The Holocaust in the News

1. "Vatican Calls the Apology Of a Bishop Insufficient"; By Rachel Donadio; A10
2. "Norwegian Nobel Laureate, Once Shunned, Is Now Celebrated"; By Walter Gibbs; C1

Two troubling articles appear in Saturday's paper, both concerning the legacy of the Holocaust in Europe. 

In the first, David A Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, praises the Vatican's response to Bishop Williamson's apology but should be questioning its rationale for opening the door to Williamson in the first place. At the very least, Harris should match the response of American, German, and Austrian Catholics who are concerned about "the Vatican's moral authority" and have provided "the fiercest criticism" of Pope Benedict, according to Rachel Donadio.

Donadio blunders unforgivably in the latter half of the article, when she allows Holocaust denier David Irving, who recently consulted Bishop Williamson, to propagandize against Israel. Irving is neither the focus of the article nor a reliable source, so the stab she inserts is inappropriate.

In the second article, a Nazi collaborator will be redeemed in the public space, evidencing Norway's inability to repent for its role in the Shoah. Although Walter Gibbs includes a statement of opprobrium from former president of the Norwegian parliament, Jo Benkow, a Jew, the tone of the article hints at approval rather than approbation. 

Moments like this one, which will be concretized by the creation of a statue of Knut Hamsun, the writer-collaborator, are what our generation's Jews must defend against as survivors pass away. 

Times' Alternative View of Iran's Jews

"The Jews of Iran: How Much Freedom?"
A26, Friday 2/27/09,
Letters to the Editor

There were only two smart and critical letters on Roger Cohen’s rescripting the story of Jewish life in Iran. Of the five letters, two were critical of Cohen, one supportive, and two neutral.

As with the Times’ recent publication of Qaddafi’s plug for an end to Israel, readers should ask if there was any intellectual value at all in printing the piece in the first place.

The hollowness of Cohen’s work is captured by two of these letters. A “romantic picture” of Jewish life in Iran is a point made by the first letter, which then aptly notes “positive personal relationships within the context of communities cannot be compared with a government with policies that specifically vilify and persecute its minorities.” Another writes of Mr. Cohen “discrediting the long history of Muslim oppression and to deny the experience of generations of Jews,” while in a heartfelt ending stating that “we must never forget the true history of Jews under Muslim regimes — my history.”

Of the two neutral letters, one writer missed this point and was actually “saddened” by the picture of persecution – past and present – of Iranian Jews, conveyed by Cohen. The other writer sounds hopeful that Iran can play a constructive diplomatic role in the region – especially with a Palestinian unity government, a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

The letter supportive of Cohen’s piece was short and revealing. He sets up a straw man, fear-mongers who “are invested in denigrating conditions” there. There may be fear mongers. There may also be those deeply concerned about the toll on the Jews the Revolution has taken. It seems the truth to this writer is just the inversion of what fear-mongers believe.

He says Cohen’s piece is a “refreshingly accurate sketch of Iranian Jewish life” there, based on his “more than 30 years of research in Iran.” If only the sketch was based on 30 years of being a Jew in Iran.

Palestinians Heal Rift, Israeli Hawks Spoil Peace

"Palestinian Rivals Announce Steps Toward Healing Rift"
A12, Friday 2/27/09,
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner

Palestinian officials announcing “the establishment of committees to find formulas for a Palestinian unity government” (emphasis added) should be a news brief.

While a “narrow, hawkish” Israeli government is “unlikely to subscribe to the same peacemaking principles” as the U.S., nothing is written of a prospective Hamas-Fatah unity government, which is profoundly – and what should be obviously – more inflexible toward the concept of a two-state solution. A PA unity government is also the stated focus of this article, yet was passed over on the Times’ tried and true two-state test. A government that is avowedly - in their own ways - anti-Israel and committed to its demise is passed over for Israelis, hawkish Israelis.

This ill-conceived division of dovish Israelis and hawkish Israelis may seem like and informed view at the Times. In the Mideast, though, almost all view all Israelis - Netanyahu, Livni, Barak, even Beilin, has hawkish. Those that don't are those who understand and oppose the war against Israel. They rightly see Israelis as - if anything, dovish.

Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union, and that government was boycotted by Israel and the West.”

This usual insipid description, with a twist. A more complete sentence would’ve ended “by Israel and the West….after rejecting three international demands…”

“Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas official, said not all the issues would have to be resolved simultaneously, indicating a new degree of flexibility.” (emphasis added) Regardless of Hamas actually ever stating that all the issues with Fatah would have to be solved simultaneously, Hamas is reported to be more flexible, which could lead readers to conclude that it is moderating. Flexibility and moderation toward Israel isn't far off, in this alternate reality.

Fatah is labeled the “mainstream” PA government. A new euphemism for “moderate,” the term mainstream is inaccurate. Wouldn’t Hamas receiving more votes than Fatah in the last election make Hamas more mainstream? Why is the mainstream stamp of approval reserved only for Fatah? Perhaps the Times fears readers wouldn’t understand the nuance they find in the extremism of Palestinian voters.

The Palestinian Force For Good?

"U.S. Helps Palestinians Build Force For Security"
A6, Friday 2/27/09,
By Ethan Bronner

It may seem minor, but Bronner citing “American taxpayer money” funding Palestinian forces is important. U.S. aid to Israel is often used by Israel’s detractors to claim that the US – and by extension everyday Americans – are complicit in whatever crimes they accuse Israel of committing.

Consistent with Times coverage is unqualified attribution to the Palestinians of lamenting the demise of the two-state solution. “Violence and settlement-building continue, and faith in the two-state solution is waning,” Bronner writes. Analysis of the Palestinian body politic reveals that outside of paying diplomatic lip service to the idea, Palestinian officialdom speaks neither explicitly or implicitly of desiring such a solution.

Furthermore, the line “violence and settlement building continue” obfuscates the reality that armed struggle against Israel is, and has been, the catalyst for both Israeli military responses (no doubt considered part of the “violence”) and for settlement building (in actuality the Olmert government has not built new settlements, and has actually dismantled several outposts).

Bronner reports that the “Israelis said that if they did not carry out their night raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in the West Bank, the area would be a lot less stable.” This is a good point and a necessary one. Unfortunately this sort of crackdown is a responsibility yet to be assumed by the PA and Bronner neglects to question what steps must be taken: more personnel, more fortitude, increased IDF-PA cooperation?

The issue of cooperation colors the rest of the article. “The need for consultation with the Israelis to move [PA General Safadi’s] men around frustrates him.”

First, it’s unclear if “move men around” refers to anywhere in the West Bank under PA jurisdiction, which is no small matter considering that the IDF, until a formal change of security control is shifted to the PA, still maintains control. The IDF must receive cooperation from the PA if they are to maintain law and order and combat terrorism. What may be a logical reason for this “need” is simply couched in the grumbles (politically motivated or not) by Safadi.

“We were willing to live together in one country. But the Jews want their own homeland,” Bronner quotes a reasonable sounding Safadi. We [the Palestinians] want to live together with the Jews, but they’re excluding us. It's a well-played propaganda point, which found an obliging reporter. Even when Palestinian officials are sounding their most moderate, defamation or subtly placed distortions of reality apparently can't be resisted.

On one hand it’s a positive to combat the myth that the US does not help the Palestinians. On the other hand it’s deeply disappointing that this article rests not only on the misplaced assumption that the PA is a good-faith negotiating partner, but on the absence of reporting how Hamas-Fatah unity (currently advocated by the U.S. and Europe) could undermine the West Bank’s “Palestinian force for security”.

The Holocaust Is Its Scope

"Bishop Offers Apology for Holocaust Remarks"
A6, Friday 2/27/09,
By Rachel Donadio

Bishop Williamson doesn’t offer an apology for his Holocaust denial, but he does offer an apology for his Holocaust remarks, (“to all souls that took honest scandal,” which is of the “I’m sorry that people were offended” variety. This could be a headline from Bishop Williamson.

