Guarding the guardians

Dan Drezner links a possible relative writing about going on an AIPAC-funded trip to Israel:

I've found myself picking over the question: how much has my opinion on Israel been moved?

It's not hard for me to acknowledge that I'm much more sympathetic to the predicament of Israel than I was before I saw the place so extensively with my own eyes. Traveling the countryside has given me a much clearer picture of its precarious state, with a mere 9 miles separating the West Bank from Tel Aviv - less than from Boston to Concord, and easy distance for rockets. You can certainly see why Israel wouldn't give up the West Bank until it has a partner it can trust. Its existence - and the lives of the people we met - are at risk.

Before the junket, I would have described myself as admiring of Israel but increasingly disturbed by its human rights violations.

Now I would say I find myself aligned with a growing group of former Israeli leftists, those who once believed a peaceful solution was imminent but after the debacle of Gaza have, with heavy hearts, lost their bearings and moved toward the center.

Is this a seismic shift? No. But I also have no way of knowing where I would stand had I paid for the trip with my own money, organized my own interviews, and gotten equal access to the Palestinian point of view.

Our guides, to their credit, showed us the separation wall at its most formidable and depressing. But what life is like on the other side of that wall - whether families are eating olives and grilled fish, what their hopes and dreams for the future are, whether they dream of a nonviolent resolution to the conflict - of this, I have no personal experience.

It's only anecdotal, but the one journalist I've known who went on an Israel junket that included both Israel and the Palestinian territories did not return with an improved opinion of Israel.

My personal feeling is that no journalist, or Congressman, should go on any junket sponsored by a group with as clear an agenda as AIPAC has. Information gathered in person, with vivid technicolor skies overhanging the ancient landscape, feels much realer than something you read in a stupid book. That means you tend to overweight it. A skilled gatekeeper can easily sway your opinions, even while putting a patina of balance over the thing with carefully chosen "negative" exhibits.

Comments

I agree re: sponsored trips, and were the Fatah government in the habit of (or in a position to) organize similar trips, I wouldn't trust them, either.

It's deeply depressing, by the way, that a man as bright as Dan Drezner can't seem to see the way in which the Israeli government is culpable in the "Gaza debacle."

Posted by Freddie | October 9, 2007 9:51 AM

There's no question you should factor in the source and make sure you've researched all sides of an issue, but "Information gathered in person, with vivid technicolor skies overhanging the ancient landscape, feels much realer than something you read in a stupid book"?

That's because it is. I've noticed that journalists (people in media in general actually) seem to have a peculair habit of uncritically accepting as fact almost anything they see in print. I wasn't aware that problem had metastasized to ignoring reality in favor of print too. Journalism is destroying your brain.

Posted by J | October 9, 2007 9:55 AM

The point is not that journalists should ignore reality; the point is that they should not accept "reality" filtered through the lens of a group with a clear agenda. One shouldn't write about Israel/Palestine without seeing either Israel, or the Palestinian territories; one shouldn't write about Russia after going on a carefully planned government-sponsored tour, etc. The Palestinian territories have some very vivid reality they could offer a journalist to counterweight the reality offered by AIPAC--which is why AIPAC makes sure journalists on their junkets don't go there.

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 9, 2007 9:59 AM

Speaking of AIPAC, MM, when are you going to 'cover' Mearsheimer and Walt's book?

This: "A skilled gatekeeper can easily sway your opinions, even while putting a patina of balance over the thing with carefully chosen "negative" exhibits." btw, is spot on.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | October 9, 2007 10:15 AM

Could there be another reason Israeli groups don't take Jews into the Palestinian territories?

Its very difficult for (Jewish) reporters to turn down invitations from a group affiliated with the Israeli government for obvious reasons. But isn't the standard model of journalistic endeavor to be aware of biases in their sources and filter out the truth rather than ignore the information they present?

Posted by Hector Calvo | October 9, 2007 11:45 AM

According to the author, she experienced no attempts to pressure her, she met with Israeli politicians and a top Palestinian negotiator, and she saw the "wall"....But more nefariously, she saw with her own eyes that Israel's waist is only 9 miles wide and thus highly vulnerable to rocket fire - which sadly educated her to the reality of Israel's security situation.

And from this she deduces a possible "soft sell" causing her to be "unbalanced" in Israel's favor. Well, it could be. But that would depend on where she stood on the issues beforehand, and how she arrived there. More likely, what she's really experiencing is just a small balancing out of the overall anti-Israel media slant which shaped her impressions prior to the journey. And that realization can certainly be jarring.

