Disputed Territory

"Desert's Sand and Rocks Become Precious Resources in West Bank Dispute"; By Ethan Bronner; A5

In what is intended to be an embarrassing expose of Israeli administration of the Jordan River's west bank, some positive elements come through.

"The land of the West Bank is, of course, disputed," reports Ethan Bronner. The casual manner in which he makes his remark is, at first, surprising. Nothing that NYT has reported for as long as I have read it suggests that the Jordan's west bank is anything but "occupied territory." 

Describing the territory as "disputed" gives greater credence to Israel's position than does the designation "occupied."

Further deviating from standard NYT reporting, Bronner writes, "Many Israeli experts say it is wrong to consider the West Bank a classically occupied territory." The use of the word "disputed" compounded by the opinion of "many Israeli experts" represents a potential turn of events in NYT's reporting. Whether these alterations are a blip remains to be seen.  

Nonetheless, the article proceeds in all other regards as intended, replete with propagandistic rejoinders by Palestinians about Israel, its intentions and its character. 

• A businessman in Ramallah says, "It is an example of the way in which economic interests in Israel are perpetuating the occupation."
• Hassan Abu-Libdeh, special adviser to Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad, states, "We view it as another aggression. This is just another example of Israeli businesses thriving at the cost of the Palestinian economy." 

Most reliably, quoted Palestinians characterize Israel as an exploiter and an aggressor. When a population is indoctrinated with crude stereotypes through television, radio, and newspapers, such descriptions will be readily forthcoming. 

The worst part of the article, however, is from Bronner himself. 

"Talk of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza has dimmed since the Palestinian leadership fractured when Hamas took over Gaza and since the right won in the Israeli elections." 

Here, readers confront a classic case of equivalence. In an effort to be fair, Bronner tries to hold Palestinians and Israelis accountable for the failure to create a Palestinian state. "The Palestinian leadership fractured" and "the right won in the Israeli elections." As a result, there is no Palestinian state. 

But there is an offense here. The Israeli public, through the democratic process in an open society with a free press and freedom of speech, decided to bring the right to power. Now, one can personally disagree with the opinion of the majority of Israelis, but one still has to respect the fact that the will of the majority, uncoerced, reached a conclusion by the best means that human beings currently have available - representative democracy. 

On the other hand, a group of anti-semitic terrorists - Hamas - intimidated a population and orchestrated a coup-purge to oust its opposition. 

To suggest that these factors have equal weight in contributing to the non-existence of a Palestinian state is shameful.

Isolating Terrorists Doesn’t Bring Peace, So Try the Opposite

"Britain to Resume Talking With Hezbollah"
A10, Friday, 3/6/09,
By Robert F. Worth

Worth frames the British move to resume talks with Hezbollah as part of a larger response to the Bush administration’s policy of isolating regimes or entities hostile to Israel. Yet before Bush, how much engagement was there with Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran?

According to the warped logic of unnamed “Middle East experts,” the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace has been “impeded” by isolating the aforementioned parties, which have been unambiguous in rejecting peace with Israel [Syria’s ambiguous rejection the exception].

Unmentioned is the possibility that this is engagement for engagement's sake; that this is part of a political exercise – however ill-conceived it may seem – of taking a diplomatic high road in engaging Iran, which may itself just be a diplomatic formality.

Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, thinks “it’s an interesting and positive development”. Two reps from the British Foreign Office are cited, one of whom, Rammell, states that Britain reconsidered contact with Hezbollah “in light of more positive recent political developments in Lebanon.”

Yet Worth skips a paragraph before stating that “Hezbollah militiamen took control of large parts of Beirut last year by force, gaining an effective veto power over government decisions.” This fact, if placed right after Rammell’s line, might’ve thus exposed its ludicrousness. Furthermore, readers may be unsure that the Hezbollah takeover, breezily reported by Worth, is what Rammell referred to.