In summing up the Bishop’s wrongdoing, Donadio writes “Bishop Williamson denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and the scope of the Holocaust.” Perhaps he didn't quite deny the Holocaust, as much as denying its scope?

One can’t make what one wants out of the Holocaust (only 300,000 Jews were killed; there were no gas chambers) and still call it the Holocaust. In fact, it’s unclear if the Bishop even subscribes to the term “Holocaust” – which is something attendant with specific facts and figures.

Donadio should’ve instead avoided the scope remark, which lends credence to the view that the accepted term "Holocaust" may mean different things to different people. She should've moved up the Bishop's saying that 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis during the second World War.

That the “Vatican also said that Benedict was not aware of Bishop Williamson’s remarks when he decided to revoke his excommunication” is an important point – whether true or not – that has hasn't received attention.

Should the US Attempt to Understand and Address Arab Support of Terrorism?

1) "Disentangling Layers of a Loaded Term in Search of a Thread of Peace," A8, by Michael Slackman
2) "Israel: Firing of Envoy is Reversed," A12, by Ethan Bronner
3) "Israeli Plays in Dubai," B15 (Sports Briefing), by The Associated Press

Of the three articles published today, Michael Slackman's is particularly egregious in its attempt to obscure the objective meaning of terrorism in deference to Arab complaints.

1) Disentangling Layers of a Loaded Term in Search of a Thread of Peace

In this troubling piece, reporter Michael Slackman attempts to explain and validate the Arab public's anger over the United States' use of the word "terrorist" to label such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah. In Slackman's view, the "battle over the term terrorist has become a proxy for the larger issues that divide Washington and the Arab public."

He mainly focuses on the latest conflict in Gaza, where he writes that Arabs viewed Israel as the "real terrorists." Arabs "saw little distinction between Hamas’s shooting rockets into civilian areas of Israel and Israel’s shooting rockets into civilian areas of Gaza, even if Hamas militants were operating there or just hiding out."

Perception, however, is one thing, and the reality another. Objectivity dictates that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah engage in terrorism - the purposeful use of violence against civilians in order to achieve a political objective. Rather than abide by this objective definition though, Slackman believes that we should listen and respond to these extreme Arab views.

According to Slackman, Al Qaeda is clearly a terrorist group, but Hamas and Hezbollah, because they represent national movements that engage in political and social activities, should not be labeled terrorist organizations. Slackman fails to understand that Islamist organizations can represent all of the above. Just because Hamas engages in charitable activities does not obviate the terrorist label. It engages in terrorism, and is therefore a terrorist organization.

The Arab views in this article demonstrate why there exists such a gap between the United States and the Arab world. A large number of Arabs are unwilling to recognize the use of terrorism as a blight upon humanity that has no place among civilized nations. It is not the sole responsibility of the U.S. to bridge this gap if the Arab world refuses to condemn those extremists in its midst, which it instead lionizes. In Slackman's world though, the Arab world is not held accountable for its positions and actions as if Arabs lacked agency. Slackman should note that the colonialists of old also discounted the agency of indigenous peoples.

In the end, terrorism must be recognized as terrorism. By pretending that Hamas doesn't engage in terrorism because it is a "loaded term," we are not coming anywhere closer to peace but we are actually drifting farther away from it. Organizations like Hamas must be held accountable for the actions and understand that they will never benefit from the use of terrorism.

To conclude the piece, Slackman gives the influential 'last word' to a female Arab street vendor: "You have to understand everyone’s opinions and demands, and negotiate. There will be no peace without this." Wrong, we must not embolden radicals by attempting to understand their use/support of terrorism or accommodate their extreme demands. In order to achieve actual peace, extremism needs to be countered, not encouraged.

2) Israel: Firing of Envoy is Reversed

This brief reports Prime Minister's Ehud Olmert's decision to reinstate Amos Gilad, "special envoy to Egypt in its mediation efforts for truce talks with Hamas."

I doubt the average Times reader has any idea what this news means, but then again, the Times will report anything on Israel.

3) Israeli Plays in Dubai

This sports brief continues the ongoing saga of the 2009 Dubai Tennis Championships, which began when the United Arab Emirates (UAE) refused to provide a visa for Israeli female tennis player to compete in the tourney. Following international outcry and punitive actions, the UAE bowed under pressure, issuing a visa to Israeli doubles player Andy Ram to compete in the men's tournament.

Unfortunately, he and his partner lost the match. During the match, he was "protected by two bodyguards" and "spectators had to leave their belongings outside, and metal detectors were set up outside the court." Sad that such measures. Fortunately, there were no incidents.

Vindication

1. "In Israel, Jew and Arab Sing, But Political Chorus Is Heard"; By Ethan Bronner; A5
   
2. "Syria Discloses Missile Facility, Europeans Say"; By William J Broad; A6
   
3. "Ex-Lobbyists In U.S. Case Of Espionage Win a Round"; By Neil A Lewis; A15
   

A recent petition, circulated by Jewish and Arab Israeli leftists against the joint participation of singers Achinoam Nini and Mira Awad in the Eurovision Song Contest, exposes the dogmatism of this political community. As Nini and Awad insightfully explain in response to the petition, "The antiwar movement...seems to have turned into a Hamas apology force." Indeed, Nini and Awad demonstrate that they are true leaders of the Left by condemning Hamas and affirming co-existence. 

Ethan Bronner's reporting is fairly good here, but he should have reported on who initiated the petition - a person, an organization? In other words, how reputable was its source?

Moving from domestic to foreign affairs, Syria's explanations regarding a site that Israel bombed in 2007 continue to wither as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last week that uranium found at the site was not from the bombs dropped. With that possibility minimized, the only other explanation is that the uranium was on site and was likely being used for a nuclear reactor.

Lastly, on the America front, Steven J Rosen and Keith Weissman, former officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are near vindication in the face of accusations of espionage. 

Neil A Lewis reports poorly on the matter, stating that the case against Rosen and Weissman gained attention because of the "ways some American-Jewish supporters of Israel try to influence government policy." On the contrary, in light of the three-judge panel's ruling, the case is now about how Jewish-Americans are unfairly targeted by the government on charges of espionage. The issue is now bias, not "the Jewish lobby."

Like A Hawk

"Netanyahu Rebuffed Again in Efforts to Form Coalition"
A7, Tuesday 2/24/09,
By Isabel Kershner

Why is Netanyahu pressing “on in his pursuit of national unity”? Kershner doesn’t tell us that the big issue is having a united front to deal with Iran.

“Hawkish” is again misused in Times reporting. “Netanyahu…would prefer a broader less hawkish coalition.”

What qualifies these parties as hawkish? If a polity like the PA, not to mention Hamas, wants to continue a state of war - militarily or politically - it’s not necessarily hawkish to refuse negotiations. These right-wing parties don’t see a Palestinian state as any kind of solution, but do they support war any more than they have to?

If not on outright war, the point often made against the far right is that they support war-like policies by not backing a political peace process – one which many correctly see as corrupt and self-destructive. The argument that right-wing parties support war-like policies shows an unwillingness to assess the morality and sense of Arab actions and reactions.

An impression-making two paragraphs begins with Gilad’s suspension. It was more a Gilad transgression (publicly trashing the mission he was sent on) than simply a “public spat,” the sound of which lends credence to Hamas’ point, in the next paragraph, that Israel is sabotaging both a prisoner exchange and a truce. And shouldn’t the Times be mindful of this much space reserved for quoting Hamas, no matter how media friendly it's become?

Hamas and Israel do have something in common: a distaste for human rights reports. The Israeli Foreign Ministry and Hamas were both quoted on the Amnesty International report, but most readers should be able to see the Hamas rhetoric for what it is. While the Israeli response was fair, Kershner copped out with a he-said/he-said. She could’ve offered perspective through an Israeli commentator speaking on the gravity of the best known human rights group's policy seeking to disarm Israel - which would lead to even more wanton aggression against it. Such a policy might logically be viewed as "war-like".

