This post is in response to David Wilensky’s post from earlier today.
David, you and I both know how most people read news articles: they usually don’t. Maybe they’ll read the headline, maybe–if we’re lucky–they’ll read the lede and the nut graf and maybe–if they actually care–they’ll read an entire article. The truth, though, is that most of the time they don’t care. You know how many Israelis don’t really care about peace? Well most people in general don’t actually give a crap about the news. They’ll look at news tickers, tweets, Facebook statuses and, yes, magazine covers.
And that’s what’s wrong with Time’s issue this week.
Let me be clear, David. I’m not saying that Rabbi Jason is right; I’m saying you’re wrong. Yes, Rabbi Jason is also wrong for judging an article before he has read it. The article may be nuanced, fair, deep and insightful. The cover of the magazine, however, is not. it makes a blanket statement about a country with a pretty diverse and vibrant political atmosphere. It’s true that many Israelis–in my experience–don’t really care about peace because they live their lives in relative security and prosperity. But I know plenty of Israelis who do care about peace, who participate in B’Tselem and Gisha and other organizations so they can help the Palestinians, who protest the antagonizing actions of the Israeli government.
I know it’s a headline, and headlines are often generalized and provocative, but we would be decrying this if it were talking about another country. Imagine if the headline said something like “Palestinians don’t care about Israel.” We and the rest of our liberal Jewy friends would be up in arms! We would be writing righteously indignant blog posts about how Palestine has a vibrant society with a range of opinions on Israel. We should criticize this headline on the same grounds. Again, I’m not criticizing the article, which I haven’t seen. I am criticizing the cover of the magazine, which I have.
I know that you and I will probably read the article, as will many of our friends, but that’s because we surround ourselves with Jewish people and such that read these types of articles. Hell, it’s part of my job to read these types of articles. That is not at all true, however, for most of this country.
“Israel” is not monolithic. “Israel” has a much more lively political debate raging within it that does the American Jewish community. As Etgar Keret says in this publication,
I think that you can’t talk about one point that represents the young generation of Israelis. It’s a very polyphonic and heterogenic society. We have haredim, Arabs, settlers, we have people that are completely involved, people that are blase. In Israel you can’t have one person represent the entire society.
But the majority of people who see this cover of Time will not read the article. They’ll glance at it and it will send one message to them, a message that “Israel” doesn’t care about peace. And that is not true. There’s no way it could be true.
Here’s my response to Wilensky:
First, I did read the article online before I blogged about it. I hadn’t yet read the print edition (although my copy arrived today and I have read the complete print version as well).
Second, you write that I called the cover title itself anti-Semitic. Where did I do that? Can you please quote back to me where in my blog post I wrote that the cover is anti-Semitic?
Third, you write that if you were to only read the title of my blog post (Time Not on Israel’s Side) you might come away with the impression that I’m trying to slander Time Magazine. I think as the editor of a student magazine, you should look up the word “slander.” And while you’re at it, I’d also recommend looking up the word “libel.” In any event, writing that Time Magazine (in my title) isn’t on Israel’s side is far from a libelous statement. It’s my opinion.
Fourth, my argument remains that the cover is all most people will see (on display at bookstores, libraries, supermarkets, drugstores, and airports throughout North America (or perhaps the world). I acknowledge that there are many Israelis who are millionaires (and even billionaires), but that doesn’t change the fact that Time Magazine implying that Jewish Israelis are more concerned with their money than with the peace process brings up the old Jewish stereotype about Jews and money.
If you, as the editor of New Voices, write a derogatory blog post about a non-Jewish individual, they can legitimately take exception with your writing and your views. However, if they claim that this only proves that Jews run the media, that gets into the realm of anti-Semitism (even if there are a good number of Jews in the media).
I hope you (and other college students) will take a look at Camera’s commentary on the Time issue here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=37&x_article=1921. It’s important for students like yourself to be educated about the anti-Israel bias in the media, which permeates many college campuses.
Finally, as we approach Rosh Hashanah tomorrow evening, I hope you will re-read your blog post above and question whether your words may be harsh. I didn’t attack any individuals in my blog post. I called into question the choice of a large, international magazine to print a sensational cover title in the midst of a peace summit. I can live with that. Your ad hominem attack is simply uncalled for.
I think that Rabbi Jason was judging the article by the cover–and that it was completely fair for him to do so. No matter what the article has to say, Time has summed it up in the most incendiary way possible. And by laying it on the cover, Time showed that it’s not interested in nuance and the truth that lies in nuance, but just in selling (out).
But one thing, Rabbi Jason, when you want to make a point to college students, there’s no need to cite CAMERA. That’s definitely no less biased than the newspapers.
Just so other readers know, Jason posted the same comment on my original post, which is where the bulk of the discussion is now taking place.
Rachel, word on CAMERA. They’re a knee-jerk “Israel, Israel, Israel, rah, rah, rah!” group of exactly the kind that most Jews in college today are turned off by.