Dehumanizing the Palestinians

by Polly Mann, WAMM

Plato said, "The life which is unexamined is not worth living." I'm not sure that's totally true, but examination is required for both self-understanding and an understanding of the world in which one lives. So, to examine the recent violence in Israel/Palestine, I have to begin with myself. My views of Palestinians, and Arabs in general, were shaped at an early age by Saturday afternoon movies. The story lines mostly revolved around conflicts between savage Native Americans and fearless, self-respecting cowboys. In a few, however, the heroes were stalwart, hard-pressed British or French troops battling evil-looking, mustachioed Arabs in some far eastern land.

Moviemakers, consciously or unconsciously, dehumanized Native Americans and Arabs. Perhaps this is why I tend to draw parallels between the struggles of Native Americans and Arab Palestinians for justice. Both were living peacefully on land where their ancestors had lived. Both were taken over by occupying forces. Both now live as virtual aliens in their own countries. (Granted that Jews were living in Israel and had a history of having lived there for centuries. Palestinians, however, constituted the vast majority of the population prior to World War II.)

Another parallel is that no proposals for ameliorating the lives of Palestinians or Native Americans suggest that Israel or the United States be returned to the people from whom they were taken. In neither case has there been sufficient progress to guarantee full equality to either people. While Israel claims to be a democracy, full rights of citizenship are not accorded Palestinians. Technically, Native Americans are today accorded full citizenship. However, the history of their relationship to the U.S. government reveals mistreatment of their children, forced and cruel resettlement of nations, an abrogation of treaty rights, and continued bias against them.

One common factor which affects both peoples is the abiding prejudice of so many Americans against anybody "different." I know about prejudice. I was raised in the South where I never addressed a black person as "Mr." or "Mrs." They were called by their first names. They were considered an inferior species, less human than "whites." It was one way, among hundreds, of dehumanizing.

In order to oppress people, to deny them their rights, and sometimes to kill them, it is necessary to dehumanize them. The military knows this full well. Early in World War II, they discovered that U.S. troops were not aiming at the "enemy." The soldiers did not want to kill another human being, including the German and Japanese. The military then instituted programs teaching the troops to dehumanize and eventually to hate "the enemy."

Media coverage of the recent violence in Palestine/Israel convinces me that it is not presenting an accurate picture of the situation there. It is not so much that what is being presented is inaccurate. Rather, it is that the story is being told from the Israeli perspective. I cannot even make the case that it is deliberate. Unless the people that present the news, from editors to reporters, have analyzed themselves and their attitudes, how can they analyze their copy?

As I write this article, the latest figure of reported deaths is 135, eight of them Israeli. The corporate media reports many Palestinian deaths as a result of their being caught in crossfire. This is misleading, if not patently false. Few Palestinians have weapons and the most commonly used missiles are rocks. The Israelis are equipped and use the most modern of weaponry, including bombs dropped from U.S.-supplied helicopters.

In a recent Star Tribune article, Israel's police minister is quoted as saying that Palestinians bring their children to the front of demonstrations to throw rocks and firebombs and live fire. No Palestinian is interviewed to reply to that charge.

In a televised interview of an Israeli settler family, it was back to the "old Wild West," with a beleaguered husband and wife relating their fears. No explanation was given as to how long or where this couple lived amid Palestinians, where Israelis are proscribed from living and where their presence is an affront.

In the Star Tribune appeared a fairly in-depth sympathetic article about the life of one of the Israeli soldiers killed in Ramallah by Palestinians. There have been very few sympathetic stories about the Palestinians killed by Israeli firepower.

The U.S. corporate media does not, on the whole, present material which would enable readers to deepen their understanding of the injustices endured daily by the Palestinians. The October 5, 2000 Guardian Weekly of London reported large numbers of head and upper-chest wounds, charging that Israeli soldiers are firing to exact maximum damage. Even Israeli television showed the police beating two unarmed women, breaking the shoulder of one with a rifle butt.

The American public heard little but generalities about the Camp David peace talks. President Clinton claimed on Israeli television that Arafat was responsible for their failure. And yet according to Uri Avnery, an Israeli member of the Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak was the intransigent one: "For ten days, 24 hours a day, Israel's Barak stayed within a hundred yards from Yasir Arafat without visiting him or inviting him in, even for a cup of coffee."

Avnery writes that Barak's claim that Yasir Arafat would not negotiate was helped along by President Clinton's desire to help his wife in her senatorial campaign. As if to underscore that, Hillary Clinton declared on television that the current uprising could be laid at the feet of Arafat.

It is high time to confront the biases of the U.S. corporate media and the ways in which these biases undermine justice and peace throughout the world.