"Political Storm Finds a Columbia Professor"
A28, Friday 10/31/08
By Marc Santora and Elissa Gootman
In this article, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi is identified as a respected scholar; yet his reputation as such is disputed. The article fails to mention his scholarly shortcomings, which have been brought to light most persuasively by King's College London Professor Ephraim Karsh, for example, in his review of Khalidi’s The Iron Cage in December 2006
In discussing Khalidi, scholarship is the central issue.
Santora and Gootman correctly address the matter of whether the Middle East Studies department that Khalidi heads is politicized, presenting two conflicting opinions. Columbia provost Alan Brinkley describes Middle East studies as “a field that is often politicized,” using the passive voice to minimize Khalidi’s role in said politicization.
What is ironic about this remark is that nowhere has the field been more politicized than at Columbia, where Khalidi occupies the Edward Said Chair.
Fortunately, Santora and Goodman give voice to this concern, quoting former Columbia student Ariel Beery, who states that, in fact, Khalidi “highly politicized” the department, which did “not [promote] a diverse view of the Middle East.”
Santora and Goodman describe Khalidi as a “defender of Palestinian rights.” To my understanding, “defender of Palestinian rights” is a euphemism for one who supports the so-called right of return and the right to resistance. Unfortunately, the reporters don’t delve into what being a defender of Palestinian rights is. For example, does a defender of Palestinian rights support pushing the Lebanese government to offer citizenship to Palestinians living in that country’s refugee camps? Or does he defend a Palestinian’s right to leave refugee camps in PA-controlled areas? Generally, no.
In short, the article supports the notion that Khalidi is a respected scholar and therefore suggests that his defense of Palestinian rights is also respectable. The trouble with Khalidi, however, is that the effect of his support of Palestinian rights wavers between finding a practical solution to the conflict that recognizes that two states are needed for two peoples and advocating for Palestinian rights at the expense of Jewish rights.
Because Khalidi is not clear about his own position, his relationship with Senator Obama is problematic and is not merely another John McCain smear campaign.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Honeymooners
"For War Widows, Hamas Recruits an Army of Husbands"
A8, Friday 10/31/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary
One of the first rules of totalitarian movements and fascist governments is that they provide for the people. This may seem contradictory. After all, totalitarian governments are widely perceived as anti-human so how could they be responsible for anything good?
By Taghreed El-Khodary
One of the first rules of totalitarian movements and fascist governments is that they provide for the people. This may seem contradictory. After all, totalitarian governments are widely perceived as anti-human so how could they be responsible for anything good?
In truth, though fear and terror may be the main tools of control, they are often not enough. The people must be won over by soft means, actions which help them, such as building roads, hospitals. In the case of Hamas, they provide their people with weddings. Of course, the brides aren't any old brides. They are the widows of Hamas terrorists. Indeed, the widows are the ones who might have the strongest grievance against Hamas, so providing for them is especially important.
An article like this is part of the crucial lesson that anti-Semites are people, too. Just because they hate us Jews doesn't mean they – like us – don't want to be married and have families. No doubt the babies in these families will be resistance babies, children who will have little choice but to join the movement for Israel's destruction.
When I read the last line of the article, I nearly hurled: “The night before the mass wedding party, he said, his wife shared with him her ultimate wish: to carry out a joint suicide attack against Israel.”
Some people honeymoon in Hawaii, some in Aruba, but married couples from Gaza kill themselves to murder others and honeymoon in Paradise. The death cult, as Paul Berman refers to it, is so strong among Palestinians that even the most life-affirming human ritual – marriage – has been subsumed by it. My sadness is great.
In the piece, Muhammad Yousef, a member of Hamas' Qassam Brigades says, "Marriage is the same as jihad." What a romantic!
I am amazed that in reporting this story, Taghreed El-Khodary barely blinks a critical eye in disapproval or shock at what she observes.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Release the Video!
