100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

January 28, 1983 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Detroit Jewish News, 1983-01-28

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

2 Friday, January 28, .1983

'THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

Purely Commentary

Self-Scrutiny, Self-Defense:
The Press and Israel Policy

When a combination of forces representing the Ameri-
can Jewish Committee and the Hebrew University Com-
munications Center combine to prove Israeli practices, the
matter must be treated with respect. It was granted such
respect in the report in this column of the study made by a
group of newspaper correspondents, under the aegis of
these two bodies, of the manner in which the Israeli
authorities conducted the supervision of media activities.
The result was a very critical analysis of faults and pro-
vided a listing of errors which, in effect, nullified some of
the condemnations of the media since the commencement
of the anti-PLO operation in Lebanon.
A former Detroiter now provides a defense of Israel's
role in the relations with the press, especially the foreign
correspondents.
Zev Chafets, now on leave from his post as director of
the Israel Government Press Office, authored a reply to
Israel's critics, in an essay on "Israel and the Press" in
Newsweek, contending that "rarely has a country been
so criticized for its press policy — and never with less
justification."
° He emphasized that Israel is a democracy and that it
has been at war with its Arab neighbors for 35 years.
Therefore, it had a unique problem "in the history of open
society, how to maintain internal press freedom in a state of
perpetual war."
Chafets offers a defense of Israel and, of course, of the
policies that were pursued by his department, and he con-
tends:
We are, after all, in a political as well as a
military struggle with our Arab adversaries. The
self-righteous and self-serving way with which
the American media often deal with Israeli mili-
tary censorship and their unwillingness to insist
on equal standards from Arab countries have left
many Americans with the distorted impression of
Israel as a society that practices press repression
in contrast to an Arab world that does not.
For a tiny democracy like Israel, struggling to
preserve both its liberty and its military effec-
tiveness against police-state adversaries, this is
the unkindest cut of all.
Chafets took into account experiences of other nations,
especially the Falkland crisis, and the manner in which
Great Britain suspended freedom of the press. Thereupon
he outlines the Israeli position:

In the case of Israel, locked in an open-ended
struggle, the problem is different. Israel's solution
has been to-institute an ongoing military censor-
ship that does not exceed carefully drafted limita-
tions. This limited military censorship is exactly
that mechanism which enables 'Israel to enjoy
freedom of the press in other spheres of national
life.
And what a free press! Half a dozen daily
newspapers provide an aggressive critique of
government policies. Radio and TV, sometimes
incorrectly labeled "state" organs, are based on
the BBC model, and often inspire administration
complaints that they are antigovernment. Israel
also has one of the largest resident foreign-press
corps of any nation — almost 250 accredited
foreign journalists cover a nation no larger than
New Jersey.
The results of this media concentration are
predictable. Prime Minister Golda Meir's gov-
ernment was brought down, at least in part, by the
relentless Israeli press criticism that followed the
October 1973 War. Her successor, Yitzhak Rabin,
resigned as a result of press reports that he had an
illegal bank account abroad. Most recently, the
Israeli media forced the creation of the Commis-
sion of Inquiry on the Sabra and Shatila camps by
their uncompromising and uncensored insistence
on uncovering every fact regarding the Phalan-
gist massacre of Palestinians.
The freedom of press that allows such intense
scrutiny by local and foreign newsmen is, unfor-
tunately, unique to Israel in the Middle East. In
Mideastern police states such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi
Arabia and Syria, there is no free local press to
ferret out unpleasant news.
Moreover, most Mideastern countries do not
permit foreign reporters to live there perma-
nently. Nor do they allow free access to visiting
journalists; those reporters who do get a visa are
often severely limited in what they may see and
do. Finally, Mideast regimes that are subjects of
unwanted scrutiny by the world's media often
rely on the simple expedient of banning the offen-
ders. In recent years, Western journalists have
been expelled from Iraq, Iran and Egypt.
Some Arab regimes also use physical violence
to control foreign reporters. Between 1979 and
1981, the period of Syrian domination of the

