Brith Sholom Media Watch Alerts 2001 - 2002

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers

From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org)

Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #1, 1/7/01

WELCOME

The "Brith Sholom Media Watch" came into being this morning, at the regular meeting of Brith Sholom's Board of Governors. At this critical moment, members of our Community must speak out against mischaracterizations in our local media poisoning the public's mind against Israel. If not us, the grassroots Community members organized into grassroots groups like Brith Sholom, then who, and if not now, when? Also, responding to these misstatements, as opposed to averting our eyes and ears, is a matter of individual and Community self-respect. (If at any time you'd like to be removed from our list, just send us an e-mail.)

WHAT'S BEING WRITTEN

This past week, the philadelphia inquirer told its readers in a Knight Ridder News Service news story that under President Clinton's plan, "Palestinians would have to scale back demands that nearly four million Palestinian refugees and their descendants be able to exercise a right of return to land they fled or were forced to leave in 1948 during the creation of Israel. In exchange, Palestinians would gain . . . ." (Thurs., 1/4/01, article on page 1 and 16)

For us, the outrage is not what Palestinians demand, but what our local newspaper mis-presents as historical fact -- that in 1948 four million Arabs fled or were forced from what is now Israel --, and the paper's sole attributed cause of that flight -- "the creation of Israel."

It would be difficult to conceive of a more monstrous misstatement of history. "Four million Palestinian refugees" did not flee. Some six to eight hundred thousand left (matched by an unmentioned equivalent number of Jews from Arab lands). They did not leave because of "the creation of Israel," but in circumstances which the inquirer likewise chose not to mention. The UN had voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab-majority states. The Jews accepted, but in an attempt to seize all of Palestine and "drive the Jews into the sea," the Arabs rejected partition with violence and a seven-nation invasion. Israel survived, and absorbed the Jewish refugees. Egypt and Jordan seized what could have become Arab Palestine in 1948, and along with other Arab states kept the Arab refugees in camps ever since.

Last week's article was not an aberration. See inquirer, July 17: "[the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is] a conflict that was born in 1948, when Palestinians were displaced to create the Jewish state . . . "; inquirer, May 31: "Lebanon is home to 350,000 Palestinian refugees, forced from their homes by the creation of Israel in 1948 and by the 1967 Middle East War."

WHAT CAN I DO?

A few months ago, I had the honor to introduce Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America, to an extraordinary meeting of Cardozo Lodge. During the question period following his as-always clarifying and inspiring address, a member asked Mort "What can we do?", whereupon Mort pointed to me and (made my night) answered "One thing you can do is what Mr. Verlin does, write the media letters."

Letters: Philadelphia Inquirer, Box 41705, Philadelphia PA 19101

Faxes: 215-854-4483

EMails: Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com

Speak out. Protest against inquirer attribution of the Palestinian refugees to "the creation of Israel." Protest against references to "four million Palestinian refugees and their descendants." Protest against omissions of the Arab-initiated '48 war, of what would have become of the Jews if the Arabs had won in 1948 (or '56 or '67 or '73, or in the future), of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands whom Israel absorbed while Arabs kept Arabs in camps for fifty years.

WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?

*** Spread the word! Brith Sholom Media Watch isn't yet one day old, and already we have more than thirty recipients on our email list. Show this email to your lodge brothers and sisters, and to non-member friends, and you or them send us their email addresses. (For now, send to jverlin902@aol.com. We're setting up email through our website, www.brithsholom.org.)

*** Take advantage of your Brith Sholom membership! Learn more about the Zionist Movement and Israel by "borrowing" a book from our Brith Sholom Jewish Heritage Library. Join our Israel Activities Committee and take an active role in our involvement in Community-wide "Solidarity with the People of Israel" activities. By your involvement, help show others that involvement counts through Brith Sholom.

*** Give us Feedback! Email us when you spot anti-Israel bias in our local media. If you like, email us blind copies of your emails to the media. Let us know if we're being helpful with our Alerts (well, Alert for the moment).

