"A Hard-Liner Gains Ground in Israeli Race"
A1, Monday 2/9/09
By Ethan Bronner
For an article about Lieberman and his "resonant political message: Israel is at risk not only from outside but also from its own population," Bronner does little to explain why this message is so resonant among Israelis.
In explaining the concerns of members of Likud, Kadima and Labor, Bronner writes that they "fear his focus on a normally submerged paradox of political life here – how a state of Jews and Arabs can define itself as both Jewish and democratic – undermines a delicate coexistence.”
In general, this is a good point. Yet Bronner evades the real issue. The coexistence is not delicate because, as implied by "paradox of Jewish and democratic," that Israeli Arabs feel disenfranchised.
As Haaretz's Israel Harel writes, it's a delicate coexistence because of "the increase in oppositional activities among Israeli Arabs - which often exceed the bounds of legitimate expression of opinion - against Israel as the state of the Jewish people, strident tones whose main chord is an overidentification with Arab-Palestinian nationalism, even during a vicious war of terror against Jews, and a heightened determination of the Arabs to secede from the state and establish their own political and cultural autonomous region."
This has "alienated" Israelis, especially "voters from the left". One might conclude that this extremisim may be due to a feeling of disenfranchisement. However, it's a two-way street when it comes to the problems facing, and faced by, Israeli Arabs. A stubborn refusal, stoked by Israeli-Arab politicians, to be a part of the system and thus reap its benefits, has led to this delicate existence.
Bronner correctly notes Israel's military assault was "on the Hamas rulers of Gaza" and not simply on Gaza. He goes on to write that this assault helped Lieberman because "Israeli Arabs sympathetic to Gaza protested the war," a benign rendering, until Bronner correctly notes their "Death to the Jews" chants. Yet the problem is more endemic, as noted above.
Bronner states that "many would like to shift Israel's identity from that of a Jewish state to one that is defined by all its citizens, arguing that only then would they feel fully equal." He then states that Lieberman "says that there is no room for such a move and that those who fail to grasp the centrality of Jewish identity to Israel have no real place in it." ["move," as if this is an option to be taken seriously]
The problem with Bronner's rendering of "state defined by all its citizens" is that this mantra is often dishonestly proclaimed by those who themselves have very strong feelings of Arab nationalism. Another problem is that it's not just Lieberman who says "there's no room for such a move," but those across the Israeli political spectrum. The difference is that other politicans are reluctant to say Israeli Arabs who reject Israel "have no real place in it."
Lieberman's firebrand rhetoric aside, what other conclusion is one to reach?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Is Obama "Unfair" If He Supports Israel?
1) "Abbas Seeks Greater Gaza Role for His Palestinian Authority," A14, by Sabrina Tavernise & Sebnem Arsu
2) "Beyond the Banks," WK10, by Thomas Friedman
3) "Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama," WK11, by Alaa Al Aswany
4) "Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?" WK9, Letters
5) "Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism" AR4, Letters
1) Abbas Seeks Greater Gaza Role for His Palestinian Authority
In the only Israel-related news article of the day, the continuing divide between Fatah and Hamas is the topic of discussion. Fatah is attempting to reassert its influence over Gaza since its ouster in June 2007. This division has prevented the reconstruction of Gaza, since international donors are averse to place funds in the hands of Hamas. Tavernise writes that "reconstruction is mired in politics" but she could have also easily wrote that it is obstructed by Hamas' unyielding commitment to extremism.
In the article, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, declares his interest in creating a unity government with Hamas as the only way forward. He declares that "We want a government that would not constitute a pretext for Israel to continue the siege" but at the same time, "We are not calling Hamas to recognize Israel, but we expect this from the government to be newly formed."
The Times does not recognize this as the non-starter it is. How can such a unity government negotiate a peace treaty with Israel when one of its principal partners is dedicated to its destruction? It's unlikely that any Israeli government would ever agree to such a negotiating scenario.