"McCain Attacks Los Angeles Times Over Its Refusal to Release ’03 Obama Video"
By Richard Perez-Pena
A26
By Richard Perez-Pena
A26
According to The NYTimes, Rashid Khalidi is a Palestinian rights advocate, but Perez-Pena does not explain what a Palestinian rights' advocate does. To restate the questions raised in Friday's October 31 blog on Khalidi, "Does a defender of Palestinian rights support pushing the Lebanese government to offer citizenship to Palestinians living in that country's refugee camps? Or does he defend a Palestinian's right to leave refugee camps in PA-controlled areas? Generally, no."
Throughout the article, the reporter is careful to describe Khalidi as a critic of Israel not as someone who is anti-Israel. Yet, what is clear from reports on the Khalidi farewell dinner, the video of which the LA Times won't release, is that Israel defamation was rife. Again, the event was for Khalidi, so one would think that the views expressed there would reflect his own.
Summarizing Khalidi's biography, Perez-Pena reports that Khalidi "advised a Palestinian delegation at a 1991 peace conference" but doesn't mention that he worked with and perhaps for the PLO in Beirut in the late seventies and early eighties, even though the NY Times quoted Khalidi in that capacity at the time.
What is unclear is why, if Khalidi is as righteous and unblemished as Perez-Penna characterizes him, the LA Times and the Obama proto-administration will not simply release the tape.
Until it is released, the distinction that Perez-Pena draws between Mr. Khalidi, the Palestinian rights advocate, and the anti-Israel attendees of his farewell dinner will appear false.In Search of the Kingdom of David
"Find of Ancient City Could Alter Notions of Biblical David"
A6, Thursday 10/30/08
By Ethan Bronner
A6, Thursday 10/30/08
By Ethan Bronner
This article discusses the discovery and excavation of a "3,000-year-old fortified city" in the Valley of Elah, the biblical region where David fought Goliath, located near Jerusalem.
This archeological study has such great "symbolic value" according to Bronner because the State of Israel "considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David." What makes this finding even more important, as the author writes, is that the archeological record of the Kingdom of David is "exceedingly sparse — in fact almost nonexistent."
Consequently, this five-acre archeological site could be key in determining the period of rule and scope of this biblical Kingdom, the implications of which have become part of a "contentious and often politicized debate" regarding the historical basis of Israel.
On the one hand, there are those archeologists that are using the evidence provided by the site to further prove the significance and chronology of David's rule. On the other, there are those more skeptical archeologists that downplay "Bible-based historical chronology," such as Tel Aviv University archeologist Israel Finklestein.
In his straw man argument, he essentially undermines the academic basis of the whole excavation, arguing that "some of us [the archeologists and those that fund this project] look at things in a very ethnocentric way — everything is Israelite or Judahite." And in order cover himeslf in the case the findings do in fact corroborate the importance of the kingdom: "And even if it belongs to Jerusalem, fine. So there is a late 10th-century fortified structure there. I don’t believe that any archaeologist can revolutionize our entire understanding of Judah and Jerusalem by a single site." Regardless of what the evidence ultimately indicates, this archeologist seems keen on downplaying the Jewish presence and connection to the land.
And regardless of the political implications, the article concludes that this could be a revolutionary finding that alters or confirms the historical understanding of the Kingdom of David.
This archeological study has such great "symbolic value" according to Bronner because the State of Israel "considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David." What makes this finding even more important, as the author writes, is that the archeological record of the Kingdom of David is "exceedingly sparse — in fact almost nonexistent."
Consequently, this five-acre archeological site could be key in determining the period of rule and scope of this biblical Kingdom, the implications of which have become part of a "contentious and often politicized debate" regarding the historical basis of Israel.
On the one hand, there are those archeologists that are using the evidence provided by the site to further prove the significance and chronology of David's rule. On the other, there are those more skeptical archeologists that downplay "Bible-based historical chronology," such as Tel Aviv University archeologist Israel Finklestein.
In his straw man argument, he essentially undermines the academic basis of the whole excavation, arguing that "some of us [the archeologists and those that fund this project] look at things in a very ethnocentric way — everything is Israelite or Judahite." And in order cover himeslf in the case the findings do in fact corroborate the importance of the kingdom: "And even if it belongs to Jerusalem, fine. So there is a late 10th-century fortified structure there. I don’t believe that any archaeologist can revolutionize our entire understanding of Judah and Jerusalem by a single site." Regardless of what the evidence ultimately indicates, this archeologist seems keen on downplaying the Jewish presence and connection to the land.