Posted by APS | October 9, 2007 12:26 PM

The obvious subtext here being the Bush Administration's sponsored "fact-finding" tours of Iraq for members of Congress of both parties...

Posted by Brittain33 | October 9, 2007 12:36 PM

B33,

If it were only that limited.

"In January 2006, the National Security Archive declassified the Defense Department's 2003 "Information Operations Roadmap." The heavily-redacted document admits, "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa." However, the roadmap asserts that propagandizing U.S. audiences is permissible, as long as that was not the government's intent."

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4481
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Covert_propaganda
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06305.pdf

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | October 9, 2007 1:30 PM

"The obvious subtext here being the Bush Administration's sponsored "fact-finding" tours of Iraq for members of Congress of both parties..."

Great point. Congressmen shouldn't go to Iraq unless they can get guided tours by both insurgents as well as the U.S. military. Otherwise, they're just being tools.

Posted by Fred | October 9, 2007 1:30 PM

ALL the news that comes from the Palestinian side is managed. Much comes directly from partisan/journalists (really that should be partisan/"journalists").

So by the standards discussed here, there simply is no real news coming from that side.

Posted by Larry | October 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are highly effective and professional at dealing with the media. In this, as in so much else, the conflict has reached a standoff.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 9, 2007 3:22 PM

I hate to jump in again, but the difference between Israel and the Palestinians in this issue is not comparable. The Palestinian movement does not have the same traditions of free speech and free press that Israel has. Rather, information they put out is just a branch of their political movement. Moreover, journalists who don't support them sympathetically enough may find themselves shut out, while Palestinians who stray far from the party line may find their lives in danger.

Yes, of course, Israel, like any nation, has its pr, but there is plenty of dissent and wide-ranging debate there and plenty of people, inside and outside the government, whom anyone can freely meet and openly discuss the issues with.

Ironically, as far as being effective at dealing with the media, many say the Palestinians are much better at it. The Palestinians are reportedly quite good at managing outside journalists (and also have many Palestinians themselves who report the news to the world). They have good, friendly relations with them--unless they start reporting negatively and get frozen out. (Luckily, many of the reporters are already sympathetic.) Meanwhile, Israelis are noted for being argumentative, testy and even downright unpleasant.

Posted by Larry | October 9, 2007 3:50 PM

"ALL the news that comes from the Palestinian side is managed. Much comes directly from partisan/journalists (really that should be partisan/"journalists")."

And you know this . . . how?

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 9, 2007 3:56 PM

I have read numerous accounts of fake stories coming from the Palestinians, ranging from people faking injuries, staged gun fights, wrecked vehicles presented as having been bombed, etc... I have not seen a similar pattern of deliberately faked news from the Israelis.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 9, 2007 4:01 PM

The first sentence I know from how the Palestinian movement is officially organized. This is a matter of public record.

As to the second sentence, we know from the histories and the statements of these journalists, the situation they're in, and even some polls.

Megan, you can see through the difference between the news in a free and non-free country, so I don't know why you can't see it here, no matter what your personal feelings.

Posted by Larry | October 9, 2007 4:04 PM

Megan,
If you want to learn more about reporting from the Palestinian Territories watch Pallywood

http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv

Posted by Dave | October 9, 2007 4:42 PM

Okay, I apologize for posting too much, but just one illustration of my claim. You don't need to talk about Palestinian stringers who see themselves as serving the Palestinian people, and whose work is used around the world. You don't even need to talk about spectacular frauds like the Jenin Massacre.

Rather, look at what happened last year when Western reporters Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were kidnapped in the Gaza strip, with the knowledge of Palestinian authorities.

They were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, and a video was released showing them dressed in Arab-style robes.

But even after that, as they were being freed, here's what they said:

Centanni: "I want to thank everybody. I am happy to be here. I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted. The world needs to know more about them. Don't be discouraged."

Wiig: "My biggest concern really is that as a result of what happened to us foreign journalists will be discouraged from coming to tell the story and that would be a great tragedy for the people of Palestine. You guys need us on the streets, and you need people to be aware of the story."

There are two possibilities here.

1) I'd guess they were required by their captors to say these things, which gives you a good idea of how Palestinians view the purpose of (independent) journalism and journalists.

2) These two kidnapped Fox News reporters actually believed what they said--that they care deeply about the Palestians, and see their job as journalists to help these people out, and teach the world to be more concerned about their plight.

Your choice, but either way, it doesn't paint a pretty picture about independent journalism and the Palestinians.

Posted by Larry | October 9, 2007 5:16 PM

Congressmen shouldn't go to Iraq unless they can get guided tours by both insurgents as well as the U.S. military.

