Denying Israel's Fight in Self-Defense

"Fight Fire with a Cease-Fire"
A27, Wednesday 12/31/08
By David Grossman

In the coup-de-grace for Wednesday's coverage, the Times gives platform to David Grossman, the noted author and leftist that was vociferous in his opposition to an expanded military operation against Hezbollah in 2006. It is essential to note that Grossman is not a military or diplomatic expert, making it somewhat inappropriate that he would be selected to offer his views on the ceasefire.

In what seems to be a rehash of his 2006 opposition, but now reshaped against the military activity targeting Hamas, Grossman incredibly writes:

Until last Saturday, we restrained ourselves in responding to the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at us. Now you know how severe the retaliation can be. So as not to add to the death and destruction that has already taken place, we intend, unilaterally and absolutely, to hold our fire for the next 48 hours.

Even if you continue to fire on Israel, we will not respond by resuming combat. We will grit our teeth, just as we did in the days and months before our attack. We will not be drawn into using force.

What is incredible is how little logic there is to Grossman's proposal. He is essentially condemning the Israeli populace within Gaza's rocket range to living a life of mortal danger and fear. Hamas has shown no indication that it would support such a ceasefire and has continued to fire rockets at Israeli civilians to show its dedication to the 'resistance.' But that doesn't have any bearing on Grossman's proposal, which is unyielding in its support of restraint, regardless of what the situation on the ground dictates.

Grossman believes in restraint because he is "against the deadly logic of military power and the dynamic of escalation.... If we demonstrate that we can do this, we will not lose international support. We will gain even more if we invite the international and Arab communities to intervene and mediate." But how often has Israel displayed restraint to no avail? How many thousands of rockets and mortars fell on Israeli towns before Israel responded to eliminate this unbearable military threat? And what has Israel gained from the international community from following this policy of restraint and accomodation, such as its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza?

In the end, Grossman tops it off by saying that Israel is repeating the same mistake as in the 2006 War against Hezbollah - Israel is allowing the situation to escalate rather than stopping it before it spirals out of control. It is clear, however, that Grossman failed to learn the lesson that the majority of his compatriots internalized after failing to stop Hezbollah: Israel must not waver in exercising its inalienable right to self-defense and must reestablish its deterrent capability in order to prevent terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas from attacking Israel with impunity.

Failing to support Israel's undeniable right to defend its people from terrorist aggression, Grossman demonstrates once again how far out of step he is with the rest of the country, particular those Israelis that live in the shadow of this rocket threat, from the north to the south.

It is unfortunate, and is deeply unrepresentative of the views of the general Israeli populace, that the Times gives voice to such a fringe character.

Who's to Blame?

"Amid a Buildup of Its Forces, Israel Ponders a Cease-Fire"
A1, Wednesday 12/31/08
By Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary

In this relatively fair article, Bronner and El-Khodary continue to review the military activity in Gaza. The reporters place much focus on a French ceasefire proposal and the Israeli response to it. They make little mention though of how Hamas views such a proposal, which is essential in determining whether the ceasefire could actually take effect. Israel is not the sole arbiter of whether there can be a cessation in hostilities while Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel.

Reporting on the military activity, Bronner and El-Khodary are quite specific in detailing the Israeli attacks in Gaza and the overall number of Palestinian casualties, including civilians, and providing numerous paragraphs to describing their suffering. When it comes to Hamas rockets attacks on Israel though, there is only a cursory paragraph that provides no hard details and quotes no Israeli civilians, who are also greatly burdened in this conflict.

On a positive note, the piece quotes a 13-year-old Gazan youth that blames Hamas for the latest spiral of violence:

I blame Hamas. It doesn’t want to recognize Israel. If they did so there could be peace. Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing is happening to them.”

Overall, an adequate article, despite falling short in various ways.

Why Is the Israeli Populace So Supportive of the Current Military Operation?

"Despite Strikes, Israelis Vow to Soldier On"
A11, Wednesday 12/31/08
By Isabel Kershner

In this constructive article, the NYT reports on the suffering of Israeli civilians amidst the conflict and their desire to continue the fight until Hamas' rockets no longer pose a threat to them or their loved ones. Kershner positively notes that Hamas rockets are being launched farther than ever, placing even more Israeli civilians into mortal danger.

The piece also significantly mentions that Israeli defensive preparations - shelters, warning sirens, the closing of schools - have been key in avoiding a much higher civilian death tool. In comparison, Hamas purposefully places its civilian population into danger in order to cynically exploit their deaths for political gain.

Nevertheless, Kershner either does not understand or cannot properly communicate why the general Israeli populace is so staunch in its continued support of the military against Hamas. She quotes Israelis as saying "Of course we support it. Do we have a choice?" and "Has not the time come to use full force and all the means at our disposal?" Kershner presents the 'what' (Israeli support) but not the 'why.'

Why? Israeli civilians do not want to live under the shadow of a Hamas rocket threat. As an aggressive terrorist force, Hamas vows to destroy Israel and purposefully targets Israeli civilians with these rockets, not the military.

While it is positive that the NYT devoted an article to the condition and thoughts of the Israeli civilian populace, it is a shame that Kershner cannot communicate such a basic point.

Magnifying Israeli Espionage in the US

"New Jersey Man, 85, Pleads Guilty to Spying for Israel in the 1980s"
A23, Wednesday 12/31/08
Alison Leigh Cowan

In this piece, the NYT reports on the guilty plea of an 85-year-old Jewish-American, who had spied on behalf of Israel in the 1980's.

As part of the NYT narrative is to herald the failures of the Jewish people and the Jewish State, the publication always pays particularly close attention to cases of Israeli espionage in the United States. That is, despite the fact this action occurred some two decades ago.

Another relevant espionage case, such as the recent guilty verdict found against an Iranian-American nuclear engineer for providing Iran with confidential software, did not receive any press coverage from the Times.

Why so?

Two Out of Five Is Bad

"As Bombs Strike the Mideast Yet Again"

Letters

A24

I am grateful for the doses of sanity provided by letter writers David P. Rountree and June Brott. The other letter writers regurgitate age-old anti-Israel rhetoric.

Judith Mahoney Pasternak's letter states an outright lie. She writes, "The bombs dropped by Israel are killing noncombatants by the hundreds in Gaza;" but on A1, Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary report, "The death toll surpassed 350, some 60 of them civilians."

Printing a letter that is contradicted by your own reporting is unprofessional.

The Challenge of Freeing Shalit

"A Captured Israeli Soldier Figures in Military Assessments and Political Calculus"

By Isabel Kershner

A12

Israel is not a “fractious” country, one on the verge of breaking as the word fractious implies. It is one of passion and contention.

Kershner quotes one volunteer for a petition-signing campaign calling upon the government to swap over 1000 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit to demonstrate that "many Israelis" see the attack in Gaza as "a clear subjugation of Corporal Shalit's safety to broader military goals." The "broader military goals" to which Kershner refers in a rather cold, objective manner include restoring calm to the Southwest Negev and protecting Israeli citizens there from rocket attack. 

Although Shalit's parents are not quoted in the article, Kershner indicates that they were likely against the recent six month truce since it did not secure their son's release. She uses this fact, however, to subvert the rationale for the IAF action - a rather underhanded move. 

Rejectionism for Honor

"A Credo of Rejection"

By Stephen Farrell

A1, A12

In The Closed Circle, David Pryce-Jones, argues that Arab society is governed by a dual set of emotions – honor and shame. The goal: Gain honor and avoid shame.

Many Palestinians, Farrell writes, “admired Hamas for its willingness to take on a regional superpower.” Certainly, the impression that Palestinians want to convey to the world is that of the underdog’s heroism, but consider for the moment another impression that could come through – utter irrationality. The calculation appears to be guided by the prospect of gaining honor and avoiding shame rather than simply finding the best way to live. Choose life!

Farrell’s query is, Will Hamas be strengthened or weakened in this confrontation with Israel? In the process of not answering it, he misleads readers in several places.

In the first full paragraph on A12, the reporter explains, “the rejectionist credo” is “that Fatah negotiated with Israel and got nowhere.” Even had Fatah accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David 2000, Hamas would have rejected such an agreement because it desires to rule all of Israel. In other words, when a group’s objective is politicide – the eradication of Israel – members of that group are bound to be disappointed by negotiations, which are unlikely to end in a state’s dissolution.

