JesseDraft

The mass media has been known to sensationalize the slightest mishap seen in public. When there is a high volume of shock value in a story, the media grabs the attention of the world audience in making the story irresistible. Celebrities like Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, and even Jennifer Aniston know all about bad publicity. Some would say that the infamous Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been sensationalized in the past, but at what cost? I would even argue that the media no longer sensationalizes the conflict between these two sets of people; the American media barely responds to Israeli and Palestinian peace talks. Furthermore, when it comes to the American political parties, the Democrats are trying to recover from Obama’s maltreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in his presidency, and the Republican Party is staying awfully quiet. When the media does discuss the most recent round of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, they often shed negative and overly critical biases about everything going on in the Middle East. Take the recent article written in //Time// magazine. As the cover of the September 13, 2010 issue of //Time//, Karl Vick’s story is pictured by a Jewish star made out of beautiful daisies. My first reaction to the cover was that the article would discuss the positive aspects of the peace talks between Israel and Palestine that had begun earlier in the month. After admiring how much positive attention this moderate magazine was going to give the peace talks, I noticed the title in bold in the direct center of the star: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” I was shocked with the bad publicity that the peace talks were already attracting. I wanted to know why //Time// would publish such an awful thing when I clearly believed that all Israelis wanted peace with their neighbors. I definitely noticed my ignorance at this point. While I still question the article as a whole, it opened my eyes and made me want to determine why the media had already given up on a peace negotiation when the discussions had not even lasted a week on the publication date of the magazine. After reading this article and consuming the biases that it introduced, I had to determine what effect this publicity would have, not only on the peace talks, but also on the people that read about the peace talks. Since the most recent round of peace talks began on September 2, 2010, I have digested over 50 articles about anything related to Israel, Palestine, or the peace talks connecting them. I have read articles that had a clear liberal bias, a conservative bias, or ones that were non-partisan. I have read articles from Israeli newspapers, Palestinian newspapers, and American sources. I have tried to locate articles by as many resources as possible to determine if information was skewed or misrepresented amongst the articles. While discussing my findings with my colleagues, I found that many of them did not know what was going on in the Middle East. Truthfully, I was not as well educated before this project as I wish I had been. The truth of the matter is, the media rarely covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace process anymore. Why would they when this is the fourth major attempt at peace these two groups of people have had since Clinton’s Oslo Accords in 1993? One of the first articles I read was an article from //The Economist//. The article entitled “The president and the peace process,” chronicles the many attempts that American presidents have had at resolving the rift over the land of Israel. A political cartoon precedes the article, depicting Obama in a boxing ring. One side of the ring is labeled “Israel,” while the other is labeled “Palestine.” Obama is perceived as the ring announcer, holding up a sign that says “Round 3,487,874.” Behind the ring, previous presidents are seen battered and bruised, with Bush and Clinton in the forefront. Both are sporting black eyes and multiple bandages. It is not clear who the other two men are behind Bush and Clinton, but one probably is Jimmy Carter who is referenced in the article. The irony of this cartoon is that while Obama has not been defeated yet, what will make this attempt different from all of the other attempts by American presidents to forge peace? While there have not been 3.5 million rounds of peace talks with the United States presidents, the exaggeration makes a very clear point. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is wearing people down. The public does not care about it and the American media is sick of reporting about it. This article has a definite conservative and anti-Obama bias, but it really makes intriguing points. The subtitle of the article, “A thankless task, but at least Barack Obama seems to be trying,” has a positive feel to it, but it is overshadowed by its very critical analysis of Obama’s interactions with Israel and Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu. Lexington writes that Obama hurried to get the peace process going at this time of his term because of the upcoming elections and that “it may be just as well that this president got his [Nobel] peace prize up front,” since Lexington believes that peace attempts will fail once again. While this article had a clear bias against Obama and a pessimistic attitude about the future of peace in the Middle East, another article by //Foreign Policy// casts an even bigger shadow over the Obama administration. In his article, “Not Settling For Less,” David Kenner of //Foreign Policy// conducts an interview with Daniel Dayan, the leader of the Israeli West Bank settler movement. I had read a few articles discussing Obama’s mistreatment of Benjamin Netanyahu, but they never introduced the wrongdoings. In this interview, Dayan clearly accounts what Obama has done to Israel to make him call the president “the most hostile president toward Israel that [he] can remember.” A picture was released a year ago, which Dayan called “the shameless, ugly picture” which depicted Obama speaking with Netanyahu by phone with his feet on the table. Obama also walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu when the Prime Minister came to the White House in March after Obama failed to receive a promise of concessions on Jewish settlements. Obama