"Israel: Militants Attack Military Base"
A8 (World Brief), November 11/29/08
By the Associated Press
This brief discusses a Palestinian mortar attack targeting Israel's Western Negev. Three of the eleven shells reported fired landed in an Israeli military base, wounding six soldiers. As common to recent NYT's coverage on the past few weeks of Gaza violence, the relevant context is obscured.
In the article, the given context is that earlier in the day "Palestinian gunmen clashed with Israeli troops," leading to the death of one of the Palestinian operatives. This "clash" is then used as the rationale for the Palestinian attack. Nevertheless, this wasn't some random 'encounter.' In reality, "an IDF force on a routine patrol identified suspicious figures apparently laying an IED near the [border] fence," a clear breach of the truce agreement. The hostile Palestinian activity led to the firefight in which one of their operatives was killed.
So overall, the brief paints a picture of ambiguous accountability in which both sides are culpable in this unyielding cycle of violence. Nevertheless, the report allows the Hamas spokesperson to provide the intrinsically more influential last word, claiming that "the mortar fire had been in response to that clash." This frames the entire event as an act of Israeli aggression, accepting the Hamas propaganda without pause. The Times cannot behave in such an unacceptable manner in relation to authoritarian entities (such as Hamas) that have no commitment to promoting the truth.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Ultra-Scrutinized Ultra-Orthodox
"Israeli Film Causes Second Looks at World of the Ultra-Orthodox"
A35, Friday 11/28/08
By Neil Admur
The Israeli film, "The Secrets," relating to "women's rights, lesbian love and kabbalah" in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox world, is the subject of this journalist's article. This past Wednesday, the movie opened in seven theaters in New York. The majority of the article is devoted to the thoughts of four different rabbis and a rabinnical student (Conservatie, Reform, and Modern Orthodox - men and women) on the movie.
Interestingly enough, some of these rabbis offer very valid criticism of the film. One rabbi disputes the director's black-and-white depiction of the secular and ultra-Orthodox world: "You have to be married and live the life of a sort of a constrained rebbetzin [rabbi's wife] or you live in an alternative lifestyle. And those two extremes are clearly not the only choices." This rabbi is very perceptive in highlighting the very fertile middle-ground for Jewish women in which they do not have to be caricatures of religious submission or indivualistic and chic secularism.
In the end, the NYT continues to maintain a closely-trained critical eye on the Jewish ultra-Orthodox community in the Israel and U.S. (see "How Do You Prove You're a Jew?" among many others), prompting one to ask "Why?"
A35, Friday 11/28/08
By Neil Admur
The Israeli film, "The Secrets," relating to "women's rights, lesbian love and kabbalah" in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox world, is the subject of this journalist's article. This past Wednesday, the movie opened in seven theaters in New York. The majority of the article is devoted to the thoughts of four different rabbis and a rabinnical student (Conservatie, Reform, and Modern Orthodox - men and women) on the movie.
Interestingly enough, some of these rabbis offer very valid criticism of the film. One rabbi disputes the director's black-and-white depiction of the secular and ultra-Orthodox world: "You have to be married and live the life of a sort of a constrained rebbetzin [rabbi's wife] or you live in an alternative lifestyle. And those two extremes are clearly not the only choices." This rabbi is very perceptive in highlighting the very fertile middle-ground for Jewish women in which they do not have to be caricatures of religious submission or indivualistic and chic secularism.
In the end, the NYT continues to maintain a closely-trained critical eye on the Jewish ultra-Orthodox community in the Israel and U.S. (see "How Do You Prove You're a Jew?" among many others), prompting one to ask "Why?"
The Pope's Potential Appointment
"Pope May Make First Trip to Israel and Palestinian Lands in '09"
A11, Friday 11/28/08
By Rachel Donadio
This piece discusses Pope Benedict's potential visit to Israel and Palestinian-controlled territories in 2009 but centers more around the overall, and oftentimes, problematic relationship between Israel and the Vatican. The central difficulty today, as the NYT has previously reported, is the debate over the beatification of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), "who some Jews say... did not do enough to save Jews during the Holocaust."
According to the article, this has resulted in "weeks of tension between the Vatican and Israel," though fails to mention if the Israeli government itself has lobbied against Pius' beatification or if it has been the work of non-governmental Jewish organizations or some other party. It is also somewhat difficult to believe that Pius' beatification has been delayed or questioned in "tacit acknowledgment of Jewish concerns." If Pius failed to sufficiently act to save the Jews or other targeted minorities amidst the Nazi horrors, it would not simply be a particular 'Jewish concern' but a moral humanitarian question for those responsible for determining whether Pius is worthy of beatification.
All things considered, this article doesn't quite seem newsworthy if its main purpose was to highlight a potential visit from Pope Benedict to the 'Holy Land' in 2009.
A11, Friday 11/28/08
By Rachel Donadio
This piece discusses Pope Benedict's potential visit to Israel and Palestinian-controlled territories in 2009 but centers more around the overall, and oftentimes, problematic relationship between Israel and the Vatican. The central difficulty today, as the NYT has previously reported, is the debate over the beatification of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), "who some Jews say... did not do enough to save Jews during the Holocaust."
According to the article, this has resulted in "weeks of tension between the Vatican and Israel," though fails to mention if the Israeli government itself has lobbied against Pius' beatification or if it has been the work of non-governmental Jewish organizations or some other party. It is also somewhat difficult to believe that Pius' beatification has been delayed or questioned in "tacit acknowledgment of Jewish concerns." If Pius failed to sufficiently act to save the Jews or other targeted minorities amidst the Nazi horrors, it would not simply be a particular 'Jewish concern' but a moral humanitarian question for those responsible for determining whether Pius is worthy of beatification.
All things considered, this article doesn't quite seem newsworthy if its main purpose was to highlight a potential visit from Pope Benedict to the 'Holy Land' in 2009.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Finally - the Real Story
"Israel Prepares to Indict Its Premier in Double-Billing"
By Isabel Kershner
November 27
A12
For the last several months, the story around Olmert has been that the corruption scandals surrounding him and his resignation were significant because they were delaying the peace process. This was an innovative, but flawed take on what had occurred.
By Isabel Kershner
November 27
A12
For the last several months, the story around Olmert has been that the corruption scandals surrounding him and his resignation were significant because they were delaying the peace process. This was an innovative, but flawed take on what had occurred.
Finally, an article has appeared about the only real story regarding Olmert and corruption – his indictment. Why the NYTimes made a darling out of someone who was so basically corrupt instead of declaring his engagement with the Palestinian Authority traife is a topic of needed discussion.
Hebron: Model of Security Cooperation, Ethnic Cleansing of Jews
"Palestinian Forces Dilute Hebron's Volatile Brew"
A6, Wednesday 11/26/08
By Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner doesn't let difficult questions cloud his depiction of two vitally important issues: Israeli-Palestinian security relations and the Jewish future of Hebron.
On these security relations, Bronner states "something significant seems to be happening." This is true. Law and order has returned to Jenin and Hebron following the installation of PA security forces.
Bronner attributes the cooperation to "leaders of both nations," who "assert that a two-state solution is the only way forward." In describing positive developments of Israel-Palestinian cooperation, the Times again overreaches. Bronner needs to show more skepticism in attributing the word "solution" to Abbas' two state platform.
In Palestinian political discourse, establishing an independent state is advertised as a pragmatic position – a temporary accommodation with an Israel too strong to be defeated. The PA is careful to qualify two states as not being a solution. For instance, the PA has undermined the concept of a Jewish state and promoted the right of return, positions inimical to the two-state solution.
Bronner gives voice to the issue of the PA working not with Israel, but against it. He cites David Wilder, spokesman for Hebron's Jewish community, "referring to what happened eight years ago when the Palestinian police turned their guns on Israelis in the second intifada."
So what has changed for the PA in a decade? Bronner claims, as described above, that the PA is now for the two-state solution.
Is the incentive in not turning their guns on Israelis rooted in a genuine change of heart on Israel's legitimacy, in a pragmatism that Israel currently cannot be undermined and defeated through armed struggle or perhaps in a realization that under threat of a Hamas takeover, the Fatah-led PA has no choice but to cooperate with Israel and maintain its grip on power? For many astute observers, the second and third points best explain current PA cooperation, which is thus seen as resting on shaky ground. The Times will have none of this. The PA is a partner for peace, with no ulterior motives.
Bronner's treatment of Wilder's remarks should be examined. After declaring Hebron's Jews "among the most combative in the West Bank," Bronner cites Wilder's explanation for the recent defacing of a Muslim cemetery and mosque by settlers as "the result of endless provocation".
Bronner doesn't explore the merits of this charge, which may or may not explain these Jews' "combative" nature. This lack of exploration also allows Bronner to paint the mere presence of 700 Jews in Hebron's old city as the provocation.
Bronner, through Haaretz's Nadav Shragai, presents a stark "fault line" for Israel: those who believe a "future of our sons is more important than the graves of our forefathers" and those who believe "there is no future for their sons in a place without the graves of their forefathers".
These are positions that divide Israelis. However, there is more complexity to the situation. Why is there no room for compromise or accommodation for a Jewish community committed to maintaining a millennia-old presence in Judaism's second holiest city? Is there no stream of secular Israeli thought concerned with this question?
That there goes unaddressed the option of offering Palestinian citizenship to Hebron's Jews reveals two troubling and overlapping aspects of Palestinian society: The denial of others' religious rights, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews. For the Times, this observation of Palestinian society's treatment of non Arab-Muslims – casting into doubt the prospect of coexistence – is best left unexposed.
What's most astounding about this piece is that the Times uses Hebron to make an example of Palestinian cooperation on one hand and a justification for ethnic cleansing of Jews on the other.
A6, Wednesday 11/26/08
By Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner doesn't let difficult questions cloud his depiction of two vitally important issues: Israeli-Palestinian security relations and the Jewish future of Hebron.
On these security relations, Bronner states "something significant seems to be happening." This is true. Law and order has returned to Jenin and Hebron following the installation of PA security forces.
Bronner attributes the cooperation to "leaders of both nations," who "assert that a two-state solution is the only way forward." In describing positive developments of Israel-Palestinian cooperation, the Times again overreaches. Bronner needs to show more skepticism in attributing the word "solution" to Abbas' two state platform.
In Palestinian political discourse, establishing an independent state is advertised as a pragmatic position – a temporary accommodation with an Israel too strong to be defeated. The PA is careful to qualify two states as not being a solution. For instance, the PA has undermined the concept of a Jewish state and promoted the right of return, positions inimical to the two-state solution.
Bronner gives voice to the issue of the PA working not with Israel, but against it. He cites David Wilder, spokesman for Hebron's Jewish community, "referring to what happened eight years ago when the Palestinian police turned their guns on Israelis in the second intifada."
So what has changed for the PA in a decade? Bronner claims, as described above, that the PA is now for the two-state solution.
Is the incentive in not turning their guns on Israelis rooted in a genuine change of heart on Israel's legitimacy, in a pragmatism that Israel currently cannot be undermined and defeated through armed struggle or perhaps in a realization that under threat of a Hamas takeover, the Fatah-led PA has no choice but to cooperate with Israel and maintain its grip on power? For many astute observers, the second and third points best explain current PA cooperation, which is thus seen as resting on shaky ground. The Times will have none of this. The PA is a partner for peace, with no ulterior motives.
Bronner's treatment of Wilder's remarks should be examined. After declaring Hebron's Jews "among the most combative in the West Bank," Bronner cites Wilder's explanation for the recent defacing of a Muslim cemetery and mosque by settlers as "the result of endless provocation".
Bronner doesn't explore the merits of this charge, which may or may not explain these Jews' "combative" nature. This lack of exploration also allows Bronner to paint the mere presence of 700 Jews in Hebron's old city as the provocation.
Bronner, through Haaretz's Nadav Shragai, presents a stark "fault line" for Israel: those who believe a "future of our sons is more important than the graves of our forefathers" and those who believe "there is no future for their sons in a place without the graves of their forefathers".
These are positions that divide Israelis. However, there is more complexity to the situation. Why is there no room for compromise or accommodation for a Jewish community committed to maintaining a millennia-old presence in Judaism's second holiest city? Is there no stream of secular Israeli thought concerned with this question?
That there goes unaddressed the option of offering Palestinian citizenship to Hebron's Jews reveals two troubling and overlapping aspects of Palestinian society: The denial of others' religious rights, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews. For the Times, this observation of Palestinian society's treatment of non Arab-Muslims – casting into doubt the prospect of coexistence – is best left unexposed.
What's most astounding about this piece is that the Times uses Hebron to make an example of Palestinian cooperation on one hand and a justification for ethnic cleansing of Jews on the other.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Mossad's Solid Record
"Iran Arrests 3 Militia Volunteers as Israeli Spies"
By Nazila Fathi
A7
November 26, 2008
Fathi has written a fairly good, accurate piece about the arrest of three purported Israeli spies in Iran.
Three comments:
By Nazila Fathi
A7
November 26, 2008
Fathi has written a fairly good, accurate piece about the arrest of three purported Israeli spies in Iran.
Three comments:
- Stating that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "hostile" to Israel is an understatement since Ahmadinejad has vowed to destroy it.
- Instead of simply reporting that Israel "has a nuclear arsenal," Fathi should have also mentioned that its government has never officially stated that it has a nuclear arsenal. The issue is not that Fathi has let the proverbial cat out of the bag but that stating this would hint toward Israel's intentions toward Iran, which are defensive, not aggressive.
- Fathi reports that "Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear site in 1981 and what it suspected was a Syrian nuclear site in 2007." She should have added that recent reports from the IAEA suggest that this suspicion has been substantiated. In other words, Israel's Mossad is rarely wrong about national security matters this significant.
PA Presidential Crisis
"West Bank: Palestinian President to Seek Early Votes"
A13 (World Briefing), Wednesday 11-26-08
This brief and benign article neutrally describes the coming governmental crisis between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah intends to delay Palestinian presidential elections, currently scheduled for January 9, 2009, while Hamas has threatened that "it will no longer recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Abbas" once his term ends on that date.
As this crisis develops, it should receive greater media coverage.
A13 (World Briefing), Wednesday 11-26-08
This brief and benign article neutrally describes the coming governmental crisis between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah intends to delay Palestinian presidential elections, currently scheduled for January 9, 2009, while Hamas has threatened that "it will no longer recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Abbas" once his term ends on that date.
As this crisis develops, it should receive greater media coverage.
The Perennial Victim
"U.S. Muslims Taken Aback by a Charity's Conviction"
A23, Wednesday 11/26/08
By Laurie Goodstein
In a follow-up piece to an earlier article on the guilty verdict found against the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation charity (for providing funding to the terrorist organization Hamas), this report discusses the resultant shock and "uncustomary silence" within the Muslim-American community. Similar to the previous article, the NYT once again portrays Muslim-Americans as victims of some sort of post September 11 Islamophobic trend.
The author writes that this case "had long revealed a divide among Muslim Americans" -- "Some saw the prosecution of the foundation primarily as evidence of anti-Muslim bias by the American government, while others suspected that the charity might indeed have operated as an overly politicized money funnel for Hamas in the 1990s." Despite the reporter's framing of the issue, she actually shares no quotes that express the American-Muslim leadership's dismay that a supposedly legitimate charity was diverting funds to support the work of a terrorist organization, humanitarian or otherwise.
Instead, the reporter gives voice to Muslim leaders who express their resentment at the U.S. government, accusing it of tainting philanthropic Islamic charities as supporters of terror:
Perhaps the U.S. Muslim community is largely a victim - not of the government's policies but of the radicals within their own ranks. The U.S. government should rightfully be vigilant of terrorist funding and American-based Islamic charities must do their utmost to ensure that their generous contributions are not diverted to terrorist organizations. The American-Muslim community needs focus on what it can do - mainly marginalizing and condemning those Muslims who would fund terrorism, directly or indirectly - rather than focusing on some U.S. government conspiracy to demonize Islam.
