The U.S. presidential season got an earlier start this time around with the Iowa caucus this week. And while the candidates engage in their usual posturing and attempt to accentuate the “differences” in their opinions on domestic and foreign affairs there is one topic all involved can outwardly agree on: solidarity with Israel.

I was reminded of this conformity yesterday as I started John Mearsheimer’s and Stephen Walt’s new book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The authors wasted no time showing how “serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country-Israel-as well as their determination to maintain unyielding U.S. support for the Jewish state.” The authors go on to write, “None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the United States ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. Any who do will probably fall by the wayside.”

So what have the candidates said about Israel? (The following quotes and applicable endnote citations can be found on page 4 of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s new book.)

John Edwards: “Your future is our future” and the bond between the U.S. and Israel “will never be broken.”

Mitt Romney: Talked of being “in a country I love with people I love.”

John McCain: “when it comes to the defense of Israel, we simply cannot compromise.”

Hillary Clinton: In speaking to a chapter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in New York: “[this is] a moment great difficulty for Israel and great peril for Israel . . . what is vital is that we stand by our friend and our ally and we stand by our own values. Israel is a beacon of what’s right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism.”

According to Mearsheimer and Walt, Barak Obama (whose views on Israel were discussed earlier on this blog here) and Bill Richardson have also expressed continued support for the Jewish state.

In essence, what this spells is a continuation of the usual and unquestioned support for Israel regardless of the next president. What will be more troubling is any attempt by Bush’s successor to try to broker an equitable “peace” in the region as all have shown such a deferential position toward Israel. And not one will dare to resist or go against the most powerful lobby groups in the U.S.

The following is another entry from my journal during my time in Palestine a few years ago in 2004.  In sum, it describes the harassment and arrest of a Palestinian taxi driver whose van I was riding in as this happened. I think it illustrates well the daily unlawful and immoral actions of the Israeli military as it patrols the Occupied Territories.

We were in Ramallah returning from a peaceful demonstration held in the village of Biddu, north of Jerusalem. The villagers were opposing the construction of the Wall and celebrating the positive opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice. (The Court had just ruled that Israel’s separation wall is a serious violation of international law.)

Because it was Friday, the Muslim day of prayer, there were very few buses operating back to our home in Tulkarem. We usually hop a bus from Ramallah and are able to be home in about two hours. However, many people have off on Friday and bus service was scarce. Our only option was to take a community taxi-like van. After choosing one and negotiating a price, we climbed aboard, tired from the march and the heat.

In Palestine, the Israeli military has established periodic checkpoints on the roads. These are used not for security purposes, as Israel argues, but to make travel very difficult and burdensome for the Palestinians. They are fortress-like compounds where Palestinian cars, vans and buses are stopped, sometimes for hours, to be searched and for the drivers to be interrogated and questioned at length about where they are going, where they came from and for what purpose they are traveling. The situation is humiliating, unnecessary and cruel. Soldiers routinely embarrass men in front of their wives and children by body searching them. I have found that the Israeli system is rooted in oppressing and outright racism against Palestinians. I have witnessed very little to form a contrary opinion.

As our van reached one of these checkpoints we were directed to pull over. Three soldiers approached, standard automatic weapons drawn, as though everyone is a terrorist. After conversing with our driver and assistant, in Hebrew, they were both ordered to exit the van. After a few minutes they returned to tell us that they were fined 500 NIS (about $112) because they did not have the proper sticker inside their van describing the name of the operator. Again, this is not a system of justice, but rather one of intimidation. Once we secured permission from the soldiers to continue on our trip to Tulkarem, we left the checkpoint, angry over our treatment and the outrageous fine for a minor infraction.

We drove about two kilometers before an army jeep stopped us again. This was an informal checkpoint where the army was pulling over only those with Palestinian license plates. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers drove past, windows up, AC on. We were not told why we were stopped, but the van and all of our bags were searched, passports were demanded and we were questioned about where we were going and why. Feeling that this was all completely wrong, the group decided that we should negotiate with the soldiers about permitting us to continue and allowing our driver to take us home. We agreed to allow me to approach the soldiers. I asked them what was taking so long, why had they stopped us, and if they could return or driver’s identification card. I was told that our driver was not allowed to drive on this road and that he would be arrested for doing so.

These are the types of laws that operate in this country; they are unfair and completely arbitrary. Simply because he is a Palestinian he is forbidden to be on this road. Keep in mind that the soldiers at the first checkpoint only a couple of kilometers back granted us permission.

Unimpressed with the answers I was receiving from the army, I pressed for specifics: “Why is he not allowed? For what purpose? Is there someone else who can help me find the real reasons for this nonsense?” We were ordered to return to the van and follow the jeep back to the checkpoint where we came from. The jeep pulled out in front and the driver followed. Immediately the jeep’s rear door opened and a soldier aimed his gun at us. This is how he remained for the trip back to the checkpoint. For breaking a traffic law, an automatic assault weapon is pointed at us a mere 40 feet away.

Once we arrived, the soldiers prepared to arrest the driver. We agreed that we would not let that happen and we were all prepared to remain in solidarity with the driver and risk arrest ourselves to prevent them from taking him. The driver, his assistant, and the other Palestinians on board agreed with the plan too. (Soldiers may arrest Palestinians, but they would need to call in border police to arrest us as internationals. This would delay our driver’s arrest.)

In preparation for the inevitable, we called various human rights organizations and checkpoint watchdog groups to mobilize the needed media and advocates. I threatened to call the American embassy in Jerusalem to complain about the army pointing a weapon at an innocent American citizen.