Fraternally,

Jerry

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers

From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org)

Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #2, 1/14/01

WELCOME 2

Welcome to the new readers who've joined our subscriber list during our first week. Last September, incensed by an inquirer news article assertion that "Palestinians have been particularly stung by the blame and pressure that Clinton has put on them for insisting on their right under international law to regain East Jerusalem," I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" and with some trepidation appended my email. Hours before an inquirer hit my driveway the day my letter appeared, an email appeared in my AOL mailbox - "Good letter in today's Inquirer" - from Jerusalem, from a former Philadelphian, a professional journalist. I received a number of emails from Christians and Jews and had some lively virtual discussions on Jerusalem's past and future. This week, we emailed these virtual pen pals, describing what we're attempting. More than half have signed on.

OUR NICHE

Well, what are we attempting? We're not attempting to duplicate Camera (Committee on Accuracy in Mideast Reporting in America), a Major Jewish Organization engaged in analyzing national news service reporting for fairness to Israel, conducting research, authoring studies and op-eds, and, through what I call its "letters auxiliary" (to which I've belonged for many years) encouraging grassroots Jews to write to the media. Aside from BSMW not being a Major Jewish Organization, and our monitoring of one local rather than all the national Israel coverage sources, we want to focus on the forest rather than trees - i.e., on the inquirer's presentation of the fundamental final status issues such as refugees and Jerusalem, as opposed to imbalance in coverage of particular daily occurrences. Incessant media repetition (see below) of unbalanced portrayals of the fundamental contested claims does Israel the deepest damage by poisoning the public's perception of history, justice and equitable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"THE" MOST CONTENTIOUS COVERAGE ISSUE

This past Monday, Jan 8, the inquirer's Lillian Swanson, Assistant Readership Editor, stated in her editorial page "Listening Post" column that along with US presidential politics, "I've heard most often from those who passionately follow our coverage of the Middle East." A couple years ago, Ms. Swanson's predecessor, Arlene Morgan, engaged the dean of the LSU School of Journalism and two of his professors to conduct an audit (of sorts) of the inquirer's Israel coverage (two Palestinian Americans from Villanova and I were the only folks to show up for the 7PM presentation of their report). I had assumed that Ms. Morgan had been driven to this extreme by Dr. Mike Goldblatt's recurring critical-of-the-inquirer column (aliv ha-shalom) in the Exponent. However, she assured me that Mike was tame compared to one of the inquirer's Arab American readers. Some time before that, the inquirer's "ombudsman" rejected a coverage

criticism I had made, on the grounds that I couldn't be right because no one else had complained, and "both sides go through the inquirer daily with a fine-tooth comb." The inquirer may be fixated on reporting (as often as not on page 1) minutiae from the Preoccupied Territories, but it's not unique in the intensity of reader responses: New York Times Letters Editor on the Mideast: "Every statement, every claim, every charge brought an immediate counter-statement, claim and charge. On no other issue were there such sensitive antennae at work, such a willingness and readiness to debate and such conviction that the truth, indeed, was with each letter writer alone." Kalman Siegel, Talking Back to the New York Times, 1972, p. 247.

WE'RE NOT ALONE

One last point before plunging in: we're not alone, and our counterpart's not lackadaisical. One week to the day after the inquirer printed my September "Control of Jerusalem" letter, an answer appeared from one Mohamed Alami, email appended: "Jerome Verlin seeks to establish . . . ." Mr. Alami summarized my argument as succinctly as I could have done it (but then wandered off into other things, accusing me of injustices to the Palestinians I'd neither said nor implied). I sent him an email that he'd done me an injustice (truth to tell, I'm a Rabinist, or at least was). He chose not to reply. A month or so later, I heard of him again, in an internet document of the Palestinian Americans' counterpart of Camera, Palestine Media Watch: "The lesson that is emerging is that the best results are usually obtained from those who pick a particular newspaper or media outlet and persistently send them well written, intelligently argued, factually supported,

letters on a daily basis. Best examples of this are . . . . Mohamed Alami (the Philadelphia Inquirer), among others." Writing to anyone you're not in love with "on a daily basis" seems a bit too intense an undertaking for anyone (save perhaps Palestinians). A tad more frequently than once a Purim should be sufficient.

