Mining for the Truth

"U.S. Army Deploys Radar System in Israel," A5, Monday, 9/29/08
By Isabel Kershner

The article discusses the United States deployment of "an advanced American radar system on Israeli soil," known as the X-Band (FBX-T) Radar, which will allow "early detection of incoming ballistic missiles and enhancing Israel's defensive capability against any potential attack by Iran."

It is important to note that the radar will be operated, at least initially, by approximately 120 U.S. servicemen. Furthermore, according to a U.S. official, the radar will "serve not only, but the United States, too." It would be interesting to better understand the implications of the installation of such a system on Israeli soil. Is the radar meant to better secure Israel in the case of a hostile attack from Iran and other parties or is its purpose to better prepare Israel for a tactile strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and the heavy missile retaliation that would consequently follow?

Beyond this, the author uses the article to discuss recent attacks perpetrated against Professor Ze'ev Sternhell and a lone Palestinian shepherd in the West Bank's Jordan Valley, both purportedly carried out by right-wing settlers or their sympathizers.

The next day, however, the Israeli police concluded that the attack against the shepherd was not perpetrated by settlers and was in fact not even an attack. Based on the police report, the shepherd died in an accidental explosion after picking up some unexploded ordnance. The New York Times did not publish this newfound information, leaving readers with the assumption that radical settlers had murdered the young Palestinian in cold blood.

Morally Equivalent Manichaeism

"As Holy Days Mix in Old City, So Do Wary Jews and Muslims," A1, Monday, 9/29/08
By Ethan Bronner

Bronner's article, depicting the uneasy mingling of Jews and Muslims in the Old City of Jerusalem during each religions' holy season, serves as a platform for the failed notion of a moral equivalence between Palestinian-Muslim and Jewish extremism.

At first, it seems the author may have a clear understanding of Palestinian rejectionism of Israeli sovereignty: "Some Muslims defy archaeology and history by saying that Jews have no link to the site and that it is purely Muslim sacred territory." I would only add that it is in not "some" Muslim Palestinians that hold this notion, but most likely the majority.

Of course then, Bronner must create the moral equivalency within the same paragraph: "The same problem exists on the other side as well — some Jews believe that the holiness here is theirs alone." It is not some Muslims and some Jews. It is what is probably a great plurality of Palestinians, in comparison to fringe group of Jews that disbelieve in Muslim holy claims to the Temple Mount.

Furthermore, it is the Palestinian Muslims that are actively resorting to violence on a large-scale against Jews, symbolizing their rejection of Jewish connection to the land. Bronner fails to add some key context to the article as to why Jews might be wary of their Palestinian counterparts - namely being that four Arab residents of East Jerusalem have perpetrated four separate attacks targeting Jews since March. In the most lethal of these attacks, an East Jerusalem Arab entered a Jewish seminary, or yeshiva, spraying gunfire, which killed eight young men between the ages of 15 and 26.

Rather than relate this pertinent context, the author cherry-picks a quote from a fringe Jewish extremist: "The Muslims shouldn't have been there... There should be a temple Jewish there. That's what we believe." This only adds to the aura of moral equivalence, or even tips the scales against Israel, demonstrating how radical some of its citizenry is.

Life would surely be simpler to understand if each time two opposing sides conflicted, it was clear that both sides were both equally morally culpable. It seems that moral equivalence was at first propagated to create a much needed balance against Manichean myths like (good) cowboys versus (bad) Indians. Ultimately, however, it has become its own form of unyielding Manichaeism, creating a clear black-and-white bifurcation of moral responsibility between the conflicting parties. Unfortunately, the truth is much more complicated and needs sufficient education to unearth.

To create a moral equivalence between the great sea of Palestinian rejectionism and the minor strain of Jewish rejectionism demonstrates the lack of education, and corresponding truth, in this weak and over-poeticized article.

A Tragedy Requires Greatness

"Israel's Demi-Greek Tragedy"

By Ethan Bronner

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/israels_demi.html

A Developing Danger

"Radical Settlers Take on Israel," A14, Friday, 9/26/08
By Isabel Kershner

This fairly informative article describes the developing struggle between the State of Israel and the increasingly confrontational and radical-wing of the settler movement in the West Bank. This radical-wing can be characterized not only by its fanatical connection to the land, but its willingness to resort to violence not only against Palestinians but also against the the state when it behaves in a manner contradictory to their interests (the Gaza Disengagement, removing settler outposts).

This article shows that these extremist settlers are coming more and more to believe that the state is wholly inimical to its messianic mission and must confront it in one way or another. In the eyes of the so-called 'hilltop youth,' the settler movement and greater Israeli public "have to decide whether they are on the side of the Torah or the state."

These are troubling developments and the Israeli government must punish these extremist settlers for wrong-doing such as vigilante violence or the establishment of illegal outposts.

It is essential to note, however, that these "hard-core right-wing settlers" are not representative of the settlement movement as a whole. The author hints at this, mentioning that these radical settlers "reject what they see as the more compromising policies of the Yesha council, the settler movement’s longstanding umbrella group." Nevertheless, Kershner could do more to develop a clearer distinction between the radicalized hill-top youth and the more pragmatic elements of the settler movement.

Without this sort of distinction, the uneducated reader could come to the rash conclusion that the settlers are an evil body that must be extirpated for the sake of peace with the Palestinians and the democratic and generally secular nature of Israel. This would be an erroneous assumption. The reality is much more complicated.

Overall though, a worthwhile read that like many New York Times articles on Israel, is lacking in some necessary context.

Removing the Agency from the Actor

"Israel: Palestinian Car Rams Israelis in Jerusalem," A10 (World Briefing), Tuesday, 9/23/08
By Isabel Kershner

The article briefly describes an attack perpetrated by an Arab resident of East Jerusalem against a group of Israeli soldiers. He attempted to run them over outside the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem, using his BMW vehicle as an instrument of death. 19 were wounded.

