March 1997: Volume 19, Number 3

Contents Jennings' Jerusalem Jihad Questions for the Times A Note from Zola In the past, we have often run columns by Andrea Levin, the National President of CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). We frequently receive letters from individuals who believe that there is no media bias against Israel. Ms. Levin provides very astute commentary on this subject, which is why we are pleased to share it with you. Jennings' Jerusalem Jihad by Andrea Levin           Say this for Peter Jennings — he's unabashed in placing ABC at the disposal of the Arab agenda. Though the network has been embarrassed in the last year by the need for repeated on-air corrections of reckless inaccuracies about Israel, a recent program, "Jerusalem Stories" (December 19, 1996), is testimony that the anchorman's animus toward Israel is undiminished.           The hour-long program offered a propagandist's view of Jerusalem in which aggressive, exclusivist, and apparently fanatical newcomer Jews dispossess moderate and humane Arabs of their property and heritage. However crude, the segment undoubtedly persuaded many viewers that the Jews are an unreasonable lot and Arabs the victims in this dispute.           The choice of interviewees and Jennings' manner of relating to them were central to the jaundiced message. Thus, underscoring the theme of Jewish intrusion, ABC notably presented only foreign-born Jews to embody the views of inhabitants of the ancient Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, while viewers were repeatedly reminded of the long lineage of the Arabs. This was the case even though Jews have lived almost continuously in the city for millennia, and Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for more than a century. Jewish Jerusalemites with long family ties to the city were rendered invisible and population figures underscoring the Jews' historic numerical preeminence were omitted.           Who spoke for the Jews? An American rabbi "originally from Brooklyn" described waiting for the Messiah, to which Jennings said: "Do you really believe in the Messiah?" (For Father Jerome Murphy O'Connor, whose foreign origins were obvious but unmentioned, there were no theological challenges. Only respectful affirmations: "You're right, Father," and, "This must be an astonishingly moving experience for a devout Christian.")           A European-born Jew described his feelings of solemn connection to the Jewish people and to Jewish history, explaining the archaeological project he'd undertaken. Though his story is inherently touching, Jennings' responses are perfunctory, and, in a nasty bit of editing, the ABC anchorman returns to the man's home near the close of the program. A partygoer there, apparently an affluent American Jew, is heard declaring that Arabs ought to feel "lucky" that now, under Jewish sovereignty, they have "respectable health care" and get their "garbage cleaned up." The man's point, that Arabs enjoy a much higher standard of living than previously thanks to the Israeli administration, is valid and important and totally ignored in the program, but Jennings has turned the moment into an ugly and false caricature of Jewish highhandedness.           Again, in contrast, Arabs are shown in such modest and friendly activities as making Easter cookies and serving coffee. They weep on camera when they recount their dread of Jewish encroachment in their neighborhoods and of neighbors allegedly being forced to leave Jerusalem. Jennings speaks somberly of "what the Muslims fear."           Jennings turns truth exactly on its head. In fact, since Israel gained full control of Jerusalem in 1967, the Arab population of the city has grown at a greater rate than the Jewish population. It is the Arabs who have historically sought to drive out the Jewish presence and the Jews who have opened the city to all religions. Indeed, for centuries the Muslim domination of the region had meant inferior status for Jews and Christians, "Dhimmi" people subject to harsh, discriminatory laws and daily humiliations.           A Christian British traveller, Mrs. A. Goodrich-Freer, wrote poignantly in 1900 of the plight of Jews in Muslim-ruled Jerusalem, observing the patience "with which Jews ignore the insults shouted after them in the streets." She commented on the injustice of Arabs' extorting money from Jews: "Considering how much [Jews] contribute as citizens to the welfare of Jerusalem, it is sad that large sums of money should be paid for permission to pray beside the western wall of the Temple enclosure, to the villagers of Siloam for not disturbing the graves east of the village, and to the Arabs for letting alone the Jewish share of the Tomb of Rachel on the road to Bethlehem."           