2) Beyond the Banks
3) Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama
Friedman's opinion piece makes a reasonable point, but is more than a bit overzealous. Friedman argues that the Dayton mission, which has trained Palestinian troops to maintain order in the West Bank, is a project that needs to be renewed and expanded. He points to the program's success in establishing order in the city of Jenin. Only with order in the Palestinian territories, he argues, can be there be real institution and nation-building.
That's a fair point, but along the way he makes some quizzical assertions and has makes glaring omissions. In terms of omissions, Friedman seems to presume that Fatah is a 'good-faith negotiating partner with Israel.' Abbas simply needs to be strengthened. This was the same logic displayed during Arafat's years, when he was constantly pleading he needed Israel and the West to strengthen him. As a result, he was never pressured to reform his rejectionist attitude toward Israel and ultimately turned his Western-provided arms against the Jewish State during the Second Intifada. The only thing that seems to be preventing such a rehash of events if the fact that Fatah is more motivated by fear of Hamas than hatred for Israel.
Additionally, Friedman writes as if Fatah is democratic or at least interested in implementing democracy. Just like the Iraqis, "Palestinians need the same chance" to build a democracy. But once again, who is to say that the corrupt and authoritarian has any interest in doing so? Their really isn't any such indication.
Overall, expanding the Dayton Mission may prove a positive idea, but Friedman needs to take seriously the risks of cooperating with Fatah, rather than pretending as if it's some pure party of reform.
***
In the second opinion piece on Sunday, Egyptian Alaa Al Aswany writes on why "the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama." He writes that Egyptians admire President Obama because he represents "fairness," but because he did not condemn Israel's military operations in Gaza as a "massacre" (a libelous charge), Egyptians have "already begun to tune out" the new American President.
The thing most Egyptians seemed to be tuned into is their own ethnocentrism. It seems they cannot imagine a world in which Israel isn't vociferously condemned and delegitimized at every turn. Aswany demands that Obama "recognize what we see as a simple, essential truth: the right of people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation." By resistance, is Aswany referring to Hamas' "right" to target Israeli civilians?
Aswany's statements prove why the U.S. is an ally of Israel. They both share democratic and humanitarian values while the Arab world, mired in radicalism and dictatorships, does not. But in Aswany's ethnocentric world, a world of "fairness" is only one in which Israel is recognized as a blight upon humanity. Not this time.
4) Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?
5) Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism
The first set of letters to the editor come up mainly in support of Roger Cohen's problematic recipe of engagement with Iran. These letters are replete with very tenuous assertions regarding Iran's pursuit of nuclear independence.
Here is the worst among them:
In comparison, here is the only letter that directly challenged Cohen's piece:
2) "Beyond the Banks," WK10, by Thomas Friedman
3) "Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama," WK11, by Alaa Al Aswany
4) "Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?" WK9, Letters
5) "Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism" AR4, Letters
1) Abbas Seeks Greater Gaza Role for His Palestinian Authority
In the only Israel-related news article of the day, the continuing divide between Fatah and Hamas is the topic of discussion. Fatah is attempting to reassert its influence over Gaza since its ouster in June 2007. This division has prevented the reconstruction of Gaza, since international donors are averse to place funds in the hands of Hamas. Tavernise writes that "reconstruction is mired in politics" but she could have also easily wrote that it is obstructed by Hamas' unyielding commitment to extremism.
In the article, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, declares his interest in creating a unity government with Hamas as the only way forward. He declares that "We want a government that would not constitute a pretext for Israel to continue the siege" but at the same time, "We are not calling Hamas to recognize Israel, but we expect this from the government to be newly formed."
The Times does not recognize this as the non-starter it is. How can such a unity government negotiate a peace treaty with Israel when one of its principal partners is dedicated to its destruction? It's unlikely that any Israeli government would ever agree to such a negotiating scenario.
2) Beyond the Banks
3) Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama
Friedman's opinion piece makes a reasonable point, but is more than a bit overzealous. Friedman argues that the Dayton mission, which has trained Palestinian troops to maintain order in the West Bank, is a project that needs to be renewed and expanded. He points to the program's success in establishing order in the city of Jenin. Only with order in the Palestinian territories, he argues, can be there be real institution and nation-building.
