Missed Opportunities
Claude Salhani
September 23, 2005
The level of hatred permeating the Middle East conflict runs so deep that it often blinds those involved in it. Indeed, both Israeli settlers and Palestinian refugees have more in common than either side will ever admit. Yet, neither side seems to recognize that what the other side is living through has also happened to them.
The media's coverage of Israel's Gaza pullout was a good illustration of the media -- which reflects public opinion -- showing only one side of the story. The region's media also missed out on the irony of the event, as well as on an opportunity to help garner public opinion in a way to help bridge the gap between the two communities.
How individual medias report an event is largely dependent upon the public it caters to, as was demonstrated by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. There the Arab and Hebrew press reported on how "their side" was affected yet failed to notice similarities in the predicament of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Naturally, public opinion on the disengagement was divided. Had the media spent more time examining where public opinion stood on the other side, it might have helped increase this understanding and assisted in building common ground.
Scrutinizing public opinion on the other side will help increase understanding of sensitivities. For example, studying Palestinian public opinion would help Israelis understand why the Palestinians are still feeling imprisoned even after Israel's withdrawal. And similarly, if the Palestinians were to take a closer look at Israeli public opinion, they might understand their fears and trepidations.
Settlers forced to leave their homes in Gaza, for example, failed to impact upon Palestinians public opinion that many Palestinians must have felt much the same when they were evicted from their homes in 1948, 1967, or later. And one may add, there were no friendly troops waiting with neither packing crates nor monetary rewards courtesy of Uncle Sam at the end of the line for the Palestinians.
The dramatic, forceful, evacuation of Jewish settlers was portrayed in much of the Israeli and Western media as the great human drama, that indeed it was, but there were hardly any comparisons made to the Palestinians, of whom hundreds of thousands shared the same predicament. There is, however, a logical explanation for this.
The Palestinians, to a large extent, have been dehumanized and demonized by Israeli public opinion in general and by the settlers in particular. They have come to see the Palestinians as terrorists, as suicide bombers and beasts out to destroy them and their way of life. This, in turn, makes it easier to punish the Palestinians collectively.
Regrettably, it is the suicide bomber that has come to represent the Palestinian people in the mind of Israeli public opinion. Palestinian intellectuals, the educated and moderates -- who far outnumber the extremists -- are blown into obscurity with every act of terror carried out by the jihadists.
As the Israeli settlers left Gaza it would have been interesting to know if any thought was given to the Palestinian refugees, of which hundreds of thousands had to leave their homes, and many still squat in decrepit camps scattered around the Mediterranean.
Similarly, as Palestinians in Gaza rejoiced in seeing Israeli settlers leave and with them the end of nearly four decades of occupation, it is just as doubtful they were able to empathize and to see the human side of the unfolding trauma, regardless of who the victim is. Forced deportation, after all, is something the Palestinians can relate to.
Here is where by and large, the Arab press missed an opportunity to bridge the chasm between Arabs and Israelis. Rather, they seemed to thrive on that animosity. Instead of encouraging dialogue some newspapers boasted that after south Lebanon and Gaza, Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine would be liberated next; discourse of that kind does little more than encourage extremists on both sides of the wall-fence-barrier-ditch.
The paradox of Israel's disengagement is that it forced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to work together, despite the "unilateral" aspect of the withdrawal. Both men realized that a wrong turn could give a boost to the more hawkish parties, something that would take both sides backward, quite possibly toward renewed violence. Ironically, Sharon's political future may well rest in the hands of those he has spent a lifetime fighting; the Palestinians.
Equally, on the other side of the electrified fence, Abbas is playing his political future, too, by having gone along with Sharon's disengagement plan and keeping Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radicals in line.
Gaza was a first step in the long road to resolving the Middle East's conflict. The challenge now for both sides is to make sure it is not the last.
Claude Salhani is International Editor and a political commentator with United Press International in Washington. This article is part of a series of views on "The Dynamics of Public Opinion", published in partnership with the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and United Press International (UPI).
The media's coverage of Israel's Gaza pullout was a good illustration of the media -- which reflects public opinion -- showing only one side of the story. The region's media also missed out on the irony of the event, as well as on an opportunity to help garner public opinion in a way to help bridge the gap between the two communities.
How individual medias report an event is largely dependent upon the public it caters to, as was demonstrated by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. There the Arab and Hebrew press reported on how "their side" was affected yet failed to notice similarities in the predicament of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Naturally, public opinion on the disengagement was divided. Had the media spent more time examining where public opinion stood on the other side, it might have helped increase this understanding and assisted in building common ground.
Scrutinizing public opinion on the other side will help increase understanding of sensitivities. For example, studying Palestinian public opinion would help Israelis understand why the Palestinians are still feeling imprisoned even after Israel's withdrawal. And similarly, if the Palestinians were to take a closer look at Israeli public opinion, they might understand their fears and trepidations.
Settlers forced to leave their homes in Gaza, for example, failed to impact upon Palestinians public opinion that many Palestinians must have felt much the same when they were evicted from their homes in 1948, 1967, or later. And one may add, there were no friendly troops waiting with neither packing crates nor monetary rewards courtesy of Uncle Sam at the end of the line for the Palestinians.
The dramatic, forceful, evacuation of Jewish settlers was portrayed in much of the Israeli and Western media as the great human drama, that indeed it was, but there were hardly any comparisons made to the Palestinians, of whom hundreds of thousands shared the same predicament. There is, however, a logical explanation for this.
The Palestinians, to a large extent, have been dehumanized and demonized by Israeli public opinion in general and by the settlers in particular. They have come to see the Palestinians as terrorists, as suicide bombers and beasts out to destroy them and their way of life. This, in turn, makes it easier to punish the Palestinians collectively.
Regrettably, it is the suicide bomber that has come to represent the Palestinian people in the mind of Israeli public opinion. Palestinian intellectuals, the educated and moderates -- who far outnumber the extremists -- are blown into obscurity with every act of terror carried out by the jihadists.
As the Israeli settlers left Gaza it would have been interesting to know if any thought was given to the Palestinian refugees, of which hundreds of thousands had to leave their homes, and many still squat in decrepit camps scattered around the Mediterranean.
Similarly, as Palestinians in Gaza rejoiced in seeing Israeli settlers leave and with them the end of nearly four decades of occupation, it is just as doubtful they were able to empathize and to see the human side of the unfolding trauma, regardless of who the victim is. Forced deportation, after all, is something the Palestinians can relate to.
Here is where by and large, the Arab press missed an opportunity to bridge the chasm between Arabs and Israelis. Rather, they seemed to thrive on that animosity. Instead of encouraging dialogue some newspapers boasted that after south Lebanon and Gaza, Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine would be liberated next; discourse of that kind does little more than encourage extremists on both sides of the wall-fence-barrier-ditch.
The paradox of Israel's disengagement is that it forced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to work together, despite the "unilateral" aspect of the withdrawal. Both men realized that a wrong turn could give a boost to the more hawkish parties, something that would take both sides backward, quite possibly toward renewed violence. Ironically, Sharon's political future may well rest in the hands of those he has spent a lifetime fighting; the Palestinians.
Equally, on the other side of the electrified fence, Abbas is playing his political future, too, by having gone along with Sharon's disengagement plan and keeping Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radicals in line.
Gaza was a first step in the long road to resolving the Middle East's conflict. The challenge now for both sides is to make sure it is not the last.
Claude Salhani is International Editor and a political commentator with United Press International in Washington. This article is part of a series of views on "The Dynamics of Public Opinion", published in partnership with the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and United Press International (UPI).
Print
Email