It is important to note that the article published online was not the piece published in the newspaper that day. The newspaper piece is an abbreviated version, which does not include the context included in the larger article. The lengthier piece details how this was the fourth attack carried out by an Arab resident of East Jerusalem since March, two of the others also employing vehicles to maim Israelis. It is unclear why the New York Times opted for the abbreviated piece. The context would have been useful for the reader.

A troublesome point of the article is the construction of the opening sentence: "A car owned by a Palestinian rammed a group of Israeli soldiers and civilians..." This sentence structure removes the agency from the perpetrator, when in fact it was the Palestinian who rammed the Israeli soldiers/civilians with his car, not the car that did the ramming. This somewhat sloppy construction further removes the individual from the action, and from corresponding accountability.

I would also question why the perpetrator was labeled as Palestinian. I believe it was quite clear that it was an Arab resident of East Jerusalem, which would have been more accurate.

These litte things add up...

Girl Power!

"Olmert Quits Post, and Political Maneuvering Begins," A5, Monday, 9/22/08
By Ethan Bronner

The author writes an informative article on Ehud Olmert's resignation from the Prime Ministership, Tzipi Livni's corresponding takeover as Acting Prime Minister, and her coming challenge of forming a coalition or facing national elections. The article also designates a fair amount of attention to speculating on the position and strategy of Ehud Barak, head of the Labor Party, on whether he will join Livni's coalition or join calls for a national election.

It is interesting that rather than note the commendable possiblity that Livni could become the second Prime Minister since Golda Meir (a notable record for a Western democracy, particularly one located in the Middle East), the author chooses to highlight that Barak's decision to not jump to join the coalition may be based on the fact that "the men who have long ruled Israel, at least since GoldaMeir left office in 1974, are uncomfortable with a woman" ruling as Prime Minister.

In a recent update, the London-based organization Just Journalism perceptively noted that British anti-Israel publications have used Tzipi's victory to emphasize "how long it has been since Israel had a female premier" (since nothing good can really be said about Israel). On the other hand, more balanced publications have "focused on the fact that Livni would be the second female Israel PM." It is truly amazing how anti-Israel animosity in certain media can infect each and every facet of their Israel coverage (Note: I am not implying that the NYT belongs in this category).

The Ayatollah Did Decree

"Iran’s Chief Cleric Says Country Is Not a Friend to Israelis," A9, Saturday, 9/20/08
By Nazila Fathi

For those of you counting at home, this is Nazila Fathi's fourth article in a little over a month detailing the ridiculous dispute in Iranian politics regarding the ever-so-conciliatory remarks of Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, Iranian vice president for tourism, to the Israeli people.

In one of these statements, Mashai shared, "I say for a thousandth time that we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans." This "provacative" remarks, that Israelis could possibly be friends of the Iranians, set off a firestorm calling for Mashai's dismissal. In defense of Mashai, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, “We have no problem with people and nations” but “Of course, we do not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime.” How it makes any sense that one can be friend of Israelis while advocating the dismantling or destruction of the political entity they compose is byeond me.

And now finally, top-dog Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader, has entered the fray, "rejecting the notion that his country was a friend to the Israeli people." At the same time though, he has asked other Iranian politicians to stop using this as an issue to undermine Ahmadinejad, effectively showing support for the vitriolic president.

I hope this article makes clear how absurd all this rhetorical theatricality truly is. The leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a friend of the Israeli people, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be one, given the nature of such a regime.

If one wishes to destroy Israel, "the Zionist regime," one is an enemy of the Israeli people, and the enemy of the Jewish people, as Israel serves as the political manifesation of the Jewish people in their historic homeland.

It is not an "advanced" or "progressive" position for Iranian leaders to declare that they are friends of the Jewish people or Israelis while emblazoning a truck in an Iranian military parade with a banner saying "Israel should be eliminated from the universe." At least the "pious" Ayatollah does not attempt to obfuscate the issue any longer. Such a radical regime can do little to obscure its extremist nature. It survives and thrives on it.

Israelis and Israel are One

"Iran's President Denies Hostility to Israelis"

By Nazila Fathi

A8

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/Iran_Pres.html

Jenin the Ruin

"A West Bank Ruin, Reborn as a Peace Beacon"
By Ethan Bronner
Published September 11, 2008, A1

The front page of the September 11, 2008 New York Times features an inspiring headline. In “A West Bank Ruin, Reborn as a Peace Beacon," Ethan Bronner reports on the new plan to turn the Palestinian city of Jenin into a Fatah-run model of security and economic cooperation. You know it's going to be a long march through scores of trite and meaningless lines after the first five words. So Bronner loses a style points for "Pessimism is a steady companion...". His real lapses, though, are on substance. Bronner provokes little thought and omits plenty of context. He also manages to get ugly, by defaming Israel only two paragraphs in. About Jenin's troubled history:

“In 2002, in response to a wave of suicide bombers from Jenin, Israeli tanks leveled entire neighborhoods."

After six years, it should be clear to any observer, let alone journalist, that Israeli tanks did not level entire neighborhoods in Jenin. Better serving readers would be this longer and more accurate backgrounder:

“In 2002, in response to a wave of suicide bombers from Jenin, the Israeli government ordered its army into that city, known to many Palestinians as "the martyrs' (suicide bombers') capital," and to Israelis as a terrorist haven. Israel's stated reason for the operation, in Jenin’s refugee camp, was to arrest those recruiting, dispatching and financing the bombers, as well as to expose and destroy bomb labs and weapons caches and factories.

Militant groups in Jenin, in preparation for Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield," turned most of the camp into a battlefield, extensively booby-trapping buildings and placing mines. Many of the homes fit with explosives were those of militants wanted by Israel. After a week of house-to-house fighting, about 10% of the buildings in Jenin's refugee camp had been destroyed.”

