People often note that there appears to be a more vigorous debate over Israel's approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the mainstream Israeli press than there is in the mainstream American press. This is, however, the kind of judgment that it's hard for a casual American observer to make with much confidence. Writing in International Security, however, Jerome Slater takes a more systematic comparison of coverage of the conflict in The New York Times and in Haaretz and concludes that, indeed, Israelis debate this matter more freely.
« Sub Control | Main | We Lose By Less »
Compare and Contrast
18 Oct 2007 02:20 pm
Comments (30)
Singling out Haaretz as the standard of comparison is rubbish. Haaretz is a left wing rag which supports a policy of appeasement. Haaretz would be more comparable to the Nation magazine; with op eds by cretins like Amira Hess, Haaretz has no cretibility among the majority of the Israeli population.
The main problem isn't the lack of debate in America about Israel's policies in the Middle East. Its the lack of debate about America's policies toward Israel and the Middle East.
I just read through quite a bit of that paper...whoa. That is nothing even remotely resembling an unbiased take on the situation. He even concedes that the NYT "typically" holds the Israelis and Palestinians "more or less equally responsible for the ongoing conflict," but then he complains that the NYT is distorting the debate in America! That's ridiculous.
As one who has read the on-line versions of both Ha'aretz and the New York Times over the years, I have found that it's actually not that hard to make the comparison. You will always find a diverse range of opinion in Ha'aretz. The NY Times on the other hand generally covers Israel from a single, consistent perspective. To find out what's really going on, I have found that the reader needs to cut to the final 4-5 paragraphs of an article. Eventually, I found that it was just not worth my while to read the Times. Sad that its stories and not those of Ha'aretz are what gets picked up by local papers.
Yet one more reason to let Israel forge its own policies, instead of trying to get Washington to twist its arm.
What I'd like to know is why people find this surprising, or even interesting. Is there a more widely varied and vigorous debate about America's various foreign policies in Israel (or in Europe, or almost anywhere else) than there is in America? No.
I'm not sure I agree with you, Haggai. You're certainly likely to find a more critical perspective on American foreign policy in The Guardian or Le Monde or even The London Times than in The New York Times. By the same light, European publications have no hesitation printing pieces that are harshly critical of Israel.
I really think the heavily Jewish reporting and editorial staff of the NYT should be give a lot of compliments for being as even-handed as they are in covering the Israel-Palestine issue. Sure, it could be better, but the fairness glass is really about 4/5ths full in terms of the NYT overcoming its natural ethnocentric bias. The New York Times is a Jewish-owned newspaper, with a heavily Jewish subscriber base, supported in large measure by advertising from Jewish department stores, and yet they are far less biased on this incredibly emotional topic than you might expect. So, congratulations to them.
"Jewish department stores"?
You have to retranslate it.
"Jewish department stores"? = Jüdische Warenhäuser
You have to retranslate it.
"Jewish department stores"? = Jüdische Warenhäuser
For anyone who thinks that SLC knows what he's talking about:
Ha'aretz is the 3rd-largest daily paper in Israel, after the two tabloids, Yediot Aharonot and Ma'ariv, and the largest "upmarket" paper. Its politics are considered moderately left within the range of mainstream Israeli (that is, Jewish) politics- certainly not far left, and not very different from those of the tabloid Ma'ariv. Its editorial page is well-regarded within Israel. It is well-known in the US because it publishes an English edition, available on the net, which is a translation of the Hebrew edition (unlike the right-wing Jerusalem Post, which is an English-language paper whose readership is mostly non-Israeli).
For anyone who thinks that SLC knows what he's talking about:
Ha'aretz is the 3rd-largest daily paper in Israel, after the two tabloids, Yediot Aharonot and Ma'ariv, and the largest "upmarket" paper. Its politics are considered moderately left within the range of mainstream Israeli (that is, Jewish) politics- certainly not far left, and not very different from those of the tabloid Ma'ariv. Its editorial page is well-regarded within Israel. It is well-known in the US because it publishes an English edition, available on the net, which is a translation of the Hebrew edition (unlike the right-wing Jerusalem Post, which is an English-language paper whose readership is mostly non-Israeli).
