Israel’s election generates no coverage, interest in US
March 23 is election day in Israel. That date falls right on the eve of Passover. Everyone reading this column knows that. What you do not know, and what may surprise you, is that hardly anybody in the United States knows about this Israeli election. Even people who diligently follow Israeli news don’t know when the election will take place. In a recent poll among my friends – all of whom are fervent Israel lovers, not one of them had the correct date. Not one. They’ve all been to Israel too many times to count, some have homes, some have children in Israel. Some have both. But none of them had the correct date.
There has been almost no coverage of the upcoming Israeli election in American media. In other words, the election has generated no interest.
There are, of course, reasons for the lackluster coverage. Boredom probably tops the list. Boredom coupled with oversaturation – another Israeli election and then another and then another and now this one.
But the most crucial reason this Israeli election has gone almost completely uncovered in US media is because Israel and the Middle East are no longer high on the general news agenda. And the reason Israel and the Middle East are no longer high on the news agenda is because they are not very high on the agenda of the new Biden administration.
Actually, I’m being polite. It is no longer high on the agenda – a position it occupied for decades and especially the last four years. Whatever the new US administration is doing vis a vis Israel is being done quietly and behind closed doors. Most importantly, President Joe Biden and his foreign policy team do not want to be seen putting their proverbial finger on the scale and showing support for Benjamin Netanyahu. Or, for that matter, for any candidate slated to run in Israel’s election.
This is good news. It’s great news. Believe me when I say that for Israel, for all of Israel, this is a diplomatic dream come true.
Israel – for the time being – is no longer under the microscope of American media. Not Israeli policies and not Israeli politicians.
When the media in the United States does cover Israel, more often than not it is the foibles of the Jewish State on which they focus. Not the heroics. Not the good news – the bad news. As if that were not enough, when American media does cover Israeli news, they often take a situation and dramatize it.
A recent and obvious example that played well in the press is the story about Israel not vaccinating Israeli Arabs. It even made its way into the, now infamous,
news segment of Saturday Night Live. The story teeters on the brink of being a modern-day blood libel. A gross exaggeration of the situation, a clear misunderstanding of the facts – a story that captured the attention of America’s media honchos.
When US media did cover previous elections in Israel, it showed a clear misunderstanding of Israel and Israeli democracy. The US media does not understand the multi-party parliamentary system. They do not understand what a parliamentary democracy is, how it is formed and how it runs. They tend to focus on candidates rather than parties because that is, after all, the American way. And so, it is easier for Americans to grasp, even if clearly inaccurate. Except for extremist parties. Those are newsworthy and they include every party right of Center and all religious parties.
US MEDIA loves to cover extremes. And that’s because news in the United States is structured to be entertaining. Extremists will always lead over conventional, i.e., boring politics.
The cliché in US media coverage is, “if it bleeds it leads.” In this context, blood means extremism. As the calendar moves closer to the 23rd and when they can no longer avoid the fact of the election, there will be US media coverage. And coverage of the election in Israel will, undoubtedly, mention the Netanyahu
court cases. Then the media will cover the possibility of a right of center coalition. The Center-Right will be labeled “right-wing” or “extremist” or “religious rightwing extremist.” Israel cannot win when it comes to US media coverage.
Being perceived as boring is not the worst thing to happen to Israel. Israel is not alone. There is also an upcoming presidential election in Iran. And that election, too, has received scant coverage by US media.
I would argue that the Iranian election, scheduled for June 18, is much more important for the United States than the Israeli election. No major change in US/Israel relations will occur as a result of this Israeli election. There will be no step forward and no step backward. The stakes are higher with Iran. The candidates for that election are just starting to emerge, but it is already clear that the result of the election will have a huge impact on how Iran and the United States interact.
I’ll tell you a little secret. Unfortunately, if the names of the candidates – both in Israel and in Iran – were easier for Americans to pronounce, there would be more coverage. But for now, Israel has Joe Biden to thank for keeping them under the US news radar. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The writer is a columnist and a social and political commentator.
An objective observer cannot deny the profound negative impact of the division between the five international powers that signed the nuclear agreement with Iran. This division plays a major role in encouraging the mullahs to continue to violate their obligations under this deal.
Broadly speaking, on one side are China and Russia and on the other side are the rest of the international powers party to the agreement, the US, Germany, UK and France. The divergence has taken on another twist with a third rift between Washington and its European allies over the tactics to overcome the shortcomings of the nuclear agreement.
No one is asking China and Russia to change their position on nuclear issues or to abandon their strategic relationship with Iran’s mullahs. But all this should not fly in the face of regional and international security concerns.
The two powers’ commitments to Tehran should not impinge on the requirements of their strategic relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Moscow and Beijing need to take into account the concerns of Iran’s neighbors about its hegemonic regional role, as well as its destabilizing presence in many Arab countries detrimental to regional security.
In addition, Iran’s role in undermining the security of some GCC countries needs to be addressed. This includes backing and bankrolling Houthi militias that attack Saudi cities and civilians.
We know that Iran’s relations with China and Russia have a deep strategic dimension. Iran’s mullahs can serve the two countries’ objectives in the global balance of power. Iran may be used as a cat’s-paw. It competes with the current world order’s superpower and helps trim its influence and global role in favor of strategic adversaries.
But it is clear that the mullahs are going beyond this complex strategic game. They use the division of international positions on the nuclear issue to avoid censure, attain their nuclear objectives, consolidate their regional influence and then exchange this influence for other gains at the expense of the security, stability and interests of
other nations in the region.
I doubt whether the Iranian mullahs’ acquisition of nuclear weapons is in the interest of Russia or China. At the same time, I don’t believe that the mullahs share the same principles of rights enshrined in international law, especially those of sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of other states.
The Iranian regime sets the world’s most striking example of violations and abuses of these rights. How can it then receive the support of international powers that espouse slogans in defense of these principles?
It is in no way normal for a serious security crisis to become a subject of intransigence and political conflict between the major powers. All the more so if the other side, the Iranian mullahs, is gifted at using international differences of opinion to continue violating its obligations under the nuclear agreements, and even talks about wanting to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities.
Another important detail that &
deserves reflection: It is the responsibility of all international powers to ensure global security, including by making sure that all states comply with their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation conventions. Five members of the UN Security Council have committed to implement the objectives of the UNSC and assume its responsibilities.
So it’s not just the US or any other single country. It is a responsibility shared by the five member states, plus Germany, signatories of the nuclear agreement with Iran within the P5+1 group. While some may find disagreement among the major powers on the effectiveness of the nuclear deal, doubts about its effectiveness are not limited to the West.
It should not be forgotten here that neighboring countries are the parties most exposed and vulnerable to the shortcomings of the nuclear deal. They are the most aware of the seriousness, flaws and shortcomings of this agreement and how it endangers the security of the Middle East, as it has given an
indecent and direct green light to the Iranian mullahs to strategically expand and set up sectarian factions that destabilize many Arab and Middle Eastern countries.
The unity of international powers in the face of the Iranian mullahs’ ambitions must go beyond their tactical differences. This is what US President Joe Biden’s administration did when it announced its openness to six-party negotiations (members of the international group that signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 with Iran) on the nuclear deal.
The mullahs should heed a united voice of the major powers concerned. International law and its principles are indivisible. Maintaining global security will only be possible after filling the gaps in international positions before thinking of correcting the shortcomings of a deal signed by the international powers themselves about five years ago.
The author is a United Arab Emirates-based political analyst and former UAE Federal National Council candidate.