The formula for United States media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple: Report on the latest developments in the fragile "peace process". Depict US officials as honest brokers in the negotiations. Emphasise the need for restraint and compromise instead of instability and bloodshed.
In the world according to news media, the US government is situated on high moral ground. "The conflict that had been so elaborately dressed in the civilising cloak of a peace effort has been stripped to its barest essence: Jew against Arab, Arab against Jew", a New York Times dispatch from Jerusalem declared as fierce clashes in occupied territory neared the end of their second week.
Soon afterwards, secretary of state Madeleine Albright proclaimed: "The cycle of violence has to be stopped". Such pronouncements from Washington get a lot of respectful media play.
Rarely do US journalists explore the ample reasons to believe that the United States is part of the oft-decried cycle of violence, nor the fact that the violence was overwhelmingly inflicted on Palestinian people.
Within days, several dozen Palestinians were killed by heavily armed men in uniform — often described by CNN and other news outlets as "Israeli security forces". Under the circumstances, it's a notably benign-sounding term for an army that shoots down protesters.
As for the rock-throwing Palestinians, I have never seen or heard a US news account describing them as "pro-democracy demonstrators". Yet that would be an appropriate way to refer to people who — after more than three decades of living under occupation — are in the streets to demand self-determination.
While Israeli soldiers and police do most of the killing, Israel's public-relations engines keep whirling like well-oiled tops. Tilted by the usual spin, US news stories highlighted the specious ultimatums issued by [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Barak as he demanded that Palestinians end the violence — while uniformed Israelis under his authority continued to kill them.
Beneath the Israeli "peace process" rhetoric echoed by US media, an implicit message isn't hard to discern: If only Palestinians would stop resisting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, it would no longer be necessary for Israeli forces to shoot them.
"Israel early today extended a deadline for Palestinians to end rioting", said the lead story in the October 10 USA Today. We may someday see the headline: "Israel Demands Palestinians Stop Attacking Bullets With Their Bodies".
Of course, amid all the nifty Orwellian touches, the proper behaviour of people whose homeland remains under occupation has never quite been spelled out. But US media coverage has reflexively mimicked the themes coming out of the White House and State Department. It all makes sense, as long as we set aside basic concepts of human rights, as long as we refuse to acknowledge that without justice there can be no real peace.
For US journalists on mainstream career ladders, it's prudent to avoid making a big deal about Israel's human rights violations. And we hear few questions raised about the fact that the occupiers enjoy the powerful backing of the United States.
To challenge US support for Israel is to invite a torrent of denunciations — first and foremost, the accusation of "anti-Semitism". It's a timeworn, knee-jerk tactic: whenever someone makes a coherent critique of Israel's policies, immediately go on the attack with charges of anti-Jewish bigotry.
Like quite a few other Jewish Americans, I'm appalled by what Israel is doing with US tax dollars. Meanwhile, as journalists go along to get along, they diminish the humanity of us all.
BY NORMAN SOLOMON
[Abridged. Norman Solomon's latest book is The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media. He can be contacted via <mediabeat@igc.org>.]