"Israel, After 43 Years, Is Ready for Beatlemania," (Jerusalem Journal) A10, 8/28/08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/world/middleeast/28beatles.html
By Ethan Bronner
In 1965, was Israel ready for Beatlemania? This article's title implies it wasn't. The rest of the article can't make up its mind.
Ethan Bronner's acid trip down memory lane begins reasonably enough. As Paul McCartney is set to play Tel Aviv next month, Israelis have taken a look back 43 years, to what could have been. The Beatles were booked for a concert in Israel. The concert was cancelled supposedly when a ministerial committee deemed the band as having a corrupting influence on Israeli youth. As its report put it, "the Beatles have an insufficient artistic level and cannot add to the spiritual and cultural life of the youth in Israel."
Wait just a minute, or however long it takes the reader to arrive at the article's 9th paragraph. Bronner writes that Yossi Sarid, a former MK, "said the real cause of the cancellation was a rivalry between impresarios at the time." An angry promoter who wanted the government to stop the concert was reluctant to admit his grudge with a fellow promoter. So he appealed to the committee's moral sensibilities, saying the Beatles were a corrupting influence.
A promoter ego war, not a moralistic government decision, is what kept the Beatles from Israel. That's the real hook, and it's an interesting one. That Israeli society was more simple and agrarian, and less frenetic and plugged in to pop culture in the mid-sixties is a compelling and seldom-known point Bronner plays up in the article. It does not, however, explain why Israel wasn't "ready" in 1965 for Beatlemania. This point was forced by Bronner.
There's nothing so offensive about this article. It should cause little concern. In fact, it highlights some interesting aspects of Israeli life four decades ago (no tv, kibbutz songfests) and contrasts it with the fast pace, modern Israeli life today. The article does not deal with the conflict or anything truly controversial. It doesn't make Israel look bad. Nevertheless, when it comes to a topic related to Israel, the New York Times still manages to mangle cause and effect.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Focusing on the Fringe
"Abie Nathan, Israeli Peace Champion, Dies at 81," B7, 8/29/08
By Isabel Kershner
In a newspaper as prestigious and influential as the New York Times, it puzzles me why they would print the obituary of what seems to be a relatively marginal Israeli personality, who would probably fall on the fringe left of the country's political continuum.
In connection with the quite extensive article reserved this month for the passing of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it appears that the NYT chooses to focus its attention and admiration on the heroes of Palestinian nationalism and of the Israeli left, no matter how hostile, naive, or delusional they may be.
For now, I think the NYT deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding its journalistic intentions, but if this becomes an observable trend, it would be troublesome.
At the least the article recognizes the naivety, though endearing character, of Abie Nathan and his delusional peace overtures.
By Isabel Kershner
In a newspaper as prestigious and influential as the New York Times, it puzzles me why they would print the obituary of what seems to be a relatively marginal Israeli personality, who would probably fall on the fringe left of the country's political continuum.
In connection with the quite extensive article reserved this month for the passing of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, it appears that the NYT chooses to focus its attention and admiration on the heroes of Palestinian nationalism and of the Israeli left, no matter how hostile, naive, or delusional they may be.
For now, I think the NYT deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding its journalistic intentions, but if this becomes an observable trend, it would be troublesome.
At the least the article recognizes the naivety, though endearing character, of Abie Nathan and his delusional peace overtures.
Settlements Are Not the Impediment to a Settlement
"Rice, in Israel, Criticizes Surge in Settlement Construction"
Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner’s article offers Peace Now (PN), “a reliable source of settlement information,” an opportunity to promote its perspective. Despite one quote from a spokesperson for the Israeli Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, and another from Tzipi Livni, Israeli foreign minister, PN’s report stands on its own in the article, undergoing no critical examination. That can hardly be called journalism.
"Rice, in Israel..." lacks specifics in key areas. For example, it states that construction continues on the Jordan River’s west bank but does not specify where, other than mentioning building in eastern Jerusalem. (The fact that eastern Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel proper is not mentioned.) The same problem occurs later when Bronner writes about illegal outposts. 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses, he reports. The reader would like to know exactly where the building is taking place.
Bronner refers to the territories as “occupied,” coolly adopting the classification of PN. This is a fundamental PN position, which serves as the centerpiece of its anti-settlement agenda. As long as the territories are “occupied,” then the Jewish communities, or settlements, are problematic, even illegal. If they are disputed, this conclusion does not stand. PN makes a Herculean effort to avoid any doubt about this classification, ignoring a significant minority position that the territories are disputed. Ignoring a minority report, I might add, is totally un-Jewish. (See here, also, for more on the legitimacy of the claim that territories are disputed.)
Under the Quartet's Road Map of 2003, Israel promised not to build settlements, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. This is a strange and problematic equivalence. In an article called “Untenable Linkages,” Dore Gold fleshes out the problem of linking settlement construction to ending terrorism.
One of the main points of the piece is that Israel is building on the eastern, not just the western, side of the security barrier, which Bronner calls a “separation barrier.” Here, Bronner embraces the idea that in a final peace agreement, Israel will hold onto settlement blocs on the western side. The fact that construction occurs on the eastern side of the separation barrier is supposed to demonstrate Israel’s duplicity. This paradigm is, however, wrong. Israel has always stated that the final borders will be determined by negotiations, not by where the security barrier is.
The NYTimes betrays its own position here, not that of Israel. Apparently, it is open to construction on the western side of the barrier because it believes Israel intends to keep that territory – a position that jibes with UN Security Council Resolution 242. That would seem to be a victory for Zionists, but such absorption is only appropriate if “land swaps” occur as well. “Land swaps,” an idea not generated from 242, is unfavorable to Israel.
Bronner refers to the territories as “occupied,” coolly adopting the classification of PN. This is a fundamental PN position, which serves as the centerpiece of its anti-settlement agenda. As long as the territories are “occupied,” then the Jewish communities, or settlements, are problematic, even illegal. If they are disputed, this conclusion does not stand. PN makes a Herculean effort to avoid any doubt about this classification, ignoring a significant minority position that the territories are disputed. Ignoring a minority report, I might add, is totally un-Jewish. (See here, also, for more on the legitimacy of the claim that territories are disputed.)
Under the Quartet's Road Map of 2003, Israel promised not to build settlements, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. This is a strange and problematic equivalence. In an article called “Untenable Linkages,” Dore Gold fleshes out the problem of linking settlement construction to ending terrorism.
One of the main points of the piece is that Israel is building on the eastern, not just the western, side of the security barrier, which Bronner calls a “separation barrier.” Here, Bronner embraces the idea that in a final peace agreement, Israel will hold onto settlement blocs on the western side. The fact that construction occurs on the eastern side of the separation barrier is supposed to demonstrate Israel’s duplicity. This paradigm is, however, wrong. Israel has always stated that the final borders will be determined by negotiations, not by where the security barrier is.
The NYTimes betrays its own position here, not that of Israel. Apparently, it is open to construction on the western side of the barrier because it believes Israel intends to keep that territory – a position that jibes with UN Security Council Resolution 242. That would seem to be a victory for Zionists, but such absorption is only appropriate if “land swaps” occur as well. “Land swaps,” an idea not generated from 242, is unfavorable to Israel.
