The Lesson Of The Last Few Months

"The War Within"
A34, Wednesday, 11/05/08
Editorial

If Israel was to evacuate over 100 West Bank settlements, forcibly evicting 100,000 people, what would be required? How much time would be needed? What sort of politics would be involved? Is Israel laying the groundwork for this, even if it cannot reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA)? More than just questions, these are serious concerns expressed by the Israeli public and policymakers. In its latest editorial, the New York Times appears oblivious to these issues.

The editorial, "The War Within," begins by mentioning growing settler militancy and the government's attempts to end it. One of these attempts is a decision to halt direct or indirect financing of outposts, or "unauthorized settlements". This decision is undeserving of the Times' praise. Rather, the Times feels it "exposes" Israeli duplicity: funding outposts "despite repeated pledges to dismantle" them. The issues here of funding and pledges need elaboration. As the Times reported earlier this week, the Israeli government funds West Bank regional councils, which in turn allocate – as they see fit – a percentage of those funds to outposts.

What of these "repeated pledges" by Israel? Were all outposts to be demolished immediately? Was it to be phased? These questions are necessary in light of this same editorial citing Israeli "government actions against the outposts," and Israel "removing illegal (settler) homes," leading to "militant Jewish settlers clashing regularly with Israeli police". For Times editors, these actions taken by Israel fall short of its pledges. Instead, they serve as proof that "Israel is becoming a nation at war with itself."

It would serve its readers well for the Times to clarify what this war is all about. To what end is Israel risking a civil war?

Israel has, by all appearances, taken the initial steps towards a massive West Bank pullout. In so doing, it will attempt to reach an accord with the PA, while being realistic in not relying on one. As its leaders have recently and loudly declared, Israel must end its rule over West Bank Palestinians if it wishes to remain a Jewish democracy. A majority of Israelis agree, yet have concerns about a security vacuum following withdrawal. A small, but committed minority of Israeli Jews care less about Jewish democracy and more about retaining what they believe is their biblical inheritance.

In explaining this to its readers, the Times could've easily reversed itself on the lesson of Israel's "war within". The lesson of growing anger and vigilantism among militant settlers is that Israel is readying its citizens for withdrawal and has resumed dismantling settlements.

The Times proceeds to prescribe its remedy. "As a step toward peace, Israel must…reduce the roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy." Israel has reduced roadblocks, which anyway is a decision made at the highest levels of Israel's security services, not by politicians and certainly not by newspapers. Until the editors at the Times clarify how many and which roadblocks Israel must take down, this will remain a shallow demand.

To help "freeze all settlements and reduce the roadblocks," the Times perversely calls on the "public support of American Jews and moderate Israelis" to back up the Israeli government against the Jewish militants. Who exactly are "moderate Israelis" in the Times' lexicon? It woud be interesting to see if the Times defines as moderate an Israeli who wants Israel to leave the territories, but who doesn't want Israel pressured.

This editorial's focus should've been on the Palestinians. Actually, the reason for roadblocks isn't a bad place to start. Palestinian militancy, including from Fatah (which controls the PA), illicit security measures like these. These militants knowingly sabotage a functional economy (and a normalized Palestinian life) because such an economy would naturally be joined with Israel's. Furthermore, what is not reported is that the IDF and its roadblocks are what's prevented a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, a development the Times would surely dread. Instead, the Times simplistically characterizes roadblocks as "strangling the Palestinian economy".

Most important, the PA has consistently shown its unwillingness to accept Israel's permanence. Anti-Israel defamation in PA-controlled media, promotion of the right of return, and the rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, should make clear that for the PA, an accord with Israel is artificial. Fatah's fight against Hamas is about self-preservation and not about a divide over accepting Israel. Both movements overtly disavow any meaningful settlement with Israel. Israelis know this and have few illusions of long-term peace, yet face a dangerous dilemma in their desire to withdraw from land.

Meanwhile, as if Israelis needed more pressure, here comes a prestigious paper like the Times barking orders and platitudes. "The lesson of the last few months should be clear to all. Israel will have no peace – with its neighbors or its own citizens – without a peace agreement." Fittingly, an asinine and banal line ends this piece.

It's unacceptable, not to mention disappointing, that one of the world's most respected newspapers is either unaware of the reality in which Israel finds itself, or willfully blind to it. Even worse is that this grotesque editorial was published the day after Barack Obama won the election, when there was a spike in the paper's readership and thousands of people plan to save their newspapers.

A Volcanic Eruption of Violence - As Natural as a Natural Disaster

"Gaza: Rocket Fire and Israeli Strike Disrupt Cease-Fire"
A19 (World Briefing), Wednesday 11/6/08
By Reuters

This brief article informs the reader of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel "after Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence that disrupted a four-month-old truce."

The lack of context in this article is truly appalling and appears to breach basic journalistic standards. This was not simply an "eruption of violence" as the article puts it, part of some ambiguous cycle of violence. As the NYT itself reported the day before, Israel had entered Gaza on Monday to destroy a tunnel Hamas built near the Israeli border, which was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers, in a situation similar to the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit back in June 2006.

