A little prior to Israel’s most recent assault against Gaza, a massacre that killed over 900 Palestinian civilians of whom over 400 were children; American public discourse on Israel was becoming atypically more critical.

Critical voices only strengthened after Israel’s horrific attack against Gaza and the defeat of diplomat Chas Freeman to chairman of the National Intelligence Council by the Israel lobby, because he uttered some timid criticism of Israel.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen has been offering more and more thoughtful pieces decrying Gaza, the occupation and Israel’s saber-rattling on Iran. The face of the Washington establishment, Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius, recently wrote a piece unveiling the tax structure that benefits American groups funding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank; an act contrary to stated U.S. policy.

There are a few more examples of criticism of Israel in the mainstream press, particularly a courageous story on 60 Minutes by Bob Simon; but the blog-sphere has been by far the most critical, most courageous, and most pioneering in standing up for Palestinian rights.

But are these recent examples a reflection of a turning-point on American discourse on Israel or just a slight tweaking before punditry returns to its usual pro-Israel self? Thus far I remain unsure. Certainly, people are more prone to utter criticism and it is unlikely that any opening in the parameters of debate will be re-closed. But it may note be such a turning-point.

Giving credit when credit is due, I must state that I only had this realization after reading this:

I went back recently and looked at the media’s coverage of the 1982 Lebanon War and realized that, as much as we’d like to think the Gaza slaughter represents some kind of turning point, the U.S. media’s reaction to Lebanon was far harsher and louder. For what it’s worth, below are links to some Time covers from ‘82 and early ‘83. Two things stand out to me: They covered the hell out of this story — multiple covers over a period of months; they were willing to be bluntly critical of Israel, and to call a massacre a massacre. And this was back when it meant something to be on the cover of Time. Just check these out (I’m also throwing in an interesting one from 1975 that I found).

After looking at those covers, I did not entirely commit myself to the said view, especially in the age of Avigdor Lieberman; but I certainly began to rethink my stated opinion that Gaza represented a watershed that will slowly, but surely move American views on Israel, amongst the Left, nearer to those found in Europe. That may not be the case. In the end, the cold-blooded slaughter of 400 Palestinian children by Israel may have done very little to alter public discussions and the criticisms voiced today in a few years may be seen as existing in a vacuum just like the Time covers of of the 1980s:

Time was certainly more critical then. It is actually accusing Israel of destruction. I cannot imagine a cover titled “Destroying Gaza” or “Destroying Jenin”. And I will offer this sample from their cover story to illustrate just how awesome Time was then [which can be read in its entirety, and another story on Beirut here]:

COVER STORIES Israel flouts U.S. diplomacy with a ferrocious [sic] attack on Beirut

Ronald Reagan made a point of not smiling when he took his seat in the White House Cabinet Room across from Yitzhak Shamir. The studied gesture was designed to reinforce the stern words he coldly read to Israel’s Foreign Minister. An Israeli attack against the Palestine Liberation Organization guerrillas in West Beirut ran the risk of threatening the special relationship between Washington and Jerusalem.

A cease-fire must be maintained. Reagan’s grim warning: “When P.L.O. sniper fire is followed by 14 hours of Israeli bombardment, that is stretching the definition of defensive action too far.” A day later the Israeli bombardment of West Beirut began. It lasted for 14 hours.

The barrage that shattered the ninth cease-fire was the most ferocious assault yet in Israel’s nine-week-old invasion of Lebanon, just as the bombing and shelling that broke the eighth cease-fire three days earlier had eclipsed the previous battles Israeli tanks rolled into West Beirut in four columns, carefully splitting off strategic areas held by the Palestinians (see following story). Naval gunboats lobbed round after round into the business district, where fires raged out of control because of the lack of water and power. Artillery shells smashed once safe havens such as the American University Hospital, the Commodore Hotel and the Soviet and French embassies. As a finale, American-made jets swooped down to strike the staggered city while the Israelis solidified their new positions.

Once again Israel had unleashed its awesome arsenal in defiance of the close ally that supplied most of its weapons The blow came just when U.S. Special Envoy Philip Habib seemed on the verge of salvaging a diplomatic victory for the U.S. by negotiating a peaceful evacuation of the P.L.O. from Lebanon. As Israel’s terrible swift sword sliced into West Beirut, in full video view of a war-weary world, the U.S. was reduced to muttering public protests.

Reagan has been one of the staunchest believers in America’s bond with Israel, but his feelings of loyalty have been deeply affected by the continuing bloodshed in Lebanon. “I lost patience a long time ago,” the President noted sharply to reporters on returning from Camp David the weekend before Israel’s latest assault. More than anything else, the vivid television coverage of Israel’s relentless pummeling of civilian areas has altered the President’s thinking. Referring to one powerful image broadcast a week ago, an aide says: “That picture of the baby with arms burnt had more impact on him than 50 position papers.” An Administration aide attaches even more importance to the President’s gut-level reactions. “Reagan,” he says, “gets 50% of his foreign policy from Dan Rather.”