Abes
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Balloons and Hearing Aids Enter Gaza
"Rights Advocates Defy Israeli Blockade of Gaza"
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner
A 16
A 16
Sunday, August 4, 2008
Israel allowed "human rights advocates," who are most likely anti-Israel, to dock their boat in Gaza, constituting a symbolic breaking of the siege.
The tone of the article was rather muted, simply reporting the event and not overstating its significance. Claims of the so-called advocates that Israel's siege is "illegal" and "immoral" were rightly placed in quotations. Similarly, the activists' concern that Israel would "kidnap" them was rightly placed in quotes. The normal word here would be arrest.
Reporters El-Khodary and Kershner noted that the activists brought hearing aids and balloons to Gaza, a bizarre combination. I am nearly certain that had the activists asked Israel to allow the delivery of these items across one of the border crossings, Israel would have gladly acceded.
Jeff Halper was the star of the event. An activist, Halper is involved in the Israel Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD), which is funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF).
Thankfully, El-Khodary and Kershner state that Israel, the United States, and the European Union consider Hamas, which controls Gaza, a terrorist organization. Usually, the NY Times states that only Israel and the US consider it such, a subtle way of undermining the legitimacy of the classification.
Abes
Abes
The Ignominious Practice of the Prisoner Release
“Israel Frees 198 Palestinians Before Rice Arrives for Talks,” A10, 8/26/08
By Isabel Kershner
This article describes Israel
The piece is extremely problematic as the author reveals her strong bias in favor of these moves to strengthen Israel Israel Israel
Secondly, she writes, “The release of prisoners has been one of the few tangible benefits of the peace effort for Palestinians, with the prisoner issue always high on the public agenda.” What sort of agenda? Abbas declares, “there will be no peace without the release of all the prisoners.” This does not sound like a peaceful agenda, but more like a hostile demand.
Despite this obvious dissonance, depicting prisoner releases as a confidence-building measure while Palestinians reject it as a trivial gesture unless Israel release all prisoners, Kershner fails to provide any perceptive analysis or context.
For example,
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Defending Pollack
"War and Peace"
By Max Rodenbeck
Page 1 Book Review
Sunday, August 24, 2008
AbesBy Max Rodenbeck
Page 1 Book Review
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Max Rodenbeck, a contributor to The Economist, which we all know is basically a pro-Israel rag, writes a review of Kenneth Pollack's new book, A Path Out of the Desert.
In A Path, Pollack proposes increasing military aid to friendly regimes. Rodenbeck oversimplifies this proposal, writing – in feigned surprise – "But surely, one can't help gasping, the last thing more guns will bring is political reform." He then points out that conditioning aid on reform hasn't worked yet, as a way of dismissing this notion. In display of the superb even-handedness that has allowed the conflict to continue, he argues that the US should make aid to Israel conditional.
Rodenbeck calls into question Pollack's assertion that "the Arab regimes have implicitly or explicitly backed a range of terrorist groups." But Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria's support for Fatah and Hamas over the last several decades is well-evidenced.
Rodenbeck then takes a shot at sanctions, stating that "one of the most startling modern examples of mass impoverishment was…the Clinton-era sanctions on Iraq, which destroyed its middle class and set the stage for postwar chaos." One wonders, if conditioning aid on reform and sanctions are not viable options, what other means are there for compelling a regime to change its malevolent ways?
The review gets nasty when Rodenbeck senses that Pollack, the Jew, has put forth a pro-Israel position. In wonderful alliterative style, Rodenbeck, suggests that "the plight of the Palestinians" causes "Arab rage and venom" toward Israel. ("Arab rage and venom" is Pollack's phrasing.)
Here, Rodenbeck's true colors come through. Pollack is "protective" of Israel. In another instance, Rodenbeck conjures up the image of the American mother shielding her young child, Israel: The US "indulges" Israel.
He begs, "Can't we just admit that American support for Israel is strategically burdensome and is driven by the passion of several domestic constituencies rather than cold cost-benefit geopolitics?" Can't we? But is it true? Essentially, Rodenbeck is just spinning out Walt & Mearsheimer malarkey.
Without providing evidence to the contrary, Rodenbeck tries to upend Pollack's argument that "America's support for Israel over the years has even been a critical element in winning and securing Arab allies." One need only recall the Begin-Sadat agreement, which brought the Egyptians out of the Soviet and into the American camp in the late 1970s to know that Pollack is correct on this account and Rodenbeck is wrong. (Martin Kramer has written persuasively on this matter.)
Rodenbeck also takes Pollack to task for arguing that American support for Israel does not fuel Islamist hatred. Although Rodenbeck offers more evidence here than in the instance above, his effort to completely negate Pollack's argument displays his anti-Israel sentiment. Placing Israel at the center of the confrontation between the West and the Islamists is an overstatement.
Rodenbeck will surely be in the wilderness for some time to come.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Choice of Letters
Letters to the Editor
A group of letters appeared in the editorial section of the NY Times on Thursday about the editorial "Perils of an Israeli Transition." As far as the Times is concerned, Olmert's decision to sort-of resign is only significant in as much as it affects the "peace process."
The first letter, written by Stuart Pilichowski, an Israeli, is excellent, as it points out that "roadblocks aren’t strangling the Palestinian economy. Increased attempts at terrorism against Israelis are" - a point to which I alluded in "NY Times Solution" on Tuesday, August 19.
Pilichowski also notes the silliness of "turning Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner."
The second letter written by Michael F. Brown is simply repulsive, as Brown compares Benjamiin Netanyahu to George Wallace. This is an extremely weak analogy - one that the Times printed only to slander Netanyahu.
Brown goes onto to state that "Israeli settlement and barrier construction in theWest Bank [will make] two states impossible." I am intrigued and would like elaboration since I don't think this argument is supportable.
The slander of Israel continues, as an analogy is made to apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in the South. Eventually, he offers his ideal solution, which is a denial of the Jews' right to self-determination. It is "possible for Jews and Palestinians to live as equals" in one state, according to Brown. Brown is the co-chairman of the board of the Interfaith Peace-Builders (IPB), which has ties to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. As required, IPB has the requisite number of pro-Palestinian Jews on staff.
The third letter is an anti-Bush statement, which is a Times favorite.
Just when one thought that a letter could be no worse than Brown's, the Times prints Steve France, who calls Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu "true peacemakers" and says "Israel is the aggressor and is still wedded to intimidation, violence and lies." Lord, Lord, Lord.
Michael J. Granoff, thankfully, restores a semblance of reason and compassion to the letters' section. It is best to simply read his remarks, as they are spot on. In short, he says that undue pressure is applied to Israel to secure a deal and that expectations of Palestinians are not high enough for a deal to be sealed.
Abes
A group of letters appeared in the editorial section of the NY Times on Thursday about the editorial "Perils of an Israeli Transition." As far as the Times is concerned, Olmert's decision to sort-of resign is only significant in as much as it affects the "peace process."
The first letter, written by Stuart Pilichowski, an Israeli, is excellent, as it points out that "roadblocks aren’t strangling the Palestinian economy. Increased attempts at terrorism against Israelis are" - a point to which I alluded in "NY Times Solution" on Tuesday, August 19.