Farrell raises the prospect of Hamas unleashing a suicide bombing campaign, as it did several years ago. The will to execute suicide bombings has been there all along, but the capability has been significantly weakened because of the security barrier, Operation Defensive Shield, and targeted assassinations of Hamas’ leaders. The threat of suicide bombing does not loom as large as it once did because Israel – through pain – has discovered methods for weakening Hamas’ capability. Farrell does not provide this sobering counter to the exuberance he finds among Palestinians for Hamas to carry out such attacks.

Gratitude to Mohanad Salah, who gets to play the role of “Palestinian who really wants peace” in Farrell’s article. Salah promises that if Israel offered a political solution, “it would be completely accepted by the majority of Palestinian people.” Pray tell, what would that political solution be? It most likely constitutes an Israeli withdrawal to the ’49 armistice lines and implementation of the so-called right of return. No, thank you, Mr. Salah.

Wanted: Israeli Voices

"No Early End Seen to 'All-Out War' on Hamas in Gaza"

By Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary

A1, A12

Hamas’ execution of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel is revealing; the supportive response of a crowd that witnessed one execution is sickening. Nonetheless, the executions and the crowd’s non-response offer an uncomfortable window into the chaotic and violent world of many Palestinians.

Bronner and El-Khodary do not mention that the European Union also considers Hamas as a terrorist organization. I wonder why, sometimes, the EU is included, and, sometimes, it is not. I suspect that the EU is excluded to give a false impression that the US and Israel are going the course alone.

The reporters state that “Politicians on the left…urged the government to seek a new cease-fire” but do not highlight the fact that Ehud Barak, leader of the most powerful party on the left – Labor – was executing the military operation. The reporters also neglect to mention who these politicians are. 

Finally, Bronner and El-Khodary quote only one Israeli and the quote possesses little explanatory power.

Morris Repentant

"Why Israel Feels Threatened"
By Benny Morris
A25


Benny Morris is in full repentance mode. In his editorial, he makes a very important general point about the Arab-Israeli conflict. "The Arab and wider Islamic worlds...have never truly accepted the legitimacy of Israel's creation and continue to oppose its existence," he writes. In fact, the editorial was so good that I began to wonder how it got into NYT. Then, I read Morris' skepticism about a ground invasion, and it occurred to me - based also on the editorial on A24 - that here is where NYT will hold the line. If Israel invades Gaza, NYT promises to provide highly critical, and even negative, coverage.

In raising his skepticism about a ground incursion, Morris exaggerates the potential scenario to underscore its small likelihood of success. "Even if these goals were somehow achieved, renewed and indefinite Israeli rule over Gaza would prove unpalatable to all concerned," he writes. Yet, Israel has said repeatedly that it does not intend to re-administer (re-occupy) Gaza.


The final flaw in an otherwise good editorial is in the final paragraph wherein Morris desribes the IAF attack as a "violent reaction." Since describing a military strike as violent is rather obvious, the use of the word "violent" serves to subtly delegitimize the action. Calling the strike a "reaction" further undermines its legitimacy and contributes to the cliched cycle of violence theorem.


If Morris wanted to repent fully, he would have described the strike as preventative and defensive, not a "violent reaction."

Hamas Capitalizes on Palestinian Suffering

"War Over Gaza"

Editorial 

A24

First, NYT misstates the purpose of the IAF operation. The purpose is to destroy Hamas' capacity for launching rockets against Israel, not "to weaken the militant Palestinian group." The difference may seem subtle but NYT's assertion is too general. Then,  NYT expresses skepticism about the likelihood of IAF success without offering evidence or an explanation why. 

NYT also offers a poor explanation for its opposition to a ground invasion. The editorial board writes, "Any prolonged military action would be disastrous for Israel and lead to wider regional instability." How so?

The editorial board, however, acknowledges that Hamas is "unconcerned about their people's suffering - and masters at capitalizing on it." This admission is heartening.  

Obama's Options

"Gaza Crisis Is Another Challenge for Obama, Who Defers to Bush for Now"
A10, Monday 12/29/08
By Steven Lee Myers and Helene Cooper

Some important notes before an analysis of the Times' options for Obama to bring peace to the Middle East:

Giving a snapshot of the challenges facing Obama, readers are told that "even before the conflict flared again," there are recent tensions with India and Pakistan, a nuclear North Korea, "while Iran continues to stall the international effort to stop its nuclear programs."

The last point about Iran is a good one, but unfortunately one too seldom covered by the Times.

A paragraph later it's noted that "Mr. Obama has not suggested he has any better ideas than President Bush had to resolve the existential conflict between the Israelis and Hamas." (emphasis added)

Of note is that this wasn't labeled an existential conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, just Israelis and Hamas, which ensures the legitimacy of the Times' prescription for a speedy resolution with "moderate" Fatah. If the Times, in using "existential," doesn't imply an "either/or," or "us or them," then at the very least it implies a conflict between Israel and Hamas so severe as to be intractable.

So this is another good point not generally emphasized or even mentioned by the Times, which has instead advocated not only negotiations with Hamas, but the position that the peace process is fundamentally flawed without Hamas' inclusion.

This last point is made two paragraphs later:

"The omission of Hamas from any talks between the Israelis and President Mahmoud Abbas had always been a landmine that risked blowing up a difficult and delicate peace process, but so have Israel’s own internal political divisions."

Aside from the clichéd metaphor and the even more clichéd red herring of "Israel's political divisions," it's astounding that the problem with the peace process is not Hamas – in an "existential conflict" with Israel – but the omission of Hamas.

The point, one the Times is loathe to make, is that maybe serious talks shouldn't be had at all when a party like Hamas is a major player, many say the most popular, in Palestinian politics.

Another sad Times truism is repeated a paragraph later, with "high expectations, particularly among Muslims around the world, that [Obama] will make an effort at dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict." Again, the Times dangerously fails to distinguish how the west, particularly Israel and the US, wants to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict: a two state solution; and how the Muslim and Arab world wants to resolve it: a one state solution, meaning the purging of Jewish dominion over land most Muslims see as forever theirs. This concept is controversial and seems conspiratorial mostly to westerners – including those at the Times.

This piece ends with two sets of options laid out for the new Obama administration, and in so doing, more false equivalence:

Option One: "to respond much more harshly to Israel's policies, from settlements to strikes like those this weekend."

Option Two: "try to pressure surrogates to lean on Hamas, including Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza. [Obama] can build international pressure on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks into Israel."

First, there's a horrible equivalence made between settlements and Israel's defensive and preventive actions (no matter how misguided or counterproductive one might deem them) and Hamas' blatant attacks on civilians.

Second, a key word here is "try". As Israel's closest ally, the US could apply pressure if it wanted to, but with Arab countries – even allies which the US heavily funds and arms like Egypt – the US can only "try" to pressure them.

Lastly, the second set of options sounds pretty sensible, especially since, if successful, it would render the first set of options moot. Yet we shouldn't get our hopes up since we're told "all have been tried, and all have failed to avoid new fighting." What has Bush, other leaders or international bodies done to pressure Hamas (through surrogates or not) to stop its rocket attacks? Nothing, which is the worth of this Times analysis.

What's "Israeli Deterrence"?

"With Strikes, Israel Reminds Foes It Has Teeth"
A1, Monday 12/29/08
By Ethan Bronner

Bronner starts the article pointing out that Israel's current military operation is aimed not only at ending Hamas' rocket barrages, but at its military buildup – a story too seldom covered. Another solid point follows: the operation is also to re-establish Israeli deterrence.

Bronner opts for a kinder, gentler verb in reference to rockets shot or launched into Israel. In 2006, "Hezbollah was lobbing deadly rockets into Israel," Bronner informs us. The next paragraph, Bronner aptly notes by "successfully shooting rockets into Israel and sounding defiant to the end," Hezbollah, which is blunt about its goal of destroying Israel, "won a great deal of credit among Arabs across the region."

Of course, these Arabs must be different, more radical, from the ones the Times consistently [and in the same day's paper] states are eager to see the US "make an effort at dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict," and forging a solution that leaves in tact a militarily dominant Jewish state, in control of the majority of land between the Jordan river and Mediterranean Sea.

This same theme reappears in the next paragraph as Bronner states that Hamas, "in the position of scrappy survivor or even somehow perceived as victor, it could then dominate Palestinian politics over the more conciliatory and pro-Western Fatah. Since Hamas, like Hezbollah, is committed to Israel's destruction, that could pose a formidable strategic challenge."

First, Fatah is not "more conciliatory," but less openly hostile – rhetorically and militarily – to Israel and thus more pragmatic. It knows how to pick its battles and how to stay in power in the face an overwhelmingly stronger opponent.

