Hatred in the West Bank

"ISRAELI Army Pushes Town to Hatred in West Bank"--so ran a headline in The New York Times last week, another in the list of odd and false commentaries about Arab-Israeli politics in the American press. The recent conflicts in the West Bank have intensified and publicized the animosity on both sides. But whatever hatred exists in the West Bank on the part of Palestinians has not been caused by the Israeli army, has not appeared only in recent months, and would not go away should the Israeli army withdraw from its territories.

In 1947, a U.N. Declaration divided the land that is now Israel into two parts, one Israeli and the other Palestinian. In an attempt to stop the establishment of even a small Israeli state, the Palestinians, with the help of other Arab nations, initiated the war that eventually lost the Palestinians their land. With their subsequent incorporation into neighboring countries, the Palestinians became stateless and rightless.

The deaths of thousands of Palestinians at the hands of the Jordanians in a three-day period in 1970 was hardly documented in the same American newspapers that now condemn the deaths of dozens. But the guerilla war in Jordan must have formed a large part of Palestinian political consciousness, bitterness and, yes, "hatred."

The Israelis, now in control of the West Bank, may not have behaved with their customary prudence and respect for human rights. But to hold the Israeli army completely responsible for Palestinian disenfranchisement does an enormous disservice not only to the Israelis, but to the Palestinians, who stand little chance of international support if Israel does relinquish control.

Surely Jordan, Egypt and Syria, which have severely restricted the rights of their Palestinian residents since 1948, would not be more tolerant neighbors than Israel, which offers citizenship to the Palestinians within Israel proper.

NEVER do we read a headline like "PLO Pushes Israelis to Hatred," although the Palestinian Liberation Organization is responsible for more violence in Israel than the Israeli army. Never do we read a headline like "Ayatollah Khomeini Instills Muslim World with Hatred," even in a time of a highly publicized death threat. Death threats are something the state of Israel has lived with since its inception; the one political issue that has not divided the Arab nations until recently is the mandate to destroy Israel.

An argument might be made that American journalists are more willing to attack Israel and its army out of concern over the use of U.S. dollars in the alleged violation of human rights. Where, then, are headlines like "Salvadorean Army Pushes Town to Hatred," or, for that matter, "Guatemalan Army Eliminates Entire Town"?

Most readers of The New York Times would be shocked to see any of these hypothetical headlines. Yet there is nothing surprising in this kind of melodrama about Israel. Seeing "Israeli Army Pushes Town to Hatred" transparently disguised as a human rights cause is expected; it is even boring.

Impassioned reporting can help awaken readers to the abuse of human rights or the needs of persecuted ethnic and national groups. Distorted, sensational, and ultimately numbing reporting on Israel, on the other hand, while it may have some immediate effect on the plight of the Palestinians, in the long run makes support for the Palestinians secondary to condemnation of Israel. Such reporting will serve only nations like Jordan and Syria--the truer, deeper and more longstanding enemies of Palestinian statehood.