I'm not sure I agree with you, Haggai. You're certainly likely to find a more critical perspective on American foreign policy in The Guardian or Le Monde or even The London Times than in The New York Times. By the same light, European publications have no hesitation printing pieces that are harshly critical of Israel.
Well, I'm not equating "vigorous" with "critical." I wouldn't characterize European coverage of Israeli policies as being very balanced. "Vigorous" coverage to me means that a wide range of perspectives are fairly represented in at least some meaningful way, not just that things I disagree with are represented in ways that could be considered fair from that perspective.
Steve Sailer wrote:
the fairness glass is really about 4/5ths full in terms of the NYT overcoming its natural ethnocentric bias. The New York Times is a Jewish-owned newspaper, with a heavily Jewish subscriber base, supported in large measure by advertising from Jewish department stores, and yet they are far less biased on this incredibly emotional topic than you might expect. So, congratulations to them.
This is toxic stuff, in my opinion. But then, I am a Jew also, so allowances must be made for my emotions.
"Haaretz has no cretibility among the majority of the Israeli population."
Cretibility?
Yeah, Haaretz has no "credibility" among the "cretins" of Israel - and the US (like SLC).
If SLC is right, it really doesn't argue in his favor as it means most Israelis are cretins - which would not surprise me, since most people are cretins.
"What I'd like to know is why people find this surprising, or even interesting. Is there a more widely varied and vigorous debate about America's various foreign policies in Israel (or in Europe, or almost anywhere else) than there is in America? No.
And yes, I know, Israel is America's #1 recipient of foreign aid, etc. That still doesn't explain why people constantly pat themselves on the back for making this ultimately banal observation.
Posted by Haggai | October 18, 2007 2:32 PM"
The problem is that in the US, pointing out such banal things as the occupation being immoral, the Palestinians being people, the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians haven't committed terrorist attacks, etc. gets one called an anti-Semite. MJ Rosenberg had a good post over a year ago noting how when an Israeli rabbi said he wanted peace on Israel's terms, Charles Krauthammer, who was at the same synagogue, went ballistic and started calling him an appeaser. Who has more media exposure or pull, that rabbi or Krauthammer?
SLC, have you visited Israel for the first time yet? You've admitted in the past that you haven't even gone to Israel to visit. How would you know what Israelis consider to have "credibility among the majority of the Israeli population"? If you replace "Haaretz" with "the New York Times" (or CNN or whatever) in your rant, you would be identical to some windbag from FoxNews babbling on about the so-called "liberal media."
Well, I'm not equating "vigorous" with "critical." I wouldn't characterize European coverage of Israeli policies as being very balanced. "Vigorous" coverage to me means that a wide range of perspectives are fairly represented in at least some meaningful way, not just that things I disagree with are represented in ways that could be considered fair from that perspective.
Well, now we've changed the meaning of the debate. I think Slater's point was that you're much likely to come across critical commentaries about Israel in the Israeli press in the American press. Even if you don't accept Slater's description of the conflict, can you really argue with that point? For example, during the Lebanon war in 2006, did you come across any commentary like this in The New York Times:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=742257
http://www.counterpunch.org/levy07312006.html
Re Peter H.
The web site counterpunch is a left wing equivalent of the neo-nazi rense and stormfront web sites, with the same degree of credibility, namely none.
Re Reality Man
1. I have not visited Israel nor do I intend to. I don't like the people who live there, based on my experiences with visitors from Israel.
2. As painful as it is, I have to agree with Mr. Reality Man relative to Charles Krauthammer, an asshole of the first order. In todays' Washington Post, Dr. Krauthammer has a column trashing Nancy Pelosi in which he brings up her trip to Syria. I find it amazing how shitheads like Dr. Krauthammer beat up on Pelosi for her Syrian trip and say nothing about fellow Congressman Frank Wolfs' visit the previous week and fellow Congressman Darrel Issas' visit the following week. Since the latter two are Rethuglicans, I guess they get a pass from the Krauthammers of the world. On the other hand, as bad as Dr. Krauthammer is, he still stands head and shoulders above scumbags like Robert Novak.
Re Richard Steven "bottom" Hack
At least most of the cretins in the world are not ex-cons like Mr. Hack, which I guess makes him a double cretin.
