Honest reporting vs. historical amnesia
Reporting on the Israeli -Palestinian conflict and related matters, such as the recent massacre of unarmed civilians by the Israeli IDF and celebrating Israel’s 70th anniversary, is a challenge, even for the most experienced journalist. Readers of The Guardian have been treated to two considerably different approaches to these events.
These opposing views are those of Guardian columnist Gwynne Dyer in his article, “Palestinian despair results in carnage” (May 18) and UPEI professor Henry Srebrnik’s “Israel celebrates historic 70th anniversary” (May 14). These journalistic efforts are a study in contrasts.
Dyer deals with three distinct, but related topics. In the first instance he deals extensively with the recent massacres in Gaza carried out by the Israeli IDF. Over 50 Palestinian civilians have been killed and another 3,500 - 5,000 others wounded and maimed. Second, he holds Hamas largely accountable for using these demonstrators as sacrificial lambs for political purposes. As Dyer put it, “It was a massacre ...but the Palestinian civilians ...were willing victims.” Third, and perhaps most significantly, Dyer places these bloody events in their historical context by referring to the Gaza strip as an “open-air prison”, which has been in a 10year lock-down, as a result of the embargo imposed by the Israelis on the inhabitants of Gaza. This has created a major humanitarian crisis but is a continuation of Israel’s draconian policies throughout the Occupied Territories.
Dyer’s article places recent events within their broader historical context and views them as being an integral part of Israel’s history.
The headline to Dyer’s article is highly revealing: “Palestinian despair results in carnage.” Thus, what Dyer is really saying is that the alienation, misery and despair currently being inflicted by the Israelis on the Palestinians should be understood within the context of French sociologist Georges Sorel’s theory of violence (1908). Pontecorvo’s classic film, The Battle of Algiers (1966), about the struggle against the French in Algeria in the 1950s, depicts this same process.
In short, ultimately, people living under colonial subjugation are forced to revolt or die; however, death is preferable to living in perpetual servitude. The Palestinian issue is not going away.
On the other hand, Henry Srebrnik’s op-ed article, “Israel celebrates historic 70th anniversary” conveniently ignores most of Israel’s ugly modern history and avoids mentioning Palestine, the Palestinians, the Palestinian Nakba (“Catstrophe”), and the current Israeli massacres in Gaza. But his piece is so biased and jaundiced that it hardly qualifies as objective reportage. It borders on Zionist propaganda that deliberately avoids any of the contentious, and unresolved, issues that plague Israeli today.
Srebrnik deliberately fails to mention Israel’s expansionist and racist policies in the occupied territories, its ethnic cleansing for new settlements, and numerous flagrant violations of international law and UN resolutions. Why? Israel is now a major exporter of military technology and hardware.
This is not mentioned. Nor is there one critical word about Israel’s far-right government’s repression of internal dissent, and its crack down on the civil liberties of Palestinian-Israelis, including administrative detention and collective punishment. Why? And why does he fail to mention that Israel is increasingly a theocratic state run by the ultra-Orthodox? Why these omissions?
All these issues are part of contemporary Israeli history, but have been airbrushed by Srebrnik to avoid clashing with Israel’s creation myth and its perception of itself and how it wants to be perceived by the world.
The truth is that the Palestinians are David and Israel is Goliath. After all, Israel has 150-200 nuclear warheads, and has the largest standing army in the middle-east.
But there is no mention of this Israeli history and reality. Perhaps Srebrnik is afraid of being ostracized by the P.E.I. Jewish community?
One would have expected more critical insight and serious analysis from a person who purports to be a serious academic. This is hardly balanced or objective scholarship or journalism. What Srebrnik deliberately presents is sanitized and decontextualized history.
This is like having white Afrikaners writing the history of South Africa. Srebrnik’s omissions are glaring; he suffers from historical amnesia. His article is nothing more than a self-congratulatory apologia that could have been produced by the Israeli tourist bureau.
He knows better. For shame.