The soldiers were not impressed and went to grab our driver. We all put ourselves between the driver and the army and held on to him. In an abrupt use of force, one of the soldiers violently pushed us away while another unslung his weapon. I heard the safety unlock and saw the gun pointed a few feet from my face. At that point a few of us stumbled and the driver was sucked into the back of the jeep. I quickly moved to the passenger side of the jeep to prevent the soldier who pointed the gun at us from closing the door. I continued to negotiate for our driver’s release. I failed and he was taken.

Pausing, we then decided to walk to where they took him. The sun was sinking but we were determined to find out if he was indeed arrested and pressure the army for his release. After an hour or so of negotiation by me and the driver’s assistant, we learned that the driver was arrested and that he would be released in an hour and a half. That was a lie. He was held for two and half days.

This is Israeli democracy. What I witnessed was a kidnapping. I am appalled by their law and their system. The Palestinians are not the terrorists. They are peaceful people desiring stability, peace and the right to return to their land.

The following is reproduced from Bitterlemons:

VIEW OF A PALESTINIAN CITIZEN OF ISRAEL
I don’t trust this government

an interview with Ahmed Tibi (deputy speaker of the Knesset and a leader of the Arab Movement for Change)

bitterlemons: How do you assess the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process following the Annapolis summit?

Tibi: Nothing surprising has occurred. From the very beginning we knew we are only initiating final status negotiations thanks to international involvement. This is not much more than a step in the right direction. There were no negotiations in Annapolis and that’s why I believe it was a non-event. Things in the Middle East are relative and that’s why some Palestinian leaders look positively on the agreement to initiate final status negotiations, but on the ground the Palestinians’ hard life, suffering and humiliation has not been relieved.

That the international community is accompanying this process is also a positive thing. But the withdrawal of the Israeli government from Olmert’s original intent to talk seriously about core issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, borders and settlements is a negative development that reflects coalition considerations.

bitterlemons: From 1993 to 1999 you were an adviser to Yasser Arafat. Can you compare then and now in terms of the possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

Tibi: I took part in the Madrid conference and was a spokesman for the Palestinian delegation at Wye River. There and at Camp David we had negotiations; here we have a startup. So I’m not optimistic that we’ll settle the final status issues by the end of 2008. If [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert can’t convince his defense minister, Ehud Barak, to remove roadblocks, I’m not sure he’ll be able to convince his coalition to go forward on the core issues.

As for the comparison between Arafat and Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas], no two people are alike. Arafat was a symbol and was charismatic; Abu Mazen is chairman of the PLO and president of the PA, he is authorized to negotiate and is capable. If the vision of two states collapses, the international community will press for a bi-national state.

bitterlemons: In Arafat’s day the Palestinian citizens of Israel were perceived as a bridge to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Have they now become part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Tibi: Nobody is dealing with us as a bridge today. The statements of Deputy PM [Avigdor] Lieberman and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, talking about the Palestinian state as the national solution for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, are creating a problem. They place question marks over the policy of this government toward the Arab minority in Israel. Those ministers behave toward us as non-citizens who can be moved about like chess pieces. We can’t accept that. We want our national identity in parallel to our citizenship, to give it real content. Meanwhile Livni is willing to tell Arab citizens, you can move if you wish to an independent Palestinian state. This is not the way a government should deal with its citizens. We are not immigrants to this county, Lieberman is. We are indigenous.

bitterlemons: The position papers and draft constitutions published during the past year by mainstream groups of Palestinian citizens of Israel, rejecting Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, are cited as having contributed to attitudes like that expressed by Livni.

Tibi: I’m not sure this was the trigger for her position. Livni comes from the Likud; she’s originally a rightist. I’m not sure her ideology changed on the way from the Likud to Kadima. There is no trust between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in Israel. Arabs are being treated as enemies, not as core citizens. They are marginalized. The definition of Israel as a Jewish state is perceived as deepening discrimination against non-Jews. Both the majority and minority in Israel have a responsibility to repair relations, but the majority has more tools to do this. Instead we are neglected and pushed away. Look what is going on in the Knesset with anti-Arab legislation.

bitterlemons: For Olmert to succeed in a peace process, he may need the support of some or all of the 10 members of Knesset who represent Arab parties. Would you join his coalition if the issue ever came up?

Tibi: No, we don’t support any coalition. We support a positive peace process. Here we mean my Knesset faction with its four mandates, but also in general the majority of the 10 members of Knesset. If there is any move toward withdrawal from occupied territories or a genuine peace process, we will not be an obstacle. I won’t let Lieberman bring down the coalition. If my vote becomes the deciding one, I will support a peace process.

bitterlemons: But suppose you were invited to join or officially support the coalition.

Tibi: The constellation is possible, yet I don’t trust this government as willing to go forward.

bitterlemons: Are the Arab members of Knesset trying to mediate in the dispute between Fateh and Hamas?

Tibi: We tried to do so two months ago. We met with Abu Mazen and tried to meet with Hamas in Gaza but were forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip by the [Israel] Defense Ministry. The [Hamas-Fateh] split is causing real damage to the Palestinian cause. I cannot accept the situation created by the military coup in Gaza. We should return to the status quo ante.- Published 10/12/2007 (c) bitterlemons.org

Ahmed Tibi is deputy speaker of the Knesset and a leader of the Arab Movement for Change. He has been a member of Knesset since 1999.