Re Bliox
Haaretz is read mostly by the left wing intelligencia in Tel Aviv, not by the average Israeli.
I think Slater's point was that you're much likely to come across critical commentaries about Israel in the Israeli press in the American press. Even if you don't accept Slater's description of the conflict, can you really argue with that point?
Sort of, yes...so, OK, Slater has found more criticism *that he agrees with* in the Israeli press, but it's not the same as saying that there's *no criticism at all* in the American press.
Like I said in another comment, he even concedes that the NYT "typically" holds Israel and the Palestinians "more or less equally responsible for the ongoing conflict" (by the way, this a constant sore point with the Likudnik right in America, who are always screaming about the NYT's "moral equivalence"), and yet the main argument of his paper is the accusation that the NYT distorts the debate in America to the point that *nobody criticizes Israel at all*. That's not a consistent (or logical) argument.
"The left-leaning Haaretz's circulation is believed to stand at around 70,000, trailing Yediot Aharonot and Maariv, which together control 90 percent of the Israeli market."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/13/business/ibrief.php
Best response to this topic on Megan's blog:
I recently read a survey that compared the coverage of the immigration problem on the Mexican border in the New York Times and Haaretz. It seemed that the Americans were much more concerned with this subject that tne Israelis. I was wondering the reasons for this:
a: No one in Israel is concerned about being called anti-immigrant.
b: Jews in America care more about our border problems than Israelis.
c: The Israelis have their own border troubles and are concerned more with with them.
d: American newspapers are better at covering the subject than Israeli newspapers.
How silly is it to even question that Israelis debate their problems more than Americans debate Israeli problems. Right now most true blooded Americans are concerned about whether the Red Sox will get into the World Series and whether the Patriots in the NFL will go undefeated. Ask the average Israeli about these matters and you'll find many not be that concerned.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/close_to_home.php#comment-714394
"I have not visited Israel nor do I intend to. I don't like the people who live there, based on my experiences with visitors from Israel."
Then why do you defend just about anything violent Israel does? Ethnic solidarity? Don't you find that a bit creepy?
Do you have any Israeli friends whatsoever? Isn't it a bit odd that I criticize Israeli actions yet have Israeli friends yet you hate Israelis yet back Israel's worst policies? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to claim that Jews that criticize Israeli policies, such as MY, are self-hating Jews while you yourself say you don't like Israelis?
I recently read a survey that compared the coverage of the immigration problem on the Mexican border in the New York Times and Haaretz. It seemed that the Americans were much more concerned with this subject that tne Israelis. I was wondering the reasons for this
Obviously, this commenter needs lessons in comprehension, since the issue is not the amount of coverage devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's the content of that coverage.
Dave, I missed the part where the majority of Israel's foreign aid goes to the US and finances our own self-destructive policies.
Hal writes, regarding Steve Salier's observations on how the NYT's Jewish subscriber base, staff, advertisers, etc., might influence the Time's coverage:
"This is toxic stuff, in my opinion. But then, I am a Jew also, so allowances must be made for my emotions."
This is something I don't get, and it's fundamental to the Walt-Mersheimer thesis. Jewish American organizations that are pro-Israel go right to individual Jews, especially rich Jews, and to Jewish -owned businesses, assuming that they are the most receptive audience to their pro-Israel pitch, and that this the audience that will most naturally support them financially and politically out of a sense of ethnic solidarity. The success of these organizations in raising money for Israel and in mobilizing political support for it suggest that they are right to pursue this strategy. But if someone *else* points out that Jews, especially rich Jews, and Jewish-owned businesses are especially receptive to these groups' pitches, and that they help them out financially and politically out a sense of ethnic solidarity, this is "toxic" anti-semitism -- especially if coupled with a claim that reflexive support for Israel is not in America's best interest.
Help me out here.
The trouble with Mr. Reality Man, Egypt Steve, Don Williams, and all the other Israel bashers on this blog is that they have concluded that Israel is somehow responsible for the US involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. This is, of course, seriously in error. The US involvement in the Middle East is due to our dependence on imported oil, much of it from unstable Middle East countries. The only way to withdraw from this involvement is to eliminate this dependence. If it were not for the demand for Middle Eastern oil, nobody would give a flying fuck what goes on in that region. In addition, the Arab/Israeli issue would have been resolved a long time ago to the dissatisfaction of everybody involved.
