An Historical Analysis of United States Newspapers' Bias in Reporting the Al-Aqsa Intifada (Critical Essay‪)‬

With the new Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations in Annapolis underway as I write this, I felt it would be beneficial to revisit the reactions and events which were induced by the last negotiations: the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993. It was quickly learnt that the Accords were almost completely unfruitful and were a serious reason behind creating the build up and backlash to what is now known as the Second Intifada or Al-Aqsa intifada which started on September 28th, 2000. The Accords raised the hopes of the occupied Palestinians while the realities on the ground consistently worsened. Thus, logically, many fear that if Annapolis fails it could lead to a third Intifada. Therefore, it is of historical importance and relevance to study the American media's portrayal of, and reaction to, the Second Intifada. Not only would such an examination aid in better understanding the new negotiations in Annapolis, but also it would assist in better understanding the U.S. media's position in relation to this Middle East conflict since the U.S. has much sway and leverage in the region. By thoroughly analyzing numerous primary and secondary sources from the day of the uprising to a month after it began, this essay will attempt to prove that the American media's portrayal of Al-Aqsa Intifada were often skewed and factually inaccurate in favor of Israel, regularly showing bias against Palestine. Background