A8, Saturday 11/1/08
By The Associated Press
This article discusses the cancellation on Israeli television of a full-length interview with Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, in the face of heavy criticism from politicians and public figures.
Overall, the language of this article is quite problematic. Taken from the brief segments of the interview that were released,
The article then gives no examples of the statements of these military figures, making it completely unclear the nature of the criticism. Was it fair criticism (which it appears to be given the eventual failure of Oslo and its disintegration into the Second Intifada) or did their statements call for the violent action to be taken against the government at the time (which they did not)? The criminal Yigal Amir decided to behave in an extralegal fashion to prevent the continuation of the Oslo Peace Accords. This was unquestionably wrong.
As Amir clearly states, these figures influenced his decision by highlighting the dangers of Oslo, but for the author to write that these generals incited [Definition: to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action] him into assassinating Rabin is untruthful and terribly misleading. These generals did not call for the assassination of Rabin or violence against the government. They did strongly oppose the Oslo Accords. Extremists of any stripe can always find justification for their violent actions.
[As a point of reference, compare the language of the NYT, to to that in this article on YNetNews: "When asked who influenced his decision to assassinate the prime minister, Amir said: "Sharon, Raful (Raphael Eitan,) Gandhi (Rehavam Ze'evi)…all the military experts, who said this agreement will result in disaster."]
Posts
First sentence: "the Yizthak Rabin's assassin….take out "the"
ReplyDeleteAgain with this "hawkish". What exactly does that mean here? What are the criteria for getting this label? How is it determined that most of the Israeli generals 13 years ago who warned of Oslo were hawkish?
2. The next sentence seems awkwardly phrased. It may be instructive to inform that they were right-wing, and so since Amir is right-wing, he was moved by their comments. It seems fair that at least he noted they had "distinguished military careers" which gives a more correct impression that concerns over Oslo weren't simply "right-wing".
Mr. Eitan was killed when he was washed into a stormy Mediterranean in 2004.
Doesn't this sentence leave the reader begging for more? The AP couldn't humor us with specifics on Eitan's death? Was he swimming near the beach and got pulled out to sea or was he sitting on rocks and got hit by a huge wave?
You focus on the most fundamental flaw in the piece, the word "incite" and you make the right point...people like Amir really don't need and aren't moved to action by Israeli generals -- right wing or not.
It might be more about looking to add more juice, more scandal to the story...pointing out division. This isn't necessarily anti-Israel, but may cheap and shoddy journalism. The background in a heavy story like this really needs to be better flushed out.
Last sentence: "there" should be "their" and "action" should be plural.