Coverage
of the Middle East Crisis
In
The Op-ed Pages
The Philadelphia Inquirer
10/6/2000
– 02/06/2001
Dr.
Ahmed Bouzid - President
Michael Lopez-Calderon – Analyst
Palestine Media Watch
http://www.pmwatch.org
©
Copyright February 18, 2001
2.3 Staff accessibility and
responsiveness
3.1 Editors and the editorial
board
3.2.2 Adopting the official
Israeli line
4.1 The Editors and the
editorial board
4.6 Staff accessibility and
responsiveness
4.7 Conclusions and
recommendations
Responsibility for
crisis/violence
Findings and reports by
human right organizations
That Israel is an
occupying force
This
report details the findings of an analysis conducted by Palestine Media Watch
of how the Middle East crisis has been covered by the opinion pages
of the Philadelphia Inquirer between October 6, 2000 and February 06, 2001.
Our
aim in writing this report is to raise the Philadelphia Inquirer’s awareness of
its own editorial coverage of the Middle East crisis. Our aim is not to characterize or label the Inquirer, but to
examine its product and the quality and variety of what it is offering its
readership.
If
you wish to contact Palestine Media
Watch, please send email to:
If
you wish to contact The Philadelphia Inquirer, please send email to:
Inquirer.letters@phillynews.com
Three
key terms will be used throughout this report to qualify editorials, columns,
and cartoons: “pro-Israeli,” “pro-Palestinian,” and “balanced.” This section spells out what we mean by the
three terms.
By
and large, it has been remarkably easy to classify any given column to one of
the three categories. “Pro-Israeli”
columns are readily identifiable, since they reflect a well-defined worldview
from which “pro-Israeli” columns very rarely deviate: (1) Palestinians are
primarily to blame for the violence; (2) Barak has offered major concessions;
(3) Palestinians should accept Barak’s concessions; (4) Palestinians have no
right of return, etc. Beyond that,
“pro-Israeli” columns are striking in how they neglect mention of important
issues, such as the killing of children; the forced expulsion of civilians from
their homes; the use of live ammunition against civilians; the strain of
Palestinian hospitals; the economic hardship endured by Palestinians, etc.
What
is remarkable is how very little that is new, informative or original can be
found in a “pro-Israeli” column. This is the more remarkable since more than
80% of opinion print space has been given to “pro-Israeli” expressions. That is, the same narrow story has been
told, again and again, throughout these thirteen (16) weeks, with little
variation on the message, tone, the facts or the nature of the discourse.
“Pro-Palestinian”
columns tend to stress some basic realities that “pro-Israeli” columns ignore:
mainly, they highlight the illegal character of Israeli actions, the reality on
the ground, and characterize Israel as the aggressor rather than the victim.
“Balanced”
columns by and large avoid faulting either side, or when finding fault both
sides are taken to task. “Balanced”
columns tend to stress the morally obvious, legally sound arguments, and
factually given realities
Below
are the stands taken by the three camps on some key issues. Note that the “key issues” vary from one
category to the other.
Arafat:
Israel:
Peace
Process:
Barak:
The
US:
The
Intifada:
Sharon's
visit:
The
Palestinians’ “Right of return”:
Jerusalem:
The subtext
Palestinian
suffering:
Violence:
UN:
Arafat:
Settlements:
Israeli
reaction to uprising:
Peace
Process:
The subtext
The subtext [continued]
Right
of return:
·
Palestinians have a legitimate right to return to their homeland
·
Israel should accept responsibility for the Palestinian refugee
problem
Settlements:
·
Israel should evacuate all occupied territories
·
Israel continuously builds settlements in direct violation of
Oslo
·
Building of settlements has accelerated under Barak
Peace
process:
·
Negotiations should continue
·
Negotiations have collapse because of Israeli intransigence
·
The US is not an honest broker; it stands squarely with Israel
·
Barak did not offer “far-reaching” concessions
·
Israel has kept political prisoners in jail in violation of Oslo
Sharon/Sharon’s
visit:
·
Ariel Sharon’s provocations were intentional
·
Ehud Barak was trying to pressure Arafat when he allowed
Sharon’s visit
Palestinian suffering:
·
Palestinians are enduring severe economic hardships
·
Palestinians are under military occupation
·
Curfews and movement-limiting actions hurt Palestinians a great
deal
·
Palestinians need true sovereignty
Israeli
crackdown:
·
There is a need for an independent inquiry into the violence
·
Israel has reacted with disproportionate violence
·
Ratio of killings: 10-1
·
The harsh crackdown will only strengthen Palestinian resolve
International
law/human rights:
·
UN Resolution 242 should be the basis of a peace settlement
·
Israel repeatedly violates international law
·
Frequent mentions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
·
Israeli sniper assassinations of Palestinian leadership is
illegal and immoral
·
Israel repeatedly violates basic human rights’ principles/Geneva
convention
·
Frequent mentions of human rights’ reports
Jerusalem:
·
Al-Aqsa is important for Muslims
·
Jerusalem should be an open city
·
Barak has pursued a policy of “Judaicization” of Jerusalem
·
The political conflict should not be turned into a religious war
The
Philadelphia Inquirer published thirty-eight (38) letters to the editor on the
Middle East crisis between October 6, 2000 and February 6, 2001. This section provides a quantitative analysis
of those letters.
2.1 The Letters’ Staff
The
Philadelphia Inquirer’s “Letters” editor is Kevin Ferris. On one occasion when we tried to contact Mr.
Ferris, Mr. Vernon Clark was filling in for the vacationing editor.
The
thirty-eight (38) letters on the Al-Aqsa Intifada have been
classified in this report into one of the following categories: “pro-Israeli”,
“pro-Palestinian”, or “balanced”.