Second, is it that Palestinian society values a scrappy underdog or values a movement more openly and defiantly [than Fatah] committed to Israel's destruction? Again, the Times fails to make a crucial, and what should be an obvious, connection: if Palestinian society ("Palestinian politics," as coded by Bronner) embraces those committed to Israel's destruction, it's not just Hamas [or Fatah] that poses a "formidable challenge," but Palestinian society in general. This doesn't mean Israel should be at war with Palestinian society, but it does mean Palestinian attitudes need to change. At the very least, it means Israel shouldn't be pressured to negotiate with any Palestinian entity even rhetorically committed to Israel's demise [i.e. Fatah].

There are three problems with language:

Israel is gambling it won't alienate an Obama administration with "its aggressive military posture". How is waiting 8 years to respond resolutely to rocket attacks on its civilians "aggressive"? How is the current operation distinctly more aggressive than Israel's previous operations?

This Israeli operation, according to many news outlets, has now been dubbed "an Israeli version of 'shock and awe'". There are similarities to some of the initial war tactics of the 2003 US campaign, but does the comparison really add clarity to what Israel is trying to do, which as the Times stated, is to force Hamas into a more favorable truce? I also never heard about the US military leaving phone messages at civilians living close to Iraqi government offices, warning them to evacuate. Of course, Israel doing this to spare civilian casualties has not been reported by the Times.

Bronner writes "another peace treaty with Hamas," when he really means "truce". There's a profound difference and some readers are unfortunately left to conclude that Hamas has once signed a peace treaty with Israel.

For the second half of the analysis, Bronner veers from the issue of Israeli deterrence and focuses on Israeli "internal complications," and comparisons to the 2006 war against Hezbollah. Bronner, by discussing the 2006 campaign and how Hezbollah won prestige from it, and the prospect of Hamas doing the same now, seems to not give a ringing endorsement of Israel's policy of deterrence.

Yet what's absent is a serious discussion of the policy's pros and cons. Has deterrence worked in the past? What led to the 1978 Camp David Accords? What about the peace process? As Shimon Peres famously said regarding his nation's nuclear program, Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." Is there any value to the notion that Israel's adversaries will think twice before striking?

What is Israeli deterrence, if not, ultimately, to save lives?

Israel Defends Its Citizens...By Retaliating?

"Israel Keeps Up Assault On Gaza; Arab Anger Rises"
A1, Monday 12/29/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner

"Israel said" its Gaza strikes "were in retaliation for sustained rocket fire from Gaza into its territory"? This is then just another game of tag, cat and mouse, another round in the senseless cycle of violence. This is the backgrounder offered readers on the front page of Monday's Times.

Of course, Israel's strikes aren't retaliatory, and it never said they were. Israel, by stating the immediate threat of Hamas rockets, has said that the strikes are preventive. The word choice is key. If Israel was guaranteed no more rockets or other attacks from Gaza, Israel would not be striking Gaza now.

Israel doesn't put the lives of its youth in jeopardy for revenge. First, this has not been the Israeli ethos and second, the Israeli public wouldn't allow it. Its leaders would be voted out. What prompted Israeli action was the prospect of more rockets, deadlier and with longer range, and only after eight years of limited and ultimately futile Israeli operations.

Eight paragraphs in, and only in the context of pointing to Israel's "strong push to justify the attacks," are readers informed that Israel says "it was forced into military action to defend its citizens". Later on, Olmert is reported as saying Israel's operation is meant to "restore normal life and quiet to residents of [southern Israel]." So is Israel "retaliating," or "defending its citizens"? Can it really be both?

Three additional problems:

1) "Gazans also use many of them [smuggling tunnels from Egypt] to import consumer goods and fuel in order to get around the Israeli-imposed economic blockade."

What's especially problematic about this statement is that it's true. Yet the reason for the blockade was rocket and mortar attacks not only into Israel, but at the actual border crossings. Even during the recent truce, the blockade was for a time lifted, only to be met with sporadic rocket fire from Gaza. What would've sufficed is a simple addendum:

"...to get around the Israeli economic blockade, imposed in response to rocket and mortar attacks into Israel."

2) While the strikes are described as "unleashing a furious reaction across the Arab world," and "raising fears of greater instability in the region," absent is a real sense of where Israel stands. We hear what's going on in Tehran, Damascus and Beirut, but not in Israel. Is the Israeli public divided? [an overwhelming majority support the operation.] Is the Israeli political spectrum divided? [Parties from Likud to Meretz support the operation.] If there were internal Israeli divisions, it's not a stretch to imagine a front page article posing these questions.

3) "An Egyptian brokered six-month truce between Israel and Hamas, always shaky, began to unravel in early November. It expired 10 days ago."

The piece ends with this, which omits plenty. Palestinian militants from Gaza fired rockets into Israel well before November. Hamas chose not to stop them. The "unraveling" in early November was Israel blowing up a tunnel into Israel which Hamas had built. The tunnel was identical to the one used in the abduction of Gilad Schalit. Hamas responded with more rockets.

Finally, before and after the truce expired, Hamas was outspoken in its refusal to renew it. In fact, in the days following the expiration of the truce, Hamas increased its rocket barrages into Israel. All of this would've made for an informative paragraph to end a piece ostensibly meant to provide background on Israel's strikes.

Getting Emotional, Bungling the Facts

"More Than 225 Die in Gaza as Israel Strikes at Hamas"
A1, Sunday 12/28/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner

The first major NYT article detailing the ongoing Israeli military operations against Hamas comes out relatively 'even-handed,' albeit with some serious deficiencies. At times, the article falls into excessively emotional accounts and makes unsubstantiated assertions. Overall though, this NYT piece falls into the trite 'cycle of violence' (moral equivalence) category, bringing no further illumination to the reader except that 'both sides' are culpable in one way or another.

For the good part, the reporters clearly state that "most of the dead were security officers for Hamas," making clear that the military operation was no massacre of civilians as more than a few have reflexively claimed. The article also devotes a few paragraphs to the statements of Israeli security officials, who further explicate the Israeli predicament.

Most importantly, a brief paragraph succinctly summarizes the position of Hamas:

Hamas is officially committed to Israel's destruction, and after it took over Gaza in 2007, it said it would not recognize Israel, honor previous Palestinian Authority commitments to it or end its violence against Israelis.

In terms of the context leading up the invasion, the article does write that "on Wednesday, some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity." Unfortunately, this statements comes in the second to last paragraph in a quite lengthy article. This context deserves mention much earlier, including the protracted history of such rocket fire since its initiation in 2001, lest it falsely appear that Israel executed this precise military strike for no reason.

For the bad in the article, there is much to be said. The reporters clearly make some unsubstantiated assertions:

But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology.

Where is there any support for this assertion? And what does it mean to not fully accept Hamas ideology? What part did they accept? The killing of Jews part?

Beyond this unproven assertion and others, the piece all too often relies on excessively emotional statements and language.

Here is one of the more emotive paragraphs:

Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturday's attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school.

The truth is, a similar statement could have been written if the operation had been carried out at night - 'Palestinian children were sleeping quietly in their beds when Israeli jets screamed overhead...' The language in the paragraph conflates what were in fact the Israeli targets - Hamas security personnel - and civilians.

The authors further write that "while enough food has gone in [to Gaza] to avoid starvation, the level of suffering is very high and getting worse each week..." To even mention the term starvation seems quite extreme, as Israel clearly possesses the moral-humanitarian sense to avoid such a terrible catastrophe.

In the end, the NYT continues to rely on a crude moral equivalence calculus, allowing Hamas to provide some of its key propaganda points in the process. With protracted Israeli operations likely, readers should expect further problematic coverage, which will probably only worsen as the conflict continues.

[FYI: The article in the paper and online were signficantly different, including the title]

White House Firmly in Israel's Corner, Condemns Hamas

"White House Puts Onus on Hamas to End Violence"
A10, Sunday 12/28/08
By Robert Pear

This article postively notes that in response to Israeli operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the United States has issued statements squarely placing blame with the radical Islamist terror organization. And despite Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice's calls for an immediate restoration of the ceasefire, the White House has been quite understanding of the ongoing Israeli military activities.

In the end though, the piece leaves somewhat of a sour taste in the mouth, deciding to quote Nicolas Sarkozy, an important world leader, who has accussed Israel of the generally baseless claim of "disproportionate use of force."

Expect this poorly defined catch phrase to be frequently leveled against Israel in the coming days.

