Flipping open the Herald Opinion page March 5 to a letter entitled “Herald has pro-Palestinian bias,” I was reminded instantly of the ludicrous charges Bernard Goldberg maintains in his new book, “Bias.” Both are Jews who levy the charge, quite inappropriately, that media coverage critical of Israel is instantly anti-Semitic.
As a native Israeli, I find it repulsive that someone could conflate the notions of anti-Semitism and anti-Occupation. His simplistic reasoning, that news of murders of Palestinians is equal to hatred of Jews, is a blow to the supposed democratic ideals Israel professes to follow and yet transgresses on a daily basis. There was even mention of a “Jewish democratic state,” yet the notion put forth, in my opinion, is very undemocratic.
Furthermore, the U.N. partition plan of 1947 was rejected by the Palestinians because hundreds of thousands of Jews descended on the land of Palestine, and the local population understandably reacted very severely. For that I do not profess to forgive them.
However, his allusion to the partition plan put forth by Ehud Barak two years ago at Camp David is a horrible myth which, under close scrutiny, quickly falls apart. Barak’s “generous” offer, while on the surface considered fair by “non-Arab peoples worldwide” because of the pro-Israel bias of the media, was very unfair to the Palestinian population.
First, the plan entailed giving back only 22% of the land the Palestinians demanded. Moreover, the settlements, which were already spread over the occupied territories, would remain annexed to Israel, and connected to it by a vast crisscrossing network of highways making an autonomous state completely impossible. Also, the plan entailed full military patrolling (by Israel) on the border of the West Bank and Jordan, thereby completely stifling any possibility of a free Palestinian state.
The fact that other Arab countries refused (or refuse) to give Palestinians a state is a much-bandied-about myth. In 1971, Golda Meir, then prime minister, repudiated the “Jarring Initiative” put forth by the U.N., suggested by Egypt. In 1981, the Fahd proposal was put forth, equal in terms to the current Saudi proposal, and it was also sent back.
Currently, Arik Sharon has received two indications from the Arab world for peace: The Saudi plan, and the Arafat/Mubarak summit for peace. Both he has outright rejected, and embarked on further violence that resulted in the deaths of 21 of his own people and over 50 Palestinians.
As the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, quoted Sharon: “The Palestinians must be battered, and then we can negotiate.” If this is a democratic country inclined towards peace, this is, unfortunately, a pretty sad attempt at a real peace.
The Palestinians are the “underdog,” as the article states, precisely because a fully recognized state, Israel, continues to treat them like subhumans, from cutting off water to their villages to razing their homes to prohibiting pregnant women from passing checkpoints in order to get to the hospital.
If people find it to be a “pro-Palestinian” bias to report about the horrible conditions the Palestinians report, then I applaud the Herald for continuing to be critical, as all media should be, and not toe the line of Washington, which, judging from Bush’s “off-hands” approach in the last couple of weeks, is also not inclined to human rights.
The pro-Palestinian bias will end, I believe, when the Palestinians finally receive the rights they deserve. And to say that it is anti-Semitic to believe this does a great disservice to the long tradition of social justice and democratic values that underline Judaism.
Yonatan Reinberg is a senior majoring in Jewish studies and Hebrew.