In 1948 when Jordan captured the Old City, the Arabs killed or expelled every Jew in eastern Jerusalem, destroyed every one of 58 synagogues in the ancient Jewish Quarter, and desecrated the 2,500-year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, digging a road through it and using Jewish tombstones as a pathway to an army latrine. The Arabs decreed that selling land to a Jew was a crime punishable by death. (Indeed, Palestinian Authority Minister of Justice Freih Abu Medein has now apparently reinstated the edict, having said in a December 23rd interview that Arabs selling land to Israelis are traitors and "we are planning to send them to execution.")           There is not a word of this from Jennings, though he repeatedly points out how "very modern" the Jewish Quarter is today. Why is it "modern?" Because the Arabs destroyed it in 1948 and when the Jews united the city in 1967 they had to rebuild it. That's why it's "modern." Again, the half-truth amounts to a lie, with images of new construction reinforcing the rhetoric of interloper Jews encroaching on the terrain of authentic, native Arabs.           Christians suffered too at the hands of the Arab regime from 1948 to 1967. Religious institutions and individuals were prohibited by law from acquiring property in the Old City, and Christian schools were required to teach the Koran. In the face of these repressive policies, the Christian population declined from 25,000 in 1948 to less than 11,000 in 1967. Only under Israeli control did the Old City's Christian population begin to recover, reaching 14,000 as of 1991.           Jennings gets this wrong too, blaming Israel for the Christians' decline.           The most jarring scenes in Jennings' propaganda piece are those in which he is loudly accosted on the street by Orthodox, American Jews evidently suspicious of his intentions. Appearing to relish the exchanges, Jennings takes the part of ally, friend, and champion of the Arabs. He goads the Jews:           "You see the guy up there in the dark suit," says Jennings, "the guy in the dark suit with the blue tie on? His name is Ali Kleibo and he's a Palestinian. He happens to be a Muslim. His grandparents came here with the Caliph — his ancestors came here with the Caliph Omar of the Byzantines [sic]. What do you think his rights are here?" (The anchorman gets his facts wrong again. The Byzantines were the Christian rulers whom the Caliph Omar overthrew.)           The agitated Jew, a nursery school teacher, finally says what Jennings wants to record. He blurts that Arabs "have no rights here anymore."           In this despicable display of manipulation, selectively emphasizing a marginal view, Jennings falsifies present and past. Censored for millions of viewers is not only the long history of Jewish persecution at the hands of the Arabs, but also Israel's very different policies toward its former enemies. Despite the history of Muslim intolerance toward the Jews, when Israel united the city in 1967 the government mandated full religious freedom and access to holy sites for all faiths. Indeed, in a remarkable act of conciliation, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan promptly certified the continuation of the status quo on the Temple Mount. That meant Muslim officials would continue to have authority over the holiest site in Judaism — which is not, in fact, the Western Wall, although the Wall is repeatedly mischaracterized as such by Jennings, who calls it " absolutely the most important place in all of Judaism." The Temple Mount itself, where the First and Second Temples once stood, is the holiest site.           Jennings is evidently ignorant of the fact that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem they constructed their mosques atop the Mount precisely because it was Judaism's holy site. It was Muslim practice throughout their empire to construct mosques directly over their defeated foes' holy places. (In India bloody confrontations have resulted in recent years when Hindus tore down a mosque built over one of many demolished Hindu temples.)           But, in a policy of national forbearance, Jews have accepted that only Muslims pray on the Mount while Jews conduct their own devotions at the Western Wall. Not one word of any of this appears in the ABC documentary.           Further, there are no Arab militants, no terrorists, among Jennings' "Jerusalem Stories," even in a year of unprecedented murder of Jews in the streets of Jerusalem. Jennings' passing reference to the terrorism that rocked the city early last spring is perhaps the real measure of his animus toward Jews. It is buried in a passage repeatedly emphasizing the inconvenience " Israeli military roadblocks" cause the Palestinians. Once again, the program is devoted to the supposedly dire threat Arabs face at the hands of the Jews — a threat manifest in the display of Israeli flags, noisy religious processions, Jews singing within earshot of Arabs, and rude comments to newsmen.           Censored out is the peril and suffering Jews face.           The same prejudice applies in Jennings' sympathetic rendering of Arab racism. Ali Kleibo, a Muslim the anchorman interviews, laments the presence of Jews in his neighborhood. He dislikes that "it will not be the people we love" . . . "not the faces we know." In America those sentiments are called bigoted, but in Jerusalem ABC confers pity and understanding on the intolerance.           