In response, Hamas launched mortar shells against Israeli forces and into Israeli territory. To neutralize this threat, Israel launched an airstrike which killed four militants of which the Reuters article speaks.

Only in this light can the reader truly begin to understand why Hamas launched a salvo of Qassam rockets (46 in total) against Israel, specifically against civilian targets.

To conclude, these recent skirmishes were not part of some amorphous "eruption of violence." In reality, Israel had discovered imminent Hamas plans to abduct Israeli soldiers and deemed it necessary to defuse the threat. Israel did not wish to disrupt the ceasefire, but Hamas' exploitation of the lull in fighting to perpetrate more abductions forced its hand.

Then, in response, Hamas indiscriminately fired rockets into the Western Negev of Israel, reaching as far as Ashkelon. And Israel's to blame? Really?

Tunnels for Kidnapping

"Israeli Strike Is First in Gaza Since Start of Ceasefire"
A10, Wednesday 11/5/08
By Isabel Kershner

Kershner allows Hamas to score one of its talking point by reporting its complaint about the maintenance of the economic embargo. She could have just as easily pointed out that the truce has held even though Hamas has not come closer to negotiating the return of captive Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit. Moreover, in recent months, Hamas allowed truce breaches by "renegades." Are we to believe that though it rules Gaza with a tight grip, Hamas can't prevent rocket attacks on Israel? Instead of digging tunnels to kidnap soldiers, Hamas could have more effectively policed renegade forces, enforcing the truce.

Kershner writes that "Israeli security officials regularly accuse Hamas of exploiting the calm to build up its strength and prepare for a future war." The statements of Israeli military officials are hardly accusations, for they have been substantiated.

After reporting that Israeli security forces entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel built for an "immanent operation," Kershner waits five paragraphs to mention the Shalit kidnapping, which occurred by use of such a tunnel, though Kershner neglects to mention that. Only a well-informed reader will recognize that tunnel construction from Gaza into Israel is directly related to kidnapping.

A Problematic Arab Worldview

"For Many Abroad, An Ideal Renewed"
A1, Wednesday 11/5/08
By Ethan Bronner

The picture - from Japan - and the location – Gaza – do not match and the article is only, in part, about Gaza.

Writing of the "benighted Palestinian coastal strip," creates the impression that Gaza is under siege, unfairly. That the siege has been largely self-inflicted through intransigence and violence is not given its fair due.

Bronner gives voice to Arab victimology quoting Fathi Abdel Hamid of Cairo. Hamid subscribes to the unreal notion that W engaged in a war on Arabs. "Since Bush came to power it's all bam, bam, bam on the Arabs," he asserts.

Fortunately, Bronner fairly reports on Israel's concerns about an Obama presidency and the concerns of some Europeans:

1. "There are others who fear that Mr. Obama will be soft in a hard-edged world where what is required is a clear line in the sand to fanatics, aggressors and bullies. Israelis worry that he will talk to Iran rather than stop it from developing nuclear weapons."

2 "An Obama presidency, they say, risks appeasement. It will 'reassure Europeans of their defects,' lamented Giuliano Ferrara, editor of the Italian right-wing daily Il Foglio."

Bronner, however, does not vet comments of quoted Arabs, which reveal a conspiratorial and frequently anti-Semitic worldview. That worldview seems to underpin their dual commitment to pessimism and violence. Hamas parliament member Huda Naim's statement - "We will be optimistic for two months but that's it" – is emblematic of the first part of that duality.

Greater evidence of this pessimism is that many Arabs think that "Mr. Obama will not carry out their wishes regarding American policy toward Israel and much else, and so they shrug off the results as ultimately making little difference."

Of course, this last statement feeds the view that the US favors Israel over the Arab states, which is oversimplified. Americans who believe this will advocate for weakening ties with Israel in order to improve relations with Arab states.

Nawara Negm, an Egyptian writer and blogger, characterizes Obama as obsequious toward Israel. She says, "He went to bow down to the Israelis." One can reasonably assume that Negm only understands American actions through the deranged paradigm that Israel dominates the US.

Outposts and Settlements Are Not the Same

"Israel Acts to Cut to Cut Off Funds to Illegal Settlements"
A9, Monday 11/3/08
By Isabel Kershner

The article highlights the current problematic situation in which the State of Israel indirectly funds illegal outposts, which can be described as small West Bank settlements constructed principally by radicalized Jewish settlers. The construction of these outposts was supposed to heave ceased after March 21, 2001 under the provisions of the Quartet’s “Road Map for Peace."

Apparently, the money arrives to the outposts through settler regional councils in the West Bank. Halting indirect public financing of outposts is a positive initiative, but the Olmert government does not appear to have a clear idea of how to do it. As Mr. Dayan, chairman of the Yesha Council, points out “the only government investment in the outposts today [is] indirect, in the form of the regional council funds, which go to services like garbage collection and school buses.” Cutting off the funding, then, will not necessarily halt the construction of outposts.

