Editor's
comment:
Propaganda may the most telling weapon in influencing any war. Our
next two issues will be on the subject of propaganda or the planned absence
of veracity in MidEast reporting. James J. David is a retired Brigadier
General who is willing to place his reputation on the side of truth.
Influencing
MidEast News
By James J. David
If you haven't noticed it by
now, I'm sure you will within a very short time. I'm talking about US
news coverage of the Middle East. It seems that Israel has poured millions
of dollars in recruiting some of the top PR firms in the United States
to make sure that the news coverage is tilted towards Israel's behalf.
In addition to these public relation firms the Israelis are using several
pro-Israel groups to influence American news coverage using tactics to
include boycotts of several top media outlets and massive phone, e-mail,
and letter-writing campaigns. They are being directed at both large and
small news operations with direct communication to the editors of our
major newspapers, broadcast outlets, and cable news channels across the
United States.
The Israeli government has been particularly concerned that the news media
coverage has been somewhat sympathetic to Palestinians, especially in
the wake of their latest offensive moves in the Jenin Refugee Camp, Ramallah,
and in Bethlehem. Their concern is that this "sympathetic" coverage
could weaken public support for Israel and influence what is generally
seen as a historically pro-Israel US policy. These news outlets are now
discovering that there is hell to pay if they portray Arabs positively
or Israelis negatively.
I encountered a first hand experience of this pro-Israeli news gestapo
tactic just last week. An Associated Press article by Barry Schweid, "US
: No Clear Arafat-Terror Link" stated that '..the State Department
recently informed Congress that there was no clear evidence that Yasser
Arafat or other senior officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization
ordered or knew in advance of terror attacks on Israel.' Within 4 hours
of its release the story was immediately withdrawn and replaced with a
revised story, one that was far less forgiving on Arafat and the PA. Being
the inquisitive person that I am, I immediately called the Associated
Press office in Washington and spoke directly with Barry Schweid, the
AP writer for both stories. Mr. Schweid informed me that within a few
hours after the first story was released his office was swamped with pro-Israeli
calls objecting to the article demanding it be revised. In addition, California
Congressman Tom Lantos, a staunch Israeli supporter, was near hysterics
in his complaints of the article demanding it be withdrawn and revised
with a far less innocent portrayal of Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian
Authority. Within minutes the article was withdrawn and was replaced with
a revised article that was obviously less forgiving and far less favorable
on Arafat and the PA.
Whatever the case may be, there's no doubt that journalists generally
understand critical words about Israel to be hazardous to careers and
now, more than ever, it seems that journalists are taking heed. Just two
weeks ago, a Palestinian mother and her two small sons were picking grape
leaves on their own farmland when the Israelis fired a tank shell that
killed all three. After the Israelis attempted to justify the killing
with one of their usual lies by saying that a bomb detonated under their
tank causing an immediate response, it was later discovered that there
was no bomb at all. The only blast that was heard was the normal sound
of clatter coming from the tank tracks.
Just two days ago an Israeli
mother and her 13 year-old daughter were also killed by an Israeli tank
shell. These two innocent Palestinians were doing nothing more than grazing
sheep on their own land, but the Israelis had a different story to tell.
According to the Israelis, the mother and her 13 year-old daughter were
approaching too close to one of the checkpoints without halting causing
the Israelis to open fire. Again, the Israelis were caught with their
normal deception when it was later discovered that the mother and daughter
were nowhere near any checkpoint. Once again, the Israelis had to change
their story by saying that the two "looked suspicious." "Looking
suspicious" seems to work best when Israelis need a good lie. It's
only used as a last resort, but it's one lie that's rarely challenged
and impossible to refute.
The murder and slaughter of
these innocent Palestinians hardly received any news coverage at all and
any coverage they did receive were hidden in the back pages of some other
unrelated topic of Middle East News. They didn't make the front page of
any national newspaper nor did they make the leading stories on Headline
News. You didn't see any story titled "Israelis kill Palestinian
mother and 13-year-old daughter because 'they looked suspicious.'"
There was no leading story of any headline news saying "Palestinian
mother and her 2 small sons killed by an Israeli tank shell because of
noise from the tracks." But when a Palestinian suicide bomber strikes
and kills 2 Israelis, as it did yesterday, the newspapers and headline
news makes it their leading story. And not only does it make the Headline
News, but it makes the leading story on Paul Harvey and nearly every talk
show on American TV and radio. Yet, not one word is mentioned about the
innocent Palestinians killed. I guess it's only news if Israelis are killed.
Tilting the news in order to
make one side appear less violent is unfair practice and must stop. To
use a comment from Robert Fisk, "Rarely since the Second World War
has a people been so vilified as the Palestinians, and rarely has a people
been so frequently excused and placated as the Israelis."
In addition to this current
PR campaign by pro-Israeli groups to help
maintain pressure for a favorable media tilt, the half-century old tactic
that has been brandished most effectively and used as a preemptive threat
is, and has been, the charge of anti-Semitism. Any Americans who speak
out against Israel's extreme disregard for human rights are liable to
be in the line of fire, and the news media are not excluded. The promiscuous
use of the label "anti-Semitic" to tar and feather any critic
of Israel has been and remains the most effective tool used to influence
today's coverage of Middle East News. Once again, I'm reminded of the
wonderful words of Robert Fisk when asking his colleagues to search their
consciences: "Our gutlessness, our refusal to tell the truth, our
fear of being slandered as 'anti-Semites' -- the most loathsome of libels
against any journalist -- means that we are aiding and abetting terrible
deeds in the Middle East."
A just solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict can only be achieved if U.S. policy is based upon American moral
principles and a strict adherence to international law. This can only
be achieved with a balanced Middle East policy to include fair and unbiased
news coverage as required by the ethical Standards of American journalism.
Both policies play a major factor in the final determination in bringing
a lasting peace in the Middle East. Jews and Arabs have suffered too long.
No people have suffered more. It's time for peace in the Middle East.
James J. David is a retired
Brigadier General, Georgia Army National Guard, and a graduate of the
U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security
Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served as a Company
Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam
in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in
and around the Middle East from 1967-1969. You may contact him by writing
to (info@whtt.org)
We Hold These Truths (www.whtt.org)
P.O. Box 14491
Scottsdale, AZ 85267
480 947 3329