The other day, the New York Times published, With Art and Color, a Home to Mirror Jerusalem telling the tale of a rich Jewish American couple and their quest for a home in Israel. Honestly, their quest didn’t seem that difficult as their wealth and ensuing luxurious lifestyle made their dream of owning an upscale (1,800 square foot) “apartment” in Jerusalem easier than using an electric can opener to crack a can of chick peas.

After years of visiting Israel, staying only in Jerusalem’s choicest hotels, Mr. and Ms. Zisman, in a eureka!, “why not?” moment, decided to buy in the Holy City. The Times: “When they started talking about buying another vacation home in Florida — they already own a condo in Miami Beach — one of their daughters suggested they buy in Israel. “We thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Mrs. Zisman said.”

In the city of Jerusalem, where native Palestinians are systematically removed to make way for Jews, “why not?” indeed? The Times continues:

“The Zismans were certainly not strangers to the idea of multiple homes. After raising their children in Brooklyn, they built a home in the Long Island community of Cedarhurst near all three of their daughters. They spend six to seven months a year in that house, which has six bedrooms, four and a half bathrooms, a living room, dining room that can seat 30, library, den and elevator. They fly down to Florida for long weekends. There also is a country house in Monticello, N.Y., where they often spend part of the summer, and an apartment in the Crown Heights of Brooklyn, where Mr. Zisman, a Holocaust survivor and seventh-generation Lubavitcher, likes to be for the high holidays, in close proximity to the headquarters of the Lubavitch Hasidim.” “We’re Jewish, so we have a home in Florida and a place in Monticello,” Mrs. Zisman said, laughing.”

The Zismans, as Jewish Americans buying real estate in Israel, are not alone. Although Palestinians have called Jerusalem, with its significant Christian and Islamic landmarks, home for centuries, they are routinely denied entry to the city and are quickly being removed from many sections to make way for Jews, both Israeli and new immigrants.
Where a Wall separates the native population from its most important and cherished city, where the native population struggles economically from insidious Israeli policies and laws, where Palestinians may not have one home, wealthy American Jews have multiple homes.

The Zismans spared no expense. They brought in Jeffrey Mark:

“owner of J. Mark Interiors in Cedarhurst and the interior decorator who had designed their Long Island home. With their shared taste for traditional furnishings, including lots of antiques, wood and wall coverings, both Mr. Mark and the Zismans knew what they wanted for the Israeli home.” “[T]heir goal was to create an intimate home with art and a color palette that mirrored Israel and Jerusalem. “It had to reflect who they are,” Mr. Mark said, “and because it’s in Jerusalem, it was going to be better than anything else.”

“The oil triptych of Jerusalem that centers the rounded wall separating the public living space from the bedrooms is a favorite item. They found the middle painting in the studio of Ben Avram, an artist in the Old City gallery, but the other two were on loan, hanging in the offices of an Israeli public official. The artist provided a replacement for the office space, and now the three complementary pieces hang in the Zismans’ apartment.”

“The classic Baker furniture was imported from the United States, including mohair couches for the living room, which are “very durable and practical for when the grandchildren come,” Mr. Mark said. They also imported the wallpaper. Mr. Mark, who commuted weekly from Long Island to work on the project, spent “six weeks straight” bringing in various wallpapers.”

“The Zismans say they are enjoying the wraparound garden, where they have a spacious table, chairs and grill — perfect for the parties they love to have. In the backyard, aromatic fruit trees, including oranges and pomegranates, frame the cushioned chaises longues. These days, nearby construction mars the quiet afternoons, but Mr. Zisman says he relishes the early morning silence of Jerusalem when he gets up at 5 to go to the Western Wall for morning prayers.”

“This is our piece of the rock,” Mrs. Zisman said. “Now that I have it, I’m very proud that I own a home in Jerusalem. As a Jew, it’s a wonderful feeling.”

Indeed, as a Jew, it’s an easy thing to achieve and even easier to deny to others.

Israeli military suspends company

The Israeli military has suspended from duty an entire army company following the shooting of an unarmed Palestinian man in the West Bank on Thursday. The army said the soldiers, on a foot patrol near Hebron, had commandeered a Palestinian taxi and had shot a man who had come near them.

It said the troops had then failed to give first aid to the wounded man or report the incident.

The Israeli soldiers said they believed the man had been acting suspiciously.

One report said they had mistaken a spade he had been carrying for a gun.

The Israeli military police are now investigating the incident.

The wounded Palestinian was eventually evacuated by the Israeli army and treated for his injuries inside Israel.

‘Normatively wrong’

Israel Defence Force Central Command Major General Gadi Shamni concluded after an initial investigation of the incident, that the platoon commander’s actions had been “normatively wrong”.

He ordered an investigation into the overall behaviour of the regiment concerned to see if the incident was part of more general practice.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. It has settled about 430,000 people in the area, including Jerusalem, in contravention to international law.

Hebron and the surrounding area are a regular source of tension and violence.

It is the only place in the West Bank where a small community of Jewish settlers lives in the heart of a Palestinian city.

After visiting the Salfit region in Palestine, I remember the Ariel settlement being a sharp contrast to the Palestinian towns villages around it. Ariel has an unmistakable American suburban look which only highlights the Palestinian agricultural societies in the rest of the area.

The following piece was taken from Haaretz. It appears that the destruction in the cemetery will ultimately go unpunished as the organizers “promised to repair the damage next week.”

One can’t help but envision an insincere parent wagging his finger at a knowing, and smirking, child.