While Britain’s Foreign Office is quoted three times, Israel’s Foreign Ministry is not quoted, or cited, at all. It wasn’t for a lack of material. In response to Britain’s move, the ministry’s Yigal Palmor said that Hezbollah “uses violence as a means to foist itself and the interest of the country that pulls its strings [Iran] onto Lebanon. All its activities are designed to undercut peace and stability in the Middle East." Palmor continues that "anyone looking to promote compromise, understanding and peace in the Middle East will not find a partner in Hizbollah."

A higher level Israeli official, Zalman Shoval, took issue with Britain’s stated logic of “positive recent political development”. The British “say they are doing this because of the growing role of Hizbollah in Lebanese politics," Shoval said. "But is that growing role a good or a bad thing? Why do they want to encourage it?" This is a relevant question that was left out.

In a positive ending, Hezbollah is seen as the unreasonable organization it is when it, through a statement, condemned the ICC’s arrest warrant against Sudan’s president al-Bashir and insisted that arrest warrants should be issued for U.S. and Israeli officials for “filling the graves of Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan with hundreds of thousands of deaths.”

This goofy anti-Western rhetoric aside, this article fails to convey, at least in part, the inflexible militarily anti-Western agenda of Hezbollah.

Landler Leads Readers Astray

1. "Iran Looms Over Clinton's Mideast Trip"; By Mark Landler; A12
   
2. "Those Who Deny the Holocaust Deny History"; Letters; A30    
   
3. "Israeli Dance Troupe May Draw Protest"; By Daniel J Wakin; C2

Iran is a central “concern” of Secretary of State Clinton. The Islamic Republic is “constantly on her mind;” she is “struck by the depth of fear” Iran arouses in the leaders of the Middle East. The source of the fear, in Clinton’s words, is Iran’s “efforts to fund terrorism, whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies.” 

Indeed the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah have destabilized the Middle East, but they are not the primary source of fear. Rather, Iran’s nuclear program is. Not until the ninth paragraph , however, does Landler report on the threat of “nuclear warheads.” That is the only mention of the nuclear issue, evidencing NYT’s reluctance to acknowledge the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Two other significant problems exist in "Iran Looms." In the sixth paragraph, Landler writes that Clinton “criticized an Israeli plan to tear down dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.” The reader is left without an explanation for why the homes will be torn down and is left to conjure up any number of reasons why this policy is being pursued. Finally, in the last paragraph Landler fills in the rest of the information, explaining that the houses were built illegally, without permits from the municipality. Batsheva Dance Company, an Israeli troupe,

The second significant shortcoming of Landler’s article is his treatment of the border-crossings between Israel and Gaza. Again, in the sixth paragraph, the reader learns that “critics say” Israel is “constricting deliveries of necessary goods.” 

Similar to how he handled the matter of house demolition, Landler neglects to flesh out the matter for ten paragraphs. “Israel heavily restricts deliveries of building materials, like cement, to Gaza. But humanitarian goods, like food and medicine, regularly pass through the crossings,” he reports.

Now, building materials, like cement, food, and medicine could all be considered “necessary goods,” so the “critics’” view may still stand. However, because Landler did not seek out an Israeli response to the “critics,” readers will not learn that cement has been kept out of Gaza because Hamas employs it to build bunkers and tunnels.

By spacing out information on the key issues of house demolition and border-crossings, Landler forces readers to piece together the situation instead of presenting it coherently from the outset.

In the Letters' section, Deborah Lipstadt demonstrates her renowned strength and intelligence in a response to an article about Bishop Williamson and his relationship to Holocaust denier David Irving. The letter is must-read, though Lipstadt should have called out the reporter, Rachel Donadio, by name for referring to Irving as a "historian." 

In New York City, an unnamed group has organized a demonstration outside the Brooklyn Academy of Music in response to the performance of the Israeli Batsheva Dance Company. 

Batsheva's artistic director, Ohad Naharin, displays striking naivete in a statement released Wednesday in which "he forgives and understands 'the frustration' and people who 'want to fight for human rights.'" 

