The New York Times and the Helpless Arab

DECONSTRUCTION:
A recent New York Times book review sums up the entirety of the attitude the newspaper (and the cultural establishment it represents) takes towards the Israel-Arab conflict. “They Planted Hatred In Our Hearts,” (December 24, 2009) reads the title of the review by Patrick Cockburn. The image beneath it of a strip from a graphic artist's rendering of two alleged killings of Palestinians by Israel – that putatively occurred more than 50 years ago – is of an assortment of Arab men, some in kaffiyehs, some bareheaded, with terror on their faces and hands clasped in desperate appeal.

After such a compelling graphic introduction and headline, there is virtually no need for an actual review or presentation of (what the Times would consider) fact. The headline and photo say it all: the unseen Israeli war machine is an unrelenting oppressor. Sadly, this is not a new trope for The New York Times. But, maybe more importantly, the Times is also trumpeting the premise that Arabs – all Arabs, the Arab world – are victims.

By proclaiming and doggedly maintaining that Arabs are helpless victims, The New York Times can derive the conclusion that the hatred “planted” into the Arab heart was put there by Israel -- then tilled, water and nurtured by Israel. The notion that the hatred was “planted” by two events occurring half a century ago – even if we are to blindly assume the Palestinian version of those events as completely true, as Cockburn does in his article – eliminates any possibility that the political string-pulling of Arab despots, the lunatic ravings of Islamist clerics, or the greed and corruption of billionaire Palestinian “leaders” might have something to do with that hatred. No, The New York Times insists, it has nothing to do with the haters themselves; it makes the hate okay.

For The New York Times, the Arab is victim to the West, and the West is, in this context, Israel. It implies that the oil rich sheikh is as much a victim as the Saudi ruler who is as much a victim as the pillar of Arab victimhood: the Palestinian. This belief in a shared Arab victimhood is the emotional underpinning of what has emerged in international relations theory as the concept of “linkage.” But far more than just placing the blame for any and all wrongs squarely on Israeli shoulders, this bizarre food chain of victimhood also absolves Palestinians of all responsibility, Arabs states of all culpability, and Israel of any notion of innocence and, in the final summation, humanity.

The New York Times is in love with the helpless Arab, to the point of creating him in the image it desires (as all lovers do their objects of love). The sad and truly destructive fact  is that so many New York Times readers are eager for this perspective, wanting to morally involve themselves in a fantastical fight between good and evil, even as they reject the validity of that division when it comes to questions not concerning Israel and the Arabs.

The book review points out this passion and confirms it well: As a couple letters to the editor of The New York Times point ouCockburn makes no mention of Palestinian terror attacks, the endless barrage of rockets on Israel, or the numerous offers of statehood from Israel to the Palestinians. It takes a blotting out of history to make a powerful and dynamic group like the Arabs into a pathetic, helpless thing that the New York Times so passionately loves.