Mining for the Truth

"U.S. Army Deploys Radar System in Israel," A5, Monday, 9/29/08
By Isabel Kershner

The article discusses the United States deployment of "an advanced American radar system on Israeli soil," known as the X-Band (FBX-T) Radar, which will allow "early detection of incoming ballistic missiles and enhancing Israel's defensive capability against any potential attack by Iran."

It is important to note that the radar will be operated, at least initially, by approximately 120 U.S. servicemen. Furthermore, according to a U.S. official, the radar will "serve not only, but the United States, too." It would be interesting to better understand the implications of the installation of such a system on Israeli soil. Is the radar meant to better secure Israel in the case of a hostile attack from Iran and other parties or is its purpose to better prepare Israel for a tactile strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and the heavy missile retaliation that would consequently follow?

Beyond this, the author uses the article to discuss recent attacks perpetrated against Professor Ze'ev Sternhell and a lone Palestinian shepherd in the West Bank's Jordan Valley, both purportedly carried out by right-wing settlers or their sympathizers.

The next day, however, the Israeli police concluded that the attack against the shepherd was not perpetrated by settlers and was in fact not even an attack. Based on the police report, the shepherd died in an accidental explosion after picking up some unexploded ordnance. The New York Times did not publish this newfound information, leaving readers with the assumption that radical settlers had murdered the young Palestinian in cold blood.

Morally Equivalent Manichaeism

"As Holy Days Mix in Old City, So Do Wary Jews and Muslims," A1, Monday, 9/29/08
By Ethan Bronner

Bronner's article, depicting the uneasy mingling of Jews and Muslims in the Old City of Jerusalem during each religions' holy season, serves as a platform for the failed notion of a moral equivalence between Palestinian-Muslim and Jewish extremism.

At first, it seems the author may have a clear understanding of Palestinian rejectionism of Israeli sovereignty: "Some Muslims defy archaeology and history by saying that Jews have no link to the site and that it is purely Muslim sacred territory." I would only add that it is in not "some" Muslim Palestinians that hold this notion, but most likely the majority.

Of course then, Bronner must create the moral equivalency within the same paragraph: "The same problem exists on the other side as well — some Jews believe that the holiness here is theirs alone." It is not some Muslims and some Jews. It is what is probably a great plurality of Palestinians, in comparison to fringe group of Jews that disbelieve in Muslim holy claims to the Temple Mount.

Furthermore, it is the Palestinian Muslims that are actively resorting to violence on a large-scale against Jews, symbolizing their rejection of Jewish connection to the land. Bronner fails to add some key context to the article as to why Jews might be wary of their Palestinian counterparts - namely being that four Arab residents of East Jerusalem have perpetrated four separate attacks targeting Jews since March. In the most lethal of these attacks, an East Jerusalem Arab entered a Jewish seminary, or yeshiva, spraying gunfire, which killed eight young men between the ages of 15 and 26.

Rather than relate this pertinent context, the author cherry-picks a quote from a fringe Jewish extremist: "The Muslims shouldn't have been there... There should be a temple Jewish there. That's what we believe." This only adds to the aura of moral equivalence, or even tips the scales against Israel, demonstrating how radical some of its citizenry is.

Life would surely be simpler to understand if each time two opposing sides conflicted, it was clear that both sides were both equally morally culpable. It seems that moral equivalence was at first propagated to create a much needed balance against Manichean myths like (good) cowboys versus (bad) Indians. Ultimately, however, it has become its own form of unyielding Manichaeism, creating a clear black-and-white bifurcation of moral responsibility between the conflicting parties. Unfortunately, the truth is much more complicated and needs sufficient education to unearth.

To create a moral equivalence between the great sea of Palestinian rejectionism and the minor strain of Jewish rejectionism demonstrates the lack of education, and corresponding truth, in this weak and over-poeticized article.

A Tragedy Requires Greatness

"Israel's Demi-Greek Tragedy"

By Ethan Bronner

http://web.me.com/mattabes/how_fit/israels_demi.html

A Developing Danger

"Radical Settlers Take on Israel," A14, Friday, 9/26/08
By Isabel Kershner

This fairly informative article describes the developing struggle between the State of Israel and the increasingly confrontational and radical-wing of the settler movement in the West Bank. This radical-wing can be characterized not only by its fanatical connection to the land, but its willingness to resort to violence not only against Palestinians but also against the the state when it behaves in a manner contradictory to their interests (the Gaza Disengagement, removing settler outposts).

This article shows that these extremist settlers are coming more and more to believe that the state is wholly inimical to its messianic mission and must confront it in one way or another. In the eyes of the so-called 'hilltop youth,' the settler movement and greater Israeli public "have to decide whether they are on the side of the Torah or the state."

These are troubling developments and the Israeli government must punish these extremist settlers for wrong-doing such as vigilante violence or the establishment of illegal outposts.

