|
How
(Un)fit to print is the New York Times? Aref Assaf
May 7, 2007
Advocates for Palestine have always complained about
the seemingly inherent 'bias' in American media's projection of the
Palestinian narrative. Of particular note is the almost conspiracy-laden
argument that Palestinian voices are rarely read on the op-ed pages of
American's influential papers. A
recent study by Electronic Intifada confirms these allegations in a
through report.
In the US media, the report argues,
Palestinians generally aren't allowed to speak for themselves or to articulate
their historical narrative. Israelis, however, are permitted to speak, to
explain the Israeli experience and even to explain about Palestinians. As a
result, the Israeli story is known in the US while Palestinians are
dehumanized." The well-documented study shows the extent to which Palestinian
voices have been "arbitrary silenced" for the past five years by comparing
opinion pieces by Israeli writers with those published by Palestinian writers in
four national newspapers.
This writer, speaking from
experience with NJ's largest newspaper, the Star Ledger, can attest to the
sometimes ridiculous pretenses given as to why they could not
publish an op-ed I submitted to them on a current issue and which has been covered in their newspaper. I have kept records of countless emails and
phone conversations detailing some of these absurd objections: "we cannot publish your
op-ed because we do not have an equally high profile response from the
Jewish side";" we already have the two sides of the story represented: the
American and the Israeli one"; or "we will take your op-ed into account"- are
some examples of how the media blocks our views.
Those who know my writings know that I don not represent the 'extreme'
voices supporting Palestinian rights. Although a first rate victim of Israel's
1948 establishment and subsequent wars and resident of a refugees camp for close
to 18 years, I, since arriving in the US (1977), opted to argue for our cause by
conveying facts not visions or dreams. I based my mission on the supremacy of
international law to resolve conflicts. It is my belief that, besides the
inherent justice of our national and political aspirations, the fundamental
variables of the Palestinian conflict (sovereignty, refugees, occupation) bear
strong and defensible international law criteria.
This outlook brings me to relate to my recent
book reading selections. I am reading two related books on the NYT deliberate
misrepresentation of facts and intentions as relates to US policy
in general and the Palestine-Israel conflict in particular. The second book
particularly appeals to me and urge you to read it. It is titled
"Israel- Palestine on Record; How the New Times Misrepresents Conflict in
the Middle East". Deliciously, the book encompasses a detailed indictment
of the New York Times coverage of Israel-Palestine. See book review
by
Palestine Chronicle.
In this scathing analysis of Israel-Palestine coverage in the US media,
the authors, Howard Friel and Richard Falk, reveal the persistent ways
the New York Times has ignored and relegated principles of
international law in order to shield its readers from Israel's
lawlessness.
While the Times publishes dozens of front-page stories and extensive
commentary on the killings of Israelis, it publishes very few such
stories on the killings of Palestinians, and mostly ignores the
extensive documentation of massive violations of Palestinian human
rights by the government of Israel (IfAmericansknew).
Furthermore, the Times routinely ignores or under-reports a multitude
of critical legal issues pertaining to Israel's policies, including
Israel's expropriation and settlement of Palestinian land, the two-tier
system of laws based on national origin reminiscent of South Africa's
apartheid regime, the demolition of Palestinian homes, and use of
unchecked deadly
force against Palestinians.
These
journalistic practices have not only
shielded the extent of Israel's crimes from the American
electorate, which is Israel's main source of financial and military
support, it has perhaps irreparably undermined and diminished our understanding of the Middle East
and of US overall foreign policy. Events in the Middle East are
viewed through the official Israeli prism, perpetuating Israel's
victimhood and Palestinian aggression. Ultimately, the authors argue
convincingly that should the United States (and Israel) accept and
respect international law, their supposed dreams for a just and lasting
peace will come into reality. But then one wonders if world and
regional peace (not control of) are the true strategic
national objectives of the two countries.
The picture is not all that gloomy as some large and
local newspapers in NJ have actually welcomed and often solicited our
views. After establishing personal contacts with the publishers
and ascertaining our credible and original views, we became the first Arab
American to be granted a monthly column in the Paterson, NJ-based Herald
News- home to the the largest concentration of Arabs in New Jersey. Additionally, the much widely read Bergen Record, has published
numerous op-eds and letters and interviews by myself and a few other
members of the community. In part, it is also our solemn duty as
advocates for Palestine to never cease an opportunity to be published.
For, if we do not continually market our cause (and it is a just
and a believable one), the other side will persist in not only
dictating the headlines but the message contained therein. AA
|
