A recent article on MSNBC listed US editorial writers, and how they stood on the topic of Israel. According to this article – which I think was copied from
The Nation – the majority of US editorial writers can be classified as either always supporting Israel or at least usually supporting Israel.
These editorial writers not only have a single view – the seem to act in collaboration with each other. For example, it was quite interesting to see how they tried to manipulate and use the events of September 11 for their own purposes.
There was in fact a campaign to do so. This campaign consists of a number of very charactertistic easily identifable spins which are repeated – almost verbatim – over and over again in editorial after editorial. Things which are often repeated tend to become conventional wisdom and accepted as being true – even if they are entirely unsupported or even contrary to the facts. Lets see if we can identify some of these motifs:
One of the biggest concerns for the pro-Israeli right was that Americans may start to attribute the events of Sept. 11 to US foreign policy in the Mideast, and more specifically, to continued US support for Israel. They saw a potential threat: that people may start to question continued US support for Israel, and – God forbid – even pressure the Israelis to recognize the right of the Palestinians to exist.
The solution was to spin the events of September 11 so that had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact – as they assured us – Osama was opposed to the US and the West in general, not just Israel. This was a War of Civilizations! Betwen Good and Evil! “They” just hate “Us” (Israel conveniently being one of “Us”) because they “Hate our Freedoms and What We Stand For” … and certainly not in the least bit because of anything Israel does.
The appeal in this spin is obvious: first, it feels good and is self-aggrandizing: We're good, they're bad, and that's all there is to it. Its patriotic. Who wants to question that? Second, the spin is facile & simple: no need to ask or answer uncomfortable or difficult questions. No need to read a history book. We're lazy. Just tell us who to hate.
How does this spin work? Again, quite simple: one common way to spin facts is to remove them from their context, and place them in a new context. If you control the context, you control the meaning of the facts. So, the events of September 11 were removed from their context of the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict, or the other the injustices and hypocricies in US foreign polcy that produce such acts.
Instead, we are told that the events of September 11 should be understood solely in the context of some mythical grand Clash of Civilizations between “Them” and “Us”: Islam versus the West, the forces of Darkness versus Enlightenment, Freedom versus Oppression, etc etc etc. Iran, Islam, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, 2 billion Moslems, etc. were all conflated to fit into the Evil “Them” category along with Osama and his Talib band.
The fact that Osama was opposed to the Saudi regime, that Iran was opposed to the Taliban at a time when the US was flirting with them, or that our current “ally” in the War against Terrorism (Pakistan) was the primary backer of the Taliban – all these and other inconvenient facts which did not “fit” in this new context – were dealt with in two fashions: First, these facts were ignored, de-emphasized or brushed under the rug.
Second, all sorts of rumours were initiated to suggest that there was some real connection between all of these actors: We were treated to lurid – and entirely unsupported – speculation that Saddam had a role in September 11, that Iran gave safe haven to the Taliban, that the Lebanese have backed al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda represented all 2 billion Moslems and Islam in general, etc.
And just to make sure everyone stuck to this line of thinking, anyone who wasn't satified with this facile, self-congratulatory spin and who insisted on asking the Why question was accused of “justifying terrorism” by doing so.
Another common motif is to claim that the injustices of the world US – especially the injustices in US foreign policy and in US support for Israel – is unfairly blamed by “Them” on “Us”. This spin goes something like this:
“The US has ever done anything wrong – rather we are blamed because They are jealous or unhappy with their own lives and need to blame it on someone else. They have repressive government, repressive religions, repressive social values; They are susceptible to conspiracy theories instead of dealing with the reality of their backwardness; They are silly children who can't possible have any legitiamte gripes, and who are instead merely throwing tantrums.”
This of course is the classic blame-the-victim spin. As if by magic, it absolves us of any guilt, and shifts it back onto them. It is accompanied by the relentless Islamophobic caricature with which we are all familiar: The Violent, Woman-Hating Middle Easterner who Can't Deal with Modernity and so Resorts to Violence and Lashes Out Blindly. This is the favorite schtick of many “Orientalist” Mideast experts such as Bernard Lewis – which is why he's so popular with the Pro-Israeli Right.
3- They can't possibly have any real complaints – they're just anti-semitic, and that's all!
This is an oldie which has started to make a comeback: use of the anti-Semite or Jew-hater label to silence critics of Israel, and to stir up visceral support for Israel by portraying it as facing a “New Holocaust”.
The spin goes something like this: Complain loudly about the Protocols of Elders of Zion and other such acts by Them to attribute ALL of Their gripes – whether legitiamate or not – to Anti-Semitism. Exploit real instances of anti-Semitism and use it as a wide brush to tar all of them as Anti-Semitic.
At the same time, expand the definition of Anti-Semitism to minimize the range of constitutes “acceptable” criticism of Israel. Concentrate especially on breaking down any distinction between Zionism and Judaism so that criticism of Zionism is automatically equated the Jew-hatred. And certainly don't pay attention to our own racism against them or our own equivalents of “anti-Semitic” myths.
For example, you can complain about HOW the settlements are built, but not WHETHER they should be built. You can complain about HOW the Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed, but not WHY: To ask WHY Palestinians should be driven from their homes and WHETHER settlements should be expanded into their lands would be to question Israel's “right to exist” and is therefore anti-Semitic – or so the spin goes. These are just a few of the motifs I have noticed. No doubt there are more. They have become quite familiar – so much so that I can scan an editorial and spot them by reading only a few key words.