MISIMPRESSIONS OF REFUGEES

Literally every day this past week, the inquirer portrayed the refugee issue in an unbalanced manner.

Sunday, 1/7 (p. A5, Reuters): "Key provisions of Clinton's plan call for the Palestinians to give up the right of their refugees to return to their old homes inside Israel; in exchange . . . ." This wording makes it seem not only that Palestinians do in fact have such a right, but that Clinton recognizes it and is asking them to give it up in an exchange. Compare how the AP characterized President Clinton's view of the refugees' rights the very next day (Monday, 1/8, p. A1): "On Palestinian refugees, a key sticking point, Clinton appeared to hold [in a New York speech to a Jewish group] to his position that they should have the right to return to a

Palestinian homeland - not to Israel - or to help in finding new homes…."

However, the AP story likewise presents "the right" as a fact (same article, p. A3): "Arafat, for instance, is challenging Clinton's omission of the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel." This last quote raises a second concern about the inquirer's refugee presentation. Beyond "the right" being a contested contention, "millions of Palestinian refugees" did not depart Israel and thus cannot "return." Hundreds of thousands did, matched by hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab lands.

Tuesday, Jan 9, p. A2 (Knight Ridder News Service): "Thousands of Palestinians . . . were especially upset [yesterday] over Clinton's urging that Arafat relax his demand that four million Palestinian refugees and the descendants of those who fled their homes in 1948 be allowed to reclaim them inside what is now Israel."

Wednesday, Jan 10, p A7 (AP): "In exchange [for gaining sovereignty over areas of Jerusalem under Clinton's plan], the Palestinians would scale back their demand that all refuges and their descendants, about four million people, have the right to return to their homes in Israel." Scale back?

Thursday, Jan 11, p. A2 (AP): "Clinton's peace proposal also would give the Palestinians sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the holy site in exchange for Palestinians dropping their claim that millions of refugees and their families have the right to return to homes in what is now Israel." Here the "right" is a "claim," but it's a "fact" that "millions of refugees and their families" are embraced.

Friday, Jan 12, p A2 (AP): "In return, the Palestinians would scale back their claim of right of return to Israel for millions of refugees and their families." Same AP writer as yesterday. Same derogation of "right" to "claim," which is good, but same presentation of "millions of refugees" as a distinct from "and their families."

Saturday, Jan 13, p. A4 (AP different writer): "Israel, backed by Clinton, rejects the Palestinians' demand that it grant nearly four million refugees and their descendants the right to return to their former homes in Israel." I.e., "four million refugees," not counting "their descendants," is presented as fact.

Finally, Sunday, Jan 14, p. A2 (AP): "Clinton's proposal envisions a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and almost all of the West Bank, including Arab areas and key Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem; however, the Palestinians would have to give up their demand that millions of refugees be allowed to return to Israel proper."

Where do we come out? The above daily quotations, which are not completely consistent, leave a general impression that millions of Arabs fled Israel, that they - plus their descendants - have "the right of return" which Clinton acknowledges and is asking them to give up or "scale back." Their plight wasn't attributed this week to "the creation of Israel," but neither was there any reference to the Arab, including Palestinian, rejection of UN partition and seven nation invasion; or to the Egyptian and Jordanian seizure and two-decade retention of what could have become Arab Palestine in 1948; or to any obligation of the Arab states to take care of their own, including settling of them in what will now become "Palestine", which they controlled for the first 20 years; or to the equivalent number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, including Jordanian-seized portions of Palestine; or to the total contradiction of the "right of return" claim to the whole concept of Oslo - mutual recognition of two Palestine states, one for Arabs and one for Jews (on

which see, e.g., George Will, Newsweek, 1/8/01; Joel Singer, Esq., ABA Journal, Jan 2001).

SO NU?

Writing a letter "to the editor" helps, but so too does writing or emailing a journalist or media executive directly, not for publication (we hope to do an Alert upon that). We hope to send you an email each week. I expect most will be shorter. Two other things you can do are (1) spread the word and help us enlist more subscribers; and (2) send us your observations of bias, good articles you find in magazines, and your thoughts and suggestions. Some of you've already done so, and I'll get back to each of you soon. If you ever want out, just send us an email with these two words in the Subject: "Geh Avek!" (mamaloschen for "Unsubscribe.")