Amnesty International hawkish?

Defining "Tough" On Iran

"Negotiator Picked for Post At State Dept."
A7, Tuesday 2/24/09,
By Mark Landler

As defined in the last paragraph, a “tough” approach toward Iran includes “persuading Europe to increase economic pressure”. Certainly Dennis Ross and his "United Against a Nuclear Iran" are seriously dedicated to preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. Yet the adjective “tough” has been used in the past to imply a war-like stance against Iran.

In a paper so often contrasting Obama's new, less confrontational approach to Bush's, it would be interesting to see Landler define Obama’s approach toward Iran, which has, like Ross, also been for increased economic pressure.

What Makes Congress "Skittish"?

"U.S. to Give $900 Million in Gaza Aid, Officials Say"
A7, Tuesday 2/24/09,
By Helene Cooper

Many lawmakers in Congress “are skittish about even appearing to help Hamas until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel’s right to exist.”

In politics, appearance is everything, especially for a Congress in the grips of the powerful Israel lobby. Hence these congressmen being jumpy, lest they do something to anger the lobby and ruin their careers.

Instead of this neither here nor there reference to what politicians may or may not be feeling about aiding a terrorist group committed to destroying a vital and well-liked U.S. ally, Cooper could’ve simply stated that many lawmakers are “reluctant to help Hamas until it…”

While Kershner does a fair job of listing the basic demands of Hamas and Israel in getting the borders open, she does nothing to articulate why over a month has passed with little or no progress.

She states that Israel demands a halt to weapons smuggling, yet doesn’t contrast that with Hamas’ repeated affirmation of its smuggling weapons – regardless of a truce. She states that Israel demands the release of Schalit, yet doesn’t contrast that with Hamas’ repeated affirmation of Schalit being separate from a cease-fire.

Cooper reports Israel's demands, but she should've also reported how they've been publicly mocked.

A Moderate and Peace-Seeking Iran? The New York Times Willfully Deludes the Public

1) "Progress Lags in a Meeting Between Leaders in Israel," A11, by Isabel Kershner
2) "Our Friend in Tehran," A27 (Op-ed), by Ali Reza Eshragi
3) "What Iran's Jews Say," A27 (Op-ed), by Roger Cohen

Today's coverage is notable for it's two terribly unsatisfactory op-eds on Iran.

News
1) Progress Lags in a Meeting Between Leaders in Israel

Isabel Kershner's news article fairly discusses continuing discussions between Benjamin Netanyahu (leader of Likud) and Tzipi Livni (leader of Kadima) over the formation of a coalition government. She responsibly notes that despite receiving parliamentary support "from the religious parties and those on the far right," Netayahu has urged the formation of a "national unity [government], saying that the formidable challenges that Israel faces require everyone to 'join hands.'"

In her reportage, however, Kershner makes one noticeable misstep in this sentence: "Ms. Livni has already said she would rather go into the opposition than serve as a fig leaf for a right-wing government." This phrasing and terminology ("fig leaf") is derived from an earlier quote from Livni: "Politics are not only numbers, but a path. I will continue not only believing in our way, but also leading it, and I don't intend to become a fig-leaf for diplomatic paralysis." By failing to quote the phrase (and even take it out of its original context), Kershner makes it appear that Ms. Livin's opinion is actually fact. An unprofessional, and perhaps even irresponsible, error.

Op-eds
2) Our Friend in Tehran
3) What Iran's Jews Say

In these two ill-conceived op-eds seem, the two authors sloppily provide selective evidence to suit their own biased conclusions. In the process, they propagate what are essentially blatant falsehoods in order to support their endgame: the United States must unconditionally negotiate with a "pragmatic" Iran - even if the truth lays waste in its achievement.

In the first op-ed ("Our Friend in Tehran"), Ali Reza Eshraghi, a former newspaper editor in Iran and now visiting scholar at the University of California Berkeley, contends that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the right person for the U.S. to negotiate with and this opportunity must be moved upon swiftly.

Not only has Ahmadinejad reached out to the United States in an unprecedented fashion, Eshragi claims, but he also "may be the most capable of standing up to Tehran’s hard-liners." Such a statement is baffling given Ahmainejad's firm grounding in the hard-liner camp.

For all of Eshragi's terrifically overstated claims of Ahmadinejad's "bold moves" of rapprochement with the United States, there are much more powerful counter-claims. Does Iran's funding, arming, and training of Shiite militias in Iran and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan that have killed American troops somehow correspond with this so-called olive-branch?

As Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick smartly notes:

Indeed, since Obama came into office waving an enormous olive branch in Teheran's direction, the regime has become more outspoken in its hostility toward the US. It has humiliated Washington by refusing visas to America's women's badminton team to play their Iranian counterparts. It has announced it will only agree to direct talks with Washington if it pulls US forces out of the Middle East, abandons Israel and does nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It has rudely blackballed US representatives who are Jewish, like House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman, at international conclaves. And it has announced that it will refuse to deal with Obama's suggested envoy to Iran, Dennis Ross, who is also a Jew. In all of its actions, Iran has gone out of its way to embarrass Obama and humiliate America. And Obama, for his part, has continued to embrace Teheran as his most sought-after negotiating partner.

Eshragi, however, decides to willfully ignore such evidence in order to support his ultimate conclusion:

Over the next few months he [Obama] should initiate negotiations without preconditions and establish formal diplomatic ties with Iran.... Mr. Obama must seize the opportunity to shake the Iranian president’s outstretched hand.

"Outstretched hand"?! Alright Eshragi, you've said enough.

*****

Unfortunately, Roger Cohen's picturesque op-ed offers no respite and is every bit as misdirected as Eshragi's. In this piece, Cohen describes the situation of the Iranian Jews in favorable terms, citing the positive comments of a few Jews in the country.

He somehow manages to explain away the fact that three-quarters of the Jewish population have left the country since 1948, citing the far more complete exodus from Arab countries. The fact that only a few thousand Jews remain in Arab countries, does not change the fact that the environment in Iran is deeply inhospitable to Jews. According to such logic, one could say that the Arab-Muslim world has been greatly accommodating of Jews since there was no Holocaust as occurred in the lands of Christian Europe. But this logic is clearly faulty.

Continuing further, Cohen offers this shockingly pretentious statement:

Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.

Cohen clearly needs to examine the facts more closely. As Richard Chesnoff notes in Jewish World Review:

The truth was very different — as it is in Iran where the Jewish community is under constant surveillance, where teaching Hebrew is prohibited, where Jewish women are forced to follow the same modesty laws their Muslim sisters do, where Jews are barred from certain jobs and some imprisoned or hung on trumped up charges of contact with "Zionists".

It's scandalous that Cohen would ignore these facts. But as Rafael Medoff discusses in the Jerusalem Post, Cohen doesn't seem to understand that Jews living under totalitarian states are not free to offer their honest opinion. Referring to previous historical cases, Medoff details how Russian Jews would praise the Soviet regime, despite their terrible treatment. As an abused and powerless minority under state surveillance, they had little other choice.

Facts withstanding, Cohen seems to care not as long as Iranian extremism somehow can be absolved. Cohen goes as far as to rationalize Iran's genocidal rhetoric against Israel as a means to focus more attention on Israel's occupation of the West Bank :

One way to look at Iran’s scurrilous anti-Israel tirades is as a provocation to focus people on Israel’s bomb, its 41-year occupation of the West Bank, its Hamas denial, its repetitive use of overwhelming force. Iranian language can be vile, but any Middle East peace — and engagement with Tehran — will have to take account of these points.

Shockingly anti-humanitarian. Cohen cannot truly claim to be a liberal humanitarian and come to such egregiously anti-humanitarian conclusion.

In the end, Medoff provides a proper conclusion:

The situation of Iranian Jewry must not be turned into a political football. The dangers and discrimination that Iran's Jews face should not be minimized to advance a particular policy agenda. Cohen urges the West to adopt an approach of "compromise" and "engagement" with Teheran, and it is possible the Obama administration will follow his advice. But if it does, one hopes that decision will not be influenced by misleading reports which see "civility" in Iran's uncivil treatment of its Jewish citizens.