Whether or not Bronner felt this extra context would take too much space, his description is short, dumb and unacceptable. Not only does it paint Israel's response to terrorism as vengeful, cruel and without clear purpose, it reports things that didn't happen. It is very likely most leveling was done by Palestinian militants, who boasted to CNN how many explosives they planted, trapping Israeli soldiers searching buildings.

For effect, we read of tanks leveling entire neighborhoods. Behold Israel's awesome, unbridled power. One might imagine Chinatown and SoHo being leveled. Why? Because some kids from there strapped on belts and blew themselves up.

To read Bronner's description of the battle in Jenin and be truly appalled, one should know the following: Jenin's refugee camp is the only part of Jenin which saw Israeli action in 2002 (unmentioned); It's made up of one neighborhood. (mentioned -- he actually refers, himself, to the camp as "a tough neighborhood of 16,000.") 10% of the buildings were considered destroyed. (unmentioned). Of these buildings, Palestinians destroyed many, if not most of them. (unmentioned). With the six year storm of lies surrounding Israel's actions in Jenin, one wonders if Bronner didn't just turn to Wikipedia.

Bronner reports the aim of the new Jenin plan, different from previous two-state plans, is to establish meaningful relationships from the "bottom-up," rather than "impose coexistence from the top down." It's refreshing for this logical approach to peace to appear in the Times, which often editorializes for a agreement signed as soon as possible. The logic cited for this quick and dirty is that as the occupation drags on, extremists are gaining legitimacy daily.

Bronner cites Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak as praising the Palestinian police in Jenin. "Mr. Barak's words are telling," writes Bronner, since "Israeli defense officials do not make a habit of speaking well of Palestinian police," citing a Western official involved. Why don't these officials speak well of Palestinian police? Readers are left to assume the reason may simply be one of bias. Perhaps these Israelis just don't like or respect Palestinians. To clue in readers, Bronner needed only to ask one of these Israeli officials to find that many Palestinian police have been, and continue to be, complicit in terrorism against Israel. This would've made some sense of Israeli defense officials’ nasty little habit.

Throughout the article, Bronner reports on several positive developments. Mentioned are joint projects between Jenin and the Israeli region of Gilboa, like a Bible-Koran contest for high-school students or the regular meetings of Israeli and Palestinians civic leaders who are planning cooperation in agriculture and commerce. It's nice to hear that Israeli Arabs are playing an important role facilitating. In one of his few counterpoints, Bronner writes of Israeli Arabs' “growing radicalization and identification with the Palestinian national cause and militant Islam”.

In the Jenin plan, there are the typical pratfalls. “Each side,” Bronner reports, blames the other for the plan’s slow progress. “Israel says Palestinian forces still do not deal with terrorists and so its forces must continue night incursions.” Bronner then conveys the Palestinian “worry that the focus on Jenin will take away from the broader issues that need to be solved, like Jerusalem and refugees.”

By parsing neither of these concerns, Bronner creates an equivalence where there is none. The Palestinian obligation to do away with terrorist groups – or at least to prevent terrorist acts against Israel – has been a central tenet of all prior peace agreements. Their failing this obligation, as Israel alleges, precludes any peace on the ground with Israel. On the other hand, focusing on one aspect of peace-building doesn’t take away from others. No one will forget about Jerusalem or refugees while Jenin is trying to be rehabilitated.

Bronner casts in sharp relief the Jenin before the second Palestinian intifada and the one after it. Yet seemingly the only big events which changed things for the worse were the actions of the Israelis, not the Palestinians. Bronner states that “until the 2000 uprising,” Israeli Jews and Arabs regularly shopped in Jenin. Thousands of Palestinians from there worked in Israel. Bronner then zips ahead to “today, the main crossing point, then the site of a sprawling market, is a maze of security towers and checkpoints.” Bronner then mentions “occasional night raids” by the Israel Defense Forces, as well as restrictions on Israeli Arabs now visiting the area.

So what about this uprising? Why did Israel enforce these measures? A descriptive sentence or two on the militant takeover of Jenin, the surge in attacks on Israelis, together with the effectiveness of Israel’s response, would have sufficed. This context is missing.

Towards the end, Bronner again fairly gives a platform to both Israelis and Palestinians to express their concerns. Only this time, he let's you know. “Israeli security officials say their Palestinian colleagues are good at law and order but not at stopping terrorist groups. They say that Islamic Jihad used to be strong here and is no longer because Israel spent years destroying its infrastructure and killing its militants, setting the stage for the Palestinian security takeover. But if they relax their vigilance, the Israelis say, the situation will deteriorate.”

Here, you can tell Bronner is keen on the Palestinian line. It's a nice closer. He reports the Palestinians are "often urged to arrest someone just because he wears a beard.” Yes. Israeli forces, who daily identify and arrest wanted militants, profile bearded Palestinians -- all ten of them -- and ask their Palestinian lap dogs to go fetch. Bronner would have to agree that Israel orders its sons and daughters to bust into people's homes because they want to bust the balls of Palestinians. “As long as they (the Palestinian forces) are seen as puppets of the Israelis, the project is doomed. The key is for Palestinian security officials to be seen as agents of state building. Then the population will cooperate. This requires the kind of discretion that the Israeli army has not been known for.”

Bronner again forgets about the musts of any peace deal: Israelis and Palestinians work together on security. Israel needs to maintain the balance of power. Israel showing "discretion" probably means it would just go after ticking bombs. Even if Israel was discreet and let the Palestinian Authority (PA) do what it loves -- cracking terrorist skulls -- they'll always be seen as essentially Israel’s puppet. There is no credibility on the Palestinian street for doing what Israel dictates – and that is preventing anti-Israel incitement and terrorism. And what sort of discretion should Israel show? Would taking down those ugly security towers and checkpoints be considered showing discretion?