It is unfortunate that the NYT frequently portrays Muslims as the perennial victim - of colonialism, imperialism, prejudice, Israel, U.S. gov't policies, etc. - rather than mining for a deeper story.
A23, Wednesday 11/26/08
By Laurie Goodstein
In a follow-up piece to an earlier article on the guilty verdict found against the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation charity (for providing funding to the terrorist organization Hamas), this report discusses the resultant shock and "uncustomary silence" within the Muslim-American community. Similar to the previous article, the NYT once again portrays Muslim-Americans as victims of some sort of post September 11 Islamophobic trend.
The author writes that this case "had long revealed a divide among Muslim Americans" -- "Some saw the prosecution of the foundation primarily as evidence of anti-Muslim bias by the American government, while others suspected that the charity might indeed have operated as an overly politicized money funnel for Hamas in the 1990s." Despite the reporter's framing of the issue, she actually shares no quotes that express the American-Muslim leadership's dismay that a supposedly legitimate charity was diverting funds to support the work of a terrorist organization, humanitarian or otherwise.
Instead, the reporter gives voice to Muslim leaders who express their resentment at the U.S. government, accusing it of tainting philanthropic Islamic charities as supporters of terror:
- Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president of the Minaret of Freedom Institute: "It [the court ruling] seems to give a green light for further intimidation of Muslim charities. It makes people even more unsure of what they are supposed to do to avoid having a problem."
- Dr. Ziad J. Asali, "founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine": "We wanted to be able to go to the donors and say, if you donate to this entity you don’t have to worry about someone accusing you of terrorism."
Perhaps the U.S. Muslim community is largely a victim - not of the government's policies but of the radicals within their own ranks. The U.S. government should rightfully be vigilant of terrorist funding and American-based Islamic charities must do their utmost to ensure that their generous contributions are not diverted to terrorist organizations. The American-Muslim community needs focus on what it can do - mainly marginalizing and condemning those Muslims who would fund terrorism, directly or indirectly - rather than focusing on some U.S. government conspiracy to demonize Islam.
It is unfortunate that the NYT frequently portrays Muslims as the perennial victim - of colonialism, imperialism, prejudice, Israel, U.S. gov't policies, etc. - rather than mining for a deeper story.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Terrorist Donors or Victims of Post 9/11 Islamophobia?
"Five Convicted in Terrorism Financing Trial"
A16, Tuesday 11/25/08
By Gretel C. Kovach
This piece discusses the guilty verdict reached against five leaders of a Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The leaders were found guilty of illegally funneling money to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that the U.S. government designated a terrorist organization in 1995. All in all, the defendants "were convicted on all 108 criminal counts against them, including support of terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud."
Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming body of evidence brought against these leaders that led to their convictions in a court of law, the reporter gives much credence to the perspective that this verdict was part of a continuing trend of Islamic demonization since September 11. A variety of individuals that supported the defendants are quoted to corroborate this view.
By ending the article in this fashion, what sort of message is the author sending to the audience? In doing so, the reporter lends much authority to the conspiratorial accusations of the defedants' supporters, whether or not they are based in truth.
Overall, it is somewhat amazing that the NYT cannot do the research to substantiate whether or not the charges brought against the foundation were true (which they apparently are given the defendants' conviction in the court of law) and instead devolves into an ambiguous 'he said, she said' argument.
A16, Tuesday 11/25/08
By Gretel C. Kovach
This piece discusses the guilty verdict reached against five leaders of a Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The leaders were found guilty of illegally funneling money to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that the U.S. government designated a terrorist organization in 1995. All in all, the defendants "were convicted on all 108 criminal counts against them, including support of terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud."
Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming body of evidence brought against these leaders that led to their convictions in a court of law, the reporter gives much credence to the perspective that this verdict was part of a continuing trend of Islamic demonization since September 11. A variety of individuals that supported the defendants are quoted to corroborate this view.
- Khalil Meek, "spokesman for a coalition of Holy Land Foundation supporters called Hungry for Justice": "This jury found that humanitarian aid is a crime."
- Noor Elashi, daughter of one of the defendants: "My dad is a law-abiding citizen who was persecuted for his humanitarian work in Palestine and his political beliefs."
She also said that "she was 'heartbroken' that jurors had accepted what she called the fear-mongering of the prosecution" and that "This is a truly low point for the United States of America."
By ending the article in this fashion, what sort of message is the author sending to the audience? In doing so, the reporter lends much authority to the conspiratorial accusations of the defedants' supporters, whether or not they are based in truth.
Overall, it is somewhat amazing that the NYT cannot do the research to substantiate whether or not the charges brought against the foundation were true (which they apparently are given the defendants' conviction in the court of law) and instead devolves into an ambiguous 'he said, she said' argument.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Empty Coverage of Iranian Execution, Arrest
"Iran Executes Man in Spy Case, and Blogger's Arrest Is Reported"
A23, Sunday 11/23/08
By Nazila Fathi
This article is remarkable for not only the terrible story it reports, but for its absence of questions, commentary and quotes from officials. This may help explain why such a huge story was buried on page A23.
The execution of Iranian Ali Ashtari is reported solely through Iranian news media. We're told only of an Israeli official in June having no knowledge of his case. The source and information of the recent arrest for spying of "high-profile blogger" Hossein Derakhshan is no better: a "web site affiliated with the Iranian Intelligence Ministry".
The International Herald Tribune is ahead of the Times curve in reporting this story. Fathi notes that in an IHT op-ed this Friday, an Israeli journalist who previously interviewed Derakhshan described him as an "'Iranian patriot' who through his blog 'offered the first views of ordinary life in Israel that Iranians had been able to see.'"
Fathi continues:
"Mr. Rabinovich quoted Mr. Derakhshan as saying "I want to humanize Israel for Iranians and tell them it's not what the Islamic propaganda machine is saying, that Israelis are thirsty for Muslim blood. And I want to show Israel that the average Iranian isn’t even thinking about doing harm to Israel."
This quote may reveal the impetus in the Iranian regime's arrest. It also brings to mind several questions. Why was this IHT op-ed not printed in the Times? Why wasn't Mr. Rabinovich, at the very least, reached for comment? Regardless of the difficulty in receiving from Iranian officials information about both of these cases, why did the Times not press the issue and if it did, why isn't that cited? Why were Israeli officials not asked to comment?
What say human rights organizations? What do the Israeli press report? Back to these individuals: Were these men Jewish? Were their confessions forced? What do their families say? The Times addresses none of this.
What the Times does offer is a poor description of the "tension" between Israel and Iran, which isn't as benign as Iran not recognizing Israel. What's more, the belligerence of Iran shouldn't be encapsulated by Ahmadinejad and his speaking "of Israel with hostility since his election in 2005".
Putting the problem on Ahmadinejad, this description misses the bigger picture of a regime with a fundamental and deep hostility to Israel. In 2001, then-president Rafsanjani spoke of the benefits and small "sacrifice" of a nuclear exchange with Israel. Is it a stretch to see such a regime falsely accuse of espionage citizens unsympathetic to this view? Even a simple parsing of Mr. Derakhshan's quote may have revealed that 1) to the Iranian regime, the term "Israeli spy" is applied to those who promote understanding of Israel and that 2) the Iranian regime is desperate for a story about Israeli spies, with which to justify its past belligerence to – and future plans for – the Jewish state.
Instead of spending time on Israel's "Don Corleone," the Times this week could've served its readers with hard, independent reporting and commentary on a bigger story. With the absence of such coverage, how can the Times still be referred to as the paper of record?
A23, Sunday 11/23/08
By Nazila Fathi
This article is remarkable for not only the terrible story it reports, but for its absence of questions, commentary and quotes from officials. This may help explain why such a huge story was buried on page A23.
The execution of Iranian Ali Ashtari is reported solely through Iranian news media. We're told only of an Israeli official in June having no knowledge of his case. The source and information of the recent arrest for spying of "high-profile blogger" Hossein Derakhshan is no better: a "web site affiliated with the Iranian Intelligence Ministry".
The International Herald Tribune is ahead of the Times curve in reporting this story. Fathi notes that in an IHT op-ed this Friday, an Israeli journalist who previously interviewed Derakhshan described him as an "'Iranian patriot' who through his blog 'offered the first views of ordinary life in Israel that Iranians had been able to see.'"
Fathi continues:
"Mr. Rabinovich quoted Mr. Derakhshan as saying "I want to humanize Israel for Iranians and tell them it's not what the Islamic propaganda machine is saying, that Israelis are thirsty for Muslim blood. And I want to show Israel that the average Iranian isn’t even thinking about doing harm to Israel."
This quote may reveal the impetus in the Iranian regime's arrest. It also brings to mind several questions. Why was this IHT op-ed not printed in the Times? Why wasn't Mr. Rabinovich, at the very least, reached for comment? Regardless of the difficulty in receiving from Iranian officials information about both of these cases, why did the Times not press the issue and if it did, why isn't that cited? Why were Israeli officials not asked to comment?
What say human rights organizations? What do the Israeli press report? Back to these individuals: Were these men Jewish? Were their confessions forced? What do their families say? The Times addresses none of this.
What the Times does offer is a poor description of the "tension" between Israel and Iran, which isn't as benign as Iran not recognizing Israel. What's more, the belligerence of Iran shouldn't be encapsulated by Ahmadinejad and his speaking "of Israel with hostility since his election in 2005".
Putting the problem on Ahmadinejad, this description misses the bigger picture of a regime with a fundamental and deep hostility to Israel. In 2001, then-president Rafsanjani spoke of the benefits and small "sacrifice" of a nuclear exchange with Israel. Is it a stretch to see such a regime falsely accuse of espionage citizens unsympathetic to this view? Even a simple parsing of Mr. Derakhshan's quote may have revealed that 1) to the Iranian regime, the term "Israeli spy" is applied to those who promote understanding of Israel and that 2) the Iranian regime is desperate for a story about Israeli spies, with which to justify its past belligerence to – and future plans for – the Jewish state.
Instead of spending time on Israel's "Don Corleone," the Times this week could've served its readers with hard, independent reporting and commentary on a bigger story. With the absence of such coverage, how can the Times still be referred to as the paper of record?
Barenboim's Narrative
"A Whirlwind Named Barenboim"
AR1, Sunday 11/23/08
By Michael Kimmelman
The renowned pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim, an Argentine-born Israeli, is the subject of this interesting feature. The piece paints a vivid picture of Barenboim's extraordinary talent, his admirers, his frenzied and varied schedule and his outspoken and undeveloped views on Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.
It is this last point that is endemic to Times coverage of Israeli subjects who are ostensibly unrelated to politics and the Palestinians. To be fair, it is not off-topic that Barenboim is given a voice on the subject of Israeli-Palestinian peace. More than just a celebrated Israeli music icon, Barenboim has, regarding Israel's lack of peace with its neighbors, made many critical comments – some perceptive, some not.
Towards the end of the article, Barenboim's views of the conflict are given voice following mention of the "West-Eastern Divan," the orchestra he co-founded with the late Edward Said. The noble vision of the project, remarked Barenboim, was "to give each person a forum to articulate his or her thoughts and beliefs in front of the other".
Barenboim then makes some less inspiring comments:
"I grew up in Israel in the '50s, when it was not an occupying power."
So Israel was more innocent, more the victim, before its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967? What is problematic is that in the mainstream Arab view, Israel has since its creation been an occupying power.
"With CNN and Al-Jazeera today, it's easy to forget that we could be totally unaware then of the story of the Palestinians. We told ourselves that either the Palestinians had left because they wanted to leave, or they were encouraged to leave by other Arabs."
After the Munich massacre, Palestinian highjackings and other publicized attacks – before cable and satellite TV – who could be "totally unaware" of the story of the Palestinians? Perhaps Barenboim's comment is more nuanced. Maybe he means "the story" of the Palestinians could only be so justly articulated by CNN and Al-Jazeera.
Barenboim does have a point about Israelis hearing a sanitized version of the Palestinian flight in the 1948 War. There is more openness now in Israel in talking about the unpleasant products of that war – Israeli massacres and expulsions. Yet a big part of the Palestinian flight was encouraged by Arab leaders. This has been admitted to by prominent Palestinians.
The distorted and self-soothing narrative in the Arab world – and among Palestinians – is rarely if ever remarked on by prominent Arabs, nor featured in the Times.
Barenboim cites "Golda Meir saying: 'Who are these Palestinian people? We are the people of Palestine.' And for the first time I thought to myself, that can't be right."
Meier didn't imply that only Jews are "the people of Palestine". She criticized the publicized narrative, of which Israelis, according to Barenboim, were "totally unaware". According to Meier, this narrative spoke of a distinct Palestinian people – a nation – that was uprooted by Israel. Meier took issue – not with the existence of Palestinian Arabs or their humanity – but of this narrative that upgraded their status to that of a nation. Of course, Meier's points can be debated and rejected, yet they shouldn't be simplified, as Barenboim does.
"I'm not naïve. I know most Arabs don't see a reason for Israel to exist as a Jewish state. But in the last 20 years many have come to the conclusion that they need to make some accommodation. Meanwhile this is not the Israel I grew up with."
Here, Barenboim takes a step forward and two steps back. It reveals a sense of desperation that while acknowledging "Arabs don't see a reason for Israel to exist," he feels Arabs see a "need" to make "some accommodation". This is a point that needs further developing. Is this accommodation sufficient for a substantive, long-term peace with Israel? If Arabs are philosophically against Israel's existence, how does that work against their supposedly sober sense of accommodation?
Barenboim contrasts Arabs who feel the "need to make some accommodation" against an Israel – at least the one in which Barenboim grew up – that does not. Yet the Israel back then, according to Barenboim himself, found no Arab partner ready to make accommodation, as this accomodation has supposedly only developed within "the last 20 years". It is a poor reading of history to suggest Israel in the 50s and 60s didn't seek accomodation with the Arabs.
The Times shouldn't be faulted here for giving Barenboim a platform to express these views, nor for failing to provide a rebuttal. The Times, however, should be faulted for an unsettling pattern: often flawed and hyperbolic Arab criticism of Israel has over time been balanced only by flawed and hyperbolic Israeli criticism of Israel.
AR1, Sunday 11/23/08
By Michael Kimmelman
The renowned pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim, an Argentine-born Israeli, is the subject of this interesting feature. The piece paints a vivid picture of Barenboim's extraordinary talent, his admirers, his frenzied and varied schedule and his outspoken and undeveloped views on Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.
It is this last point that is endemic to Times coverage of Israeli subjects who are ostensibly unrelated to politics and the Palestinians. To be fair, it is not off-topic that Barenboim is given a voice on the subject of Israeli-Palestinian peace. More than just a celebrated Israeli music icon, Barenboim has, regarding Israel's lack of peace with its neighbors, made many critical comments – some perceptive, some not.
Towards the end of the article, Barenboim's views of the conflict are given voice following mention of the "West-Eastern Divan," the orchestra he co-founded with the late Edward Said. The noble vision of the project, remarked Barenboim, was "to give each person a forum to articulate his or her thoughts and beliefs in front of the other".
Barenboim then makes some less inspiring comments:
"I grew up in Israel in the '50s, when it was not an occupying power."
So Israel was more innocent, more the victim, before its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967? What is problematic is that in the mainstream Arab view, Israel has since its creation been an occupying power.
"With CNN and Al-Jazeera today, it's easy to forget that we could be totally unaware then of the story of the Palestinians. We told ourselves that either the Palestinians had left because they wanted to leave, or they were encouraged to leave by other Arabs."
