There is a middle ground in the Middle East and journalists should start showing it
The real irony of the Middle East is that it should be called the Extremist East, because that is how most journalists write about it. There is no middle in the "MIddle East" and there should be. I don't expect it from the political activists that dominate most of the writing on the Middle East, especially the conflict arising out of the still unresolved 1948 War. Publications and their writers who claim to be "objective" and professional journalists often turn into ugly vicious advocates for "their side."
Take the issue of Bethlehem, a city that has been occupied by Israel's military since 1967. It's very touchy because Bethlehem is the symbol of the cradle of Christianity, where Jesus was born. My mother, for example, was born in Bethlehem and her family has lived there for centuries and her relatives continue to live there.
Every Christmas, the topic of Bethlehem comes up, and rightly so. Many American Christians who turn toward cheaply purchased icons of Bethlehem, and so not so cheap Nativity Scenes that adorn home lawns and some non-government public areas, have an affinity to the images but not the reality of Bethlehem. They have no idea what it is like in part because the news media does a terrible job of reporting on Bethlehem. The serenity and hope that Christians seek when looking at the "Bethlehem" in their images is far from the reality of the real cityy of Bethlehem.
The Arab media often takes the issues one step too far, over criticizing Israel and using the tragedy of Bethlehem -- and it is a tragedy that doesn't need to be exaggerated. It is true that Israel denies many Christians and Muslims from traveling in and out of Bethlehem, but not all. Israel does deny access to some Christian leaders, but not all.
But on the otherhand, it is the Israeli media that totally ignores Bethlehem and only speaks to it when someone writes something the publication or an editor dislikes.
Once in a while, someone steps up to the plate who writes about it with passion, honesty and with true balance. Kenneth L. Woodward, the former religion editor and now contributing editor of Newsweek, has written a compelling piece on the tragedy of Bethlehem. The restrictions. The hardship of daily life. The impact of the conflict and the Israeli occupation and the failure of peace to be achieved. It's something the pro-Israel media would never write.
Here is the link to the feature which ran on Christmas Eve, Dec. 24.
Woodward worked 36 years for Newsweek, heading up the religion section since 1964 and wrting more than 750 articles while at Newsweek, which is a lot. Here is his full Newsweek bio. And, and even more detailed bio on him from MSNBC here.
Oh, everyone sang Woodward's praises when he was religion editor and he wrote not only about Christians, but Jews and Muslims. The MSNBC profile lists all his awards, which are impressive. One thing you must conclude is that Woodward has been a respected and fair religion editor, a professional journalist who has taken his responsibilities seriously. So, when he writes something, he deserves far more respect than what he is getting today.
Of courcse, recently, he did write something. Over the years, Woodward supervised the religion section that included many peices on Judaism and Israel, and on Christians and Muslims of the Middle East and Arab World. No longer editor, he probably has more freedom to write what he feels rather than what the "system" allows.
In a recent feature published not by Newsweek but by the Wall Street Journal and titled "The Plight of Bethlehem; Why Christians can't visit the holy shrines in Jerusalem," Woodward did a remarkably candid job of accurately describing the situation in Bethlehem, a situation he observed firsthand.
Life in Bethlehem for Christians and Muslims is appalling. Many of Israel's "journalist" supporters who are extremist in their views (my definition of extremism in journalism regards someone who is not objective, who closes his or her eyes to the facts on the other side, and who writes recklessly) have in response launched a typical campaign of slander, namecalling, defamation and lobbying to prevent Woodward from writing again. Oh, they would love to shut that writer up.
Yes. Criticize Israel at your own peril in this country.
Woodward writes from firsthand experience. He was last there in 2000 and he has many contacts on the ground. The statistics he cites are out there in the public from many sources, including Christian agencies that do travel to Bethlehem all the time but never get coverage. Much of the writing on the Middle East is not firsthand at all, and often written from press releases, or under duress of a military authority, pro-American or not. Even more writing is written out of public relations strategy rather than honest journalism by publications that claim to be journalistic but that are exclusive, partisan and advocates of issues rather than as honest professional members of the journalism craft.
