Because of Biden’s visit to the Middle East, the month of July was not a normal month of Israel coverage in the New York Times. Although many stories were published, a total of 35 headlines, but unusually – the vast majority of them were not negative but neutral. 18 headlines during July touched on Biden’s visit to Israel, and discussed the nuclear agreement with Iran, military alliances and advanced Israeli weapons; in his visit to “Yad Vashem” and kneeling in front of the Holocaust survivors he met; And they went as far as describing the long traffic jams in Jerusalem and the president’s avoidance of shaking hands with the Israeli leadership, so that in Saudi Arabia he would not be forced to shake the hand of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
What is more, it is interesting to note the somewhat obsessive coverage of Israel, also in this aspect. Biden visited Europe in March to gather support for his position regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, which left only 10 headlines in the site’s archive, regarding his visit to Belgium and Poland together. In May, Biden visited Asia, leaving a total of 11 headlines in the site’s archives regarding his meetings in South Korea and Japan.
Is the visit to the Middle East more important than the visits to Europe and Asia? There is no doubt that oil prices are important and were the main motive for his arrival in the region, but the visit to Saudi Arabia left 14 titles in the site’s archive. Of all of Biden’s trips this year, the visit to Israel was the most covered on the “Times” website. And with all due respect to the Jewish state – we are not the most important in the world.
- Entry and exit times for the Tisha B’Av fast
As usual, it is also interesting to note what was not published. The Times completely ignored 39 major headlines published in Israel during July in the context of the conflict, including 13 headlines about attempted terrorist attacks and 8 headlines about threats from Hezbollah and UAVs that were intercepted on their way to the “Shark-Tanin” gas reservoir.
Nasrallah’s mockery of the age of Biden, who represents an aging America, is not covered, nor is the US’s call to the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Nothing has been published about the report on the torture of prisoners in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority that came out in July, or about the mapping of Israel of Hamas forces, which are located in the heart of a civilian population.
The four rockets that were launched from Gaza to Israel immediately after Biden’s departure to Saudi Arabia were also not reported at all. It seems that the ongoing terrorism around us is simply not part of the story in the eyes of the newspaper. This month, he chose to extensively cover the visit, but to omit the way in which Hamas protested the neglect of Biden, who only visited Abu Mazen in the PA.
After all, this is the story of the divided Palestinian leadership with which Israel is supposed to reach an agreement, according to the “Times” agenda. So once again slogans about “the two states” were sent into the air, only that between the terrorist organization that controls Gaza and the aging Abu Mazen it is not clear who will succeed him, and who are we even supposed to be talking to.
Logging out, anyone?
On August 15th we will mark 17 years since secession, but even in July the “New York Times” acted as if this event had no meaning. Every Israeli understands how disconnected this approach is from reality. For us, the disengagement was a huge turning point – a slap in the face that caused a loss of faith in the people and a loss of confidence in the possibility of peace. It led to the strengthening of Hamas and created the impossible arena in Gaza, as well as an inability to deal with the divided Palestinian leadership.
Almost every article in “The Times” related to the conflict has a paragraph with a summary of the “background” for the story. The description of Israel’s actions in 1967 was repeated no less than 50 times in various articles since the beginning of the year – and the word “occupation” in the context of Israel was repeated 73 times – just like repeating a message in a campaign. But the word “disengagement” in the context of Israel was not mentioned in the newspaper even once.
It’s funny that in Israel this week there were those who chose to ignore all those with a dubious past who are running for the Likud list, and to specifically criticize Gilad Sharon’s run in the primaries, because “he did not apologize for breaking away.” Since detachment is used by us as a tool in internal debates, we forgot to take care to remember its existence externally.
In today’s polarized situation, the extreme left is asking for an apology for the victory in the War of Independence, and the national camp is demanding an apology for the secession – which has long been a settled historical fact. Due to many disputes, we did not turn to see that even if the disengagement did not produce the result we hoped for, we could at least benefit from it in the international arena.
It was supposed to become a winning answer in everything related to Israeli propaganda. After all, we tried to retreat to the ’67 borders in Gaza – and look what happened there. Imagine that instead of investing in mutual denunciation and demanding apologies for what cannot be undone, we would invest in assimilating the conclusions from disengagement in the Western world.
