With Israel's painful withdrawal from 25 settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank now complete, it's time to review media coverage
of this historic process.
While much of the coverage presented events in a
straightforward and accurate manner, some media myths emerged
that demand debunking before they receive greater resonance.
Interestingly, each of the myths were promulgated in part via editorial
cartoons, which we reprint here:
MYTH 1: GAZA ISRAELIS ARE SIMILAR TO 1948 PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
Steve Kelley, New Orleans Times-Picayune
Chris Britt, Springfield (IL) State Journal-Register
Theo Moudakis, Toronto Star
This side-by-side comparison is convenient and pithy, but in truth there's
very little in common
between
the two groups. Palestinian Gazans became refugees as a result of Arab-initiated wars they
largely supported in
1948 (after Palestinian rejection of the UN partition plan) and 1967. On the other hand, Israeli Gazans were evacuated this summer in a unilateral effort to bring
greater calm and hope for peace to the region.
MYTH 2: PALESTINIANS ARE RECEIVING THEIR 'NATIVE' GAZA BACK
Philadelphia
Inquirer reporter Michael Matza wrote:
One good indicator of whether Israel's withdrawal
from the Gaza Strip can be a catalyst for peace is whether Palestinian workers
can make the land they reclaim bloom with prosperity.
The idea that Palestinians are 'reclaiming' their 'native'
Gaza also appeared in this cartoon from Jeff Stahler of the Columbus (OH)
Dispatch:
Yet in fact, Palestinian Arabs never had sovereignty in Gaza ― before Israeli
control in 1967, Egyptians ruled Gaza, and before them, the British and Ottoman
Empire.
The appropriate response to this Palestinian-Indian comparison (also stated
here) was penned
by
David
Yeagley in FrontPage Magazine:
Many people
see a similarity between American Indians and today's Palestinians. I'm
Comanche Indian. I see no similarity whatsoever. There's no
similarity in the land claim issue [since] Palestinian Arabs are
not indigenous to Palestine. During
[622-1922] Palestine was little more than a wilderness of nomads, loosely
associated groups of provincial subdivisions with frequently changing
administrations...
It wasn't
considered "Palestine," a separate Arab nationality, until the 1967 Six-Day
War...
MYTH 3: GAZA WITHDRAWAL WAS AN ISRAELI PLOY TO HOLD ONTO WEST BANK
Jonathan Shapiro, Mail & Guardian (South Africa)
Patrick Chapette, International Herald Tribune
These portrayals of the Gaza withdrawal
distort the fact that Israel remains committed to its roadmap pledge to halt
settlement growth in the West Bank. (This, while the Palestinian leadership
continues to flout
its roadmap obligation to uproot terrorist organizations.). The dispute over continued building in the Maale Adumim area hinges on the definition of that community's municipal boundaries ― not the essential validity of the roadmap.
Observers from across the political spectrum have recognized that the Gaza
withdrawal marked a significant shift in Ariel Sharon's approach to the
settlements. Yet these cartoonists and their print counterparts persist in
painting Sharon as a meanspirited, imperialistic conqueror.
Toronto Star columnist
Linda McQuaig fell in line with the cartoons:
It seems... likely, however, that this withdrawal is a one-shot deal. If so,
it is of little
value. Worse, it could be a cynical attempt to reduce pressure for further
withdrawals. The truth is that, while painful for some individuals, the
withdrawal from Gaza isn't much of a sacrifice for Israel.
McQuaig's
piece and these cartoons downplay Israel's tremendous unilateral concession of
sacrificing entire communities for the sake of engendering peace. The
'disengagement' was a traumatic process that nearly tore Israel's fragile social
fabric in half. To deny that fact reveals these journalists' commitment to
portraying Israel in a bad light regardless of the reality on the ground.
Comments to Toronto Star:
lettertoed@thestar.ca
* * *
Did your local media outlets rehash any of these myths ― comparing Gaza
settlers to Palestinian refugees, describing Gaza as 'native' to Palestinians, or casting the disengagement as a
'cynical' or 'meaningless' Israeli gesture without further West Bank
concessions? If so, HonestReporting encourages you to contact your editor to set
the record straight.
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.
HonestReporting
