neceser
17.03.04, 03:51
A tale of two fences by Gal Luft February 18, 2004
The I's and the P's have been at war for over half a century. Over the
past several years the level of suspicion, hostility and paranoia
between the two has been unprecedented. I has been the target of a
terror campaign by Islamic terrorists who infiltrated its territory and
conducted horrific attacks against both soldiers and innocent civilians.
I accuses P of training and arming these militants and not lifting a
finger to stop them. After a long series of failed attempts to reach a
peace deal or even a temporary cease fire, the government of I decided
it must erect a fence as a security barrier separating it from P. I's
fence project infuriates the P's. Their uniformed leader called the
government of I to immediately halt the construction. But despite strong
international pressure I does not seem to bend and its white haired
prime minister recently called to expedite the project and finish the
fence by the end of 2004.
If you thought the above 160 words describe the controversial fence
currently being erected in the West Bank between Israel and the
Palestinians you are in good company. Look again. I is not Israel and P
is not Palestine. The story above describes another fence, three time
zones away from the Middle East in the disputed area of Kashmir between
India and Pakistan. Indeed, since Pakistani militants tried to storm the
Indian Parliament in December 2001, India has embarked on an ambitious
project aimed to seal its border with its enemy. The fence is only part
of a multi-tiered system that includes mines, sensors, trenches and, in
some parts, a high mud wall.
Now, ask yourself why you associated the above story with the Middle
East and not with South Asia. Why does the action of a nation of six
million people loom larger in your consciousness than that of one
billion people? After all, the India-Pakistan conflict is just as
enduring and fierce. It threatens world peace no less than the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Indian fence is at least twice as long
as the Israeli. It too creates facts on the ground unilaterally; it too
entails land grabs and separation of innocent farmers from their land.
Unlike the Israeli fence, India's project has been under the radar
screen of most American media outlets. Run a quick internet search for
"Israel Palestinian fence" and then "India Pakistan fence" and see the
difference. While the first fence was covered by all main western media
outlets from The New York Times to Time Magazine over and over again ad
nauseaum, the debate over the Indian fence features almost exclusively
in the south Asian media. American newspapers dedicated no editorials to
it, news networks did not do specials on it. 60 Minutes did not find it
interesting enough. Tom Friedman found the Israeli fence to be a more
sexy topic to do a documentary on than the Indian fence. At no point did
the European media call the Indian fence "apartheid wall" or "Berlin Wall."
In truth, the Indian fence has not been covered for the same reason an
Israeli incursion into Gaza and the killing of three militants receives
on any given day more media attention than the massacre of 400 people in
Congo. The reason being, in part, that over the years western media's
interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict has reached a level of obsession.
Jerusalem is a haven for journalists. It is a war zone without real war,
the one place in the Middle East where they can file stories while
eating sushi. As a result, Israeli affairs are being covered at a
disproportionate scale. The unintended consequence is that the public
judgment and ability to dedicate sufficient resources to other, no less
challenging, parts of the world is compromised.
This over exposure of Israel also has policy implications. It is not an
accident that the Indian fence has not been condemned internationally
the way Israel's has been; that the UN convened a special emergency
meeting of the General Assembly to approve a resolution, demanding a
stop to the construction while being mute on India; that human rights
activists flock to the West Bank to lie under Israeli bulldozers. All of
these make great material for even more stories. And so it goes.
The media is the periscope with which we look at the world and form our
worldview. As media consumers Americans need less Israel and more world,
otherwise we will find ourselves surrounded too by a fence, blocking our
view of the real world issues.
Gal Luft is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security (IAGS)
