Media accounts of the ongoing conflict also tend to distort the historical context of the dispute. Central to the depiction of negotiations, such as the recent Camp David II summit, is the notion that the two parties are trading equivalent “concessions” to reach an agreement. Both the Palestinian and Israeli delegations at last July’s summit did compromise the positions they entered with—a must of any productive negotiation process.

But the basis for all Arab-Israeli peace negotiations in the last three decades has been U.N. Security Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, in which Israel won and occupied several pieces of territory from its neighbors, including East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, as well as Gaza Strip. Against these gains, Resolution 242 bases its conclusions on the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” In other words, might does not make right. Resolution 242 calls unequivocally for the “withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Not incidentally, Security Council decisions are binding on all member countries.

Mainstream media sources in the U.S. described the dynamic of Camp David II as a frustrating time for Bill Clinton and especially Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who made “wide-ranging concessions” only to see the “intransigent” Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat decline a deal at the eleventh hour (because, by most accounts, Palestinians would receive only limited sovereignty over East Jerusalem). Undeniably, East Jerusalem carries great religious and symbolic significance to both sides. But Barak’s “concessions” only meant inching closer to Israel’s obligations under Resolution 242 after 34 years of the (illegal) status quo. Arafat’s “intransigence” amounts to insisting upon the letter of international law—a position that is stubborn, perhaps, but legitimate, and it should be presented as such.

It is not unreasonable to ask that our media present fairer news reports. We do not ask the American media to favor the Palestinians because they are oppressed. We simply ask that the American media hold the Israelis to the same standards as they hold Palestinians, and that they better consider the context of events. The New York Times should stop painting Sharon as a wise old sage and instead acknowledge his vicious past. CNN should stop portraying the Palestinians as insatiable children who do not appreciate Israel’s concessions, when the Palestinians are not even granted their most fundamental, U.N.-guaranteed human rights.

Let the American people hear and see the facts of the case as they are, before they are euphemized and distorted. The American media has failed in its duty to uphold integrity and honesty in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We simply ask that this journalistic ethic be restored.

Sameer Doshi ’02 is an environmental science and public policy concentrator in Lowell House. He is a member of the Society of Arab Students.