Pilichowski also notes the silliness of "turning Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner."
The second letter written by Michael F. Brown is simply repulsive, as Brown compares Benjamiin Netanyahu to George Wallace. This is an extremely weak analogy - one that the Times printed only to slander Netanyahu.
Brown goes onto to state that "Israeli settlement and barrier construction in the
The slander of Israel continues, as an analogy is made to apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in the South. Eventually, he offers his ideal solution, which is a denial of the Jews' right to self-determination. It is "possible for Jews and Palestinians to live as equals" in one state, according to Brown. Brown is the co-chairman of the board of the Interfaith Peace-Builders (IPB), which has ties to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. As required, IPB has the requisite number of pro-Palestinian Jews on staff.
The third letter is an anti-Bush statement, which is a Times favorite.
Just when one thought that a letter could be no worse than Brown's, the Times prints Steve France, who calls Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu "true peacemakers" and says "Israel is the aggressor and is still wedded to intimidation, violence and lies." Lord, Lord, Lord.
Michael J. Granoff, thankfully, restores a semblance of reason and compassion to the letters' section. It is best to simply read his remarks, as they are spot on. In short, he says that undue pressure is applied to Israel to secure a deal and that expectations of Palestinians are not high enough for a deal to be sealed.
Abes
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Kafka's Zionism
“Under ‘Kafkaesque’ Pressure, Heir to Kafka Papers May Yield Them”
Ethan Bronner
A5
This article makes only small mention of Israel and Zionism. It mostly revolves around a debate about whether Kafka’s papers, which are in the hands of a resident of Tel Aviv, belong in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Mark Gelber, a professor at Ben Gurion University, says they should be in Israel.
Bronner writes, “This is far from a universal view, however. To many, Kafka’s novels and stories of existential despair written in German seem more consciously worldly than linked to any nationalist movement.”
Bronner’s choice of words here is interesting – “universal,” “worldly” – as is his dismissive tone about “nationalist movements[s].” For how can the claims of a narrow “nationalist movement” match those that are “universal” and “worldly.” What is striking is how the same language that is used to berate Jews in general – their lack of universalism and their concern for particularism – are at play here. Zionism is a mere “nationalist movement,” not a movement of national liberation or a remarkable ideology geared to restoration in a homeland.
In fact, Bronner should have said that some disagree with Gelber rather than state that Gelber’s view is not “universal” – few, if any, views are.
Kafka’s stated opinions on Zionism and collective identification with Jews are characterized by the ambivalence that makes his writing unique. His actions, however, speak clearly. He learned Hebrew, and according to his last lover, in whose arms he died, he wanted to move to Israel.
These facts are moving and say a great deal about the power of Zionism. For if the writer most identified with alienation in modern canon dreamed of aliyah, then Zionism is one of the most relevant movements for humankind.
Abes
Ethan Bronner
A5
This article makes only small mention of Israel and Zionism. It mostly revolves around a debate about whether Kafka’s papers, which are in the hands of a resident of Tel Aviv, belong in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Mark Gelber, a professor at Ben Gurion University, says they should be in Israel.
Bronner writes, “This is far from a universal view, however. To many, Kafka’s novels and stories of existential despair written in German seem more consciously worldly than linked to any nationalist movement.”
Bronner’s choice of words here is interesting – “universal,” “worldly” – as is his dismissive tone about “nationalist movements[s].” For how can the claims of a narrow “nationalist movement” match those that are “universal” and “worldly.” What is striking is how the same language that is used to berate Jews in general – their lack of universalism and their concern for particularism – are at play here. Zionism is a mere “nationalist movement,” not a movement of national liberation or a remarkable ideology geared to restoration in a homeland.
In fact, Bronner should have said that some disagree with Gelber rather than state that Gelber’s view is not “universal” – few, if any, views are.
Kafka’s stated opinions on Zionism and collective identification with Jews are characterized by the ambivalence that makes his writing unique. His actions, however, speak clearly. He learned Hebrew, and according to his last lover, in whose arms he died, he wanted to move to Israel.
These facts are moving and say a great deal about the power of Zionism. For if the writer most identified with alienation in modern canon dreamed of aliyah, then Zionism is one of the most relevant movements for humankind.
Abes
The NY Times Solution
"Perils of an Israeli Transition"
Editorial, no author
A18
Here, we get a rare glimpse into what the editors of the NY Times op-ed section think the solution is to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The baseline statement of the author is that “a two-state solution is vital for Israel’s security.”
A two state solution is vital for the maintenance of a Jewish, democratic state. In other words, it address demographic challenges facing Israel resulting from administration of Judea & Samaria. It is only a solution in terms of security if the state created is democratic.
As usual, the author calls for a reduction in the number of roadblocks arguing that they “strangle the Palestinian economy.” This inference is unbalanced because it does not offer another explanation for why the roadblocks are there. An uneducated reader might even think the the objective of the roadblocks is to impair the Palestinian economy when the reality is that they are there to protect human beings from suicide attacks.
The author calls for “defensible frontiers” for Israel and rejects the so-called right of return. This is positive.
Later on, however, the author refers to Hamas as a “militant group” that “condones terrorism.” In fact, it is a terrorist group that executes terrorism. “A way must be found to help turn Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner,” the author implores. The burden lies on us – the US and Israel – to change Hamas rather than the change coming from within Hamas itself.
Toward the end of the piece, one of the strongholds of opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rears its head. If Israel does not support Abbas, then Hamas will be strengthened. This views is part of the paradigm that Abbas is moderate and Hamas extremist, when the truth is that Abbas and Hamas have more in common than is generally acknowledged.
The piece ends with a call for tough love for Israel – a common statement by Aaron David Miller and others who don’t have Israel’s best interests at heart.
Abes
Editorial, no author
A18
Here, we get a rare glimpse into what the editors of the NY Times op-ed section think the solution is to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The baseline statement of the author is that “a two-state solution is vital for Israel’s security.”
A two state solution is vital for the maintenance of a Jewish, democratic state. In other words, it address demographic challenges facing Israel resulting from administration of Judea & Samaria. It is only a solution in terms of security if the state created is democratic.
As usual, the author calls for a reduction in the number of roadblocks arguing that they “strangle the Palestinian economy.” This inference is unbalanced because it does not offer another explanation for why the roadblocks are there. An uneducated reader might even think the the objective of the roadblocks is to impair the Palestinian economy when the reality is that they are there to protect human beings from suicide attacks.
The author calls for “defensible frontiers” for Israel and rejects the so-called right of return. This is positive.
Later on, however, the author refers to Hamas as a “militant group” that “condones terrorism.” In fact, it is a terrorist group that executes terrorism. “A way must be found to help turn Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner,” the author implores. The burden lies on us – the US and Israel – to change Hamas rather than the change coming from within Hamas itself.
Toward the end of the piece, one of the strongholds of opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rears its head. If Israel does not support Abbas, then Hamas will be strengthened. This views is part of the paradigm that Abbas is moderate and Hamas extremist, when the truth is that Abbas and Hamas have more in common than is generally acknowledged.
The piece ends with a call for tough love for Israel – a common statement by Aaron David Miller and others who don’t have Israel’s best interests at heart.