After the Munich massacre, Palestinian highjackings and other publicized attacks – before cable and satellite TV – who could be "totally unaware" of the story of the Palestinians? Perhaps Barenboim's comment is more nuanced. Maybe he means "the story" of the Palestinians could only be so justly articulated by CNN and Al-Jazeera.
Barenboim does have a point about Israelis hearing a sanitized version of the Palestinian flight in the 1948 War. There is more openness now in Israel in talking about the unpleasant products of that war – Israeli massacres and expulsions. Yet a big part of the Palestinian flight was encouraged by Arab leaders. This has been admitted to by prominent Palestinians.
The distorted and self-soothing narrative in the Arab world – and among Palestinians – is rarely if ever remarked on by prominent Arabs, nor featured in the Times.
Barenboim cites "Golda Meir saying: 'Who are these Palestinian people? We are the people of Palestine.' And for the first time I thought to myself, that can't be right."
Meier didn't imply that only Jews are "the people of Palestine". She criticized the publicized narrative, of which Israelis, according to Barenboim, were "totally unaware". According to Meier, this narrative spoke of a distinct Palestinian people – a nation – that was uprooted by Israel. Meier took issue – not with the existence of Palestinian Arabs or their humanity – but of this narrative that upgraded their status to that of a nation. Of course, Meier's points can be debated and rejected, yet they shouldn't be simplified, as Barenboim does.
"I'm not naïve. I know most Arabs don't see a reason for Israel to exist as a Jewish state. But in the last 20 years many have come to the conclusion that they need to make some accommodation. Meanwhile this is not the Israel I grew up with."
Here, Barenboim takes a step forward and two steps back. It reveals a sense of desperation that while acknowledging "Arabs don't see a reason for Israel to exist," he feels Arabs see a "need" to make "some accommodation". This is a point that needs further developing. Is this accommodation sufficient for a substantive, long-term peace with Israel? If Arabs are philosophically against Israel's existence, how does that work against their supposedly sober sense of accommodation?
Barenboim contrasts Arabs who feel the "need to make some accommodation" against an Israel – at least the one in which Barenboim grew up – that does not. Yet the Israel back then, according to Barenboim himself, found no Arab partner ready to make accommodation, as this accomodation has supposedly only developed within "the last 20 years". It is a poor reading of history to suggest Israel in the 50s and 60s didn't seek accomodation with the Arabs.
The Times shouldn't be faulted here for giving Barenboim a platform to express these views, nor for failing to provide a rebuttal. The Times, however, should be faulted for an unsettling pattern: often flawed and hyperbolic Arab criticism of Israel has over time been balanced only by flawed and hyperbolic Israeli criticism of Israel.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Lack of Transparency Begets Ambiguity
"Iranian Ex-President Says Chief of Atomic Agency is Unfair"
A8, Saturday 11/22/08
By Nazila Fathi
In this piece, reporter Nazila Fathi gives voice to Iranian Ex-President Rafsanjani, who complains that the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) recent report criticizing the lack of Iranian transparency is ambiguous, unfair, and biased. Given that Rafsanjani provides no information of substance, it seems a bit silly that his comments are the centerpiece of the article.
The key issue remains that Iran continues to defy the IAEA and multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, regardless of how loud its leaders protest. The IAEA is demanding greater transparency so it can determine whether Iran's nuclear program is for civilian or military purposes. Furthermore, the UN Security Council continues to demand that Iran freeze uranium enrichment, which it has adamantly refused to do. As long as Iran does not come clean on the nature of its program, the Islamic Republic should expect that international pressure should continue and increase.
The end of the article is devoted to similar Syrian noncompliance to a separate IAEA report released the same day that further details traces of uranium found at a Syrian military installation (destroyed by Israel in an airstrike in September 2007) and demands greater Syrian transparency. Regarding the report, Fathi writes "the agency... said it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at the site." These weren't exactly "ambiguous traces" given that the uranium particles found were not naturally occurring but a product a chemical-processing.
Furthermore, based on satellite imagery of the site before and after the attack, the report states that the site's "containment structure appears to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged."
Given these facts, the uranium traces found indicate much more than ambiguity. Iran and Syria can cry foul as much as they want but that doesn't alter the fact that they are clearly in violation of their obligations to the IAEA and UN Security Council. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the IAEA to provide clear conclusions when Iran and Syria refuse to provide transparency.
A8, Saturday 11/22/08
By Nazila Fathi
In this piece, reporter Nazila Fathi gives voice to Iranian Ex-President Rafsanjani, who complains that the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) recent report criticizing the lack of Iranian transparency is ambiguous, unfair, and biased. Given that Rafsanjani provides no information of substance, it seems a bit silly that his comments are the centerpiece of the article.
The key issue remains that Iran continues to defy the IAEA and multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, regardless of how loud its leaders protest. The IAEA is demanding greater transparency so it can determine whether Iran's nuclear program is for civilian or military purposes. Furthermore, the UN Security Council continues to demand that Iran freeze uranium enrichment, which it has adamantly refused to do. As long as Iran does not come clean on the nature of its program, the Islamic Republic should expect that international pressure should continue and increase.
The end of the article is devoted to similar Syrian noncompliance to a separate IAEA report released the same day that further details traces of uranium found at a Syrian military installation (destroyed by Israel in an airstrike in September 2007) and demands greater Syrian transparency. Regarding the report, Fathi writes "the agency... said it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at the site." These weren't exactly "ambiguous traces" given that the uranium particles found were not naturally occurring but a product a chemical-processing.
Furthermore, based on satellite imagery of the site before and after the attack, the report states that the site's "containment structure appears to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged."
Given these facts, the uranium traces found indicate much more than ambiguity. Iran and Syria can cry foul as much as they want but that doesn't alter the fact that they are clearly in violation of their obligations to the IAEA and UN Security Council. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the IAEA to provide clear conclusions when Iran and Syria refuse to provide transparency.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Israel's Don Corleone?
"Shiva, Gangland Style, Behind Burly Guards and Security Cameras"
A10, Friday 11/21/08
By Isabel Kershner
A10, Friday 11/21/08
By Isabel Kershner
This piece goes under the rubric of heralding the shortcomings and weaknesses of the Jewish State in the NYT's coverage of the recent car-bomb assassination of crime boss Don Alperon. Building on a shorter article on the subject earlier this week, the reporter continues to excessively dramatize the influence and ubiquity of organized crime in Israel, begging the question of why such an issue is commanding so much attention in the first place.
In dramatizing the issue, Kershner compares Don Alperon to Don Corleone, creating the impression that Israeli organized crime is as powerful and dangerous as Italian-American mafia of old. While Israel does have difficulties with such crime, it reaches nowhere near the levels of Russia or Italy, making it comical that the Israeli "mafia" is receiving press coverage while infinitely more significant organized crime in other parts of the world is generally ignored.
Underscoring how dangerous organized crime in Israel, Kershner mentions how "a 31-year-old Israeli woman was shot dead in front of her husband and two young children when she got in the way of a botched mob hit on a beach in Bat Yam, south of Tel Aviv. Mr. Amira [another crime boss] was believed to have been the real target." It was not that this woman "got in the way" to obstruct the assassination attempt but that the assassins accidentally shot an innocent bystander and missed their actual target. Such an example shows the incompetence of Israeli organized crime more than it demonstrates the threat of such criminals to the population at large.
Overall, this piece is extremely hyperbolic and correspondingly has a hyperbolic conclusion, quoting one of Alperon's sons who has sworn to take vengeance on his father's killers, declaiming that "There won’t even be a head left to bury." Palestinians blowing up Jews is pedestrian - but Jews blowing up Jews - now that's a story.
Given that Israel is inundated with foreign journalists, it is natural that such an event would
Underscoring how dangerous organized crime in Israel, Kershner mentions how "a 31-year-old Israeli woman was shot dead in front of her husband and two young children when she got in the way of a botched mob hit on a beach in Bat Yam, south of Tel Aviv. Mr. Amira [another crime boss] was believed to have been the real target." It was not that this woman "got in the way" to obstruct the assassination attempt but that the assassins accidentally shot an innocent bystander and missed their actual target. Such an example shows the incompetence of Israeli organized crime more than it demonstrates the threat of such criminals to the population at large.
Overall, this piece is extremely hyperbolic and correspondingly has a hyperbolic conclusion, quoting one of Alperon's sons who has sworn to take vengeance on his father's killers, declaiming that "There won’t even be a head left to bury." Palestinians blowing up Jews is pedestrian - but Jews blowing up Jews - now that's a story.
Given that Israel is inundated with foreign journalists, it is natural that such an event would
Unworthy to Report
"Hezbollah Seeks to Marshal the Piety of the Young"
Robert F. Worth profiles summer camps of the terrorist organization humbly called party of God, or Hezbollah in Arabic.
Robert F. Worth
A1
November 21
Robert F. Worth profiles summer camps of the terrorist organization humbly called party of God, or Hezbollah in Arabic.
Worth displays a stunning lack of independence in his journalism, unbefitting of such a renowned media outlet, such as the NYTimes. He offers a recitation of Hezbollah propaganda with respect to Israel and uncritically presents their worldview.
Hezbollah’s denotion of Israel as adversary appears no less than eight times in the article, but at no point does the reporter present the reader with an accurate picture of the Hezbollah-Israel conflict, which was initiated and is perpetuated by Hezbollah.
The references that most clearly evidence Worth’s adoption of Hezbollah propaganda are those that include the word “struggle”:
• “to continue its military struggle against Israel” [paragraph 5]
• “the struggle with Israel , they were told, is the same as the
struggle of Shiite Islam’s founding figures, Ali and Hussein, against unjust rullers intheri time” [19]
• “full time pre-occupation with Hezbollah’s military struggle against Israel” [35]
Leaving aside Hezbollah propaganda, Hezbollah’s worldview receives uncritical presentation by Worth. In sections referring to women, secular society, and the death of Imad Mugniyah, Worth submits to the Hezbollah perspective:
• “He is extremely devout – he will not shake hands with women” [paragraph 39]
This is as much sexism as devotion.
• “temptations of Lebanon’s secular and often decadent society” [42]
Pray tell, would Amsterdam be called “decadent” in the pages of the NYTimes?
• Imad Mugniyah “who was widely viewed in the West as the mastermind of decades of bombings, kidnappings and hijackings” [29]
Is this a matter of perception? Isn’t Mugniyah known for the same actions in Lebanon, but much of the populace looks at those actions as positive not negative?
• “loyal base of support that has made Hezbollah the most powerful, military and social force in Lebanon” [4]
• “loyal base of support that has made Hezbollah the most powerful, military and social force in Lebanon” [4]
No. What has made it the most powerful is the truckloads of arms from Iran through Syria that it receives. Hezbollah would like to play up its grassroots people power in order to appear homegrown, rather than looking like the foreign-funded presence that it is.
One wonders why Worth has essentially given Hezbollah control over its image in this article. Fortunately, the answer is hinted at in the piece itself.
Worth writes, “The party has become extremely protective and rarely grants outsiders access to them.” Therefore, if you do get access to them, you better write sympathetically.
A last point – for the Jews out there. Worth conveys the hateful messages taught to camp participants about Jews, but will not use the word anti-Semitic to describe this material. That is a damn shame.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Another Israeli Roadblock
"Obama Calls Palestinian President"
A10, World Briefing / Middle East
By Isabel Kershner
There's nothing problematic about this news brief. It's worth noting which part of a comment is quoted and which isn't. Saeb Erekat stated that Obama and Abbas "reiterated their commitment to continue to work"…for a two-state solution. It's not unusual for the Palestinian Authority to reiterate this – when convenient – only to tell its people something else. So whether or not Erekat mentioned a two-state solution here, Kershner and the Times have no problem stating it on his behalf.
We run into trouble with a longer version of the news brief, published on the Times web site. Kershner mentions that Obama called Olmert last week, and they talked up the peace process. Kershner then tries to bring Times readers back to earth. "In reality, the yearlong Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which have not resulted in a deal, are suspended pending the outcome of Israeli elections on Feb. 10."
It would be refreshing for the Times to offer a reality check on what has delayed a deal. However, while it's true negotiations are essentially going nowhere until Israeli elections, what's stalled negotiations to this point are the inflexible positions of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA continues to promote the right of return, armed struggle and steadfastness against Israel and recently publicly mocked the notion of a Jewish state. When the Times laments the recent lack of progress in talks, it's Israeli settlements, or an Israeli response to terrorism or in this case, Israeli democracy.
The idea that Palestinian disunity, covered by the paper, precludes an effective agreement right now, eludes the Times.
Of note, Kershner mentions that Netanyahu is doing well in the polls and that he "opposes statehood talks with the Palestinians at this stage." It's important that Kershner qualifies his opposition with "at this stage," as Netanyahu has stated he wants to see the PA fulfill more of its obligations -- such as end incitement and crack down on militants. She could've mentioned with an additional sentence Netanyahu's positions, and/or his plans for forging an economic peace with the Palestinians -- a story merely poked at by the Times -- as a prelude to statehood.
One shouldn't have to agree with a popular opposition leader to fully and accurately report his views.
A10, World Briefing / Middle East
By Isabel Kershner
There's nothing problematic about this news brief. It's worth noting which part of a comment is quoted and which isn't. Saeb Erekat stated that Obama and Abbas "reiterated their commitment to continue to work"…for a two-state solution. It's not unusual for the Palestinian Authority to reiterate this – when convenient – only to tell its people something else. So whether or not Erekat mentioned a two-state solution here, Kershner and the Times have no problem stating it on his behalf.
We run into trouble with a longer version of the news brief, published on the Times web site. Kershner mentions that Obama called Olmert last week, and they talked up the peace process. Kershner then tries to bring Times readers back to earth. "In reality, the yearlong Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which have not resulted in a deal, are suspended pending the outcome of Israeli elections on Feb. 10."
It would be refreshing for the Times to offer a reality check on what has delayed a deal. However, while it's true negotiations are essentially going nowhere until Israeli elections, what's stalled negotiations to this point are the inflexible positions of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA continues to promote the right of return, armed struggle and steadfastness against Israel and recently publicly mocked the notion of a Jewish state. When the Times laments the recent lack of progress in talks, it's Israeli settlements, or an Israeli response to terrorism or in this case, Israeli democracy.
The idea that Palestinian disunity, covered by the paper, precludes an effective agreement right now, eludes the Times.
Of note, Kershner mentions that Netanyahu is doing well in the polls and that he "opposes statehood talks with the Palestinians at this stage." It's important that Kershner qualifies his opposition with "at this stage," as Netanyahu has stated he wants to see the PA fulfill more of its obligations -- such as end incitement and crack down on militants. She could've mentioned with an additional sentence Netanyahu's positions, and/or his plans for forging an economic peace with the Palestinians -- a story merely poked at by the Times -- as a prelude to statehood.
One shouldn't have to agree with a popular opposition leader to fully and accurately report his views.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Humanitarian Catastrophe or Con?
"Foreign Reporters’ Group Fights Israeli Prohibition on Entering Gaza"
A12, Wednesday 11/19/08
By Isabel Kershner
In a generally neutral manner, this article describes Israel's decision to bar the local Foreign Press Association from entering Gaza during this latest flare-up in violence, and the corresponding opposition of the reporters who seek to reverse this policy. Israel, which has closed Gaza's border crossing in response to Palestinian rocket fire, is only allowing movement in and out of Gaza for "essential humanitarian cases."