I guess Cohen's a big football fan.

“Ideologically committed to a two-state solution”

"Netanyahu, Once Hawkish, Now Touts Pragmatism"
A1, Saturday 2/21/09,
By Isabel Kershner

A “flexible opportunist” can do what’s “necessary,” (establish a Palestinian state), according to Yaron Ezrahi, a poly-sci professor at Hebrew University. That the two-state solution has become an “ideology,” as opposed to what it should be - pragmatism and realpolitik - is revealing, and not an idea normally found in the Times. Yet Mr. Ezrahi let slip this notion, which hopefully was picked up by astute readers: ideological commitment tends to obscure unpleasant and inconvenient realities.

There’s an assumption that Netanyahu is the “flexible opportunist” and thus would perhaps not pursue a two-state solution if it was realistic. Again, Netanyahu, and the incoming Israeli government is cast as a major question mark when it comes to peace, while the Palestinian commitment to reaching to compromise with the Jewish state is off radar.

The six-decade regional war against Israel is rendered somewhat of a conspiracy, or at the very least Jewish paranoia, when Kershner writes that “Mr. Netanyahu remains a deep skeptic about the Muslim world’s intentions toward Israel and tends to highlight fears more than hopes for the region.” If asked to elaborate on the fears - as opposed to dark realities - on which Netanyahu plays, Kershner may be hard-pressed for an answer. Fortunately, at this point in the article, Netanyahu had already been labeled a hawk, so Netanyahu's "fear over hope" shtik is no surprise.

Kershner writes that Netanyahu “says stopping Iran from going nuclear is a much more important issue than whether a Palestinian state is established. He has made clear that the Iranian challenge is an existential one that could well lead to military action.”

Yet Kershner doesn’t connect the concern over Iran to Netanyahu’s drive to form as broad a coalition as possible. Only a unified Israel can meet head on this challenge. This is a message consistently heard throughout Israel over the past few months. Instead the Times juxtaposes the Iranian issue with Palestinian statehood – which are apples and oranges in the current reality - at least where Israel's foreign policy is concerned.

Netanyahu “wants to refocus [negotiations] on building the Palestinian economy and its institutions in the West Bank rather than on signing a comprehensive deal. The Palestinian leadership has openly disdained that approach.”

Since this policy disagreement is not so slight, this warrants more attention. Why exactly is Netanyahu’s approach “disdained”? Waiting over 60 years for a peace deal, what’s so “disdainful” about waiting a few more as a stable, peaceful Palestinian society and economy is built, together with a new approach towards Israel’s permanence?”

Improving life in the West Bank is so often touted by the Times as a vital step on the road to peace, but here it's shoved aside because it came from Netanyahu. The Palestinians want the whole package deal - one that can serve as smokescreen for failed negotiations, as opposed to incremental stages, which better reveal bad intentions.

Kershner writes of a two-state possibility under Netanyahu:

“much of the West Bank will be part of a future Palestinian state, but with Israel keeping control of the borders, airspace and electromagnetic frequencies,” and will be de-militarized. “Whether such a deal would ever be acceptable to the Palestinians is far from clear.”

Kershner obviously does not, and would never, opine whether this sort of deal “should” be acceptable to the Palestinians. Readers are just left to conclude this set of obscure-sounding Israeli demands prevents peace - another screwball thrown at the Palestinians.

What’s most egregious here is that these basic defense fundamentals have served as the outline of a prospective Palestinian state since the beginning of the peace process. Kershner should know this.

What Times readers need to know is that these Israeli security requirements will be used by the Palestinians as a pretext for failed negotiations, something to mold into "Israeli intransigence".
Readers need to be made more aware of the deep-rootedness and popularity of rejectionism and the difficult path in defeating it. Instead, Israeli security is cast as possibly bullshit and readers get no sense of the PA's well-documented political resistance against Israel.

Ideology trumps reality.

"No Peace Without Hamas"

"In a Letter, a Leader of Hamas Makes an Appeal to Obama"
A7, Saturday 2/21/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Taghreed El-Khodary

Of course not...and that's why this point gains prominence in a Times article better suited as a brief.

The “Palestinian issue is the key to resolving all the problems in the area” is another propaganda point to which the Times subscribes, and served up here for mass consumption.

Even when trying to strike a peaceful, professional tone, Hamas' Yousef states that he sees Kerry’s visit as proof that the “Obama administration is not controlled by Israeli propaganda.” Yousef knows all the right things to say.

It is rightly pointed out that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by not just the U.S. and Israel, but also the E.U. An important point for anyone who doesn't believe in the Zionist conspiracy.

Did Kerry actually say he came to see the “devastation” in Gaza or is that the adjective the writers felt powerful enough to drive home that nothing good came from Israel’s recent operation?

The last point is right on. That Mitchell supports a PA unity government does indeed “signal the start of a re-evaluation of American policy toward the Palestinian question”. It's a dangerous one.

Iran's Nuclear Leapfrog - How Will the Obama Administration React?

1) "Iran Has Enriched More Uranium Than Thought," A12, by William Broad & David Sanger
2) "Netanyahu Gains in Bid to Be Israeli Premier," A13, by Ethan Bronner
3) "Congressmen and Kerry Visit Gaza," A13, by Taghreed El-Khodary
4) "Visa is Issued to One Israeli Player After Another Is Denied," B11, by Richard Sandomir

***
1) Iran Has Enriched More Uranium Than Thought

In the top article of the day, the Times troubling reports that the atomic inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "found that Iran recently understated by a third how much uranium it has enriched." This means that Iran now has enough uranium "to make an atom bomb."

Through the article, the reader shockingly learns that the IAEA inspectors "[make] independent checks on Iran's progress only once a year." This seems to a flawed policy given how close Iran is coming to nuclear independence and potentially a nuclear weapon.

Independent nuclear weapons experts expressed surprise at the disclosure and criticized the atomic inspectors for making independent checks on Iran’s progress only once a year.

The two Times reporters provide some smart analysis on this development:

The political impact of the report, while hard to measure, could be significant for the Obama administration. Mr. Obama has said that he wants to open direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. But starting that process could take months, and the report suggests that Iran is moving ahead briskly with its uranium enrichment.

The message: if there is to be a peaceful resolution to this issue that prevents Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, President Obama must work quickly.
***
The very end of the article also importantly reports that the IAEA has found that "uranium particles found at a Syrian facility that Israel had bombed in 2007" were not from Israeli bombs, as Syria's propaganda machine had charged. A seasoned observer of the conflict would have recognized Syria's reflexive propaganda but it is still positive that the IAEA has exonerated Israel.

2) Netanyahu Gains in Bid to Be Israeli Premier

This Bronner article focuses on the likely reality that Benjamin Netanyahu of the center-right Likud Party will become Prime Minster after he received the endorsement of right-wing Yisrael Beitenu, led by the controversial Avigdor Lieberman.

While the article is mostly factual, it does falsely assert that Lieberman "demand[s] that all Arab citizens sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish state." Lieberman's oath would apply to ALL citizens of Israel, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Such an oath would apply just as much to anti-Zionist Arabs as it would apply to anti-Zionist ultra-orthodox Jews. Such specifics may seem gratuitous but it is the role of the Times to present the truth, however nuanced it may be.

3) Congressmen and Kerry Visit Gaza

The next article notes a visit to the Gaza Strip by Senator John Kerry as well as Congressmen Keith Ellison (MN) and Brian Baird (WA).

Unfortunately, the article permits Hamas to voice its propaganda as Hamas Deputy Foreign Minister speaks about "Israeli crimes."

If one of the goals of the media is to report the truth, should it report propaganda, which distorts the truth?

4) Visa is Issued to One Israeli Player After Another Is Denied

Ceding to international pressure, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has permitted Israeli tennis player Andy Ram to play in the 2009 Dubai Tennis Championships after denying Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer from playing in the women's tourney.