The Times can be accused of an anti-Israel attitude, and rightly so, but we also have some responsibility. We invest all of our message delivery capabilities in slime politics, and in the never-ending propaganda of too many election campaigns. After all, we made a move that was supposed to allow the Palestinians in Gaza to establish their own regime and break free from Israel. But Hamas threw away the terms of the quartet, threw the Fatah people off the roofs of the buildings, did not agree to give up violence, took the budgets and the territory and the possibility of freedom – and chose the path of terror.
We could have devoted at least some of the Israeli energy to demanding that the “New York Times” apologize for trying to erase the secession from history.
I explained inaction
When they say that advocacy has failed, what does it actually mean? If we take the “New York Times” as an example, it seems that the State of Israel simply ignores its regular reports, much like the newspaper itself ignores terrorism. The country has gotten used to this attitude, and it revolts only when there is a very unusual event, if at all. But we do not have the privilege of throwing up our hands, because the dynamic continues to exist and does not stand still. Over time, perceptions in the US change.
The New York Times building in Manhattan (Photo: Yonatan Zindel, Flash 90, archive)Take for example two stories that received huge headlines with us this week, and were not even mentioned a word in the “New York Times”. The newspaper did not report on the senior jihadist who was arrested in Jenin and under curfew in the south for fear of retaliation. His readers are not aware of the disruptions of daily life in Israel, the nest of terror that is Jenin, or the fact that the Palestinian Authority is afraid to deal with the violent gang that riots there. Therefore, when an accident occurs such as the death of an Al Jazeera journalist, it has no context. No one knows why the IDF was there in the first place, or who it was trying to arrest. Allegedly, the entire background to the incident is what happened in 1967.
In practice, there is not much difference between the elimination of the head of Al-Qaeda and the arrest of the head of Jihad in Jenin. These are two scenes from the same movie. Only that the first case received massive coverage and justification in the main headline of the “New York Times”, while regarding the second case they avoided using the word “terrorism”, and proceeded as if it had not happened.
Even the shocking case of the pimping of the prison guards in Gilboa prison is related to conflict and advocacy. After all, what is the background to the fact that in Gilboa prison they left female guards to deal with murderous prisoners? In the security prisons they are afraid that the prisoners will rebel or, god forbid, go hungry, because then the “New York Times” and its ilk will be unable to report on a fatal violation of human rights, and a domino effect of demands from the American government will begin, and a mess that no one needs right now.
We are paying a high price for “accepting the situation as it is” and the lack of action in everything related to external communication. It doesn’t really pay off when you look at it that way.
democracy? No thanks
Imagine that there was a small communications officer at the Foreign Ministry, who follows the publications in major media outlets in the US and Europe, as I follow The Times this year. Every member of the KML would receive two media outlets and follow them regularly and Sisypheanly, and demand from them a correction or clarification regarding any error or bias. Simply drawing attention to the illogicality of the reporting would have changed something in the systemic perceptions, because silence is a form of consent.
Israel’s propaganda cannot be neglected. Our future depends on it. Public opinion is formed on the basis of such partial reports, and when there is public opinion – new leaders emerge who are based on it and work against Israel in the administration. The Israeli message should be consistent, and broadcast the Israeli mainstream narrative: Israel is a special creature, there is no other country like it. On the one hand, it is a safe home for all the Jews in the world, who have been persecuted for years. On the other hand, it is the only democracy in the Middle East, where, how to say, democracy has taken less hold.
In Egypt, the democratic spirit led to elections that brought up the Muslim Brotherhood, who have nothing to do with democratic values, and this adventure ended quickly. Even in Tunisia – the only remnant of the Arab Spring that was supposed to infuse the Middle East with the spirit of democracy – they have recently given up.
It is very difficult for Americans and Europeans to understand this, because they live a different reality. They have no hostile neighbors, and those who wish their harm are far away, not sitting on their borders with hundreds of thousands of precision missiles. Unfortunately, Israel, which aspires to be like them, cannot be their clone because of the reality in the neighborhood where it is located. With a little determination, it is possible to explain the situation and change the existing perceptions.
The expectation that Israel will act as if there is no terrorist environment, by not reporting on terrorism, is delusional. We all know that there is no option to simply retreat to the ’67 lines as if nothing had happened since then, and that there is also no option to make 5 million Palestinians citizens in Israel, because that would mean a bloodbath. But those who don’t live here, don’t understand this reality.
The complexity that we know closely needs to be explained slowly and patiently. Not with ranting or accusations, but with determination. Put in place those who present things in a different way, such as the “New York Times”. This is part of the role of our government.
The monitoring is carried out on the home, opinions, world and ID pages of the New York Times website