Kershner positively reports that Israel has "allowed 33 trucks carrying basic food and medical supplies to enter" into Gaza and that "a number of Gazans in need of medical treatment had been allowed to leave." Nevertheless, she uncritically accepts the positions of international aid organizations that "[warn] that the lack of supplies was jeopardizing their operations in Gaza." It is somewhat unclear what the statement exactly means but would logically relate to the pronoucements international aid organizations have made, such as Oxfam, that have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if Israel were to continue its closre of the Gaza Strip.
Given that Hamas has theatrically exploited such closures in the past to create the impression of a grave humanitarian crisis, such information would be of value in this article. This is particularly true given the intricate networks of tunnels Hamas operates that are constantly funneling tons of goods from Egypt into Gaza. Even the Palestinian Authority has accused Hamas of staging a new series of blackouts in order to win over international sympathy and support.
Such valid skepticism should be highlighted.
A12, Wednesday 11/19/08
By Isabel Kershner
In a generally neutral manner, this article describes Israel's decision to bar the local Foreign Press Association from entering Gaza during this latest flare-up in violence, and the corresponding opposition of the reporters who seek to reverse this policy. Israel, which has closed Gaza's border crossing in response to Palestinian rocket fire, is only allowing movement in and out of Gaza for "essential humanitarian cases."
Kershner positively reports that Israel has "allowed 33 trucks carrying basic food and medical supplies to enter" into Gaza and that "a number of Gazans in need of medical treatment had been allowed to leave." Nevertheless, she uncritically accepts the positions of international aid organizations that "[warn] that the lack of supplies was jeopardizing their operations in Gaza." It is somewhat unclear what the statement exactly means but would logically relate to the pronoucements international aid organizations have made, such as Oxfam, that have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if Israel were to continue its closre of the Gaza Strip.
Given that Hamas has theatrically exploited such closures in the past to create the impression of a grave humanitarian crisis, such information would be of value in this article. This is particularly true given the intricate networks of tunnels Hamas operates that are constantly funneling tons of goods from Egypt into Gaza. Even the Palestinian Authority has accused Hamas of staging a new series of blackouts in order to win over international sympathy and support.
Such valid skepticism should be highlighted.
The Balancing Act that Never Was
"Court in Egypt Annuls Deal with Israel on Gas Supply"
A12, Wednesday 11/19/08
By Mona El-Naggar
This article discusses an Egyptian court's ruling to stop the government from supplying Israel with natural gas, arguing that the contract "was improperly awarded because it was not approved by Parliament." The author frames the issue from the perspective that Egyptian "officials must walk a tightrope between maintaining relations with their neighbor and mollifying public opinion, which is often hostile to the Jewish state," principally given the Palestinian issue.
This is a misconceived framing of the issue given that the Egyptian government itself, through state-controlled media and institutions, often acts as purveyor of virulently anti-Israel invective and Antisemitism that far transcends opposition to Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. In one notorious case, state television aired a 41-part series, Horseman Without a Horse, which promotes the famed Antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The author rightfully highlights the 'Cold Peace' between Egypt and Israel, but it is not simply a measure of the general public's hatred of Israel (bottom to top). The Egyptian government (top to bottom) also disseminates and exploits this hostility against Israel for it own selfish purposes.
So while the Egyptian government clearly maintains relations with Israel, it does very little to cultivate them and often undermines these relations out of its own Machiavellian self-interest.
A12, Wednesday 11/19/08
By Mona El-Naggar
This article discusses an Egyptian court's ruling to stop the government from supplying Israel with natural gas, arguing that the contract "was improperly awarded because it was not approved by Parliament." The author frames the issue from the perspective that Egyptian "officials must walk a tightrope between maintaining relations with their neighbor and mollifying public opinion, which is often hostile to the Jewish state," principally given the Palestinian issue.
This is a misconceived framing of the issue given that the Egyptian government itself, through state-controlled media and institutions, often acts as purveyor of virulently anti-Israel invective and Antisemitism that far transcends opposition to Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. In one notorious case, state television aired a 41-part series, Horseman Without a Horse, which promotes the famed Antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The author rightfully highlights the 'Cold Peace' between Egypt and Israel, but it is not simply a measure of the general public's hatred of Israel (bottom to top). The Egyptian government (top to bottom) also disseminates and exploits this hostility against Israel for it own selfish purposes.
So while the Egyptian government clearly maintains relations with Israel, it does very little to cultivate them and often undermines these relations out of its own Machiavellian self-interest.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Int'l Law Breakers
"Syria: Uranium Traces Inconclusive, Head of U.N. Atomic Agency Say"
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By Reuters
This article works to downplay the implications of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) recent confirmation that uranium was found at a Syrian site that was suspected to be an incipient and covert nuclear reactor prior to its destruction in a preventative Israeli airstrike last year.
While principal focus is placed on minimizing the connection between the uranium and a potential reactor, the relevant questions are ignored. Even if it wasn't a reactor, why was uranium found at the site and why aren't the Syrians cooperating with the international investigation as demanded by ElBaradei?
What is clear but not explicitly said is that Syria was contravening its own obligations as a member party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By Reuters
This article works to downplay the implications of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) recent confirmation that uranium was found at a Syrian site that was suspected to be an incipient and covert nuclear reactor prior to its destruction in a preventative Israeli airstrike last year.
While principal focus is placed on minimizing the connection between the uranium and a potential reactor, the relevant questions are ignored. Even if it wasn't a reactor, why was uranium found at the site and why aren't the Syrians cooperating with the international investigation as demanded by ElBaradei?
What is clear but not explicitly said is that Syria was contravening its own obligations as a member party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Mafia Menace in Israel?
"Israel: Car Bomb Kills Mafia Leader"
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By The Associated Press
The article relates the car bomb assassination of one of Israel's top mafia kingpins. While the story in itself is interesting, it is somewhat puzzling why such a localized story is receiving international media coverage. In other countries, such as Italy and Russia, organized crime is much more ubiquitous and influential but receives minimal coverage.
Overall, the narration in this brief piece is extremely hyperbolic, speaking about "mob wars [that] have plagued Israeli cities" and the potential unleashing of "an all-out [mob] war in Israel's increasingly violent underworld." While there is a real problem with organized crime in Israel, such descriptions do not accurately relay the reality of the situation, which is not nearly as dire.
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By The Associated Press
The article relates the car bomb assassination of one of Israel's top mafia kingpins. While the story in itself is interesting, it is somewhat puzzling why such a localized story is receiving international media coverage. In other countries, such as Italy and Russia, organized crime is much more ubiquitous and influential but receives minimal coverage.
Overall, the narration in this brief piece is extremely hyperbolic, speaking about "mob wars [that] have plagued Israeli cities" and the potential unleashing of "an all-out [mob] war in Israel's increasingly violent underworld." While there is a real problem with organized crime in Israel, such descriptions do not accurately relay the reality of the situation, which is not nearly as dire.
Locally Made Firecrackers
"Israel: 250 Palestinians To Be Released"
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By Isabel Kershner
This brief article neutrally describes Israel's decision to release 250 Palestinian prisoners next month in a goodwill gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
At the end of the article, the author also writes that "10 locally made rockets were fired" at Israel the previous day. It appears that employing the term "locally made rockets" is meant to emphasize the crude and unsophisticated nature of the projectiles, falsely implying that they do not pose a serious physical danger to the Israeli citizens of the Western Negev.
A8 (World Briefing), Tuesday 11/18/08
By Isabel Kershner
This brief article neutrally describes Israel's decision to release 250 Palestinian prisoners next month in a goodwill gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
At the end of the article, the author also writes that "10 locally made rockets were fired" at Israel the previous day. It appears that employing the term "locally made rockets" is meant to emphasize the crude and unsophisticated nature of the projectiles, falsely implying that they do not pose a serious physical danger to the Israeli citizens of the Western Negev.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Fraudulent Framing of a News Story
"Israel Kills 4 Militants in Gaza Strip"
A7, Monday 11/17/08
By Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary
This is another piece in an ongoing series of articles covering the continuing escalation of violence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip. In this instance, as the title's article so eloquently puts it, Israeli forces killed four members of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) who were preparing to fire rockets/mortars into Israel. In a terrible display of unprofessional and politicized reporting, Kershner relates this attack to "Israeli officials [ratcheting] up their tough talk."
Amusingly, this article does not really share much "tough talk" by such officials. The only real tough talk can be attributed to Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Transportation Minister, who is not in much of a position to determine policy vis-a-vis Hamas. In comparison, the most senior officials, PM Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, actually display a strong desire in avoiding further violence. The NYT quotes Barak as saying "that no one should regret any month that passes quietly" and that “hotheadedness is not a replacement for policy.”
Beyond contradicting its own framing of the article, the NYT continues to commit the same old narrative errors. Firstly, Kershner cannot get herself to attribute agency to Palestinian militants. Rather than preparing to fire rockets/mortars at Israel, the militants were simply "planning to," and this is not stated as a fact, but only "according to the group [PRC] and the Israeli military."
Wait, both the Israeli military and the PRC confirm that the militants were preparing to launch explosive projectiles at Israel and the NYT still needs to qualify the statement with the indefinite and relative "according to"? At what point does something just clearly become a fact? When it comes to Palestinian misdeeds, the NYT appears to have a very difficult time attributing agency or certainty to their behavior.
Secondly, Kershner continues to attribute the ending of calm and the beginning of the eruption of violence to Israel's incursion to destroy a Hamas-constructed tunnel near the Israeli border without providing the relevant context, namely that such a tunnel was previously used to attack Israeli border guards and abduct Gilad Shalit. In comparison, Kershner's colleague Ethan Bronner provides the relevant context in an article this previous Friday in which he writes: "The army feared that the tunnel would be used to seize an Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for more than two years."
Kershner's perspective, in which such a tunnel is not viewed as a military threat, may better explain her view that "to a large extent, the truce is dependent on Hamas being able and willing to rein in smaller groups like the Popular Resistance Committees." Superficially, the prevention of rocket and mortar fire by more minor Palestinian factions is necessary for the preservation of the ceasefire. But on a more macro level, Israeli military action should not come as a surprise, or deserve much condemnation, if Hamas continues to exploit the lull in fighting to smuggle weaponry and build tunnels in preparation for its next round of conflict against its 'Zionist enemy.'
A7, Monday 11/17/08
By Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary
This is another piece in an ongoing series of articles covering the continuing escalation of violence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip. In this instance, as the title's article so eloquently puts it, Israeli forces killed four members of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) who were preparing to fire rockets/mortars into Israel. In a terrible display of unprofessional and politicized reporting, Kershner relates this attack to "Israeli officials [ratcheting] up their tough talk."
Amusingly, this article does not really share much "tough talk" by such officials. The only real tough talk can be attributed to Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Transportation Minister, who is not in much of a position to determine policy vis-a-vis Hamas. In comparison, the most senior officials, PM Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, actually display a strong desire in avoiding further violence. The NYT quotes Barak as saying "that no one should regret any month that passes quietly" and that “hotheadedness is not a replacement for policy.”
Beyond contradicting its own framing of the article, the NYT continues to commit the same old narrative errors. Firstly, Kershner cannot get herself to attribute agency to Palestinian militants. Rather than preparing to fire rockets/mortars at Israel, the militants were simply "planning to," and this is not stated as a fact, but only "according to the group [PRC] and the Israeli military."
Wait, both the Israeli military and the PRC confirm that the militants were preparing to launch explosive projectiles at Israel and the NYT still needs to qualify the statement with the indefinite and relative "according to"? At what point does something just clearly become a fact? When it comes to Palestinian misdeeds, the NYT appears to have a very difficult time attributing agency or certainty to their behavior.
Secondly, Kershner continues to attribute the ending of calm and the beginning of the eruption of violence to Israel's incursion to destroy a Hamas-constructed tunnel near the Israeli border without providing the relevant context, namely that such a tunnel was previously used to attack Israeli border guards and abduct Gilad Shalit. In comparison, Kershner's colleague Ethan Bronner provides the relevant context in an article this previous Friday in which he writes: "The army feared that the tunnel would be used to seize an Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for more than two years."
Kershner's perspective, in which such a tunnel is not viewed as a military threat, may better explain her view that "to a large extent, the truce is dependent on Hamas being able and willing to rein in smaller groups like the Popular Resistance Committees." Superficially, the prevention of rocket and mortar fire by more minor Palestinian factions is necessary for the preservation of the ceasefire. But on a more macro level, Israeli military action should not come as a surprise, or deserve much condemnation, if Hamas continues to exploit the lull in fighting to smuggle weaponry and build tunnels in preparation for its next round of conflict against its 'Zionist enemy.'
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Why Is Hamas Pressured?
"Hamas Fires Rockets Into Israel"
Published November 17, 2008; Page A7
By Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary
Reporters Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary place a lens on the pressure Hamas is feeling – who's directing it and Hamas' reaction. However, the issue of why Hamas is being pressured would make for a more illuminating piece.
Readers learn that Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel, sending 18 Israelis to the hospital. The reporters cite Hamas officials who say the rockets were "revenge for the deaths over the past 11 days of 11 militants and the recent increased Israeli closing of Gaza crossings."
Israeli officials are reported as saying the Gaza crossings have been shut "in retaliation for the rockets, thereby greatly decreasing the availability of supplies and fuel". So which came first, the rockets or the border closings? Here, the Times should've elaborated upon the rockets to which Israeli officials refer.
Rockets and mortars have repeatedly violated the truce well before Israel's operation to destroy Hamas' tunnel, or what is obliquely referred to as "five months of relative calm". What made this time relatively calm were the aforementioned rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel. The firings and Israel's targeting the launchers may have been in mind when the reporters write that "confrontations began to spike this month".
Thus, readers are left to believe that Israeli officials are making excuses – switching cause and effect – for their closing the borders. In reality, one cannot operate a border crossing with rockets and mortars flying overhead.
Any full accounting of the rise in "tensions" must center on the tunnel Hamas was to use to abduct Israeli soldiers. Worried that its operation would be construed as a violation of the truce, Israel "asked Egypt to pass that message to Hamas in advance, "but," readers are next told, "six Hamas militants were killed during the tunnel's destruction." Well, sort of. Attempting to destroy the tunnel, the IDF came under fire from Palestinian gunmen. The IDF responded in defense.
According to Bronner, it was the deaths of these militants that led Hamas to "retaliate with rockets, which led to more closings and operations and then more rockets." The problem of Hamas' kidnapping tunnel has been buried under the supposed "tit-for-tat" which followed.
This paragraph thus leads readers to believe that if only Israel hadn't killed these militants (in what may have been an unnecessary operation), the region may have been spared all the mayhem that followed.
"Beyond the tit-for-tat of the last week," Bronner explains "several factors at work". One is that Hamas is feeling "unusual pressure" after Fatah has arrested hundreds of its men in the West Bank. The second factor is lack of Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, with Hamas complaining that Fatah "has not made good on a prisoner release".
"Finally, under American and Israeli pressure, Egypt has started to destroy or shut tunnels into southern Gaza that have been a major source of supplies and fuel — and weapons — that have offset the Israeli closings. As a result, Hamas is now feeling besieged not only by Israel, but also by Fatah and Egypt."
Are readers to believe that the amount of supplies and fuel smuggled in from these tunnels is comparable to the amount that could come from Israel? Furthermore, Hamas' weapons buildup through these tunnels during the ceasefire has been a major concern in Israel – warranting more than the breezy mention it gets here.
The issue of Hamas' unreliability as a government is pushed further out of view as we hear from Oxfam. "As a matter of humanitarian imperative, Israeli leaders must resume supplies into Gaza without further delay." If the truce isn’t maintained by both Israel and the Palestinians, the statement said, it could be "catastrophic for civilians both in Gaza and in nearby Israeli towns." If crossings aren't opened by Israel – regardless of acts of war and dangers directed against it – Israelis will suffer rocket attacks? Is Oxfam actually warning Israel against this inevitability, rather than warning Hamas stop its belligerence? This is a horrible statement, one apparently fit to print.