By characterizing the demonstrators as human rights activists instead of defamers of Israel, he simultaneously flatters and misunderstands them. One can hardly imagine a group taking to the street to protest a Palestinian dance troupe because Hamas fires rockets into Israel. 

Why Not to Engage Syria

"Clinton Says U.S. Is Ready to Begin Talks With Syria"; By Mark Landler; A1

‘Regional expert,’ Martin Indyk says, “Syria wants to engage” the West but does not substantiate his claim - nor does reporter Mark Landler, for whom Indyk’s viewpoint is the basis of his article.

Three factors weaken the theory that Syria wants to engage.

First, the government of President Bashar al-Assad allows Hamas leaders to live unperturbed in Damascus. Secondly, Syria is a sponsor of Hezbollah. Third, Syria likely played a leading role in the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri and has been uncooperative with the UN's efforts to resolve the matter. 

On a separate note, Landler correctly notes that Israeli public opinion is against returning the Golan Heights to Syria but does not explain why. Israel's annexation of the Golan in 1982, a fact which explicates said opposition, is omitted.

Two other issues hamper the quality of the article.

First, Hamas is referred to as an “Islamic militant group," rather than a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the US, Europe, and Israel agree on this designation. Secondly, Landler reports that "critics say that closing the crossings has impeded the flow of humanitarian relief" but once again, does not explore the matter. 

Although Israel does permit food and medicine to enter Gaza, building materials, like cement, are restricted. The reason, however, is that Hamas uses cement to build bunkers and tunnels.

Naivety

1. "Clinton Not Optimistic About Iran-U.S. Thaw"; By Mark Landler; A6
   
2. "Letters: Iran’s View on Uranium"; A26
   

In certain respects, the Obama administration is less naive than its detractors thought it would be. As Mark Landler reports, "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an Arab foreign minister on Monday that she did not expect Iran to respond positively to an American offer of direct negotiations."

Still, with respect to the Palestinians, the feared naivete is apparent, as "the United States pledged more than $900 million in aid to the Palestinians, $300 million of which is relief for Gaza." Because Hamas is in full control of the Gaza Strip, the money will most likely bolster its standing. 

In a requisite critique of Jewish communities in the administered territories on the Jordan River's west bank, Landler reports, "The Palestinians hope to build their state on that land and argue that settlement building drives that goal further and further away." 

Two points, however, remain unaddressed:

First, how do Jewish communities on territory that could be a Palestinian state prevent the state from coming into being? In other words, why can't a Palestinian state allow Jewish residents to remain where thy are. 

Second, how does Landler's presentation of Palestinian hopes reconcile with the broad support that Hamas enjoys among Palestinians and Hamas' explicit demand for all the land of Israel, not just part of it.  

In a letter to the editor, M. A. Mohammadi, Press Counselor for the Mission of Iran to the United Nations, depicts Iran as compliant party in its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). See William H. Tobey's piece in The Boston Globe for a more reasonable, accurate description of the Iran-IAEA relationship.

With Gaza’s Rockets, “No Casualties, But…”

"Olmert Likely to Face Charges in Corruption Case"
A9, Monday, 3/2/09,
By Isabel Kershner

There’s nothing problematic about the reporting of Olmert’s possible indictment. Though there's an odd mixing in with Blair and and donors and “war-battered” Gaza. There isn't even a reference to the "no money until rockets stop" logic coming from Israel.

Kershner cites “Gaza militants” continuing to fire rockets from Gaza, just after reporting on the Gaza donors conference. Which Gaza militants? “It was not clear if Hamas was responsible,” is a line that would’ve served to make more prominent the issue of Hamas’ complicity, if not direct involvement.

No casualties were reported over the weekend, “but” the rockets did strike an empty school. The degree of outrage that is rocket launching into Israel, seems reliant on the damage it causes.