Can you imagine a “Massacre in Gaza” cover today, or this type of writing that opens up noting the hollow words of Israeli officials:

“The Israeli Defense Forces have taken postions in West Beirut to prevent the danger of violence, bloodshed and anarchy.”

— Statement by the Israeli Cabinet.

That was the Israeli government’s explanation for its decision to send its armed forces into Muslim-dominated West Beirut last week following the assassination of Lebanon’s President-elect Bashir Gemayel. The Israeli action alarmed the U.S., which saw it as a violation of a promise the Israelis made this summer to U.S. Special Envoy Philip Habib while he was negotiating the withdrawal of Palestine Liberation Organization guerrillas from West Beirut. It frightened the Lebanese capital’s Muslim population, infuriated the governments of other Arab states, and led to a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on the Israelis to withdraw from Beirut. But no one could have anticipated that before the week was over, the Israeli peacekeeping exercise in West Beirut would lead, whether by complicity or carelessness or outright incompetence, to the massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in two Palestinian refugee camps that the Israelis were supposedly guarding. . . .

More baffling was the role the Israelis had played. Certainly Israeli soldiers had not done the shooting, but the Israelis controlled the area, had checkpoints near the camps, and were within earshot of the firing. How and why had they allowed the militiamen to enter the camps? At the Israeli checkpoint outside the Sabra camp, an officer of the Lebanese Forces told Correspondent Suro Friday afternoon: “We have been waiting to get in there for years.'’ Explaining that his troops had been going from house to house through the camp “clearing out the last fighters,” he added: “We are better at this kind of operation than the Israelis. We have had more practice.” Asked if his men were taking any prisoners, he replied, “The only people in that camp now want to fight to the end. I do not think there are any prisoners.”

This issue had good reporting, but it did play too much on what I call the “anguish complex”. This part of its better reporting:

The bloodbath in the Palestinian camps: “Butchery the mind cannot comprehend”

There were only the sounds of mourning and the bodies, sprawling heaps of corpses: men, women and children. Some had been shot in the head at pointblank range. Others had had their throats cut. Some had their hands tied behind their backs; one young man had been castrated. Middle-aged women and girls as young as three, their arms and legs grotesquely splayed, were draped across piles of rubble. Portions of their heads were blown away. One woman was found clutching an infant to her body; the same bullet that tore through her chest had also killed the baby. Said a Lebanese Army officer: “There is so much butchery the mind cannot comprehend it.”

One by one, the bodies were lifted from the agonized postures of sudden death and shrouded in brown blankets by volunteer civil defense and Red Cross workers, wearing gas masks against the stench and rubber gloves to fend off the toxins from the decaying flesh. Frantic clusters of Palestinians gathered around the rigid, pathetic bundles. From time to time, one of the onlookers would shriek in horror, catching sight of the distorted features of a friend or family member. At one point, a woman torn by grief stood over one of the bloated corpses waving a scarf and a handful of personal letters. “Yi, yi, are you my husband?” she screamed. “My God, who will help me? All my sons are gone. My husband is gone. What am I going to do? God—oh, my God!” Those who could recognize their murdered relatives were allowed to carry them away for private burial; the remainder of the bodies, sprinkled with lime, were consigned to mass graves.

The Verdict Is Guilty

An Israeli commission apportions the blame for the Beirut massacre. . . .

In this kind of careful, deliberate prose, Israel’s official commission of inquiry described the dreadful events of the three days last September when Israelis allowed Lebanese Phalangist soldiers to enter the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, where the Christian militiamen proceeded to murder between 700 and 800 Arabs. After four months of testimony and deliberation, the Israeli commission last week delivered its report on the Beirut massacre, and it proved to be a stinging indictment of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and several military officials, concluding that they shared an “indirect” responsibility for what happened in the Beirut camps. The report assigned only a “certain degree” of blame to Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but it recommended that Sharon either resign or be dismissed. It was also highly critical of three top commanders and a military intelligence official who were involved in the Israeli occupation of West Beirut.

Notice how much more critical not only the U.S. press was, but the American president. Reagen criticized Israel in a manner the cowardly Obama never would. Back then the United States still cut aid to Israel, as Reagan did when after the Sabra and Chatila massacre, and supported U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israel. Has Obama ever been moved by the death of Arab children the way Reagan was? While Obama specifically referred to terrorism in “southern Israel”, Obama referred dismissively to the slaughter of 400 Arab children as if some vague tragedy occurred by some unknown assailant, as if a hurricane killed the Palestinians.

It is with great regret, but no surprise that I came to this realization. I am still correct is recognizing that albeit still very timid, debate on Israel is more critical today than even five years ago [with the exception of Time, which has gone from being critical and astute in its reporting to being apologetic]. In the end, American liberal society will slowly move to the side of justice, the side of the Palestinians. I have only misread the signs as to when it will get there.

The referenced Time magazines themselves included several articles on Lebanon besides the ones cited here and can all be found at Time’s archives.