Readers learn that "Israeli officials suspect that there is actually enough fuel, and say that Hamas officials are trying to embarrass them by closing electricity plants." Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev says Israel has "no desire to see a humanitarian crisis there. Unless the rockets stop, though, how can we move the supplies in?" These important mentions, however, do not offset this story's misguided approach.
Hamas is dedicated to Israel's demise through armed struggle. Even a policy that would benefit its people, like operating a border crossing, is off limits since it involves working with Israel. Yet here, Hamas' recent behavior seems to be the result of its feeling "under pressure" and "besieged". Such feelings could've easily been avoided had Hamas had at heart at least the short term interests of its citizens.
To repeat, the focus here should've been on Hamas' behavior, not the reaction to it.
Published November 17, 2008; Page A7
By Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary
Reporters Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary place a lens on the pressure Hamas is feeling – who's directing it and Hamas' reaction. However, the issue of why Hamas is being pressured would make for a more illuminating piece.
Readers learn that Hamas fired a barrage of rockets into Israel, sending 18 Israelis to the hospital. The reporters cite Hamas officials who say the rockets were "revenge for the deaths over the past 11 days of 11 militants and the recent increased Israeli closing of Gaza crossings."
Israeli officials are reported as saying the Gaza crossings have been shut "in retaliation for the rockets, thereby greatly decreasing the availability of supplies and fuel". So which came first, the rockets or the border closings? Here, the Times should've elaborated upon the rockets to which Israeli officials refer.
Rockets and mortars have repeatedly violated the truce well before Israel's operation to destroy Hamas' tunnel, or what is obliquely referred to as "five months of relative calm". What made this time relatively calm were the aforementioned rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel. The firings and Israel's targeting the launchers may have been in mind when the reporters write that "confrontations began to spike this month".
Thus, readers are left to believe that Israeli officials are making excuses – switching cause and effect – for their closing the borders. In reality, one cannot operate a border crossing with rockets and mortars flying overhead.
Any full accounting of the rise in "tensions" must center on the tunnel Hamas was to use to abduct Israeli soldiers. Worried that its operation would be construed as a violation of the truce, Israel "asked Egypt to pass that message to Hamas in advance, "but," readers are next told, "six Hamas militants were killed during the tunnel's destruction." Well, sort of. Attempting to destroy the tunnel, the IDF came under fire from Palestinian gunmen. The IDF responded in defense.
According to Bronner, it was the deaths of these militants that led Hamas to "retaliate with rockets, which led to more closings and operations and then more rockets." The problem of Hamas' kidnapping tunnel has been buried under the supposed "tit-for-tat" which followed.
This paragraph thus leads readers to believe that if only Israel hadn't killed these militants (in what may have been an unnecessary operation), the region may have been spared all the mayhem that followed.
"Beyond the tit-for-tat of the last week," Bronner explains "several factors at work". One is that Hamas is feeling "unusual pressure" after Fatah has arrested hundreds of its men in the West Bank. The second factor is lack of Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, with Hamas complaining that Fatah "has not made good on a prisoner release".
"Finally, under American and Israeli pressure, Egypt has started to destroy or shut tunnels into southern Gaza that have been a major source of supplies and fuel — and weapons — that have offset the Israeli closings. As a result, Hamas is now feeling besieged not only by Israel, but also by Fatah and Egypt."
Are readers to believe that the amount of supplies and fuel smuggled in from these tunnels is comparable to the amount that could come from Israel? Furthermore, Hamas' weapons buildup through these tunnels during the ceasefire has been a major concern in Israel – warranting more than the breezy mention it gets here.
The issue of Hamas' unreliability as a government is pushed further out of view as we hear from Oxfam. "As a matter of humanitarian imperative, Israeli leaders must resume supplies into Gaza without further delay." If the truce isn’t maintained by both Israel and the Palestinians, the statement said, it could be "catastrophic for civilians both in Gaza and in nearby Israeli towns." If crossings aren't opened by Israel – regardless of acts of war and dangers directed against it – Israelis will suffer rocket attacks? Is Oxfam actually warning Israel against this inevitability, rather than warning Hamas stop its belligerence? This is a horrible statement, one apparently fit to print.
Readers learn that "Israeli officials suspect that there is actually enough fuel, and say that Hamas officials are trying to embarrass them by closing electricity plants." Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev says Israel has "no desire to see a humanitarian crisis there. Unless the rockets stop, though, how can we move the supplies in?" These important mentions, however, do not offset this story's misguided approach.
Hamas is dedicated to Israel's demise through armed struggle. Even a policy that would benefit its people, like operating a border crossing, is off limits since it involves working with Israel. Yet here, Hamas' recent behavior seems to be the result of its feeling "under pressure" and "besieged". Such feelings could've easily been avoided had Hamas had at heart at least the short term interests of its citizens.
To repeat, the focus here should've been on Hamas' behavior, not the reaction to it.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Israel's Conservative Obama
"Israeli Candidate Borrows a (Web) Page from Obama"
A5, Saturday 11/15/08
By Ethan Bronner and Noam Cohen
The article describes how the campaign of Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu, the center-right leader of Likud running for Israeli Prime Minister, has borrowed many marketing techniques from the Obama campaign. This is most evident on Netanyahu's web site, which is strikingly similar to Obama's and contains many of the same features. Netanyahu's campaign has even adopted similar hopeful sloganizing, employing the motto "Together we can succeed" rather than "Yes we can."
Much of the article is devoted to the authors' incredulity that Netanyahu could (even dare) position himself as the candidate of change akin to the more progressive Obama given his more conservative politics. The authors characterize Bibi as the "most hawkish and the least interested in the focus on dialogue with adversaries" out of the the main candidates for the Prime Ministership. To the NYT, it appears that a hawk is someone that will not recklessly throw themselves into negotiations with a Palestinian Authority (PA) that is doing practically nothing to prepare its population for a peaceful solution based on the Two-State model.
As the article continues, however, it appears that Netanyahu may actually have some proposals for actual change, albeit in a manner which the NYT opposes. For example, in recognition that the PA leadership is doing little to foster peace, Netanyahu has proposed focusing on building the Palestinian economy and building peace from the bottom up.
It is unfortunate that the NYT cannot concede anything to Netanyahu, further demonstrating how the Times naively and whole heartedly believes the PA to be a good faith partner. Through this lens, the NYT can only conclude that Netanyahu is cynically exploiting Obama's campaigning techniques, rather than potentially seeing a new means of pursuing peace that could effect real "change."
With Bibi Netanyhu though, it is always worth being skeptical.
A5, Saturday 11/15/08
By Ethan Bronner and Noam Cohen
The article describes how the campaign of Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu, the center-right leader of Likud running for Israeli Prime Minister, has borrowed many marketing techniques from the Obama campaign. This is most evident on Netanyahu's web site, which is strikingly similar to Obama's and contains many of the same features. Netanyahu's campaign has even adopted similar hopeful sloganizing, employing the motto "Together we can succeed" rather than "Yes we can."
Much of the article is devoted to the authors' incredulity that Netanyahu could (even dare) position himself as the candidate of change akin to the more progressive Obama given his more conservative politics. The authors characterize Bibi as the "most hawkish and the least interested in the focus on dialogue with adversaries" out of the the main candidates for the Prime Ministership. To the NYT, it appears that a hawk is someone that will not recklessly throw themselves into negotiations with a Palestinian Authority (PA) that is doing practically nothing to prepare its population for a peaceful solution based on the Two-State model.
As the article continues, however, it appears that Netanyahu may actually have some proposals for actual change, albeit in a manner which the NYT opposes. For example, in recognition that the PA leadership is doing little to foster peace, Netanyahu has proposed focusing on building the Palestinian economy and building peace from the bottom up.
It is unfortunate that the NYT cannot concede anything to Netanyahu, further demonstrating how the Times naively and whole heartedly believes the PA to be a good faith partner. Through this lens, the NYT can only conclude that Netanyahu is cynically exploiting Obama's campaigning techniques, rather than potentially seeing a new means of pursuing peace that could effect real "change."
With Bibi Netanyhu though, it is always worth being skeptical.
Yehoshua's Lack of Originality
"No Heroes"
By Ethan Bronner
Saturday, November 15
By Ethan Bronner
Saturday, November 15
BR13
A.B. Yehoshua’s Yirmiyahu is an interesting character. He "has sought to cut himself off entirely from his roots." This is a typical Jewish experience today. Why do Jews do this? This matter should be the center of a novel. Instead, Yehoshua chooses to focus on a played-out matter – the occupation.
The main issue is the death of Yirmi’s son "in the Israeli-occupied West Bank." So this will be a statement about the woes of occupation. Yirmi “travels twice to the West Bank Palestinian home where his son lost his life, and his encounters there are the most powerful scenes in the book," writes Bronner. Why would someone want to confront the enemy to seek answers? Isn't this an unusual response - especially because his son was killed through friendly-fire?
Yirmi “can't blame them for failing to feel sorry for the occupier and his dead occupier's son." Of course, the answer to the painful question – why? - is the occupation, the key Palestinian propaganda talking point of the last two decades. How trite. Yirmi is angrier at his Judaism than he is at Palestinian irrendentism. Now, that would be an interesting matter to explore!
Bronner discusses two other issues in his review of Friendly Fire – the Shoah and monotheism – two of Judaism’s sacred cows. First, the Holocaust and its universal and particular dimensions arise. "Suffering, even holocaust, Yehoshua implies, arent the monopoly of the Jews, and they're no excuse for cruelty." What cruelty? This word is inserted without reference to a situation. That suffering and genocide happen to people other than Jews is a recognized fact in the Jewish community. Yehoshua has brought nothing new to the table with this apparent insight.
According to Bronner, Yehoshua, through Yirmiyahu, suggests that “monotheism isnt the only honorable explanation for the inexplicable mysteries of the universe." Fair enough. But this sounds more like the fetishizing of animism than a rational explanation of polytheism’s merits.
All in all, Yehoshua’s book appears – at least from Bronner’s review – less than original, but “critics” of Israel get first-rate space in the NYTimes.
A.B. Yehoshua’s Yirmiyahu is an interesting character. He "has sought to cut himself off entirely from his roots." This is a typical Jewish experience today. Why do Jews do this? This matter should be the center of a novel. Instead, Yehoshua chooses to focus on a played-out matter – the occupation.
The main issue is the death of Yirmi’s son "in the Israeli-occupied West Bank." So this will be a statement about the woes of occupation. Yirmi “travels twice to the West Bank Palestinian home where his son lost his life, and his encounters there are the most powerful scenes in the book," writes Bronner. Why would someone want to confront the enemy to seek answers? Isn't this an unusual response - especially because his son was killed through friendly-fire?
Yirmi “can't blame them for failing to feel sorry for the occupier and his dead occupier's son." Of course, the answer to the painful question – why? - is the occupation, the key Palestinian propaganda talking point of the last two decades. How trite. Yirmi is angrier at his Judaism than he is at Palestinian irrendentism. Now, that would be an interesting matter to explore!
Bronner discusses two other issues in his review of Friendly Fire – the Shoah and monotheism – two of Judaism’s sacred cows. First, the Holocaust and its universal and particular dimensions arise. "Suffering, even holocaust, Yehoshua implies, arent the monopoly of the Jews, and they're no excuse for cruelty." What cruelty? This word is inserted without reference to a situation. That suffering and genocide happen to people other than Jews is a recognized fact in the Jewish community. Yehoshua has brought nothing new to the table with this apparent insight.
According to Bronner, Yehoshua, through Yirmiyahu, suggests that “monotheism isnt the only honorable explanation for the inexplicable mysteries of the universe." Fair enough. But this sounds more like the fetishizing of animism than a rational explanation of polytheism’s merits.
All in all, Yehoshua’s book appears – at least from Bronner’s review – less than original, but “critics” of Israel get first-rate space in the NYTimes.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Unwrapping Saud's "Package Deal"
"Saudis Cool to Israeli Overture"
Published Friday, November 14, 2008
World Briefing, A10, By Neil MacFarquhar
MacFarquhar misreports Israel's response to the Saudi peace plan, suggesting that turning over Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority is one of Israel's two primary concerns. In fact, this possibility has been on the table since 2000, and the current Israeli government has of late publicly advocated division ad nauseum.
The two main problems Israel has with the Saudi peace plan are the maintenance of the so-called right of return and the call to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, or 'Green Line,' which runs contrary to the intent of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
Prince Saud al-Faisal certainly acts like royalty. He expects his proposal not to be seen as an initial move in negotiations, but as a decree, or as he stated "a package deal." Return to sender.
Published Friday, November 14, 2008
World Briefing, A10, By Neil MacFarquhar
MacFarquhar misreports Israel's response to the Saudi peace plan, suggesting that turning over Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority is one of Israel's two primary concerns. In fact, this possibility has been on the table since 2000, and the current Israeli government has of late publicly advocated division ad nauseum.
The two main problems Israel has with the Saudi peace plan are the maintenance of the so-called right of return and the call to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, or 'Green Line,' which runs contrary to the intent of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
Prince Saud al-Faisal certainly acts like royalty. He expects his proposal not to be seen as an initial move in negotiations, but as a decree, or as he stated "a package deal." Return to sender.
Flaws, Fallacies, and Faux-Peace
"Settlers Who Long to Leave the West Bank"
A6, Friday, 11/14/08
By Ethan Bronner
The article focuses on highlighting the numerous Jewish residents who are willing to leave the West Bank in support of a Two-State Solution with the Palestinians. According to Bronner, many of them are unable to do so because they cannot sell their homes for a reasonable price given the declining real estate values in the area. In this regard, he presents a proposed governmental initiative, "One Home," led by the left-wing Meretz Party, which would allocate funds to purchase the homes of settlers who are willing to relocate to Israel "proper" (within the 1949 Armistice Lines, also known as the "Green Line").
Positively, the article does two things. Firstly, it breaks from the common, all-encompassing demonization of the settlers as extremists that seek to subjugate the Palestinians (although one does not need to desire to leave the West Bank in order to be a 'moderate' settler). Secondly, it does something to differentiate between the settlements to the West of the security barrier - perhaps the more 'reasonable' settlements - to the settlements that are not included within it to the East.
Nevertheless, some of the premises of the article are deeply flawed. One of central assumptions of the article is that "the vast majority of settlers vow never to abandon the heart of the historic Jewish homeland." While many Jews, including those living outside the West Bank, feel a very strong attachment to this historic land where a great number of the events of the Old Testament took place, Bronner makes a careless generalization.
He ignores the great numbers of Israeli Jews who live in some of the largest West Bank settlements for economic and other non-religious reasons in places such as Ma'aleh Adumim, a de facto 'suburb' of Jerusalem, and Ariel, further up North. His statement would have been more accurate in relation to those settlements to the East of the security barrier. Even then though, this weak generalization would be contradicted by the statement of Avshalom Vilan, a Meretz Parliamentary member: “Half the settlers beyond the barrier are ideologically motivated and do not want to move. But about 40 percent of them are ready to go for a reasonable price.”
A second failed premise upon which this article operates, given its exclusive focus on Israeli actions, is that there is a willing peace partner in Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. Bronner continues the fallacy that Israel needs to further strengthen Fatah (largely debunked by Natan Sharansky in The Case for Democracy) and that "The [Palestinian] authority is trying to convince the Palestinian public that two states are possible." The latter statement is bad comedy given the lack of evidence that the PA is preparing the groundwork for a peaceful resolution with Israel. In fact, the PA has continued incitement against Israel and has been generally uncompromising, even threatening a return to the old paradigm of the one-state solution.