Muslim cemetery in W. Bank desecrated by Jewish group

by: Amos Harel

A Muslim graveyard in a village near the West Bank settlement of Ariel was desecrated by a group of Jewish worshippers visiting the area on Friday morning.

A group of some 1,300 Jews visited the tomb of Joshua Ben Nun Thursday night in full coordination with the Israel Defense Forces.

On Friday morning, after the Jewish worshippers had left, Palestinians reported to Leftist groups that several tombstones in the local Muslim graveyard had been vandalized. Some were smashed; others were sprayed with slogans reading “death to Arabs.”

The Civil Administration filed a police complaint.

IDF representatives met with the organizers of the excursion, who promised to repair the damages next week.

And from the Jewish news service, JTA:

Jewish supplicants deface Palestinian graves

Jewish supplicants damaged headstones in a Palestinian cemetery.

A number of worshippers broke off from a group of 1,300 praying Friday at the tomb of Joshua in Kifel Hares, near the West Bank settlement of Ariel, and entered an adjacent Palestinian cemetery. Yediot Achronot quoted local Palestinians as saying that the raiders smashed some tombstones and defaced others with slogans, including “Death to the Arabs!”

Yediot confirmed the account with the army, which had secured the Friday pilgrimage to the biblical figure’s reputed burial place. While noting that most of the supplicants behaved well, an army statement said: “To our regret, a number of supplicants chose to create a provocation and damage Palestinian tombstones.”

The army statement said it had taken up the matter with leaders of the pilgrimage, who promised to return next week and repair the damage.

I want to chronicle this in my blog. Pat is a wonderful activist and an important and intelligent voice for Americans to hear.

Buying the War on Palestinians: The US Media, The New York Times and Israel
Patrick O’Connor, The Electronic Intifada, 2 May 2007

After four disastrous years of US military occupation, Bill Moyers’ April 25 PBS special Buying the War attempted to hold the mainstream US media accountable for its complicity in selling the war on Iraq to the US public. Moyers documented how the US media, with The New York Times in a leading role, bowed to financial and political pressure, succumbed to an environment of patriotism and fear of terrorism, and uncritically reported false US government claims. Tragically, despite the terrible consequences of 60 years of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, there is still no significant movement to hold the US mainstream media accountable for a similar, dramatic failure in covering Israel and Palestine, and for its complicity in the US’ uncritical support for Israel.

Moyers’ analysis of the US media failure on Iraq was valuable, yet incomplete. He explained that to launch the attack on Iraq “high officials … needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on … our press largely surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with our government in marching to war.” Bob Simon of CBS explained to Moyers that the administration used marketing techniques to sell the war, “Just repeat it and repeat it and repeat it … Keep that drum beat going.” Media critic Norman Solomon told Moyers, “I think these [news] executives were terrified of being called soft on terrorism.” Moyers gave numerous examples of The New York Times passing on bogus intelligence on Iraq to the US public. Michael Massing of the Columbia Journalism Review highlighted the Times’ central role in marketing the Iraq war, saying: “The New York Times … remains immensely influential. People in the TV world read it every morning … People in government — of course read it, think tanks, and so on.”

However, though Moyers mentioned that the now infamous ‘neoconservatives’ had “long wanted to transform the Middle East, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein,” Moyers omitted a crucial reason for why the government’s case for war resonated with both the US media and public. It was based on widely held stereotypes about Arabs, Muslims and the Middle East, assumptions which are also essential to understanding US policy in Israel and Palestine. In his classic 1978 book Orientalism, Palestinian scholar Edward Said asserted that the Western understanding of Arabs, Muslims and the Middle East is a product of colonialism, and that Westerners view the East as inherently inferior and in need of redemption. The US case for war in Iraq rested on orientalist assumptions — that the Middle East was an undifferentiated region of Arabs and Muslims who, lacking any history or valid grievances, are possessed by an irrationally violent nature as well as hatred of the West, Israel, freedom and democracy. The region could be transformed through a combination of US military force and Western enlightenment. Playing on this racist view of Arabs and Muslims which is deeply rooted in the US psyche, the US government managed to convince most Americans, via a complicit media, of fantastic tales about links between Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime and Al Qaeda, stocks of horrific arms, a maniacal desire to use them against the US, and of the beneficial impact of “shock and awe.” This belief that irrational Arab and Muslim violence requires enlightened Western intervention and domination is also used to justify Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, underpins uncritical US support for Israel, and is central to US media coverage of Palestine and Israel.

Though Moyers did not, the neo-cons continually drew the link between Iraq and Israel, asserting that ‘the road to Jerusalem passes through Baghdad’

Though Moyers did not, the neo-cons continually drew the link between Iraq and Israel, asserting that “the road to Jerusalem passes through Baghdad.” And in Israel, the other major outpost in “the war on terror,” racist ideology and politically tainted intelligence are also pushed by the government and credulously reported by US media outlets like The New York Times. For example, an 11 April 2007 Times news article by Isabel Kershner headlined unverifiable claims by Israel’s Shin Bet (the equivalent of our FBI) that it had thwarted a massive Hamas suicide bombing planned for Passover. The article largely ignored Palestinian denials reported the same day in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. The Shin Bet claim seemed to merit skepticism in light of the Palestinian denials, and Hamas’ decision two years ago to halt large-scale attacks.

Indeed, Hamas’ implication in a large-scale bombing plot would have come at a convenient moment for Israel. Following 16 months during which 27 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, the lowest total in more than six years, Israel is struggling to prevent the crumbling of the international boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and to fend off repeated peace overtures from the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League. The Israeli government has been feeding the media stories saying that the calm is a ruse, that Hamas is using it to arm and plan attacks, and that Israel will therefore be forced to mount a large-scale invasion of Gaza soon. The Times has published at least four other articles echoing these Israeli government assertions since March 2007.