This is too little too late, but it at least demonstrates that the UAE policies can be affected by international pressure. UAE attempted to deny the political nature of its visa denial to Peer, but Larry Scott, chief executive of the WTA tour, quickly picked up on the UAE's hypocrisy:

It’s odd to see a statement that you’re letting Israelis play one week a week after you didn’t let Israelis play. I’m relieved to see that they changed the policy, but it doesn’t change what happened last week when they denied a player for no good reason the opportunity to play.

True words.

A Captive and a Spy

1. "Palestine Backer or Israeli Spy? Lebanese in Shock at Arrest"; By Robert F Worth; A1, A8
2. "Israel Says It Will Unseal Gaza Only if Solider is Freed"; By Isabel Kershner; A8

On the front page is a report on the arrest of Ali al-Jarrah, an accused Lebanese spy for Israel. By consistently presenting himself to others as "an earnest supporter of the Palestinian cause," he enjoyed a relatively successful career in espionage from 1983 until this past year.

Although he alludes to the matter, Robert F Worth neglects to explore the collaboration of Hezbollah and Syria in the discovery of Jarrah's activities.

According to Isabel Kershner (IK) - reporting on A8 - Israel is "sharpening" its position by demanding the release of Gilad Shalit as part of any agreement with Hamas.

Aside from Hamas leaders and an Israeli liason, however, IK quotes no one who views the Israeli cabinet's unanimous decision negatively, undermining her claim that it is "widely seen as a hardening of the Israeli stance."

In the midst of what is largely a critical article about the cabinet's vote, IK manages to insert a charge of "collective punishment" against Israel. Each time this accusation is made, it should be counterpoised with a recognition of the paucity of dissent, whether willful or forced, in Gaza. If more people stood up to Hamas rule, then the likelihood of ending the blockade would increase.

Missing from IK's article are quotes from the Israeli public and the Shalit family, who would likely champion the cabinet vote as a show of resolve.

Dubai: A New Benchmark in the Mainstreaming of Anti-Israelism

"Injury Will Keep Federer Out of Davis Cup vs. U.S."
C1, Wednesday 2/18/09,
By Christopher Clarey

Considering the story about Peer came at the end of a larger article on Roger Rederer, there is no room to complain that this was insufficient reporting.

Tournament officials speak of "antagonized" fans "who have watched live television coverage of recent attacks in Gaza."

The tournament statement went on to cite "anti-Israel protests against Peer during a tournament last month in New Zealand raised security concerns for a prospective visit to Dubai," as well as the "many tennis fans of different nationalities that we have here" who would be "alienated" or "put at risk".

That tennis fans would be alienated by the presence of an Israeli tennis player, or that this is even being used as an excuse, speaks volumes about the global campaign to delegitimize Israel.

A New Anti-Israel Play, And The Ever-Broadening Definition of "Critical of Israel"

"Workshop May Present Play Critical of Israel"
C1, Wednesday 2/18/09,
By Patrick Healy

Reading these various reviews of “Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza,” one would first be hard-pressed to change the title of this short New York Times article. Whatever the play, calling it simply "critical of Israel" doesn't quite capture what the play is, nor the controversy around it.

Yet again, the Times, as it did when it reported last year on Rashid Khalidi as a "critic" of Israel, is broad-stroking anti-Israel propaganda as benign "criticism" and in so doing will render opposition to the propaganda as oversensitivity and even paranoia.

Another fundamental problem with this article is that it insufficiently describes Churchill as being "critical of Israel's offensive in Gaza". That she is "patron" of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a relevant fact that should've been reported.

A similar problem with language comes towards the end when Vanessa Redgrave and Harold Pinter are described as being "known for their support of Palestinian rights." Are those rights the "right of return" or the "right to resist," both "rights" so often and publicly championed by Palestinian advocates? Or do these celebreties support the more basic "right to self-determination," whose benign, non-genocidal form educated and fair observors of the conflict would see as not being denied to Palestinians?

Until reporters can plow through complex and deceptive language such as "Palestinian rights" and know when to use and not use "criticism of Israel," there will remain a serious blindspot in reporting on this conflict.

UAE's Prejudiced Policy Prevents Israeli Athlete's Entry

1) "Gaza: Israeli Bombs Target Tunnels," A8 (World Briefing), by Reuters
2) "Tennis Channel Won't Televise Dubai Event in Protest," B10 (Sports), by Richard Sandomir

On a day that featured only one article and a short briefing, the Times receives a "Fit to Print" commendation.

1) Gaza: Israeli Bombs Target Tunnels

This briefing, as opposed to normal Times coverage, actually succeeds in providing the basic context for an Israeli bombardment on Gaza smuggling tunnels.

The piece details that the Israeli operation came "after rockets fired from the Gaza Strip landed in southern Israel." The article goes further on the tunnels, citing "Israeli concern that Hamas could replenish its arsenal" through such means.

This is the sort of context that is necessary for understanding Israel's military countermeasures. If the article were a bit longer, it also could have mentioned that two of the fundamental goals of Israel's military operation in Gaza last month was to:

1. Stop incessant rocket fire on Israeli civilian centers in the South
2. Prevent further illicit smuggling, particularly weapons, from Egypt to Gaza

Hamas has not been forthcoming on either of these points, necessitating further Israeli military action.

2) Tennis Channel Won't Televise Dubai Event in Protest

Surprisingly, a "fit to print" article comes from the Times sports section. The piece discusses the decision of the Tennis Channel to not air the Barclays Dubai Tennis Championships because the United Arab Emirates (UAE) refused to grant an entry visa to Israeli female tennis player Shahar Peer.

Ken Solomon, "the chairman and chief executive of the network," provide some choice remarks:

• "This is an easy decision to come by, based on what is right and wrong."
• "Sports are about merit, absent of background, class, race, creed, color or religion. They are simply about talent. This is a classic case, not about what country did what to another country. If the state of Israel were barring a citizen of an Arab nation, we would have made the same decision."
• Solomon said that his channel had a "higher duty" to refuse to carry the Dubai event.
• "Tennis in many ways has been at the forefront of sport, with people breaking down barriers like Althea Gibson, Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King. It’s harder for the Tennis Channel to turn the other cheek and not do the right thing."

One of the main problem's of this entire debacle is that the UAE did not inform the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) as to "why Peer was denied the visa."

Following international outcry, the UAE proffered this wholly unsatisfactory explanation:

We do not wish to politicize sports, but we have to be sensitive to recent events in the region and not alienate or put at risk the players and the many tennis fans of different nationalities that we have here in the UAE.

The fact that the UAE - supposedly a beacon of progress in the Arab world - could not accommodate a single Israeli athlete, is quite troubling.

Israeli Andy Ram is supposed to arrive in Dubai next week for men's doubles. Hopefully the UAE will reverse its discriminatory practices against Israeli athletes so he will be able to participate.

You're Too Much, Pope

"Olmert Confirms Papal Visit to Israel"; By Isabel Kershner; A8

Pope Benedict XVI has demonstrated quite a lot of gall by declaring last Thursday that he will visit Israel after reinstating Bishop Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier, several weeks ago. 

 

Israel is now in the uncomfortable position of playing host to a man who displayed remarkable hypocrisy by calling Holocaust denial intolerable while bringing Williamson back into the fold. If Benedict's demand of the Bishop to recant is satisfied, then Benedict will be vindicated, but why a recant was not a pre-condition of reinstatement evidences the Pope's problematic priorities. 

Since pontific visits are exquisitely rare, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is hardly in a position not to welcome the Pope. Benedict's arrogance is on full display for the world. First, he insults the Jewish people, then he awards us with his presence. 

The silence of American Catholic leaders is deafening. Isabel Kershner should have sought out a statement from a prominent Catholic leader who disagrees with the Pope's actions.

 

The bishop's reinstatement and last year's beatification of the infamous Pope Pius XII serve as reminders to Jews that the bitter history of the Jews and the Vatican continues into the present day. 

