What Was That Question?

By John Law

Those of us who follow Arab-Israeli affairs have gotten used to stories in the "mainstream" media that give only one side—guess which!—of the particular issue being discussed.

But what are we to make of an important story in which the media gives neither side? And what if it turns out that this has been happening mostly to the same story, time after time, for the past 15 years?

I speak, of course, of the controversial United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which avers that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." This became a "big story" once again over the weekend of Sept. 21-22, when it was reported that President Bush, during a speech to the UN General Assembly, would call for the repeal of the resolution. The president did, and on Sept. 23 and 24 the TV news programs and the print media were playing it up as a big development, with news items and editorials. The New York Times used a six-column headline across the top of an entire page: "Bush Asks General Assembly to Repeal Resolution Equating Zionism with Racism, " and followed it with a 1,500-word story. Also using a six-column headline for the story was The Washington Post. Other major papers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Christian Science Monitor published long reports as well, and TV provided coverage on its news shows.

Not a Whit of Enlightenment

So readers and viewers became very enlightened about the issue, right? No, not a whit. Amazing as it may seem, after reading dozens of articles top to bottom, I never read or heard any reference to, much less discussion of, the "pros and cons " of the issue. If Zionism is the equivalent of racism, just what makes it so, and why? If Zionism is not like racism, what are the reasons? Instead, readers and viewers were simply informed that those who wanted to annul the resolution believed it was "obscene" and wrong, and the other side believed that it wasn't. The analysis seemed to reach no higher level than that of a pair of arguing toddlers who say to each other: "Why?" "Because." "Because why?" "Because."

Perhaps the journalists took their lead from President Bush himself, who did not discuss the pros and cons of Zionism in his speech. His entire statement on the resolution was only 138 words, which included these: "Zionism is not a policy. It is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the state of Israel." The idea that led to? When we drew up our US Constitution, was that just an idea that "led to" the establishment of the United States, or did we already have its establishment in mind? When President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq, was that just an idea that led to "Desert Storm, " or was it a policy, which was implemented by Desert Storm?

If Zionism is the equivalent of racism, what makes it so, and why?

Mr. Bush also said that "to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to reject Israel itself…This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. " The Zionism-equals-racism resolution does not suggest, however, that Israel should be ejected from the UN. As for its challenging Israel's "right to exist," Mr. Bush should know that the Arab countries have already recognized Israel's right to exist in a number of ways, including their recognition of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the passage of a resolution to this effect at their 1982 summit conference in Fez. Furthermore, even the PLO has recognized Israel's "right to exist" within its 1967 borders, through public statements made by Yasser Arafat in 1988.

However much some journalists may have been influenced by President Bush's speech in writing stories that avoided mentioning the pros and cons of the issue, it is hard to find any justification for those who knew the issue. Many of the "mainstream" journalists writing habitually on foreign affairs and sometimes on Middle East issues are aware that Zionism's goals were, and still are, to develop a state designed for Jews only and to use force when necessary to add to their state those areas that are deemed part of " Eretz Israel." Many are also aware that Israel treats those of its citizens who are Palestinians as " second-class citizens," in law and in fact. It is hard to escape the conclusion that their apparent reluctance to bring up such facts stemmed from a fear that to do so—even if they did not condemn the Israeli actions—would draw accusations of "anti-Semitism." It seems, therefore, fair to say that the failure of journalists to explain the pros and cons of the argument about Zionism and racism is not actually a case of media "myopia" but of media cowardice.

New Myth?

A new myth about Israel—first sighted during the war in the Gulf—appears to be still alive and well, and may be heading towards sanctification. The myth: when Israel does not do something that is in its interest not to do, it is expressing a "restraint" that we should all admire.

The Israeli restraint so extolled by much of the media last winter, after Iraqi Scud missiles began landing in Israel, was its decision not to enter the war. Yet it had much more to gain by staying out than it did from going in. For one thing, its banker and patron, the US, was urging it not to, and promising to pay for the "costs" of staying out (which the US eventually did, to the tune of $650 million). The US also sent Israel Patriot missiles, with American crews, to counter the Scuds, which killed one Israeli during the course of the war. Chances were good, based on American and British casualties during the air war, that if Israel had sent bombers over Iraq to blast the Scud sites, they would have lost more than one crewman in the process. Most important, though, was the fact that the US defeated and defanged the most powerful of Israel's Arab enemies, Iraq. All for free. Yet to this day, many articles and broadcasts talk of Israel's "restraint" at that time, without either putting the word in quotes or adding a qualifying phrase, such as "according to the Israelis," or "Israel claims that. . . " etc.

On Sept. 29, along came journalist Lally Weymouth, in The Washington Post, to give momentum to the new myth, by her revelation that after the US learned recently that missiles purchased by Syria from North Korea were en route by sea, it "made a previously undisclosed request that Israel not attack the Syrian cargo." She then adds: "Israel—yet again—agreed to restrain itself. " It is mind-boggling that Ms. Weymouth should apparently believe that it would be perfectly okay, when one country buys legal military equipment from "other, for a third country to go out and destroy the goods on the high seas. Would it then be okay for Syria to destroy a US shipment of missiles en route to Israel? Would Ms. Weymouth admire Syria's "restraint" if it declined to carry outsuch an attack?

John Law, founding and chief editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs from 1982 to 1984, was for 22 years the chief Middle East correspondent for US News and World Report.