Abes
Friday, August 15, 2008
Perennial Doubt Placed on Israeli Inquiries
"Israel: No Penalty in Journalist’s Death," A13 (World Briefing), 8/14/08
By Associated Press
The Israeli Army inquiry into the unfortunate death of a Reuters cameraman has been closed following its finding that the tank crew which had opened fire had acted according to procedure. Operating in an active Gaza battle zone, the tank crew mistakenly suspected that the cameraman's tripod was part of an anti-tank missile.
The article sows doubt in the army's findings, disclosing that the cameraman was "standing by his jeep, which was marked with press signs," while failing to mention that the cameraman was also standing at a distance about a mile away from the tank crew, probably making it difficult if not impossible to identify the press markings.
Given its brevity, the piece also fails to relate, among other key facts, that three IDF soldiers were killed in Gaza earlier in the day in a grenade attack on a tank.
This article appears to be emblematic of the journalistic and NGO trend to reduce any official Israeli statements, documents, or inquiries to the status of being unverified, less-than-true, or simply baseless. On the other hand, unverified Palestinian rumors and propaganda, such as the 2002 "Jenin Massacre," are often automatically trusted and thrust to an "official" status without any independent confirmation or the scientific rigor of an official governmental inquiry.
This appalling trend must be monitored and halted.
By Associated Press
The Israeli Army inquiry into the unfortunate death of a Reuters cameraman has been closed following its finding that the tank crew which had opened fire had acted according to procedure. Operating in an active Gaza battle zone, the tank crew mistakenly suspected that the cameraman's tripod was part of an anti-tank missile.
The article sows doubt in the army's findings, disclosing that the cameraman was "standing by his jeep, which was marked with press signs," while failing to mention that the cameraman was also standing at a distance about a mile away from the tank crew, probably making it difficult if not impossible to identify the press markings.
Given its brevity, the piece also fails to relate, among other key facts, that three IDF soldiers were killed in Gaza earlier in the day in a grenade attack on a tank.
This article appears to be emblematic of the journalistic and NGO trend to reduce any official Israeli statements, documents, or inquiries to the status of being unverified, less-than-true, or simply baseless. On the other hand, unverified Palestinian rumors and propaganda, such as the 2002 "Jenin Massacre," are often automatically trusted and thrust to an "official" status without any independent confirmation or the scientific rigor of an official governmental inquiry.
This appalling trend must be monitored and halted.
Focusing on the Trivial, Ignoring the Essential
"Israelis as Friends? Iran Legislators Say No," A13, 8/14/08
By Nazila Fathi
This article discusses the Iranian Parliament's outraged response to an Iranian official's pseudo-conciliatory remarks towards Israel in which he proclaimed that "we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans" while contradictorily saying "his country was against Israel, not Jews."
Iranian lawmakers would like to see the dismissal of this official, expressing rage that "he does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime."
This article is positive in the sense that is able to share the crude, aggressive, and illogical rhetoric of the Iranian regime, but overall, it is quite an unenlightening piece that does little to illuminate the more profound aspects of the Israel-Iran conflict. For example, Iran's aggression towards Israel is not simply relegated to rhetoric. What about its instrumental support of Hezbollah in a proxy war against Israel or its entrenched alliance with Syria? What about Iran's quest for nuclear independence and most likely a nuclear weapon?
These are the real issues rather than the absurd political dispute highlighted in this article.
By Nazila Fathi
This article discusses the Iranian Parliament's outraged response to an Iranian official's pseudo-conciliatory remarks towards Israel in which he proclaimed that "we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans" while contradictorily saying "his country was against Israel, not Jews."
Iranian lawmakers would like to see the dismissal of this official, expressing rage that "he does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime."
This article is positive in the sense that is able to share the crude, aggressive, and illogical rhetoric of the Iranian regime, but overall, it is quite an unenlightening piece that does little to illuminate the more profound aspects of the Israel-Iran conflict. For example, Iran's aggression towards Israel is not simply relegated to rhetoric. What about its instrumental support of Hezbollah in a proxy war against Israel or its entrenched alliance with Syria? What about Iran's quest for nuclear independence and most likely a nuclear weapon?
These are the real issues rather than the absurd political dispute highlighted in this article.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
What About The Restraints?
Roaming Freely in a Land of Restraints
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/books/13walks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
E1, 8/13/08
By Abby Aguirre
Abby Aguirre not only reviews Raja Shehadeh's "Palestinian Walks: Forays Into a Vanishing Landscape," but accompanies and interviews Shehadeh on a recent walk in the West Bank. Aguirre points out her and Shehadeh's findings: a Crusader castle, a pottery shard from Roman times, a tall limestone bluff, wild artichoke, olive groves and of course, "red-slanted rooftops, unmistakably those of an Israeli settlement."
Interestingly, Aguirre also spots a Palestinian refugee camp. No explanation is given as to why a refugee camp is needed for Palestinians living in Palestinian controlled areas. Aguirre's review is remarkable for its rich descriptions of West Bank landscapes that are natural and for its poor descriptions of those that are man-made.
"Palestinian Walks" is an account of six walks Shehadeh has taken, spanning nearly thirty years, from 1978 - 2006. These walks, as Aguirre notes, have "become more fraught over time". Hence the title's "vanishing landscape".
It's not just this landscape that's in jeopardy. Palestinian "movement is everyday more limited by a growing number of Israeli-built fences, walls, barriers, checkpoints, settlements and the separate roads constructed to link them". This is true. Yet, while Aguirre explains the reason for separate roads (to link settlements), she doesn't explain the reason for fences, walls, barriers and checkpoints (to protect settlements, not to mention Israel proper). Why do settlements, or Jewish communities, in the West Bank need so much fortifying? Was it always like this? Aguirre offers no context for settlements, only that "they remain one of the most contentious matters of the conflict."
Aguirre tells us that Shehadeh judges harshly the "spreading web of segregated highways". She does balance this by saying they were "built after anti-Israel attacks". After this remark, Aguirre had a perfect opportunity to elaborate on the change in not only the physical, but the political landscape, from the first of Shehadeh's walks in 1978 to his most recent in 2006.
It may be a coincidence that Shehadeh first started documenting the changing West Bank in 1978, right around the time the settlement enterprise took off. Why is it that Israel gave the green light to Jews who wanted to move to areas that had deep historical meaning to them?
It had been more than a decade since Israel took control of the West Bank and in the air was not a whiff of a peaceful Palestinian parter to govern. Instead, the only recognized representative of the Palestinian people was nearing the end of one of their busiest decades -- highjacking, bombing, shelling, massacring women and children, taking Israeli Olympians hostage -- inside Israel and out.
The history of how the West Bank landscape came to be is a complex one, and perhaps one that can't fully be presented in this piece. However, a fuller history would've enhanced the readers' understanding, especially after reading how Palestinians today are inconvenienced.
