To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers
From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jverlin1234@verizon.net)
Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #720, 10/19/14
WHILE YOU STAND ON ONE LEG: The AP’s recitation of the Arab version of Jewish and Arab Palestine equities yet again this week in the Inq was more dangerous than usual, I think, because it was purveyed to Western readers by the AP and Inq in the context of a Palestinian Arab “Mideast Plan” that just “needs 2 votes” for UN action to end Israel’s “occupation” of “lands captured in 1967,” with perhaps “small border modifications.”
This Week In The Inq: AP’s Arab Narrative in the Context of Calls for Israeli Withdrawal
Our Philadelphia Inquirer (“Inq”) ran an AP article Friday (Inq, 10/17/14, A24) purveying the Arab version of Palestine equities yet again.
The Inq headlined its Friday AP article
Mideast Plan Coming Up Short
Palestinians said a U.N. draft to set a time for Israel to leave needs 2 votes
The article led with Palestinian Arabs claiming, as the AP put it in its own words, that they’re just two votes short of majority backing in the U.N. Security Council for
setting November 2016 as the deadline for ending Israel’s occupation of lands sought for a Palestinian state
Further down the article, the AP gave readers its two-paragraph view of the crux of the matter:
The Palestinians want to set up a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967. They have said they are willing to consider small border modifications, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to recognize the pre-1967 line as a basis for negotiations.
The proposed Security Council resolution would set a deadline for an Israeli withdrawal.
To borrow a phrase from a Mr. Mugwort in Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” let’s see if we saw what we saw and saw what we didn’t.
[a] For openers, the Inq shouldn’t have headlined what Abbas is up to as a “Mideast Plan” in the sense that “Plan” is commonly coupled to “Mideast” in reporting and diplomacy, as shorthand for “Mideast Peace Plan.” The “moderate” Mr. Abbas is not proceeding here as international peace-proposer engaging in statesmanship and diplomacy, proffering a peace plan addressing in some manner, however unacceptable to the other side [cf the Saudi “Arab Initiative”], the range of core issues involved in Arab-Israeli peace making – mutual recognition of two-states-for-two-peoples, refugees, holy places, mutually declaring an end-to-the-conflict, normalization, etc. Abbas is seeking a one-issue U.N. ultimatum to Israel. As the AP article put it: “The proposed Security Council resolution would set a deadline for Israeli withdrawal.” Period. End of resolution. “Mideast Plan”? Not exactly.
[b] The Inq’s sub-head – “Palestinians said a U.N. draft to set a time for Israel to leave needs 2 votes” – is a “not exactly” case also. The Inq’s AP article says Abbas currently counts 7 votes – Russia, China, Jordan, Chad, Chile, Nigeria and Argentina – on the 15-member council, and is wooing Luxemburg and France. He would “consider a nine-vote majority in favor of the resolution as a diplomatic victory,” even in the face of a U.S. veto. So the resolution actually “to set a time for Israel to leave” is not in a status that just “needs 2 votes.” Beyond not yet having a simple majority, it needs the U.S. to vote “Present.”
[c] Turning to the AP article’s lede, the AP begs the question in framing the issue as one of “setting the deadline for ending Israel’s occupation.” The actual issue is whether Jewish presence beyond the 1949 ceasefire line is “occupation.” The yet-to-be-adopted Levy Commission Report makes a strong case that it is not. Israeli cabinet minister Bennett had grounds for objecting to “occupation’s” use by CNN. San Remo and the Palestine Mandate didn’t stop at the not-yet existing “green line.”
[d] “The West Bank” and “east Jerusalem” are not “lands Israel captured in 1967,” as though they had no prior Jewish connection. We don’t focus much on the media’s often used term, “lands,” here, but they aren’t “lands” at all, but parts of Palestine, the land of Israel, and neighborhoods of its capital city. The U.N.’s 1947 partition resolution referenced not “the West Bank,” which didn’t yet exist, but “the hill country of Samaria and Judea.” Jerusalem has again had a Jewish majority since 1800’s Ottoman rule, and Palestinian Arabs have not ruled a “land of east Jerusalem” for one day in history (and foreign Arabs ruled it only part of the time between the Romans-Byzantines and the Crusades).
[e] The one negotiation point the AP reported here that the Arab side might entertain negotiating is that “they are willing to consider small border modifications, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to recognize [emphasis added] the pre-1967 line as a basis for negotiations.”
That “pre-1967 line” [give the AP a smidgeon of honest reporting for not saying “pre-1967 border”] was expressly declared in its defining document as exclusively as a military ceasefire line without prejudice to either side’s claim of political borders. As such, it is no Holier than its successor 1967 war ceasefire line, following a subsequent war between the same sides, but you won’t catch the AP saying that Israel is willing to consider small (or not small) “border modifications” to that line, but [alas] Abbas refuses to recognize the post-1967 line as a basis for negotiations.”
Was the 1967 war any less real than the 1948-49 war? Was post-1967-war Security Council Resolution 242, which pointedly did not call for Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 ceasefire line any less real than the 1949 Armistice Agreement that drew that predecessor 1949 (“green”) ceasefire line (and expressly called it a ceasefire line, not a border)?
So What’s To Be Done?
That question, as always, came up this morning when Lee and I gave our Powerpoint talk, based on our media bias book, Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-to-Z, to a synagogue men’s club in Bucks County. Our own view – grounded in “if you forfeit the language you forfeit your history” – is that effectively countering media bias begins with we ourselves shunning the pejoratives literally designed to delegitimize us. As always, there’s diversity of viewpoint among Israel’s supporters who recognize that we confront a serious media bias problem, and the “Q&A” portion elicits alternatives.
Some attendees this morning, acknowledging that the media’s language is loaded against us, thought perhaps that Israel’s supporters should focus more on issues and historical context than on the pejorative expressions themselves. One attendee correctly pointed out that the population displacements on both sides during and after the Arab-Israeli 1948-49 war were dwarfed in absolute numbers by the same period displacements in the India-Pakistan separation, and yet incongruously it’s generations of “Palestinian refugees” who occupy the world’s attention more than half-a-century later. We contrast the India-Pakistan case in our book [under “C – Creation of Israel”], citing media reference to India and Pakistan having “gained their independence” in the 1948 period, in contradistinction to Israel having been “created” and “founded.” Picture the impact on people in the West being told over and over about ten million people displaced and maybe a million killed in 1948 due to Pakistan’s “creation” and “founding.”
And, certainly, it’s not just the pejoratives, but also perspectives. Under “R – Refugees,” we cite years of endless repetition of “Palestinian” refugees “who fled or were forced from their homes” versus very occasional references to the actually greater number of Jewish refugees from vast Arab and Muslim lands: They “emigrated.” They “left.”
If your synagogue or other group is organizing its program schedule for this year, consider our media bias Powerpoint talk, including updates on media miscoverage of this summer’s Israel-Hamas war. We charge no fee. We just do a discounted-price book signing afterwards, with the disclosure that on Amazon’s used book market the ones that we signed go for less than the ones that we didn’t.
Regards,
Jerry