This feature article was originally published in The Cornell Daily Sun, Volume CIII, Number 16, 16 September 1986. It was the op-ed article appearing on page 5. See PDF in new tab/window.
"Man, that's wrong," I said to myself. It was Sunday when I finally got a look at Thursday's paper. I was referring to the newspaper coverage, nationwide and right here in The Sun on current events and news concerning Israel.
Granted, the country makes the news virtually every day. The purpose of this piece is not to condone all the actions, political and/or military, taken by that country. But, wake up. It's time someone took a stand.
If The Sun takes a political stand on issues as many major newspapers do, I cannot easily discern what that stand is when it comes to Israel. On page 1, there is a short but hopeful article titled "Egypt, Israel Solve Taba Border Conflict, Open Way for Talks." Fine. I turn the page and see "Funeral Held for Victims of Synagogue Massacre." I read through it, interested in discovering just what happened and to see the reactions on the situation. Appropriate quotes, fair depiction of the scene. Of course, like most articles on the subject of Israel, there are erroneous interpretations of the facts, however minor they may seem, which subtly twist the essence of what has actually occurred i n the mind of the reader. It is by far more realistic to describe prayers recited by the rabbis as asking for justice, to say they uttered prayers asking for "revenge" is a little blood-thirsty, and makes Jews look bad in the eyes of other Jews, as well as in the eyes of the rest of the world. Remember, Israel is the homeland of the Jews, but this does not signify that all Jews are Israelis, or acts like them or condones all the actions of that administration. Israelis are of necessity hard, quick to defend what is theirs, strong. They must be. They were given desert, after thousands of years of persecution and homelessness, they were given desert. And, happy for even that, they poured their blood, sweat and tears into their new home and made a desert bloom. They brought life from desolate, empty land. They made a home. And now, neighbors from each and every border want the land back. "Here, Israelis, you can take this piece of desert, we made a mistake giving you fruit-bearing, oil-laden land. Give it back."
Jews in America should not have to fight terribly hard to live their lives in freedom. And I put it to you free peoples: Judaism may be different from your religion, but is this a reason to hate, persecute, discriminate against, fear, kill? And so I ask you: why is there so much racial tension? Why is the fact that I was physically assaulted in high school, simply because I am Jewish, not an uncommon story? One of the reasons is due to the racial tension caused by the institution that has been created to serve free people, the media. All too often, information concerning Israel is misrepresented, or represented in a negative way, causing problems for Jews in America because of the popular (and somewhat unavoidable) association of Israel with American Jews. And it is largely a fault of the media that this ignorance is not corrected, but fostered. Being Jewish simply does not mean that one condones all the acts of the Jewish homeland. Does being American mean that each U.S. citizen supports nuclear war, frivolous overspending, apple pie, unfavorable treatment of the elderly and Ronnie Reagan? I should hope not.
How necessary is it to report with such vivid description such details as have been reported? Indeed i t is the job of the reporter to convey that signs of last week's carnage still remain. But to tell us there was "blood and small pieces of flesh on the walls and ceilings," is this not reporting above and beyond the call of duty? Since when is such descriptive imagery important to journalistic writing?
Next to the funeral article is the following article: "Israeli Planes Attack Palestinian Arsenal." Right next to the funeral article, which tells of unjustly-massacred innocents (who did not live in a war zone, but were going about their daily lives). Is the intent of juxtaposing these two articles to show that the Israelis are just poor victims, and gee, look how blood-thirsty the bastards are when they are not praying in temple?
Is the article factually correct? It consists mostly of "Palestinian officials said ..." and "Israeli officials said...," with a smattering of "an anonymous spokesperson said...." What is the truth?
The media often perpetuates he existing problems by not taking the time necessary to explicitly convey to the less informed just what has occurred. The article starts off with: "Israeli war planes attacked a Palestinian arms depot yesterday, killing three civilians and destroying [property...]." The second paragraph explains, "Shortly before the raid an Israeli gunboat intercepted... Palestinian guerrillas on a mission to attack Israel." There are many people who would not read as far as the second paragraph, and would therefore misconstrue the nature of Israel's attack, and any reasoning behind it. Many of these people are those who cry, "look at these Israelis," [Or worse yet, "look at these Jews..."], "always provoking attack!" Would it not be fair, more concise and in the better interests of the journalist to state, "In response to an attempted Palestinian guerilla attack on Israel, Israeli plans attacked a Palestinian arms depot." (If civilians getting wounded is considered the most important ramifications of this event, it should then so be stated.) As a result of the bad press Israel has received in the US media, that country is constantly presented as an aggressor and a villain, in fact if not in name. As I previously stated, I am not condoning all Israel's actions, but why does the media immediately condemn them? in this case, The Sun was quick to praise, to give Israel a sympathetic ear (and eye), and then (next to that nice article about all the dead Jews who are dead only because they are Jews), labels them as killing, antagonistic, blood-thirsty animals.
I understand an air strike on Israel's part is news. Put it on the front page. Or the second. If you report it fairly it will not appear to Israel's disadvantage (at least not in everybody's mind). Israel is hardly accustomed to having news reported as-it-was. But don't put two articles, such as "Funeral Held for Victims of Synagogue Massacre" and "Israeli Plans Attach Palestinian Arsenal," together. Don't ever. Man, that's wrong.
— Sami Besalel
When published, Sami Besalel was a Junior in the College of Arts and Sciences at Ithaca's Cornell University.
.