And regardless of the political implications, the article concludes that this could be a revolutionary finding that alters or confirms the historical understanding of the Kingdom of David.
Advocates for Gaza Go Unchallenged
"Advocates for Gaza Challenge Blockade"
A10, Thursday 10/30/08
By Isabel Kershner
There are a few problems in an otherwise straightforward piece about the recent landing in Gaza of a boat of pro-Palestinian activists. Those problems are notable for what Kershner omitted.
Kershner reports that among the crew are Mairead Maguire, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian legislator from the West Bank; two Israeli citizens; and individuals from various countries including Britain, Italy and the United States.” This seemingly benign roster may have sounded as radical as it actually is had Kershner mentioned that on board was Hawaida Arraf, a co-founder of the notorious International Solidarity Movement.
Nothing of the crew members’ activities, once they were ashore, were reported. For instance, unreported are the activists meeting with deposed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. The LA Times’ Ashraf Khalil managed to include this in his report.
Kershner reports that the Israeli government at the last minute decided to not intercept the boat before entering Israeli territorial waters, “to avoid a public relations debacle, and not to play into the hands of people they described as provocateurs”. Without knowing of their activities – or their planned activities – readers know nothing of the provocative nature of the trip.
Kershner provides insufficient background to the situation. She writes that Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the E.U., as well as Israeli restrictions on goods entering Gaza, “though the economic embargo has eased somewhat since a truce took effect in June.” Does Israel’s labeling of Hamas terrorist fully explain why it “strictly limits” goods going into Gaza? A fuller description would’ve referred to Hamas’ rocket and mortar attacks (attacks on border crossings no less), attempted infiltrations and abduction of Israeli corporal Gilad Schalit, before the truce. It also would’ve referred to the 18 mortar shells and 22 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since the truce (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), in helping to explain why the economic embargo has eased only “somewhat”.
Kershner saves the extra space to report that Israeli forces “shot dead a Palestinian man in the village of Yamoun”. Of course conflicting are the accounts of the Israeli military and the man’s son. It may be hard to strike a balance between reporting casualties and providing essential context to current events. Nevertheless, the Times should make more of an effort.
A10, Thursday 10/30/08
By Isabel Kershner
There are a few problems in an otherwise straightforward piece about the recent landing in Gaza of a boat of pro-Palestinian activists. Those problems are notable for what Kershner omitted.
Kershner reports that among the crew are Mairead Maguire, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian legislator from the West Bank; two Israeli citizens; and individuals from various countries including Britain, Italy and the United States.” This seemingly benign roster may have sounded as radical as it actually is had Kershner mentioned that on board was Hawaida Arraf, a co-founder of the notorious International Solidarity Movement.
Nothing of the crew members’ activities, once they were ashore, were reported. For instance, unreported are the activists meeting with deposed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. The LA Times’ Ashraf Khalil managed to include this in his report.
Kershner reports that the Israeli government at the last minute decided to not intercept the boat before entering Israeli territorial waters, “to avoid a public relations debacle, and not to play into the hands of people they described as provocateurs”. Without knowing of their activities – or their planned activities – readers know nothing of the provocative nature of the trip.
Kershner provides insufficient background to the situation. She writes that Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the E.U., as well as Israeli restrictions on goods entering Gaza, “though the economic embargo has eased somewhat since a truce took effect in June.” Does Israel’s labeling of Hamas terrorist fully explain why it “strictly limits” goods going into Gaza? A fuller description would’ve referred to Hamas’ rocket and mortar attacks (attacks on border crossings no less), attempted infiltrations and abduction of Israeli corporal Gilad Schalit, before the truce. It also would’ve referred to the 18 mortar shells and 22 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since the truce (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs), in helping to explain why the economic embargo has eased only “somewhat”.