Egypt Steve -
To your point about supporting Israel. Just because Jews support Israel doesn't mean they agree with every single one of the current Israeli government's policies or treatment of the Palestinians. Supporting Israel is simply an expression of personal self-preservation and dignity, and Jews of the right, left, and center -- including Haaretz readers -- support Israel.
I didn't vote for Bush and don't support the continued occupation of Iraq (or many many things my government has done), but I still pay my taxes to the United States and consider myself a loyal American.
I think it is when support for Israel starts to be equated de facto as anti-Arab oppressiveness itself that we start to smell the whiff of anti-semitic inuendo. It's an old familiar tactic, reminiscent of the type of excuses bin Laden uses to justify murdering Americans at work in the towers simply because they are Americans.
Most Americans support Israel because of the immoral and illegal actions of the Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular.
Polls continually show that the majority of Palestinians support the intentional murder of Israeli civilians.
Palestine daily commits numerous war crimes targeting innocent civilians in Southern Israel. Egypt Steve, Reality Man, Peter H are complicit in those crimes by totally ignoring them and, by their silence, supporting them.
The moment Palestine renounces violence and incitement in favor of reason, peace will break out. Until then, expect even more atrocities to be committed by Fatah, Hamas, PIJ and the other terror organizations so beloved by Europeans.
"The trouble with Mr. Reality Man, Egypt Steve, Don Williams, and all the other Israel bashers on this blog is that they have concluded that Israel is somehow responsible for the US involvement in Middle Eastern affairs."
Putting words in my mouth just shows how desperate you are. You yourself have admitted that you dislike the people you have met from Israel, which is why you will never choose to visit Israel. Which one of us is then the true "Israel basher?"
"Palestine daily commits numerous war crimes targeting innocent civilians in Southern Israel. Egypt Steve, Reality Man, Peter H are complicit in those crimes by totally ignoring them and, by their silence, supporting them."
So because in this thread, by not explicitly attacking the whole idea of suicide bombing, I'm somehow complicit in it? That's a dumb idea. Fine, suicide bombing is morally evil. You haven't denounced the genocide in Darfur on this thread. By your logic, you support Khartoum's efforts to whipe out the people of Darfur. I also missed the part where I have any real influence over any policies regarding the Middle East. Both Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and the Israeli government have committed war crimes. Israel itself elected a terrorist to be its PM when they elected Begin, who had been involved in planning the bombing of the King David Hotel bombing. You haven't denounced that in this thread, so I'm just going to assume you support it. In addition, "Palestine" cannot commit terrorist attacks against Israel because there is no actual functioning sovereign Palestinian state. There is Hamas and there is the PLO/Fatah, but if you haven't checked recently, the Palestinian Territories have been in a state of civil war. I have no dog in this fight and am not a partisan to either side, but that does not mean I will ignore the facts that 1) the US government funds Israel with foreign aid that exceeds that given to any other nation, 2) the US government under Bush has been rather supportive of the occupation and all occupations of a people by another who don't want them there are immoral, just as suicide bombing is immoral and 3) there is a fundamental power imbalance between the occupied (the Palestinians) and the occupiers (the Israelis). The Israeli government could pretty much shoot down any policy of the Palestinian Authority (before the civil war) that it did not like and controls the borders, roads, etc. in the Palestinian Territories. Where else in the world is there an ethnically segregated system of roads besides those created by the Israeli state in the Palestinian Territories? You haven't denounced those systems of roads in this thread, so I guess you support their creation.
SLC, you haven't answered my questions. Why are you such a self-hating anti-Semite?
Comments closed November 01, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What I'd like to know is why people find this surprising, or even interesting. Is there a more widely varied and vigorous debate about America's various foreign policies in Israel (or in Europe, or almost anywhere else) than there is in America? No.
And yes, I know, Israel is America's #1 recipient of foreign aid, etc. That still doesn't explain why people constantly pat themselves on the back for making this ultimately banal observation.
Posted by Haggai | October 18, 2007 2:32 PM