That's a fair point, but along the way he makes some quizzical assertions and has makes glaring omissions. In terms of omissions, Friedman seems to presume that Fatah is a 'good-faith negotiating partner with Israel.' Abbas simply needs to be strengthened. This was the same logic displayed during Arafat's years, when he was constantly pleading he needed Israel and the West to strengthen him. As a result, he was never pressured to reform his rejectionist attitude toward Israel and ultimately turned his Western-provided arms against the Jewish State during the Second Intifada. The only thing that seems to be preventing such a rehash of events if the fact that Fatah is more motivated by fear of Hamas than hatred for Israel.
Additionally, Friedman writes as if Fatah is democratic or at least interested in implementing democracy. Just like the Iraqis, "Palestinians need the same chance" to build a democracy. But once again, who is to say that the corrupt and authoritarian has any interest in doing so? Their really isn't any such indication.
Overall, expanding the Dayton Mission may prove a positive idea, but Friedman needs to take seriously the risks of cooperating with Fatah, rather than pretending as if it's some pure party of reform.
***
In the second opinion piece on Sunday, Egyptian Alaa Al Aswany writes on why "the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama." He writes that Egyptians admire President Obama because he represents "fairness," but because he did not condemn Israel's military operations in Gaza as a "massacre" (a libelous charge), Egyptians have "already begun to tune out" the new American President.
The thing most Egyptians seemed to be tuned into is their own ethnocentrism. It seems they cannot imagine a world in which Israel isn't vociferously condemned and delegitimized at every turn. Aswany demands that Obama "recognize what we see as a simple, essential truth: the right of people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation." By resistance, is Aswany referring to Hamas' "right" to target Israeli civilians?
Aswany's statements prove why the U.S. is an ally of Israel. They both share democratic and humanitarian values while the Arab world, mired in radicalism and dictatorships, does not. But in Aswany's ethnocentric world, a world of "fairness" is only one in which Israel is recognized as a blight upon humanity. Not this time.
4) Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?
5) Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism
The first set of letters to the editor come up mainly in support of Roger Cohen's problematic recipe of engagement with Iran. These letters are replete with very tenuous assertions regarding Iran's pursuit of nuclear independence.
Here is the worst among them:
The Iranian government has good reason to fear United States aggression against its sovereignty and would be wise not only to maintain its nuclear program full tilt, but also to start building nuclear arms, since that is, in fact, the only way it can protect itself against constant American and Israeli threats.Characterizing Israel and the United States as "aggressive, nuclear-armed powers" is an unfortunate manipulation of reality. The only reason Iran may be targeted is due to its own hostility against Israel and the United States, supporting terrorist groups in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan that have killed hundreds of Israelis and Americans. Conversely, Israel and the U.S. have not supported terrorist groups on Iran's border. Drawing a moral equivalence between an aggressive theocracy - whose objective is to spread Khomeinism - and two liberal democracies, shows a severe lack of moral clarity.If Israel can be permitted to have nuclear arms with full United States approval, why shouldn’t Iran protect itself in the only way that is possible against two fiercely aggressive, nuclear-armed powers?
In comparison, here is the only letter that directly challenged Cohen's piece:
Roger Cohen talks of Iran’s “past support to terrorist organizations” without acknowledging the millions of dollars that it continues to provide to Hamas and Hezbollah.By calling Iran a “vibrant” democracy where “both words in its self-description — Islamic Republic — count,” Mr. Cohen suggests that America and Iran share political values. Yet he later argues that America should engage first with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because he holds the true power. Vesting power in a theocratic authority who does not answer to the public is certainly not the common definition of a democratic republic.
That Cohen would write such blatant falsehoods in order to downplay the extremism of Iran is simply disturbing and "not fit to print."
*****
In the other letter to the editor, a reader challenges the anti-Israel attitude of artist Emily Jacir and her lack of introspection:
A great civilization, in my opinion, is distinguished by two traits. First, by the condemnation of brutality in its own society. In other words, how are the weakest members of the society treated? How are women treated? With honor or with physical force? And second, its capacity for self-criticism. Is it punishable by beatings or assassination?