In response to my email raising these criticisms, I received an email on 27 April 2007 from The New York Times’ Public Editor Byron Calame acknowledging that: “In the editing of the article late in the evening, the denials Haaretz had obtained from unnamed Palestinian and Hamas officials were deleted. While the vagueness of the sourcing made it less essential that those denials be kept in the story, I think the article would have been better with the denials included.”

But, as with Iraq, the problem is much broader and more systematic than a few recent articles repeating dubious Israeli intelligence. My review of all 1,085 New York Times news articles written from Israel and Palestine since 1 December 2004 confirms that the Times largely hews to the Israeli and US government drumbeat of the war on terrorism and downplays the Palestinian experience. Though the Times is not much worse than other major US newspapers in reporting on Palestine and Israel, as with Iraq, the Times’ influential role means its failures have greater impact.

Of the 1,085 Times news articles since 1 December 2004, 37 percent mentioned Palestinian “attack(s),” 36 percent mentioned “terrorism,” 28 percent mentioned “terrorist(s),” 21 percent mentioned Palestinian “violence,” 18 percent mentioned “suicide bombing(s),” 16 percent mentioned Palestinian “weapon(s),” and 14 percent mentioned Palestinian “radicals.” In contrast to this strong Israeli narrative, only two words reflecting a Palestinian narrative appeared in a comparable percentage of Times’ news articles. Israeli “settlement(s)” were noted in 32 percent of articles, and Israeli “occupation” was mentioned in 16 percent of articles. This imbalance is even more striking because the emphasis on Palestinian terrorism and violence corresponded with a two year and five month period during which Israelis killed 965 Palestinians, more than half civilians, while Palestinians killed 85 Israelis. Nonetheless, Israeli “attacks(s)” are mentioned in 13 percent of Times articles, and Israeli “violence” in only 4 percent.

Only very careful readers of Times news reporting would be able to locate, amidst the barrage on Palestinian terrorism, basic elements of the Palestinian experience — Israeli human rights abuses, Israeli attacks and violations of international law, Palestinian poverty, the Palestinian understanding that they are victims of Israeli discrimination and racism, and Israel’s denial of the right of return to Palestinian refugees. In a startling display of bias, since December 2004, 70 to 130 times as many Times news articles mentioned Palestinian “terrorism” or Palestinian “attack(s)” as mentioned Israeli “discrimination”, “racism” or “apartheid.” Thirty-five times as many articles mentioned Palestinian “terrorism” as mentioned Palestinian “poverty”, though 70 percent of Palestinians are now living below the poverty line.

Ethan Bronner, the Times’ Deputy Foreign Editor overseeing news reporting from Palestine and Israel, recently articulated the outlook behind The Times’ dramatic tilt towards a right-wing Israeli/US narrative. In deriding Jimmy Carter’s recent best-selling book, Bronner described “the endless humiliation of daily life for the Palestinians under Israeli occupation” as “yesterday’s story, especially since Israel’s departures from southern Lebanon and Gaza have not stopped anti-Israel violence from those areas,” and because “for the most radical leaders of the Muslim world … settling the Israel question … means eliminating Israel.” However, Bronner’s claim that an emphasis on Palestinian and Muslim violence and radicalism is necessitated by recent events is belied by the reality that the Times approach is not a new one, but represents business as usual, reflecting the same orientalist depiction of Arabs and Muslims outlined by Edward Said in 1978.

A sampling of other Times’ news articles from the last weeks provides concrete examples of the biased reporting behind the numbers.

A 22 April 2007 article by Isabel Kershner “Israel and Palestinians Trade Fire in Gaza and West Bank” noted in the opening sentence that: “A sharp escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence in the West Bank and Gaza left up to six Palestinians dead and culminated in an Israeli airstrike into Gaza.” Though six Palestinians were killed inside the West Bank and Gaza, with five deaths definitively attributed to the Israeli military, and no Israeli injuries reported, the article headlined an exchange of fire. Kershner’s opening summary sentence did not attribute the “violence” or even escalation to Israel, nor did she use the word “attack” to describe Israeli actions. Even more peculiar, of the article’s 851 total words, 524 words were devoted to describing a Palestinian “attack” on a private American School for Palestinians in Gaza during which the “attackers,” “Islamic extremists” and “Islamic radicals” destroyed school property, but injured no one. Thus Israeli soldiers who killed six Palestinians, didn’t “attack” and received less coverage than Palestinian “radicals” and “extremists” who “attacked,” though they hurt no one.

Rather than describing Hebron’s settlers, acknowledged by Israelis as extreme, uzi-toting settlers who frequently attack Palestinians, as ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists,’ the Times politely called them ‘the most uncompromising of the settlers.’

The same day, 22 April, The Times ran a telling parallel news story by Jennifer Medina, “Settlers’ Defiance Reflects Postwar Israeli Changes,” about an Israeli settler takeover of a Palestinian home in the middle of a Palestinian neighborhood in Hebron’s Old City. Rather than describing Hebron’s settlers, acknowledged by Israelis as extreme, uzi-toting settlers who frequently attack Palestinians, as “radicals” or “extremists,” the Times politely called them “the most uncompromising of the settlers.” And despite the settler takeover of a home in a Palestinian neighborhood, the Times subtly placed the burden of violence on Palestinians, noting, “there are fears of violence — there have been some reports of young Palestinians throwing rocks at the settlers. And a white Star of David is spray-painted on the front door of a Palestinian family.” Of 1,085 Times articles, 133 mentioned Palestinian “radical(s),” while only four articles mentioned Israeli “radical(s).” Colonizing settlers are neither radical nor violent, but colonized Palestinians are.