Kershner saves the extra space to report that Israeli forces “shot dead a Palestinian man in the village of Yamoun”. Of course conflicting are the accounts of the Israeli military and the man’s son. It may be hard to strike a balance between reporting casualties and providing essential context to current events. Nevertheless, the Times should make more of an effort.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Integration is Not a One-Way Street
"Beyond Them and Us: Films about Israeli Arabs"
C3, Wednesday 10/29/08
By Robin Pogrebin
This article details the upcoming "Other Israeli Film Festival" in Manhattan which focuses on the experience of Israeli-Arabs. The festival is a "pet project and consuming passion" of Carole Zabar, wife of Zabar owner Saul Zabar. In an admiring tone, the authors devotes a considerable amount of space to describing her unique lifestyle and philanthropic work.
The crux of the article is not only her passionate work, but the Jewish community's attitude toward Mrs. Zabar's Israeli-Arab program. The author writes that the festival's focus "specifically on the experience of Israeli Arabs, which makes it somewhat less mainstream and certainly more of a hard sell to its core audience, New York Jews." This skeptical, if not hostile Jewish attitude is corroborated Mrs. Zabar's interaction with a Holocaust survivor, who berates her: "What are you doing this for? Why do you care about Arabs? You should care about Jews."
I take offense to the author's framing of the article in such a manner. New York City is the center of liberal American Jewry, one of the most staunchly liberal groups in the United States to begin with. To say such a program is a "hard sell" within the New York Jewish community, as evidenced by the cherry-picked quote from the Holocaust survivor, does not only belie the truth, but creates the impression that this community is unreasonably discriminatory.
As a follow-up, Mrs. Zabar is quoted as saying: “I want people to see Israeli Arabs as human beings,” she said. “Not just as human beings — as citizens that contribute to the vibrancy, the cultural life of Israel.” Wait a second. There is real discrimation against Israeli Arabs that needs to be addressed in Israel, but to say that Israel Arabs need to be seen as "human beings" is an insult to the plurality of Israelis and American-Jews who yearn for Israeli-Arab integration into Israeli society rather than ethnic division.
In reality however, integration takes both the willingness of the majority to incorporate the minority as well as the willingness of the minority to integrate into the greater society. It is somewhat surprising then that "to form the festival Ms. Zabar collaborated with Mohammad Bakri, an Israeli Arab movie actor and director..." In 2002, Bakri directed the film "Jenin, Jenin," which disseminated and perpetuated the libel that Israeli perpetrated a massacre in the West Bank city of Jenin during "Operation Defensive Shield." In a July 2008 article posted on the staunchly anti-Israel website, "Electronic Intifada," Bakri denies any wrongdoing and defends his film. Then, exploiting anti-Semitic motifs, Bakri goes on to criticize the "Zionist media empire."
While Bakri may not be openly agitating for a binational solution or the elimination of the Jewish character of Israel (He is quoted in another article: "I don’t want to live in an Arab country and prefer to live in Israel; at least there is a space of fake democracy I can play with, in Arab countries even this space does not exist."), victomology and demonization of the greater society will not lead to integration.
In that light, it is difficult to accept the article's closing statements in which Ms. Zabar says that she mainly wants "to change the attitude among many Jews that Arabs are 'the enemy, that they want to push the Jews into the sea.'" Firstly, to paint the general Jewish representation of Israeli-Arabs in such a manner is untruthful. Secondly, majority-minority relations is not a one-way street. Some Israeli Jews, as well as some in the American Jewish community, can do much more to lessen discrimination against Israeli-Arabs. At the same time though, if the Israeli-Arab community is going to dwell in victimization that leads to demonization of Israel if not rejection and violence against the state, communal harmony will never be achieved.
C3, Wednesday 10/29/08
By Robin Pogrebin
This article details the upcoming "Other Israeli Film Festival" in Manhattan which focuses on the experience of Israeli-Arabs. The festival is a "pet project and consuming passion" of Carole Zabar, wife of Zabar owner Saul Zabar. In an admiring tone, the authors devotes a considerable amount of space to describing her unique lifestyle and philanthropic work.