Is Israeli-Palestinian Peace at Hand for Super Sub-Secretary George Mitchell? Not According to Thomas Friedman

1) "Tribunal to Open in Hariri Killing in Beirut," A8, by Marlise Simons
2) "Legal Battles Await Olmert as Term Ends," A10, by Isabel Kershner
3) "A Guide to Israel's Best," CY5, by Howard G. Goldberg
4) "Super (Sub) Secretaries," WK10 (Op-ed), by Thomas Friedman

*****
1) Tribunal to Open in Hariri Killing in Beirut

In a significant piece of news, the Times reports that the "Special Tribunal for Lebanon" is finally beginning, more than three years after the car-bomb assassination of Sunni-Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hariri was "a leading opponent of Syria’s political control over his country." The role of the court is to "try those deemed responsible for that attack." The highest echelons of the Syrian government are suspected to have been involved in the assassination plot.

The reporter writes that "some diplomats fear that if an investigation reached the top of the Syrian government, this could interfere with the thaw in relations between Damascus and the West." The question what "thaw"? While certain Western governments have changed their posture towards Syria, Syria has not altered its own negative behavior, which includes its continued coercive influence over Lebanese politics and its support of Hezbollah and Hamas.

If Syria is guilty for the assassination of Hariri (which seems abundantly clear), it must be held accountable for its action. For too long, Syria has not been held responsible for its dirty deeds in the region. This has only further emboldened its militant behavior, knowing that it has faced little or no consequences. Putting Syria off the hook again will achieve nothing.

In the end, we should expect the same "stonewalling and misinformation" from Syria that has hampered the investigation for three years. This time, however, Syria must be held accountable.

2) Legal Battles Await Olmert as Term Ends

In this detailed article, Times coverage returns to the corruption allegations against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It seems all but written that Olmert will be formally charged, probably after he leaves office.

Given "evidence pointing to the acceptance of bribes, money-laundering and fraud," it is clear that Olmert is not fit to lead the country, regardless of whether or not one agrees with his political decisions as Prime Minister.

Fortunately, the Times did not use this article to call Olmert's downfall a "Demi-Greek Tragedy" as it once had. Even if an individual supports Olmert's peace efforts, he was no great leader and not fit to lead.

3) A Guide to Israel's Best

The Times gives a friendly shout-out to Israeli wine in this short blurb. Despite the brief nature of this article, it is important that the Times is able to report on Israel beyond the conflict and highlight the country's successes.

More coverage like this is necessary to counter-act the belief that Israel is a perpetual war zone, but unfortunately, that is exactly what appeals to readers.

4) Super (Sub) Secretaries

In this article, Thomas Friedman discusses Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's political innovation of "Super Sub-Secretaries of State," who are necessary to manage the affairs of some difficult political issues. The cast of characters are:

• "George Mitchell to handle Arab-Israel negotiations"
  
• "Richard Holbrooke to manage Afghanistan-Pakistan affairs"
  
• "and Dennis Ross to coordinate Iran policy"

Speaking about Arab-Israeli negotiations, Friedman has some insightful things to say. Whereas following the 1973 War, there existed three powerful political leaders that were able to successfully negotiate treaties/cease-fires (Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Hafez Assad of Syria, and Golda Meir of Israel), today the negotiating "parties are either failing states with multiple power centers" (i.e. the Palestinians) "or strong states with governments so fractious and hydra-headed that they border on paralyzed" (i.e. Israel).

Readers and those interested in the conflict should take heed of this reality. The current political situation in the Palestinian territories (struggle between Fatah & Hamas) and Israel (weak governance), make it essentially impossible for any sort of agreement to be reached in the near future. Forcefully attempting to conclude a peace agreement in these circumstances is bound to fail. The political chaos in the Palestinian territories alone is sufficient to make a peace agreement impossible. And that's assuming that all sides actually want to achieve a peaceful compromise, which is far from evident when it comes to the Palestinian leadership (whether of Fatah or Hamas), which continues to educate its populace that the State of Israel is illegitimate and that all the land on which Israel sits is rightfully theirs to rule.