Overall, this piece underscores the NYT's position that Israel should withdraw to the now sacrosanct Green Line (including even long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in 'East Jerusalem') and even more problematically, implies that a future Palestinian state will be devoid of any Jewish population. If the Palestinian leadership would be unable to accept any Jewish presence within its borders, what would it intimate about such a Palestinian government or the nature of that peace? Such a government would doubtfully be pluralistic or democratic, which bodes ill for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
A6, Friday, 11/14/08
By Ethan Bronner
The article focuses on highlighting the numerous Jewish residents who are willing to leave the West Bank in support of a Two-State Solution with the Palestinians. According to Bronner, many of them are unable to do so because they cannot sell their homes for a reasonable price given the declining real estate values in the area. In this regard, he presents a proposed governmental initiative, "One Home," led by the left-wing Meretz Party, which would allocate funds to purchase the homes of settlers who are willing to relocate to Israel "proper" (within the 1949 Armistice Lines, also known as the "Green Line").
Positively, the article does two things. Firstly, it breaks from the common, all-encompassing demonization of the settlers as extremists that seek to subjugate the Palestinians (although one does not need to desire to leave the West Bank in order to be a 'moderate' settler). Secondly, it does something to differentiate between the settlements to the West of the security barrier - perhaps the more 'reasonable' settlements - to the settlements that are not included within it to the East.
Nevertheless, some of the premises of the article are deeply flawed. One of central assumptions of the article is that "the vast majority of settlers vow never to abandon the heart of the historic Jewish homeland." While many Jews, including those living outside the West Bank, feel a very strong attachment to this historic land where a great number of the events of the Old Testament took place, Bronner makes a careless generalization.
He ignores the great numbers of Israeli Jews who live in some of the largest West Bank settlements for economic and other non-religious reasons in places such as Ma'aleh Adumim, a de facto 'suburb' of Jerusalem, and Ariel, further up North. His statement would have been more accurate in relation to those settlements to the East of the security barrier. Even then though, this weak generalization would be contradicted by the statement of Avshalom Vilan, a Meretz Parliamentary member: “Half the settlers beyond the barrier are ideologically motivated and do not want to move. But about 40 percent of them are ready to go for a reasonable price.”
A second failed premise upon which this article operates, given its exclusive focus on Israeli actions, is that there is a willing peace partner in Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. Bronner continues the fallacy that Israel needs to further strengthen Fatah (largely debunked by Natan Sharansky in The Case for Democracy) and that "The [Palestinian] authority is trying to convince the Palestinian public that two states are possible." The latter statement is bad comedy given the lack of evidence that the PA is preparing the groundwork for a peaceful resolution with Israel. In fact, the PA has continued incitement against Israel and has been generally uncompromising, even threatening a return to the old paradigm of the one-state solution.
Overall, this piece underscores the NYT's position that Israel should withdraw to the now sacrosanct Green Line (including even long-standing Jewish neighborhoods in 'East Jerusalem') and even more problematically, implies that a future Palestinian state will be devoid of any Jewish population. If the Palestinian leadership would be unable to accept any Jewish presence within its borders, what would it intimate about such a Palestinian government or the nature of that peace? Such a government would doubtfully be pluralistic or democratic, which bodes ill for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hamas Mocks Truce, Scores Propaganda
"Deadly Gaza Border Clash Threatens Truce"
Published Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Isabel Kershner
In covering the recent threat to an Israel-Hamas truce in Gaza, Kershner does more to present Hamas' position than to inform readers.
First, she doesn't verify sources. Does she really know that "witnesses told Maan" anything? She likely just knows that Maan reported that witnesses told of Israeli missiles landing "near a mosque and another near a school or home, while fighters were in the area."
This hollowed paragraph could've made the cut at Hamas' PR bureau. Hamas sends boys into homes, schools and mosques to shoot rockets and shells at Israelis. The IDF shoots back and the press reports that Israel shoots at Palestinian children and holy places.
We read about missiles landing "near a school or home". A question comes to mind: how far is too far to tell a school from a home? Since it's unclear which will illicit more outrage at Israel, Maan goes with both.
Getting to the fraying, Kershner offers readers a short, but convoluted, timeline. We're first told of militants being killed, a clash, an Israeli airstrike, Israeli forces entering Gaza and that this broke a five month streak (even though mortars and rockets have been fired at Israel since June). We're finally told that all this followed an Israeli operation to "destroy a tunnel Israel said it believed" was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers.
Kershner should've began with this and pointed out that the abduction of Schalit – an oft covered story in the Times and elsewhere – was made possible by such a tunnel. This is the second time in a week Kershner reports on the tunnel and fails to mention Schalit's abductors and the tunnel they used to get inside Israel and drag Schalit back. Without this, readers are unaware of a very serious threat to Israelis, no less one that's been actualized and made headlines.
Kershner obscures the chronology. She reports that the militants were "killed in a clash and an Israeli airstrike". Yes, but the airstrike came after the clash and after the militants shot mortars at Israeli forces. Kershner mentioned this in her report this last week, but not today.
Kershner reports that since this initial incident, "Palestinians fired dozens of rockets and mortar shells at Israel" and that "all landed in open areas and caused little damage". We're told that "in response" Israel closed down crossings "where basic goods pass into Gaza".
First, no attempt is made to discern which Palestinians. Were they members of militias? Were they al Qaeda? Were they Hamas? Would we ever hear that "Israelis fired rockets" without knowing if they were militant settlers or the military? This criminal activity needed to be attributed.
Second, while Kershner may get the facts straight, she needed to add meat to them. Instead, she delicately guides readers to be incredulous with Israel. Implicit is "no harm, no foul". What readers gather is that someone’s firing some harmelss, crude rockets into Israeli territory and Israel unleashes its military machine and denies that population's basic goods.
Does the Times judge the response to these acts by the acts' effectiveness? Should Israel keep the crossings into Gaza open until these rockets hit infrastructure, or until someone is killed? Might the Israeli government be concerned with setting a dangerous precedent by not responding?
Commenting on the profoundly difficult situation in which Israel finds itself would require more space, if Kershner were willing. At the very least, she could've called an Israeli official – many of whom speak openly of this dilemma.
But we hear from two Hamas spokesmen, the second of whom denies a report that Barack Obama's team met with members of Hamas prior to the elections. As if it weren’t enough to have three paragraphs of Ahmed Yousef clearing the air, Kershner ends the article by giving voice to that special brand of Hamas propaganda – the peace and love talk.
Kershner reports "Mr. Yousef called on Mr. Obama to open his doors 'to people with different perspectives and opinions on the conflict.'" There's not a chance this bit of newspeak was going to be passed up by the Times, which has been looking to insert into public discussion the most dangerous and the hottest idea: that an Obama shift on Israel could bring peace; the West will build bridges to the Arab world and deal a blow to radicalism.
Published Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Isabel Kershner
In covering the recent threat to an Israel-Hamas truce in Gaza, Kershner does more to present Hamas' position than to inform readers.
First, she doesn't verify sources. Does she really know that "witnesses told Maan" anything? She likely just knows that Maan reported that witnesses told of Israeli missiles landing "near a mosque and another near a school or home, while fighters were in the area."
This hollowed paragraph could've made the cut at Hamas' PR bureau. Hamas sends boys into homes, schools and mosques to shoot rockets and shells at Israelis. The IDF shoots back and the press reports that Israel shoots at Palestinian children and holy places.
We read about missiles landing "near a school or home". A question comes to mind: how far is too far to tell a school from a home? Since it's unclear which will illicit more outrage at Israel, Maan goes with both.
Getting to the fraying, Kershner offers readers a short, but convoluted, timeline. We're first told of militants being killed, a clash, an Israeli airstrike, Israeli forces entering Gaza and that this broke a five month streak (even though mortars and rockets have been fired at Israel since June). We're finally told that all this followed an Israeli operation to "destroy a tunnel Israel said it believed" was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers.
Kershner should've began with this and pointed out that the abduction of Schalit – an oft covered story in the Times and elsewhere – was made possible by such a tunnel. This is the second time in a week Kershner reports on the tunnel and fails to mention Schalit's abductors and the tunnel they used to get inside Israel and drag Schalit back. Without this, readers are unaware of a very serious threat to Israelis, no less one that's been actualized and made headlines.
Kershner obscures the chronology. She reports that the militants were "killed in a clash and an Israeli airstrike". Yes, but the airstrike came after the clash and after the militants shot mortars at Israeli forces. Kershner mentioned this in her report this last week, but not today.
Kershner reports that since this initial incident, "Palestinians fired dozens of rockets and mortar shells at Israel" and that "all landed in open areas and caused little damage". We're told that "in response" Israel closed down crossings "where basic goods pass into Gaza".
First, no attempt is made to discern which Palestinians. Were they members of militias? Were they al Qaeda? Were they Hamas? Would we ever hear that "Israelis fired rockets" without knowing if they were militant settlers or the military? This criminal activity needed to be attributed.
Second, while Kershner may get the facts straight, she needed to add meat to them. Instead, she delicately guides readers to be incredulous with Israel. Implicit is "no harm, no foul". What readers gather is that someone’s firing some harmelss, crude rockets into Israeli territory and Israel unleashes its military machine and denies that population's basic goods.
Does the Times judge the response to these acts by the acts' effectiveness? Should Israel keep the crossings into Gaza open until these rockets hit infrastructure, or until someone is killed? Might the Israeli government be concerned with setting a dangerous precedent by not responding?
Commenting on the profoundly difficult situation in which Israel finds itself would require more space, if Kershner were willing. At the very least, she could've called an Israeli official – many of whom speak openly of this dilemma.
But we hear from two Hamas spokesmen, the second of whom denies a report that Barack Obama's team met with members of Hamas prior to the elections. As if it weren’t enough to have three paragraphs of Ahmed Yousef clearing the air, Kershner ends the article by giving voice to that special brand of Hamas propaganda – the peace and love talk.
Kershner reports "Mr. Yousef called on Mr. Obama to open his doors 'to people with different perspectives and opinions on the conflict.'" There's not a chance this bit of newspeak was going to be passed up by the Times, which has been looking to insert into public discussion the most dangerous and the hottest idea: that an Obama shift on Israel could bring peace; the West will build bridges to the Arab world and deal a blow to radicalism.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Arab Non-Participation in Elections
"Secular Defeats Ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem"
By Isabel Kershner
November 12, 2008
A14
Kershner has certainly gone too far in her use of the term “hawkish,” employing it twice in the first paragraph to describe mayoral candidates Barkat and Porush. First of all, referring to a mayor, who commands no armed forces, as hawkish is not appropriate, unless she is referring to his view of policing; even then, however, other terms are more descriptive.
She is, of course, referring to Barkat and Porush's shared position on a united Jerusalem and seeks to delegitimize it through this terminology. Uncompromising would be a better word choice.
Twice in the article, Kershner refers to the lack of east Jerusalem Arab participation in the election. She cites “the belief that participating would be tantamount to recognizing Israeli sovereignty” as the reason for their non-participation. In doing so, Kershner makes their decision - or non-decision - sound principled. In fact, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has told Arab Jerusalemites not to vote, and fear of PA reprisals now, or in the future - if Jerusalem is divided - is certainly a factor in the abysmally low Arab voter turnout.
In the present, reprisals against advocates of Jewish-Arab co-existence in a united Jerusalem, are equally threatening. Take the 2001 attack on Arab Jerusalemite Zohir Hamdan, who strangely doesn’t appear in this article though he ran for mayor this year, too. Moreover, in 1989, Hana Seniora, a Palestinian resident of Beit Haninah, dropped out of the mayoral race after the PLO mounted "massive pressure" on him.
The most problematic part of the article, however, occurs at the very end and must be quoted in full:
"Of the population of 740,000, the Palestinian third is made up mostly of Muslims who live in the east of the city — territory that Israel conquered, then annexed, as a result of the 1967 war. The Palestinians demand those areas as the capital of their future state."
This paragraph offers a paradigm for misleading writing. Kershner makes it seem like the Palestinians mentioned in the first sentence are the same ones mentioned in the last sentence. The PA may demand parts of Jerusalem as its capital, but the Palestinians of the first sentence, who are Jerusalem residents, have expressed mixed views about dividing the city.
Furthermore, Kershner is overly generous in stating that "Palestinians demand those areas as the capital of their future state." Hamas wants all of Jerusalem - and all of Israel - and many Palestinians support Hamas. By painting Palestinian opinion with such a broad stroke, Kershner leaves the reader with a smudged canvas.
By Isabel Kershner
November 12, 2008
A14
Kershner has certainly gone too far in her use of the term “hawkish,” employing it twice in the first paragraph to describe mayoral candidates Barkat and Porush. First of all, referring to a mayor, who commands no armed forces, as hawkish is not appropriate, unless she is referring to his view of policing; even then, however, other terms are more descriptive.
She is, of course, referring to Barkat and Porush's shared position on a united Jerusalem and seeks to delegitimize it through this terminology. Uncompromising would be a better word choice.
Twice in the article, Kershner refers to the lack of east Jerusalem Arab participation in the election. She cites “the belief that participating would be tantamount to recognizing Israeli sovereignty” as the reason for their non-participation. In doing so, Kershner makes their decision - or non-decision - sound principled. In fact, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has told Arab Jerusalemites not to vote, and fear of PA reprisals now, or in the future - if Jerusalem is divided - is certainly a factor in the abysmally low Arab voter turnout.
In the present, reprisals against advocates of Jewish-Arab co-existence in a united Jerusalem, are equally threatening. Take the 2001 attack on Arab Jerusalemite Zohir Hamdan, who strangely doesn’t appear in this article though he ran for mayor this year, too. Moreover, in 1989, Hana Seniora, a Palestinian resident of Beit Haninah, dropped out of the mayoral race after the PLO mounted "massive pressure" on him.
The most problematic part of the article, however, occurs at the very end and must be quoted in full:
"Of the population of 740,000, the Palestinian third is made up mostly of Muslims who live in the east of the city — territory that Israel conquered, then annexed, as a result of the 1967 war. The Palestinians demand those areas as the capital of their future state."
This paragraph offers a paradigm for misleading writing. Kershner makes it seem like the Palestinians mentioned in the first sentence are the same ones mentioned in the last sentence. The PA may demand parts of Jerusalem as its capital, but the Palestinians of the first sentence, who are Jerusalem residents, have expressed mixed views about dividing the city.
Furthermore, Kershner is overly generous in stating that "Palestinians demand those areas as the capital of their future state." Hamas wants all of Jerusalem - and all of Israel - and many Palestinians support Hamas. By painting Palestinian opinion with such a broad stroke, Kershner leaves the reader with a smudged canvas.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Legitimate Border Closing
"Gaza: Power Station Shuts Down"
By Reuters
November 11, 2008
A11
Residents of Hamas must recognize that by not challenging the Hamas government of Gaza they risk disruption of their daily lives through electricity blackouts. Rocket attacks are an act of war, and Israel has no responsibility to allow fuel to cross the border in the midst of an act of war.
Hamas, of course, revels in the humanitarian crisis that presently exists due to lack of electricity.
By Reuters
November 11, 2008
A11
Residents of Hamas must recognize that by not challenging the Hamas government of Gaza they risk disruption of their daily lives through electricity blackouts. Rocket attacks are an act of war, and Israel has no responsibility to allow fuel to cross the border in the midst of an act of war.
Hamas, of course, revels in the humanitarian crisis that presently exists due to lack of electricity.
Sound Israeli Intelligence
"Syria: Uranium Traces Found at Bombed Site, Diplomats Say"
By AP
November 11, 2008
A13
This brief report confirms Israeli intelligence that Syria was trying to build military nuclear technology. That intelligence led to an air strike that rendered the site unusable in September 2007.