Aside from these ommissions explaining the cause for Israeli eye sores dotting the West Bank, Aguirre does a good job conveying an intriguing and unusual book. We are painted a complete and colorful picture of the West Bank's diverse terrain, of roaming freely, but are offered an incomplete picture of the West Bank's "restraints".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/books/13walks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
E1, 8/13/08
By Abby Aguirre
Abby Aguirre not only reviews Raja Shehadeh's "Palestinian Walks: Forays Into a Vanishing Landscape," but accompanies and interviews Shehadeh on a recent walk in the West Bank. Aguirre points out her and Shehadeh's findings: a Crusader castle, a pottery shard from Roman times, a tall limestone bluff, wild artichoke, olive groves and of course, "red-slanted rooftops, unmistakably those of an Israeli settlement."
Interestingly, Aguirre also spots a Palestinian refugee camp. No explanation is given as to why a refugee camp is needed for Palestinians living in Palestinian controlled areas. Aguirre's review is remarkable for its rich descriptions of West Bank landscapes that are natural and for its poor descriptions of those that are man-made.
"Palestinian Walks" is an account of six walks Shehadeh has taken, spanning nearly thirty years, from 1978 - 2006. These walks, as Aguirre notes, have "become more fraught over time". Hence the title's "vanishing landscape".
It's not just this landscape that's in jeopardy. Palestinian "movement is everyday more limited by a growing number of Israeli-built fences, walls, barriers, checkpoints, settlements and the separate roads constructed to link them". This is true. Yet, while Aguirre explains the reason for separate roads (to link settlements), she doesn't explain the reason for fences, walls, barriers and checkpoints (to protect settlements, not to mention Israel proper). Why do settlements, or Jewish communities, in the West Bank need so much fortifying? Was it always like this? Aguirre offers no context for settlements, only that "they remain one of the most contentious matters of the conflict."
Aguirre tells us that Shehadeh judges harshly the "spreading web of segregated highways". She does balance this by saying they were "built after anti-Israel attacks". After this remark, Aguirre had a perfect opportunity to elaborate on the change in not only the physical, but the political landscape, from the first of Shehadeh's walks in 1978 to his most recent in 2006.
It may be a coincidence that Shehadeh first started documenting the changing West Bank in 1978, right around the time the settlement enterprise took off. Why is it that Israel gave the green light to Jews who wanted to move to areas that had deep historical meaning to them?
It had been more than a decade since Israel took control of the West Bank and in the air was not a whiff of a peaceful Palestinian parter to govern. Instead, the only recognized representative of the Palestinian people was nearing the end of one of their busiest decades -- highjacking, bombing, shelling, massacring women and children, taking Israeli Olympians hostage -- inside Israel and out.
The history of how the West Bank landscape came to be is a complex one, and perhaps one that can't fully be presented in this piece. However, a fuller history would've enhanced the readers' understanding, especially after reading how Palestinians today are inconvenienced.
Aside from these ommissions explaining the cause for Israeli eye sores dotting the West Bank, Aguirre does a good job conveying an intriguing and unusual book. We are painted a complete and colorful picture of the West Bank's diverse terrain, of roaming freely, but are offered an incomplete picture of the West Bank's "restraints".
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Iranian Hippie, Esfandiar Rahim Mahai, Speaks
"Iran: 'Even Israelis and Americans'"
Nazila Fathi
Apparently Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, Iranian vice president for tourism, is a hippie and loves everyone. Is everyone over there communicating with each other because I am sensing some mixed messages from the Iranian regime?
This statement is a lame imitation of genuine Israeli and American Jewish efforts to express concern for the Iranian people while being forthright to the Iranian regime about
Mashai said, “I say for a thousandth time that we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans.” The other 999 quotes on the matter have yet to be discovered in print media. Later on in the tidbit, he declared, “We are against the Israeli regime. We have no war with Jews.” As DB has noted, this is typical Iranian doublespeak. That the Israeli “regime” is governed by Jews slipped past Mashai’s unassailable logic.
MAMonday, August 11, 2008
Mahmoud Darwish, Poet and Former Israeli Citizen, Dies
"Mahmoud Darwish, Leading Palestinian Poet, Is Dead at 67"
Ethan BronnerPublished: August 10, 2008
Mahmoud Darwish authored “searing lyrics on Palestinian exile.” The usage of exile to describe the Palestinian condition has some truth to it but mostly appears to ape the Jewish experience. Some of those who fled or were forced to leave their homes in the War of Independence traveled as little as twenty miles. Can such a distance be called an exile?
Darwish’s family actually lived in
Bronner reports that Darwish, who had great affection for Yassir Arafat, authored Mr. Arafat’s famous words at the United Nations General Assembly in 1974: “I come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.” This is a startling statement that oddly mixes pacifism, violence, and threat.
Another verse quoted in the article reads, “I do not hate people/Nor do I encroach/But if I become hungry/The usurper’s flesh will be my food/Beware .../Beware ... /Of my hunger/And my anger.” Again, one sees a mixed message of muted humanitarianism, threat, and violence.
For a brief moment, Bronner hints at the politicization of Darwish’s poetry by the Palestinian movement, a fact that late in his career he seemed to lament.
Surprisingly, this poet was a supporter of the famed “two state solution,” which makes him a full-blooded moderate in the eyes of most. His position on the so called “right of return,” which is the “two state solution’s” infamous caveat, is conveniently not mentioned.
Even "Lobbed" Rockets Can't Deter Israel's Irrigation Successes
The Feed: Can Israel Find the Water It Needs?
World Business [BU, page 7] 8/09/08 [published in Sunday's NYT]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10feed.html?ref=todayspaper
By Andrew Martin
An informative report about the water shortage in Israel. Although it's in the Times' World Business section, experience has demonstrated that no special interest section, magazine or television show -- no matter how seemingly off-topic -- is immune from misinformed commentary on Israel.
Martin explains there's a worldwide shortage. "Some oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia are now shopping for farmland in more fertile countries like Sudan and Pakistan." Israel is among the nations, says Martin, "more determined than ever to increase their own food production."
Martin details Israel's acheivements, like modern drip irrigation and treated sewer water for irrigation, which is seen by Israeli officials as a solution. Some see a more dire situation -- citing droughts and global warming.
There's really no bias apparent in the piece, however, there is a bizarre and disturbing word choice that's becoming far too commomplace.
Martin features a few Israeli farmers to color his report. He begins the article describing a "souvenir" in the office of Doron Ovits, a farmer in Israel's south, and that this souvenir highlights "the challenges of farming in Israel". The souvenir is a "mangled piece of metal, and Mr. Ovits says it came from a rocket that landed in a field recently, lobbed from the nearby Gaza Strip." The last mention of rockets is the next sentence, "but Mr. Ovits may have a bigger long-term problem than rockets." Thus is the nifty segue to irrigation.
I'll go out on a limb and guess Mr. Martin -- not Mr. Ovits -- used the verb "lob" to describe how the rocket wound up on Mr. Ovits's farm. We are not told who "lobbed" it into Israel from the Gaza Strip. We just know it wasn't really fired or shot -- which is usually how rockets get someplace else. "Fired" or "shot" also convey malice. Someone typically lobs something to give it sort of a soft touch...like your friend might lob you your car keys from across the room. He wouldn't fire it or even throw it; that might take out your eye. Then not only does he have no ride home, he has to go with you to the ER.
A softball is an object most people associate with a lob, not a rocket. This, however, will continue to be the verb of preference for many in the media, lest readers get the false impression that Gazan rockets may come in at dangerous speeds... and god forbid take out an eye.
