RSS Feed MenuThis week, “Just Journalism” which defines itself as “an independent organization focused on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media” published a study on the London Review of Books [LRB] and their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
After reviewing the study’s findings, Tom Gross, a London-based writer, reacted by asking whether the London Review of Books [LRB] is the most anti-Israel publication in the world. Just Journalism obviously strongly supports Israel. Still, Just Journalism’s research methods are rigorous – and because of this, Gross’s question turns out to be quite valid.
The London Review of Books, founded in 1979, comes out fortnightly, publishes about 15 essays and a number of shorter articles about film. Unlike its main competitor, the Times Literary Supplement, some of its essays are not connected to specific books.
“The Israel Lobby” is the most infamous article on the Arab-Israeli conflict that has been published by the LRB. The essay, which was written by political scientists Stephen Walt and John Mershheimer, was originally commissioned and eventually rejected by the American magazine The Atlantic. The article postulates that US Middle East policy is dictated by individuals and organizations whose loyalties lie primarily with Israel. The authors called AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “a de facto agent of a foreign government” which “has a stranglehold on the US Congress, with the result that US policy toward Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.” In an article in the online magazine Slate, Christopher Hitchens, who could never be called a reflexive supporter of Israel, described the article “as partly misleading and partly creepy”. Noam Chomsky, a fierce critic of Israel, claimed that the article was “not very convincing”, and he criticized the authors of “highly selective use of evidence”. On the other hand, David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan strongly endorsed the work, proclaiming: “It is quite satisfying to see a body in a great American university essentially come out and validate every point I’ve been making.”
For its study of the London Review of Books, Chris Dyszynski, a “media analyst” with Just Journalism, reviewed all of its coverage of the Middle East conflict for the decade preceding May 2010. This was a tumultuous ten years. During this time: the Oslo “peace process” collapsed; the Arabs launched their second intifada (a terror war with the purpose of killing Israel civilians); Israel built a security fence in the West Bank and pulled out from Gaza; Arabs from Gaza fired thousands of records at Sderot as well as other southern Israeli towns; Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists kidnapped soldiers from Israel to hold them hostage in Lebanon and Gaza; and Israel fought a war within Lebanon in 2006, as long two wars with Hamas in Gaza in 2006 and 2009.
During the decade, the London Review of Books published 92 articles on the Middle East conflict. Dyszynski found that all but one of them completely reflected the outlook of Mary-Kay Wilmers, who has edited the LRB since 1992, and has said, “I am unambiguously hostile to Israel, because it is a mendacious state. They do things that are so immoral and counterproductive that I as a Jew, especially as a Jew, can’t justify that.”
According to the Just Journalism report, virtually all of the contributors to the LRB adhere to a similar narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict, parts of which would be hardly believable to objective observers.
For instance, between 2000 and 2005, the Palestinians launched what became known as the Second Intifada – a terrorist campaign consisting of 140 suicide bombings as well as other shootings and bombings. These led to the murder of about 1,000 Israelis. Military actions undertaken during the same time by Israel to stop these attacks led to 3,300 deaths of Palestinians. According to the report, of these, about 1,000 were participating in hostilities with Israelis at the time they were killed. The report asserts:
The most pervasive theme in the LRB’s coverage of the Second Intifada was the alleged brutality of Israel with its desire to ‘annihilate’ the Palestinians. On numerous occasions, LRB contributors suggested that the Israelis actually welcomed the suicide bombings since they provided Israel with a pretext for attacking the Palestinians. Several writers saw Israel’s military actions as evidence of the supposed racism of the Israelis, who do not care about Palestinian suffering.
It is likely that Israel could have only avoided the wrath of the LRB’s contributors by doing nothing to protect its civilians from Palestinian attack.
In August 2005, Israel “disengaged” from Gaza by withdrawing all its troops and forcibly expelling all Jewish settlers from the territory. This received a mildly positive response from the contributors to the London Review of Books. But the prevailing line taken by LRB’s contributors was that “disengagement” was a phony gesture. The disengagement was primarily portrayed as a strategy for consolidating Israeli control over the West Bank, and a cynical move that would effectively end any Palestinian hopes for their own state.
In the wake of the “disengagement’, Hamas started firing rockets at Sderot and other towns in southern Israel. Some LRB contributors actually defended these attacks. One, Karim Makdisi, actually portrayed them as a form of protest against globalization. “Hezbollah’s response must be seen as part of a political struggle against the uneven distribution of rewards in the US-dominated world order.” Naturally, the LRB’s writers exhibited no such sympathies for the Israelis. When Israel conducted a war in Gaza, again to defend its own citizens, Yitzchak Laor — who has written the most LRB articles on the Middle East — claimed that Israelis believe they are “the only ones that count in the Middle East [and] they are the only ones that deserve to live there”. Israelis “cannot recognize [Arabs] as human beings, and they think of them much as [they] do of chickens and cats.” Laor’s comments reflect the views of all other LRB contributors to Israel’s incursion into Gaza.