Obama, Iran and Israel

"How Obama Plays, or Gets Played, Abroad"
WK1, Sunday 2/15/09,
By David E. Sanger

Sanger writes of Ahmadinejad’s criteria for negotiations based on “mutual respect,” without spelling out the Iranian president's ludicrous pre-conditions (withdrawal of US forces from the Mideast; end US support for Israel). Yet he does point out two obvious explanations for Ahmadinejad's supposed desire for diplomacy: it could be real or a “fabulous new delaying tactic”.

Regarding Obama's approach to Iran, there are finally spelled out some real options...a refreshing change after so many empty, platitude-filled editorials.

Sanger rightly states that Iran is not an Israeli issue, since Gulf State are freaked out at Iran going nuclear. They’d be happy if someone bombed Iran. “That is what Israel wanted to do last year; President Bush stood in their way.”

This is much-needed insight to counter the fallacy that US gives Israel "unqualified support".

Martyr Culture Exchange?

"Palestinian Campus Looks to East Bank (of Hudson)"
A14, Sunday 2/15/09,
By Ethan Bronner

There's an asymmetry in the way Bronner states the concerns of the joint degree program. Jews are concerned extremism could be part of the cultural exchange. Bronner touches on this, writing that Al Quds is "no stranger to radical Palestinian politics". Yet he goes no further.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are concerned that American educational values will be construed as “vaguely colonialist”. False equivalence again rears its ugly head.

Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds, and perhaps one of the most prominently advertised Palestinian moderates, is once again spared even the slightest scrutiny.

Nusseibeh is a scion, a philosopher, an academic and also someone who speaks Hebrew, enjoys the company of Israelis, and even confirms the Jewish connection to Jerusalem as "existential and umbilical". So what on earth would drive Israeli authorities to arrest and imprison such a man? Bronner states that his relationship with Israeli authorities is "complex," but doesn't go into it.

Giving his impressions of Al Quds, Bronner writes that "it is hard to walk the campus without being reminded of the conflict and the occupation". Ending the sentence on "the conflict" would've sufficed, since the conflict is the reason for the occupation, which also might aptly be labeled "the war against Israel".

Why is a degree from Al Quds not recognized in Israel? Again, there’s a charge against Israel, left without explanation or reply by Israelis. This charge serves to foment anger at Israel. Also, there’s not one line noting that higher education among Palestinians was non-existent before the “occupation”.

Nevertheless, there are positive elements. “In Palestinian schools, students are taught the so-called right answer to every question,” which may speak to way Israel is viewed. There is an expressed need to teach Palestinian students to think "critically" and "challenge professors intellectually".

Finally, there is a central theme here -- laying the groundwork for a "democratic State of Palestine". Leon Botstein, President of Bard, gets the final word, stating that "being a Zionist and favoring the security and healthy future for the State of Israel is absolutely compatible with creating a Palestinian state. That’s why we’re very proud of what we’re doing.”

Adding the qualifer "peaceful" ahead of "Palestinian state" would've shifted this statement from loaded to informed.

Overall, the balance struck in the first few paragraphs – one with both hope and concern – was absent throughout the piece. How could the concerns with the school’s being “no stranger” to radicalism have an adverse effect on peace, on the “compatibility” of Israel’s security and the creation of a Palestinian state?

Will the Palestinian exchange students explain to their American counterparts the martyrs depicted in the article’s picture of Al Quds’ wall of “Martyrs of Palestinian Prisoners’ Movement”? Will they be challenged critically on the morality of martyrdom used this way? Probably not, and this is what has led to concerns, which were unfortunately not spelled out.

Unwittingly, the picture of the Al Quds photo exhibit explains the unrelated caption. The caption speaks of the picture vaguely as “Students at Al Quds University of Jerusalem.” The caption’s next sentence reads” Sari Nusseibeh, the president of the Palestinian university, said, “The radius of movement of most of our students does not exceed 40 miles.”

Perhaps that’s due to all those martyrs.

In Praise of Carter's Conclusions

"In Praise of Diplomacy"
BR8, Sunday 2/15/09,
By Gershom Gorenberg

There are deficiencies in Carter’s new book, writes Gorenberg. There’s a selective and made-up history, which has Carter to thank for Sadat’s historic trip to Jerusalem. Gorenberg correctly calls him on this.

Gorenberg writes that Carter “too briefly” describes Hamas’ terror campaign against Israel. From this, one must assume Carter delved little, or not at all, into Hamas’ inflexible anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology, as well as the glorification of armed struggle that pervades Palestinian society. Gorenberg, not to mention Carter, misses that it’s not simply these violent acts, but the ideology fueling them.

Carter “has an easier time talking about Israeli obstacles to peace than Palestinian ones,” says Gorenberg. “Carter’s counsel lacks a couple of critical elements,” continues Gorenberg, who fails to mention what these are.

”Nonetheless,” contends Gorenberg, “it has much to recommend it.” Perhaps in an attempt to inform the reader why he recommends such a flawed work, Gorenberg states that “the curious thing about Carter’s history is that he can be wrong on the details and right on the conclusions.”

But it’s not just Carter’s conclusions on historical events, but his conclusions on the path to peacemaking with which Gorenberg agrees.

Conveying Carter’s take on Hamas, Gorenberg writes that without Hamas, there will be no agreement, “and with no agreement in sight, even moderate Palestinians are beginning to consider the one-state alternative”.

This trite and empty analysis reveals ignorance on two counts. First, an agreement will not be brought more into view with the inclusion of Hamas. That Hamas is so popular is a clear indication of how far we are from a peace agreement. Gorenberg’s theme for this review is never letting “a crisis go to waste”. Yet instead of making something of this crisis (Gaza) and counseling Palestinian society to seize this moment to reform and truly build a path of peace with Israel (while the destructive alternative is so plainly visible), Carter advocates a stronger push by Obama for negotiations, only this time with Hamas! Gorenberg assents.

Second, so-called moderate Palestinians have never abandoned Israel’s demise in the form of a “one-state solution,” hence their non-starter positions within a two-state framework [i.e. right of return; withdrawal to Green Line; the casualness with which they speak of slipping from two-states to one].

Not only does Gorenberg expose his naivety, but a chip on his shoulder regarding American Jewry:

The agreement with Egypt arguably improved Israel’s security as much as any other single event in its history. Yet a portion of American Jewry has never forgiven Carter for his success.

Has this “portion” of American Jewry never forgiven Carter for peace with Egypt, or for his problematic statements and positions towards Israel and Jews over the years?

That Israeli gestures and actions can moderate Palestinian rejection is a major tenet of Carter’s book. As Gorenberg is an author noted for his book on Israeli settlements, “The Accidental Empire," he was a fitting choice by the Times to legitimize a book about dismantling settlements being the difference between perpetual war and a lasting peace.

Israeli Intransigence Blocking Cease-Fire with Hamas?

1) "Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs," A6, by Ethan Bronner
2) "The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry," A8 (World Briefing), by Marlise Simons
3) "Clinton Seeks a Shift on China," A11, by Mark Landler

*****
1) Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs

Bronner's phrasing in the article and title make it appear that Hamas is abundantly forthcoming when it comes to achieving an equitable ceasefire, while Israel remains intransigent.

It appears that Hamas is only forthcoming for a ceasefire on its own terms:

Hamas officials said Friday that an announcement of an 18-month cease-fire with Israel was days away and would include a substantial opening of Gaza’s borders with Israel in exchange for an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli southern communities.

This is not in Israel's interest and no Israeli official is quoted in the article of supporting such a formulation. The Times notes that Israel wants "the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, seized and held by Hamas since the summer of 2006, but Hamas said that would happen only in a separate, if linked, deal that frees hundreds of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons." In this light, it doesn't appear that Hamas is forthcoming.

Additionally, Israel is looking for "guarantees that Hamas is not rearming through smuggling tunnels from Egypt or on the international arms market." It is unclear whether Egypt or Hamas will cooperate on this issue.