DB
World Business [BU, page 7] 8/09/08 [published in Sunday's NYT]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10feed.html?ref=todayspaper
By Andrew Martin
An informative report about the water shortage in Israel. Although it's in the Times' World Business section, experience has demonstrated that no special interest section, magazine or television show -- no matter how seemingly off-topic -- is immune from misinformed commentary on Israel.
Martin explains there's a worldwide shortage. "Some oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia are now shopping for farmland in more fertile countries like Sudan and Pakistan." Israel is among the nations, says Martin, "more determined than ever to increase their own food production."
Martin details Israel's acheivements, like modern drip irrigation and treated sewer water for irrigation, which is seen by Israeli officials as a solution. Some see a more dire situation -- citing droughts and global warming.
There's really no bias apparent in the piece, however, there is a bizarre and disturbing word choice that's becoming far too commomplace.
Martin features a few Israeli farmers to color his report. He begins the article describing a "souvenir" in the office of Doron Ovits, a farmer in Israel's south, and that this souvenir highlights "the challenges of farming in Israel". The souvenir is a "mangled piece of metal, and Mr. Ovits says it came from a rocket that landed in a field recently, lobbed from the nearby Gaza Strip." The last mention of rockets is the next sentence, "but Mr. Ovits may have a bigger long-term problem than rockets." Thus is the nifty segue to irrigation.
I'll go out on a limb and guess Mr. Martin -- not Mr. Ovits -- used the verb "lob" to describe how the rocket wound up on Mr. Ovits's farm. We are not told who "lobbed" it into Israel from the Gaza Strip. We just know it wasn't really fired or shot -- which is usually how rockets get someplace else. "Fired" or "shot" also convey malice. Someone typically lobs something to give it sort of a soft touch...like your friend might lob you your car keys from across the room. He wouldn't fire it or even throw it; that might take out your eye. Then not only does he have no ride home, he has to go with you to the ER.
A softball is an object most people associate with a lob, not a rocket. This, however, will continue to be the verb of preference for many in the media, lest readers get the false impression that Gazan rockets may come in at dangerous speeds... and god forbid take out an eye.
DB
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Heralding the Failures of Hebrew and the Jewish State
"Quandary for Hebrew: How Would Isaiah Text?" 8/8/08
By Isabel Kershner
It's practically intangible and elusive, but it truly appears that the New York Times delights in heralding Israel's shortcomings and weaknesses.
This article is another example of that outlook; this one highlighting the fear that the revived Hebrew language is already in decline, having "become increasingly estranged from its loftier ancient form."I believe the view taken in the article on Hebrew, its corruption from its "pure" roots, is emblematic of the NYT attitude toward Israel: that it is a corruption of the loftier, morally pure Jew of old.
While the article ultimately debunks its premise, showing that Hebrew is not in such dire danger and has adapted to modern needs, it assigns this Israeli fear that the Hebrew language is foundering to the Jewish-Israeli sense of existential insecurity.
In the NYT way, the author makes light of this existential dread, stating: "The language may have moved on since the days of the prophets, but perhaps the sense of doom has not." While Israel may be a powerful nation, it still faces real threats – military, political, and intellectual – that imperil its long-term viability.
This Jewish sense of communal caution and wariness is not as passé as the NYT would like the reader to believe. Hebrew and the Jewish state will continue to survive and flourish, but not without due vigilance and innovation. There will not be a return to the powerless, morally pure Jew of old, however much the NYT may want it.
By Isabel Kershner
It's practically intangible and elusive, but it truly appears that the New York Times delights in heralding Israel's shortcomings and weaknesses.
This article is another example of that outlook; this one highlighting the fear that the revived Hebrew language is already in decline, having "become increasingly estranged from its loftier ancient form."I believe the view taken in the article on Hebrew, its corruption from its "pure" roots, is emblematic of the NYT attitude toward Israel: that it is a corruption of the loftier, morally pure Jew of old.
While the article ultimately debunks its premise, showing that Hebrew is not in such dire danger and has adapted to modern needs, it assigns this Israeli fear that the Hebrew language is foundering to the Jewish-Israeli sense of existential insecurity.
In the NYT way, the author makes light of this existential dread, stating: "The language may have moved on since the days of the prophets, but perhaps the sense of doom has not." While Israel may be a powerful nation, it still faces real threats – military, political, and intellectual – that imperil its long-term viability.
This Jewish sense of communal caution and wariness is not as passé as the NYT would like the reader to believe. Hebrew and the Jewish state will continue to survive and flourish, but not without due vigilance and innovation. There will not be a return to the powerless, morally pure Jew of old, however much the NYT may want it.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Hear No Evil, Report No Evil
As a Gesture to Abbas, Israel Says It Will Release About 150 Palestinian Prisoners
A12, 8/7/08
By Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner had a two angles to play: the supposed boost to Abbas; who are some of these fellas being released?
Outside of reporting hard facts, Bronner didn't have much room to spare. In the opening paragraph, he highlights that "prominent ones" may be included among the 150 released. Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, declined to offer details. Saeb Erekat, however, briefed reporters.
As an aside for those unfamiliar with Erekat, his bullshit artistry was on full display during the height of the bombing campaign against Israel's civilians earlier this decade, aka "the Second Intifada". Scores of interviews on network TV -- often after a suicide bombing -- gave voice to Erekat's pretend heartfelt plea, 'end the occupation, and you end the violence'.
Erekat's recent pow-wow with reporters gave Bronner a few details, such as the release date (August 25) and some of the names the Palestinian Authority had requested be released. Bronner listed them as:
"Ahmed Saadat, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian Parliament, who is from the Islamist Hamas movement, and Said Atabeh of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who has been in prison since 1977, the longest-serving Palestinian prisoner in Israel."
What would motivate Israel to lock up Palestinian leaders, including a speaker of parliament? The reader is not told.
It's of course possible that these distinguished gentlemen are imprisoned for committing some sort of dastardly deed. But the reader would not know it and may not assume it. According to the Times, all readers need to know is that Israel imprisons lots of Palestinians. By not detailing their crimes, Bronner leaves readers to assume Israel is holding captive future Palestinian leaders just for the sake of fragmenting Palestinian society and to claim they have no moderates to talk to.
The most "prominent" -- the rock star -- of the prisoners that the Palestinians are requesting is Marwan Barghouti, Bronner reports. He states that Barghouti is "widely viewed as a likely successor to Mr. Abbas as well as one of the masterminds of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000."
So, Mr. Barghouti masterminded something. Actually, we can't confirm that. What we do know is that he's "widely viewed as" having masterminded something. So, what was it that he masterminded? An uprising? Can't an uprising be a positive thing? An enriching experience. Kids -- occupied kids -- shaking off oppression by throwing stones at soldiers. It's not like Barghouti directed some sort of bombing campaign against innocent civilians. Murder. Why, that sort of behavior might warrant a mention. Bronner took the opportunity to report Mr. Barghouti's hopeful political future, but not why he's serving five life sentences.
While we're on these Palestinians' extra-curricular activities, in what way did Mr. Atabeh choose to protest Israeli occupation? Breaking the Guiness record as the longest serving Palestinian prisoner in Israel, one would guess, doesn't exactly come from sitting on your ass. What about Hamas politician Dweik? When he wasn't legislating, what exactly did he do?