also did not pose for any photographs with Netanyahu and he did not eat dinner with the Israeli Prime Minister although they were both in the White House. At one point in his interview, Dayan said, “I pray that President Obama does not break President Clinton’s record in worsening the situation in the Middle East. But I fear that he will.” It is not a secret that many Israeli citizens dislike Obama. Many in the Middle East are not getting their hopes up for peace between Israel and Palestine solely because of Obama’s previous actions. Besides the negative publicity that conservative news sources have given Obama and the Democratic Party, the Republicans have been rather quiet during these peace negotiations. The only article that I found directly related to the GOP was an opinion article written by Chairman Michael Steele. In his blog entitled “Bilateral Mideast Peace Talks,” Steele begins by discussing the importance of America being an ally to the Israelis. He then slams Obama, saying that he is “concerned that President Obama has pressed the ‘reset’ button on our nation’s historic relationship with Israel.” He thinks that Obama is hurting America’s long-standing relationship with Israel, but ends by saying that “Republicans stand today, as always, with Israel.” He hopes that these peace talks can be productive, but warns America to keep a close eye on Obama. As far as the Obama administration goes, it is receiving moderate feedback from the liberal and moderate media sources. It seems clear that Obama is striving for some type of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As so many presidents before him have done, Obama is trying to urge both sides to make concessions. An article written by Manuel Hassassian and Edward Kaufman, professors at the University of Maryland, entitled “The Tehran tangle in Middle East peace” discusses the importance of the negotiations in striving to neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While my focus is not on Iran and its nuclear weapons, these authors write that they believe the attempts to garner peace between Israel and Palestine “is congruent with President Obama’s [policies], as set forth when he won the Nobel peace prize.” They believe that Obama can deliver the “expected fruit” of a peace negotiation. One of the biggest roadblocks to this round of peace talks is the moratorium Israel held on building settlements in the West Bank. Prime Minister Netanyahu put a 10-month halt on settlement building in the West Bank in order to show Palestine he truly wanted to start peace talks. However, less than a month after the peace talks began, Netanyahu’s moratorium on settlements expired on September 26. With Netanyahu’s party being pro-settlement, he received a lot of pressure to allow the settlers to start building after the moratorium expired. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama urged Netanyahu differently. Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton tried tirelessly to convince Netanyahu to extend the moratorium in order to keep the peace talks going, while Abbas threatened to retreat from the negotiations if building were to begin. Whether Obama wanted Netanyahu to continue the freeze because of the negotiations or because many groups deemed the settlements illegal, Obama has received praise and condemnation. Some articles supported Obama’s stance and said that it was important for Israel to make the concession, especially since some of the land where settlements are being built are in territory that could eventually be a part of a Palestinian state. Others, however, disagreed with Obama and believed that he should not only ask Israel to concede and that he should urge Palestine to make a compromise. Obama made it clear, however, that he is firmly behind Israel and Palestine during their peace negotiations. In an address to the United Nations on September 23, Obama said that “now is the time” to pursue Middle East peace. Obama seemed very trustful when he said that Israelis “must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine—one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity” and that Palestinians “who long to see an independent Palestine rise must stop trying to tear Israel down.” He wants both sides to understand that they must work together to forge peace. A majority of the American news sources that I followed reported very factual and non-biased information. Sources like //CNN, The New York Times,// and even //FOXNews// were generally very non-partisan. In a majority of the articles from these three sources, the information was very factual and did not have any opinion involved. However, //CNN// and //The New York Times// had some liberal articles, while //FOXNews// had some conservative articles. As a consumer, however, I found it to be difficult to find news on American websites. Most of the articles posted on //The New York Times// and //FOXNews// were reproduced from foreign resources. The American media rarely had originally produced articles about the events in the Middle East. Articles on //CNN// all had to be found on the international //CNN// website. On the other hand, however, I found many articles from //Aljazeera//, an Arab network, and //Haaretz//, an Israeli newspaper. These articles were purely factual the entire time. I found it very refreshing to read articles by these two different groups that were not biased. It would be so easy for Israel to bash the Palestinians in their articles, and just as easy for the Palestinians to bash the Israelis in their articles. However, each article from these sources was very accurate and had the best information about the ongoing peace talks. I find the American media and public to be very indifferent to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace talks. With very little exposure to what has been going on the past month in the Middle East, American citizens are misinformed and do not know how to react to certain questions. It is very disheartening that little positive exposure is coming out of the negotiations. No one can say if there will be an independent Palestinian state a year from today. However, the American media should be more positive and hopeful that peace between Israel and Palestine can, in fact, be eminent.
 * The Media and the President: How Americans view Peace in the Middle East **