If the mainstream media reported on Israel's Jewish-only colonies more accurately, Americans would have a better understanding of the Israeli system of apartheid.
BY JAMES NORTH
OCTOBER 29, 2021
A PALESTINIAN MAN STANDS ON HIS PROPERTY OVERLOOKING THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENT HAR HOMA, WEST BANK, FEBRUARY 18, 2011. (PHOTO: UPI/DEBBIE HILL)
The latest New York Times report on the new Israeli home constructions in the occupied West Bank follows the mainstream media convention by calling them “settlements.” There’s no better example of George Orwell’s insight that the language we use actually shapes our ability to think.
Patrick Kingsley’s report uses the word “settlements” or “settlers” a total of 15 times. Add another seven “settlements” in the headline and photo captions, and the grand total is 22. By the end, you feel mentally bludgeoned.
Only one out of the 22 times does Kingsley call them “Jewish settlements.” The 21 omissions are misleading. Imagine if he stated the truth even half the time — that these 3,000 new homes are on Palestinian land, but no Palestinian will ever be allowed to live in one of them. If the past four decades of mainstream U.S. reporting had been allowed to make this accurate point, would Americans have any doubt that the Israeli system is a form of apartheid?
But let’s not stop there. Take the word “settlement” itself. It has an innocuous, benign ring to it, with the implication that the “settlers” are building homes in empty, unoccupied areas. Instead, though, Israel is constructing in territory it militarily occupies, which is a violation of international law, and Palestinian people already live there. Kingsley — or his editors — try and downplay this fact with the customary New York Times prevarication; he does say that building “settlements” is “a process that most of the international community considers a breach of international law, which prohibits an occupying power from moving its people into occupied territory.”
“Most of the international community?” Then the Times should tell us who belongs to that minority that thinks the “settlements” are allowed. Which countries? Which international human rights agencies? The truth is that the “settlement” justifiers are a minuscule number — a portion of the U.S. Congress, and maybe a handful of tiny Pacific Island nations dependent on the U.S. for aid.
If not the word “settlements,” what then? What’s wrong with the perfectly good English words “colonies” and “colonizers?” Why doesn’t the headline on Kingsley’s article read:
Israel Advances Plan to Expand Jewish-Only Colonies in Occupied West Bank Palestine
It only sounds harsh because we are used to decades of reading and hearing about “settlements.” Whoever in Israel or in the Israel lobby back in the 1970s concocted the euphemism was a genius at propaganda.
What about a compromise? In the 1970s, during the Troubles in the north of Ireland, there was a linguistic battle along with the actual violence. Here’s one example: the territory’s second city is known as “Derry” to Catholics, and as “Londonderry” to Protestants. The BBC faced a dilemma: how could it report without showing bias? The network came up with a solution; it alternated the two names in its reports. If the reporter opened by saying “Londonderry,” they said “Derry” next, and so on.
Maybe the U.S. mainstream media could try the same solution? Discarding “settlements” could be too much of a shock. But then, in your next sentence, use “colonies.”
It won’t happen, at least any time soon. But if this one change alone were carried out, U.S. public opinion would shift even more rapidly than it already is.
A PALESTINIAN MAN STANDS ON HIS PROPERTY OVERLOOKING THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENT HAR HOMA, WEST BANK, FEBRUARY 18, 2011. (PHOTO: UPI/DEBBIE HILL)The latest New York Times report on the new Israeli home constructions in the occupied West Bank follows the mainstream media convention by calling them “settlements.” There’s no better example of George Orwell’s insight that the language we use actually shapes our ability to think.
Patrick Kingsley’s report uses the word “settlements” or “settlers” a total of 15 times. Add another seven “settlements” in the headline and photo captions, and the grand total is 22. By the end, you feel mentally bludgeoned.
Only one out of the 22 times does Kingsley call them “Jewish settlements.” The 21 omissions are misleading. Imagine if he stated the truth even half the time — that these 3,000 new homes are on Palestinian land, but no Palestinian will ever be allowed to live in one of them. If the past four decades of mainstream U.S. reporting had been allowed to make this accurate point, would Americans have any doubt that the Israeli system is a form of apartheid?
But let’s not stop there. Take the word “settlement” itself. It has an innocuous, benign ring to it, with the implication that the “settlers” are building homes in empty, unoccupied areas. Instead, though, Israel is constructing in territory it militarily occupies, which is a violation of international law, and Palestinian people already live there. Kingsley — or his editors — try and downplay this fact with the customary New York Times prevarication; he does say that building “settlements” is “a process that most of the international community considers a breach of international law, which prohibits an occupying power from moving its people into occupied territory.”
“Most of the international community?” Then the Times should tell us who belongs to that minority that thinks the “settlements” are allowed. Which countries? Which international human rights agencies? The truth is that the “settlement” justifiers are a minuscule number — a portion of the U.S. Congress, and maybe a handful of tiny Pacific Island nations dependent on the U.S. for aid.
If not the word “settlements,” what then? What’s wrong with the perfectly good English words “colonies” and “colonizers?” Why doesn’t the headline on Kingsley’s article read:
Israel Advances Plan to Expand Jewish-Only Colonies in Occupied West Bank Palestine
It only sounds harsh because we are used to decades of reading and hearing about “settlements.” Whoever in Israel or in the Israel lobby back in the 1970s concocted the euphemism was a genius at propaganda.
What about a compromise? In the 1970s, during the Troubles in the north of Ireland, there was a linguistic battle along with the actual violence. Here’s one example: the territory’s second city is known as “Derry” to Catholics, and as “Londonderry” to Protestants. The BBC faced a dilemma: how could it report without showing bias? The network came up with a solution; it alternated the two names in its reports. If the reporter opened by saying “Londonderry,” they said “Derry” next, and so on.
Maybe the U.S. mainstream media could try the same solution? Discarding “settlements” could be too much of a shock. But then, in your next sentence, use “colonies.”
It won’t happen, at least any time soon. But if this one change alone were carried out, U.S. public opinion would shift even more rapidly than it already is.
No comments:
Post a Comment