In the end, it seems that a ceasefire is not as readily achievable as the article indicates. Yes, Hamas is prepared for a ceasefire - but one that satisfies its wholly satisfies its own objectives. Where's the compromise?

2) The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry

This minuscule briefing informs the reader of continued (Fatah-led) Palestinian efforts to push for a Gaza inquiry on Israeli "war crimes" on Gaza. The article is devoid of content, making the article basically meaningless.

Interesting question: If Fatah is Israel's "peace partner," why is it pushing for a war crimes inquiry that would serve to delegitimize Israel? (Made all the more absurd given Hamas' execution of Fatah "collaborators" during Israel's military operations in Gaza)

3) Clinton Seeks a Shift on China

In an article that deals primarily with Clinton's approach to East Asia, the reporter manages to sneak in some of her upcoming challenges in the Arab-Israeli realm.

The reporter writes that a potential Likud-led coalition "worries some in Washington," but does not provide any quotes to support this assertion.

Even more problematic, the piece includes the views of Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who believes that "the Obama administration should use this transitional period to begin a dialogue with Syria, which has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States and which is viewed as a central player in the effort to broker a peace agreement."

It is far from conclusive that Syria "has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States," particularly given its support of insurgents in Iraq and manipulative hand in Lebanon. The Times also regularly fails to explain why Syria would want peace.

Here are three main reasons why Syria does not want peace:

• Peace with Israel would not allow Syria to continue scapegoating Israel as a means to distract its population from the woes within their country
• Peace would most likely include an opening up to the West, which would threaten the iron-hand of the government. The Syrian government wants peace with the West but does not open itself to outside influence. The primary goal of President Assad is regime survival. Openness would endanger his minority government in which the Alawites (10% of the population) rule over the majority Sunni population (80%).
• Syria has indicated no willingness to distance its relationship from its patron Iran, or its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. A peace agreement would require such a shift, but Syria is still dedicated to manipulating Lebanese politics through its ally Hezbollah.

While Syria does not readily desire peace, it understands that the rhetoric of peace pays dividends and the New York Times is buying.

Not Enough, Pope

1. "Israel Opens the Gaza Border for 25,000 Carnations, Bound for Europe"; By Isabel Kershner; A6
2. "Venezuela's Jews, Already Uneasy, Are Jolted by Attack"; By Simon Romero; A8
3. "Pope, at Meeting With Jews, Rejects Denial of Holocaust"; By Rachel Donadio; A8
4. "Israel: Kadima Retains One-Seat Lead in Elections"; World Briefing by Isabel Kershner; A10
5. "Obama, Israel and the Arab Street"; Letters; A30

The heart of victimology is that others must do for you, as you sit still. It is, in a sense, a denial of one’s own agency. Such is the tone of Alaa Al Aswany's op-ed, in which he and other Egyptians are powerless subjects of Barack Hussein’s indifference and the strength of the American-Israeli relationship. 

Although one of the letter-writers, Mohammed Ayoob, reinforces Al Aswany’s theme of victimization, the others - Alan Dershowitz, Jacquie Zaluda, and (Rabbi) Michael Stanger – emphasize Muslim agency. In their critique, they show Ayoob’s “Muslim public” the way forward.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez continues to try to exploit the recent anti-Semitic attack on a synagogue in Caracas for his own ambitions. 

Conspiratorial and anti-Zionist statements by pro-Chavez journalist Hindu Anderi, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia, and interior minister Tareck El Aissami are downright disturbing. More than anything, events in Venezuela demonstrate the connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.

News of anti-Semitism abounds this Friday, as Vatican officials say Pope Benedict XVI “was not aware of [Bishop Richard Williamson’s] stance on the Holocaust.” No reasonable person should believe this claim. 

Reporter Rachel Donadio quotes two Jewish leaders, reacting to remarks by the Pope yesterday, in which he condemned Holocaust denial. Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee now considers “the matter closed;" whereas, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League says the Pope should re-excommunicate Williamson. Indeed, the Pope cannot condemn Holocaust denial and rehabilitate Williamson, and no Jewish leader, let alone a rabbi, should stand for such an action.

Lastly, Isabel Kershner (IK) authors a wholly un-newsworthy article about the shipment of 25,000 carnations from Gaza through Israel to Holland.

This seemingly straightforward report has two errors. First, it suggests that the shipment was a “gesture” toward the Palestinians, but elsewhere IK writes that the carnations went through “at the Dutch government’s request,” making it a gesture to Holland, not Gaza.

More egregiously, IK has a habit of stating what she calls Hamas' “demand for an opening of the Gaza border crossings” without offering what Israel demands – recognition – as a counterpoint. 

To IK’s credit, she quotes IDF Major Peter Lerner, who concisely berates Hamas: “Basically it is a Palestinian decision – whether they want to send flowers or rockets."

Solid Article on Israeli Elections Muddled by Two-State Tie-In

"In Israeli Vote, With Two Parties Nearly Tied, the Winner Is Gridlock"
A6, Thursday 2/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner

Bronner and Kershner report in a fair and straightforward way the immediate aftermath of the Israeli election – the political “wrangling and deal making” in the weeks ahead. There’s also reference to the growing calls within Israel of reforming its electoral system.

However, they somehow fashion Avigdor Lieberman a bigger two-state solution advocate than Netanyahu. “[Lieberman’s] willingness to create two states,” is contrasted with Netanyahu's wanting "to build an economic peace with the Palestinians, but has been vague about the need to uproot Israeli settlements in the West Bank or help the Palestinians create a state.”

Netanyahu has advocated building up a Palestinian economy, linked with Israel's. He's also stated that "the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves, but none to threaten the security and existence of the State of Israel."

It’s unclear how this is being “vague about helping the Palestinians create a state," or at the very least more vague than Lieberman, who has spoken very little of the specifics of achieving Palestinian statehood.

Bronner and Kershner then offer the official Palestinian statement on the election, and in so doing unwittingly expose the Palestinian Authority's hard-line positions. Saeb Erakat “said Israel needed to send a clear message it was committed to the two state solution.” (emphasis mine)

Erakat demands that Israel “totally freeze all settlement activity” and “deal seriously with the Arab Peace Initiative”. Erakat lays a trap with this language. In large settlements that even the PA has agreed will remain part of Israel, new apartments cannot be built and roads cannot be paved? Basically, these communities' lifelines are held ransom by talks that can be dragged out indefinitely. This irrelevent demand just provides an excuse for pulling out of negotiations.

As for the Saudi Initiative, when Israel tries to deal seriously with it, it is told that the plan, which unrealistically demands full withdrawal to the 1949 cease-fire lines, is “take it or leave it.” The plan, as opposed to Israel's response, is not serious.

The problem here, though, is what’s not reported. Abbas’ international campaign to isolate and even sanction any Netanyahu or right-wing lead Israeli government, despite US intentions to work with any Israeli leader for an agreement, would’ve been most relevant here. Again, with this newspaper, such Palestinian intransigence is either whitewashed, or outright ignored.

Whose War Crimes?

1) "Battle Is Close in Israeli Election," A1, by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner

2) "Iran Offers 'Dialogue' with Respect' with U.S.," A5, by Nazili Fathi and David E. Sanger

3) "U.N. Chief Says Israel Is Blocking Most Gaza Aid," A13, by Neil MacFarquhar

4) "Palestinians Press for War Crimes Inquiry on Gaza," A13, by Marlise Simons

Israeli Elections
1) Battle Is Close in Israeli Election

In a follow-up article to Israel's elections two-days previous, Bronner and Kershner provide a fairly sound analysis on its results.

They understand the difficulties that Livni's Kadima will have in establishing a coalition despite having won more votes in the election than Netanyahu's Likud. They also make important mention of the "fractured nature" of Israel's troubled electoral system. No political party won more than one-quarter of the population's vote.

The writers though continue to divide Livni and Netanyahu's views on the peace process in a binary fashion:

And it [the elections] left open the question of whether Ms. Livni, a supporter of a peace accord with the Palestinians, or the more hawkish Mr. Netanyahu would form the next government.