The Unexpected Sympathy

"The Unexpected Anchor"
MM45 (NYT Magazine), Sunday 12/28/08
By Michael Sokolove

In honor of the passing of the well-known and well-respected American television sports journalist, Jim McKay, the NYT recalls his distinguished and poignant coverage of the 1972 Munich Massacre in which eight Palestinian terrorists murdered 11 Israeli hostages at the Olympic Games. While the piece is not directly about Israel, it is notable for its rare usage of the term "Palestinian terrorists" and the empathy displayed for the Israeli victims.

At the end of the article, McKay's famously moving words are quoted following word that all the Israeli athlete-hostages had perished:

“We’ve just gotten the final word. When I was a kid, my father used to say our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized. Our worst fears have been realized tonight. They have now said that there were 11 hostages. Two were killed in their rooms. . . . Nine others were killed at the airport tonight. They’re all gone.”

It is commendable that this sad event is once against commemorated, but it is important to recognize how the NYT is always quick to empathize with Jewish victims outside Israel (and especially victims of the Holocaust), but when it comes to Jewish victims within Israel, and particularly within the disputed territories, the paper rarely expresses sympathy or condemnation. Instead of being victims of intolerable aggression against civilians, they are simply victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, killed by "militants" instead of "terrorists."

It is not that the terrorist tactics of Palestinian terrorists have changed, but it is the newspaper's altered view of what now constitutes terrorism and 'legitimate resistance.' But terrorism - the purposeful targeting of civilians for political gain- continues to be terrorism, whatever the motive.

Reuters' Bewilderment

"Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings"
By Reuters
World Brief A8
December 27, 2008

A harmless Brief appeared today by Reuters.

The British news outlet betrays its bewilderment about Hamas' actions when it states, "Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shells from Gaza at Israel on Friday." Of course, one would express bewilderment if one believed that the rationale for rocket fire was the closing of the border-crossings.

Israel's "Saber-Rattling"

"Israel Issues an Appeal to Palestinians in Gaza"
A15, Friday 12/26/08
By Reuters

It's important that this Reuters piece highlights the fact that a military operation has been put off by Israel for some time. This gives the piece important perspective, yet it's not enough. Amazingly, readers aren't informed about the number of rockets Israel has tolerated since leaving Gaza three years ago.

Hamas, and to a lesser extent smaller militant groups, have "launched more than 6,300 rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza. The attacks have killed 10 civilians, wounded more than 780 and traumatized thousands of others." This information could've easily been inserted.

Olmert declares that "Hamas must be stopped," and "we don't want more blood [in Gaza]." Readers are then told that "adding to the saber-rattling, Israel's army chief, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel would have to act with 'all our force to hurt the terrorist infrastructure and change the security reality'."

Regarding language, three questions should be asked here: 1) Should any threat of force, including in defense, be considered saber-rattling? 2) Would including the above details of the rocket attacks have rendered the term inappropriate? 3) Finally, what exactly did this article report: an Israeli "appeal to Palestinians" or Israeli "saber-rattling"?

Handing It To The Lebanese Army

"Lebanon Army Dismantles Eight Rockets Aimed at Israel"
A8, Friday 12/26/08
By Robert F. Worth

That UNIFIL and the Lebanese army have failed to prevent Hezbollah's rearming is an essential point made by Worth. Yet two paragraphs later, Worth ends the piece by airing Lebanon's accusation that Israel has "violated [its] airspace with jet flyovers" without stating Israel's reason for doing so: to monitor the arms transfers to Hezbollah that UNIFIL and the Lebanese army are supposed to be preventing.

It's remarkable that the two-year rearming of Hezbollah with new, sophisticated Iranian weapons has been rendered a non-story, yet eight Katyusha rockets (we're told through a statement from the Lebanese army) found and taken down by the Lebanese army elicits a large headline.

Praise to the Pardoner

"Jailed for Aiding Israel in '48, But Pardoned by Bush in '08"

By Eric Lichtblau 

A1, A14

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Before Israel earned American support with its stunning victory in Six Days of War, the US actually resisted Jews' efforts to secure independence in 1948, as evidenced by the conviction of Charlie Winters a quarter century ago. As Lichtblau writes, "The United States banned the sale of weapons to Israel and to other countries in the Middle East, and Israel found itself isolated militarily as it struggled to hold on to its fledgling independence." 

This fact may unnerve defamers of Israel who vilify the Jewish state as an American imperial product. 

One small problem with Lichtblau's writing. In the fourth to last paragraph, he writes that Mr. Winters "never said anything about...his work for the Israelis." Mr. Winters worked with the Israelis. He chose to manage a transaction of military aircraft and was remunerated for it. The use of "for" suggests subversiveness, as if Mr. Winters was on the Haganah payroll. 

All in all, praise goes to W for pardoning a truly righteous dude (gentile). 

"Palestinians Work to Jolt West Bank Back to Life"

By Isabel Kershner and Ethan Bronner

A6

Kershner and Bronner team up for this piece, and the trouble is doubled.

NYT is unwilling to give Israel any credit for the positive developments in Bethlehem and misses the main point of these improvements. The readily apparent conclusion - the pshat - is that when there is security and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Palestinians are able to prosper. The more security, the more Israel will ease restrictions, and the more possible it becomes to reach a political solution.

Instead, NYT repeats the main Palestinian talking point – end occupation now, now, now! Incremental improvements and interim agreements that lay the groundwork for a political solution are not sufficiently welcomed or applauded.

The Palestinian takeover of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem and suicide terrorism emanating from Nablus are papered over in the second and eighteenth paragraphs, respectively.

Governor of Bethlehem, Salah Tamari, who is alloted the the all-poweful last word - lasting three paragraphs - regurgitates a now familiar and offensive psycho-analytic claim about Jewish Israelis: They are constantly insecure because they are always illogically projecting their experience with Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust upon everything else. This is despite the fact, of course, that real violence and incitement against Jews continues.

Kershner & Bronner are to be praised on two points:
1) Referring to Israeli opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu as "conservative," instead of the overused "hawkish."
2) Making an identification between checkpoints and prevention of suicide bombing rather than insinuating that their purpose is to "strangle the Palestinian economy" in paragraph twenty. They report, "...Israel’s removing the major checkpoints it erected in 2002, a step it said was necessary to prevent the movement of suicide bombers."

(Gratitude to ShamSham for insight and assistance.)

"Israel: 3 Militants Killed in Gaza"

AP

World Brief  A11

Again, NYT - via the Associated Press (AP) - refers to Hamas as "the militant group that rules Gaza" instead of as a terrorist organization. 

The men killed are referred to as Palestinian militants, not Hamas members. By calling them "Palestinian," the AP unwisely indicates that these men represent the Palestinian populace. If they do, then the prospect of an agreement between Israel and Palestinians is further off than even the most optimistic predictions. The men should be called Hamas members, if the fact can be verified. If they are members of another terrorist group, then the name of that group should be mentioned.

At the end of the Brief, AP reports, "Soldiers crossed a few yards into Gaza and engaged the Palestinians..." Now, these men are not even "militants"! They are "Palestinians." The terminology conjures victimhood and invites sympathy. The act, which forced the IDF's hand - planting explosives along the border fence - is subtly neutralized. 

Russian Anti-Aircraft System to Iran? Yes, No, Maybe So

"Teheran Says It's Getting Missiles"
A11, Monday 12/22/08
By Nazila Fathi

This article discusses Iranian claims that Russia has started delivering the S-300 advanced air defense system to the Islamic Republic. Previously, Russia has denied that it would do so.

In general, this article is too speculative and lacks sufficient context to really be "fit to print." The reporter does not directly state how such a weapons system could greatly complicate potential U.S. or Israeli efforts to launch aerial attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities if it fails to comply with the demands of the international community to halt its nuclear program.

It will be interesting to see how the situation develops.

The Iranian-Syrian Connection

"The Syrian Strategy"

By Danielle Pletka

P.13 Week in Review

Sunday, December 21, 2008

A strong editorial that illuminates the unreality of taking Syria out of the Iranian orbit. Pletka understands the Israeli perspective. The enlarged quote in the printed paper reads, "Can a weak dictator bring Mideast peace?" As the editorialist successfully argues, No.

"Let Russia Stop Iran"

By Oded Eran, Giora Eiland, and Emily B. Landau

P.11 Week in Review

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Three Israelis, based in Tel Aviv, articulate the need to make a deal with Russia to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The piece is tangentially related to Israel, as it is about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but only mentions the Jewish state once - at the end. The authors "hope that the new prime minister of Israel can see the wisdom of such a deal" with Russia. The notion of such a deal is intriguing. 

