Fletcher Features
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist at Fletcher |
| Serge Schmemann, Deputy Foreign Editor of The New York Times and
Pulitzer Prize winner, gave a talk on the current state of
Israeli-Palestinian relations to a full auditorium at the Fletcher
School on Wednesday October 2. Just back from reporting in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, Mr Schmemann spoke about his experience as a journalist in the Middle East and discussed implications of Israeli-Palestinian relations for U.S. foreign policy. Mr Schmemann relayed his impressions of covering the Arab-Israeli conflict in the context of his experience as a journalist. He said nothing during his 20 years of reporting – in Russia and Central Europe for example – had invoked as much passion as reporting about the Arab-Israeli conflict. “It is a region in which anything you say or write… someone is going to disagree with violently,” he said. According to Mr Schmemann, the complexity in the situation lies in the amount of baggage each side brings to the table – be it religious, historical or global. He said each has developed a powerful history of victim hood; they each have legitimate grievances which are shared by the majority. He said each side looks at a historical event from a diametrically opposed view, although each side is also deeply divided within itself. In talking about his experience as a journalist in the region, Mr Schmemann said he faced particular difficulties in covering stories. He said what was so different for him, being an American reporter and from the New York Times, was that his role was perceived to be not just that of a witness, but of a judge. “We are expected to keep score,” he said. “Every aspect of our coverage is scrutinized.” Mr Schmemann said he was constantly questioned about perceived disparity in reporting and was confronted with the view that sometimes journalists misrepresented the score – that they gave one side a moral advantage over another. In his opinion, this observation was sometimes valid, other times not. He said this criticism never colors a story, but it creates a struggle in reporting – especially when both sides see a journalist’s passivity as a failure to be on their side. “There is a moral competition in which we are the moral arbiters,” he said. In commenting on United States foreign policy, Mr Schmemann said the US was now in a quantitatively new era – perhaps even revisiting an era past. He said even before the events of September 11, there was a sense of nostalgia to find a new enemy, an attempt to recreate the role of the Soviet Union. He said after September 11, the enemy was clear for the Administration – global terrorism – and he said now the enemy is even clearer – Saddam Hussein. Mr Schmemann was critical of the Administration’s seemingly self-declared right to pursue a regime change in a country which it deems dangerous. He questioned the precedent such an approach would set. He said the Administration’s attitude that “we will unilaterally declare who is good and evil”, who is “with or against us” is problematic and that “the concept of “evil doers” almost precludes national debate.” “What is really troublesome is [this] lack of national debate,” Mr Schmemann added. He said most people are too afraid to question current policy for fear of being seen as unpatriotic. Mr Schmemann said he was troubled in some way on the anniversary of September 11. While he witnessed a sense of domestic grief and shared tragedy, he felt there was so little sense that any lessons about the US’s place in the world had been drawn – there was little discussion on why the US is less popular now, why some people find the US policy irritating and threatening, and why there has been an increase in the military budget. “Where is the humility that President Bush spoke about in the aftermath of September 11?,” he asked. He said he believed the US was “falling into the fallacy of empires”— that being powerful was equated with being right. However, he said that on balance, the Bush administration had been far hotter in its rhetoric than in its deeds. He said he would like to believe the Administration would seriously turn its attention to the Middle East after the resolution of the Iraq situation. “Like it or not, the US has become a central power in the Middle East”, Mr Schmemann said. He said US involvement is now so critical in the Israeli-Palestinian issue as both sides feel justified in their own actions – “my suffering justifies your suffering”. Mr Schmemann saw hope for movement of both sides towards a solution, but cautioned that everything will depend on what eventuates with respect to Iraq. He said in the end, there will either be an “Arab world on fire or an Arab world that will cooperate with the US”. He said this would depend on whether Israel is drawn into conflict with Iraq and how the Middle East reacts. Mr Schmemann was unsure about how far away some kind of solution was, but he said it is imperative to be as critical as possible. “We have reached a certain critical stage in which as citizens, reporters and students of international relations, we cannot simply sit on the sidelines,” he said. Mr Schmemann’s talk was followed by respondents from the Fletcher School and Tufts University including Professors Leila Fawaz, Director of Tufts' Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, Malik Mufti of Tufts' Political Science Department, and Marc Gopin of the Fletcher School. The event was co-sponsored by the Program in Southwest Asia and Islamic Studies, the center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, and Tufts' International Relations Program. |