And even more is written out of anger.
One of the angriest responses to Woodward came from, not surprisingly, Commentary Magazine, a publication that toes the line on Israel by declaration. It is a great magazine when it comes to writing about Jews and the Jewish religion, but it's not exactly an objective source when it comes Christians or Muslims or being objective about the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Immediately after Woodward's feature was published in the Wall Street Journal on Christmas Eve, Commentary Magazine unleashed a vicious attack called "Oh Little Libel on Bethlehem" authored by David Billet and posted on the magazine's Web Site to get it out immediately. The Commentary attack doesn't just address the topic of Woodward's column. It also addresses Woodward personally. Billit, an assistant editor at Commentary Magazine, accuses Woodward of writing out of "bias, falsehood, and demagoguery." Oh, and Billet calls Woodward "so ignorant."
Yikes! Don't hold back David. (I'm surprised he didn't use the "A"word.)
It's remarkable in its anger. But I haven't read Commentary Magazine much over the years so I have no idea whether viciousness is a standard or an abberration on their part. It's not a real independent journalism product, like Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal. It was founded by the American Jewish Committee, to advocate a very specific agenda. Not journalism.
Billet begins by constructing arguments that Woodward never wrote. He twists and turns to make Woodward's observations seem intentionally political and biased. Although Woodward was meticulous in not engaging in political debate in his piece, Billet is all about politics.
To me, the most shocking assertion from Billet is this: "contrary to what Woodward claims, permission is routinely granted to Palestinian Christians (and Muslims) to enter Israel to worship." Really? Wow. None of my relatives and their friends are allowed to enter Israel let alone East Jerusalem. They're Christian. They have been routinely denied permission to enter and only a very few are allowed to enter, those who have documents from prior to the 1967 War. (In fact, in three tours of Israel and Palestine that included East Jerusalem, the Israeli government refused to give passes to any Palestinian journalists or any of my Palestinian relatives to enter to see my shows -- although I did get some help from one of Israel's consulates in the United States.)
Billet is apparently angry that Woodward refers to "East Jerusalem" as being a part of the West Bank. You see, in 1947, the United Nations Partitioned Palestine into two states, Israel and an Arab State. Jerusalem and Bethlehem were supposed to be "independent." But both sides -- not just the Arabs -- fought hard against the Partition. Israelis fought and captured West Jerusalem and many other areas in the Arab State. The Arabs fought, too, and captured East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It sat that way until 1967. Israel "annexed" East Jerusalem against what most people int he world consider international law. They have even cleverly changed the semantics of the debate from calling the West Bank the West Bank -- it is called Judea and Samaria. And The West Bank is not "occupied," they argue. It is "disputed." A term first thrust into the American vernacular by Donal Rumsfeld, the man who lied to us about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq -- and who has yet to be prosecuted and punished.
And it's not a "Wall" but a security barrier. I support building the Wall. But this Wall is built in the West Bank on Palestinian land. It isn't built on the Green Line which divided the West Bank from Israel since the 1949 armistice.
I've been to Bethlehem many times over the years. The city is surrounded by a 24 foot tall Wall made of concrete -- call it a "Fence" when it is a "Fence" and a Wall when it is a Wall. That's what journalists are supposed to do.
But when journalists see veteran professionals like Woodward come under such vicious assault, no wonder many prefer to stay away fromt he topic unless they are assigned to cover it. And no wonder so many publications so easily use terms like the "Fence" to describe a 24 foot concrete wall, and describe the West Bank as "disputed" rather than occupied.
To some journalists, the goal is to accurately describe situations, especially those of hardship on people, and toi challenge the powers that be and their efforts to impose twists, turns and spins on their writing. But to other "journalists," the goal is to make a government happy.
Here's a salute to you, Mr. Woodward! You are my journalist of the year. Thanks for writing the truth, even though it will probably be a costly choice on your part. But that is exactly what real journalism is all about. Writing the truth whent he cost of truth is so high, especially on someone personally.
Ray Hanania