Times Takes Burg To Task…After Providing Platform

"Once a Political Riser, an Israeli Challenges His Country's Identity"
A8, The Saturday Profile, Saturday 12/20/08
By Ethan Bronner

Implicit in this piece on Avraham Burg is an important question: In Israel, a nation that is "no stranger to self-examination," where "nearly everything is subject to debate," why is it that the former speaker of the Knesset and former head of the World Zionist Organization, a man who wanted to stir debate, is now a "public scourge" and has "gained almost no traction"?

Bronner, while providing a platform for Burg's undeveloped and gratuitous views, attempts to provide an answer. "To many friends and acquaintances," Bronner reports, "the soft, flowery answers he has offered to his big, tough questions have left them cold." Haaretz' Ari Shavit calls Burg's latest book "anti-Israel in the deepest sense." Tom Segev calls it "spaced-out," which presumably means spacey.

"No doubt [Burg] raises serious questions," writes Bronner. "Less clear, however, is whether Mr. Burg has provided any serious answers." Most conclusively, Bronner writes that "rather than reconciling [Israel's] complex tensions, Mr. Burg ended up imploding from them."

Still, readers are subjected to Burg's shallow observations masked as deep-sounding questions. Burg asks "what does it mean that Jews define themselves by genetics 60 years after genetics were used against them?" In the Jewish spirit of responding to a question with a question, one might respond "what does it mean that Jews are losing their ethnic identity on their own, 60 years after it was almost destroyed by others?" Or, put another way, "should Jews abandon this identity simply because it's been, and continues to be, used against them?"

Many Israelis see value in provoking debate on how their society deals with the Holocaust or even how it defines Jewishness. Actually, this is done frequently. But it's in his hyperbolic tone, his shock-value rhetoric, that Burg has done less to encourage genuine debate and perhaps more to give ammunition to Israel's adversaries. This could explain why Burg's views resonate so little among Israelis and other Jews. This piece would've benefited from such a conclusion.

"Most interesting of all," Bronner concludes, "Mr. Burg continues to play a public role in Israel. This may be because, despite it all, Avrum Burg is family. And whether he likes it or not, Israelis look out for family."

While this is a thoughtful ending, pointing to Israeli society's openness, passion for self-criticism and debate and deep sense of community, why pay Burg any mind at all when more nuanced views can be found? For the agenda-driven Times, it's more than just Burg's book to promote.

What article on other, less-covered parts of the globe was sacrificed to air another fringe Israeli view castigating Israel and Zionism?

The Gaza Truce Ends

"Israel: Hamas Formally Ends Truce"
A8, World Briefing - Middle East, Saturday 12/20/08
By The Associated Press

In a straightforward AP brief on Hamas "formally" ending its six month truce with Israel, it's interesting that nowhere is it clearly indicated how Hamas formally ended the truce, or the language it used to do so – rockets or a web post.

The brief only referred to a statement posted on the Hamas web site where Hamas blamed Israel for the failure of the truce. The only other missing item was a statement by Israeli officials rebutting Hamas' accusations.

The Common Terrorist Threat Facing India and Israel

"From Munich to Mumbai"
A27 (Op-Ed), Saturday 12/20/08
By Ami Pedazhur

In this positive Op-Ed, Israeli academic Ami Pedazhur, a leading expert on suicide terrorism, writes about the similarities and differences of the terrorism facing both India and Israel in light of the recent Mumbai terrorist attack. Overall, he understands that both countries will continue be connected by the "latest terrorism challenge."

Pedazhur's Op-Ed is most useful in reminding the audience that "these attacks did not indicate the emergence of a new form of terrorism." In doing so, he goes through a rash of horrific terrorist attacks against Israeli targets that employed similar strategies:

• 1972 Muniche massacre of Israeli athletes, which captured the world's media attention at the time and focused it on the Palestinian plight
  
• 1974 Ma'alot Massacre ("22 Israeli high school students killed")
• 1978 Coastal Road Massacre ("37 murdered, including 13 children")
• 1979 Nahariya terrorist in which terrorists, including the infamous Samir Kuntar, infiltrated Israel by boat

In the article though, the Israeli academic does not simply focus on the commonalities, but also the differences. He was "very surprised to hear Israeli security experts criticizing the Indian response," particuarly given that Israel had its own fair share of counter-terrorism failures until it reached its own effective strategies. In his view, "protecting a huge multiethnic, multireligious country like India is far more challenging than securing a rather homogeneous, tiny state like Israel."

This seems to be quite a valid point. All in all, still a very positive article. Unforunately though, the piece ends on this line: "While Israel has much to be proud of in how it has handled terrorism, it also has much to be humble about." This makes the article very much Israel-centric, focusing on Israeli criticism of the Indian response instead of focusing on the common terrorist threat the two nations will face in the years and decades to come.

The common terrorist threat being Islamically-inspired, which Pedazhur somehow fails to mention.

A Messy Moral Equivalence

"A Gaza Truce Undone by Flaws May Be Revived by Necessity"
A11, Friday 12/19/08
By Ethan Bronner

NYT Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner provides a particularly poor analysis of the termination of the truce between Israel and Hamas, the ruling party of Gaza, on Friday, December 19. The lull arrangement, initiated on June 19, 2008, was designed to last for six months. Hamas has chosen not to renew the agreement. But instead of recognizing Hamas' refusal to extend the truce, which Israel has advocated, Bronner's piece is full of moral equivalence, attempting to equally parcel blame for the deterioration of the ceasefire and its recent end.

In the escalation that led to the corrosion of the agreement, Bronner writes that “Israel’s decision in early November to destroy a tunnel Hamas had been digging near the border drove the cycle of violence [language of moral equivalence] to a much higher level.” Why is Israel’s decision to destroy the tunnel seen as the spur for this “cycle of violence”? Should Israel not have engaged what it deemed an imminent threat? It is better stated that Hamas’ aggressive decision to build a tunnel toward the Israeli border, the same tool used to kidnap Gilad Shalit in June 2006, was the cause of this spiral of violence (a spiral has a clear beginning whereas a cycle has no clear beginning or end, resulting in ambiguous accountability).

Moving onto the failure to renew the ceasefire, Bronner gives voice to two main Hamas talking points:

• The level of goods passing through the Gaza border crossings “never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival.”
• “In addition, Israeli forces continued to attack Hamas and other militants in the West Bank, prompting Palestinian militants in Gaza to fire rockets.”

He doesn’t mention that neither of these elements were part of the agreement. Regarding the crossings, it is unclear where Bronner got the astronomical figure of “500 to 600 truckloads” (perhaps the number of trucks passing into Gaza while the Palestinian Authority was still in control of the Strip). Israel’s obligation was to re-open the crossings and increase the level of goods passing into Gaza, which it clearly did, despite continued rocket fire. On the second point relating to the West Bank, it was clear to all parties that this territory was not included as part of the ceasefire.

Having offered the Hamas talking points, Bronner then creates an equation of equivalence with Israeli hopes that “that the agreement would lead to progress on Corporal Shalit’s release, or at least to increased information on his condition or negotiations over an exchange for him.” Let it be clear that this equivalence does not exist. Palestinian terrorist operatives employed violence to address their objections to the agreement while Israel never used violence or closed border crossings to protest the lack of progress on the Shalit issue. It is unsettling that Bronner draws this equivalence given its baseless grounds.

In the end, Bronner believes that “both sides need the truce, so they will probably grope their way back to it.” If that is the case, then why did Hamas choose to end it whereas Israel was willing to extend it? Why is this basic fact not stated?

Moral equivalence is a convenient device, but frequently fails to illuminate the truth.

If Rockets Could Talk

"Russia Says It May Buy Remotely Piloted Spy Planes From Israel"
A16, Wednesday 12/17/08
By Michael Schwirtz

This dinky article should've been a big story titled "Israelis worried by antiaircraft systems to Iran and Syria". Schwirtz mentions the sale in the last of seven paragraphs, and mentions nothing of Israeli concerns about Russia joining with this extremist alliance.

Russia has not only sabotaged efforts of checking Iran, but now is about to cement its sponsorship of Iran. Schwirtz is quick, though, to inform readers that when Russia gets another crack at Georgia, we'll have Israel to thank for those bloody scenes on CNN.

Adding insult is Schwirtz describing Iran and Syria as "vocal adversaries of Israel". In Iran, parades flaunt nuke warheads draped with death threats to Israel. The IRG, along with Hezbollah, warred against Israel on the battlefield two years ago and is laying the groundwork for the next one.

The Iranian regime supplies Hamas with new weaponry. Syria supports violence against Israel through weapons transfers to Hezbollah, and it assists Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both currently shooting rockets into Israel.

