Up to a Point
July 20, 2001
(Israel Shamir's speech at the UNESCO conference on Getting the
Facts Right).
The media world was well described in the brilliant novel by
Evelyn Waugh, The Scoop.
Though the main plot of the book unfolds in Africa, the relevant
scene takes place on Fleet Street, at the office of the Daily
Beast owner, lord Copper. The media baron asked his foreign
editor from time to time, is Yokohama the capital of Japan? Or
Does Hong Kong belongs to us? The editor had two 'safe' answers.
When lord Copper was right, he said, Definitely, lord Copper.
When he was wrong, he said, Up to a point, lord Copper. That is
the fork, from definitely to up to a point, of the permissible
borders of mainstream media discourse. We journalists are
dependent creatures. We would like to be honest and sincere, but
we have to think of our mortgages, and of our vocation. If we
step over the borders established by the media owners, we would
have to look for a different occupation altogether.
Speaking of Palestine, the borders are quite narrow. I would say
they run parallel to the borders of internal Jewish Israeli
mainstream discourse, from Meretz to Sharon. If we compare it
with pre-Mandela South Africa, it is similar to the White
mainstream discourse, from Nationalist to Progressive, not
including ANC. In my view, this discourse is exclusivist, even
supremacist. It is based on sustaining Jewish supremacy in
Palestine. It does not offer equality or even a safe future to
the local inhabitants. But that is all you are allowed to say.
You may support the creation of Palestinian reservations which
puts you firmly in the Israeli 'liberal' camp, or you can back
mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing, and you will be called a
hardliner or a hawk. These are the firm borders of the
discourse. Whoever crosses the borders, and speaks for equality
of a Jew and Gentile in the Holy Land, finds himself in the
wilderness. His voice will be silenced, maybe for good.
I know this first hand. I live in Jaffa, a town with a mixed
population. There are Palestinians, Moroccans, Israeli Ashkenazi
Jews, Russians, and we all live together rather harmoniously.
But a lot of people who were born in Jaffa live in refugee camps
and they are forbidden to return just because of their religion
or ethnicity. I find it morally impossible, that a Jew from New
York, Paris or Novosibirsk, like me, can come and live in Jaffa,
while a local man, born in Jaffa, may not come back home. I
called for the return of the Palestinian refugees and
immediately lost my job with Haaretz. That is the most liberal
Israeli newspaper.
The case of Palestine coverage in the media is special for one
reason. We have a peculiar vocabulary, developed for the local
coverage. If I kill Ahmad, it would be reported that 'Ahmad was
killed by an Israeli'. But if, God forbid, Ahmad would kill me,
you would learn that 'a Jew was murdered'.
As in Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde, an Israeli may kill; but if an
Israeli is killed, he turns into a Jew. It is absolutely
forbidden to speak about Jewish atrocities and murders. The Jews
are forever victims. It often appears we have three nations in
Palestine: Jews, Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis may commit
crimes, but it is innocent - always innocent - Jews that are
murdered. If you confuse these two words, and refer to a
murderer as 'a Jew', you will be called an anti-Semite, and
probably you will lose your job.
It should not be too complicated to cover our story. It is not
even as complicated as other places of world concern. The right
of national self-determination inclusive of autonomy or
independence isn't an easy right to realize, as Corsicans can
tell you. Palestine should be easier to cover: it is not the
question of national self determination, but of basic human
rights. Kosovo? In Kosovo, Albanians were discriminated against
and tormented by Serb authorities, but they always had the
technical right to vote and the Yugoslav government never
withdrew their citizenship. They were distant second-class
citizens, but still citizens. Kurds in Turkey? They also can
vote.
The coverage of Palestine should be easier, but it is not. A
journalist may write and speak about marginal problems, like the
Jewish settlers beyond the Green Line. But the basic power
structure of Jewish dominance in Palestine may not be
questioned. We may not say that the Palestinians have no right
to vote; no right to move to other parts of their country and no
right to return to their homes in the only country they have
ever known.
In my opinion, the source of the media bias in covering the
Palestinians is tremendously important. For it speaks volumes
about the power structure of the US and Europe. It gives us
unique feedback from the obscure world of media lords. And, it
goes without saying, that 'establishment' journalists are not
given much leeway on reporting on this valuable feedback. They
are always too busy writing 'definitely'.
The reason is obvious. Too many of our media lords subscribe to
the notion of Jewish supremacy, and they are spread around the
globe. In England, there is Conrad Black, he actually owns many
papers in Canada, the US, and in Israel. In our country, he owns
The Jerusalem Post. When he bought this paper, he dismissed the
staff and hired people of his opinions. He is a right wing
Zionist, a zealous supporter of Jewish supremacy.