Just Journalism prepared its report to try and stop the public financing that the LRB receives through the London Arts Council. It states that the Council states that its aim is to “get great art to everyone, by championing, developing, and investing in artistic projects that enrich people’s lives.” The Just Journalism report comments, “It is unclear to what extent people’s lives are enriched by a magazine whose most frequent contributor on the Israel-Palestine conflict over the past decade wrote that the State of Israel wishes to inculcate in its solders ‘a neo-Nazi ideology wrapped in Judaism.’” Good point. Obviously, by funding the London Review of Books, the government is financing an odious endeavor. But who decides what political writing should or should not be fund? Shouldn’t government get out of the business of subsidizing any form of journalism?
The big problem with the London Review of Books is not with its public subsidy, but with its influence. Tom Gross cites statistics the shows that the LRB’s readers are highly-educated and opinionated. Furthermore, while the LRB may be shrill, its stance on Israel is really not much different than that of many major media outlets. More than anything, the vehemence of its vilification of Israel is only a reflection of the mainstream media’s hostility toward the Jewish State. Is the LRB the most anti-Israel publication in the world? Maybe. But there are serious contenders for that dubious honor. That should worry all of Israel’s true friends.
busboy33 // Nov 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I keep asking this, and I can’t seem to get an answer, but I’ll try again:
Why am I supposed to care?
Clearly, I’m supposed to be deeply concerned about Israel. Why? Yes, they are an ally. So is Ireland. So is France. So is Japan. So are dozens upon dozens of other nations. Somebody says something bad about Ireland, nobody cares. Somebody says something bad about Israel, and FrumForum goes into a panic.
Please, somebody, anybody . . . what makes Isreal so damn important?
midcon // Nov 22, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Martin,
Once again you’ve put on your Chicken Little costume (long after Halloween I might add). And I will simply ask you can “an independent organization focused on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media” actually exist or is that an oxymoron? Still, to echo busboy – why should I or anyone else in America care? I mean really? There are a plethora of “media” sources that daily demonstrate anti-American bias. It kind of goes with the territory that a country like America is such a target of media bias. And as the heavy hitter in the Middle-East, Israel is in the same boat. Maybe Israel (and you) should try a costume with thicker skin.
pnumi2 // Nov 22, 2010 at 5:26 pm
busboy33
A couple of decades ago, young Jews had to be pro-Israel or their mothers would threaten to kill themselves.
Todays Jews are pro-Israel because they don’t want to be in a coffee shop and have Bill Kristol walk by their table and spit in their scrambled eggs.
pampl // Nov 22, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Israel is in a precarious position that Japan, Britain et al are not. That’s why we should be concerned about anti-Israel fears being stoked. That’s not to say we should be unconcerned about those other countries, though; I don’t seem to recall anyone making the “why should we care” argument during stories about the Iranian govt. blaming its problems on secret British plots, however.
pnumi2 // Nov 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm
busboy33
Here’s a more serious response:
“Though Spinoza was active in the Dutch Jewish community and extremely well-versed in Jewish texts, some claim that his controversial ideas eventually led community leaders to issue a cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of excommunication) against him, effectively dismissing him from that Jewish society at age 23, though most of his friends were Marranos.”
While being an outcast on the Upper West Side today isn’t the same as it was in 17th century Amsterdam, apparently it does give pause to some American Jews about critizing the seat of their ancient seed.
Many non-Jewish supporters of Israel are rightly concerned about a nuclear explosion by Iran near the Tappen Zee bridge and the additional time that would cause to commute to work. That and their reluctance to lose the good will of the influential Jews they know, whether in help buying a house or a learning good price to exit gold.
busboy33 // Nov 22, 2010 at 10:07 pm
@pnumi2:
re: ex-communication
Surely there is a difference between actively speaking ill about Israel and hysterically defending it?
@pampl:
Agreed they are in a (more) precarious position than other allies . . . but just to play Devil’s Advocate Israel is hardly a wilting daisy. They certainly seem quite capable of handling their own buisness without big brother rushing in to protect their tender feelings.
Quite honestly, between Iran attacking Israel and North Korea attacking South Korea, I think South Korea is for more endangered. And we’re not talking about a credible threat against the Nation here . . . someone apparently/allegedly doesn’t like Israel at the London Review. This is a threat?