In addition, the article is confusing for two reasons:

1. Outposts are by definition unauthorized, or illegal. In other words, there is no such thing as a legal outpost. Outposts were first developed under the Netanyahu administration during the late nineties. They had no government approval, were not legal, and “were created by diversion of government funds intended for other purposes. In time, these outposts would become legalized or would be retroactively attached to an existing settlement.”

2. This also means that they are always indirectly – never directly – financed.

One positive note, reported by Kershner, is that “Mr. Olmert said the overwhelming majority of Jewish settlers were law-abiding citizens.” Indeed, any statement that challenges wholesale demonization of Jewish residents of Judea & Samaria, or settlers, is to be hailed.

The main problem in this article, however, is the conflation of outposts with settlements. First of all, the title blatantly misleads in this respect. Secondly, midway through the piece, Kershner raises the issue of settlements, which is related to but not the same as that of outposts. This is a divergence, but she continues, stating that many countries in the world and the United States hold differing positions with respect to settlements. She then does not examine the basis of the difference between the two.

Reflecting Reality

"In a Dove’s Flight and Descent, an Israeli Story"
WK4, Sunday, 11/02/08
By Ethan Bronner

The Times’ Ethan Bronner marked the occasion of Yossi Beilin’s political departure by offering a tribute to the architect of the dance known as the peace process.

Bronner, perhaps out of deference to Beilin or due to his own blind spots, neglects to report the overriding mood today among mainstream Israelis – the peace process was a failure, and the Palestinians are to blame. Bronner needn’t agree with this feeling to mention it.

Actually, he opens the door to this point, but doesn’t walk through, noting that both Shimon Peres and Beilin have abandoned Labor, “whose own fortunes have been sinking steadily.” Why have they sunk? Anyone following recent Israeli politics understands that Labor has been largely discredited after Oslo and Camp David 2000.

Last week Beilin said, according to Bronner, that he was “leaving in triumph, since his support for an end to occupation of Palestinian territories and the creation of a Palestinian state, once radical positions, are today mainstream.”

While these positions have entered the Israeli mainstream, they’re not currently rooted in a belief in Palestinian moderation, in which Beilin has never stopped believing. Though the creation of a Palestinian state is indeed a mainstream concept in Israel, the urgency in its establishment is mitigated by the harsh reality of Palestinian rejection. This is where Beilin veers from the mainstream.

While he affirms Beilin’s assertion that he mainstreamed these twin ideas – ending the occupation and creating an independent Palestinian state – Bronner writes that it’s “impossible not to see [his departure] also as a defeat…of his goals, with no Palestinian state on the horizon.”

Bronner’s view on Beilin’s departure as a defeat falls short. It’s not simply because a Palestinian state is not “on the horizon,” but because Beilin grossly miscalculated Palestinian intentions, and continues to do so.

Beilin himself recognizes that he miscalculated. Bronner points out that Beilin “said he felt betrayed by the Palestinians but that Israel had mishandled things as well.” That Bronner allows such trite equivocation is a sign of insufficient reporting.

Bronner cannot substantiate his claim that Kadima’s “outlook today seems hard to distinguish from” Beilin’s. Although Kadima speaks of the need to withdraw from the West Bank, it does so based more on the demographic factor – the need to secure a Jewish democratic state, and much less on any real faith in Palestinian compromise, to which Beilin still clings. Furthermore, Kadima was elected on a platform of unilateral withdrawal, a concept not embraced by Beilin. In short, Bronner attempts to validate Beilin’s claim that his worldview has gone mainstream. It has not.

Criticism Versus Incitement

"Israeli TV Pulls Talks With Killer of Rabin"
A8, Saturday 11/1/08
By The Associated Press

This article discusses the cancellation on Israeli television of a full-length interview with Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, in the face of heavy criticism from politicians and public figures.

Overall, the language of this article is quite problematic. Taken from the brief segments of the interview that were released, "Mr. Amir told Israel’s Channel 10 TV that he was incited [emphasis added] into action by comments from hawkish former generals, including Ariel Sharon, Rehavam Zeevi and Rafael Eitan, that the deal would bring disaster."

The article then gives no examples of the statements of these military figures, making it completely unclear the nature of the criticism. Was it fair criticism (which it appears to be given the eventual failure of Oslo and its disintegration into the Second Intifada) or did their statements call for the violent action to be taken against the government at the time (which they did not)? The criminal Yigal Amir decided to behave in an extralegal fashion to prevent the continuation of the Oslo Peace Accords. This was unquestionably wrong.

As Amir clearly states, these figures influenced his decision by highlighting the dangers of Oslo, but for the author to write that these generals incited [Definition: to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action] him into assassinating Rabin is untruthful and terribly misleading. These generals did not call for the assassination of Rabin or violence against the government. They did strongly oppose the Oslo Accords. Extremists of any stripe can always find justification for their violent actions.

[As a point of reference, compare the language of the NYT, to to that in this article on YNetNews: "When asked who influenced his decision to assassinate the prime minister, Amir said: "Sharon, Raful (Raphael Eitan,) Gandhi (Rehavam Ze'evi)…all the military experts, who said this agreement will result in disaster."]