The crux of the article is not only her passionate work, but the Jewish community's attitude toward Mrs. Zabar's Israeli-Arab program. The author writes that the festival's focus "specifically on the experience of Israeli Arabs, which makes it somewhat less mainstream and certainly more of a hard sell to its core audience, New York Jews." This skeptical, if not hostile Jewish attitude is corroborated Mrs. Zabar's interaction with a Holocaust survivor, who berates her: "What are you doing this for? Why do you care about Arabs? You should care about Jews."
I take offense to the author's framing of the article in such a manner. New York City is the center of liberal American Jewry, one of the most staunchly liberal groups in the United States to begin with. To say such a program is a "hard sell" within the New York Jewish community, as evidenced by the cherry-picked quote from the Holocaust survivor, does not only belie the truth, but creates the impression that this community is unreasonably discriminatory.
As a follow-up, Mrs. Zabar is quoted as saying: “I want people to see Israeli Arabs as human beings,” she said. “Not just as human beings — as citizens that contribute to the vibrancy, the cultural life of Israel.” Wait a second. There is real discrimation against Israeli Arabs that needs to be addressed in Israel, but to say that Israel Arabs need to be seen as "human beings" is an insult to the plurality of Israelis and American-Jews who yearn for Israeli-Arab integration into Israeli society rather than ethnic division.
In reality however, integration takes both the willingness of the majority to incorporate the minority as well as the willingness of the minority to integrate into the greater society. It is somewhat surprising then that "to form the festival Ms. Zabar collaborated with Mohammad Bakri, an Israeli Arab movie actor and director..." In 2002, Bakri directed the film "Jenin, Jenin," which disseminated and perpetuated the libel that Israeli perpetrated a massacre in the West Bank city of Jenin during "Operation Defensive Shield." In a July 2008 article posted on the staunchly anti-Israel website, "Electronic Intifada," Bakri denies any wrongdoing and defends his film. Then, exploiting anti-Semitic motifs, Bakri goes on to criticize the "Zionist media empire."
While Bakri may not be openly agitating for a binational solution or the elimination of the Jewish character of Israel (He is quoted in another article: "I don’t want to live in an Arab country and prefer to live in Israel; at least there is a space of fake democracy I can play with, in Arab countries even this space does not exist."), victomology and demonization of the greater society will not lead to integration.
In that light, it is difficult to accept the article's closing statements in which Ms. Zabar says that she mainly wants "to change the attitude among many Jews that Arabs are 'the enemy, that they want to push the Jews into the sea.'" Firstly, to paint the general Jewish representation of Israeli-Arabs in such a manner is untruthful. Secondly, majority-minority relations is not a one-way street. Some Israeli Jews, as well as some in the American Jewish community, can do much more to lessen discrimination against Israeli-Arabs. At the same time though, if the Israeli-Arab community is going to dwell in victimization that leads to demonization of Israel if not rejection and violence against the state, communal harmony will never be achieved.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Israel's Current Political Ferment
"As Israeli Elections Are Called, Livni Is Assessed"
A8, Monday 10/27/08
By Isabel Kershner
This is an accurate and informative article about Israel’s early elections and possible political fallout. After failing to form a governing coalition, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was forced to ask President Shimon Peres to declare early elections. This was broadcast live from Peres’ residence. Kershner relays that Livni “assured him she would win at the polls – an outcome that is by no means certain,” as Likud head Benjamin Netanyahu is predicted by many to win.
Kershner continues her solid reporting on the Israeli political process – which can get complex. The title, for a change, is direct and without cliche. With little space, Kershner explains why Olmert will stay in power several more months, why Livni didn’t accede to the demands of the party Shas, why Shas may have negotiated in bad faith and why Kadima needs a coalition to govern.
Kershner also touches on how Livni’s supporters and detractors view not only her inability to form a coalition, but her move for early elections “more than a week before her deadline for forming a coalition was officially up," as Kershner describes, either “ a sign of strength and leadership or an admission of defeat”. Kershner interestingly notes that "the last five general elections in Israel have been held before their due dates, with none of the governments completing a full four-year term." The one pertinent bit of information Kershner failed to report was that Peres, as President, has the latitude to pick another faction head to form a coalition.
