Television EQUAL HEARING
By RAYMOND A. SCHROTH
Theres an old borscht-belt
joke, in the genre of self-deprecating ethnic humor no longer in style, where
in the punch line a grandmother deals with every family, social and political
problem by posing the ultimate question: But is it good for the
Jews?
An old gag with new relevance as we have watched the media report
on Israels invasion of the Palestinian towns and on Palestinian fanatics
who respond by blowing themselves up and taking innocent Jews with them.
In a democratic society, the first obligation of the press is to
inform the public so that the people can say yes or no to what their
representatives are doing in their names. So when we pick up the morning paper
or turn on the TV, Jewish and Palestinian voices would get an equal
hearing.
Does this happen?
On April 10, Samah Jabr, a Palestinian doctor and peace activist,
sponsored by the St. Peters College Peace and Justice program, stood
before the biggest crowd I have seen in our auditorium, with students and
faculty standing against the walls, to give voice to the Palestinian cause.
Ours is the most diverse student body in New Jersey, and perhaps in the United
States, and our neighborhood is Muslim, Philippine, Hispanic and black; so her
audience was attuned to what she had to say.
She began with a slide show, with music accompaniment and
sarcastic subtitles, depicting Israeli soldiers abusing Palestinian men, women
and children. Followed by a segment that drew a parallel between the Nazi
persecution of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and Jewish treatment of Arabs on the
West Bank. A dead Jewish baby then; a dead Palestinian baby today.
The text: Just as Jews were persecuted, so are Palestinians. The
subtext: World War IIs Nazis have reappeared as todays
Israelis.
During the question period, I said I agreed that Israels
policy of driving their tanks into the Palestinians cities was oppressive
and immoral but that I was still waiting to hear the Arab intellectual
community, with one voice, condemn the immoral madness of the suicide bombings
(smattering of applause).
She replied that she did not approve of the bombings, but that the
bombers acted as individuals, and that the Israeli occupation was the
greenhouse of terrorism. A neighbor in the audience said that he
could understand a bomber who was ready to die and wanted to take some of
them with him. Arab young women in the second row greeted this with wild
applause and started passing out a Time magazine article called
Why We Blow Ourselves Up.
I got the mike and asked the students if thats what they
believed. One said, no but, an eye for an eye
Consternation
and murmurs in the house. Next question.
My problem is this: Every human life is sacred, and the people who
wage wars -- from Arafat to Sharon to Rumsfeld to Bush -- do everything they
can to deny that fact. If they acknowledged this obligation, their freedom of
movement, their political hands, would be tied.
To achieve their purposes they must dehumanize the enemy by
labeling them terrorists or oppressors, so the corpses
blown to pieces at a bar mitzvah in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian dead bodies in
the rubble of Jenin -- some reported to be already buried by Israeli troops --
cannot be seen as persons.
The Israelis barred the press from Jenin for 10 days, giving
themselves carte blanche to dispose of their enemies in any way they chose. The
Israeli spokesman tells CNN that about 100 terrorists have been killed plus
perhaps a few civilians whom the terrorists used as human shields. A French TV
crew gets in and films a half-dozen civilian corpses still rotting in the
rubble of their own homes. The New York Times interviews Palestinian
young men who, they say, have nothing to do with the war but are labeled
terrorists, stripped naked, photographed, brutalized, and held in
detention for days. Jenin residents say they have lost 500 men, women and
children.
Will the media, which have been slow to face the issue of the
civilian casualties in Afghanistan, demand a full accounting of the victims of
Israels blitzkrieg in Arab towns?
A weekend of radio and TV news and talk April 11-13 offered little
hope. On NPRs The Connection, an opponent of the new
International Criminal Court said the United States must resist the court lest
it indict Israel for its invasion of the West Bank. Some of CNNs
Capital Gang, such as Mark Shields, criticized Sharon for
destroying the Palestinian infrastructure so it would be impossible for them to
establish a viable state; then the Gang gave a lot of time to the
Christian Coalitions Ralph Reed, who is not really a newsmaker of
the week, to argue that it is Gods will for Israel to have all that
land.
CNN ran videos of young Palestinian women announcing they will
blow themselves up. MSNBC ran a group discussion with both Jews and
Palestinians; then a feature on a beautiful Israeli teenager who had hoped to
be a model but whose face was disfigured by a suicide bomber.