In fact, none of the quarters of the Old City are rigidly segregated. Muslims have moved heavily into the Christian Quarter and Arabs live without incident in the Jewish Quarter. Needless to say, Jews are not wringing their hands and weeping on American television at Arabs moving next door to them. If they were, Jennings would be the first to lecture them on national television.           "Jerusalem Stories" is an abuse of power. It is an effort to denigrate Jewish attachment to Jerusalem, to paint Jews even as unworthy of sovereignty, to caricature and demean them. It does so by distortion, innuendo, omission, and sneer; this from the supposedly responsible lead newscaster of a supposedly responsible network.           For more information about CAMERA, write to P. O. Box 428, Boston, MA 02258, or call 617-789-3672. Return to Index In last month's newsletter, we ran an article from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America about the disparity of the New York Times' coverage of two recent incidents in Israel, one an act of violence against Israelis and the other an act of violence against Arabs. The article below, also by CAMERA, contains some of the same information we printed in our February edition. Although there is some overlap, we felt that it was important to include the entire article below to emphasize the flawed nature of the Times' response to the following facts. Questions for the Times by Andrea Levin           If the New York Times botches its coverage of Israel, tipping reality upside down, making lesser occurrences into major stories and slighting deadly-serious events, what are the repercussions? Do senior editors carefully weigh substantive questions raised by concerned readers — or do they deflect criticism with evasions and insults?           A recent exchange with Joseph Lelyveld, executive editor of the paper, is instructive. He was asked about the paper's news judgment regarding the startling difference in Times coverage of a lethal terrorist attack on an Israeli family on December 11 and a shooting spree by an Israeli gunman that wounded six Arabs in Hebron on January 1.           On December 12, 1996 the Times reported the murders of two and wounding of five others in the Tzur family by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The story, which was 790 words in length, appeared on page twelve. There were no ancillary articles and there was one photograph.           On January 2, 1997 the Times devoted 3361 words, beginning on the front page above the fold, to the story of Noam Friedman's wounding of six Arabs in Hebron. In addition to the page one story, there were two pieces on page eight and a front page brief about the gunman. There were four photographs.           The newspaper devoted four times as much coverage and front page prominence to the Friedman shootings.           Headlines were strikingly different as well. For the Tzur killings, the Times wrote: "2 Settlers Die in Attack on West Bank Family."           For the Hebron shootings, the Times wrote: " Israeli Wounds 6 Arabs in Hebron Rampage," " Gunman in Hebron: Unbalanced Loner Driven By A Mission," "An Unbalanced Loner With a Rifle," "In Hebron Line Of Fire: A Savage Incident Feeds Fear Of Future."           Why was the assault that left a bullet-riddled van, a dead woman and child and five others wounded not characterized as "savage" or a "rampage," while Friedman's act, causing no fatalities, was? Why was reference to the Arab killers of the Tzurs omitted in the headline while the page one story on the Hebron shootings bore a headline that was direct and unambiguous as to the Israeli identity of the perpetrator?           There were marked differences too in the content of the reporting. The Times coverage of the Hebron story focused intensively on the supposed trend among Israelis toward such violence — Friedman was said to have " joined the ranks of Jews who used violence to block a peace they loathed." But such episodes have been exceedingly rare, perpetrated by single individuals, and emphatically denounced by the Israeli government and public.           In contrast, the many Arab attacks on Jews have overwhelmingly been the actions of members of organized groups enjoying support in the Arab public. Yet, the newspaper made no mention of the trends toward violence by the Arabs; there was no reference to the killers of Ita and Ephraim Tzur as having "joined the ranks of Arabs" who employ violence. The Times coverage turns reality precisely on its head, magnifying the rare case of Jewish attack on the Arabs and obscuring the lethal and pervasive violence against the Jews.           Whereas Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately phoned Chairman Arafat to condemn Noam Friedman's action, the Palestinian Authority leader was silent in the aftermath of the Tzur killings and the Palestinian Ministry of Information issued a statement blaming Israel for the murders. There was no mention in the Times of the harsh Palestinian response.           