L'hitra'aut,

Jerry Verlin, Editor

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers

From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org)

Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #3, 1/21/01

WELCOME 3

As of this third issue, the Brith Sholom Media Watch "Alert" has a growing subscriber base including, beyond Brith Sholom members, local and national media watchers, and activists and leaders in other area grassroots organizations, including a South Jersey participant in a just-returned 800+ Solidarity Mission to Israel, a Philadelphia parent with two children and families living and working in Israel, Philadelphians about to leave on short missions to Israel and one about to leave for a stay of three months, and a native Philadelphian resident in Jerusalem serving as a bureau chief of an Israeli media organization -- David Bedein of Israel Resource News Agency and guru of an unusual and invaluable website packed with resources and insights, "www.israelbehindthenews.com". We have hawks and doves (BSMW doesn't endorse candidates in Israel or here), readers who are convinced of anti-Israel media bias and a few who are skeptical. We appreciate and need you all, your colleagues and friends, and your input on accuracy and balance in the inquirer's Israel-Palestinian coverage.

PEER-REVIEW STANDARDS

We hope to develop a checklist of objectivity criteria for analyzing news articles. In the meantime, David Bedein has pointed us to a professional journalist's analysis of a week (10/3 - 10/9/00, the second week of the current violence campaign) of BBC TV's Israel-Palestinian coverage, which appeared in the 11/12/00 issue of Israel Resource Review, which you can download from David's site, www.israelbehindthenews.com. That professional study used three criteria:

1. Was the reporter using a personal opinion in the news report?

2. Were views from both sides presented?

3. Were key words used that could be termed pejorative, prejudicial or one-sided?

A LOCAL CASE STUDY: PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Wednesday, January 17, 2001

Let's apply these criteria to an Associated Press article carried by the inquirer this past Wednesday (p. A3).

The AP dispatch from Jerusalem was headlined "Israeli Leader Rejects 2 Palestinian Demands" (presumably this is the inquirer's headline wording, not the AP's). This headline clearly conveys that Barak had just made two significant new negotiating decisions -- i.e., rejecting two Palestinian demands which until the previous day had not been rejected. This clear meaning is strongly reinforced by the article's opening sentence: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak dismissed two main Palestinian demands yesterday -- lessening the chances of achieving a peace deal . . . ." In fact, the two Palestinian demands were (1) "that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, about four million people, be given the right of return to their former homes in Israel," and (2) Palestinian sovereignty "over a disputed Jerusalem holy site -- Haram al Sharif, known to Jews as Temple Mount."

CRITERION 1 -- FACT OR OPINION: Neither of these two Palestinian demands was rejected by Israel for the first time last Tuesday. The doviest doves of Shalom Achshaav recognize that, for Israel, taking in four million hate-filled Muslim Arabs would be Aliv HaShalom Achshaav. So too of ceding to Palestinians exclusive sovereignty of the Temple Mount. Barak didn't take sudden new tougher stances this week meriting January 2001 headlines "Israeli Leader Rejects . . ." and news stories declaiming Israeli "lessening the chances for peace." Barak didn't say anything new. The least cynical view is that this is the reporter's, the AP's, and the inquirer's "opinion." A more cynical view is that the reporter, the AP and the inquirer recognize all this, and seized upon Barak's umpteenth reiteration of Israel's ab initio position to cast peace process collapse blame upon Israel.

CRITERION 2 -- BOTH SIDES PRESENTED: By attributing "lessening the chances of achieving a peace deal" exclusively to Barak's rejection of Palestinian demands, rather than to intrinsic unreasonableness and impossiibility of acceptance of the demands, the reporter, the AP and the paper have presented only one side.

CRITERION 3 -- PEJORATIVE, PREJUDICIAL, ONE-SIDED WORDS: "Barak dismissed," "Barak rejected," Barak "brushed aside." Can you picture this story referring to "the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as Haram al Sharif?"

Bob, am I nuts?