Great idea! That would also mean they'd get a chance to actually leave the Green Zone, instead of jetting in to watch Powerpoint presentations explaining how we're winning.

I wonder if the insurgents would also distribute background sheets to their tour leaders identifying the congressmen as friends or opponents of George W. Bush, as they do in the Green Zone.

Posted by Brittain33 | October 9, 2007 5:44 PM

OK, so I've been on one of these junkets. It was paid for by an American-Israeli "friendship" group. I knew this. I went. I'm a journalist. Am I compromised?

Interesting question, actually, but here's my answer: I never would have gone at all, at least not any time soon, had this group not taken/sent me. I read everything I could cram in on the conflict before I went. I came back with a fire lit, of interest for/in/about the region in general and Israel and the Palestinians specifically. I think it made me far more knowledgeable. And I tried--hard--to take scepticism everywhere I went. I knew that the one Palestinian mayor we met, and the first Arab to become an Israeli ambassador--were hand-picked to show me a certain vision of Israel. I took it as just that: "This is the Israel Israelis want you to see." It wasn't real; it wasn't fake either, though. It was Israelis' Israel.

I hope one day to go back and see the Palestinians' Palestine; as some of the commenters have mentioned, though, the Palestinian junkets to Gaza and Ramallah are rather harder to come by. I'd go in a heartbeat, though, and get propagandized by the other side. I like to think they wouldn't sway me much more either; I'd just learn more, and come back as a better journalist.

Posted by Lane | October 10, 2007 4:52 PM

i am profoundly skeptical about any claims or statements coming from any political organization-
so- in my viw- everybody "spins" and no information can be relied upon- especially in a thorny ethnic
conflict such as the Israeli-Jewish/Arab one.

Posted by gaspar | October 10, 2007 7:35 PM

I disagree strongly with what you have written Megan. I strongly believe that your comments ignore the reality of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories and I also feel that you unfairly characterize AIPAC. While your piece is wrongheaded and misguided, it nevertheless brought several responses that counter your argument, which hopefully will open some minds.

Posted by Bill | October 11, 2007 1:34 AM

Who is more media savvy, Israel or the Palestinians?

My take is that the Israeli side is subtle and effective while the Palestinian side is playing the game badly when it realizes there is a game to be played at all.

Which side sponsors fancy junkets to sway American opinion? Israel. AIPAC's affiliated charity, the American Israel Educational Foundation, offers the trips to journalists, Congresspeople, and first responders (like members of the International Association of Fire Chiefs). And it isn't just AIPAC. There are other organizations doing similar things. JINSA is one, providing trips for generals and other members of our national security establishment. Then there's The Israel Project, which educates journalists.

The Palestinians have nothing remotely resembling this kind of networking going on.

Which side has effective, well-funded organizations like Second Draft and Honest Reporting whose purpose is to expose the lies of the other side? Israel. The other commenters have ammunition for a debate precisely because the Israeli side is better at this. Look at fancy documentaries like Pallywood for your example.

Is there a Palestinian counterpart group of equal effectiveness or prominence? No there isn't. What does that suggest?

There is media manipulation on the Israeli side as well. It is just harder to see, in part because it is executed better.

Is Israel's occupation and control of the West Bank a fiction invented by the brilliant Palestinian manipulators? If it was, then AIPAC would be rushing to send people into the West Bank to see the truth for themselves.

Gee, I wonder why they aren't doing that.

Posted by Jim | October 12, 2007 3:30 AM

"Is Israel's occupation and control of the West Bank a fiction invented by the brilliant Palestinian manipulators?"

In 1967, Israel fought a war with its Arab neighbors who wished to destroy it. They conquered land previously owned by Egypt and Jordan. While it's normal for land taken over in a war to go to the conqueror, Israel offered to return the land for peace. At first the Arabs refused any offers, but eventually Egypt made peace and got back its land.

Meanwhile, the rest of the land was now considered Palestinian territory, and instead of accepting land for peace, they maintained a belligerent stance. While they've rebuffed all offers for peace, the Palestinians have been brilliant in manipulating the world to accept that their plight is the fault of Israel.

Posted by Larry | October 12, 2007 2:05 PM

I have a different conception of events.

(1) Israel struck first in 1967. It claimed pre-emption, but that is a very open question. It can certainly be argued that the 1967 war was a war of aggression begun by Israel. In which case it would have as much right to conquered territory as Saddam Hussein had to Kuwaiti territory.