The Times emphasized the "hatred" and " loathing" allegedly felt by Jews for Arabs in the case of a lone, mentally ill gunman, but omitted any such comment with regard to the calculated murder of the Tzurs by members of an organized terror group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP has not modified its rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel, but the paper was silent about PFLP "hatred" of Jews.           The Times Joel Greenberg provided no human interest detail in his story on the Tzur murders and quoted only the comments of government officials. (He might have noted, for example, that the parents and their five children were returning home to light the seventh Hanukkah candle.) However, in his column on the "savage incident" in Hebron he interviewed several Arabs who described their personal distress at the shooting.           Why, one wonders, were the murders of a Jewish mother and child of less human interest than Friedman's wounding of six Arabs?           None of these questions can be answered by resort to the political argument — that because of the sensitive negotiations underway on Hebron the Friedman shootings warranted more coverage. The murder of the Tzurs was, equally, a potentially destabilizing factor in the negotiations. Indeed, the mass murder of Jews in Jerusalem, Ashkelon and Tel Aviv last year is what derailed the Oslo process and led to the ouster of the government leading that process.           Nor, obviously, is there any imaginable moral basis for the decision to downplay the killing of Jews and to emphasize the actions of a Noam Friedman.           Joseph Lelyveld responded to these questions with the following:           "I am sorry we've been slow in responding to your demands that we justify our editorial decisions to you. We value criticism but we are, frankly, worn out by hectoring. You've convicted us in your heart and you're now giving us a chance to plea for mercy before you pass sentence.           "I will not answer your rhetorical questions one by one because your letter plainly shows that you've anticipated the answer and rejected it.           "In moral terms, there is no murder or terrorist act that is not heinous. In terms of news interest, not all murders are equal. This is true in New York and Chechenya [sic] as well as in the Middle East. We think it mattered a lot that the shootings were in the center of Hebron at a delicate diplomatic moment. We do not think we were being dismissive in writing 790 words on the P.F.L.P. terrorist killings.           "We made these judgments in the context of the news on the particular days on which these events occurred. That's called editing. It is an act of human judgment, not a science of absolute measure.           "You'd have done it differently. We disagree. There's our answer."           Lelyveld's reply, with its pique and evasion and its tired platitudes, could only be proffered by someone immune from accountability. Yet, evidence of the New York Times' Israel problem is overwhelming. The Tzur/Friedman case is but one recent example. A similar comparison can be made with regard to coverage of the massacre of 29 Arabs by Baruch Goldstein in early 1994. That event, obviously a major story, prompted seventeen front-page articles in the first three weeks after the killings. In contrast, the subsequent bombing of a Tel Aviv bus that killed 22, the worst attack in Israel in decades and part of a calculated terror campaign by a Palestinian group, elicited just three front-page stories. Another bombing three months later in Netanya by yet a different Arab group killed 21 young Israelis and also garnered only three page-one stories in the newspaper.           Here again, the Times cannot justify the disparity in coverage by arguing that the vile action of Baruch Goldstein was more politically significant because of its impact on events and its revelations about the Israeli polity. The unprecedented Arab bombings inside Israel were no less important politically, influencing Israeli public opinion as they did. Moreover, the Palestinian bombings, in fact, revealed more about the Arab polity than did Goldstein's atrocity about Israel — given that the bombings were carried out by organized groups with wide Arab support.           Observations such as these are dismissed as hectoring by Joseph Lelyveld. (Naturally, when the New York Times writes critically about any of the institutions or individuals to which it daily turns its attention, that's called reporting.) But hectoring — or public criticism — is sure to grow as the Times abuses its powerful position to mold public views, then refuses to address serious issues of distorted coverage in its pages. Return to Index A Note From Zola Dear Friends,           The battle of this millennium is coming up. Four millennia ago, Abraham and the resulting Jewish nation came to Israel by God's will. Three millennia ago, David made Jerusalem the Jewish capital. The next millennium's battle was about the destruction of Jerusalem and its takeover by the Moslems in the seventh century. The battle of this millennium will center on the return of the Israelis to Jerusalem and the attempted Moslem takeover of the city. Now that Hebron has been turned over to the Arabs, Jerusalem is next on the negotiation table.           