When will we see a Palestinian artist critical of Palestinian society? After they have had their state for 2,000 years?
A society that is incapable of recognizing its own faults is a dangerous one. Unlike Israelis, Palestinians have shown little capacity for self-criticism and should be challenged on that account.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Impending Election Misunderstood
- "Indecision, Apathy and Confusion Reign as Israelis Get Ready to Vote"; By Isabel Kershner; A5
- "Gaza: U.N. Agency Stops Its Imports"; World Briefing; Ethan Bronner; A8
- "Israel: Gaza-Bound Activists Deported"; World Briefing; Ethan Bronner; A8
- "Matchstick War"; by Etgar Keret; NYT Magazine; 82
- "Friends and Enemies, Enemies and Friends"; By Adam LeBor; Book Review; 14
Isabel Kershner seeks to convey a picture of Israelis as indecisive, apathetic, and confused, their political system inadequate or even partially broken, and the current election campaign as devoid of ideas.
She gets her requisite quotes from pundits and newspaper columnists to support this depiction but ultimately fails to convince the reader. Rather, Israelis are resolute. The shift to the right indicates a consensus that rejectionism retains a strong hold on the Palestinian populace. The lack of discussion on major policy-security issues such as “the West Bank, Hamas-ruled Gaza, Syria or the threat of a nuclear Iran,” reflects the cementing of that consensus, a fact that NYT is loathe to admit.
She gets her requisite quotes from pundits and newspaper columnists to support this depiction but ultimately fails to convince the reader. Rather, Israelis are resolute. The shift to the right indicates a consensus that rejectionism retains a strong hold on the Palestinian populace. The lack of discussion on major policy-security issues such as “the West Bank, Hamas-ruled Gaza, Syria or the threat of a nuclear Iran,” reflects the cementing of that consensus, a fact that NYT is loathe to admit.
Two World Briefs demonstrate Hamas' criminality and Israel's humanitarianism.
In the magazine, Etgar Keret delivers a highly readable account of living in Israel during Operation Cast Lead. Missiles fly toward the Negev, Gazan children are put in harm's way, and Israel's struggle for security & recognition continues.
The Book Review offers readers the most compelling analysis about the state of Israel this Saturday. Aside from the obscene identification of Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas – to whom I don’t know whether to attribute author Patrick Tyler or reviewer Adam LeBor – and the momentary perpetuation of the myth that the Israeli-American alliance does not conform to political realism, LeBor pens a reasonable review. In the first column, he highlights an exceptional insight of Tyler.
"The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a most useful alibi for the region’s creaking dynasties and dictators, diverting domestic attention from their own sclerotic economies and dismal human rights records. A democratic Palestine, plugged into the global economy, is the last thing they want, for fear their restive populations will demand the same."
With this observation in hand, one can more easily comprehend the Israeli pubic as it goes to the polls tomorrow.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Israel Intercepts Aid, Education
"Ship Bound for Gaza Strip and Carrying Aid Supplies Is Intercepted by Israeli Navy"
A8, Friday 2/6/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
Why does the title state that the ship was “carrying aid supplies” when in the body of the article the actual cargo was qualified with “its organizers said”? At least the online's headline indicated simply it was a "ship bound for Gaza."
A small and insufficient paragraph conveys not that this is one of many such publicity stunts, but one of many “boats by activists” that have “challenged Israel’s control of Gaza’s waters”. Readers may be left to assume this was another genuine attempt to get needed goods to Gazans. No Israelis are quoted on the propagandistic nature of this stunt.
As to those on the boat, thankfully, the sordid resume of the former terrorist-abetting archbishop of Jerusalem was revealed. Furthermore, an Al Jazeera reporter on board spoke by telephone to television viewers saying that Israelis had pointed their weapons and assaulted some on the ship. This is appropriately contrasted in the same article with the boat having tried to fake out Israeli naval boats. Some human rights mission.
