2. "Gaza Hospital Fills Up, Mainly With Civilians"; By Taghreed El-Khodary; A1, A10
3. "Israeli Attack Splits Gaza; Truce Calls Are Rebuffed"; By Ethan Bronner; A1, A9
4. "Hezbollah Answers Israel With Speeches"; By Robert F. Worth; A9
5. "Israel Strikes Before an Ally Departs"; By Scott Shane; A10
6. "Europe Sends Two Missions to Promote Cease-Fire"; By Stephen Castle and Katrin Bennhold; A10
7. "In Israel, Bloomberg Shows His Support"; By Dina Kraft; A18
Any reader of today's newspaper should become aware of several points about the conflict in Israel-Gaza. Fortunately, NYT delivers on many of those points through its seven articles of coverage.
First, the reader must come away with an understanding of who Hamas is. William Kristol says that Hamas represents "a death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism." His characterization, though difficult to read, is firmly supported by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism.
Ethan Bronner underscores Hamas' rejectionist, politicidal ethos by reporting that it refuses "to recognize Israel, renounce violence against it or accept previous Palestinian agreements with Israel."
Moreover, both Robert F. Worth and Kristol make the point that Hamas has a strong relationship with Iran.
Second, the reader must be made aware of Israel's stated objective for its ground incursion. As Bronner reports, “Israel has said it wants to end Hamas’s will or ability to shoot rockets at civilians in southern Israel.” Stating Israel's objective is not, however, enough. Complementing its stated objective must be statements about Israel's intent to avoid civilian casualties.
El-Khodary provides such declarations twice. She writes, “Israel contends [Hamas] has purposely endangered civilians by fighting in and around populated areas.” And later on, she even quotes the Israeli army: “The Hamas terror organization operates amongst civilians, using them as human shields.”
Third, reporters must offer a resolution that addresses the root of the present conflict. From Bronner: “Some officials here and abroad began exploring ways to keep Hamas from rearming as it has through smuggler tunnels in the Sinai. Some were suggesting a huge concrete underground wall, and others suggested heavily armed international monitors.”
From Stephen Castle and Katrin Bennhold, reporting on European countries' efforts at engagement in the region: “In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday that any solution to the conflict would have to include stopping the flow of arms into the region...Mr. Brown told the BBC that Arab powers had to apply pressure to ensure that illegal tunnels used to smuggle arms into Gaza were sealed.”
Fourth, reporters must narrate the events correctly and chronologically. In a rare instance of success, Scott Shane states: "On Dec. 19, just one month before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Hamas declared an end to an Egyptian-mediated truce with Israel that had taken effect in June, and rocket attacks from Gaza have been increasing since then.”
There were, however, several failures in NYT's coverage today. In an article about Hezbollah's response to the Israel-Gaza conflict, Worth writes that “Hezbollah has faced pressure to disarm since the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon” but fails to cite the two Security Council Resolutions - 1559 and 1701 - to that effect.
Scott Shane's article about the White House's response to the current conflict was the poorest of all of today's coverage. Shane notes President-elect Obama's "instinct...for diplomacy” but misleads readers to think that Barack would pursue diplomacy in an instance such as this, which involves a non-state actor such as Hamas. Furthermore, Shane undermines his own argument by citing the support of "leading Democrats" Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Indeed, support for Israel is evidently bipartisan, though W has certainly been a strong supporter of Israel. Finally, Shane suggests that Barack should speak out about the conflict in Israel-Gaza, noting that he did so regarding the attacks in Mumbai last month. But those attacks targeted Americans. The conflict in Israel-Gaza does not involve American citizens.
One point of especial commendation. Kristol's op-ed successfully counters the argument that the outcome of Gaza 2008-9 will be the same as Lebanon 2006. He also skillfully argues that Israel's incursion into Gaza will actually help the incoming Obama administration by weakening Iran, leaving the Islamic Republic more likely to submit to American diplomatic initiatives.
Mike Bloomberg, in blunt NYC style, takes Hamas to task: “That they are putting people at risk is an outrage. If Hamas would focus on building a country instead of trying to destroy another one, then those people would not be getting injured or killed.”
First, the reader must come away with an understanding of who Hamas is. William Kristol says that Hamas represents "a death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism." His characterization, though difficult to read, is firmly supported by Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism.
Ethan Bronner underscores Hamas' rejectionist, politicidal ethos by reporting that it refuses "to recognize Israel, renounce violence against it or accept previous Palestinian agreements with Israel."
Moreover, both Robert F. Worth and Kristol make the point that Hamas has a strong relationship with Iran.
Second, the reader must be made aware of Israel's stated objective for its ground incursion. As Bronner reports, “Israel has said it wants to end Hamas’s will or ability to shoot rockets at civilians in southern Israel.” Stating Israel's objective is not, however, enough. Complementing its stated objective must be statements about Israel's intent to avoid civilian casualties.
El-Khodary provides such declarations twice. She writes, “Israel contends [Hamas] has purposely endangered civilians by fighting in and around populated areas.” And later on, she even quotes the Israeli army: “The Hamas terror organization operates amongst civilians, using them as human shields.”
Third, reporters must offer a resolution that addresses the root of the present conflict. From Bronner: “Some officials here and abroad began exploring ways to keep Hamas from rearming as it has through smuggler tunnels in the Sinai. Some were suggesting a huge concrete underground wall, and others suggested heavily armed international monitors.”
From Stephen Castle and Katrin Bennhold, reporting on European countries' efforts at engagement in the region: “In London, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday that any solution to the conflict would have to include stopping the flow of arms into the region...Mr. Brown told the BBC that Arab powers had to apply pressure to ensure that illegal tunnels used to smuggle arms into Gaza were sealed.”
Fourth, reporters must narrate the events correctly and chronologically. In a rare instance of success, Scott Shane states: "On Dec. 19, just one month before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Hamas declared an end to an Egyptian-mediated truce with Israel that had taken effect in June, and rocket attacks from Gaza have been increasing since then.”
There were, however, several failures in NYT's coverage today. In an article about Hezbollah's response to the Israel-Gaza conflict, Worth writes that “Hezbollah has faced pressure to disarm since the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon” but fails to cite the two Security Council Resolutions - 1559 and 1701 - to that effect.
Scott Shane's article about the White House's response to the current conflict was the poorest of all of today's coverage. Shane notes President-elect Obama's "instinct...for diplomacy” but misleads readers to think that Barack would pursue diplomacy in an instance such as this, which involves a non-state actor such as Hamas. Furthermore, Shane undermines his own argument by citing the support of "leading Democrats" Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Indeed, support for Israel is evidently bipartisan, though W has certainly been a strong supporter of Israel. Finally, Shane suggests that Barack should speak out about the conflict in Israel-Gaza, noting that he did so regarding the attacks in Mumbai last month. But those attacks targeted Americans. The conflict in Israel-Gaza does not involve American citizens.
One point of especial commendation. Kristol's op-ed successfully counters the argument that the outcome of Gaza 2008-9 will be the same as Lebanon 2006. He also skillfully argues that Israel's incursion into Gaza will actually help the incoming Obama administration by weakening Iran, leaving the Islamic Republic more likely to submit to American diplomatic initiatives.
Mike Bloomberg, in blunt NYC style, takes Hamas to task: “That they are putting people at risk is an outrage. If Hamas would focus on building a country instead of trying to destroy another one, then those people would not be getting injured or killed.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment