George W. Bush has the temerity to tell the Palestinian people not only that they must hold new elections next year in order to be considered for U.S. support—he has also told them whom they should not elect. That’s some nerve, especially from a man who was selected president of the United States, not elected.

No matter how Republicans try to spin it, if the ballots of everyone who went to the polls in Florida had been counted the way the voters intended, Bush would have lost the state and therefore would not now occupy the White House. Yet, that did not stop him from proclaiming, “Peace requires new and different leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born.”

For those who looked for Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to make a difference in the Bush administration because they are Black, look again.

In January, Powell conceded that the Palestinians “have the right to elect whoever they wish to.” He was quick to add, “And we have the right and the ability to determine how we will deal with those circumstances.”

Rice, in an appearance last week on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press,” expressed the same point. “We are not trying to pick the leadership of the Palestinian people, but we are saying that there are consequences.”

Deciding who should or should not lead the Palestinian people is exactly what the Bush administration is trying to do. Of course, this is all aimed at getting Yasser Arafat out of office. Unlike Bush, he was elected to his leadership post in 1996 without controversy and when elections are held next year, Arafat will be elected again.

Have you noticed that whenever the United States seeks to demonize a foreign leader and insult his or her following by suggesting the people don’t know what’s best for them, the person under attack not only stays in power, but emerges stronger than ever? You would think that we would have learned our lesson by now. But we haven’t.

If you’re looking to learn more about this complicated Middle East situation, don’t look for a balanced account of events on the front pages of the New York Times. Or, on National Public Radio. Or, in any other mainstream media outlet, for that matter. Several recent studies by the New York-based Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) illustrate this point.

In one report, “Palestinian Deaths Aren’t Headline Material at New York Times,” FAIR reports, “The main headline on the front page of the New York Times’ April 10 final edition was ‘At least 8 Killed in Suicide Bombing On A Bus In Israel.’ The late edition, which is available to more readers, had ‘13 Israeli Troops Killed in Ambush; Bush Bombs Kills 10,’ in the 36-point headline size that the paper reserves for what it considers major events.

“Six paragraphs into the story, the paper provided this additional information: ‘More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in Jenin, the Palestinian town that has brought the stiffest resistance to the broad Israeli sweep through the West Bank. Many of the Palestinian dead still lie where they fell.’”

FAIR concluded, “By its headline choice, the Times suggested that the deaths of 23 Israelis (or eight in the final edition) are more important than the deaths of 100 Palestinians.”

And when were hundreds of Palestinians killed considered to be major, front-page news by the New York Times?

Answering its own question, FAIR reported, “A review of the page A1 headlines used by the Times since the March 29 start of the invasion reveals a striking lack of references to the Palestinians killed in the Israeli operations. Generally the headlines were antiseptic: ‘Israelis Broaden West Bank Raids as Arabs Protest’ (4/2/02); ‘U.S. Envoy Meets Arafat as Israel Steps Up Its Sweep’ (4/6/02).

“When an April 5 headline used the word ‘carnage,’ it was not a reference to the scores of Palestinians dying in the ongoing Israeli attack, but to a suicide bombing that had killed three (including the bomber) a week earlier.”

A similar pattern was noted when examining coverage on National Public Radio (NPR). Although the network has been accused by conservatives of being pro-Palestinian, the opposite is true, according to FAIR’s study of stories that aired during the first half of last year.

“During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians,” FAIR noted in its report, “NPR’s Coverage of Mideast Deaths Doesn’t Match Reality,” It observed, “While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same period, 77 Israelis and 147 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported by NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.

For civilians under the age of 18, the gap was even wider.

“Of the 30 Palestinian civilians under the age of 18 that were killed, six were reported on NPR—only 20 percent,” FAIR stated. “By contrast, the network reported on 17 or the 19 Israeli minors who were killed, or 89 percent.”

Both Israel and Palestine have compelling arguments for their respective positions. But when it comes to how those positions are portrayed in the media—and how combat in the Middle East is characterized—Palestinians don’t have a fighting chance.