The violence of Hamas is whitewashed when it is written that “Hamas took over in a brief civil war with its rival”. The standard “seized power in a violent coup” would’ve been fine. Then “Israel maintained a strict blockade of Gaza since Hamas took power” would sound like more of a reasonable Israeli response. Of course there is no expectation Bronner or Kershner would report on Hamas’ history of firing on border crossings and thus the impossibility of maintaining security cooperation at those crossings.
Of course, they’re not saying Israel’s blockade is wrong, but well, yea, kind of.
It’s also unacceptable that 1. they report 1,300 Palestinians dead; and 2. they don’t offer a citation. It’s no longer “according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas," which was actually rarely used during Israel's recent operation.
John Ging should’ve been counter-pointed. As long as Hamas keeps its rocket and mortar firings going, there can’t be an operational border crossing. Bronner and Kershner should’ve cited recent militant acts by Hamas to provide balance to Ging's lament of limited Gaza access.
Ging points out that UNRWA created a “new human rights curriculum," which is being prevented from reaching students...by the Israelis. The supposed irony was intended, but a bigger irony is that UNRWA has created a human rights curriculum for a people they've helped keep in squalor and depradation. There is also hypocrisy which needs to be pointed out. Ging complains that Israel is limiting supplies into Gaza, yet his agency itself shut down distribution to Gaza in response to Hamas' actions -- which aren't nearly as violent as what Israel faces.
Ging goes on to state that Hamas, in stealing blankets and food from the UN, was “acting in a reckless manner.” Hamas shooting rockets at homes hasn’t warranted this kind of condemnation.
This entire boat stunt warranted a news brief, no more. Instead, it served as an opportunity to question Israel’s border closures and deflect blame from Hamas – which was reprimanded, like
mischievous children, for stealing supplies.
A8, Friday 2/6/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
Why does the title state that the ship was “carrying aid supplies” when in the body of the article the actual cargo was qualified with “its organizers said”? At least the online's headline indicated simply it was a "ship bound for Gaza."
A small and insufficient paragraph conveys not that this is one of many such publicity stunts, but one of many “boats by activists” that have “challenged Israel’s control of Gaza’s waters”. Readers may be left to assume this was another genuine attempt to get needed goods to Gazans. No Israelis are quoted on the propagandistic nature of this stunt.
As to those on the boat, thankfully, the sordid resume of the former terrorist-abetting archbishop of Jerusalem was revealed. Furthermore, an Al Jazeera reporter on board spoke by telephone to television viewers saying that Israelis had pointed their weapons and assaulted some on the ship. This is appropriately contrasted in the same article with the boat having tried to fake out Israeli naval boats. Some human rights mission.
The violence of Hamas is whitewashed when it is written that “Hamas took over in a brief civil war with its rival”. The standard “seized power in a violent coup” would’ve been fine. Then “Israel maintained a strict blockade of Gaza since Hamas took power” would sound like more of a reasonable Israeli response. Of course there is no expectation Bronner or Kershner would report on Hamas’ history of firing on border crossings and thus the impossibility of maintaining security cooperation at those crossings.
Of course, they’re not saying Israel’s blockade is wrong, but well, yea, kind of.
It’s also unacceptable that 1. they report 1,300 Palestinians dead; and 2. they don’t offer a citation. It’s no longer “according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas," which was actually rarely used during Israel's recent operation.
John Ging should’ve been counter-pointed. As long as Hamas keeps its rocket and mortar firings going, there can’t be an operational border crossing. Bronner and Kershner should’ve cited recent militant acts by Hamas to provide balance to Ging's lament of limited Gaza access.
Ging points out that UNRWA created a “new human rights curriculum," which is being prevented from reaching students...by the Israelis. The supposed irony was intended, but a bigger irony is that UNRWA has created a human rights curriculum for a people they've helped keep in squalor and depradation. There is also hypocrisy which needs to be pointed out. Ging complains that Israel is limiting supplies into Gaza, yet his agency itself shut down distribution to Gaza in response to Hamas' actions -- which aren't nearly as violent as what Israel faces.