Growing Palestinian radicalization is a dangerous trend, but by minimizing Palestinians’ radicalizing experience of oppression and denial of rights, the Times reader is left to rely on the orientalist assumption that radicalism is a disease that springs naturally from Arab and Muslim minds and spreads. Over six years and thousands of articles during this Palestinian uprising, The New York Times quoted or paraphrased just 6,256 words on human rights abuses by Israelis or by Palestinians from three respected, independent third parties, the major human rights reporting on Israel and Palestine — Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Israeli organization B’Tselem. The phrase “human rights” can be found in only 7 percent of the 1,088 Times articles since December 2004, “international law” in 2 percent of articles, and “Palestinian rights” in 0.4 percent of articles.

While it is not surprising that The New York Times marginalizes human rights and international law, the Times reports as infrequently on Palestinians’ basic human needs. Though 70 percent of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories now live below the poverty line, and 30 percent are unemployed, over the last two years and five months, only 1 percent of Times news articles from Israel and Palestine discussed Palestinian “poverty” or “unemployment,” while 1.8 percent of articles described Palestinians as “impoverished,” and 1.3 percent described Palestinians as “unemployed.”

Additionally, the Times virtually ignores the situation of 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, 20 percent of Israel’s population, and that of the five million Palestinians living as refugees

Additionally, the Times virtually ignores the situation of 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, 20 percent of Israel’s population, and that of the five million Palestinians living as refugees. An immediate case in point is the Times’ reporting on Palestinian public intellectual, leader and former member of the Israeli Knesset Azmi Bishara. Bishara has been at the forefront of public discussions for years of Israeli discrimination against Palestinians and the assertion that Israel must transform itself from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens. Over the last weeks Bishara left the country and resigned his parliament seat after being accused by the Israeli government of providing assistance to an enemy during war and money laundering. Bishara, an articulate Palestinian Christian intellectual, in a leadership role, with no involvement with armed resistance, insists that Israel’s problems are not confined to occupation, but are rather a function of its status as “a Jewish state.” Despite his prominent role in Israel, Palestine and the Arab World, since December 2004, Bishara’s name was mentioned in only four of the 1,085 news articles on Israel and Palestine, two of those in the last week. Given the Israeli and US governments’ insistence that Israel is a democracy, they would prefer that Bishara not exist, shut up or be shut up. The Times has until now largely complied with that wish.

More broadly, the concepts of Israeli discrimination and racism against Palestinians, which are part of the daily language of many Palestinians including Bishara, were raised in only 0.4 percent and 0.5 percent of all Times news articles on Israel and Palestine since December 2004. The concept of Israeli apartheid, also a daily staple of Palestinian discourse, but summarily dismissed by the Times’ Ethan Bronner as an “overstatement” and a “false echo of the racist policies of the old South Africa”, was mentioned in only 0.3 percent of all Times news articles from Israel and Palestine. The Times has essentially refused Palestinians the opportunity to present their view that they are victims of discrimination and racism.

Renowned Israeli reporter Amira Hass has asserted that “What journalism is really about — it’s to monitor power and the centers of power.” The US mainstream media, with The New York Times in the lead, has failed miserably in achieving that ideal, not only in covering Iraq, but also in reporting on Israel and Palestine. Rather than any concept of objectivity, balance or truth, the US media reflects instead the imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians, emphasizing the views of the most powerful actors — the Israeli and US governments. Palestinians’ lived experiences — that they are under attack, being killed, impoverished, having their land taken, denied their rights, and the victims of a discriminatory system — are drowned out by the drumbeat of Palestinian terrorism, even when few Israelis are being killed. As with Iraq, this racist narrative of inherent Arab violence is being exploited to justify domination of one people by another. Lacking this analysis, Bill Moyers’ Buying the War represents only a first step towards exposing US media bias in covering the Middle East.

Patrick O’Connor is a New York City-based activist with Palestine Media Watch and the International Solidarity Movement. He is completing a research project on US newspaper coverage of Palestine and Israel.

Blurb from Haaretz:

Report: Settlers assault left-wing activists protecting shepherds

By Mijal Grinberg, Haaretz Correspondent

West Bank settlers on Friday assaulted left-wing activists who had come to protect about 20 Palestinian shepherds in the southern Hebron Hills, lightly wounding a Palestinian man and a female Israeli activist, the activists said.

However, police said there were no casualties.

Arik Ascherman, the executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, said eight settlers, with dogs, assaulted the three Israeli and seven foreign left-wing activists, breaking several cameras.

Israeli security forces arrived at the scene and detained Ascherman and two of the settlers for questioning.

AND…

Irish Peace Laureate Shot By Israeli Troops at Non-Violent Protest - Why Isn’t This News?
by Robert Naiman, 25 April 2007

If you listened to Democracy Now on Monday, you already know the following:

Irish Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire was among a number of people shot Friday by Israeli troops at a nonviolent protest of the “apartheid wall” in the Palestinian village of Bil’in, near Ramallah.

But if you didn’t listen to Democracy Now Monday, you probably didn’t know that.