On ABCs This Week, aside from an interview with
Jordans King Abdullah, none of the five pundits spoke for the Palestinian
cause. For William Kristol, Bushs mild caution to Sharon showed he had
lost his moral compass. On Meet the Press, Condoleezza
Rice talked nonstop for 30 minutes, brushing off Tim Russerts point that
Sharon had ignored Bushs April 8 demand to withdraw his troops
right away.
An Israeli spokesmans claim that Palestinian terrorists were
holding the priests and nuns of the Bethlehem Church of the Nativity as
hostages went unchallenged, though all three priests interviewed by
The New York Times said that was not true.
E.R. Shipp, an African-American woman columnist for the New
York Daily News, (April 2), said it best: Pope John Pauls
Easter lament that It seems that war has been declared on peace
indicts the U.S. foreign policy that starts from a premise that Israel can do
no wrong and that to say otherwise is to risk being condemned as anti-Semitic.
In any case, I dont understand why Israel gets a free pass at
trampling on the human rights of Palestinians.
It is not anti-Semitic to notice that, especially in the
Northeast, Jews, who constitute about 3 percent of the American population,
dominate intellectual and political discourse.
Check the ownership, mastheads, columnists, radio and TV talk show
hosts and guest lists and notice, as Robert Sheer writes in the Los Angeles
Times (April 9), that the affirmative action campaign that moved other
minorities -- blacks, Hispanics, women, and others into the media -- has
overlooked Arab-Americans.
Jews have the greatest influence, for one clear reason:
Theyre better. They study. They embrace the intellectual life, fight to
get the best education, and encourage free thought and expression. Where would
American Catholics be today if they had done the same, rather than cower
defensively in their anti-intellectual ghetto?
As a result, there is no clear Arab voice that can command media
or government attention. As Michael Massing writes in the Los Angeles
Times (March 10), Bush kept quiet on the Middle East until it was too late
because of the disproportionate influence of two conservative, hawkish, Jewish
lobbies -- the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, between 1997 and 2001,
gave $3 million to key members of Congress. Eighty percent of American Jews
want the United States to put pressure on both sides to reach a settlement, but
so far hawkish voices have been louder.
Nor is there a Christian-Catholic voice that can speak
prophetically about what is happening in the Holy Land. The pope is too feeble,
and the American hierarchy is paralyzed by its pedophilia scandal. Moral
leadership is left to the media.
We could do worse. Basically there is no pro- and anti-Israel
split in the media. Its overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Everyone prefaces
his/her comments with some version of whats good for the
Jews.
The difference is: Whether its good for Israel to consider
this war as Armageddon to be fought to the death, or whether its in
Israels interest to respect Palestinian rights, pull out of the West
Bank, close the settlements and enter an economic development partnership with
its Arab neighbors.
Any signs of hope?
There are foreign correspondents, like those of The New York
Times, The Washington Post, NPR, the British press, BBC and others, who
have painstakingly chronicled Palestinian and Jewish suffering alike. And above
all there are the Jewish journalists who love Israel enough to remind both
Israeli and American Jews that they are traditionally a people of conscience,
that their history of persecution should make them liberators, not oppressors,
of others.
Anthony Lewis writes in The New York Review of Books (April
25) that Israeli soldiers desecrated a Lutheran church in Bethlehem, taking
down its crosses and smearing its walls with graffiti. He says the Bush
administration has brought disaster on itself by giving Sharon a blank check.
He cites the Israeli reservists who have refused to serve in what they call the
war of the settlements. He grants that Arafat is a corrupt
disaster. A solution like King Abdullahs, he says, with Israel
withdrawing to its 1967 boundaries, might have some risks, but it is a
better gamble than a policy that has not stopped terrorism and has corrupted
Israels values.
Robert Sheer concludes: For many, being Jewish carries with
it the lessons of universal tolerance and compassion, while for others it is a
never again pride in the military power of a David turned
modern-day Goliath. Both Arafat and Sharon are killers of the
innocent. Both are to be roundly condemned by all, and the failure of prominent
Arabs to do their part to restrain Arafat is all too obvious. No less a moral
offense is the acquiescence of too many Jews, in Israel and abroad, to the
comparable crimes of Sharon.
Jesuit Fr. Raymond A. Schroth is the Jesuit Community professor
of humanities at St. Peters College and author of the just-published
Fordham: A History and Memoir (Loyola Press).
National Catholic Reporter, May 3, 2002
|