Ging goes on to state that Hamas, in stealing blankets and food from the UN, was “acting in a reckless manner.” Hamas shooting rockets at homes hasn’t warranted this kind of condemnation.
This entire boat stunt warranted a news brief, no more. Instead, it served as an opportunity to question Israel’s border closures and deflect blame from Hamas – which was reprimanded, like
mischievous children, for stealing supplies.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Erdogan's "Healthy Criticism" or "Demonization" of Israel?
1) "Gaza War Created Rift Between Israel and Turkey," A6, by Sabrina Tavernise and Ethan Bronner
2) "Agency Says Hamas Took Aid Intended for Needy," A10, by Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary
*****
Gaza War Created Rift Between Israel and Turkey
Tavernise and Bronner's analysis of the recent deterioration of the Israeli-Turkish creates an 'equivalency of responsibility' that in the end rings hollow in its lack of logic.
The article begins with the comical assertion that while "Israel’s Arab allies stood behind it in the war," "Turkey... protested every step of the way." Israel's Arab allies? Israel may be at peace with Egypt and Jordan, but those countries would never consider Israel their "ally." And while Egypt and Jordan may have cheered for a Hamas defeat, they were nearly as vociferous as Turkey in condemning Israel's actions (using the language of "a massacre").
Focusing on Israeli-Turkish relations, the Times attempts to minimize the anti-Israel sentiments of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. According to Michael Reynolds of Middle East Strategy at Harvard, the relationship between Turkey and Israel has been deteriorating since 2001 and Erdogan's government has been sympathetic enough to Hamas to receive their emissaries in Ankara.
Employing another euphemism, Ergodan's attacks against Israel's military operations are described as "healthy criticism" when it clearly went far beyond that. At the Davos Forum, Erdogan lashed out at Israeli President Shimon Peres, "declaring that his shouting betrayed a guilty conscience and imputing to him expertise in killing children at beaches, before going on to cite the Torah’s prohibition against murder and throwing in criticisms of Israel from Israelis for good measure." That is clearly not the "healthy criticism" of an ally, but demonization.
The article's sophistry reaches new heights when it erroneously reports that Erdogan "rejects Hamas's use of violence" based on this quote: "I’m not saying Hamas is a good organization and makes no mistakes." That is clearly not a rejection of Hamas's violence but the Times unprofessionally stretches it to take on that meaning.
In fact, throughout this entire article Tavernise and Bronner are 'stretching' to create an equivalence of responsibility between the two countries. The perceptive reader, however, should be able to recognize that Erdogan's anti-Israel theatrics, which has earned him much praise at home in the region, is the cause of this latest diplomatic fallout.
*****
Agency Says Hamas Took Aid Intended for Needy
Straight from the title, the Times find itself mired in a 'he said-she said' account. It's somewhat shocking that the NYT reporters cannot independently confirm that Hamas forcibly stole supplies from the United Nations Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA), instead having to resort to reporting that 'UNRWA said...'
The article details that "UNWRA staff had earlier refused to hand over the aid supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. The police subsequently broke into the warehouse and seized the aid by force." From this information, Hamas' responsibility should be clear, but for whatever reason, the Times can't outright say it. In later articles, hopefully the Times will be able to corroborate this story and report it as fact as it seems to be.
In the same article, the Times reports that "the Israeli military acknowledged that its soldiers fired two tank shells on Jan. 16 at the house of Izzeldin Abuelaish, a well-known Gaza doctor, killing three of his daughters and a niece." The reader should be able to recognize the sharp contrast between Israel's behavior - admitting to its errors - and that of Hamas - which would never admit to error.
Israel has a respect for Western philosophical values and the concept of universal truth. Even the father of the deceased, Dr. Abuelaish, has appreciation for Israel's truth-seeking by thanking Israel "for carrying out an honest investigation" and stating, "We all make mistakes."
Israel is aware and admits it makes mistakes. Hamas would never admit to making one. What does that say about the nature of these two adversaries?
