Only One Side of the Equation

Last week Israeli Defense Forces geared up to invade the Gaza Strip. Reservists were called up, tanks rolled into position, and politicians readied their anti-terrorist speeches.

And then nothing happened. By Monday, the tanks had pulled back. By Tuesday, reservists were being reassigned to other duties. The Gaza incursion ended before it began. In the US press, we read and heard about the buildup, but not about the stand-down.

In large measure, the Gaza invasion was stopped by the US government.

The Bush administration had finally taken enough interest in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict to actually formulate an agenda for negotiations.

That agenda clearly didn't include a Gaza incursion, so pressure was put on Sharon to halt the tanks. This, in itself, is a testament to what the US government could have prevented in the West Bank, had the Bush administration sent a clear signal against Israeli military incursions.

There was another factor involved in stopping the Gaza invasion: dissent within the Israeli government and defense forces. In the US press, the IDF and the Israeli government are portrayed as a monolith, with no dissension, questioning, or maneuvering between factions.

Even the left press and many US activists use pat phrases, such as "Sharon is a criminal; he's a mass murderer" and "the "IDF is committing human rights abuses." These statements don't adequately reflect the splits inside Israeli society and government, and they reinforce the view Americans (right-wingers as well as middle-of-the-road folks) have of Israel as an isolated country under attack whose citizens all support the incursions. A statement like "Sharon is a war criminal" is viewed as a condemnation of all of Israeli society, an attack against Israel's right to exist, and hence an attack on Jews in general.

A look at the details of Israeli politics dispels such notions. While it takes work to dig up the details--and sometimes all the facts and different disputes can be overwhelming--it's still details and facts that give credibility to arguments about Sharon's policies or the IDF incursions. Right now, few on the left, right, or center in the US--and certainly no one in the mainstream media--is bothering to do their homework on Israeli politics.

For example, this week the Likkud party voted, against Sharon's objections, to reject outright the creation of a Palestinian state. This development within Sharon's own party made the news here, but with little explanation of how the various camps within the Israeli government or Israeli society views it.

The Likkud falls to the right of most of Israel's other political parties and, while Sharon is a member, his party is not the majority party of Israeli politics. Sharon sits at the helm of a coalition government. Unlike here in the US where the presidential winner selects members of his own party to fill cabinet posts and high-level slots, Sharon had to accept people from other parties--members of his coalition--to fill cabinet and other government posts.

Certain people within Sharon's own government have disagreed with his handling of the West Bank and some have opposed the Gaza incursion. In addition, high-level people in the Israeli Defense Forces felt that a Gaza invasion would be much harder militarily--and would lead to much greater loss of life on both sides--now that the Palestinians know what to expect and have had time to prepare.

In Israeli society, people are divided. According to recent polls, about one-half of the populace considers itself conservative, while about one-fourth considers itself liberal. Yet two-thirds are for the creation of a Palestinian state, as long as it leads to peace. This fact represents a vast hope within the Israeli populace that peace and side-by-side coexistence of two nations is possible. This also represents a majority of folks from both ends of the spectrum and the middle who are in favor of ending the violence on both sides. A Gaza invasion would alienate this pragmatic majority.

While these facts are left out of the US media's portrayal of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the US media has no trouble dissecting Palestinian politics, as could be observed last week.

Most media outlets reported Yasser Arafat's speeches in which he called for reform of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and for elections within six months. Arafat's autocratic style was critiqued. Critics mentioned that the Palestinian Legislative Council has passed numerous bills that Arafat never follows or signs into law. US pundits discussed whether the elections would Palestinian Legislative Council has passed numerous bills that Arafat never follows or signs into law. US pundits discussed whether the elections would really take place and under what conditions. They speculated about which opposition groups might run candidates and discussed the prospect of radical groups (i.e., Hamas) making big gains in the election now that Palestinians are frustrated with Arafat and his Fatah party.

The US media had no trouble mentioning such issues as the struggle for "separation of powers" within the Palestinian government or the consolidation of the numerous and separate Palestinian security forces.

Yet it still is beyond the US media's ability to cover dissent within Israel over its government's policies. For example, 60,000 people attended a peace rally in Tel Aviv in mid-May, but it was not reported here. The number of Israeli reservists who are refusing to serve in the West Bank or Gaza has doubled to more than 400, with a number of them jailed and undergoing court martial, but they have yet to be acknowledged--much less interviewed--here.

And while the US media happily interviews Palestinian legislators who are dissatisfied with Arafat, Israeli politicians dissatisfied with Sharon and appalled at the recent Likkud vote are ignored.

Call or write your local newspaper and any other news outlet you frequently read, watch, or hear. Ask them why they don't report on the details of Israeli internal politics with the equal fervor devoted to Palestinian politics. Their Middle East reporters should at least scan the English-language press in Israel; they might actually learn a few things that would leak into their adaptation of the wire service articles that they run in place of real reportage and analysis.

The contact information for the Seattle Times is: Letters Editor, PO Box 70, Seattle WA 98111, opinion@seattletimes.com, or fax 206-382-6760. For the Seattle P-I it's: Letters to the Editor, Box 1909, Seattle WA 98111-1909, editpage@seattle-pi.com, or fax 206-448-8184.