SOURCES OF ISRAEL NEWS AND NEWS COVERAGE BALANCE INFO

Skads of websites and email newsletters cover the Mideast, from Palestinian and Muslim to the full spectrum of Israeli, Jewish, and Christian viewpoints. For a daily synopsis of Israel's press, you might subscribe to "IsraelLine" out of the New York Consulate. There's a link from our website, www.brithsholom.org.

The raison d'etre of Camera, Committee for Accuracy in Mideast Reporting in America, a Major Jewish Organization, is monitoring the national news for fairness to Israel. It has an excellent website and a letter writing group that will keep the most energetic of compulsive responders fully engaged. www.camera.org.

In addition to thorough professional analysis and factual background, David Bedein's invaluable website, www.israelbehindthenews.com, has a lot on the media. Currently, it's also featuring a daily review of the Voice of Palestine broadcasts from Arafat's headquarters. Go there (the site, not the headquarters). The following is the site's self-description of what it carries. QUOTE: On these pages we are presenting to you news items and analysis that you often do not see in your standard mainstream electronic or print media, even if you live in the Middle East. These pieces are selected from different journalists who are registered with the Bet Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem, or with the Gaza Media Center, under the jurisdiction of the Palestine Authority. UNQUOTE.

WHOSE FIGHT IS THIS ANYWAY?

Most of the readers of this email are old enough to be among those addressed on May 14, 1948, when David Ben Gurion, standing beneath Herzl's portrait in a Tel Aviv museum, stated "Our call goes out to the Jewish people all over the world . . . to stand by us in the struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of generations for the redemption of Israel." For us, all of us, Standing By currently entails Standing Up against unfairly imbalanced Mideast reporting, starting with our own local newspaper. The Doves have an equal stake in this with the Hawks. As in the UN, disparagement of the Jewish State in the media disparages us. And no lawyer ever walked away with a fair settlement by negotiating by blaming his client. It only incites his adversary into making ever-escalating demands. To borrow a phrase from the AP, anti-Israel Mideast reporting "lessens the chances" for peace.

Talk to your colleagues and friends, and help us expand our subscribers. Write to the media or to the journalists and editors personally. Email us feedback -- bias you see in the media, ideas and suggestions.

Regards,

Jerry

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers

From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org)

Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #4, 1/28/01

WELCOME 4

Both inside and outside Brith Sholom, we've continued to grow, even if just a little faster than the GNP. February is "Get Us a New Reader Month." In a conversation with a fellow Lodge member, colleague or friend, ask if he or she'd read a free emailed newsletter focusing on media Mideast coverage balance, especially on the fundamental historical issues involved. Email us (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org) the name and email address of a new reader next month.

AN ILLUMINATING INCIDENT IN JERUSALEM

The planners of the session -- reported in this week's Executive Editor's opinion column in the Jewish Exponent --probably feel that their well-intentioned attempt to arm the 900 members of a United Jewish Communities Solidarity Mission with expert guidance on "how to handle media distortions of Israel's attempts to defend itself and its citizens" had been a failure. Albeit unwittingly, they succeeded in my opinion beyond their hopes.

The panelists whom the planners selected (obviously without consulting either Camera, the relevant Major Jewish Organization, or a Jerusalem-based media guru like David Bedein) were the New York Times Jerusalem correspondent and two European reporters. Instead of a strategy session, the Missioneers -- activist representatives of their U.S. Jewish communities who deeply care about Israel -- were treated to a diatribe of insults: The correspondents said they were tired of being blamed for the way Israel is portrayed in the media. The real problem, they said, isn't media bias, but the "reflexively defensive" attitude of American Jews, who should blame Israel for its actions and themselves for "not wanting to hear the truth."