2) "Agency Says Hamas Took Aid Intended for Needy," A10, by Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary
*****
Gaza War Created Rift Between Israel and Turkey
Tavernise and Bronner's analysis of the recent deterioration of the Israeli-Turkish creates an 'equivalency of responsibility' that in the end rings hollow in its lack of logic.
The article begins with the comical assertion that while "Israel’s Arab allies stood behind it in the war," "Turkey... protested every step of the way." Israel's Arab allies? Israel may be at peace with Egypt and Jordan, but those countries would never consider Israel their "ally." And while Egypt and Jordan may have cheered for a Hamas defeat, they were nearly as vociferous as Turkey in condemning Israel's actions (using the language of "a massacre").
Focusing on Israeli-Turkish relations, the Times attempts to minimize the anti-Israel sentiments of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. According to Michael Reynolds of Middle East Strategy at Harvard, the relationship between Turkey and Israel has been deteriorating since 2001 and Erdogan's government has been sympathetic enough to Hamas to receive their emissaries in Ankara.
Employing another euphemism, Ergodan's attacks against Israel's military operations are described as "healthy criticism" when it clearly went far beyond that. At the Davos Forum, Erdogan lashed out at Israeli President Shimon Peres, "declaring that his shouting betrayed a guilty conscience and imputing to him expertise in killing children at beaches, before going on to cite the Torah’s prohibition against murder and throwing in criticisms of Israel from Israelis for good measure." That is clearly not the "healthy criticism" of an ally, but demonization.
The article's sophistry reaches new heights when it erroneously reports that Erdogan "rejects Hamas's use of violence" based on this quote: "I’m not saying Hamas is a good organization and makes no mistakes." That is clearly not a rejection of Hamas's violence but the Times unprofessionally stretches it to take on that meaning.
In fact, throughout this entire article Tavernise and Bronner are 'stretching' to create an equivalence of responsibility between the two countries. The perceptive reader, however, should be able to recognize that Erdogan's anti-Israel theatrics, which has earned him much praise at home in the region, is the cause of this latest diplomatic fallout.
*****
Agency Says Hamas Took Aid Intended for Needy
Straight from the title, the Times find itself mired in a 'he said-she said' account. It's somewhat shocking that the NYT reporters cannot independently confirm that Hamas forcibly stole supplies from the United Nations Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA), instead having to resort to reporting that 'UNRWA said...'
The article details that "UNWRA staff had earlier refused to hand over the aid supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. The police subsequently broke into the warehouse and seized the aid by force." From this information, Hamas' responsibility should be clear, but for whatever reason, the Times can't outright say it. In later articles, hopefully the Times will be able to corroborate this story and report it as fact as it seems to be.
In the same article, the Times reports that "the Israeli military acknowledged that its soldiers fired two tank shells on Jan. 16 at the house of Izzeldin Abuelaish, a well-known Gaza doctor, killing three of his daughters and a niece." The reader should be able to recognize the sharp contrast between Israel's behavior - admitting to its errors - and that of Hamas - which would never admit to error.
Israel has a respect for Western philosophical values and the concept of universal truth. Even the father of the deceased, Dr. Abuelaish, has appreciation for Israel's truth-seeking by thanking Israel "for carrying out an honest investigation" and stating, "We all make mistakes."
Israel is aware and admits it makes mistakes. Hamas would never admit to making one. What does that say about the nature of these two adversaries?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Avoidable Tragedy
- "In Shattered Gaza Town, Roots of Seething Split"; By Ethan Bronner and Sabrina Tavernise; A1, A6
- "Palestinians and Israelis Exchange Fire; Egyptian-Backed Peace Talks Grind On"; By Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary; A6
- "In Search of Another Route to Mideast Peace"; Letters; A30 (see Sunday post)
- "Don't Try This At Home"; Thomas L. Friedman; A31
Isabel Kershner describes Fatah, which governs the Jordan River's west bank, as "more moderate and pragmatic than Hamas." This, of course, is not a tall order. Nonetheless, in the very same article, she provides evidence of Fatah's immoderation and extremism. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, which is affiliated with Fatah, fired rockets into Israel Tuesday. This reporter did not ask Mahmoud Abbas a tough question that might press him to condemn Al Aksa. Abbas only provides quotes when spouting anti-Israel propaganda about the travesty of Jewish communities, or settlements, on the Jordan's west bank.