Kershner inevitably falls into the ‘peace process’ trap as she writes of Livni’s failure to form a government dealing “a heavy blow to the peace process.” A common response may be “what peace process”? Yet the issue here is more about the language. “A heavy blow to the current round of talks” would sound less dire, and trite.
The peace process, contrary to analyses foreboding the perpetual Palestinian shift to radical Hamas, is not disappearing. Israel will for decades be willing to cede land for peace or to sign a peace accord with a peace-minded Palestinian polity. These two peoples are going nowhere, land can always be returned and societies can always reform, yet the advocacy of cutting a deal quickly is constant at the New York Times and other media.
Kershner ends the article focusing on Israeli settlers, beginning by relaying Olmert’s recent “no tolerance” pronouncement toward settlers “who physically and verbally attacked Israeli forces in the West Bank on Sunday”. She refers to Israeli soldiers who tore down an outpost near Hebron and soon after “a few of the settlers” who vowed to the Israeli media that “they would take revenge against the Israeli military for the evacuation”.
Interestingly, Monday’s Jerusalem Post reports that the settler (not settlers) who made the comments in the interview issued a written apology to Israel’s Attorney General. Will the New York Times deem this newsworthy? Stay tuned.
A8, Monday 10/27/08
By Isabel Kershner
This is an accurate and informative article about Israel’s early elections and possible political fallout. After failing to form a governing coalition, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was forced to ask President Shimon Peres to declare early elections. This was broadcast live from Peres’ residence. Kershner relays that Livni “assured him she would win at the polls – an outcome that is by no means certain,” as Likud head Benjamin Netanyahu is predicted by many to win.
Kershner continues her solid reporting on the Israeli political process – which can get complex. The title, for a change, is direct and without cliche. With little space, Kershner explains why Olmert will stay in power several more months, why Livni didn’t accede to the demands of the party Shas, why Shas may have negotiated in bad faith and why Kadima needs a coalition to govern.
Kershner also touches on how Livni’s supporters and detractors view not only her inability to form a coalition, but her move for early elections “more than a week before her deadline for forming a coalition was officially up," as Kershner describes, either “ a sign of strength and leadership or an admission of defeat”. Kershner interestingly notes that "the last five general elections in Israel have been held before their due dates, with none of the governments completing a full four-year term." The one pertinent bit of information Kershner failed to report was that Peres, as President, has the latitude to pick another faction head to form a coalition.
Kershner inevitably falls into the ‘peace process’ trap as she writes of Livni’s failure to form a government dealing “a heavy blow to the peace process.” A common response may be “what peace process”? Yet the issue here is more about the language. “A heavy blow to the current round of talks” would sound less dire, and trite.
The peace process, contrary to analyses foreboding the perpetual Palestinian shift to radical Hamas, is not disappearing. Israel will for decades be willing to cede land for peace or to sign a peace accord with a peace-minded Palestinian polity. These two peoples are going nowhere, land can always be returned and societies can always reform, yet the advocacy of cutting a deal quickly is constant at the New York Times and other media.
Kershner ends the article focusing on Israeli settlers, beginning by relaying Olmert’s recent “no tolerance” pronouncement toward settlers “who physically and verbally attacked Israeli forces in the West Bank on Sunday”. She refers to Israeli soldiers who tore down an outpost near Hebron and soon after “a few of the settlers” who vowed to the Israeli media that “they would take revenge against the Israeli military for the evacuation”.
Interestingly, Monday’s Jerusalem Post reports that the settler (not settlers) who made the comments in the interview issued a written apology to Israel’s Attorney General. Will the New York Times deem this newsworthy? Stay tuned.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Ultimate Arrival of Early Elections
"Israeli Party Leader Seeks Early Elections"
A6, Sunday 10/26/08
By Ethan Bronner
This factual article details Kadima's Tzipi Livni's decision to call for early elections. The decision is scheduled to be formally announced at the residence of Israel's President, Shimon Peres, on Sunday afternoon. Over the past few weeks, Livni has been attempting to put together a new governmental coalition following Prime Minister Olmert's resignation. One of her main impetuses for deciding to call for elections has been her inability to bring the ultra-orthodox Sephardic Shas party into the coalition, which has the third-most parliamentary seats (tied with Likud).