In the US, there are too many of them to count. But allow us to
mention Mortimer Zuckerman, a media lord and the current Head of
the Presidents' Conference of American Jewish Organizations, the
big daddy of all Jewish groups in America. He is one of the
richest men in America, he made his fortune speculating in real
estate and owns the third largest 'serious' American weekly
magazine, US News and World Report. He also owns the popular
plebeian tabloid, The Daily News, a major circulation in the New
York and New Jersey market. His newspapers generally advocate
the brutal rule of market forces. With one exception; they call
for generous annual subsidy of Israel by American tax payers.
Two ex-Prime Ministers of Israel, Netanyahu of the war-mongering
Likud and Barak of the slightly less hawkish Labour party
supported Zuckerman in his quest for the leadership of the
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. This
side of the Ku Klux Klan, this association of 52 heads of
American Jewish organizations is the most bigoted body of men in
American politics. Haaretz recently reported, that Mortimer
Zuckerman had dismissed his shiksa wife, in order to get this
coveted chair. As long as he stayed married to a non-Jewish
woman, his colleagues, Jewish billionaires, would not trust him.
And he is one of the most influential publishers in the US.
On the other end of the planet, in Russia, the TV stations and
newspapers also are under the ownership of Israeli citizens. One
of them, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to part with his TV
station. But his extremely pro-Israeli staff was quickly hired
by another channel, belonging to another Israeli citizen, Mr
Chernoi. In 1985, he was an accountant living on a salary of 100
dollars a month. Today he is worth 5 billion dollars, owns
virtually all the aluminium plants in Russia, and lives in a
nice suburb of Tel Aviv. Currently, he is under investigation
for 34 murders, money laundering and membership in the Russian
mafia. In a recent quip, he was quoted as saying that 'the media
is not business. the media is politics and influence'. He uses
his media empire to stifle all criticism of Israel in Russia.
I spoke recently to a young Russian military attaché in one of
the Western capitals. He told me: your Israeli situation is
similar to ours, but we have Chechnya a thousand miles away,
while you have it next door. I asked him: do you want to say
that Chechens have no right of vote? He was amazed. He did not
know that the Palestinians have no right to vote. The media of
Gusinsky, Chernoi, and Berezovsky, that is three powerful media
lords, all of them Israeli citizens, took care to cultivate his
ignorance.
Even in Sweden, traditionally supportive of the Palestinian
cause, since the national newspapers were bought by Jewish
entrepreneurs, the coverage of Palestine became more and more
lopsided. I do not know whether the new owners had to ask for it
explicitly, or their chief editors just guessed their desires,
but the results were the same.
This international group of Jewish media lords, from Washington
to Moscow, is not subservient to the interests of Israel. But
support of Israel is a part of their agenda. On the top of the
list, is globalisation and neo-liberalism; what they call
'freedom of market forces'. On political matters, they tend to
distrust democracy and personal freedoms while making constant
demands for corporate liberties.
Mutual support is also high on their list of priorities. When
Gusinsky was under investigation for embezzling funds, the New
York Times and the Washington Post, that is the late Mrs Kathryn
Graham and Mr Sultzberger, both published virtually identical
lead stories and editorials supporting the 'Independent Russian
Press'. Independent, appears to be a code word for
'Jewish-owned'.
This should be a serious cause for concern. When an Egyptian
businessman bought Harrods in London, the newspapers went into a
fury. The headlines blared 'our national heritage is being taken
away by foreigners'. In Israel, no outsider is allowed to own a
newspaper. There was a rich Russian Jew, Gregory Lerner, who
tried to buy a newspaper in Israel. He was sent to jail for six
years for various mafia-related crimes. It is worth noting that,
before he made his rush into the media, nobody cared about his
offences. An Iraqi Jew took over a newspaper, and very soon he
found himself in jail. Because the media is not a business, it
is the nerve system of a country.
In my opinion, the case of Palestine is much more important for
you, for Europeans and Americans, than just another case of
injustice. Because it proves that this international group of
Jewish media lords have become a mite too powerful. In my
experience, Jewish journalists can be as objective as any.
Actually, the best coverage of Palestine is done by Jewish
journalists, from Susanne Goldenberg of the Guardian to Gideon
Levy of Haaretz. But it is easier to squeeze a camel through the
needle's eye than to find an objective media lord. This problem
can be solved without actually removing media from the hands of
individual proprietors if newspapers would be treated like
precious water sources and other all-important public utilities.
That is, unless we want to delegate all these newspapers to the
murky realm of ethnic press, and build from scratch a new
network of free press.
|