Press Relations With Israel Continue to Stimulate
Debates Involving Freedom of the Press, and Equally
as Much Attention to Treatment of Truth, Realities

Lebanese capital, three foreign correspondents
were murdered in Beirut, a fourth was shot and
nearly killed, and at least half a dozen were driven
out by threats of Arab terror. No one knows what
effect these tactics had on the remaining members
of the press corps, but most reporters in the field
admit that such attacks serve as a sobering re-
minder of the limitations on freedom of speech in
Beirut. Similar incidents have occurred in Syria,
Iraq and elsewhere.
It is apparent that the American press is not
concerned about these covert and highly effective
means of censorship. No blank spaces appear on
the nation's news pages with the explanation,
"This is where we would run a story on Saudi
Arabia if the Saudis would permit us to have a
correspondent in Riyadh"; no TV commentators
castigate the Iranians and Iraqis for abusing
freedom of the press by excluding cameras from
that Middle Eastern battleground.
Even the murder of American reporters and
the gradual destruction of the indigenous
Lebanese press by the PLO and the Syrians re-
ceived virtually no media attention in the United
States. Condemnation is reserved for Israel, the
only nation in the region that practices freedom of
the press.
Various explanations are offered for this ob-
viotis double standard. "We expect more from you
Israelis," we are told, or, "we expect less from the
Arabs." The former statement is a subtle form of
anti-Israeli hypocrisy, the latter is clearly
patroniiing.
This is self-scrutiny that must be treated with at least
as much respect as the American Jewish Committee and
Hebrew University project that was undertaken in the
interest of honorable judgments relating to the media.
When the total analyses becdme available, in the
course of time; in a process in which dozens of books may be
expected to be published about the sensations accompany-
ing Israel's Lebanese "invasion," it will show that the
media will not come off too saintly. The Chafets defense
emerges more logically than the condemnations of Israel
and the rebukes that have been showered on the Israel
press office, whether under Chafets' direction or through
the judgments of other Israeli authorities.

Truth Needs an Ally in
Freedom, as Distortions in
Media Keep Indicating

By Philip
Slomovitz

So — prayer and resistance to anti-Semitism are
thus treated as political, but the judgment of a Detroit
Councilwoman is apolitical. And the Council itself— will it
judge itself and its components?

Aaron D. Rosenbaum's Positive
Approaches to Middle East
Issues in 'Foreign Policy'

So much of the ultra-critical of Israel has appeared in
Foreign Policy magazine in recent years that the latest of
the articles, by Aaron D. Rosenbaum, is like a reprieve.
Rosenbaum, a former Detroiter and son of Rabbi and Mrs.
Milton Rosenbaum, left his mark with AIPAC (American
Israel Public Affairs Committee) and defended Israel at
public functions. on numerous occasions.
In his Foreign Policy essay, "Discard Conventional
Wisdom," Rosenbaum tackled the most recent controver-
sial Middle East issues. He took into account that anti-
Americanism has spread in the Arab world. He suggests
new assumptions in American policies and proposes
changes that would "force the Arab states to question the
perceptions that have guided their dealings with Israel
since 1967."
Impracticability of American approaches is outlined
and Rosenbaum suggests: "In retrospect, it would have
been best to urge Egypt back to the autonomy talks. The
President should have resisted embellishing Camp David
in giving it new meaning by adding items that had been
deliberately excluded. In this way, the United States could
have sent a more sobering message to Jordan in particu
lar."
Urging a "bilateral approach," Rosenbaum reaches
these conclusions:
The primary goal of American policy there (in
Lebanon) must be to prevent the PLO from re-
establishing an independent political and mili-
tary base. To insure this goal, the United States
has to promote the reintegration and deployment
of the Lebanese army throughout the country.
Syria, already overextended, is apparently
willing to vacate the country. With a Palestinian
exodus from Lebanon, the United States will be
positioned to assist the Lebanese in controlling
eastern and southern Lebanon.
-vU.S. involvement in Lebanon will facilitate Is-
rael's withdrawal and thus that of Syria. Talks
toward peace should be encouraged between
Jerusalem and Beirut. A state resembling peace
already exists between the two countries; the
economic and social aspects of it are self-evident.
By acting this way, the United States can help
normalize the Arab-Israeli conflict, making it less
a holy war, less a tinderbox, less an obsession
imposed on the world. The United States can di-
minish the importance of the underlying dispute
and reduce the political utility it provides to those
who would keep it aflame.
In establishing this reality, the United States
will not find its task simple, but it will find it re-
warding: A lasting solution will appear ever more
feasible.
At least, the issues are not limited to one-sidedness,
and Rosenbaum's analyses add notes, based on familiarity
with the problems that have arisen, with a more,amicable
treatment of Israel's position.

