge, never questioning if a self-declared Jewish
state can be democratic without ensuring equal rights to its non-Jewish
minority. Ignored as well is Yisrael Beiteinu's outlandish proposal
to revoke citizenship rights for Arabs inside Israel because they're
not Jews.
O'Connor stresses how the
Times, Kraft and the major US media collaboratively perpetuate the myth
that Israel is "a liberal, democratic state inexplicably beset
by Arab/Muslim terrorism." In so doing, they suppress the historical
record that Israel ethnically cleansed 800,000 Palestinians, killed
many thousands of others, and destroyed 531 villages and 11 urban neighborhoods
in cities like Tel-Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem in its 1948 "War of
Independence." They also deny that Palestinians everywhere have
close historical, family and cultural ties, yet Israel discriminates
against them all unfairly.
In her report, Weir noted
what all people of conscience believe: that "readers of The New
York Times (and all Americans) are entitled to full and accurate reporting
on all issues, including the topic of Israel/Palestine." In her
study period, the Times covered it in "well over 1000 stories,"
so it's deeply troubling how much critical information was omitted.
A 9/11/07 Fairness &
Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) Action Alert provides more evidence of
NYT cover-up and distortion. It's titled "Whose Human Rights Matter?
NYT on Hezbollah and Israeli attacks on civilians." FAIR cites
two recently released Human Rights Watch (HRW)investigations of Israel's
war against Lebanon in which The New York Times highlighted "unlawful
attacks against Israel" while giving short shrift to "unlawful
attacks committed by Israel." This is de rigueur at The Times so
the FAIR report is no surprise.
It noted the NYT ran its
own 800 word story supportive of Israel on 8/31/07 titled "Rights
Group Accuses Hezbollah of Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians in Israel
War" accompanied by a photo of "Israeli civilians at risk
from Hezbollah rockets." In sharp contrast, it settled for a 139
word AP report on Israeli unlawful attacks under its own headline titled
"Israel Criticized Over Lebanon Deaths" with no photo. Even
worse, The Times report on Israeli infractions omitted key information
about the claim that Hezbollah used Lebanese people as human shields.
HRW found no supportive evidence, and its executive director, Kenneth
Roth, said the Israeli government's assertion was false.
The Times also failed to
reflect the dramatic disparity in civilian deaths on each side. HRW
estimated Israel killed about 900 Lebanese civilians out of a total
1200 death toll in the country while Hezbollah killed 43 Israeli civilians
plus about 80 IDF personnel. FAIR's conclusion: The Times values Israeli
lives far more than Lebanese ones. No surprise.
FAIR raised an additional
point as well from its 12/6/06 Action Alert. It refuted a Times report
as false that Israeli attacks on civilians were legitimate "since
Hezbollah fired from civilian areas, itself a war crime, which made
those areas legitimate targets." Again, standard practice at The
Times that values fake news above truth, accuracy, fairness and balance.
Weir hoped a public airing
of her findings on The Times would lead to better reporting at the "paper
of record." It never did and just got worse following Hamas' dramatic
democratic January, 2006 electoral victory. Afterwards, all outside
aid was cut off, Hamas was marginalized and politically isolated, and
Israeli repression got stepped up in an effort to crush the fledging
government by making the Territories "scream."
It came to a head June 14
following weeks of US-Israeli orchestrated violence. Palestinian Authority
(PA) President Mahmoud Abbas declared a "state of emergency"
and illegally dismissed Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and his
national unity government. He appointed his own US-Israeli vetted replacements
days later with The New York Times in the lead supporting the new quisling
coup d'etat government. Noted journalist and documentary filmmaker John
Pilger explains the first casualty of war is good journalism. It's as
true for reporting on Israel, especially on the pages of "the newspaper
of record" that sets the low standard others then follow.
That standard excludes discussion
of the powerful Israeli lobby with AIPAC just one part of it. Noted
figures like John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen
Walt of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government are persona non grata
for their heroic work documenting its powerful influence on US policy
toward Israel and the Middle East. Noted scholar and activist James
Petras makes the same compelling case in his revealing 2006 must-read
book titled "The Power of Israel in the United States." The
record of "the newspaper of record" includes none of their
findings and conclusions proving when it comes to truth in reporting,
it's absent from its pages. It's especially pronounced in its coverage
of Israel/Palestine.
More Evidence of
Corporate Media Distortion on Israel-Palestine
When it comes to shoddy reporting,
most notably on Israel/Palestine, there's plenty of blame to go around.
It's found on major US broadcast and cable channels, most all corporate-owned
publications here and abroad, the BBC, CBC, Deutche Welle, other European
broadcasters, and what passes for so-called public radio and broadcasting
in the US. An exception is Pacifica Radio, the original and only real
public radio in the US. Its provides excellent coverage, especially
on KPFA's daily Flashpoints Radio with the best of it anywhere on-air
from its co-hosts, contributors and top quality guests.
The opposite is true for
so-called National Public Radio's (NPR), but its public broadcast (PBS)counterpart
shares equal guilt. Many people naively turn to NPR as an acceptable
alternative to corporate media disinformation without realizing it's
as corrupted by capital interests and big government as all the others.
Its president, Kevin Klose, is the former head of US propaganda that
includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio
Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. He's
ideal for the same role at National Public Radio, and it's why he got
the job.
NPR never met a US war of
aggression it didn't love, and it's especially attentive to the interests
of its corporate paymasters like McDonald's (with $225 million of it),
Allstate, Merck, Archer Daniels Midland, and the worst of all worker
rights' abusers, Wal-Mart, that NPR welcomes anyway. In its space, there
never is heard a discouraging word on any of these or most other major
US corporate giants.
Then, there's the issue of
fair and balanced reporting on Israel/Palestine that's absent from NPR
programs all the time. The media watchdog group FAIR exposed it in its
study of NPR's coverage of Israeli/Palestinian violence in the first
six months of 2001. Over virtually any period, Palestinian deaths way
outnumber Israeli ones. Yet NPR in the period studied reported 62 Israeli
deaths compared to 51 Palestinian ones at a time 77 Israelis and 148
Palestinians were killed. It meant "there was an 81% likelihood
an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34% likelihood"
a Palestinian one would be.
The findings were similar
each way FAIR examined the data. They showed one-sided pro-Israel reporting
the way it is throughout the dominant media. The result (then and now)
is NPR betrays the public trust. It suppresses real news in favor of
the fake kind it prefers. It violates its claim to be "an internationally
acclaimed producer of noncommercial news, talk and entertainment programming"
and its mission statement pledge "to create a more informed public
- one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciations
of events, ideas and cultures (through) programming that meets the highest
standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression."
It's pure nonsense. On all counts, NPR fails badly.
The Electronic Intifada web
site showed how badly. It was in a February 19, 2002 article titled
"Special Report: NPR's Linda Gradstein (its Israel correspondent)
Takes Cash Payments from Pro-Israel Groups." Ali Abunimah and Nigel
Parry (its co-founders) discovered Gradstein violated professional journalistic
and NPR ethics and policy by accepting cash honoraria from pro-Israeli
organizations in the past and currently to the date of the article.
Gradstein is notorious for
her pro-Israeli bias and being paid for it makes it worse. Hillel is
one of her paymasters, and in one instance openly acknowledged it considered
Gradstein an Israeli propagandist. Other Israeli groups apparently do
as well as Gradstein openly violated NPR's stated (but uninforced) policy
not to accept these fees. Instead, she regularly takes them and likely
still does.
The EI writers concluded
"for some reason or other, Gradstein is effectively exempt from
NPR's own regulations. These revelations only broaden existing concerns
about the integrity of NPR's Middle East reporting and honesty of Linda
Gradstein....the sad truth is that Linda Gradstein rarely meets (the
minimum) standard(s)" of journalistic ethics and integrity. This
is common practice at NPR and at the rest of the major media as well.
The Committee for
Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)
The dominant US media have
loads of firepower and freely unleash it supporting Israel. They need
no backup help but get it anyway from CAMERA, a powerful Boston-based
pro-Israeli media lobby group. The organization was founded by Charles
Jacobs in 1982 and claims to be "non-partisan....regard(ing)....American
or Israeli political issues (and takes no position) regard(ing)....ultimate
solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." It calls itself "a
media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting
accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East."
It claims "Inaccurate
and distorted accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East are....found
everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community
newspapers to national magazines (to the) Internet." They're also
in "fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias....travel
guides, and even dictionaries." They're "inaccurate (and)
skewed (and) may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice."
CAMERA's on guard to fight
back with plenty of dues-paying members to do it - 55,000 well-heeled
ones plus "thousands of active letter writers." They monitor
all media and its journalists everywhere for one purpose - to resolutely
support Israel and combat all criticism it calls "anti-Israel bias."
CAMERA tolerates none, not even modest in tone on issues too minor to
matter. They do to CAMERA that views everything in black and white terms
with no gray allowed.
Muslims are bad because they're
Muslims and not Jews. Jews, on the other hand, are good because they're
Jewish. This for CAMERA is fair and balanced meaning support Israel,
right or wrong, and you are. Dare criticize, you're not, and be targeted
full force with all CAMERA's hard-hitting tools - mass letter-writing,
articles, op-eds, monographs, special reports, full-page ads in major
publications, the CAMERA Media Report critiquing "bias and error,"
CAMERA on Campus doing the same thing, CAMERA Fellows training students
in pro-Israeli thinking, and focused attacks on "media bias"
and journalists anywhere even mildly critical of Israel.
CAMERA is effective because
it's unrelenting, focused and well-funded. It "systematically monitors,
documents, reviews and archives (all) Middle East coverage." Its
staffers "contact reporters, editors, producers and publishers"
demanding "distorted or inaccurate coverage" be retracted
and replaced by "factual information to refute errors." For
CAMERA, it means support Israel without compromise or be hounded until
you do.
