• DOI:10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.84
• Corpus ID: 57569122

Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 200006

@article{Slater2007MutingTA,
  title={Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 200006},
  author={J{\'e}rome Slater},
  journal={International Security},
  year={2007},
  volume={32},
  pages={84-120}
}

• Jérome Slater
• Published 28 September 2007
• Political Science
• International Security

The prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remain poor, largely because of Israeli rigidity as well as Palestinian policies and internal conflicts. The United States has failed to use its considerable influence with Israel to seek the necessary changes in Israeli policies, instead providing the country with almost unconditional support. The consequences have been disastrous for the Palestinians, for Israeli security and society, and for critical U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Amajor explanation for the failure of U.S. policies is the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. In contrast, the debate in Israel is more self-critical, vigorous, and far-ranging, creating at least the possibility of change, even as U.S. policy stagnates. Acomparison of the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the two most prestigious daily newspapers in the United States and Israelin particular, over the breakdown of the peace process in 2000 and the ensuing Palestinian intifada, the nature of the Israeli occupation, the problem of violence and terrorism, and the prospects for peace todayunderscores these differences. While the New York Times has muted the alarm over the dangers of the United States' near-unconditional support for Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, Haaretz has sought to sound the alarm.