Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #648. 6/2/13

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers
From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jverlin1234@comcast.net)
Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #648. 6/2/13

WHILE YOU STAND ON ONE LEG: How many media bias-fighting lessons can we glean from one AP article and its Inq-headline this week in the Inq? I go for four. [1] The Inq should have headlined that it’s the Arab side demanding major pre-peace talks concessions, not Israel declining to make them, that’s “at issue’ in peace talks resumption. [2] We can’t argue the legitimacy of Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem’s heart using language deliberately designed to delegitimize that very presence. [3] The media should have informed readers that Kerry’s abandonment of 242 and adoption of the 2002 Arab plan for delineating borders is a major shift in the U.S. position. And [4] We can’t pick & choose but have to contest all of the media’s loaded terms that delegitimize the Jewish homeland of Israel.

This Week In The Inq: “At Issue” in Peace Talks’ Restart – “A West Bank Settlement Freeze”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[1] Arabs Making Mammoth Peace Talks Preconditions, Not Israel Rejecting Them, is What’s “At Issue” in Peace Talks Resumption

The Philadelphia Inquirer (“Inq”) headlined its AP article Thursday (Inq, Thu, 5/30/13, A3, AP):

Abbas: Intense Pressure for Talks; The Palestinian’s aides say he expects a new proposal from John Kerry. A West Bank settlement freeze is at issue [emphasis added throughout]

Was lack of an Israeli “West Bank settlement freeze” a fair characterization of what’s “at issue” in Palestinian Arab-Israeli peace talks restart? Even to the limited extent that the Inq’s AP article presented obstacles to peace talks’ resumption to readers, the answer is no. The obstacle to peace talks’ resumption is not Israeli refusal to make another pre-talks’ unilateral concession to Arabs, but Arabs making impossible pre-peace talks’ resumption demands. AP article text:

Inq AP article on Bibi’s peace talks’ resumption position: This very AP article directly quoted Netanyahu: “I stand ready to resume negotiations immediately,” and characterized his position as “He says talks should resume without any conditions.” [Peace talks had been conducted over the years while Israel was building homes for Jews in Judea, Samaria and all parts of Jerusalem.]

Inq AP article on Abbas’ peace talks resumption position: “The Palestinians say they will not restart talks unless Israel halts settlement construction and accepts the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a future border.”

These are end goals that Palestinian Arabs demand Israel must accept before the “restart of talks,” and, whatever your personal position on further “painful concessions” Israel should make as the give-and-take of peace negotiations proceeds, the Inq and AP should have conveyed these Arab demands’ magnitude and Arabs’ chutzpah in demanding them as unilateral pre-talks’ concessions.

You wouldn’t glean this from the Inq’s headlining Thursday, but Israel’s not alone in seeking peace talks without pre-conditions. The Inq’s headline and news article Thursday should have reflected what the Inq’s Washington Post article Monday (Inq, Mon, 5/27/13, A1, 4, WP, “Kerry: $4B Plan for W. Bank”) had reported on peace talks’ resumption. Monday’s article quoted Kerry’s goal as “talks without any preconditions – which he called the bane of past attempts.” So instead of headlining that “at issue” in peace talks’ resumption is Israel instituting a “settlement” building freeze, a balanced Inq would have headlined: “At issue is Palestinian Arab rejection of the U.S.-Israeli position that peace talks should resume without preconditions.”

And, as the Inq’s Thursday AP article further noted, Palestinian Arabs demand, as peace talks resumption pre-conditions, not only that Israel institute a Jewish building freeze while Arab building goes on unabated, but that Israel “accepts the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a future border.” (But give the AP a nod for saying “pre-1967 lines.” The Inq’s Washington Post article Monday put it as “Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders.”)

As for the media blaming the peace talks obstacle not on Arabs making Israel-ending demands but on Israel rejecting them, I’m reminded of how dumbfounded I was when I encountered this media attitude back at Brith Sholom Media Watch’s inception in 2001. BSMW #3 of 1/21/01 reported on a 1/17/01 article by this same AP that the Inq headlined: “Israeli Leader Rejects 2 Palestinian Demands.” The Inq and AP left no doubt where the blame lay. AP article’s lede: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak dismissed two main Palestinian demands yesterday – lessening the chances of achieving a peace deal . . . .” Those two Palestinian Arab demands: (1) “that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, about four million people, be given the right of return to their former homes in Israel,” and (2) Palestinian sovereignty “over a disputed Jerusalem holy site — Haram al Sharif, known to Jews [and, btw, Christians] as Temple Mount.” What’s changed?