So why do I deem the event a "success"? Because it illuminated -- indeed, was a Q.E.D. demonstration of -- the media's prevailing attitude toward both Israel and American Jews. As far as it went, Mr. Tobin's assessment in this week's Jewish Exponent was right on the mark: "In the end, what was most offensive about the panel was the condescending attitude these journalists took toward their audience." But perhaps Mr. Tobin didn't go far enough. By "these journalists," Mr. Tobin was presumably referring to the Three Wise Men the seminar's planners invited. I don't know whether he regards them as representative. I do. Some years ago, for example, at a synagogue in Philadelphia, the Inquirer's representative told a Philadelphia audience essentially the same thing: If you're unhappy with reporting on Israel, blame Israel, not us. By "their audience," Mr. Tobin was presumably referring to the 900 or so folks in the room. But these 900 Missioneers were not there that day on their own. They were representatives, our representatives, so these journalists' "audience" embraced us as well, as these journalists doubtless knew and intended. So this Jerusalem session was a wake-up call to us all that the media has by and large made up its mind what's "the truth," which it says we Jews should face up to and go and blame Israel. As a Call to Arms, we needed this question-begging, self-righteous message thrown in our representatives' faces (or, as Mr. Tobin put it, "shoved down their throats") through an abuse-of-invitation so arrogant that "chutzpah" doesn't begin to express it.

PICKING A BONE OVER WHAT MAKES US TICK

Mr. Tobin subtitled his "A Matter of Opinion" column this week "Media bias against Israel isn't a figment of our imagination." From time to time (most recently, weekly), I've expressed that viewpoint myself.

A point on which Mr. Tobin and I differ is over what makes us tick. I agree completely with the first motivation he cites: America's support is critical to Israel's survival, and "if news coverage of Israel helps turn Americans against the Jewish state," it would be a "critical blow."

I identify less completely with the second, and only other, motivation he cites, that "the fight against media bias is the one aspect of the conflict that allows American Jews to feel as if they are on the front lines of the battle to preserve the Jewish state from harm." Sure, but I'd like to think that we obsessed media watchers also have deeper motivations than that. Years ago, there was a sign in a shop on the boardwalk, quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Share in the action and passion of the events of your time, for fear of being judged not to have lived." Our generation's "time," the Second World War to the present, embraced two of the most momentous events in our People's long history, the Holocaust and the Rebirth of Israel. It was during (most of) our lifetimes that David Ben Gurion, standing beneath Herzl's portrait, called on the Jews of the world: "Our call goes out to the Jewish People all over the world . . . to stand by us in the struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of generations for the redemption of Israel." As Mr. Tobin himself wrote in his article, what we seek from the media is that it put its current reporting "in the context of century-long struggle to extinguish the Zionist enterprise." And, most deeply, our motivations include harkening to a call -- reawakened in us perhaps by Mr. Tobin's report of media condescending contempt in Jerusalem -- that's two millennia older than that of Ben Gurion. Hillel counseled us wisely a long time ago that if we don't stand up and show self-respect for ourselves, then no one else will respect us. And if not Now, during the generation of the Holocaust and Rebirth of Israel, then When?

ACRES OF DIATRIBES

I've never met Mr. Tobin, though we've been sporatic virtual pen pals, and he's "the Editor" who's published some of my letters. I've implored him, as I had his predecessor, to be the "Jewish press" (note lower case "p") in responding to prejudicially imbalanced presentations of fundamental historical issues by own local media. Here are a few examples of imbalanced local media historical references -- fodder for a local Jewish press column headlined "Media bias against Israel isn't a figment of our imagination":

*** Last Sunday (Jan 21), the AP and the Inquirer reported (p. A-2) that Barak "has flatly rejected Palestinian demands that millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to their former homes in Israel."

*** On Monday (Jan 22, p. A-1, A-10), Knight Ridder News Service and the Inquirer reported that Palestinian negotiators "stressed their insistence on U.N. resolutions that call for Israel to vacate all [sic] territories it occupied in 1967 and to allow the return of refugees."

*** Yesterday (Sat., Jan 27, p. A-4), the AP and Inquirer referred again to "millions of Palestinian refugees."

Isn't challenging media statements that millions of Palestinian refugees left former homes in Israel, and that UN resolutions call for Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the pre-67 borders and take back the refugees, more crucial to public perceptions of history, law and justice than whether the media feels Israel has responded to current violence too harshly?

Shouldn't our bias-countering efforts actively include getting our own local media to report, as part of the truth as the media sees it, that the Arabs started the '48 war, a war that generated as many Jewish refugees from Arab lands as Arabs from Israel (c. 700,000)? That Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, while the Arab states which (to use media terms) Seized what could have been Arab Palestine in 1948, and Occupied it for 20 years, kept their fellow Arabs in camps, and that Arab "host" countries continue to so mistreat their own people, and their descendants unto the third generation, to this very day?