Let me put it this way — has FrumForum EVER sided against Israel on any question? The occupation? A Palestenian State? The FLotilla? Spying on America? Hiding their nukes? Anything at all? Heck, I love America far more than I love Israel, and I cxan’t say that America has always acted completely above reproach in everything it does. I’d dearly like to say that, but it’s just not true. Israel is the Country Without Sin, ort at least that’s the way it looks to me.
And that’s fine . . . it just means I have to unfortunately ignore any comments from Frum and his interns because I already know what its going to say. Like the PalinHeads, there is only one answer, and I’ve already heard it. Over and over and over. Isreal did nothing wrong, has done nothing wrong, will do nothing wrong, and anything it does that is wrong is absolutely not their fault.
I mean, do we worry that Israel can’t defend herself? Man for man, they have a better military than we do. They routinely kick the a$$ of anybody that so much as gives them a dirty look. They are smart, tough, and looking out for themselves (sometimes at the expense of our interests). Who cares that the London Review is biased against them? The Hertiage Foundation is biased against British Healthcare, and yet somehow the world keeps turning.
Elvis Elvisberg // Nov 23, 2010 at 11:27 am
Who cares that the London Review is biased against them?
Some people have a deep psychological attraction to the idea of “Israel as underdog.” Because no rational look at the political and military situation in the Middle East bears out this psychological compulsion, irrelevant European magazines must be scrutinized for their perfidious political incorrectness.
pnumi2 // Nov 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm
busboy33
Hey, I’m sorry for the failed attempt at a humorous answer to your question. The real answer, in my mind, is accusative of Israel and her vocal supporters abroad.
As a Jew myself, I have nothing to prove or nothing to gain by challenging the writers and organizations here, i.e., the ADL, who support this or any other government Israel elects. I have no interest in putting down my ideas about the Jewish State and posting them here or anywhere else.
From what I read lately Israel’s economy is finally booming, their central bank is adjusting interest rates or leaving them alone, their soldiers in the IDF are being accused of things they were never accused of before, tourism is at an all time peak, and Jewish/Israeli participation in victimhood continues unrestrained.
Here are a couple of more questions to ask about Israel: the true story of USS Liberty. and my current favorite; a twist on the Mordechai Vanunu episode. The nuclear worker at Diamona (sp) who blew the whistle on Israel’s nuclear bomb program. His whistle blowing, kidnapping and ‘imprisonment’ and subsequent life was nothing more than Israel’s way of getting the number 200 bombs into the International Defense Consciousness.
And with their missile caring submarines, the Jewish State now is a threat a threat to China, Russia and Germany, who built the submarines for them.
Slide // Nov 23, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Well said busboy33. This constant depicting of Israel as the perpetual victim is completely predictable here on FF and quite nauseating.
busboy33 // Nov 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@pnumi2:
Clearly, my good nature and humor detector was on the fritz. Sorry about that.
I guess this topic irks me because I see “news as a form of propaganda”, and that pisses me off regardless of who the actors and players are.
However, after writing about the Koreas then waking up to see the news about the shelling, I’m going to go write “busboy33 finds a bag of money” a few hundred times. Hopefully I’ll stop being such a grump when I get back.
Y’know, a bag of cash would hurt that . . .
Slide // Nov 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm
ahhhh.. you wrote the Korean thing before the Korean thing happened? Quite impressive. Any idea who is going to win the fifth race at Belmont today?
busboy33 // Nov 23, 2010 at 5:33 pm
@Slide:
What, and muck up the odds? The fix doesn’t work if the bookies know about it!
pnumi2 // Nov 23, 2010 at 6:14 pm
busboy33
Not at all. Sometimes my humor is taken for simple ignorance.
You are supposed to care if over the years you have developed a deep seated feeling about Israel and if its propaganda, both foreign and domestic, have steered you in that direction.
If you don’t think about Israel and its policies, that’s alright, too. What is unacceptable is being critical of Israel’s behavior toward the Arabs on the land it occupies and caring about them as human beings.
I have been ashamed of Israel since its incursion into Lebanon in the early eighties. But in this country challanging Israel is the equivalent of pissing into gale force winds.
Whatever they are doing, they are doing in their Creator’s name, and when they are eventually undone, it will be by that same Creator.
Why did this happen to Israel? Nietzsche said it best:
“Be careful when you fight a monster, lest ye become a monster yourself.”
or
“If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.”
If ever there was a fight to avoid, bringing Israel to its senses is it. Unless the Archangel Michael appears to you with wings unfurled and a sword too dazzling to look at, you’re better off opening another beer and watching Bristol Palin on ‘Dancing with the Stars.’