[2] “The Palestinians object to Israel’s continued settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, occupied territories ….” Was there ever a less-balanced media portrayal of Arab and Jewish respective Palestine equities?

Western newspaper readers need to understand and appreciate the magnitude of Abbas’ peace talks’ resumption demands that “Israel halts settlement construction and accepts the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a future border.” That Western publics largely do not is due partly to we ourselves averting our eyes from the loaded language in which the MSM purveys respective Arab and Jewish Palestine equities to readers. Thursday’s Inq article put it:

The Palestinians object to Israel’s continued settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, occupied territories they hope to make part of a future state. Israel captured both territories in the 1967 Mideast war.

Is there a word here [other than the MSM here having shifted to “captured” from its years-ago officiously sneering “seized”] that’s not loaded against us? Israel’s and the Jewish people’s connection to Judea, Samaria and the heart of Jerusalem doesn’t date from their “capture by Israel in 1967.” It’s been an uninterrupted connection for 3,000 years, and they aren’t “the West Bank” and “East” Jerusalem, or “occupied,” and Jews, of all peoples, aren’t “settlers” there. Both Jews and Arabs [who, btw, aren’t “The Palestinians”] build homes and commercial sites for their people in Judea, Samaria and “east” Jerusalem. To “halt,” as this Inq article quoted Abbas demanding of Israel, just Jewish construction while Arab construction, abetted in part from outside, continues on unabated is, frankly, handing over the keys. The effective answer is not just for the Jews to keep building “Jewish settlements” in “the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem,” Jewish homeland-delegitimizing terms all crammed into one MSM sentence This Week In The Inq, but to challenge all this loaded language that delegitimizes the Jewish homeland connection to the Judea, Samaria and the heart of Jerusalem.

It seems alas true, as the Inq’s WP article stated Monday, that “Kerry is now using” the 2002 Arab “Peace Initiative” as “a basis for new talks.” That article characterized that Arab League proposal as offering “Israel full recognition and normalization with all Arab nations in exchange for Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders, including pulling out of East Jerusalem, and ‘just settlement’ for Palestinian refugees who wish to return home to live in peace or receive compensation.” [An appropriate place, was it not, for the MSM to reference the greater number of Israel-absorbed Jewish refugees from vast Muslim lands, including those that participated in the 1948 and subsequent Arab wars against Israel?]

[3] Media should have told readers that Kerry “now using” the 2002 Arab plan is a major shift in the U.S. position

The MSM Monday and Thursday should have pointed out that Kerry “now using” this 2002 Arab plan represents a major change in the U.S. position. In 1967, the U.S. and Britain were the driving force behind U.N. resolution #242, which expressly and intentionally did not call for Israel’s return to the 1949 Israel-Jordan ceasefire lines and did not call for Israel’s retreat from the heart of Jerusalem. And President Bush, Kerry’s boss’ predecessor, expressly stated that demanding Israel’s withdrawal to the 1949 lines was “unrealistic.” (A couple of you [Greatly-Valued, who am I trying to get through to?] Gentle Readers of the Liberal persuasion emailed me after I recently adverted to Kerry starting from the Arab plan not to worry, that this is the Beginning, not the Beginning of the End, but all-in-all, I’d rather Kerry had stuck with 242.)

[4] Can we pick & choose which dirty words to contest?

In last week’s #647, I told you about Lee’s and my email exchanges with one of our leading advocates, over his use of “West Bank” in letters and op-eds. His reply, in essence, was that those who write for general media publication can’t take on all the dirty words at one time. I wrote last week that the need to get published in the general media doesn’t apply to us in the grassroots, and that, in any case, by me if the price of getting published is seemingly putting our hecksher on eg “West Bank,” making it seem ok, that price is too high. So, as for whether we have the luxury to pick and choose which dirty words to protest and when, pick and choose, if you can, which MSM dirty words we can forego contesting in this single sentence this week in the inq:

The Palestinians object to Israel’s continued settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, occupied territories . . . .

Regards,
Jerry