Comically enough, the New York Times still entertains the thoroughly absurd notion that "the move to elections effectively ends any slim hope that existed for a peace deal with the Palestinians before President Bush leaves office in January." Pray tell, how is an Israeli-Palestinian peace within reach whilst Hamas continues to control Gaza!? This is just one of the inconvenient facts that makes the possibility of establishing peace in the near future seem quite futile.
At the end of the article, the author provides a brief overview of the three main candidates for Israeli Prime Minister in these coming elections: Livni (Kadima), Ehud Barak (Labor), and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). Per usual, the NYT uses the buzz-word "hawkish" to describe Netanyahu without providing any substance to back up that point.
Lastly, it would have been interesting if Bronner delved into why Shas refused to join the coalition - principally demands for increasing child welfare payments. Livni was quoted as telling her advisers, "I'm sick of this extortion." So are we all.
A6, Sunday 10/26/08
By Ethan Bronner
This factual article details Kadima's Tzipi Livni's decision to call for early elections. The decision is scheduled to be formally announced at the residence of Israel's President, Shimon Peres, on Sunday afternoon. Over the past few weeks, Livni has been attempting to put together a new governmental coalition following Prime Minister Olmert's resignation. One of her main impetuses for deciding to call for elections has been her inability to bring the ultra-orthodox Sephardic Shas party into the coalition, which has the third-most parliamentary seats (tied with Likud).
Comically enough, the New York Times still entertains the thoroughly absurd notion that "the move to elections effectively ends any slim hope that existed for a peace deal with the Palestinians before President Bush leaves office in January." Pray tell, how is an Israeli-Palestinian peace within reach whilst Hamas continues to control Gaza!? This is just one of the inconvenient facts that makes the possibility of establishing peace in the near future seem quite futile.
At the end of the article, the author provides a brief overview of the three main candidates for Israeli Prime Minister in these coming elections: Livni (Kadima), Ehud Barak (Labor), and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). Per usual, the NYT uses the buzz-word "hawkish" to describe Netanyahu without providing any substance to back up that point.
Lastly, it would have been interesting if Bronner delved into why Shas refused to join the coalition - principally demands for increasing child welfare payments. Livni was quoted as telling her advisers, "I'm sick of this extortion." So are we all.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Hebron - a Volatile City
"Israeli Minister Struggles to Form a Government"
By Ethan Bronner
Nearly the entire article is informative and neutral. The first sentence of the last paragraph, however, is a swipe at Jewish residents of Hebron - a group that has drawn the ire of many who are against the settlement enterprise.
Bronner writes, "Hebron’s volatile Jewish settlers have complained about the Palestinian deployment..."
Indeed, calling the Jews of Hebron "volatile" is not unjustified, but that adjective could also be applied to the Palestinian residents of Hebron. Perhaps a remark that referred to both Jews and Arabs in Hebron as volatile, or referring to Hebron itself as a volatile city, would have been more appropriate.
By Ethan Bronner
Nearly the entire article is informative and neutral. The first sentence of the last paragraph, however, is a swipe at Jewish residents of Hebron - a group that has drawn the ire of many who are against the settlement enterprise.
Bronner writes, "Hebron’s volatile Jewish settlers have complained about the Palestinian deployment..."
Indeed, calling the Jews of Hebron "volatile" is not unjustified, but that adjective could also be applied to the Palestinian residents of Hebron. Perhaps a remark that referred to both Jews and Arabs in Hebron as volatile, or referring to Hebron itself as a volatile city, would have been more appropriate.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Article on Joseph's Tomb Obscures PA Complicity
"Pilgrimage To Roots Of Faith And Strife"
A5, Friday, 10/24/08
By Isabel Kershner
The New York Times' position on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) has been consistent: even with its flaws, the PA, compared to the more radical Hamas, represents Israel's best opportunity for a two-state solution. The editorial page has scolded Israel for not making the most of this opportunity. Moreover, the paper's reporters pass over relevant facts that cast doubt on the PA's commitment to a two-state solution.