Truth needs an ally in freedom, yet there are the dis-
tortions. The liberties provided by Detroit's afternoon
newspaper provide the evidence.
In the matter called the Lebanese Struggle, the Big Lie
played a role. PLO and Red Crescent propagandists con-
cocted schemes which gained a lot of space in the press,
charging Israel with mass murders.
When the Big Lie became apparent, the press gener-
ally was cautious. But the Detroit News, on its editorial
page, Jan. 21, permitted a hate-spreading letter-writer to
repeat the accusation that Israel, in its Lebanon operation,
was responsible for the murder of 20,000 and the homeless-
ness of 80,000.
Since that Forum of Shame on the Detroit News edito-
rial page, Oct. 9, 1982, it was to be expected that the respon-
sible newspaper would not abuse Freedom of the Press by
giving space n to the Big Lie.
From Oct. 9 to Jan. 21 there was plenty of time to be on
guard_against permitting lie-spreading. The letter-writer
in question has a right to object to U.S. aid to Israel and a
newspaper has a right to consider it a duty to print it. But
JERUSALEM -7- A movie
does it enjoy such rights when a nation is maligned and
truth is distorted? Such is the journalist's sacred duty, "In that is critical of relations
the Babel of Media, Check Out the Source."
between Jews and Arabs in
tr*,
Israel has been chosen by
the Israel Film Board as its
Puzzling Incredulity — About
nominee for .best foreign-
Prayer, Anti-Semitism and a
language picture in this
Councilwoman's Judgment
year's Academy Award
_ Life and history are often marked by puzzling experi- competition.
ences, and the incredible has a way of creeping in. And even
The film, "Hamsin,"
the incredulous often emerges as incredible, as in this item examines the circle of fear,
in the Detroit News of Jan. 21:
hatred and violence that
embroils both Jews and
`Prayer' at council
Arabs when the govern-
ment decides to take over
session draws blast
Arab
lands in a Galilee
Stuart M. Lockman of the Jewish Community
farming town. Although at
Council delivered the invocation — a plea for an
first Jews and Arabs work
end to anti-Semitism and deploring the suspected
well together in the fic-
arson of a West Bloomfield synagogue — before
tional story, the land issue
the Detroit City Council's Wednesday session and
drives them apart, turning
then left. Just as well. Council President Erma
the Arabs, into terrorists
Henderson, hosting some Arab dignitaries that
and the Jews into vigilantes
day, blasted his prayer. "When we asked for a
and killers.
prayer, we asked for a prayer, not a political dis-
sertation," grumbled Mrs. Henderson.
One of the film's Arab ac-

Academy Award Nomination
for Film Critical of Israel

.

tors refused to play a love
scene with an Israeli ac-
tress, fearing that the Arabs
of his village would con-
demn him for it. A stand-in
had to play the scene.
Daniel Wachsmann,
the director, made the
movie after spending
four months in the
Galilee, speaking with
both Arab and Jewish
citizens of Israel.
The film board's vote to
nominate "Hamsin" for the
Oscar was not unanimous.
The board, a 10-member
commission appointed by
the government, showed
some concern about the
image the movie projects.
The Israeli censor, who
passes judgment on films
and plays, has ruled "Ham-
sin" off limits for those
younger than 16.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan