I've been surprised not to see a recommended diary here on Kos about this week's evacuation of the Gaza strip. Perhaps it is simply because the Israel-Palestine is such a hot-button issue, that personal attacks seem to always ensue in any attempt at rational discussion. But to break the taboo, we have to break the taboo. We should be talking about this enormously momentous pullout. The media certainly is. But I'm really turned off by what looks to me like a near-universal, very inflammatory telling of this story. That is, all the stories I've been exposed to in the media.
(more below)
First, for me, the context is critically important. And the minimum of that context, as I see it is:
- Sharon first proposed this plan two years ago, and it was subsequently approved by the Israeli government.
- Polls show a majority of Israelis, though decreasing (62% on July 1, 55% now), support pullout from Gaza (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1432829.htm)
- Polls show an enormous majority - 77% - of Americans support pullout from Gaza, as a "bold step for peace" (sorry for a newsmax reference, but here it is: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/12/143759.shtml)
- For those who care about international opinion, that, too, reveals that more than twice as many people support for the pullout than oppose it (see, e.g., http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/15/gaza.pullout.poll/).
For more context, of course, you could go back even further, to the initial occupation of the Gaza strip (and I imagine those settlers refusing to leave would say you have to go back further than that). Of course, you don't need to tell the story in excruciating detail every time, but perhaps it would be appropriate to mention in these stories that the Gaza strip has been occupied by Jewish settlers since 1967, following the six-day war.
So why is it that the RWCM stories that are covering this extremely important story, all seem to be told through the lens of hysteria? That is, they all seem to emanate from, or at the very least focus on, the minority view only, rarely if ever mentioning the enormously important fact that this viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, or that most support this pullout.
My local paper, The Star Ledger, carries as an above-the-fold headline today, with the words "Tears rain down on Gaza". Sad yet? Feeling sympathetic yet? No? Well, then sub-headline should do it: "Images of settlers' removal, and news of bloodshed, grip Israel".
These headlines set the tone pretty clearly, whether you read the article or not.
Take, also, today's lead CNN (US) story in the "World" category - it shows an extremely inflammatory image of, and describes, Israeli troops entering the main synagogue in Gaza.
(Copyright CNN)
Why show something as inflammatory as forceful taking of a holy place, without placing this into context, such as the context above? Nowhere in this story is any contextual reference to be found, any reference to the basis for or intended result of evacuation, or the majority support it enjoys. The headline to this story could just as easily be: "Majority evacuated; holdouts remain, barricade selves in temple". Isn't this more accurate? I also see it as less inflammatory, though I know those who disagree with evacuation will disagree with this as well. Factually, though, I don't know how you get much more accurate than that. And it's a lot more contextually accurate than simply talking about "tears raining down", bloodshed, and soldiers "storming" holy places. Buried at the end of the CNN story there is only a reference that, "Settlers who chose to remain after the deadline -- which was Monday, although they were given a 48-hour grace period -- stand to lose up to a third of their compensation package, which ranges from $250,000 to $500,000 per family." This is the only inkling of context provided, and what it suggests is victimhood, just like the rest of the story.
Reuters goes even farther than CNN to inflame, stating "Israeli forces storm 2 Gaza settlement synagogues". Reuters, though, at least points out (buried at the end, of course), that "Polls show a majority of Israelis support the withdrawal. Israeli opponents call it a reward for Palestinian violence. The World Court calls the settlements illegal. Israel disputes this." While they should be given some credit for at least referencing the majority opinion, the truth is this should have been on page 1 of the article. And, this paragraph is a striking example of how the media simply of spits out what each side says, with absolutely no analysis, and calls this journalism.
Science Daily also follows the trend, declaring "Israeli troops drag out Gaza settlers." (emphasis mine) There are myriad more examples; it seems a pointless exercise in redundancy to try to cite them all.
Each such headline bothers me more than the last. I can't help but notice that the media's approach is bizarrely uniform in portraying only the victimhood of the resistant minority. Is the media's inflammatory characterization really necessary? Is it appropriate? Why is the media so universally editorializing on this very historic event?
My conclusion from this near-universal approach is that the portrayal is the victimhood of Isrealis, and the clear subtext of that is victimhood of Jews. I'm bothered by this on several levels. One, obviously, the subtext of clearly taking a side in this bloody battle - but not just taking a side, going much further by portraying as sympathetic the most militant of Israelis. Two, the uniformity of the portrayal of victimhood is fairly astounding. What does it say, and what does it mean, this across-the-board embrace of the image of Jew-as-victim? While it may be intended as an extension of sympathy towards Jews, I wonder how positive it really is, to focus so exclusively on the image of the victim. Further, how sympathetic is it really, to unflinchingly present as the Jews' sympathetic representatives, this near-hysterical, militant minority?
To me, the real story is how the whole world supports a two-state solution, that evacuation of Gaza is a critically important step to a two-state solution, how this was an incredible turning point for Sharon's approach, and just how smoothly this has gone. The focus should properly be on the many that have voluntarily left, instead of on the resistent few who remain, and instead of on characterizing what's being done as an "eviction", and subtlely mocking Sharon's plans by putting quotes around it when referring to it as "disengagement". You might find this story in the many inflammatory tellings of the Gaza evacuation. But to do it, you have to ignore the headlines, and dig deep for the contextual morsels.