EDITORS FAIL TO EXPOSE OP-ED WRITERS WITH AN AXE TO GRIND

The news media has often been accused of slanting the news. Articles are often published which are strongly biased in one direction or another. Newspaper editors can give biased writers more credibility than they deserve by failing to identify them as authors with an axe to grind. A glaring example can be seen in an op-ed piece published in the Outlook section of the Houston Chronicle on June 13, 2008 and entitled, "Where's Healthy Debate On U.S. Policy Toward Israel?"

The op-ed piece was written by George Bisharat. This is how the Chronicle editors described the author at the end of his column: "Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East." Bisharat must have submitted it that way because other publishers have used exactly the same description. That description covers up the intent of the writer. It should have read, ".........and writes frequently on behalf of Palestinian causes." Or, "..........and writes frequently on behalf of the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel."

In the op-ed piece, Bisharat condemns America's political leaders for their support of Israel. And, in his column he out-and-out demonizes the Jewish state. Here is what he had to say about Israel:

"Yet long before the birth of Hamas in 1987, Israel had expelled Palestinians, confiscated their property and demolished their homes. It had tortured, assassinated, banished or imprisoned Palestinians without trial. Israel's violations of Palestinians' human rights have been extensively documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'Tselem (an Israeli human rights organization) and other respected institutions."

"Today, Israel is swallowing up the land base for a Palestinian state in violation of President Bush's Roadmap for Peace. More than 480,000 Israeli settlers live in segregated communities built on confiscated Palestinian lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, driving well-lit and paved roads from which Palestinians are barred. Prominent observers have likened this to apartheit." (The "prominent observes" Bisharat was referring to is ex-President Jimmy Carter.)

I am not going to dignify Bisharat's demonizing remarks with a response. Instead, I am going to give you some information that will let you know where he is coming from.

(1) Bisharat is an American of Palestinian descent. He has claimed that Israelis "stole" his "ancestral" home in Jerusalem.

(2) Bisharat is a strong advocate for the Palestinian "right of return." He knows full well that if the displaced Palestinians and their offspring, now numbering in the millions, were to return to Israel, the Jewish state would be destroyed. He is also an advocate of a "one-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a solution which would, of course, also destroy the Jewish state and which Lybia's Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi calls "Isratine."

(3) Bisharat is a leading advocate of boycotting Israel, declaring that a boycott "has become both necessary and justified." He has been joined in his call for a boycott of Israel by left-wing college and university professors, both here in America and in Europe.

So, you can see that Bisharat is hardly the benign law professor who writes on politics in the Mideast, pleading for an even handed American policy. From his many writings, he comes across as a hard-core activist on behalf of Palestinian causes.

Were the Chronicle editors, and editors of other publications, ignorant of Bisharat's activism or did they intentionally fool their readers with a misleading description of this anti-Israel activist? I do not believe the editors were ignorant of his pro-Palestinian positions in numerous writings and public appearances - I'm sure they browse the internet just like I do.

Had the Chronicle exposed Bisharat as an advocate for Palestinian causes, its readers might have figured out that his intent was far from a simple call for changing U.S. policy - Bisharat's real intent was to get Americans to buy into policies that would lead to the eventual destruction of the State of Israel.

My problem is not with Bisharat. He is entitled to his beliefs and has every right to express them. He also has the right to be an activist for the Palestinians. And, if he chooses to do so, he even has the right to shade the truth or offer misleading accounts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But shame on the Chronicle editors and all editors who fail to expose certain op-ed writers as authors with an axe to grind.


EDITOR'S NOTE (6-18-08): Professor Bisharat wrote to me that "no newspaper introduces writers by identifying their ethnicity and attempting to characterize their perspective." I agree, nor should they.

However, with respect to Bisharat, numerous writings of his have been published and he has made many public appearances on behalf of the Palestinians. Accordingly, it is rather misleading to describe him merely as writing "frequently on law and politics in the Middle East."

Since he is such a frequent and prominent spokesperson for Palestininan causes, it would be quite appropriate and should be incumbent for newspapers to describe Bisharat as "a professor of law at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on behalf of Palestinan causes." Or, as "a professor of law at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on behalf of the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel."