Book Description

American bias, with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict is often the subject of much discussion. If the media has a profound effect on public opinion, it is wo rthwhile to go back to the beginning of the conflict and ask the question, "What were we being told?" This thesis does exactly that, by studying The New York T imes' coverage of various events in the region of Palestine during the Mandate P eriod of 1917-1948, beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It follows with a look at coverage of eight pivotal events in the three decades that follow ed before the creation of the State of Israel: the May Day riots of 1921, the pu blication of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence in 1923, the Wailing Wall riots of 1929, the Arab General Strike of 1936, Zionist terrorism during the years 193 9-40, the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, and the Dayr Yassin massacre of 1948. This study shows that the stage was already being set during the years 1917-1948, before the creation of the State of Israel, for an American public a menable to the sway of propaganda that would follow. Indeed, from the report of the declaration, through the early years of the British Mandate in Palestine, T he New York Times neglected to report significant opposition to the Zionist agen da in the region, save that of Jews in America who feared the implications of th e creation of a national home for Jews in Palestine for those already establishe d in Western countries. Therefore, even though opposition was reported, the imp lications of the Zionist agenda on the local population already living in Palest ine were completely neglected. Not only were Arab grievances vastly under-repor ted, but Arab stories were never told, leading to a complete dehumanization of A rab people. As conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine became violent, Ara bs were consistently portrayed as the perpetrators, while Jews the victims, even as the tables turned and Zionist terrorism increased. Without any relatable hu man stories and with the consistent reporting of Arab violence without context, it is no wonder that Americans tended to lean to one side of the conflict. The neglect of key elements, the attention paid to others, and the use of strong and powerful wording, such as "return", "re-establishment", and "restore" led crede nce to the Zionist cause and ...