Once again, Israeli intelligence is vindicated. That is important because certain reporters have tried to raise doubts about attacking Iran by reminding us of the rush to war in Iraq.
For example, in Carlo Giacomo's "New Beltway Debate: What to Do About Iran," Giacomo makes an analogy between the debate in the lead-up to war in Iraq and the current debate regarding Iran.
Whereas the lead up to the Iraq War was guided by poor intelligence, the intelligence regarding Iran is sound. The Israelis have had a great deal of success accurately predicting threats and then organizing ways to stop those threats from doing significant harm.
The public should be confident about Israeli intelligence, as demonstrated by this uranium find in Syria.
By AP
November 11, 2008
A13
This brief report confirms Israeli intelligence that Syria was trying to build military nuclear technology. That intelligence led to an air strike that rendered the site unusable in September 2007.
Once again, Israeli intelligence is vindicated. That is important because certain reporters have tried to raise doubts about attacking Iran by reminding us of the rush to war in Iraq.
For example, in Carlo Giacomo's "New Beltway Debate: What to Do About Iran," Giacomo makes an analogy between the debate in the lead-up to war in Iraq and the current debate regarding Iran.
Whereas the lead up to the Iraq War was guided by poor intelligence, the intelligence regarding Iran is sound. The Israelis have had a great deal of success accurately predicting threats and then organizing ways to stop those threats from doing significant harm.
The public should be confident about Israeli intelligence, as demonstrated by this uranium find in Syria.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Neglect of the Counter Statement
"Middle East Negotiators Press Pursuit of a 2-State Solution"
By Isabel Kershner
A8
November 10, 2008
In “Middle East Quartet…,” Kershner fulfills the first obligation of a reporter by accurately presenting what transpired at Sharm El Sheik yesterday, Sunday. She falls short, however, with respect to the second duty – to provide a counter, when appropriate, to their statements.
With regard to the latter requirement, she reports that Tony Blair, former British prime minister and the quartet’s special envoy, subscribes to the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the primary source of Middle East instability, as indicated by his desire for President-elect Obama to work on its resolution “from Day 1.”
Kershner could have provided a different view by interviewing a number of Israeli MKs, who would insist that Palestinian rejectionism is so deeply engrained that starting on day 1 or day 100 will not make a difference in finding a resolution to the conflict.
According to this reporter, Abbas “has been trying to convince skeptical Palestinians and others that the process has not been in vain.” Kershner should substantiate how Abbas made his case, if indeed he has done so. Most of the evidence suggests that he has used the media to incite against and defame Israel, not make the case for the peace process.
An area that could have been fleshed out more was that of a partial, or incremental, agreement toward a two-state solution.
I was surprised to read that Israel had agreed to pursuing a final, rather than an incremental, agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Kershner may have even misreported here. The Road Map, which is the basis of Annapolis, is an incremental process. This is the process Israel favors because it minimizes the risk of Palestinian non-compliance in the areas of anti-Israel media incitement and the dismantlement of terrorist infrastructure.
By Isabel Kershner
A8
November 10, 2008
In “Middle East Quartet…,” Kershner fulfills the first obligation of a reporter by accurately presenting what transpired at Sharm El Sheik yesterday, Sunday. She falls short, however, with respect to the second duty – to provide a counter, when appropriate, to their statements.
With regard to the latter requirement, she reports that Tony Blair, former British prime minister and the quartet’s special envoy, subscribes to the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the primary source of Middle East instability, as indicated by his desire for President-elect Obama to work on its resolution “from Day 1.”
Kershner could have provided a different view by interviewing a number of Israeli MKs, who would insist that Palestinian rejectionism is so deeply engrained that starting on day 1 or day 100 will not make a difference in finding a resolution to the conflict.
According to this reporter, Abbas “has been trying to convince skeptical Palestinians and others that the process has not been in vain.” Kershner should substantiate how Abbas made his case, if indeed he has done so. Most of the evidence suggests that he has used the media to incite against and defame Israel, not make the case for the peace process.
An area that could have been fleshed out more was that of a partial, or incremental, agreement toward a two-state solution.
I was surprised to read that Israel had agreed to pursuing a final, rather than an incremental, agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Kershner may have even misreported here. The Road Map, which is the basis of Annapolis, is an incremental process. This is the process Israel favors because it minimizes the risk of Palestinian non-compliance in the areas of anti-Israel media incitement and the dismantlement of terrorist infrastructure.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sizing Up Arab Bloggers
"Arab Bloggers Size Up Obama"
Published Friday, November 7, 2008
By Op-Ed Contributors, with an introduction by Josie Delap
There is consensus in the West that Israel should be supported whereas in the Arab world, this is the minority view. With or without conditions, support of Israel is criticized and Israel itself is viewed as a forward arm of Western animosity towards them. Delap projects a more nuanced view of the Arab world's position on Israel than exists. His introduction is the beginning of a zany and discomforting array of analyses by Arab bloggers.
An Egyptian sees Obama's support for Israel – which has been qualified and nuanced – as bias, rather than a reasoned position. Obama himself would resent this. This is a reflection of a society that has never portrayed the Israeli narrative in anything but demonic terms.
The blogger from Lebanon argues that one cannot believe Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel and be a supporter of Palestinian rights. These are not, however, mutually exclusive positions. For example, a majority of East Jerusalem Arabs favor an undivided Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty.
In Iraq, conspiratorial views of Zionists abound. "An Arab Woman Blues" in Iraq writes that Zionists want to partition Iraq. As if it couldn't get wackier, the Israelis and Ahmadinejad will team up to accomplish this, using Obama.
From Jordan, we take a step towards sanity, yet remain in conspiracy. The Jordanian blogger writes, "As for the Middle East peace process, I will not only hope that Obama doesn’t side with the Israelis only and the Israeli lobby in America, but to put real effort on achieving a fair and just peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis."
Although the Times critically reviewed the Walt and Mersheimer book, "The Israel Lobby," the paper doesn't mind printing seemingly rational quotes impugning the pro-Israel Jewish community and suggesting that the US-Israel relationship is not strategically-based, but rooted in undue influence from said community.
Published Friday, November 7, 2008
By Op-Ed Contributors, with an introduction by Josie Delap
There is consensus in the West that Israel should be supported whereas in the Arab world, this is the minority view. With or without conditions, support of Israel is criticized and Israel itself is viewed as a forward arm of Western animosity towards them. Delap projects a more nuanced view of the Arab world's position on Israel than exists. His introduction is the beginning of a zany and discomforting array of analyses by Arab bloggers.
An Egyptian sees Obama's support for Israel – which has been qualified and nuanced – as bias, rather than a reasoned position. Obama himself would resent this. This is a reflection of a society that has never portrayed the Israeli narrative in anything but demonic terms.
The blogger from Lebanon argues that one cannot believe Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel and be a supporter of Palestinian rights. These are not, however, mutually exclusive positions. For example, a majority of East Jerusalem Arabs favor an undivided Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty.
In Iraq, conspiratorial views of Zionists abound. "An Arab Woman Blues" in Iraq writes that Zionists want to partition Iraq. As if it couldn't get wackier, the Israelis and Ahmadinejad will team up to accomplish this, using Obama.
From Jordan, we take a step towards sanity, yet remain in conspiracy. The Jordanian blogger writes, "As for the Middle East peace process, I will not only hope that Obama doesn’t side with the Israelis only and the Israeli lobby in America, but to put real effort on achieving a fair and just peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis."
Although the Times critically reviewed the Walt and Mersheimer book, "The Israel Lobby," the paper doesn't mind printing seemingly rational quotes impugning the pro-Israel Jewish community and suggesting that the US-Israel relationship is not strategically-based, but rooted in undue influence from said community.
Missing the Story
"Rice Visits West Bank City; U.S. Announces Aid"
A14, Sunday 11/9/08
By Isabel Kershner
The story of Jenin is: How do you take factions and individuals who've been ideologically and militarily anti-Israel and turn them into a security apparatus meant to work with Israel?
There's just enough in the article where an observant reader can sense this story, but Kershner doesn't focus on it. She makes an oblique reference to "security units in various uniforms" lining Jenin's streets as Secretary Rice's motorcade entered. These various uniforms in the PA security apparatus represent its different factions, some committed to violent struggle against Israel.
The second major problem is that, remarkably, the article has no comment from Israeli officials. Had they been approached, they likely would've asked the above question.
Another troubling part of the article occurs in the sixth paragraph when Kershner offers a breezy history of Jenin and employs the propagandistic and loaded term "resistance". She writes that Israelis see it as the capital of terrorism, and Palestinians see it as a symbol of resistance. She mentions the “bloody battle between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen in 2002," but neglects to write that this was an Israeli operation with the stated aim to arrest, or kill trying, those in Jenin sending militants into Israel to blow up civilians.
Most of the world officially saw this as terrorism. That it's called resistance is an unfortunate equivalence…on the Palestinians' part. It's completely appropriate for Kershner here to have passed judgment, as most nations of the world did.
The other point missing is that astute observors of the conflict, not to mention the Palestinian public, see understand the internal use of "resistance" as resistance to a deal with Israel, not simply violence against Israeli forces and civilians in the West Bank or inside Israel.
Kershner fails to mention the massacre myth purveyed by the Palestinian Authority during and after Israel's 2002 Operation Defensive Shield.
Finally, while she doesn't allow Israelis to speak, she lets Palestinian PM Fayyad score a major propaganda point – the unchallenged assertion that institution-building shouldn't precede an end to the occupation, and thus the official end to the conflict.
A14, Sunday 11/9/08
By Isabel Kershner
The story of Jenin is: How do you take factions and individuals who've been ideologically and militarily anti-Israel and turn them into a security apparatus meant to work with Israel?
There's just enough in the article where an observant reader can sense this story, but Kershner doesn't focus on it. She makes an oblique reference to "security units in various uniforms" lining Jenin's streets as Secretary Rice's motorcade entered. These various uniforms in the PA security apparatus represent its different factions, some committed to violent struggle against Israel.
The second major problem is that, remarkably, the article has no comment from Israeli officials. Had they been approached, they likely would've asked the above question.
Another troubling part of the article occurs in the sixth paragraph when Kershner offers a breezy history of Jenin and employs the propagandistic and loaded term "resistance". She writes that Israelis see it as the capital of terrorism, and Palestinians see it as a symbol of resistance. She mentions the “bloody battle between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen in 2002," but neglects to write that this was an Israeli operation with the stated aim to arrest, or kill trying, those in Jenin sending militants into Israel to blow up civilians.
Most of the world officially saw this as terrorism. That it's called resistance is an unfortunate equivalence…on the Palestinians' part. It's completely appropriate for Kershner here to have passed judgment, as most nations of the world did.
The other point missing is that astute observors of the conflict, not to mention the Palestinian public, see understand the internal use of "resistance" as resistance to a deal with Israel, not simply violence against Israeli forces and civilians in the West Bank or inside Israel.
Kershner fails to mention the massacre myth purveyed by the Palestinian Authority during and after Israel's 2002 Operation Defensive Shield.
Finally, while she doesn't allow Israelis to speak, she lets Palestinian PM Fayyad score a major propaganda point – the unchallenged assertion that institution-building shouldn't precede an end to the occupation, and thus the official end to the conflict.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
No Damage, No Foul?
"Israel: No Damage in Strike From Gaza"
A12 (World Briefing), Saturday 11/8/08
By Reuters
The article briefly details Islamic Jihad's rocket and mortar attacks against Israel on Friday. Militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas, continue to fire rockets on Israel in retaliation for the IDF's counter-terrorist operation this past Tuesday in Gaza, which destroyed a Hamas-operated tunnel intended to be used to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
No specific mention of this is made in the article, which blandly reports that "Israel carried out an airstrike Tuesday in Gaza after its troops clashed with Hamas gunmen along the border in the first armed confrontation since a cease-fire took effect in June." Relevant context is omitted.
It is interesting to note that the title of the article highlights the lack of damage from the rockets, rather than the rocketfire itself.
** This is the second Reuters news brief in three days omitting mention of the Hamas tunnel built to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. It was this tunnel which prompted Israel to act.
This piece cites Islamic Jihad as saying their rockets were in response to "Israeli operations". Likewise, in Thursday’s similarly flawed brief, Hamas rockets came "after Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence." It was the same day as Israel’s operation to destroy the tunnel that the five militants were killed, as reported by the Times. Times readers now lament an "eruption of violence," and not Hamas' exploitation of the quiet of the ceasefire to make preparations to abduct Israeli soldiers, which sparked the eruption.
A12 (World Briefing), Saturday 11/8/08
By Reuters
The article briefly details Islamic Jihad's rocket and mortar attacks against Israel on Friday. Militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas, continue to fire rockets on Israel in retaliation for the IDF's counter-terrorist operation this past Tuesday in Gaza, which destroyed a Hamas-operated tunnel intended to be used to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
No specific mention of this is made in the article, which blandly reports that "Israel carried out an airstrike Tuesday in Gaza after its troops clashed with Hamas gunmen along the border in the first armed confrontation since a cease-fire took effect in June." Relevant context is omitted.
It is interesting to note that the title of the article highlights the lack of damage from the rockets, rather than the rocketfire itself.
** This is the second Reuters news brief in three days omitting mention of the Hamas tunnel built to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. It was this tunnel which prompted Israel to act.
This piece cites Islamic Jihad as saying their rockets were in response to "Israeli operations". Likewise, in Thursday’s similarly flawed brief, Hamas rockets came "after Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence." It was the same day as Israel’s operation to destroy the tunnel that the five militants were killed, as reported by the Times. Times readers now lament an "eruption of violence," and not Hamas' exploitation of the quiet of the ceasefire to make preparations to abduct Israeli soldiers, which sparked the eruption.
Friday, November 7, 2008
NYT Bread & Butter - The PA as a Viable Peace Partner
"In Israel, Rice Faces Limited Prospects for Peace Process"
A12, Friday 11/7/08
By Isabel Kershner
This article details Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Israel as part of her Middle East trip to reinvigorate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that began with the Annapolis Conference in November 2007. Coming into the waning months of the Bush Administration, Rice has finally conceded that peace will not be achieved by the end of 2008.
Despite this setback, Rice states, "It is our expectation that the Annapolis process has laid groundwork which should make possible the establishment of a Palestinian state when the political circumstances permit." While there has been greater cooperation between the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority (PA) in the security sphere as of late, largely because of a mutual fear of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, Rice's assertion seems quite exaggerated. As Kershner observes, within the Annapolis framework "fundamental issues of the conflict have not yet been resolved, including the borders of a Palestinian state; security arrangements; the fate of Palestinian refugees who left their homes in 1948, or were forced to leave; and the status of Jerusalem."
When it comes to understanding why these negotiations have not led more far-reaching results, Kershner places customary focus on the U.S. and Israel in arguing that "the transitions and upheavals affecting politics in the United States and in Israel have already effectively frozen the talks." There is no immediate mention of the deep division in the Palestinian body politic, with Hamas in firm control of Gaza and the PA precariously maintaining control over the West Bank. How can peace be achieved when one's peace partner does not even maintain firm control over the territory that is to be negotiated?
Beyond this, Kershner makes it appear as if the PA is a good faith partner while neglecting to mention its continued incitement against Israel, rejection of Jewish history/presence/sovereignty in Israel, as well as its failures to curtail and destroy terrorist entities in the West Bank. While the PA may be succeeding in implementing law and order in Jenin and Hebron, where its forces have been allowed to operate more robustly with Israeli accord, this is not the same as dismantling terrorist infrastructure as required by the Roadmap.
This overbearing focus on U.S. and Israeli actions, while neglecting problematic Palestinian behavior and political developments, is a staple of NYT reporting.