Israel has a more powerful army, it's better trained, it's dedicated...it's saving their own lives. Israel can do a better job. The best job. Should it sit on its hands and assume the more pragmatic of the anti-Israel Palestinian public will do more than lift a perfunctory finger to stop violence if directed at Israel? How fine a line is it between Israel "relaxing its vigilance" and its "showing discretion".

Ethan Bronner should do a better job with an important story like this. Don't repeat lines, process them. Ask smart questions and for heaven's sake, don't say Israel did things it didn't do.

Hilary's Disgrace

"Palin Plans to Visit UN and Join Anti-Iran Rally"

By Elisabeth Bumiller and Patrick Healy

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/Palin,_thurs,_sept_18.html

Abes

Extreme Anti-Jewish Feelings in Predominantly Muslim Nations

"Poll Finds Rising Antipathy Toward Jews and Muslims in Europe"

 By Reuters

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/Antipathy_thurs,_9_18.html

Abes

Unhawkish Livni Prevails

"Israel's Foreign  Minister Prevails in Party Election"

by Ethan Bronner

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/tzipi_thurs,_9_18.html

Abes

Judging the Status Quo

"Main Party in Israeli Coalition Set to Pick Leader," A16, Wednesday, 9/17/08
By Ethan Bronner

Bronner writes a generally informative article on the eve of the Kadima primary. Nevertheless, his article has some significant mischaracterizations.

The author writes that Ariel Sharon originally formed Kadima because he "became convinced that the only way for Israel to maintain its status as a Jewish state was to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank." I don't think this is an accurate description of Sharon's plan. Yes, he recognized the demographic and security difficulties in continuing Israel military and civil control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

Those issues, however, were only part of the equation. Sharon resorted to unilateralism because he believed that there was no partner with which he could conduct negotiations. It wasn't that Sharon suddenly realized the dangers the occupation posed but that the only way Israel could move forward was unilaterally. Israel had to in a sense "set its own borders" because the PA had shown itself ineffectual and unwilling to compromise.

Another point I would dispute is Bronner's description of the left-right divide in Israeli politics: "In Israel, left is distinguished from right largely by the amount of land one is willing to yield in the name of peace with the Arab world. The more one wants to give up, the farther to the left one is said to be."

That is a terribly shallow way to describe the Israeli political continuum. It all comes down to whether Israel should part with 84 percent of the West Bank or 96 percent? It's all about territory? I think it might be more accurate to describe the divide based on how Israelis view the nature of negotiations with the Palestinians.

The mainstream "left" (Labor) and "right" (Likud) is committed to the two-state solution. The left believes the status quo ("occupation") cannot be maintained and must be altered by arriving at a peace agreement as soon as reasonably possible. On the other hand, the right believes the status quo to be tenable for the time being and does not need to be quickly altered through a rushed agreement with the Palestinian leadership.

This is a more accurate way of understanding the left-right divide than simply the percentage of the disputed territories the Israeli parties are willing to cede to the Palestinians. And anyways, the Palestinian leadership has shown that it is not content with any sort of compromise on this issue (only the "1967 borders" will suffice), so it really makes the point moot. This is not simply a struggle for territory but a fundamental struggle over the right of Jews to live in their historical homeland. The Palestinians have not yet conceded that right and before that occurs, it will probably matter very little how much land Israel is willing to cede.

Hamas: Protector of the People, Imposer of Order

"Hamas Strikes at Gaza Clan Known for Criminal Activity," A16, Wednesday, 9/17/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner

The article details a Gaza Strip gun battle between Hamas forces and members of the Dagmush clan in which 11 Dagmush members were killed (including a 1 year-old child) and a Hamas police officer.

Hamas's strike against the clan's compound took place as a result of the killing of another Hamas police officer earlier in the day by a Dagmush member who was resisting arrest.

The Dagmush clan is notorious for its criminal activity (arms smuggling, drugs) as well as its involvement in jihadi-inspired militant groups, such as the Army of Islam, which was responsible for the kidnapping of BBC journalist Alan Johnston and participated in the abduction of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit.

As the authors frame the issue, particularly by the title of the article, the crackdown of such a violent group is a positive development and in this sense, an achievement for Hamas:

"The assault on the powerful Dagmush clan... signaled an apex in the campaign by Hamas... to impose internal order, and it was welcomed by many people here."

Employing the phrasing "imposing internal order" is quite euphemistic given Hamas' authoritarian nature. Hamas' objecitve is not simply to "impose order" but to quash any other focal points of power. The New York Times should be honest about Hamas' motives.

Furthermore, it is important to the note the relationship between the free media and authoritarian regimes that do not permit dissent. Hamas, as well as Fatah, have no commitment to the venerated concept of free speech and do not permit any truth that is critical of their self-serving organizations or supportive of Israel (and will also skew the truth or create falsehoods to promote their policies).

In this context, journalists in the West Bank and Gaza can be threatened for providing unfavorable coverage. Fatah and Hamas can also deny journalists key sources of information, such as personal interviews, for being "uncooperative."

A seasoned observer of the conflict should always keep these issues in mind.

West Bank Violence

"Palestinian is Killed in a Clash with Israelis," A12, Sunday, 9/14/08
By Isabel Kershner

This article details the death of a Palestinian youth in a clash with Israeli soldiers in the Jewish West Bank town of Tekoa near Bethlehem. Palestinians had been throwing rocks at a bus and the IDF arrived to disperse them. It is stated that the IDF shot the youth in the process, which is then corroborated Palestinian and Israeli officials in article, but the information is still somewhat scant.

Additionally, the article recounts how "earlier in the day" a Palestinian stabbed a nine year old boy in the "illegal Jewish outpost" Shalhevet. In turn, a group of settlers from Yitzhar, the outpost's "parent settlement" decided to take justice into their own hands. They entered a nearby Palestinian village and some opened fire with rubber and live ammunition, injuring four Palestinians.