Whether or not these characters committed heinous crimes, Bronner reports that there is a good deal of sense in Israel's releasing them. It will "boost (Abbas') troubled political standing". When it comes to how the Palestinians view their politicians working with Israel -- even if it's to release jailed loved ones -- one word comes to mind: collaborator.
Have previous prisoner releases been a boon to the PA? How is such a boost in political standing even measured? Don't these releases, though approved of by the Palestinian public, do little to change the view of Abbas and the PA as being in the pockets of Israel and the US? Is Fatah truly committed to the peace process? If not, why does Israel feel it needs to placate Fatah? Asking even one of these critical questions would challenge the "boost the moderate" myth and whether or not they've ever occurred to Bronner, they go unasked.
Finally, Bronner tell us Israel is firm on not releasing Barghouti. "What on earth," a reader might ask, "did Barghouti do that was so horrible?" Readers of the New York Times would do well to look for this information elsewhere.
DB
A12, 8/7/08
By Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner had a two angles to play: the supposed boost to Abbas; who are some of these fellas being released?
Outside of reporting hard facts, Bronner didn't have much room to spare. In the opening paragraph, he highlights that "prominent ones" may be included among the 150 released. Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, declined to offer details. Saeb Erekat, however, briefed reporters.
As an aside for those unfamiliar with Erekat, his bullshit artistry was on full display during the height of the bombing campaign against Israel's civilians earlier this decade, aka "the Second Intifada". Scores of interviews on network TV -- often after a suicide bombing -- gave voice to Erekat's pretend heartfelt plea, 'end the occupation, and you end the violence'.
Erekat's recent pow-wow with reporters gave Bronner a few details, such as the release date (August 25) and some of the names the Palestinian Authority had requested be released. Bronner listed them as:
"Ahmed Saadat, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian Parliament, who is from the Islamist Hamas movement, and Said Atabeh of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who has been in prison since 1977, the longest-serving Palestinian prisoner in Israel."
What would motivate Israel to lock up Palestinian leaders, including a speaker of parliament? The reader is not told.
It's of course possible that these distinguished gentlemen are imprisoned for committing some sort of dastardly deed. But the reader would not know it and may not assume it. According to the Times, all readers need to know is that Israel imprisons lots of Palestinians. By not detailing their crimes, Bronner leaves readers to assume Israel is holding captive future Palestinian leaders just for the sake of fragmenting Palestinian society and to claim they have no moderates to talk to.
The most "prominent" -- the rock star -- of the prisoners that the Palestinians are requesting is Marwan Barghouti, Bronner reports. He states that Barghouti is "widely viewed as a likely successor to Mr. Abbas as well as one of the masterminds of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000."
So, Mr. Barghouti masterminded something. Actually, we can't confirm that. What we do know is that he's "widely viewed as" having masterminded something. So, what was it that he masterminded? An uprising? Can't an uprising be a positive thing? An enriching experience. Kids -- occupied kids -- shaking off oppression by throwing stones at soldiers. It's not like Barghouti directed some sort of bombing campaign against innocent civilians. Murder. Why, that sort of behavior might warrant a mention. Bronner took the opportunity to report Mr. Barghouti's hopeful political future, but not why he's serving five life sentences.
While we're on these Palestinians' extra-curricular activities, in what way did Mr. Atabeh choose to protest Israeli occupation? Breaking the Guiness record as the longest serving Palestinian prisoner in Israel, one would guess, doesn't exactly come from sitting on your ass. What about Hamas politician Dweik? When he wasn't legislating, what exactly did he do?
Whether or not these characters committed heinous crimes, Bronner reports that there is a good deal of sense in Israel's releasing them. It will "boost (Abbas') troubled political standing". When it comes to how the Palestinians view their politicians working with Israel -- even if it's to release jailed loved ones -- one word comes to mind: collaborator.
Have previous prisoner releases been a boon to the PA? How is such a boost in political standing even measured? Don't these releases, though approved of by the Palestinian public, do little to change the view of Abbas and the PA as being in the pockets of Israel and the US? Is Fatah truly committed to the peace process? If not, why does Israel feel it needs to placate Fatah? Asking even one of these critical questions would challenge the "boost the moderate" myth and whether or not they've ever occurred to Bronner, they go unasked.
Finally, Bronner tell us Israel is firm on not releasing Barghouti. "What on earth," a reader might ask, "did Barghouti do that was so horrible?" Readers of the New York Times would do well to look for this information elsewhere.
DB
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict or Intra-Palestinian Conflict?
In Gaza, A Blurry Line Between Enemies and Friends
A10, 8/5/08
By Ethan Bronner
A10, 8/5/08
By Ethan Bronner
Bronner considers the fighting between Hamas and Fatah in
Bronner promises to unveil how these “developments in fact mirror a more complex set of relationships and shifting alliances that help explain why this conflict remains so difficult to resolve;” but his promise goes unfulfilled. His talk of complexity appears to be a cover for not really knowing how to cover the story. His tepidness is further reflected in the follow-up sentence where he disclaims, “where to begin is problematic.”
Finally, he settles on the explanation that the current fighting originates in Hamas’ efforts, dating back to 2007, to consolidate its power in
Abbas’ cold-heartedness is evident in his decision to deny entry to battered Fatah members who seek refuge from
The reader is surprised to read that “some Hilles members are with Hamas,” and the Hilles clan was not involved in fighting in the Strip in June 2007. Why then did clan members attack Hamas last week, or why did Hamas pick a fight with Hilles if they were not behind the attack? Bronner offers no answers to basic questions about the story.
The author tries as hard as possible to raise doubts about Israeli intelligence’s decision to interrogate certain Fatah members. “Israeli security forces…considered them terrorists who had possibly shot Israeli soldiers, etc.” (Italics added for emphasis.)
One redeeming statement appears, as the reporter states, “
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Frivolous Fulbright Fiasco
“3 Fulbright Winners in Gaza Again Told They Can’t Travel,” A10, 8/5/08
By Ethan Bronner
By Ethan Bronner
This article details the
Asylum ...Denied!
Asylum is Denied To Fatah Forces
August 4, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/world/middleeast/04gaza.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
If you're seeking asylum in the Palestinian territories, you're likely coming from a bad place. Maybe North Korea. Maybe Baghdad. This week, it's from Gaza where 200 Fatah "fighters" had first scampered to Israel, fleeing gun battles with Hamas. The article is short and offers no details about how long and where they were detained. Meanwhile, moderate Mahmoud took his time denying their request to enter the West Bank, insisting they return to Gaza, and "maintain a presence" there.
Fatah, the AP news clip tells us, "is not ready to write off Gaza". It should have been pointed out that Fatah is not ready to write off Israel.
An interesting word choice is found in the fourth and last paragraph of an otherwise boring article. The spineless Fatah fighters...err, let's just call them hired hands... are referred to as "refugees". In fact, the sentence uses a special word alongside Palestinian refugees. "The wrangling over the fate of the 188 Fatah refugees..." The "fate of the refugees"? A bunch of pinhead gunmen are outfoxed, then give themselves up at a border crossing into the nation they are truly dedicated to fighting...and become refugees.
