Missing: The Bias Implicit In The Absent - news reporting of the Israel-Arab conflicts

Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ), Summer, 2001 by Marda Dunsky

U.S. mainstream media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict brings accusations of bias from all sides. But beyond the predictable polemics of constituent groups there is another type of media bias at work -- the virtual absence of reportage on how the U.S. foreign policy bias affects--and perhaps perpetuates--the conflict.

"WHERE IS GOD?" Ali Abed Daoud Jaber, a 76-year-old Palestinian resident of the West Bank village of Hares near Nablus, shouted in rage after the Israeli army cut down 110 of his olive trees last November. "They cut down trees my grandfather tended! What will I eat now? What will I drink?" [1] Jaber's cries were quoted by Cox News Service reporters in a story about the army's clear-cutting of olive tree groves in the West Bank, where Palestinians reportedly had been taking cover in their battles with Israeli settlers and soldiers. The Chicago Tribune correspondent also had visited Hares and quoted the irate and desolate Jaber: "Do you know God? Do you know God? You should cut my throat before you cut my trees!" [2]

From 8 November to 8 December, at least five U.S. newspapers ran their own versions of the olive tree story, with pieces averaging 1,100 words appearing in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor and Los Angeles Times. [3] Four out of the five stories ran with a photo; two also had maps. The Seattle Times also ran part of the Sun piece with a photo. [4]

The olive tree story had immense media appeal, suffused as it was with drama and graphic symbolism. It illustrated the chief icon of Palestinian identity and staple of Palestinian agriculture falling casualty to the latest round of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In so doing, it epitomized the colorful but often facile reporting that occasionally supplements the staples of the U.S. mainstream media menu for covering the conflict: the daily body count from the field, superficial details of the diplomatic story out of Washington, and failed shuttle diplomacy missions and negotiations.

More important for the American audience, however, is what is missing from the coverage: the details of how U.S. foreign policy in the region renders impossible the role of the U.S. as honest broker, ultimately keeping the peace process at war with itself.

THE "WASHINGTON CONSENSUS"

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the sole affair of its physical combatants. "The relationship between the United States and Israel has been a curious one in world affairs and in American culture," observed the linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky. [5] The United States gives Israel diplomatic cover in the United Nations and supplies Israel with a unique degree of aid and weaponry. But U.S. media rarely acknowledge or analyze this American bias, and the result is that the U.S. foreign policy tilt is implicitly absorbed into much of their reporting of the conflict.

Time and again, with exceedingly rare exceptions, U.S. mainstream media repeat without question and fail to challenge the "Washington consensus" on Middle East peacemaking. The term "Washington consensus" has been used in recent years to refer specifically to the Washington-based promotion of neoliberalism -- the push for the liberalization and opening of global capital markets around the world. But here it is used to describe the official mindset on Middle East peace of U.S. governments over time that consists of three basic axioms: both sides are equally responsible -- each in its own way -- for the sustained failure of the peace process; it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians themselves to reach a comprehensive solution to the conflict; and while the U.S. has vital interests in Middle East peace, it is not a direct party to the conflict.

Beltway-centrism in American media coverage of foreign affairs has been observed by William Pfaff, a Paris-based, American syndicated columnist, to be the rule, not the exception. "Coverage of international affairs in the U.S. is almost entirely Washington-driven," Pfaff wrote in April. "That is, the questions asked about foreign affairs are Washington's questions, framed in terms of domestic politics and established policy positions. This invites uninformative answers and discourages unwanted or unpleasant news." [6]

The annual State Department report on human rights released in late February [7] is a case in point of how the "Washington consensus" is carried from administration to administration and is absorbed by the media. In the wake of the violent al-Aqsa intifada that began in late September and the Israeli military response to it, the State Department classified the overall human-rights record of both Israel in the occupied territories and the Palestinian Authority as "poor." While condemning violence on both sides, the report cited Israeli security units for using "excessive force" against Palestinian demonstrators. Israeli officials and pro-Israel and Jewish groups alike protested that the report was unfair and distorted. Because Israel is engaged in a war with the Palestinians, they claimed, the human-rights standard does not apply. [8]