Reading the article, the chronological addition of "earlier in the day" may mislead some into believing that the two events were related. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Tekoa is in the environs of Bethlehem/Jerusalem, whereas Shalhevet-Yitzhar is in the vicinity of Nablus further North. Therefore, the likelihood that the two events are directly related is probably minimal.

Regarding the behavior of the settlers of Yitzhar, there extrajudicial actions are troubling. It is an intolerable threat to the primacy of the state and rule of law. Furthermore, it depicts the entire body of settler movement as violent extremists when it is actually only the actions of a small minority.

NYT Does Not Challenge Bedrock Convictions Against Jews

"9/11 Rumors That Harden Into Conventional Wisdom"
By Michael Slackman, A16
Tuesday, September 9, 2008

New York Times reporter Michael Slackman takes readers out into the Arab street, into the cafe in Riyadh and the mall in Dubai, to document the rumors-turned-conventional wisdom that 9/11 was a plot by the U.S. and Israel to defame Arabs and Muslims. Slackman leads readers to believe that although Arab views of 9/11 are irrational, they may very well come from a rational place -- the view that our government's policies unfairly favor Israel.

THE IRRATIONAL VIEW

Slackman of course has no problem exposing how thoughtless is some of this conventional wisdom. Slackman reports that "first among these (9/11 rumors) is that Jews did not go to work at the World Trade Center on that day. Asked how Jews might have been notified to stay home, or how they kept it a secret from co-workers, people here wave off the questions because they clash with their bedrock conviction that Jews are behind many of their troubles and that Western Jews will go to any length to protect Israel."

So there are many Arabs refusing to let logic get in the way of their convictions. But what of these convictions? Do they stem from the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 or something else? Slackman reports that Arabs see the Iraq War as confirming the plot against them -- whereby 9/11 was used as a pretext. Later Slackman gets to what they feel truly defines this plot.


THE RATIONAL PLACE

Arabs, Slackman tells us, do not see the conspiracy against them beginning with the Iraq War. It was something much older that fused their view of Jews "behind many of their troubles". The "broad view here is that even before Sept. 11, the United States was not a fair broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it then capitalized on the attacks to buttress Israel and undermine the Muslim Arab world." Americans might better understand the region, Slackman writes, if they "simply listen to what people are saying about this -- and try to understand why -- rather than taking offense." (emphasis mine)

Slackman makes a central point. We need to try to understand why. Yet Slackman seems too disinterested or unknowing to get into it. Instead of only challenging the Arab street on the logistics of the Jews staying home theory, Slackman could have also explored the roots of what he calls the Arabs' "bedrock conviction" about Jews. If this bedrock conviction is from Palestinian plight, what specific US policy shift would the Arab street like to see? After all, aren't we concerned with exploring this dangerous conviction and changing it?

The uncomfortable truth is doubly bad: the official Western solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- a two-state solution -- is at odds with most Arabs. This at odds with the NYT's unofficial policy of avoidance on the issue.

It is uncontroversial that the Arab street sees a two-state solution as Western-imposed and unfair. Regardless of Palestinian independence, on whatever amount of land, a two-state solution leaves in tact a Jewish state -- long considered a Western colonial project -- in the Muslim Middle East. Thus it is Israel's existence -- and continued prosperity -- that is seen as the root problem. Nothing less than an Arab-Muslim controlled territory between the river and the sea will be acceptable. Whether or not one labels this position reasonable, it is overwhelmingly mainstraim. It matters little that some Arab leaders publicly announce their support for two-state plans. Hearing their other comments and demands, it is known they say it with a wink. The Arab street knows they are bought. As Slackman quoted a Cairo store owner, "Mubarak says whatever the Americans want him to say, and he's lying for them."

In these interviews, Slackman either didn't mine for, or report, anything meaningful about what Arabs consider fair and acceptable as a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the obvious backbone of his article.

A healthy skepticism, according to Slackman, is what can further explain Arabs' disturbing conspiracy theories. They are a "reflection of how (Arabs) view government leaders," explains Slackman. "Not just in Washington, but...throughout the Middle East. They do not believe them. The state-owned media are also distrusted. Therefore, they think that if the government is insisting that bin Laden was behind it, he must not have been." For informed readers, this is an obvious contradiction.

Are Arab governments insisting that bin Laden was behind 9/11?

As much as they need to. At the same time, Arab state-owned media are today's leading proprietors of unmasking for their public Zionist conspiracies, the most popular being 9/11 as a Mossad operation. Any observor of Arab media knows Israel is whole-heartedly blamed for the Arab-Israeli conflict and Jews are often depicted as demonic schemers who defame Muslims. These depictions are not only sanctioned by the state, they're produced by it.

Would Slackman's interviewees distrust the above ideas because they came from state-owned media? It is in fact likely the rumors Slackman's interviewees repeated to him were ones they picked up because of state-run media, not despite it. As one Cairo man said in reference to Jews not going to work on 9/11, "I saw it on TV." He could've been watching a privately-owned station, but likely not.

LOOKING TO THE PAST

In the recent PBS documentary, "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century," Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis theorizes on the impact Jews and Israel have had on the collective and historical consciousness of millions of Arabs:

You can imagine the impact when these people defeat five armies and do it again and again and again. Now comes the anti-Semite who offers them an explanation for this: it wasn't just half a million Jews. You're dealing with a cosmic evil power, which controls a large part of the world and is seeking to extend its control to the rest. This is soothing.

The facts, and common sense, seem to bear this out. In the years following Israel's independence, the Protocols of Zion grew in popularity throughout the Middle East and Muslim world. Conspiracy theories like the Protocols served as an explanation for the otherwise unfathomable: how Jews -- historically inferior -- could now rule part of the Middle East. It helped solidify in the minds of millions that Jews weren't simply adversaries, but evil and out to get them. Today's conspiracy theory that 9/11 was the work of Israel and the U.S. is borrowed from this view.

