David and Goliath all over again

For my BA history I researched the coverage of the 1967 Six Day War in Dutch newspapers. In 1967, the religious and atheist Netherlands alike were suffering from an unbearable feeling of guilt regarding the country’s relatively high proportion of deported Jews during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, its media were biased in favour of Israel. Israel was portrait as the victim and the weaker party in the conflict.

It is more surprising, however, that last week’s Economist employed similar rhetoric. The Economist argues that Israel’s Labour Party is willing to give up the West Bank in exchange for peace, while Hamas only vaguely promised to respect international resolutions. On top of that, The Economist mentions not less than three times that Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist.[1]

Of course this is true and I am the last person to support Hamas or not to recognise Israel, but in this context it is essential to mention that Israel does not respect international resolutions either. Thousands of Israelis live in settlements, largely on the West Bank, that are illegal according to UN resolution 55/132.

Besides this, the remark that “the immediate security concerns [that] are always uppermost in Israel’s mind” suggests that home made bus bombs impose a bigger threat than Israel’s US sponsored army. I believe that many Lebanese families can argue the contrary.

Of course a leader is expected to be opinionated, and without metaphors such as ‘David and Goliath’ and ‘the Holy Land’ The Economist’s argument is more subtle than that of the Dutch newspapers in the 1960s. However, the premises in this argument are more biased than the conclusion and exactly this subtlety is worrying.
_________________________________________________________
References
[1] ‘A two-headed monster’, in: The Economist, February 17th-23rd 2007, p.17.