Maguire was shot with what the Israeli military - and some press reports - misleading refer to as a “rubber bullet” - that is, a rubber-coated steel bullet.
Why isn’t this “news” in the United States? There’s nothing on the web sites of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Los Angeles Times, not even a wire story.

Those who blame the Palestinian people for their fate, attributing it to Palestinian violence, and faulting the Palestinians for not emulating Gandhi, King, or Mandela (whose role in the “armed struggle” against apartheid in South Africa is always conveniently elided for the purpose of this comparison) should periodically ask themselves, when Palestinians do engage in nonviolent protest, and are subjected to brutal repression as a result, how come the mainstream U.S. media don’t pay any attention?

Wouldn’t this be a precondition for a successful nonviolent protest strategy? That people find out about it? Imagine if U.S. news organizations had not reported on lunch counter sit-ins in the South, Freedom Rides, or the Montgomery bus boycott - and the repression that resulted. What if no-one reported on the deaths of Evers, Goodman, Schwerner, Chaney. Would these protests have been as effective?

That U.S. political, diplomatic, and financial support for the Israeli government’s policies in the West Bank provide crucial support for these policies should be beyond debate. Don’t the American people have a right to know what’s going on?

And if a Nobel peace laureate is shot at a non-violent protest using weapons paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, isn’t that news?

A great deal of ink has been spilled about how the United States is perceived in the Middle East. Too little of that ink has addressed whether the perception of the United States might be the predictable result of unjust U.S. policies, and whether changing some of those policies might be part of a strategy for changing the perceptions.

A new poll from World Public Opinion.org finds that nine in ten Egyptians thinks that the U.S. is at war with Islam, and wants the U.S. to “remove its bases and military forces from all Islamic countries.” Eight in ten Egyptians support attacks on U.S. troops in the region to bring this about.

U.S. policy towards the Palestinians is surely not the whole story, but it is surely an important part of the story. If the U.S. cannot, in the short term, compel Israel to accept a political settlement with the Palestinians along the lines of the international consensus - withdrawal to the 1967 borders - can’t we at least get them to stop shooting unarmed demonstrators? Or, if even that is too much to ask, how about no shooting Nobel peace laureates?

Wednesday night Bill Moyers will examine on PBS how the U.S media failed us in the run-up to the Iraq war. Perhaps Mr. Moyers could look into how the U.S. media is failing us on our policy towards the Palestinians.

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.

The following is a powerful piece describing the death of a Palestinian baby as a result of being delayed at a checkpoint from reaching the hospital.  The heartlessness of the Israeli solider who caused the delay is on display.

Twilight Zone / It’s from Allah the soldier said

by: Gideon Levy

They divided the nights between them. He went to sleep early and got up in the middle of the night so his wife could sleep for a few hours. Day and night, they never took their eyes off their sick baby. Khaled, their youngest child, was now five months old and very sick. From the age of four weeks he had had episodes of shortness of breath and a trembling that seized his entire little body. Every two to three weeks, they had to rush him to the hospital in Ramallah. He would be placed in an oxygen tent for a few hours before being discharged. That is is how the doctors saved him, time after time. When he gets a little bigger, the doctors told them, he will require surgery to remove a blood clot in his brain.
The parents, Sana and Daoud Fakih, had already lost two children to illness, seven years apart. Having known such sorrow, they never left their precious Khaled alone for a moment.

That’s how it was exactly three weeks ago, as well, on Thursday night. Daoud went to bed early, at 7 P.M., in anticipation of getting up later to relieve Sana. Slightly after midnight, she woke him. Khaled was having another attack of shortness of breath and convulsions.

Their village, Kufr Ayn, is impressive to look at. Its houses sit on a hilltop overlooking a lush valley in the heart of the West Bank, north-west of Ramallah, about halfway from there to Qalqilyah. The narrow road leading up to the village passes through olive groves and by the neighboring villages of Beit Rima and Qarwat Bani Zeid. The Palestinian who hitches a ride with us at the intersection tells us about Muwafiz Rimawi, 34, a man from her village who was seriously injured in an accident at his home and delayed at the Atara checkpoint for about half an hour, until he eventually died from the bleeding in his brain. This was about a month ago.

A picture of Khaled is affixed to a mirror beneath a red heart in the family’s modest home in the center of the village. His death has left the Kafihs with three children, two sons and a daughter.

Daoud, 43, has taught English for 22 years at the high school in Qarwat Bani Zeid. Sana, also 43, knits kippot (skullcaps) at home - one a day - and sells them for NIS 5 each to a trader who then sells them to Jewish settlers in the West Bank, or in Israel. One wonders if their wearers have any idea who made them.

Khaled was born at the government hospital in Ramallah on October 9, 2006. He was a large baby, weighing in at over four kilos, and born healthy. The problems began when he was a month old. On March 9, when he was exactly five months old, he suffered another attack of shortness of breath and convulsions. Sana woke Daoud. It was shortly after midnight. The couple was well-practiced by now.

Daoud called a friend with a Mercedes (”the fastest car in the village”) and asked him to hurry over. Five minutes later, the friend was at their door and in the meantime the Fakihs had packed milk and medications for their convulsing baby. The attack, says Daoud, wasn’t so serious at this stage. In a previous episode, ten days earlier, they made it to the Ramallah hospital in 20 minutes. “I told the driver: Drive fast so we’ll get to the hospital in time,” Daoud recalls.

The yellow iron gate between the village and the main road was open that night. The Mercedes raced toward its destination; Sana held Khaled, panting and convulsing, in the back seat. After about fifteen minutes, they reached the Atara checkpoint north of Ramallah, one of the toughest and cruelest in the West Bank, especially of late. At this hour there were no other cars waiting.

