As a citizen, voracious reader and former journalist, I count The Washington Post as one of the best daily newspapers in the United States, perhaps second best to The New York Times.
Even the Post makes mistakes, and on Thursday (August 12) a television reviewer slipped in some passages in a review of a television documentary on Gaza that are at best patronizing and disingenuous.
Philip Kennicott was reviewing an HBO documentary called "Death in Gaza", which went along fine until deep into his review. He trumpeted the view that the Israeli side as well is worth documenting; mis-characterized the crux of the conflict; and oversimplified Israel's defense buildup.
"Death in Gaza" recounts the horrors suffered by Arabs in Gaza. British filmmaker James Miller was killed by an Israeli bullet before he could begin work on the Israeli side.
All goes well in Kennicott's review until he writes: "The other half of this film one can only imagine. Israeli kids on buses, in pizza parlors and shopping malls and cafes, worried every day that some Palestinian will wander out of the Third World enclave on their borders and leave them dead or forever maimed - that fear is worth documenting too."
Huh? That's nice of him. After several paragraphs of bleeding for the Arabs, he acknowledges that Israeli fears are "worth documenting. Does this mean that Jews are human beings as well? Is it worth documenting Jewish deaths and injuries?
I give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean to patronize, but that's how it came across, as if to say: The Palestinian children are suffering horror after horror and the world must know about. Israeli kids also have problems out of this, so I guess the world should hear about that, too.
Kennicott continues, "But perhaps it's a good thing to have a movie that, despite its careful tone and balance, is ultimately devoted to Palestinian suffering. American news organizations have presented the conflict in this region primarily as one between democracy and terrorism, which is in part true, but is also a news filter with which Americans can quickly sympathize.
"But the conflict is more than that. It is a conflict between prosperity and poverty, and between two peoples who have, for a century at least, been fighting a bare-knuckled a battle over land that both claim, a conflict with immense shame on both sides."
Kennicott does describe how religious zealots exploit the poverty of their brethren, but how can Israel reduce such poverty when Arab leaders perpetuate it? There is plenty of poverty endured by Israeli Jews and some terrorists are actually middle-class or wealthy, unless that's what Kennicott meant.
He also writes, "It is a conflict that Israel now fights with tanks and jet fighters and billions of dollars of assistance from the United States. Which, regardless of who is right, death by death, battle by battle, and in the long run of history, makes it ever more our conflict."
All true, but there is a reason Israel has built up a strong military and depended upon America. Is Kennicott aware that Israel was invaded by Arab armies at its moment of birth? That it was then effectively invaded in two short wars in which it was saved by its military might? That Arab nations rebuffed opportunities to nurture cooperative relationships with America, while Israel and the United States mutually nurtured the relationship? Israel's very military strength serves as a deterrent to aggression.
Is Kennicott likewise aware that Egypt and other Arab states were armed by the former Soviet Union? That the current Arab terrorists are receiving arms and money from outside sources? That Yasser Arafat is suspected of diverting millions of dollars to military uses?
Legitimate questions may be raised about Israel's military establishment and its use, but some context would have provided genuine balance here.
Unfortunately, this is not the worst media representation of the conflict.
Even the Post makes mistakes, and on Thursday (August 12) a television reviewer slipped in some passages in a review of a television documentary on Gaza that are at best patronizing and disingenuous.
Philip Kennicott was reviewing an HBO documentary called "Death in Gaza", which went along fine until deep into his review. He trumpeted the view that the Israeli side as well is worth documenting; mis-characterized the crux of the conflict; and oversimplified Israel's defense buildup.
"Death in Gaza" recounts the horrors suffered by Arabs in Gaza. British filmmaker James Miller was killed by an Israeli bullet before he could begin work on the Israeli side.
All goes well in Kennicott's review until he writes: "The other half of this film one can only imagine. Israeli kids on buses, in pizza parlors and shopping malls and cafes, worried every day that some Palestinian will wander out of the Third World enclave on their borders and leave them dead or forever maimed - that fear is worth documenting too."
Huh? That's nice of him. After several paragraphs of bleeding for the Arabs, he acknowledges that Israeli fears are "worth documenting. Does this mean that Jews are human beings as well? Is it worth documenting Jewish deaths and injuries?
I give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean to patronize, but that's how it came across, as if to say: The Palestinian children are suffering horror after horror and the world must know about. Israeli kids also have problems out of this, so I guess the world should hear about that, too.
Kennicott continues, "But perhaps it's a good thing to have a movie that, despite its careful tone and balance, is ultimately devoted to Palestinian suffering. American news organizations have presented the conflict in this region primarily as one between democracy and terrorism, which is in part true, but is also a news filter with which Americans can quickly sympathize.
"But the conflict is more than that. It is a conflict between prosperity and poverty, and between two peoples who have, for a century at least, been fighting a bare-knuckled a battle over land that both claim, a conflict with immense shame on both sides."
Kennicott does describe how religious zealots exploit the poverty of their brethren, but how can Israel reduce such poverty when Arab leaders perpetuate it? There is plenty of poverty endured by Israeli Jews and some terrorists are actually middle-class or wealthy, unless that's what Kennicott meant.
He also writes, "It is a conflict that Israel now fights with tanks and jet fighters and billions of dollars of assistance from the United States. Which, regardless of who is right, death by death, battle by battle, and in the long run of history, makes it ever more our conflict."
All true, but there is a reason Israel has built up a strong military and depended upon America. Is Kennicott aware that Israel was invaded by Arab armies at its moment of birth? That it was then effectively invaded in two short wars in which it was saved by its military might? That Arab nations rebuffed opportunities to nurture cooperative relationships with America, while Israel and the United States mutually nurtured the relationship? Israel's very military strength serves as a deterrent to aggression.
Is Kennicott likewise aware that Egypt and other Arab states were armed by the former Soviet Union? That the current Arab terrorists are receiving arms and money from outside sources? That Yasser Arafat is suspected of diverting millions of dollars to military uses?
Legitimate questions may be raised about Israel's military establishment and its use, but some context would have provided genuine balance here.
Unfortunately, this is not the worst media representation of the conflict.