It is essential to note, however, that these "hard-core right-wing settlers" are not representative of the settlement movement as a whole. The author hints at this, mentioning that these radical settlers "reject what they see as the more compromising policies of the Yesha council, the settler movement’s longstanding umbrella group." Nevertheless, Kershner could do more to develop a clearer distinction between the radicalized hill-top youth and the more pragmatic elements of the settler movement.

Without this sort of distinction, the uneducated reader could come to the rash conclusion that the settlers are an evil body that must be extirpated for the sake of peace with the Palestinians and the democratic and generally secular nature of Israel. This would be an erroneous assumption. The reality is much more complicated.

Overall though, a worthwhile read that like many New York Times articles on Israel, is lacking in some necessary context.

Removing the Agency from the Actor

"Israel: Palestinian Car Rams Israelis in Jerusalem," A10 (World Briefing), Tuesday, 9/23/08
By Isabel Kershner

The article briefly describes an attack perpetrated by an Arab resident of East Jerusalem against a group of Israeli soldiers. He attempted to run them over outside the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem, using his BMW vehicle as an instrument of death. 19 were wounded.

It is important to note that the article published online was not the piece published in the newspaper that day. The newspaper piece is an abbreviated version, which does not include the context included in the larger article. The lengthier piece details how this was the fourth attack carried out by an Arab resident of East Jerusalem since March, two of the others also employing vehicles to maim Israelis. It is unclear why the New York Times opted for the abbreviated piece. The context would have been useful for the reader.

A troublesome point of the article is the construction of the opening sentence: "A car owned by a Palestinian rammed a group of Israeli soldiers and civilians..." This sentence structure removes the agency from the perpetrator, when in fact it was the Palestinian who rammed the Israeli soldiers/civilians with his car, not the car that did the ramming. This somewhat sloppy construction further removes the individual from the action, and from corresponding accountability.

I would also question why the perpetrator was labeled as Palestinian. I believe it was quite clear that it was an Arab resident of East Jerusalem, which would have been more accurate.

These litte things add up...

Girl Power!

"Olmert Quits Post, and Political Maneuvering Begins," A5, Monday, 9/22/08
By Ethan Bronner

The author writes an informative article on Ehud Olmert's resignation from the Prime Ministership, Tzipi Livni's corresponding takeover as Acting Prime Minister, and her coming challenge of forming a coalition or facing national elections. The article also designates a fair amount of attention to speculating on the position and strategy of Ehud Barak, head of the Labor Party, on whether he will join Livni's coalition or join calls for a national election.

It is interesting that rather than note the commendable possiblity that Livni could become the second Prime Minister since Golda Meir (a notable record for a Western democracy, particularly one located in the Middle East), the author chooses to highlight that Barak's decision to not jump to join the coalition may be based on the fact that "the men who have long ruled Israel, at least since GoldaMeir left office in 1974, are uncomfortable with a woman" ruling as Prime Minister.

In a recent update, the London-based organization Just Journalism perceptively noted that British anti-Israel publications have used Tzipi's victory to emphasize "how long it has been since Israel had a female premier" (since nothing good can really be said about Israel). On the other hand, more balanced publications have "focused on the fact that Livni would be the second female Israel PM." It is truly amazing how anti-Israel animosity in certain media can infect each and every facet of their Israel coverage (Note: I am not implying that the NYT belongs in this category).

The Ayatollah Did Decree

"Iran’s Chief Cleric Says Country Is Not a Friend to Israelis," A9, Saturday, 9/20/08
By Nazila Fathi

For those of you counting at home, this is Nazila Fathi's fourth article in a little over a month detailing the ridiculous dispute in Iranian politics regarding the ever-so-conciliatory remarks of Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, Iranian vice president for tourism, to the Israeli people.

In one of these statements, Mashai shared, "I say for a thousandth time that we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans." This "provacative" remarks, that Israelis could possibly be friends of the Iranians, set off a firestorm calling for Mashai's dismissal. In defense of Mashai, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, “We have no problem with people and nations” but “Of course, we do not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime.” How it makes any sense that one can be friend of Israelis while advocating the dismantling or destruction of the political entity they compose is byeond me.

And now finally, top-dog Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader, has entered the fray, "rejecting the notion that his country was a friend to the Israeli people." At the same time though, he has asked other Iranian politicians to stop using this as an issue to undermine Ahmadinejad, effectively showing support for the vitriolic president.

I hope this article makes clear how absurd all this rhetorical theatricality truly is. The leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a friend of the Israeli people, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be one, given the nature of such a regime.

If one wishes to destroy Israel, "the Zionist regime," one is an enemy of the Israeli people, and the enemy of the Jewish people, as Israel serves as the political manifesation of the Jewish people in their historic homeland.

It is not an "advanced" or "progressive" position for Iranian leaders to declare that they are friends of the Jewish people or Israelis while emblazoning a truck in an Iranian military parade with a banner saying "Israel should be eliminated from the universe." At least the "pious" Ayatollah does not attempt to obfuscate the issue any longer. Such a radical regime can do little to obscure its extremist nature. It survives and thrives on it.