Instead of digging deeper into the history of the Arab Middle East, especially Israel's impact on people's psyches, Michael Slackman lazily repeats the trite and ostensibly nuanced line that it is primarily the last seven years of US foreign policy which leads to Arab 9/11 conspiracy theories.

No matter how unjust and illegal reasonable people and respected media view the war in Iraq, that alone is insufficient in explaining Arab views of Israel, Zionism and Jews. With such a sensitive and important topic, the New York Times, as the paper of record, must go deeper.

Digging Deeper: Discovering the Truth of Palestinian Finances

"Palestinians Get 2nd Try in Terror Suit, But at a Price," B1 (B5), Monday 9/8/08
By Benjamin Weiser

The article discusses the merits of a U.S. lawsuit brought against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for the murder of American Aharon Ellis. The plaintiffs, Ellis' family, claim that the Palestinian terrorist, who killed five others in the shooting at a Bat Mitzvah celebration in northern Israel, orchestrated the attack with the support of the PLO and PA.

Overall, this piece is quite informative and concise, providing a clear synopsis of the case. Initially, the PLO and PA refused to defend the case on its merits, resulting in a default judgment of $192.7 million in favor of the Ellis family.

Recently, however, the Palestinians chose to reengage themselves in the case. The presiding judge of the Federal District Court in Manhattan has given the Palestinian defendants a second chance based on "their arguments that they had undergone significant changes in political leadership, and, as a result, had adjusted their legal strategies." While the newfound moderation of the PLO and PA is quite questionable, the judge is still "requiring that the Palestinians post a bond of $192.7 million so that if they lose again, the damages would be paid."

The defense lawyers claim such a sizable bond is impossible given that this sum would be "10 percent of the annual budget of the entire Palestinian Authority" and that the defendants are already "teetering on the verge of bankruptcy."

This response, in turn, raises two larger issues in the context of the case and in the article:

What are the finances of the PA (i.e. Are they as bankrupt as they claim or do they hold other assets [As Arafat did]?)?

What is done with the finances of the PA, much of which the Western community donates (i.e. Does, or has, any of this money gone to supporting terrorist activity against Israel?)?

The author does an admirable job in digging into these serious questions. As the case develops further, hopefully it will provide the American public with clearer answers.

Wither Olmert, Wither the Peace Process?

"Israeli Police Recommend Indictment of Premier," A6 (A11), Monday 9/8/08
By Isabel Kershner

Employing the Israeli police's recommendation to indict Prime Minister Olmert on various criminal charges as a starting point, this article discusses the nature of the criminal case against Olmert.

Some of the information in the piece actually proves quite useful, providing essential details on the two investigations against the PM. According to this information, the reader should understand the gravity of these issues.

At the end, the article overextends itself, attempting to inform the reader on specific legislation being debated in the Israeli government relating to the power of the Israeli Supreme Court and potential compensation for the voluntary evacuation of certain West Bank settlers. Unfortunately, the lack of context makes mentioning these issues almost pointless.

Where the NYT fails, per usual, is overemphasizing the effects of Olmert's pending resignation on the current "peace process" :

"The police recommendation underscored Mr. Olmert's standing as a lame duck and cast a thicker pall over the country's political future and its diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians and with Syria."

This particular author, Isabel Kershner, consistently appears to be quite out of touch with the possibilities of peace offered by current peace negotiations with Palestinians and Syria. First of all, Olmert is not the "lynchpin" to peace. The investigation against Olmert in this article should only make it clearer that he is participating in this diplomacy more out of his own political self-interest than in any true belief that he and his partners can realize peace.

Secondly, no mention is made of the corresponding necessity for the Palestinians and Syrians to be committed to peace with Israel, both of which continue to fail to make any such headway toward such a psychological position.

The Palestinians continue to believe in the unquestioned supremacy of their narrative, which would entail the consequent destruction of the Jewish State through the implementation of the "Right of Return." On the Syrian side, has Assad displayed any intent to forego his tight-knit alliance with Iran, Hezbollah, and the bevy of terrorist groups that reside within its borders?

Without any alteration of these basic facts, the NYT narrative only further separates itself from the truth.

If Gazans Watch "Friends," Then They Can Surely be our Friends

"Watching 'Friends': A Culture Clash in Gaza"

Michael Kimmelman

A1, A18

The NY Times' personal interest articles about Israel, the Jordan’s west bank, and Gaza are consistently silly. As usual, the title poorly conveys the content of the piece. The purpose, it seems, of mentioning “Friends” in the title is to draw the attention of those entertainment hounds who are generally disinterested in politics. Look, Gazans are like you! They watch “Friends,” too. Secondly, the author, Michael Kimmelman, hardly depitcts a “clash.” By the end of the piece, the real picture can no longer be disguised. The issue is not “a culture clash” but government – if that is what Hamas rule is called – repression.

Now to the misstatements, distortions, and poor word choice:

Although the article is about Gazans, each time Israel appears, it is cast in a negative light. Kimmelman writes that the people of Gaza are “penned in by Israel.” Is the author implying that Gazans are like livestock? The intent, I am sure, was to de-legitimize Israel’s blockade of Gaza, but the effect is to de-humanize Gazans. Later on, the author accuses Israel of providing little gasoline, submitting to a typical Hamas talking point.

Music, TV, and the internet provide Gazans with an escape from the “armored checkpoints.” To my knowledge, there are no checkpoints in Gaza. The author appears to confuse Gaza with the Jordan’s west bank. This is just sloppy.