Two Examples of Truth
in Reporting Banned in the Dominant Media - First from Bethlehem
Pacifica's KPFA Flashpoints
Radio co-host Nora Barrows Friedman has become the electronic media's
most courageous voice on Israel/Palestine. An example was her disturbing
story from Bethlehem August 21 for Inter Press Service that was unreported
in the dominant media. It's a dramatic example of sanitizing ugly parts
of a story to prettify Israeli actions or simply ignoring it as in this
case.
Friedman reported the Israeli
military has been cutting and destroying apricot and walnut trees for
months to make way for its scheme in the village of Artas, southeast
of Bethlehem. It's a concrete tunnel (along with the apartheid separation
wall) for raw Israeli settlement sewage (excrement and waste). It's
to be dumped on Palestinian land even though its toxicity will endanger
the health and welfare of its residents. It will destroy crops and poison
the land rendering it useless for agriculture.
Artas villagers have been
"active and defiant....over the last year after unofficial information"
about the plan leaked out. It's still ongoing, nonetheless, as Israeli
bulldozers continue uprooting crops and orchards in preparation for
construction to follow. Non-violent protesters (on their own land) "have
been shot at, beaten" arrested and imprisoned for defying expropriation
of their property. Israel frequently does this throughout the Occupied
Territories for the parts it wants. In this case, it's for land to dump
raw untreated toxic sewage waste on from its settlements.
It's part of an overall ethnic
cleansing scheme to dispossess Palestinians from their lands, one parcel,
one village at a time, every devious way Israelis can invent to do it.
This time, villagers are fighting back in the Israeli Supreme Court.
But based on its past rulings, they have little hope for justice and
no hope the major media will help stop the abuse by exposing it in its
coverage.
A Second Example:
Hamas' "Goals for All of Palestine"
Mousa Abu Marzook, Hamas
political bureau deputy, prepared an eloquent op-ed piece July 10 titled
"Hamas' stand" that got rare space in the latimes.com but
none in the New York Times, NPR or elsewhere in the dominant media.
In it, he explained Hamas' July rescue of BBC journalist Alan Johnson
wasn't done "as some obsequious boon to Western powers. It was....part
of our effort to secure Gaza from (all) lawlessness.... and violence....where
journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be
treated with dignity."
He stressed Hamas never supported
attacks on Westerners. Instead, its struggle "always....focused
on the occupier and our legal resistance to it....supported by the Fourth
Geneva Convention." Despite that right of any occupied people,
Israel and Washington falsely accuse its leaders of ideologies "they
know full well we do not follow, such as the agenda of Al Queda and
its adherents."
Marzook "deplore(d)
the current prognosticating over "Fatah-land (in the West Bank)
versus "Hamastan (in Gaza). In the end, there can be only one Palestinian
state," and its people have every legal right to demand and expect
one. He continued saying its "militant stance" is reasonable
in "our fight against the occupation and the right of Palestinians
to have dignity, justice and self-rule." It's guaranteed all peoples
everywhere under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Marzook raised the litmus
test issue of Palestinians having to concede Israel's "putative
right to exist as a necessary precondition to discussing grievances,
and to renounce" its 1988 charter position "born of the intolerable
conditions under occupation more than 20 years ago." A state "may
have a right to exist," he stated, "but not....at the expense
of other states (or more importantly) at the expense of millions of
human individuals and their rights to justice."
Marzook justifiably asked
"Why should anyone concede Israel's right to exist, when it....never....acknowledged
(its) foundational crimes of murder, ethnic cleansing (and seizure of)
our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation
of refugees? Why should any Palestinian recognize (this) monstrous crime....?"
How can Israel "declare itself explicitly to be a state for the
Jews (alone)....in a land where millions of occupants are Arabs, Muslims
and Christians."
Marzook continued denouncing
Israeli hypocrisy referring back to the writings of its Zionist founders.
In them, they made "repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine's
non-Jewish inhabitants" saying: "We must expel the Arabs and
take their places." Israeli policy today "advocat(es) for
the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine,
envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan (River) to the sea."
The international community voices "no clamor....for Israel to
repudiate these words as a necessary precondition for any discourse
whatsoever. The double standard, as always, is" for Palestinians
alone.
Marzook has no trouble "recognizing"
Israel's right to exist. "Israel does exist," he says, "as
any Rafah boy in a hospital bed, with IDF shrapnel in his torso, can
tell you." He referred to a distracting "dance of mutual rejection
(while) many are dying (or live) as prisoners....in refugee camps"
and Israeli prisons unjustly.
Marzook speaks for all Palestinians
saying he "look(s) forward to the day when Israel can say to me,
and millions of other Palestinians: 'Here, here is your family's house
by the sea (we took from you in 1948), here are your lemon trees, the
olive grove your father tended: Come home and be whole again.' Then
we can speak of a future together" and can have one in peace but
never under occupation.
Try finding that commentary
in the New York Times or on NPR. Somehow, it slipped into the latimes.com
and maybe in error. Pilger is right. The first casualty of war is good
journalism. It applies as well to reporting on Israel/Palestine and
most other major world and national issues. Real news and information
fall victim to the fake kind in the dominant media. Thankfully, people
are catching on, viable alternatives abound online and in print, and
web sites like this one provide it.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman
News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US
central time.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.