A Tale of Two Papers of Record
Posted on March 28 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Media.The two-day Arab summit in Riydah now taking place is considered pretty important: Ban Ki-moon, the general secretary of the UN is attending as is Javier Solana (the European Union’s foreign policy chief). The main focus is on the reviving of the 2002 initiative in which Arab countries offered full diplomatic and economic normalization with Israel if they would agree to 1967 borders, a East Jerusalem capital for Palestine, and a right of return. The initiative was ignored both in Israel and in the US. The plan, then and now, is considered a starting point for all parties. It’s serious and is the best (and perhaps only) real peace plan that has appeared for years. So, big news right? Well, sort of.
In Israel, the paper of record, Haaretz, today has the summit as both a lead story and the lead editorial while the New York Times buries the story in the second half of an article that has the headline “Saudi King Condemns Occupation of Iraq.”
It was also buried in the second half of a quite decent although too optimistic article on US “shuttle diplomacy” further in the world section, - Mideast Leaders to hold talks twice a month.
The difference of emphasis between the Israeli and US papers of record are marked. Haaretz is much more supportive of the summit than is the NY Times. While the NY Times is more optimistic about US diplomacy than is Haaretz , this is not rocket science. The US paper of record will obviously have more interest in US political initiatives than in those occurring abroad, yet the Arab summit is really big news and sets out the possibility of a concrete breakthrough dependent, of course, on US and Israeli responses. The US initiative is more on the level of a incremental process (per the usual) and very little about actual peace. Indeed, Haaretz called Ms. Rice’s most recent trip “disappointing.” The fact that the US paper of record is less interested in the Arab summit than is the Israeli paper of record is not very different than the oft cited phenomena of US voices being more reactionary than Israeli voices regarding a possible peace with the Palestinians (and Israel’s Arab neighbors generally).
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
calling for a right of return for displaced palestinians without addressing the comparable number of displaced jews is clearly not justice.
that being said, it looks like they are removing the language “right of return” from the proposed document. instead, they are calling for a “just solution” for displaced palestinians. that’s a step in the right direction, but still one-sided. just as many jews were displaced during the same time period.
the difference? displaced jews are welcomed into israel, while the displaced arabs were forced into refugee camps by other arabs. west bank palestinians who were citizens of jordan in 66 were not allowed into jordan in 68. unfortunately, palestinian arabs were and are being used as pawns.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:24 am
For those interested in the history of the Arab League Peace Offer (which has been around for quite a while), here’s an interesting interview with Amr Moussa discussing it’s reception by Israel and the U.S. when it was first offered in 2002–
http://www.archive.org/details/AmrMoussaPeacePlan
(The streaming doesn’t seem to work, so download one of the formats on the left side of the page, and then play.)
March 29th, 2007 at 6:39 am
As was discussed before, haaretz is not really Israel’s “paper of record.” It is one of the national papers, but not “the” paper. It also tends to the left, which is fine.
But the fact that an Israeli leftist daily tends to focus more on the Arab League conference than a more middle of the road American daily should not be a surprise to anyone.
Basically, Robert says that, unless JVP’s orthodoxy is adopted, that this is evidence of some right-wing anti-peace bias. In fact, the NY Times has been supportive of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and has regularly featured editorials and op-eds critical of Israel.
The failure to mirror the exact analysis and coverage of haaretz is not evidence of right wing bias. But it’s pretty clear that JVP is grasping at anything it can to justify why it is so far out on the fringe.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Joshua, Yehudi, do you guys have jobs?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Joshua, must we all go to the internet if we want news about things happening in other parts of the world and maybe just a little in depth analysis of those events? People in the U.S. are woefully ignorant of what happens around the world. It seems to me that if something doesn’t happen in the U.S. or to the U.S. the news gatekeepers have decided that we don’t really need to know about it. I believe this is part of the reason we in the U.S. tend to think in stereotypes… why our images of other peoples and countries is so flat. This is not just a Jewish Voice for Peace issue. I believe it is, or should be, an issue for every person in the U.S.
No, of course I don’t expect Israeli news to have its own twenty page section of the New York Times. But could not U.S. Jews take a leadership role in speaking about the fact that we in the U.S. don’t understand people in other countries and ask for more news and analysis of the issues that concern them?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
lol, ellen. not for long at this rate…
March 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Leah,
I personally don’t like tarring my fellow countrymen/women as ignorant. However, media coverage of what’s going on in the world is always welcome.
But the Israel/Palestine conflict is unquestionably one of the most covered international stories in American media. I don’t mind this, because it’s a subject of interest to me. But it’s just bizarre when you hear people complain that the reason Americans support Israel is because “they don’t get the information” or “you can’t read about Israeli atrocities.”
Ellen, yes, I have a job. Do you?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
The news paper of record would more likely be Maariv in Hebrew. Of the English language papers, it would be the Jerusalem Post. Haaretz is generally considered far,far Left and not a mainstream voice.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
At the Arab League summit in Riyadh
Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, and one of several world figures invited to the summit’s opening session, went further by warning that rising tensions in the Gulf region risked a confrontation that could affect the entire world.
“Tensions in the Gulf region are shaping an ominous confrontation that could have incalculable consequences globally, regionally and among the Muslim umma [faithful].
March 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
“The plan, then and now, is considered a starting point for all parties”. Looks like as far as Hamas is concerned, that’s the start; the end is the demographic destruction of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them presumably will become a target for the weapons they are accumulating in Gaza. Once again, Israel is the one willing to share the land, the Palestinians insist that their state be built on Israel’s grave.
One can only hope that the Saudis and the Jordanians will save the Palestinians from themselves. (or what part of “jihad” don’t you understand?)
Don’t give in on refugees’ right: HaniyaPublished: Thursday, 29 March, 2007, 08:23 AM Doha Time
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=140767&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17
RIYADH: Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya urged Arab leaders meeting at a summit in Riyadh yesterday not to compromise on the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes in what is now Israel.
At the Arab League summit, kings and heads of state will revive an Arab plan for peace with Israel in an effort to end a conflict with Israel seen at the heart of the region’s problems.
Haniya, who is also leader of the Islamist Hamas movement, said in an interview his group would not oppose the Arab plan, but would not give in on the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
“What concerns me more than anything else … is not to compromise on the fundamental Palestinian rights, foremost being the right of return,” Haniya said shortly before the summit opened.
“I expect the Arab summit meeting in Riyadh to reiterate the Arab countries’ commitment not to compromise in any way on the Palestinian refugees right of return under any circumstances,” Haniya said.
Well, so much for
March 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
attention neocons..the u.s may be forced by international law to abandon the dream in the middle east..israel may have to stop bullying and start negotiating land for peace.
from- juancole.com daily archive
US diplomatic officials have been scrambling to contain the damage done by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he addressed the Arab League and complained of the “illegitimate” American “occupation” of Iraq. They now have a new headache! Iraqi President Jalal Talabani agrees with King Abdullah! The generally pro-American Talabani, a major Kurdish leader as well, admitted that the US presence had turned into a ruinous occupation for his country, when his turn came to address Arab League delegates.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:42 am
[…] Anna Shanks wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhile the NY Times is more optimistic about US diplomacy than is Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/842770.html, this is not rocket science, the US paper of record will obviously have more interest in US political initiatives … […]