The Times should go back and reassess why it remains unmoved by belligerent acts against Israel.

Oh, Isabel

"Israel: Palestinian Militants Fire Rockets From Gaza"

A16 (World Briefing), Thursday 12/18/08

By Isabel Kershner

"The truce," reports Isabel Kershner, "started to unravel in early November." By avoiding the active voice, Kershner leaves open the answer to the crucial question, Who broke the truce?

By now, after over a month of reporting, the reader would expect an answer to this question; but one is not forthcoming. This is the key to even-handedness; it is also the key to perpetuating the conflict. Constructing a tunnel to kidnap an Israeli solider, an act that has already occurred, is, to my eyes, a breach of the truce.

In Clark Hoyt's piece this past Sunday in NYT about the use of the word "terrorism" in reporting, he paraphrased a memo authored by James Bennet, former bureau chief of the Times in Jerusalem. The memo states that Bennet would use the word terrorism "to describe attacks within Israel’s 1948 borders." (For the moment, pay no mind to the misuse of the term borders here.)

Yet, here in this World Brief, Kershner refers to those who fired the rockets into Sderot, Israel proper, as "militants," not "terrorists," a subversion of the very unwritten rule Hoyt wrote of on Sunday. Can I get a witness?

Finally, Kershner allows Hamas - not Israel - to get a word in on its conditions for an extension of the truce, lending legitimacy to Hamas, which unsurprisingly suggests that Israel needs to make the terms of a truce sweeter. Lord, have mercy.

Falk as the Jester in the Human Rights Council's Kangaroo Court

"U.N. Rights Investigator Expelled by Israel"
A14, Tuesday 12/16/08
By Isabel Kershner

This article describes Israel’s decision to expel Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories. A seemingly mundane story like this carries weight since many people see the UN as an essential multilateral institution. But despite the UN’s unique standing as a global institution, that does not always make it fair or just, particularly when it comes to the UN Human Rights Council. This council, ironically dominated by authoritarian abusers of human rights, has principally been used as a platform to demonize Israel while ignoring the manifest human rights abuses in such places as Darfur.

In the council, “the special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry,” placing Falk in a unique position of influence. This sort of context, which Kershner doesn’t delve into, is necessary in understanding why Israel would deem it necessary to ban the intensely doctrinaire Falk from the country. As Kershner rightfully notes, “he has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks.” This clearly makes him an inappropriate official and the council’s own (disregarded) requirements “call for envoys to be impartial and objective.”

Over halfway through the article, Kershner decides to casually mention that “the council’s own procedures require its envoys to operate with the consent of the state concerned,” making this whole story much less controversial than it first appears. This essential information would have better served the article in the first paragraph.

Then, of course, Kershner needs to drag in a contrarian voice, writing that “some Israelis questioned the wisdom of banning him, noting that it would hardly make his reports more sympathetic.” By “some Israelis,” she actually means Jessica Montell, the executive director of B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group in the Palestinian territories. It is egregiously misleading though, to write that Montell, or B’Tselem, represent a significant number of Israelis. B’Tselem has a highly politicized understanding of human rights that routinely demonizes Israel and has gone as far as to accuse the Israeli government of implementing apartheid-like policies.

Overall, the reader deserves much more from this poor article, particularly regarding the Human Rights Council’s systematic demonization of Israel and its utter indifference to the world’s most pressing human rights violations. Falk’s appointment as special rapporteur is a symptom of this deeply-ingrained anti-Israel hatred in much of the international community.

Security Barrier: Defense or Offense?

"Israeli Court Orders Revision of West Bank Barrier Route"
A14, Tuesday 12/16/08
By Isabel Kershner

This article discusses an Israeli Supreme Court ruling that has ordered the Israeli military to re-route a mile-stretch of the West Bank security barrier that has cut off the “Palestinian village of Bilin from much of its farmland.” According to the court, the barrier’s construction was not based solely on security needs, requiring a revision that would appropriate less private Palestinian land.

Quickly though, the discussion delves into the rightness of barrier. On the one hand, “The Israeli security establishment insists that the barrier was built to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israel, and that its route was dictated by security needs.” On the other hand though, “much of the barrier runs inside the West Bank, looping around some Jewish settlements that lie outside the 1967 boundary, and the Palestinians have accused Israel of a land grab.”

Can the NYT really continue to question that the barrier was built for defensive purposes given the circumstances surrounding its construction at the height of the orchestrated terror campaign known as the Second Intifada? Additionally, the NYT uncritically swallows Palestinian accusations of an Israel ‘land grab’ without mentioning that the security barrier encompasses less than ten percent of the West Bank and does not annex any territories.

It is clear that the NYT (like many others) cannot countenance Israel building a defensive barrier on anything but the 1949 Armistice Lines (the “1967 borders” as they term it). According to their selective interpretation of international law, while ignoring UN Security Council Resolution 242, all settlements are illegal and cannot be validated by any sort of barrier being built to protect them.

This NYT position must be understood in order to better comprehend its simplistic framing of a complex and nuanced subject.

A Tunnel Without a Connection

"Hamas, Showing Split, Hints It May Extend Israel Truce"

By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner

A10

Monday, December 15, 2008

Shlomo Dror, spokesman for Israel's Defense Ministry, said "Hamas had not stuck to its commitments and had continued to smuggle weapons and explosives into Gaza." If, as Dror suggests, these commitments are part of the truce, then El-Khodary and Kershner have misreported about its unraveling since November 4.  

El-Khodary and Kershner write that the truce fell apart after an Israeli incursion. The incursion, of course, followed the construction of a tunnel, which, though it was not meant for weapons- smuggling, could have been used to kidnap Israeli soldiers. To be clear, a tunnel built for kidnapping is preparation for war in the same way as weapons-smuggling is. 

Unsurprisingly, Kershner fails to link the construction of the tunnel to the actual kidnapping of Gilad Shalit over two years ago. By doing so, she makes Israel appear overly concerned about Hamas's actions. On the contrary, because the threat of kidnapping has been realized, its prevention is a necessity. Kershner has failed to draw this connection in every article she has published about Gaza since November 4. 

El-Khodary and Kershner should be commended for their explanation of Israel's decision to tighten the blockade of Gaza at the end of the article and their inclusion of the United States and Europe, alongside Israel, as countries that classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.  

Times Delight in Israeli Moral Self-Absorption

"In Search of the Soldier in His Past"
AR22, Sunday 12/14/08
By Ethan Bronner

Ethan Bronner, NYT Jerusalem Bureau Chief, explores the critically acclaimed Israeli film, Waltz with Bashir. The animated movie depicts Israel’s involvement in the Lebanon War (1982-1985), particularly in relation to the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1982) in which Lebanese Christian murdered hundreds of Palestinians with the inadvertent assistance of the Israeli Defense Forces. The film is highly personalized given that the director, Ari Folman, was stationed as a soldier in the proximate area when massacre took place.

Unfortunately, however, the article turns out to be as hyperbolic as parts of the movie are, specifically in the linkage it creates between the massacre and the Holocaust. For example, Ron Ben Yishai, a well-respected Israeli journalist and character in the film, is quoted:

Ari is saying: ‘I am asking questions I inhibited for such a long time. I know we didn’t kill them, but are we really better than the Europeans who stood by when the Holocaust took place?

On multiple levels, that is an absurd question. The slaughter of the Jews in Europe was systematic and involved the active collaboration of many of its citizens. In comparison, the Sabra and Shatila massacre, a clear aberration in Israeli military history, involved the inadvertent facilitation of the IDF.

This theme is repeated in expounded with a quote from the director:

In Israel the Holocaust is in our DNA. We see mass murder [Sabra and Shatila], and what on earth could it remind us of but our past?”

In these quotes, it is both evident and absurd that Israelis continue to so violently self-flagellate themselves for a terrible event for which they weren’t even directly responsible. This moral self-absorption of certain Israelis allows them to conveniently forget that the Christian Phalangists actually perpetrated the massacre.

In the end, this sort of Israeli moral self-absorption fits greatly assists the Times narrative, which delights in heralding the moral missteps of the Jewish State

NYT's Accommodation of Terrorism - Separating Terrorism from Its Purported Motives

"Separating the Terror and the Terrorists"
WK10 (Week-in-Review), Sunday 12/14/08
By Clark Hoyt

In this revelatory article, Clark Hoyt, public editor of the NYT, illuminates how the paper’s editorial staff and bureau chiefs view the current debate regarding usage of the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist.” This entire debate has been vividly revived since the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks as many have expressed fierce disapproval that the Times has labeled the murderous Mumbai perpetrators as “‘militants,’ ‘gunmen,’ ‘attackers’ and ‘assailants’”—but never terrorists.