(2) Regardless of how the territory was won and whether that conquest was justified, winning a territory in war does not grant a carte blanche to oppress the civilians living in that territory and to deny them basic rights.

Israel has been in control of Gaza and the west Bank since 1967. It is the de-facto sovereign over the territory and the people living in it.

These civilians did not begin the 1967 war. Even if you buy Israel's line about pre-emption, it claimed to be pre-empting a move by Egypt and Syria, not an attack from the West Bank. No one argues that the civilians living in the West Bank were aggressors against Israel in 1967. But Israel has denied them civil rights for fifty years now.

Among other rights, they are denied rights to:
- Movement: Checkpoints everywhere. Roads for Israeli settlers only.
- Property: Land confiscation for settlements. A separation wall that cuts between farmers and their fields
- Representation: The government that de facto rules the Palestinians is the Israeli government. They have been ruled by it for 50 years and had no say in its rule in all that time

This all continues today, but most of it was happening during the 70s and 80s too, years before the first suicide bombing (in 1993 or 1994) provided a convenient (and retroactive?) rhetorical cover for it.

If Israel doesn't want to treat the Palestinians that it *rules* as citizens, then it has the option of no longer ruling them and giving up the territory. But Israel wants it both ways, it wants the territory while not granting the people living there any rights.

(3) Israel meanwhile uses negotiations as attempts to ratify its ongoing theft of land, and to enshrine via treaty a blueprint for a Palestinian state that resembles a Bantustan. If these offers are not immediately accepted, that rejection is then used as an excuse to steal more land.

(4) It is instructive to consider who wants the current situation to persist. Israel, which continues to entrench itself on the land, or the Palestinians, who live (and die, twice as often as Isrealis) at the whim of occupying soldiers?

The passage of time provides "facts on the ground" that favor Israel, while Palestinians continue being subjugated.

(5) Is the occupation real? The question is laughable unless you are prevented from seeing the occupation for yourself, which is why trips like the ones AIPAC sponsors are pure propaganda. These trips contribute to the forgetting of the occupation as an issue. That is, to the forgetting of an evil. Israel doesn't want you to think about what it is doing.

That should make you wonder.

Posted by Jim | October 12, 2007 4:10 PM

Believe it or not, Jim, we're all aware of the Palestinian propaganda, you don't have to repeat it for us. The trouble is, this is all that's being heard around the world, not the other way around.

#1 flies in the face of logic. Leaving aside all the evidence that must be ignored to make this claim, why then would Israel wish to negotiate immediately after the war (only to be completely rebuffed); why would Israel give back land (more land than it now has) as soon as peace is offered; and why didn't Israel go on to grab more land if that was its intent.

For #2, regardless of your questionable understanding of law and the situation on the ground, even the UN, which has spent more time worrying about the West Bank than almost all other human rights situations put together (that is not hyperbole) recognizes in its resolutions that Israel is allowed to protect itself and use basic security measures.

#3 I'm shocked anyone is still repeating this lie. Don't get me wrong, even if the lie were true, the Palestinians if they weren't dedicated to Israel's destruction should have taken it, but we know directly from testimony of people there that the Palestinians were offered contiguous land as large as the West Bank and mostly concentrated in the original area. Arafat either turned it down because he was a horrible leader but knew his PR had worked so well that he could count on people like Jim to support him no matter what, or, more likely, he strongly suspected that any serious accommodation with Israel would lead to his death.

#4 The Israelis have wanted this to be over for forty years, and certainly the steps they've taken in the past decade prove how seriously want it over now. The Palestinians, on the other hand, definitely have chosen to live as they do and have orchestrated it to be this way. At any time since 1967 (though, admittedly, not in 1964 when the PLO was formed and they had the land but still wanted to destroy Israel) they have been able to live their lives differently, and no matter what their choices were, they have always chosen the path that leads to the death of Jews and the hoped-for destructions of Isael. If that means living as refugees for another hundred years, they're proud of the sacrifice, and even use it as PR (and you've taken the bait, Jim). If that means more Palestinians die, that's okay. In fact, their biggest heroes are the ones who voluntarily kill themselves--it not only takes out Jewish civilians, but, for Palestinians sympathizers, it just racks up more "evidence" for their side when they talk bod count.

#5 Of course the occupation is real. It's about the nicest way you can treat a whole people commited to your genocide, and has little historic precedent in its mildness. It's every Jew's dearest wish that they'd been treated half as well by the Nazis--almost all of them would have survived, they could have had free rein to do what they wanted, and they would have even been offered their own country.

Posted by Larry | October 13, 2007 4:12 PM