[Also to note: In relation to Israeli elections, Kershner writes, "Mr. Netanyahu [of the right-wing Likud party] does not favor the model of negotiating a two-state solution, arguing instead for building an “economic peace” between Israelis and Palestinians from the bottom up." Through this somewhat sloppy use of language, it may appear that Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution. While he may have a different vision of how this may be achieved by placing less faith in the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, he has not rejected the two-state solution as the paradigm for resolving the conflict.]
A12, Friday 11/7/08
By Isabel Kershner
This article details Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Israel as part of her Middle East trip to reinvigorate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that began with the Annapolis Conference in November 2007. Coming into the waning months of the Bush Administration, Rice has finally conceded that peace will not be achieved by the end of 2008.
Despite this setback, Rice states, "It is our expectation that the Annapolis process has laid groundwork which should make possible the establishment of a Palestinian state when the political circumstances permit." While there has been greater cooperation between the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority (PA) in the security sphere as of late, largely because of a mutual fear of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, Rice's assertion seems quite exaggerated. As Kershner observes, within the Annapolis framework "fundamental issues of the conflict have not yet been resolved, including the borders of a Palestinian state; security arrangements; the fate of Palestinian refugees who left their homes in 1948, or were forced to leave; and the status of Jerusalem."
When it comes to understanding why these negotiations have not led more far-reaching results, Kershner places customary focus on the U.S. and Israel in arguing that "the transitions and upheavals affecting politics in the United States and in Israel have already effectively frozen the talks." There is no immediate mention of the deep division in the Palestinian body politic, with Hamas in firm control of Gaza and the PA precariously maintaining control over the West Bank. How can peace be achieved when one's peace partner does not even maintain firm control over the territory that is to be negotiated?
Beyond this, Kershner makes it appear as if the PA is a good faith partner while neglecting to mention its continued incitement against Israel, rejection of Jewish history/presence/sovereignty in Israel, as well as its failures to curtail and destroy terrorist entities in the West Bank. While the PA may be succeeding in implementing law and order in Jenin and Hebron, where its forces have been allowed to operate more robustly with Israeli accord, this is not the same as dismantling terrorist infrastructure as required by the Roadmap.
This overbearing focus on U.S. and Israeli actions, while neglecting problematic Palestinian behavior and political developments, is a staple of NYT reporting.
[Also to note: In relation to Israeli elections, Kershner writes, "Mr. Netanyahu [of the right-wing Likud party] does not favor the model of negotiating a two-state solution, arguing instead for building an “economic peace” between Israelis and Palestinians from the bottom up." Through this somewhat sloppy use of language, it may appear that Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution. While he may have a different vision of how this may be achieved by placing less faith in the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, he has not rejected the two-state solution as the paradigm for resolving the conflict.]
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Lesson Of The Last Few Months
"The War Within"
A34, Wednesday, 11/05/08
Editorial
If Israel was to evacuate over 100 West Bank settlements, forcibly evicting 100,000 people, what would be required? How much time would be needed? What sort of politics would be involved? Is Israel laying the groundwork for this, even if it cannot reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA)? More than just questions, these are serious concerns expressed by the Israeli public and policymakers. In its latest editorial, the New York Times appears oblivious to these issues.
The editorial, "The War Within," begins by mentioning growing settler militancy and the government's attempts to end it. One of these attempts is a decision to halt direct or indirect financing of outposts, or "unauthorized settlements". This decision is undeserving of the Times' praise. Rather, the Times feels it "exposes" Israeli duplicity: funding outposts "despite repeated pledges to dismantle" them. The issues here of funding and pledges need elaboration. As the Times reported earlier this week, the Israeli government funds West Bank regional councils, which in turn allocate – as they see fit – a percentage of those funds to outposts.
What of these "repeated pledges" by Israel? Were all outposts to be demolished immediately? Was it to be phased? These questions are necessary in light of this same editorial citing Israeli "government actions against the outposts," and Israel "removing illegal (settler) homes," leading to "militant Jewish settlers clashing regularly with Israeli police". For Times editors, these actions taken by Israel fall short of its pledges. Instead, they serve as proof that "Israel is becoming a nation at war with itself."
It would serve its readers well for the Times to clarify what this war is all about. To what end is Israel risking a civil war?
Israel has, by all appearances, taken the initial steps towards a massive West Bank pullout. In so doing, it will attempt to reach an accord with the PA, while being realistic in not relying on one. As its leaders have recently and loudly declared, Israel must end its rule over West Bank Palestinians if it wishes to remain a Jewish democracy. A majority of Israelis agree, yet have concerns about a security vacuum following withdrawal. A small, but committed minority of Israeli Jews care less about Jewish democracy and more about retaining what they believe is their biblical inheritance.
In explaining this to its readers, the Times could've easily reversed itself on the lesson of Israel's "war within". The lesson of growing anger and vigilantism among militant settlers is that Israel is readying its citizens for withdrawal and has resumed dismantling settlements.
The Times proceeds to prescribe its remedy. "As a step toward peace, Israel must…reduce the roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy." Israel has reduced roadblocks, which anyway is a decision made at the highest levels of Israel's security services, not by politicians and certainly not by newspapers. Until the editors at the Times clarify how many and which roadblocks Israel must take down, this will remain a shallow demand.
To help "freeze all settlements and reduce the roadblocks," the Times perversely calls on the "public support of American Jews and moderate Israelis" to back up the Israeli government against the Jewish militants. Who exactly are "moderate Israelis" in the Times' lexicon? It woud be interesting to see if the Times defines as moderate an Israeli who wants Israel to leave the territories, but who doesn't want Israel pressured.
This editorial's focus should've been on the Palestinians. Actually, the reason for roadblocks isn't a bad place to start. Palestinian militancy, including from Fatah (which controls the PA), illicit security measures like these. These militants knowingly sabotage a functional economy (and a normalized Palestinian life) because such an economy would naturally be joined with Israel's. Furthermore, what is not reported is that the IDF and its roadblocks are what's prevented a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, a development the Times would surely dread. Instead, the Times simplistically characterizes roadblocks as "strangling the Palestinian economy".
Most important, the PA has consistently shown its unwillingness to accept Israel's permanence. Anti-Israel defamation in PA-controlled media, promotion of the right of return, and the rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, should make clear that for the PA, an accord with Israel is artificial. Fatah's fight against Hamas is about self-preservation and not about a divide over accepting Israel. Both movements overtly disavow any meaningful settlement with Israel. Israelis know this and have few illusions of long-term peace, yet face a dangerous dilemma in their desire to withdraw from land.
Meanwhile, as if Israelis needed more pressure, here comes a prestigious paper like the Times barking orders and platitudes. "The lesson of the last few months should be clear to all. Israel will have no peace – with its neighbors or its own citizens – without a peace agreement." Fittingly, an asinine and banal line ends this piece.
It's unacceptable, not to mention disappointing, that one of the world's most respected newspapers is either unaware of the reality in which Israel finds itself, or willfully blind to it. Even worse is that this grotesque editorial was published the day after Barack Obama won the election, when there was a spike in the paper's readership and thousands of people plan to save their newspapers.
A34, Wednesday, 11/05/08
Editorial
If Israel was to evacuate over 100 West Bank settlements, forcibly evicting 100,000 people, what would be required? How much time would be needed? What sort of politics would be involved? Is Israel laying the groundwork for this, even if it cannot reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA)? More than just questions, these are serious concerns expressed by the Israeli public and policymakers. In its latest editorial, the New York Times appears oblivious to these issues.
The editorial, "The War Within," begins by mentioning growing settler militancy and the government's attempts to end it. One of these attempts is a decision to halt direct or indirect financing of outposts, or "unauthorized settlements". This decision is undeserving of the Times' praise. Rather, the Times feels it "exposes" Israeli duplicity: funding outposts "despite repeated pledges to dismantle" them. The issues here of funding and pledges need elaboration. As the Times reported earlier this week, the Israeli government funds West Bank regional councils, which in turn allocate – as they see fit – a percentage of those funds to outposts.
What of these "repeated pledges" by Israel? Were all outposts to be demolished immediately? Was it to be phased? These questions are necessary in light of this same editorial citing Israeli "government actions against the outposts," and Israel "removing illegal (settler) homes," leading to "militant Jewish settlers clashing regularly with Israeli police". For Times editors, these actions taken by Israel fall short of its pledges. Instead, they serve as proof that "Israel is becoming a nation at war with itself."
It would serve its readers well for the Times to clarify what this war is all about. To what end is Israel risking a civil war?
Israel has, by all appearances, taken the initial steps towards a massive West Bank pullout. In so doing, it will attempt to reach an accord with the PA, while being realistic in not relying on one. As its leaders have recently and loudly declared, Israel must end its rule over West Bank Palestinians if it wishes to remain a Jewish democracy. A majority of Israelis agree, yet have concerns about a security vacuum following withdrawal. A small, but committed minority of Israeli Jews care less about Jewish democracy and more about retaining what they believe is their biblical inheritance.
In explaining this to its readers, the Times could've easily reversed itself on the lesson of Israel's "war within". The lesson of growing anger and vigilantism among militant settlers is that Israel is readying its citizens for withdrawal and has resumed dismantling settlements.
The Times proceeds to prescribe its remedy. "As a step toward peace, Israel must…reduce the roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy." Israel has reduced roadblocks, which anyway is a decision made at the highest levels of Israel's security services, not by politicians and certainly not by newspapers. Until the editors at the Times clarify how many and which roadblocks Israel must take down, this will remain a shallow demand.
To help "freeze all settlements and reduce the roadblocks," the Times perversely calls on the "public support of American Jews and moderate Israelis" to back up the Israeli government against the Jewish militants. Who exactly are "moderate Israelis" in the Times' lexicon? It woud be interesting to see if the Times defines as moderate an Israeli who wants Israel to leave the territories, but who doesn't want Israel pressured.
This editorial's focus should've been on the Palestinians. Actually, the reason for roadblocks isn't a bad place to start. Palestinian militancy, including from Fatah (which controls the PA), illicit security measures like these. These militants knowingly sabotage a functional economy (and a normalized Palestinian life) because such an economy would naturally be joined with Israel's. Furthermore, what is not reported is that the IDF and its roadblocks are what's prevented a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, a development the Times would surely dread. Instead, the Times simplistically characterizes roadblocks as "strangling the Palestinian economy".
Most important, the PA has consistently shown its unwillingness to accept Israel's permanence. Anti-Israel defamation in PA-controlled media, promotion of the right of return, and the rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, should make clear that for the PA, an accord with Israel is artificial. Fatah's fight against Hamas is about self-preservation and not about a divide over accepting Israel. Both movements overtly disavow any meaningful settlement with Israel. Israelis know this and have few illusions of long-term peace, yet face a dangerous dilemma in their desire to withdraw from land.
Meanwhile, as if Israelis needed more pressure, here comes a prestigious paper like the Times barking orders and platitudes. "The lesson of the last few months should be clear to all. Israel will have no peace – with its neighbors or its own citizens – without a peace agreement." Fittingly, an asinine and banal line ends this piece.
It's unacceptable, not to mention disappointing, that one of the world's most respected newspapers is either unaware of the reality in which Israel finds itself, or willfully blind to it. Even worse is that this grotesque editorial was published the day after Barack Obama won the election, when there was a spike in the paper's readership and thousands of people plan to save their newspapers.
A Volcanic Eruption of Violence - As Natural as a Natural Disaster
"Gaza: Rocket Fire and Israeli Strike Disrupt Cease-Fire"
A19 (World Briefing), Wednesday 11/6/08
By Reuters
This brief article informs the reader of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel "after Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence that disrupted a four-month-old truce."
The lack of context in this article is truly appalling and appears to breach basic journalistic standards. This was not simply an "eruption of violence" as the article puts it, part of some ambiguous cycle of violence. As the NYT itself reported the day before, Israel had entered Gaza on Monday to destroy a tunnel Hamas built near the Israeli border, which was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers, in a situation similar to the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit back in June 2006.
In response, Hamas launched mortar shells against Israeli forces and into Israeli territory. To neutralize this threat, Israel launched an airstrike which killed four militants of which the Reuters article speaks.
Only in this light can the reader truly begin to understand why Hamas launched a salvo of Qassam rockets (46 in total) against Israel, specifically against civilian targets.
To conclude, these recent skirmishes were not part of some amorphous "eruption of violence." In reality, Israel had discovered imminent Hamas plans to abduct Israeli soldiers and deemed it necessary to defuse the threat. Israel did not wish to disrupt the ceasefire, but Hamas' exploitation of the lull in fighting to perpetrate more abductions forced its hand.
Then, in response, Hamas indiscriminately fired rockets into the Western Negev of Israel, reaching as far as Ashkelon. And Israel's to blame? Really?
A19 (World Briefing), Wednesday 11/6/08
By Reuters
This brief article informs the reader of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel "after Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence that disrupted a four-month-old truce."
The lack of context in this article is truly appalling and appears to breach basic journalistic standards. This was not simply an "eruption of violence" as the article puts it, part of some ambiguous cycle of violence. As the NYT itself reported the day before, Israel had entered Gaza on Monday to destroy a tunnel Hamas built near the Israeli border, which was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers, in a situation similar to the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit back in June 2006.
In response, Hamas launched mortar shells against Israeli forces and into Israeli territory. To neutralize this threat, Israel launched an airstrike which killed four militants of which the Reuters article speaks.
Only in this light can the reader truly begin to understand why Hamas launched a salvo of Qassam rockets (46 in total) against Israel, specifically against civilian targets.
To conclude, these recent skirmishes were not part of some amorphous "eruption of violence." In reality, Israel had discovered imminent Hamas plans to abduct Israeli soldiers and deemed it necessary to defuse the threat. Israel did not wish to disrupt the ceasefire, but Hamas' exploitation of the lull in fighting to perpetrate more abductions forced its hand.
Then, in response, Hamas indiscriminately fired rockets into the Western Negev of Israel, reaching as far as Ashkelon. And Israel's to blame? Really?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tunnels for Kidnapping
"Israeli Strike Is First in Gaza Since Start of Ceasefire"
A10, Wednesday 11/5/08
By Isabel Kershner
A10, Wednesday 11/5/08
By Isabel Kershner
Kershner allows Hamas to score one of its talking point by reporting its complaint about the maintenance of the economic embargo. She could have just as easily pointed out that the truce has held even though Hamas has not come closer to negotiating the return of captive Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit. Moreover, in recent months, Hamas allowed truce breaches by "renegades." Are we to believe that though it rules Gaza with a tight grip, Hamas can't prevent rocket attacks on Israel? Instead of digging tunnels to kidnap soldiers, Hamas could have more effectively policed renegade forces, enforcing the truce.
Kershner writes that "Israeli security officials regularly accuse Hamas of exploiting the calm to build up its strength and prepare for a future war." The statements of Israeli military officials are hardly accusations, for they have been substantiated.
After reporting that Israeli security forces entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel built for an "immanent operation," Kershner waits five paragraphs to mention the Shalit kidnapping, which occurred by use of such a tunnel, though Kershner neglects to mention that. Only a well-informed reader will recognize that tunnel construction from Gaza into Israel is directly related to kidnapping.
Kershner writes that "Israeli security officials regularly accuse Hamas of exploiting the calm to build up its strength and prepare for a future war." The statements of Israeli military officials are hardly accusations, for they have been substantiated.
After reporting that Israeli security forces entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel built for an "immanent operation," Kershner waits five paragraphs to mention the Shalit kidnapping, which occurred by use of such a tunnel, though Kershner neglects to mention that. Only a well-informed reader will recognize that tunnel construction from Gaza into Israel is directly related to kidnapping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
