Newspapers often engage in what can be called "Gotcha" journalism. This is a technique by which an article shocks readers by making a charge that shatters a commonly held perception. When it comes to Israel, the effort is usually designed to show that Israel is not as humanitarian, free, or generous as its supporters claim. The problem with "Gotcha" journalism is that sometimes it's wrong.
In January 1998, the New York Times reported that the Israeli cabinet had imposed tough new conditions on the Palestinian Authority (PA) before it would withdraw from any more land. What were they? That the PA change its charter, fight terror, reduce the size of its police force and close its offices in Jerusalem. The Israeli cabinet claimed that these conditions were based on the "Note for the Record," part of the Hebron accord a year earlier. But writer Serge Schmemann reported that no such requirements were included in the "Note for the Record." Gotcha.
Or maybe not.
Since I was familiar with the "Note for the Record" I found this assertion to be questionable. I quickly confirmed my suspicions by checking the Hebron Accord in a few minutes on the Internet. The Israeli cabinet was right; Schmemann was wrong.
Fortunately, Schmemann's misplaced "Gotcha" didn't go unnoticed. The New York Times published a correction the next day; and two days later, Charles Krauthammer devoted part of his column in the Washington Post to exposing this example of journalistic malpractice.
Unfortunately, though, "Gotchas" often get perpetuated.
During the Pope's recent pilgrimage to the Syria, he provided a public relations boon to Syria's dictator, President Bashar Assad by his failure to counter the venomous charges President Bashar Assad made against Israel. Several editorials and opinion articles criticized the Pope for this "blunder." But if the editorial pages did not give a free pass to the tyrant of Damascus, the news pages showed no such restraint. During the Pope's visit many American news outlets (including the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, and CNN) reported an unsubstantiated Syrian canard against Israel with little or no qualification. It had to do with the city of Quneitra.
At the end of the Pope's visit, he visited and prayed at a demolished church in Quneitra. Many American news outlets helpfully pointed out that Israel had destroyed the city before returning it to Syria as part of a cease-fire arrangement ending the 1973 war, and that Syria kept the city desolate as a testament to Israeli brutality. Several sources buttressed the claim of Israeli brutality by noting that the United Nations had condemned Israel for its destruction of Quneitra. In Israel's favor, these sources noted, at most, that Israel "disputed" the charges. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times put it succinctly: "Syria left [Quneitra] ruined as a museum of Israeli aggression." Gotcha!
Again, not so fast.
If any of these reporters had done some checking, they'd have discovered that the Israeli disputation had a lot more credibility than the Syrian charges and the UN condemnation. On May 8, 2001, Smartertimes.com cited news accounts from 1973 and 1974-reproduced in the book Myths and Facts-which reported Quneitra destroyed during the fighting between Israel and Syria, often as the result of Syrian actions.
CAMERA, a pro-Israel advocacy group that critiques media bias against Israel, offered a fuller refutation of the Syrian claims. According to CAMERA, the Los Angeles Times reported in 1967 that Quneitra was in ruins. A New York Times article from 1970 tells of Syria shelling Quneitra.
It is also slightly odd that no news organization mentioned that Syria has a record of destroying cities. In the early 1980s, Syria leveled its own city of Hama, killing tens of thousands of people, in order to put down an insurrection in that city. Surely Syria's brutality in Hama, belies its outrage at supposed Israeli brutality.
Sometimes, the falsity of the charges is somewhat less obvious. On May 8, 2001, Keith Richburg of the Washington Post wrote a report, headlined "Armed Factions Undermine Arafat." The substance of the report was that the violence against Israel wasn't being directed by Yasser Arafat or any organization within the PA but was, rather, a result of continued frustration with the Israeli occupation.
To dispute the Israeli charge that Arafat is in control of the violence, Richburg sets up a straw man by claiming that Israel views Arafat in "complete control" of the violence. In fact, if Arafat controls any of the violence against Israel, he is showing his faithlessness. To buttress his claim that the Israeli government is exaggerating the PA's role in encouraging the violence, he cites a view attributed to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres that "Arafat might not be in full control." Gotcha!
Or maybe not.
Richburg ignores any evidence that contradicts his thesis, and only interviews members of the PA and of Hamas (or other "grassroots" organizations) to support his account. His strongest evidence that Arafat is not in control is that once Arafat ordered all groups to stop shelling Jewish targets and not all groups stopped. Unfortunately, he didn't investigate whether the PA might be taking actions-such as supplying mortars to these groups-to encourage more violence against Israel, even as their official position was to stop the violence.
There are several weaknesses to Richburg's report:
1) His sources benefit from claiming that Arafat doesn't control the situation. Because the PA wants to paint itself as supporting peace (at least to the West), and Hamas wishes to amplify its level of influence, the Palestinians generally want to portray the violence as a reaction to Israeli oppression. Richburg doesn't challenge this version of events. (A few months ago a senior PA official, Imad Faluji, claimed on two separate occasions that the new "intifada" was planned by the PA. Under pressure, he recanted from this impolitic view. Richburg ignores this incident.)
2) Richburg studiously avoids mention of the previous week's State Department report on terrorism, which implicates the PA-but not necessarily Arafat-in terror against Israel.
3) Finally, even Richburg hedges his charges by noting that Arafat is "...following the mood in the street as much as setting it." If that's the case, it supports the Israeli charge that Arafat is fostering terror instead of fighting it, even if Arafat isn't in complete control.
Two weeks after Richburg's article appeared, Israel detained an Arab, Sadi Ashi. Ashi, who lives in Gaza, owned and operated a mortar factory. His operation was coordinated with the commander of Gaza's civilian police force, Ghazi Jabali. (Among Jabali's accomplishments were his efforts to kill Arab real estate agents who sold land to Jews.) According to Israel's internal security organization, the GSS, this was done with Arafat's approval. Another customer of Ashi was Mohammed Dahlan.
Lee Hockstader, the Washington Post's regular Israel correspondent, reported on the arrest and the Israeli charges. The question is whether this revelation will force the Post to change its outlook on the Middle East. I doubt it.
Reporters seem to enjoy believing that they are shattering commonly held perceptions. It would be nice, but not expected,