New media line? media?

A five-column article, titled “Brave keepers of the peace, or antagonists?”, published in Monday’s Washington Post has raised curiosity whether these the American media are now willing to consider new approaches to covering the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians when heretofore they unhesitatingly leaned towards Israel, which emerged in 1948 in the region known as Palestine, a British mandate.

In fairness, the news article written by the paper’s Jerusalem-based correspondent Ruth Eglash was virtually even handed, focusing equally on the two sides of the decades-long conflict, Israelis and Palestinians — a step superior to earlier reporting.

However, there are still a few flaws that foreign correspondent and readers ought to be aware of.

For example, one side is often described by its faith — Jewish — while the other is identified by race — Arabs, who could be either Muslims or Christians.

This Post correspondent said her focus was on a “flashpoint” in the Israeli “French Hill neighbourhood” as “between the city’s Jewish and Arab populations”.

She failed to stress whether the area was in the Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem or Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem.

Her report said: “That is why, on a dirt hilltop, just beyond the car wash and gas pumps, the Israeli border police have set up a permanent lookout post,” claiming that this was “an attempt, they say, to keep the peace”.

She continued: “From the Israeli settlement of French Hill, the security forces have a bird’s-eye view into one of  East Jerusalem’s most volatile Arab neighbourhoods, Issawiya. It is a place of angry protests against Israel, it has produced more than a handful of militants.”

Assisting the Israeli police and the army in law enforcement and counterterrorism operations, the units often face sharp criticism for being too harsh or heavy-handed with the Palestinians, she said.

At least 180 Palestinians — “more than half of them carrying out attacks against Israelis” — have been killed since the beginning of October, reported Eglash, “the rest were shot dead during clashes with Israeli military or border-police units”.

Her praiseworthy coverage was noticeable for interviewing Palestinians, especially Diana Bhutto, a prominent Palestinian lawyer and commentator who underlined that the so-called Israeli border police have “become a symbol of the occupation”.

She said: “It is a misnomer to call them border police; they are not protecting any border, but they are present in the heart of occupied Palestinian territory and often use the worst tactics to go after Palestinians.”

The other side, whether in the media or the American establishment usually remains absent. The pro-Israel Centre for Middle East Peace, run by S. Daniel Abraham, had a full-page ad in The New York Times, which maintained that “Israel’s freedom is best served by the creation of a Palestinian state”.

It continued, “the only way Israel can remain Jewish, a democratic state is to fully separate from the Palestinian territories. There is no other way, otherwise the population from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River will soon be only 49 per cent Jewish. And over time, the numbers only get worse”.

The ad strangely argued that the idea of a “demilitarised” Palestinian state “is not a gift to the Palestinians; rather it ensures that “Israel will still be a secure, democratic, Jewish state”.

The Palestinians, however, have not subscribed to this proposal, since Israel has yet to agree to start direct negotiations.

During the ongoing messy American presidential elections, 32 US senators endorsed a letter urging President Barack Obama to quickly reach an agreement on a new 2018 defence aid package for Israel worth about $40 billion for the next 10 years.

Senator Bernie Sanders, the Jewish presidential candidate who has been critical of Israeli policies, was not among the 32 Democratic senators who endorsed the letter.

According to Reuters, the letter said: “In light of Israel’s dramatically rising defence challenges, we stand ready to support a substantially enhanced new long-term agreement to help provide Israel the resources it requires to defend itself and preserve its qualitative military edge.”

Whether Obama will go along with the senators is uncertain, primarily because his tense relationship with the aggravating Israeli prime minister remains unclear.

The writer is a Washington-based columnist.