Hoyt shares that the NYT is quite cognizant of the “connotations of opprobrium” that the term ‘terrorist’ carries, leading to hesitation in usage of the term since once an individual is designated a terrorist, “he is an enemy of all civilized people, and his cause is less worthy of consideration.”

And therein lays precisely the problem. It is evident that the NYT does not wish to label certain organizations/individuals as ‘terrorist’ because this would besmirch their good name when they have legitimate grievances they are attempting to redress—and that the NYT may sympathize with. It seems shocking that NYT foreign editor, Susan Chira, believes that the paper should “proceed with caution, not rushing to label any group with the word terrorist before we have a deeper understanding of its full dimensions.”

What full dimensions are there to understand? Terrorism has clearly observable characteristics, on the most basic level being the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians for political gain. This is a wholly empirical question. For the NYT, however, what also counts is motive, and if the motive of that individual/organization is somehow legitimate or righteous then they should not be classified as terroristis.

If we are to believe that employment of terrorism is beyond the pale of civilization, the legitimacy of that individual/organization should automatically be discounted if they use such inhumane tactics. For the NYT though, they do not focus on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the attack, but on the legitimacy of the grievance or motive that the individual/organization presents. This is despite the fact that any such individual/group can fabricate a seemingly legitimate grievance. Usage of terrorism should logically belie the claim that the individual/organization seeks the redress of legitimate grievances, since application of such tactics demonstrates that a much deeper extremism underlies the individual/organization’s motives.

In a similar vein, would civilized society ever countenance rape and accept any ‘legitimate’ grievances that a rapist produced (e.g. ‘She was leading me on’ or ‘Wearing that outfit she was asking for it’)? There is no acceptable excuse for rape as there should be no acceptable grievance for terrorism, a tactic which is explicit in its aim to harm and maim civilian life.

The NYT’s understanding of terrorism is essential in its Israel-related coverage as this “issue [regarding what constitutes terrorism] comes up most often in connection with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” In this arena, it is clear that the NYT accepts many of the grievances provided by Palestinian terrorist organizations, particularly in relation to the Disputed Territories of West Bank and Gaza.

In this context, it is no surprise that James Bennet, former Times Jerusalem bureau chief (2001-2004), composed a memo for the NYT in which he explains that he would use the label terrorist “to describe attacks within Israel’s 1948 borders but not in the occupied West Bank or Gaza, which Israel and the Palestinians have been contending over since Israel took them in 1967.” If the motive is legitimate—in the case of the NYT, eliminating any Jewish-Israeli presence from the Disputed Territories—then what is empirically terrorism is not terrorism. It is all relative to what the observer views as legitimate and illegitimate.

The resultant lack of a uniform standard on terrorism allowed Bennet to inexcusably designate a Palestinian terrorist, who “infiltrated a settlement and killed a 5-year-old girl in her bed,” as simply a “gunman.” International norms of warfare exist, but in the endeavor of erasing Jewish-Israeli presence from the territories, anything goes.

Ethan Bronner, the current Jerusalem bureau chief, continues the NYT tradition general avoidance and sparing use of the term terrorist, even when the situation clearly calls for such a classification. Bronner states: “Our general view is that the word terrorist is politically loaded and overused.” Given how the NYT, and the overwhelming majority of U.S. media outlets have systematically evaded the term for years, this is plainly not the case.

In the end of the article, Hoyt also comes to reject this avoidance and the worldview of many of his colleagues:

My own broad guideline: If it looks as if it was intended to sow terror and it shocks the conscience, whether it is planes flying into the World Trade Center, gunmen shooting up Mumbai, or a political killer in a little girl’s bedroom, I’d call it terrorism — by terrorists.

Let us hope that for the sake of truth, human rights, and accurate reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that Hoyt works to make his own guideline an organizational one. It should be clear to all that terrorism should never be judged by the purported legitimacy of its motives, which is relative to the observer, but by a uniformly and universally recognizable set of features.

Another Appeal to Obama to Pressure Israel

"Nobel Winner Urges Obama to Act"
A22, Thursday 12/11/08
By Walter Gibbs

This brief touches on comments made by Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari, who's had success forging peace in Namibia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland. For some, these credentials are enough for Obama to heed his advice on the Middle East. "The credibility of the whole international community is at stake. We cannot go on, year after year, simply pretending to do something to help the situation in the Middle East." Perhaps it is not pretending, but hitting a wall that may be impossible to break through.

It's unclear if Ahtisaari sees as the center of the region's problems the Arab-Israeli conflict. If he does, his advice for Obama to prioritize this problem may prove dangerous. After all, when progress on this track stalls or falls apart, Israel – as the military and economic power, and close ally of the U.S. – is liable to get the blame.

The Relevance of Israel's Dove-Hawk Divide

"An Israeli Party Tips Further Right as Its Leader Woos Centrists"
A6, Thursday 12/11/08
By Ethan Bronner

In this article about the Likud primary, Bronner reports that the result is a "list of parliamentary candidates notably more hawkish" than party leader Netanyahu, who vowed to form a centrist coalition if elected. Bronner does a good job pointing to a looming identity crisis in Likud, citing commentary from the Israeli media – notably using center or right-of-center outlets like Yediot, Maariv and the Jerusalem Post. Bronner points out that Kadima officials hope "wavering voters" will now move toward them.

However, there are two major flaws in Bronner's reporting.

Bronner neglects to explain the process whereby Israelis wound up voting for such a Likud slate. As Bronner quotes Zalman Shoval, "the general public is not represented by the composition of the Likud list." Yet the list was publicized and then voted on. Bronner doesn’t mention this and does little to explain that the major problem is the order of the list. Likud voters may have been aware of who was on the list, but were they aware that centrists were further down? The Times usually does a better job explaining the complexities and nuances of Israeli politics.

A bigger problem is one of language. There's a troubling pattern with which the Times reports which Israelis are peace-minded.

It's not clear what Bronner means when he states that the "major victors in the primaries either reject territorial compromise or are so skeptical of Palestinian intentions and capacities that they dismiss negotiations with them as a waste of time." His lone profile of Moshe Feiglin – who secured the 20th spot on the list – speaks of him as the former, someone who, regardless of Palestinian intentions, rejects territorial compromise. Bronner writes of Feiglin, "he says that there is no Palestinian people and that there will never be a Palestinian state, that Israeli will hold onto everything it has now."

Yet Bronner doesn't clarify how many on the list share Feiglin’s view. Perhaps many are in favor of territorial compromise, but not with a Palestinian leadership that they feel is unwilling or incapable.

Bronner confuses those who favor immediate, fast-track, all-or-nothing negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) – what the Times advocates – with those who favor "Middle East peace". He writes that "analysts are divided on whether or not the nature of the Likud list has sunk in and on whether voters are more focused on the economy, education and crime than on Middle East peace and would still prefer Likud." It escapes Bronner and his paper that there is difference of opinion on how to reach peace, and that as crazy as it may sound to the Times, there is a mainstream Israeli view that peace won’t be sacrificed with Likud, which is even viewed as having the appropriate temperament to deal with an intransigient Palestinian leadership.

Fortunately, Bronner offers an important counter-point in the next paragraph, citing Ron Dermer, a Netanyahu campaign aide. "I think the divide between doves and hawks is less relevant because most Israelis don't see peace around the corner." He then cites Dermer saying "let's not get caught up in an all-or-nothing approach. Let's make steady progress on the ground with the Palestinians and on the domestic agenda." Bronner then somewhat fleshes out Netanyahu’s "economic peace".

Bronner reports that Netanyahu stands against dividing Jerusalem, "a Palestinian demand for peace," or going "beyond certain red lines regarding Israel's territorial security," without clarifying what those lines are and how they might differ from Livni's and other's.

It was important for Bronner to quote Dermer speaking on the "less relevant" divide between Israeli doves and hawks. It is certainly less relevant than the Times' rendering. It's unfortunate such a mainstream Israeli view so seldom appears in this paper.

Israeli Innovation

"While Detroit Slept"
A41 (Op-Ed), Wednesday 12/10/08
By Thomas Friedman

Popular NYT's columnist Thomas Friedman writes of Israeli innovation in "developing a real-world alternative to Detroit’s business model." More specifically, he is referring to Israeli-American dual citizen "Shai Agassi’s electric car network company, called Better Place," based in Palo Alto in California. Israel is one of the principal countries to work in partnership with Better Place to create a viable infrastructure for the electric car.