SO WHAT CAN WE DO?

In our calmer moments, we recognize that we grassroots Diaspora Jews aren't really on the "front lines of the battle to preserve the Jewish state from harm," and we accept, as Mr. Tobin pointed out in his article, that media bias is a battle which Israel [for reasons hopefully known to itself] has chosen not to fight very hard. But we're not off the hook. We were Called Upon by Ben Gurion, and we have marching orders from Hillel. We can support Camera, a self-respecting Major Jewish Organization not intimidated by the national media. But we need, individually and as a community, to stand up for balanced Mideast reporting by our own local media. So let me conclude with thoughts upon that.

As individuals, we can write letters "to the Editor" and to the reporters and editors personally. I've dabbled in both, and hope to devote a slow week's Alert to (forgive me, Mr. Tobin) "war" stories.

But, as with all other aspects of Jewish life -- religious observance, fund raising, fraternal and social activities -- we're most effective in fighting local media bias when we act in concert as a community. Our Jewish Exponent (sic), as in jtobin@jewishexponent.com, needs to be Our Jewish press. I wrote Mr. Tobin's predecessor what seems long ago, "the Jewish Exponent is all that stands in the way of the Inquirer having the field to itself." The Exponent could, for example, reinstate the biweekly local media coverage analysis column of Dr. Mike Goldblatt. It could carry periodic from-Israel perspectives on Philadelphia Israel coverage by a native Philadelphian professional journalist based in Jerusalem, David Bedein. It could carry Andrea Levin's column when it covers wire service reports carried by the Inquirer. Its Executive Editor could write more frequent "A Matter of Opinion" columns addressed to the real and recognized threat to American support for Israel emanating from his fellow denizens of the Fourth Estate.

Regards,

Jerry

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers

From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jeromeverlin@brithsholom.org)

Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #5, 2/4/01

WELCOME 5

Welcome to our new subscribers. By reading our free emailed weekly newsletter and discussing its media bias citations with colleagues and friends, you're helping expand awareness in our community of the Inquirer's unbalanced coverage of the fundamental Middle East issues. Last week, the Jewish Exponent's Executive Editor warned in his column that unbalanced Mideast reporting threatens America's critical support for Israel by unfairly tarnishing Israel's image in the mind of the American public. It also unfairly tarnishes us.

"THE RIGHT OF RETURN"

Again this past week, the Inquirer repeatedly purveyed the impression that millions of Arabs fled Israel in 1948 and have the right to return to homes which they left.

*** Inquirer, Sunday, Jan 28, 2001, page A4 (Diana Kraft, AP): " . . . the fate of the millions of Palestinian refugees who want to return to Israel."

*** Inquirer, Monday, Jan 29, 2001, page A2 (Greg Myre, AP): ". . . the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees who want to return to homes in what is now Israel."

*** Inquirer, Wednesday, Jan 31, 2001, page A9 (Dan Perry, AP): "[Palestinians] are demanding . . . recognition of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel."

Equally misleading in the Inquirer's historical treatment is what, again this week, it continued to not say -- that the Arabs fled from a war started by Arabs in defiance of UN partition to drive out Palestine's Jews, a war that generated at least as many Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The Inquirer likewise continued to omit that Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, while the Arabs kept their fellow Arabs in camps. The Palestinian "millions" counted by the Inquirer are mostly post-1948 children and grandchildren of Arabs displaced by the '48 war. In the Inquirer's reckoning, they're "refugees" having "the right" to "return" to homes which they "left," in some cases half a century before they were born. The Jewish refugees of the '48 war have children and grandchildren too. They don't count in the Inquirer's refugee justice scales because the Israelis didn't isolate their refugee parents or grandparents, themselves unworthy of mention, in camps.

A lesson for us in how deeply ingrained in American public perception this prejudicially one-sided view has become occurred this week in a second local newspaper, which cited Amnesty International's Washington, DC, rally last fall "supporting the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes within Israel." These quoted words, almost identical to the AP's in the Inquirer, weren't Amnesty International's, but those of a staff reporter of the Jewish Exponent (Feb 1, 2001, p. 26). Yccch!