While Ms. Livni has strongly affirmed her support of the current negotiations with Fatah, Netanyahu's "hawkish" views do not signify an end to negotiations or a return to the vision of Greater Israel. Netanyahu, similar to his Prime Ministership in the 90's, appears interested in introducing more reciprocity into negotiations and making incremental, rather than sweeping progress. Bronner and Kershner duly note that Netanyahu "hopes to form a centrist coalition" even while preaching "the primacy of the right."

Iran
2) Iran Offers 'Dialogue' with Respect' with U.S.

The article by Fathi and Sanger on Ahmadjinejad's apparent acceptance of direct negotiations with the U.S. attempts to present the Iranian President and the Islamic Republic in a more moderate light than reality dictates. Here is one of the more troubling assertions:

Yet analysts note that, for all his harsh words, Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent a surprising number of positive signals to the United States in recent years. He sent a letter to President Bush in 2006 and a letter to Mr. Obama congratulating him on his election victory, and he has traveled four times to New York since he took office to take part in United Nations meetings.

None of these examples seem to have any substance beyond their rhetorical value. Ahmadinejad's visits to the UN were not used as an opportunity to extend a fig-leaf to the US, but to declare Iran's defiance of the international community and lambaste Israel as an illegitimate state.

The Times left out part of Ahmadinejad's speech in which he declares that Iran is "the biggest victim of terrorism." If Iran is only able to view itself as the victim, when it itself is world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, it does not seem that progress in talks will be so simple. Iran has armed, financed, and even trained Shiite militias in Iraq and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan that have killed American troops. How can there be talks “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect” when Iran is supporting the murder of Americans?

Beyond downplaying the more problematic aspects of the Iranian regime and a possible entente with America, the authors somewhat overstate potential problems with Israel. Israel will not militate against U.S. negotiations with Iran. The question is how lengthy will those negotiations be. The more time passes, the more Israel will consider the military option, in spite of how unpalatable it may be.

The authors write a pretty smart conclusion though, understanding the U.S.'s predicament:

It is almost inconceivable, some of Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledge, that the Iranians will be willing to give up everything needed to produce a weapon. And it is hard to imagine that the Israelis will settle for anything less.

Human Rights
3) U.N. Chief Says Israel Is Blocking Most Gaza Aid
4) Palestinians Press for War Crimes Inquiry on Gaza

The next set of articles are on the Times persistent coverage of allegations of Israeli human rights and war crimes violations. These allegations "include accusations from individuals and organizations that Israel violated the rules of war by singling out civilians and nonmilitary buildings, and by using weapons like white phosphorus illegally." Unfortunately, the Times allows these charges to stand as is without at least explaining Israel's predicament.

Israel has an obligation to defend its citizens. It is truly unfortunate that Palestinian civilians died in the conflict but such deaths do nothing to benefit Israel. During the conflict, Hamas placed its own civilians in peril as human shields while attempting to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible through its indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli towns. For Hamas, the death of Israelis and Palestinians is a win-win strategy. For Israel, it is lose-lose.

In this context, it is suspect that that the Times writes that "Hamas’s practice of sending rockets into southern Israel, which often landed in civilian areas, might be viewed as a violation." Might be? Hamas' purposeful targeting of civilians is clearly a war crimes violation and it seems to be the only thing that established human rights groups can be agree upon. So much so, that they argue that "a detailed probe into Hamas's firing of Kassam rockets at Israeli communities is not necessary, because it constitutes such a 'blatant' war crime." Despite the clarity of Hamas' violations, it seems quite strange that nearly all the focus on 'war crimes' is being directed at Israel.

Human rights don't seem to be the only issue at play here, but the Times decides not to pick up on it.

PA Denies Palestinians Best Medical Care

1. "Palestinians Stop Paying Israeli Hospitals for Gaza and West Bank Patients"; By Ethan Bronner; A8
2. "Van Spirits Away Protestor in Egypt, Signaling Crackdown on Criticism Over Gaza"; By Michael Slackman; A8
3. "Israeli Vote Brings Push For Release Of a Soldier"; By Isabel Kershner; A8

An upsetting account of how the Palestinian Authority is sacrificing the medical care of Palestinians in order to prop up its anti-Israel credentials. The PA now refuses to pay for medical care in Israeli hospitals.

Ethan Bronner is not able to locate one Palesinian journalist, academic, or politician who will criticize this controversial decision.

Dr. Michael Weintraub at Hadassah hospital responded Jewishly to the PA’s decision: “Twenty percent of our patients are Palestinians, and we have one common enemy: cancer. The rest is immaterial. The question now is how to get those patients back into our care.”

In Egypt, the “state security” has arrested an activist who is calling upon the government to open the border-crossing between Rafah, which is in Egypt, and Gaza. The reporter, Michael Slackman, does not explain why the Egyptians refuse to open the border-crossing.

The activist has been detained, but no one outside of the government and the police know where he is. NYT is right to bring attention to the shady operation of the Egyptian police.

Finally, an article by Isabel Keshner discusses the upcoming elections and the prospect of Ehud Olmert arranging for the release of Gilad Shalit.

Unsurprisingly, she casts Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu in the least flattering light possible. In “a pitch to the right” Netanyahu visited “the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights…pledging not to hand the region back to Syria, from which Israel seized it in 1967.”

This pharsing actually casts the state of Israel, as a whole, in a poor light. A more fair rendering follows:

Netanyahu visited the Golan Heights, which Israel absorbed in a defensive war in 1967, and promised to fight for international recognition of Israel’s 1980 annexation of the territory.

Frighteningly Naive on Iran

1) "Mr. Obama and Iran," A22, Editorial
2) "Iran's China Option," A23, Column by Roger Cohen

1) Editorial

In both an editorial and a Roger Cohen column, the Times demonstrates that for all the apparent concern it expresses at the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the paper ignores Iran’s recent moves indicating an utter lack of interest in diplomacy.

The editorial lauds Obama’s “refreshing humility,” and his “constructive new tone” towards Iran. Yet Iran’s hostility towards the US has been more pronounced since this apparent change in tone.

Iran will now only agree to direct talks if the US pulls its forces out of the Middle East, abandons Israel as an ally, does nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

While the editorial praises the choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy since he “has a reputation for never giving up,” Iran has announced that it will refuse to deal with him. Perhaps that inconvenient truth wasn't known to the Times staff. Perhaps.

The editorial laments Bush’s failed policies. It’s “certain that the Bush administration never tried to find” the right mix of incentives or sanctions. Apparently the Times editorial staff sat in on the 28 direct meetings the administration held with the Iranians, as well as the strategy sessions held with European allies.

On one hand, the Times depicts Iranian nuclear capability as “frighteningly close,” and states “we’re not going to minimize the difficulties”. On the other hand, the paper never really elaborates on those difficulties, nor counsels an approach once diplomacy proves useless. The Times can only write vaguely of “carrots and sticks” and “persuasive diplomatic incentives,” while disavowing any military action, which it calls “a disastrous course”.

What the editorial fails to convey is the problem of Iran drawing out negotiations to give the regime more time to complete its program. If Obama’s diplomacy fails, will his proclamation about a nuclear Iran being “unacceptable” mean that military action [either from the US or from Israel] is inevitable? This question was worth asking.

The editorial need not advocate for military action or not talking with Iran, but it must convey, citing Iran’s recent rejection of Obama’s overtures, just how difficult diplomatic success will be and that there may turn out to be no ideal solution to this crisis.

******

2) Roger Cohen:

Before the upcoming Iranian election in June, Obama “should clarify that America wants an ‘honest broker’ role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supplant Bush’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.”

Cohen just doesn’t get it. Nothing short of abandoning Israel and advocating its demise will placate the Iranian regime. Iranian threats toward Israel aren’t a result of a stalled peace process, but of Israel’s existence.

The sooner Cohen, and other commentators grasp this, the better informed will be the public.