Appalling American media bias

Much to the credit of the Arab Spring, noted for bringing about the overthrow, so far, of three autocratic Arab regimes, the American media has by and large responded positively to the events in the Arab world.

The coverage in the press, especially in the leading US newspaper, The New York Times, was excessive, sometimes running two or three pages. And what was more eye-catching has been that many of the correspondents, staff or part-timers, were Arabs or Arab-Americans including Anthony Shadid, the Pulitzer prize winner for his coverage of the Iraq War. (His wife, Nada Bakri, is also a reporter for the Times.)

"These Arab reporters and commentators, many of whom have been trained in the US," said Raphael Calis, a former executive editor of United Press International (UPI) and now living in Washington, D.C., "have a much better understanding of what is happening in each of these countries and their coverage over the past few months have proved that." Their knowledge of the language and the culture, let alone the complex political developments, he continued, makes them "able to present a clearer picture of what is happening on the ground than many of their counterparts."

In contrast what has been most disturbing, if not agonising, has been the opinion expressed in some major US papers concerning the recent exchange of prisoners between Hamas, the Palestinian movement in control of the Gaza Strip, and Israel. The Palestinian group was promised to receive 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for an Israeli soldier — only less than half of the number were turned in earlier this month and the remainder expected to be freed in two months time. The released Israeli, Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit, who incidentally was promoted twice during his captivity in a place that surprisingly the well-equipped Israeli troops had failed to find during the last five years, left for home as soon as the agreement was signed.

Regrettably, the US media has throughout this debacle focused prominently on the lone Israel soldier, neglecting to a large extent the agony of the Palestinians, including women, some of whom have been in jail for than two decades. The language that was used to describe the Palestinians, as has been the case in The Washington Post, was appalling, a paper that I have worked for in the early seventies. For example, it noted, editorially, that the "Palestinians, including President Mahmoud Abbas, celebrated the returning murderers and would-be suicide bombers as heroes." Of course, we all know, that one's "suicide bomber" may be considered another's hero.

Described as the "most emotional part of this swap deal" has been the case of the deported Palestinian prisoners whom Israel insisted — and Hamas surprisingly agreed — to be sent to other regions rather than immediately join their families in either of the Palestinian regions known as the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

A mother who had waited for many years to see her son, Mondoweiss.net reported, had to travel from occupied Jerusalem via Jordan and Egypt to Gaza where she would give her son ‘a big hug.' Of the first 477 Palestinian prisoners who were released, 205 were not be reunited with their families — one woman included — but deported or transferred elsewhere, an action that is described as being in violation of international law. Moreover, only 27 of the 35 women held in Israeli jails were included in the first batch of released Palestinian prisoners.

Aggressive colonists

"While the exchange deal should be a cause for celebration, notably for the 1,027 concerned families," a press release from Addameer (Arabic for conscience), the Palestinian Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association, says "it is [still] overshadowed by the continued incarceration of approximately 4,437 Palestinian political prisoners."

Shawan Jabarin, director of Al Haq, an internationally recognised Palestinian human rights organisation, said last week that the prospects for the release of the remaining prisoners "continues to be dictated by Israeli political interests, just as the fate of 1,027 prisoners was staked on the release of a single Israeli soldier, whose capture has further adversely affected the rights of countless more Palestinians living under the Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip."

Over and above this issue, a UN release from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that monitors violence in the occupied Palestinian territory, underlined the aggressiveness of the illegal Israeli colonists. It reported that "[colonist] violence [has] increased ... with the onset of the annual olive harvest" in the West Bank. In one incident the illegal Israel [colonists] have "set fire, cut down and uprooted around 250 olive, fig and almond trees belonging to Palestinians in the Bethlehem and Nablus governorates."

Much as the increasing reporting on this turbulent region has gratified — and enlightened — many in the US and abroad, the question remains on how long is it going to take the Americans to be less biased and fairer in their commentaries.

George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com