"SEIZED BY ISRAEL IN 1967"

Not content with mischaracterizing "millions" of Palestinian refugees as victims of the 1948 "creation of Israel," the media mischaracterizes the 1967 Six Day War as unprovoked Israeli aggression. The above-cited article in last Sunday's Inquirer went on to refer to the Old City and eastern Jerusalem as "seized by Israel in 1967." It didn't say from whom and under what circumstances. To those of us old enough to remember how deeply we feared for Israel in late May and early June, 1967, encircled as it was by enemies issuing blood-curdling cries for its extinction, and how Israel offered through the UN to refrain from attacking Jordanian-occupied portions of Palestine [seized (sic) by Jordan in 1948] if Jordan didn't attack, which it did, the pejorative expression "seized by Israel in 1967," a media favorite, is a sneeringly disdainful distortion of history.

FEEDBACK, PHASED PLANS AND COMMON GROUND

In addition to asking each of you to get us a new reader this month, I asked you for feedback. I got it. "Sue the Bastards!" (Inquirer); "Boycott their Advertisers!" (Inquirer); "Infiltrate the Enemy!" (Peace Now); "Lots of fancy footwork, Jerome, but so far you haven't thrown [let alone landed] a punch." I thank you all for your passion. I have two responses.

First, I too adhere to the view that lighting a candle's more effective than cursing the darkness, but I hope for a role for our little virtual newsletter beyond that of a latter-day execration text. We whose blood boils when we read, over and over, unfairness to Israel in news reports of, e.g., the Inquirer, are a minority in our community. We need to awaken an awareness in more and more grassroots Jews that we're not nuts, and that the distorted reporting is doing continuing damage to both Israel and us. As for action, the Palestinians don't have a patent on phased plans. When we've built up a credible virtual group of Believers, then we can conduct credible confrontations. I have some ideas, as do Mike Goldblatt of the ZOA and doubtless others. (More about phase two plans anon.) While we're spreading the Word, we can of course write "to the Editor" and to the editors personally. As a long-time member of Camera and on my own, I've written a fair number of letters. If the Inquirer will just leave us alone for a week, I'll tell you about some of the answers.

Second, as when the Roman legions were at Jerusalem's gates, it's counter-productive for us Jews of even passionately differing views to dissipate energy clawing at the throats of each other. We've Common Ground in the Arabs' and the media's disdain for us all. Amos Oz, a founder of Peace Now, in a 2001 article titled "Doves Should Re-Examine Their Perch," cited the cynicism of Palestinians openly claiming a "right of return" for hundreds of thousands (sic, not millions) of Palestinians displaced in 1948, "while cynically ignoring the fate of hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who fled and were driven out of their homes in Arab countries, during the same war." He wrote that implementing the Palestinian "right of return" would make Jews an ethnic minority "at the mercy of Muslims" in direct contravention of the 1947 UN partition resolution calling for separate sovereign states for Arabs and Jews. Is Oz the Enemy, or the AP?

(As a foretaste of how the Inquirer and the AP would regard the status of a Jewish minority in such a state, reflect upon this summary of ethnic group casualties in yesterday's (Saturday, Feb 3, p. A2) Inquirer: "In four months of bloodshed, 383 people have been killed: 322 Palestinians, 13 Israeli Arabs, 47 other Israelis and 1 German doctor." All the dead were worthy of having their ethnicity mentioned, even the "1 German doctor," save only the Jews.)

PROPHESY?

Try as it might, the media was unable to paint a plausible portrait of Arafat as the reasonable compromiser and Israeli Prime Minister Barak as the "intransgent." Wait till next week.

Regards,

Jerry

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, professor at the Wharton School, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and is a board member of the Center for Safe Medication Use. He is an adjunct professor of insurance and information science and technology at Cabrini College. You can write Herb at POB 7301,St. Davids, PA e-mail him at hdenenberg@aol.com or reach him at his two Web sites: thedenrep_archive.org or denenbergsdump.org