The driver stopped at the stop sign in front of the checkpoint, as required. After about a minute, a soldier emerged and approached them. In the back seat, Khaled’s condition was worsening. His breath was getting shorter and his shaking was getting stronger.

“Where are you going?,” the soldier asked, and the driver replied in his meager Hebrew: “To the hospital in Ramallah.” The soldier asked for the ID cards of all the passengers. Daoud appealed to him: “Before the IDs, listen to me. We have a very sick baby in the car and I want to get him to the hospital on time, before it’s too late.”

The soldier heard him, says Daoud, but didn’t show any signs of interest. He didn’t even bother to glance in the back seat, to see their convulsing baby. “He didn’t care. He wasn’t deaf. He heard, but he didn’t even ask, ‘Where’s the baby?’”

The Fakihs had passed this checkpoint several times en route to the hospital with their baby, and the soldiers had always let them through quickly as soon as they saw the sick infant. Not this time. This soldier insisted on collecting each person’s ID card in turn. “I didn’t have a choice so I handed him the ID cards,” Daoud says. The soldier took the IDs cards and walked away from the car, toward the checkpoint. Khaled’s condition continued to worsen.

Usually, Daoud says, the ID check takes just a minute or two, especially when the checkpoint is totally deserted, as it was that night. But not this time. After a wait of about five desperate minutes, Daoud called out to the soldier: “Soldier, soldier, excuse me, but I want to get to the hospital. My baby is in serious condition.” “What are you yelling about?,” the young soldier scolded Daoud, “Don’t yell.” Daoud was upset. “Look at the baby, he’s going to die! Afterward you do whatever you want.” The soldier turned away without saying anything.

Sana became hysterical. With Khaled in her arms, she began crying and shouting: “My baby… My baby is going to die!” Daould was desperate. “At that moment, I wanted to get out of the car, but I couldn’t. They could shoot me, beat me, or delay me even longer. I chose to wait in the car. Waiting was better than getting out.”

More long, fateful minutes that felt like an eternity passed. It was almost 1:00 A.M. Finally, the soldier came back. “Open the car,” he instructed. The soldier checked the car, going through package after package, the one with the diapers and the one with the medicines and the milk, and so on. Daoud shouted: “I don’t have time. Don’t make my baby die here. He’s dying.” Sana’s crying kept getting louder, the baby gasped harder for breath.

Sana grabbed the soldier by the arm. “Look at the baby,” she pleaded. The startled soldier turned his weapon toward her. Then he relaxed and shined his flashlight on the baby’s face. “What happened to the baby?,” he asked. Daoud told him the baby was dying. “I’ll go and bring you the ID cards,” the soldier said, but not before pausing to check the trunk and to inspect the spare tire and whatever was under it - all by the book, the book of the occupation.

But then the most terrible thing of all happened: Khaled suddenly stopped shaking. His tiny hands dropped to his sides and his breathing became slow and heavy. “Our baby is dead!,” wailed Sana, while Daoud tried to reassure her: “No he’s not, just be patient and strong, now we’re on our way.”

The soldier brought back the ID cards. “Drive to the hospital quickly,” he told them. Sana said there was no point now in going to the hospital. Next to Bir Zeit, they stopped the car to check on the baby’s condition. Khaled was no longer breathing. Daoud told Sana that there was no point in continuing. “Our baby is dead.” But Sana insisted that they continue on to the hospital, maybe the doctors could revive Khaled.

At 1:20 A.M. they arrived at the emergency room. The doctors examined Khaled, put him into an oxygen tent but then had to pronounce him dead. “There’s nothing we can do for him now,” they told the parents.

On the way home, having left their dead baby at the hospital, they passed through the Atara checkpoint again. “Where’s the baby?,” the soldier asked. “My baby died,” Daoud answered him. “Died? Why?,” asked the soldier. “He died, because I waited here at the checkpoint,” Daoud said. “No, it’s from Allah,” the soldier replied.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office said this week: “The IDF has no knowledge of this incident, nor has any complaint about such a matter been received by the Liaison and Coordination Administration.”

Daoud says he doesn’t want to exaggerate in estimating the delay at the checkpoint, “so the Israelis won’t say we’re lying like they said after the man from Beit Rima was delayed at the same checkpoint, until he died from bleeding in his brain.” Daoud says the delay was between 20 and 25 minutes.

Khaled was buried in the village cemetery the following day.

We are invited to view a video of the funeral on the home computer of Daoud’s brother. Khaled is lying on his deathbed, a sweet baby with open eyes and mouth, a Palestinian flag covering his tiny body. First his grandmother, then his mother, kisses the body. A group of gloomy-looking men sit silently in the shade of the olive trees on the edge of the cemetery, and finally there is a shot of the checkpoint, with its concrete blocks and soldiers, separating Ramallah from the surrounding villages.

I haven’t posted in about three weeks.  I really don’t have a good reason for my absence other than after spending all day at work at the computer, I haven’t wanted to spend more time looking at the screen at home.  In a way, I’ve taken some time off from the news, politics and controversy in general.  My status allows me such a privilege.  Yet Palestine has been on my mind, no doubt.  I been thinking regularly about returning and the under what conditions I would.  Reading through my old journal has reminded me of the need to be there and the questions that remain with me.  I still have curiosity and desire in me to return, but, truly, the time is not right, nevermind that I lack the finances!  But one day, inshallah.