Kimmelman endeavors to present Gazan society, and the larger Muslim world, as a population seething to break out of the grip of violent extremism. At one point, he slips into a comparison between Gaza and the Pakistan-Afghan frontier. “Most Muslims,” we learn, are against the anti-Western agenda of Islamists. How does this assertion reconcile with evidence that Islamist groups are often the government’s strongest opposition group in Muslim countries?

At another point, the author mocks the impact of fatwas, stating that most Gazans are unfazed by them. “Naturally, nobody pays attention [to them],” he writes. Pointing out an exceptional case in which fatwas are dismissed is not enough; Kimmelman must create the appearance that fatwas hold no sway whatsoever over Gazans.

A final point: By now, readers know that the NY Times is intent on casting Fatah as “moderate;” but the implication is not drawn that if Fatah is moderate, then Hamas must be extreme. Instead, the NY Times consistently avoids this apt description.

Abes

Of All the Reasons to Arm the Palestinian Authority

"Israel Aids Palestinians With Arms"

By Isabel Kershner, A6
Saturday, September 6, 2008

In this short article, Kershner reports on Israel transferring 900 assault rifles to the Palestinian Authority (PA). She points out that in November, Israel approved the transfer of 25 armored personnel carriers from Russia to the PA. Kershner also reminds readers of Israel's release of 198 Palestinian prisoners last week, before the start of Ramadan.

It's rare when the New York Times lists more than one Israeli good-will gesture in the same article. Though don't hold your breath for praise of Israel in a Times editorial. Those are reserved for the Times' tough love: exposing Israel's "self-destructive" policies.

When describing Israel's intentions, Kershner stumbles. She states that the weapons are intended to help the PA "fulfill its obligation to dismantle anti-Israel terrorist networks." She quickly follows that point by saying the weapons "may" also be intended to ward off a "looming" Hamas takeover.

Based on the 15 year history of the PA and its record on dismantling these terrorist networks, combined with Hamas threats to route Fatah from power in the West Bank, does Kershner really mention the former as Israel's intent? The arms are obviously intended to stave off Hamas. Kershner should know that the PA has never taken serious steps to dismantle the terrorist networks. So why was this even listed as a reason for the weapons transfer, let alone stated so matter of factly?

Kershner is fair when she airs a typical PA complaint and qualifies it. She writes that Israel "places limits" with training and equipping Abbas's forces, "worred that the (PA) could turn its guns on Israelis." It's nice that this Israeli concern is given at least a line of space. If only Kershner would have pounced on it and elaborated. Is it just a bunch of renegade PA officers who use the weapons to attack Israelis? Is it widespread, a pattern? Are the Israelis making it up?

The point cannot be made in passing this way. It doesn't exactly take investigative journalism to expose the uncomfortable truth that Israel's supposed peace partners are their sworn enemies. Perhaps this is why Kershner makes no attempt to spell this out.

It's an unpleasant reality that Fatah is no partner for peace. It's sad the New York Times would rather its readers deduce this on their own, if at all.

Israeli Elections Are Not an Impediment to Peace

"Syria Says Peace Talks Have Been Postponed as the Israelis Prepare for Elections"

Robert F. Worth

Let it be clear that the Israeli democratic process of determining a new prime minister is not what is holding back an accord with Syria. Think for a moment what this title and parts of the subsequent article imply: The mechanics of Israel's functioning democracy are impeding an agreement. One must conclude, Better to have a dictatorship like Syria. 

In an article that presents the Syrian perspective on an Israel-Syria accord, certain omissions deserve mention. Other parts of the article suffer from under-explanation.

Worth writes that one of Syria's demands is the return of the Golan Heights, but he doesn't state the other piece of that demand - access to the Kinneret, also known as the Sea of Galilee. This is the real sticking point. The author also fails to mention an important fact: Israel absorbed the Golan Heights into one of six administrative districts in the state, the North District, in 1981, an action which it hasn't executed in Judea & Samaria, or the Jordan's west bank.

Another aspect of the article is France's role in the Levant. President Nicolas Sarkozy is hard pressed to explain how his engagement with Syria is in Lebanon's interest. Syria has dominated Lebanon for the last several decades. The French President looks foolish when he declares, "We will affirm Lebanon's sovereignty and independence."

Worth notes the involvement of Qatar in the meeting and credits it with "successfully [mediating] a new peace agreement between Lebanon's feuding political factions in May." The outcome of this mediation is Hezbollah's dominance of the Lebanese government. That cannot be deemed a success.

Abes

Wilfull Misinterpretation: Israel's Warning to Lebanon

"Hezbollah Shrine to Terrorist Suspect Enthralls Lebanese Children"
By Robert F. Worth, A 12
Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Writer Robert F. Worth reports on Hezbollah's newly opened and popular attraction in southern Lebanon -- a shrine to noted, recently assasinated terrorist Imad Mugniyah, and Hezbollah's war against Israel. Yet it is Worth's attempt to provide background that should cause consternation to any informed observer of the Middle East.

The one thousand word article provides vivid details of the ghoulish exhibit. Open until after 1 a.m., overflow crowds and schoolchildren arrive to take in Hezbollah's "carefully honed message of heroic resistance," aptly stated by Worth. Mugniyah's blood-stained clothes behind a glass case, the shrapnel-scarred shoes he died in, and a fake skeleton in a torn Israeli uniform and helmet are just three of the eerie items on display. Worth also notes the exhibit's blaring soundtrack "mixing the sounds of bombs and machine-gun fire with mournful operatic voices and warlike speeches."

"At first glance," Worth writes, "the exhibit could almost be taken for an outdoor children's museum." About halfway through the article, after Worth highlights Mugniyah's resume, the article takes a scary turn. Worth looks to explain the "tense moment in Lebanon":

"Israeli leaders have issued warnings that they would carry out a more devastating attack than the 2006 war if Hezbollah were to lead Lebanon's government."

What? "Leading a government" is all it takes to provoke Israel into full-scale war? And some argue Israel is the besieged nation? Of course, Worth's summation of recent events is embarassingly insufficient.

Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a battleground for its next war with Israel. The terror group has stockpiled Iranian weapons, upgraded and expanded an elaborate network of rocket launchers and bunkers throughout southern Lebanon, made public their war intentions against Israel and in the process intimidated UNIFIL personnel whose desire to confront Hezbollah was already suspect. On August 12, the Lebanese parliament approved a national unity cabinet along with a policy that keeps Hezbollah armed and unchecked.

A few weeks ago, in a visit to a Home Front Command headquarters, Prime Minister Olmert addressed the problem by issuing a clear public warning to Lebanon that if it were to turn "into a Hezbollah state, we would no longer place any limitiations on ourselves."

Olmert continued, "In the Second Lebanon War we had much greater means and capabilities which we avoided using since we fought against a terror organization and not a country."

Hezbollah's al-Manar TV correctly interpreted the Israeli warning. On August 20, Hussein Assi reported in an article on al-Manar's website "if Hezbollah fighters attack again as the dominant force in Lebanon, Israel will hit back harder than before." Hezbollah itself understands that what elicited Israel's warning was not simply their leading the Lebanese government, but their belligerent acts.

These events were widely reported. They're not only relevant, but necessary facts to be included in an article devoted to Hezbollah's martyr theme park. Just four more words could have amended the sentence. "...if Hezbollah were to lead Lebanon to war against Israel," (my emphasis added) is a sentence Worth could have used to sufficiently described Israel's recent warnings to Lebanon. It would have also made the article fit to print.

Either ignorance or wilfull misrepresentation are to blame for Worth's lapse of judgment, which was not insignificant. In this piece, The New York Times essentially stated for its readers that Israel is prepared to bomb its northern neighbor because it does not care for its government.

Since the article was on Hezbollah's crowning PR achievement, a sentence or two on Hezbollah's goals would have also filled out the readers' understanding. Instead, readers are told the exhibit is meant to "dramatize the group's bitter conflict with Israel." Bitter conflict over what? Over captured territory, prisoners, Israel's existence?

At the end of the article, Worth quotes a visitor who brought his wife and two children. The visitor, Ahmed, came to "teach" his kids about "the culture of resistance." Ahmed continued to explain "I want them to see what the enemy is doing to us, and what we can do to fight them, because the enemy is not merciful." After reading that Israel bombs nations whose leaders it dislikes, what uninformed reader would disagree with Ahmed's assessment?

DB


* Al-Manar source: http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=54002&language=en

The Bi-National Bogeyman

"Support for 2-State Plan Erodes" A10, 9/4/08
By Isabel Kershner

The enigmatic and vague threat of the Palestinians demanding a one-state solutions makes another appearance as the focal point in this article, not being the first and I am sure not the last.

So the article begins: "Even among the most moderate Palestinians, the credo of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beginning to erode."

The author then gives credence and legitimacy to the potential demand of a bi-national state: "Prominent mainstream Palestinians are increasingly warning that if they fail soon to achieve the kind of state they want — sovereign and independent, with East Jerusalem as its capital — they will opt instead for a one-state solution based on a long-term fight for equal rights within the state of Israel, a struggle they compare with what took place in South Africa."

Inadvertently, the author is unable to realize that many of the persisting Palestinian demands are quite extreme in nature and underline the extreme Palestinian ethnocentricism, which allows only for the acceptance of their own narrative while utterly rejecting any Jewish claims of legitimacy and sovereignty.

To the NYT though, a bi-national solution appears like a "quaint and positive" solution in order to make the Israelis better realize that their presence within any of the West Bank is the most supreme affront to humanity. While in principle a bi-national state may appear attractive, the rising Palestinian demand for such an outcome is not a measure of their desperation, but of their extremism.

Does the NYT even consider the practicality or result of an implementation of a bi-national plan? It would most likely be worse bloodshed and horror than the the sectarian-fueled Lebanese Civil War. It is disappointing that none of these practical concerns influence the NYT. All they can see is the beauty and harmony of such a preposterous resolution.

It seems that like the Palestinian Strategy Group, the NYT believes it to be "a 'logical scenario' given 'basic Western ideas' of individual freedom, democracy and rule of law."

That would be a terrible manipulation of such Western ideas, which advocate moderation and compromise, rather than maximalist and chauvinistic demands.

Framing the Failure of Annapolis: Israel's Leadership

"Olmert Turmoil Slows Mideast Peace Effort" A7, 9/1/08
By Isabel Kershner

This article, in focusing almost solely on Olmert's nearing political demise, promotes the view that the weakness and instability of Israel's political leadership is the primary cause of the inability to convert the peace process began at the Annapolis Conference into a viable peace agreement.

While it is probably essential that Israel reform its electoral system in order to foster more stable, strong, and upright governance, is this currently one of the primary obstacles to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians?

Even the author notes that there are continue to be considerable gaps in the negotiating positions between the two parties.

The article also hints at something deeper - the persistent history of Palestinian rejectionism - as represented by Mahmoud Abbas' recent meeting with notorious, and previous praise, of the notorious terrorist, Samir Kuntar. Of course, the New York Times makes no such judgment call, failing to question why Abbas would meet with such a virulent Jew-hater, instead simply sharing the Israeli government's displeasure of such ugly behavior.

And so it goes. It appears that the NYT is already framing the failure of Annapolis as an Israeli one. The usual suspect is the focus on the Occupation, settlements, and the Palestinian "root cause" (of oppression and poverty). Now, the weakened Israeli political leadership is thrown into the mix with the NYT even creating the impression that Olmert is a leader that is serious about peace, rather than a self-interested individual who is only considered about his own political preservation.

The NYT doesn't realize that with inept and egotistical leaders like Olmert, and even more importantly, with rejectionist-maximalist leaders like Abbas, there will never be a real peace.