Their fate is now in the news -- but the story won't get too big. After all, it's the Palestinians -- not Israel -- that are now asked to take in Palestinian refugees. Haven't we been here before?
August 4, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/world/middleeast/04gaza.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
If you're seeking asylum in the Palestinian territories, you're likely coming from a bad place. Maybe North Korea. Maybe Baghdad. This week, it's from Gaza where 200 Fatah "fighters" had first scampered to Israel, fleeing gun battles with Hamas. The article is short and offers no details about how long and where they were detained. Meanwhile, moderate Mahmoud took his time denying their request to enter the West Bank, insisting they return to Gaza, and "maintain a presence" there.
Fatah, the AP news clip tells us, "is not ready to write off Gaza". It should have been pointed out that Fatah is not ready to write off Israel.
An interesting word choice is found in the fourth and last paragraph of an otherwise boring article. The spineless Fatah fighters...err, let's just call them hired hands... are referred to as "refugees". In fact, the sentence uses a special word alongside Palestinian refugees. "The wrangling over the fate of the 188 Fatah refugees..." The "fate of the refugees"? A bunch of pinhead gunmen are outfoxed, then give themselves up at a border crossing into the nation they are truly dedicated to fighting...and become refugees.
Their fate is now in the news -- but the story won't get too big. After all, it's the Palestinians -- not Israel -- that are now asked to take in Palestinian refugees. Haven't we been here before?
Friday, August 1, 2008
Fatah's Immoderacy
Mainly a problem of omission, the New York Times fails to bring any attention to the challenges that Israel has in negotiating with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Fatah, formerly led by Yasser Arafat who was largely responsible for the war of terror against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada, continues to advocate extreme positions under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas.
Fatah's problematic actions and policies include:
While it is true that Fatah is Israel's partner in negotiations, it does not mean that it is yet a true partner for peace.
Fatah's problematic actions and policies include:
- Incitement against Jews and Israel in hate education
- A failure to dismantle the terrorist apparatus in its midst
- A failure to deny that a full-fledged "Right of Return" to Israel will be enacted (thereby continuing to support the belief that Israeli will one day disappear)
- A failure to recognize Israel as Jewish State
- Lack of commitment to a peaceful settlement to the conflict (Fatah reserves the right to continue resistance through "armed struggle")
- Lack of commitment to a Two-State Solution to the conflict (leading to further conflict in achieving the One-State Solution)
- Support of Israel's worst enemies (Mahmoud Abbas' embrace of notorious terrorist Samir Kuntar)
While it is true that Fatah is Israel's partner in negotiations, it does not mean that it is yet a true partner for peace.
There is no military solution
The critique that there is no military solution is not always stated explicitly but is, rather, obliquely made. During Operation Cast Lead, this notion undergirded nearly all of NYT's reporting. At every step, reporters suggested that nothing the IDF could do would weaken Hamas. The flip side of this - that each action that could weaken Hamas will actually backfire is often put forward. The IDF action, the reasoning goes will be looked upon by the Gaza populace as an aggression against them. Now, here is where the complication sets in, and it turns out to be an ongoing question, which is What do Palestinians really think?
Polls are often proferred as evidence of what Palestinians believe, but few analyze the society and how opinions are generated. With a strong of conformism and violent coercion the opinions of the most aggressive and violent often win out. Those who express disagreement are often targeted.
Thus, even when NYT is able to quote several people who express anger at Israel during Operation Cast Lead, for example, the reader must recognize that expressions of anger at Hamas are much riskier and more dangerous. Whether or not a Gazan expresses anger at Israel, Israel's interaction with him and the rest of the populace will be unchanged. But an open, public expression of anger against Hamas can often be dangerous to one's person.
The notion that "there is no military solution" also discounts severely how military strength, and even victory, has played a role in reaching agreements. Surely, military success against Egypt, Jordan, and even the Palestinian Liberation Organization, have brought these parties to the negotiating table.
A more measured, and accurate statement would be that there is no exclusively military solution to the conflict. However, NYT gives readers the impression that only through negotiations - diplomacy - can Israel gain recognition, security, and peace from its neighbors. The record, especially the Oslo Process, demonstrates otherwise.
Terrorism
The Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, writes in December '08, "The Times is sparing in its use of 'terrorist' when reporting on that complex struggle."
Terrorism should be defined as violent acts against civilians by a non-state actor from within a civilian population.
Again, this can be broken down into three parts:
- Violent acts against civilians
- Committed by a non-state actor
- From within a civilian population
Hamas argues that it is a a guerrilla movement that operates from within the heart of the people. The difficulty with this claim is that it downplays the role of violent coercion in establishing a presence within a civilian population. In other words, how can the populace be anything other than supportive of a band of weapons-bearing people who engage in warfare? Often times, dissent is not possible in these situations.
NYT provides further muddling of the matter with the printing of Michael Slackman's Memo from Cairo, in February '09. In the words of Sam Bahn, "Slackman allows the Arab street to push its own definition on the world. This is, in essence, mob rule."
The ONUS is on Israel
In nearly all situations, the Times places the onus squarely on Israel's shoulders to improve or resolve the predicaments of the region - whether the Israeli-Palestinian, Arab-Israeli, or Iran-Israeli conflicts.
Specifically relating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has to change (and improve) the situation, while the Palestinians (or whoever else) are frequently denied agency, and therefore accountability.
While Times editorials routinely demands that Israel remove checkpoints, release prisoners, uproot settlements, etc., no reciprocal demands are made upon the Palestinians.
The excessive focus on Israel results in the denial of the agency of Israel's antagonists. This denial of agency, similar to the behavior of the colonialists of old, belies a sort of "soft racism" in which the indigenous peoples are denied their free-will and moral capacity.
Specifically relating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has to change (and improve) the situation, while the Palestinians (or whoever else) are frequently denied agency, and therefore accountability.
While Times editorials routinely demands that Israel remove checkpoints, release prisoners, uproot settlements, etc., no reciprocal demands are made upon the Palestinians.
The excessive focus on Israel results in the denial of the agency of Israel's antagonists. This denial of agency, similar to the behavior of the colonialists of old, belies a sort of "soft racism" in which the indigenous peoples are denied their free-will and moral capacity.
Settlements are THE Impediment to Peace
Part of the need is to find moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, assigning each responsibility, or blame, for the impasse between the two.
One of the most frequent issues used to demonstrate this phenomenon is the settlements. Unfortunately, Israel has submitted to this position as well, making the argument that "settlements are THE impediment to peace" that much more persuasive.
This argument was the basis of the Mitchell Plan. When broken down, the absurdity of the proposition comes clear. How is simply residing on territory regarded as anathema? The argument goes that the settlements are illegitimately there. Indeed that is the case for some, but far from all. There are, indeed, legitimate settlements, built on land that was under the administration of the Jordanian government until 1967 and was not owned privately.
At the basis of this problem is that one of the Palestinian demands is that no Jews live in a future Palestinian state. That the international community does not see a link between defamation of the settlement enterprise and a Judenrein state is problematic.
Journalistic Devices
- He-Said, She-Said Journalism
- Moral Equivalence, Equivalence of Responsibility
- The Last-Word
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