This is one of those rare NYT's article's that speaks of Israel in unequivocally positive terms, and should be commended for it. It demonstrates that the NYT's coverage of Israel is not so reflexively politicized that all Israel-related news, even of a non-political nature, is tainted by some sort of negative framing. This is more the case with certain European news sources that are much more vehement in their criticism against Israel.

One strange element of the article to note. Friedman does nothing to explain who Shai Agassi is, mentioning him as if everyone knows who he's talking about. It would have been interesting, and pertinent (given the emphasis on Israel in the article), to note that he a dual Israeli-American citizen that grew up and spent most of his life in Israel. The people, not the country, is where the real innovation lies.

Irresponsible "He Said, She Said" Journalism

"New Tensions in Jerusalem's Arab Neighborhoods"
A10, Sunday 12/7/08
By Isabel Kershner

In this article, NYT reporter Isabel Kershner presents a convoluted picture in which Jewish religious nationalists, supposedly in collusion with the Israeli government, are attempting to "Judaize" parts of Arab East Jerusalem. As evidence, she describes three "ostensibly unconnected" events - "the demolition of two Arabs homes in Silwan [Arab neighborhood of East Jeruslem],... the start of a controversial infrastructure project there; and the eviction of a Palsetinian family from its home in Sheik Jarrah [another Arab neighborhood].

The most problematic part of this article is that it supports the notion that the Israeli government and Jerusalem municipality is conspiring with Jewish religious nationalists in this Judaizing project. In support of this view, Kershner quotes various sources:

• “Israel is trying to create facts on the ground and determine the results before we reach any solution.” ["Hatem Abdel Qader, an adviser on Jerusalem affairs to the Palestinian Authority prime minister, Salam Fayyad"]
• “The Israeli government and Jerusalem city are now like tools in the settlers’ hands.” ["Jawwad Siyam, an activist in Silwan"]

Among other things, she also writes that Jerusalem's new mayor, Nir Barkat, "has vocally supported expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem" without providing background to support this assertion.

While it is factual to express concern about the inroads being made by Jewish religious nationalists in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, since they appear to have no real committment to coexistence with their Arab neigbhors, it is journalistically irresponsible to assert that the the Israeli government directly supports them. Simply because certain municipal and governmental decisions have aligned with the interests of these religious nationalists is not sufficient evidence to assert that the Israeli government supports their position.

Rather than being committed to the facts, as is Kershner's obligation as a journalist, she instead gives uncritical voice to those individuals that fallaciously claim that the Israeli government provides wholesale support for the Judaization of East Jerusalem. By reporting these claims with barely any critical comment, or journalistic investigation, Kershner is essentially labeling it is fact.

Reporting someone's opinion is a fact but a sound journalist is obligated to determine whether that person's opinion is, in fact, based in fact. Kershner fails to do this, presenting unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

Kershner is practicing an irresponsible "he said, she said" journalism in which the deeper truth is never really exposed, but her political biases are.

Unorthodox Plan and Heretical Associations

"From an Israeli Settlement, a Rabbi's Unorthodox Plan for Peace"

By Isabel Kershner

12/6/08

A8

Isabel Kershner acknowledges that some view Froman as "a kook," but he may be a dangerous kook at that. The fact that Froman considered Yasir Arafat a friend and keeps Shabbat certainly distinguishes him from other Israeli friends of Arafat; nonetheless, Froman’s observance does not mitigate the utter wrongheadedness of his associations.

Kershner’s article provides a good example of how Froman is obviously outmaneuvered by his Hamas associates. In February 2008, Froman “drafted a comprehensive truce agreement for Israel and Hamas” that included Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit’s release “in exchange for a substantial number of Palestinian fighters, and eventually, the release of all prisoners on both sides.”

The last phrase in this purported agreement confuses. Froman appears to have negotiated an agreement in which Shalit will be released in return for the release of every single Hamas prisoner. From the Israeli perspective, that is a terrible agreement. 

The formulation of this last phrase itself is baffling and draws an uncalled-for equivalence. To my knowledge, there are no Israeli “prisoners” that would be relased. Shalit is the only one, and calling him a prisoner distorts the matter since he was kidnapped.

One must be skeptical of extra-political actors no matter how unusual they be. A person who acts independent of the body politic when a fine parliamentary system is in place probably represents only himself and not his fellow Jews. 

Depiction of Hebron Settlers' Goals Lacks Nuance

"Israeli Troops Evict Settlers in the West Bank"
A6, Tuesday 12/05/08
By Ethan Bronner

Reporting on the eviction of 200 Jewish settlers from a contested Hebron building, Ethan Bronner appropriately states that "much is at stake for both sides". He rightly points to the Israeli government wanting to "ease the construction of a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank". He then reports that "the settlers and their backers say they will do all in their power to prevent such a state."

Yes, but this is an incomplete point. Do these settlers wish for Israeli sovereignty over Hebron and the entire land? Hardly. Some of these settlers – which the Times neglects to mention, oppose the Jewish state and its authority. Their bottom line is to maintain, and grow, their presence in Hebron and throughout the land. Yet this goal is impossible even for the Jewish settlers who'd accept citizenship and live peacefully in the new Palestinian state, since this state is to be without Jews.

That a future Palestinians state needs to be cleansed of Jews is an unpleasant reality only implicit in Times reporting. Perhaps it would be too powerful a blemish on the opportunity for co-existence the paper projects onto the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, it would help explain the rationale of some settlers who look to "prevent" a Palestinian state.

Bronner notes Hebron is "second only to Jerusalem in its historic and religious significance to them." Yes, "to them," (the settlers) but also in Jewish history. There are non-settler, even secular, Israelis who see the importance of both Palestinians ruling themselves in a state of their own, and a Jewish presence in Hebron. To many, Hebron is not some random hilltop. To keep ignoring this important nuance is unbecoming a paper like the Times.

Bronner states that recently, "settlers had grown more rebellious." This is vague. To which of the nearly 300,000 West Bank settlers does Bronner refer? Would the Times state so generally that "Palestinians had grown more rebellious," without being more specific?

An editorial in Thursday's Jerusalem Post points out two "fundamental" issues lost amidst the news of this eviction. "First, the vast majority of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are law-abiding patriots. Secondly, in any and all circumstances, Jews must be guaranteed access to the Cave of the Patriarchs."

It would be instructive for the Times, which has lauded the self-critical nature of the Israeli press, to turn to the Israeli press for these sorts of informed points it often overlooks.

NYT's Failure to Hold Hamas Accountable

"Palestinians' Rift Prevents Gazans From Traveling to Mecca"
A6, December 12/4/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner

This piece highlights Hamas' barring of 2,200 Gazans pilgrims from making the annual hajj to Saudi Arabia as part of its ongoing power struggle with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and more moderate Arab powers. To prevent the potential pilgrims from making the religiously-mandated journey, Hamas set up eight checkpoints to prevent passage to Egypt and "used sticks to beat those who did not turn back." Saudi Arabia had given the Palestinian Authority exclusive mandate to determine which Gazans would make the pilgrimage, which Hamas viewed as an unacceptable usurpation of its authority.

The authors properly note that "The result is that Gazans, isolated by an Israeli, Egyptian and Western closure for the past year and a half, now have another reason to feel besieged — they are being deprived of the chance to perform one of the most basic duties of a Muslim, the Mecca pilgrimage." However, why don't the authors mention Gazans besieged by Hamas rule of the Strip since June 2007? Hamas has ruled with an iron-fist, silencing any voices of dissent and implementing elements of Islamic Sharia law. Is this what Gazans really want?

Furthermore, the authors fail to explicitly hold Hamas accountable for the hajj restriction, giving voice to Hamas officials who argue that responsibility does not lay with them. This is surprising given that even the vehement Israel critic Amira Hass of Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper declaims that "What Israel has never dared to do - certainly not to this extent - is being done by a Palestinian government for which Islam is the basis of its platform and provides personal guidance for each of its ministers."

Lastly, the article creates a false equivalence by holding Hamas and Israel equally responsible for the latest Gaza violence -- "For the past several weeks, both have violated its [the truce's] terms..." This is despite the fact that the authors positively observe that the conflict began with Israel's preemptive destruction of a Hamas built-tunnel on the Israeli border that was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers. This strategy was similarly employed in June 2006 to kidnap Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit. If Israel was responding to a hostile Hamas action, how is it then equally responsible?

Far too often, the NYT gives Hamas, a violent Islamist organization with no commitment to peaceful compromise or humanitarian norms, a free pass on its clearly repugnant and immoral behavior.