One inescapable fact stands out, concluding the article: Hamas refuses to recognize "Israel's right to exist" and to "[renounce] violence." Irrationality and anti-Semitism govern Hamas' behavior.
"In Shattered Gaza..." begins with a tragedy, the death of a family by phosphorous-induced burning. The horror of the Halima family's demise defies pro-Israel, anti-Israel categorization. Moving past the first two paragraphs, in which their death is described, is difficult. A question ascends, How could this have been prevented?
Only the unhappy experience of reading the array of equivalences between Israeli and Palestinians that follows jolts the reader back to full awareness.
- "Palestinians here describe Israeli military actions as a massacre, and Israelis attribute civilian casualities to a Hamas policy of hiding behind its people...neither version appears entirely true."
Well, describing the events at El Atara as a massacre is certainly not entirely true. In fact, such a description is entirely false.
- "two peoples...who are being forced apart by violence, mutual demonization and a policy of separation."
Note the passive voice, which allows the reporter to avoid assigning responsibility for the distance between Israelis and Palestinians. The word "demonization" strikes the keen observer. Some Israelis will indulge in prejudicial remarks about Arabs, but that is quite different from the anti-Semitic indoctrination that takes place on tv and radio practically around-the-clock in Gaza (and the Jordan's west bank).
Then, there is the accusation of Israel sending "a double message." Bronner writes, "On one hand, [Israel] made clear that it was furious over the years of rocket fire and would not restrain its reaction. On the other, it argued that it took an exceptionally humane approach to the civilians of Gaza." I guess that the charge of "double message" hinges on the meaning of "not restrain its reaction." The key is that Israel will "not restrain its reaction" within the boundaries of international rules of engagement. That Israel "took an exceptionally humane approach to the civilians of Gaza" is evidenced by Jeffrey Goldberg's piece comparing Israeli and US military actions.
But back to the question at the beginning of this post - how can the tragedy which befell the Halima house be avoided? As the content of the article reveals, not only can it be avoided in the future, but it could have been avoided last month. "Israel warned residents, in leaflets, radio broadcasts and telephone calls to leave" but its calls were not heeded.
The editorial section offers readers Thomas Friedman. Many years ago, Tom came to the conclusion that settlements were an impediment to peace, and everything he has written since then has included this great insight. As required, he remarks, "The West Bank is...chopped up and divided now by roads, checkpoints, and fences to separate Israel's crazy settlements from Palestinian villages." As a result, life is hard for Palestinians. No explanation for the current state of the terrain is forthcoming. One is left to think anything one wants - perhaps even that Israel has done this only to worsen Palestinians' lives. Yet nearly all of this infrastructure is there to protect Jews from attacks by Palestinians, which still occur.
Against his will, Friedman leaves readers with one crucial observation: "Rockets that followed Israel's withdrawals from both Lebanon and Gaza made a mockery of those who said unilateral pullouts were the solution." This is an unfortunate truth that defenders of Israel must internalize.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hamas' "Partner In Victory"
"Iran: A Thank You From Hamas"
A11, Tuesday 2/3/09, World Briefing
By Nazila Fathi
Again relegated to the sidelines is news highlighting Iran's support for Hamas. Iran, according to Meshal, Hamas' "partner in this victory". For the Times, any news pointing to the intractibility and extremism of Iran's regime is likely best reported as a brief, if at all.
A11, Tuesday 2/3/09, World Briefing
By Nazila Fathi
Again relegated to the sidelines is news highlighting Iran's support for Hamas. Iran, according to Meshal, Hamas' "partner in this victory". For the Times, any news pointing to the intractibility and extremism of Iran's regime is likely best reported as a brief, if at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
