It's Jerusalem Day and responses to my survey of bloggers are still coming in. I emailed bloggers asking for their take on the following question:
"Is Israel winning the media battle over Jerusalem?"
See other bloggers' responses in parts One, Two, and Three.
The fact that everyone's talking about Jerusalem is the clearest proof that Israel is losing the media war about the city. It was not long ago that debate over the peace process focused not on Israel's insistence on building its national capital and millennial holy city, but on the Palestinians' continued support for terrorism. Today, the world focuses instead on the question: Will Israel give up on its most "irrational," historical attachments and bring peace, once and for all? The question, of course, is itself the problem: Instead of asking what concessions Israel is willing to make, nobody seems to be pointing the same questions at the Palestinian side.
After giving up the Gaza Strip, publicly announcing a formal building freeze in the West Bank, and effecting a de facto freeze in Jerusalem, and receiving nothing in return, Israelis have lost almost every bit of confidence in the Palestinians' willingness for peace. So what's required is, as the lingo has it, confidence-building measures. What sacrifices are the Palestinians willing to make for peace? Here are a few suggestions: First, an end to anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement in the schools (this should be a prior condition to any negotiaions, like the West Bank building freeze). Peace will never come from a culture of war. Second, drop the idea of a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel that would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Third, state unequivocally that they seek a permanent end to the conflict (something that for some reason never makes it onto the agenda). And fourth, to abandon the idea of armed "resistance" — that is, the terrorism they have been waging against Israeli civilians since before the occupation ever even happened. If even one of these were to happen, the question of Jerusalem might seem a little more timely. Until then, it seems, well, unseemly at best.
First, it's not a war, it's a perpetual conflict. There will never be a peace treaty signing and Israel will have to figure to be engaged for the long term. In the United States, despite some very poor reporting on the Ramat Shlomo matter — including on Fox News — the public is very sympathetic to Israel's position. It seems to me that this is happening in spite of the media battlefield, and not because of it. Israel's position was helped greatly by the invaluable and powerful statements made by mainstream figures such as Ron Lauder and particularly Elie Wiesel, whose personal credentials can't be written off. This is the type of thing that influences the popular consciousness — something far more important than influencing any particular reporter.