The battle is already taking place in the media. I've devoted most of this newsletter to CAMERA reports on major news stories that are slanted against Israel. I myself constantly come across careless, inaccurate media references. On January 13, I had trouble working part of the crossword puzzle in the New York Times. The given clue: ancient Palestinian. The word: Essene. A truly educated person would never connect the two. There were no ancient Palestinians, unless you want to use that word to refer to the Philistines. The Essenes were first-century Jews, and were never called Palestinian by anyone. (For that matter, all Bible maps that label first-century Israel as " Palestine" are wrong. It's as wrong as showing a map of the American Indian tribes of 1000 A.D. and labelling their land "United States.")           A New York Times January 15 headline read, "Abraham: Progenitor of Both Religions." He was the father of Ishmael, but by no stretch of the imagination could you portray him as the father of Islam. For one thing, Islam didn't exist before Mohammed, who was born in the sixth century A.D. For another thing, there are many followers of Islam who are not descendants of Ishmael. Is Abraham the father of Louis Farrakhan?           Comparing violence for violence, it's obvious that the whole world needs a peace process. In Pomona, CA, six people were murdered in a little over 24 hours while I was in California during the last week in January. Why don't we clean up our own house?           Even more, 125 people were killed in 12 days in Algeria, and their heads were placed on pikes. This was done during Ramadan, the Moslem holy month, by the Armed Islamic Group. They have killed 60,000 people in five years. I only thank the Lord that there's been no effect on the oil prices, or perhaps we would have to pressure Israel to give land to Algeria to settle the conflict.           In the midst of all the current Moslem wars and slaughters, CNN gave a report extolling the Moslem celebration of Ramadan. One can only assume that they were trying to flatter their bosses.           I read recently that the 11th Palestinian Authority prisoner has died in captivity since 1994. PA human rights violations continue to be downplayed in the world press.           On a similar note, I was recently reminded of the fact that Alfred Nobel, of Peace Prize fame, was the inventor of high explosives. Maybe it's appropriate to give that prize to Arafat after all.           In Arabic, Palestine is "Filastia." This is much closer to the Bible "Philistine" than the English "Palestine." The Arabs are conscious of the fact that the name is derived from the ancient Philistines, with whom they have no connections. Whereas the Western world, as exemplified in the reporting of the New York Times, really seems to think that tiny Middle Eastern country has always been Palestine.           On the question of Jewish settlements, the media just accepts that they are a threat to peace. A recent Jerusalem Post editorial asked, "How do homes and schools threaten peace?" If it was an army base, maybe, but not a settlement. The real issue is that Jewish flesh is on Jewish land, and that bothers the Arabs. When Arafat screams "Jihad! Jihad!" do the editors of the New York Times think he is just issuing an invitation for tea?           Speaking of tea, the British recently spent $100 million for a new royal yacht. When you appoint earthly gods, they are costly. Just look what it cost for the Israelites to get a king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). Solomon broke the national economy with an incredible building campaign, as well as the need to support his hundreds of wives and concubines. The nation divided after Solomon because his son refused to reduce the people's burdens. (Is anyone at the IRS taking notes?)           Fortunately, you don't have to be a member of British royalty to be able to afford a tour of the Holy Land. For many believers, traveling to Israel is the trip of a lifetime. When you've read about the Lord's disciples fishing on the Sea of Galilee, have you ever wondered what it would be like to cross the Sea yourself? When the Bible describes how the Lord rode a colt down the Mount of Olives during His Triumphal Entry, have you ever wanted to stand on the Mount yourself to see Jerusalem spread out before you, as He did?           So much of the Bible comes alive when you see the biblical places. There's still time for you to get on board Our next Grand Tour ! Your messenger, Return to Index Return to Levitt Letter Archive Index Return to Home Page