A case in point is Friday's "Pilgrimage To Roots Of Faith And Strife". Reporter Isabel Kershner details a trip she took with some religious Jews to Joseph's Tomb. The site is one of the holiest in Judaism, and located in the PA-controlled West Bank town of Nablus. This tour, which Kershner explains as an "operation," happens at least once a month. Jews are "escorted by the military," and "rushing through the darkness" sliding "quietly along deserted streets". It's part religious pilgrimage, part special forces op.
Why? Kershner gives readers a half-explanation. First, she begins by correctly noting that under the Oslo Accords, Israelis were to be "assured free access to Jewish holy sites" within areas under PA control. "But," Kershner points out, "the tomb became a frequent flash point." Strife? Flashpoint? Trite. Equivocal. Kershner continues:
“In 1996, six Israeli soldiers were killed there in a wave of riots by the Palestinian police and militants throughout the West Bank. The second Palestinian uprising broke out in September 2000, and the tomb was the scene of a battle in which 18 Palestinians and an Israeli border policeman were killed; the policeman was left to bleed to death inside.”
This description obfuscates a harsh reality. In 1996, there was in fact a wave of riots by the Palestinian police and militants throughout the West Bank. What Kershner doesn't say is that the Palestinian mob that assaulted the tomb was led by PA police, who opened fire on Israeli troops. After the Israelis withdrew, the mob entered and set fire to the site – prayer books and relics. As for October 2000, more descriptive than a "scene of battle," is that an armed Palestinian mob descended upon the site. This is a fact not in dispute.
Soon after, PM Ehud Barak ordered the handover of the tomb to PA police, who not only stood aside and let an ensuing mob attack the site, but took part. This is unmentioned in the article's rendering: “Hours after the handover, however, a Palestinian mob ransacked the structure, smashing the dome with pickaxes and setting the compound on fire.” Importantly, readers are told of the Palestinian mob’s tool of choice.
Kershner continues: “Since then, according to settlers, the Palestinians have continued to desecrate the tomb, using it as a local garbage dump and sometimes burning tires inside.” Kershner didn’t have to cite biased settlers when she could’ve referred to PA security forces from February of this year. They reported fire damage to the tomb after finding 16 burning tires inside. Momentarily embarrassed, the PA stated it was forming a joint committee to find those responsible. They then came to their senses and issued the following statement:
"Pay no attention to the rumors that we will work with Israel to restore the burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph. We are going to guard this holy Muslim site." (emphasis added)
Holy Muslim Joseph, Batman! It’s Palestinian Two-Face! It’s one thing for Kershner to report nothing of past PA desecration of holy sites like the Temple Mount and Rachel’s Tomb. It’s another to report nothing of PA desecration of the holy site that's ostensibly her focus.
Kershner ends the article with a sympathetic tone towards the Jewish visitors. “For those present it was as if the tomb, like Joseph, betrayed by his jealous brothers and sold into slavery in Egypt, had been temporarily redeemed.” Earlier, Kershner also noted the Jewish pilgrims’ heartfelt connection to the tomb, writing that “they were praying to be infused with some of the righteousness of Joseph, as well as to be able to return.”
The question of whether Jews will be able to return to this holy site is one that cuts right to the heart of the conflict. As Kershner states, it’s at Joseph’s Tomb that the conflict is “boiled down to its very essence of competing territorial, national and religious claims”. Yet she doesn’t want to spell out two big issues Israel has with the PA: access to holy sites and security cooperation. Kershner thus fails to challenge readers with two necessary questions:
If Israel completes a West Bank withdrawal, as the Palestinians seek, will the PA be willing and able to protect Jewish holy sites like this one? More important, will such an authority be willing and able to prevent attacks against Israelis?
For the Times, in this case, the less its readers know, the better.
A5, Friday, 10/24/08
By Isabel Kershner
The New York Times' position on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) has been consistent: even with its flaws, the PA, compared to the more radical Hamas, represents Israel's best opportunity for a two-state solution. The editorial page has scolded Israel for not making the most of this opportunity. Moreover, the paper's reporters pass over relevant facts that cast doubt on the PA's commitment to a two-state solution.
A case in point is Friday's "Pilgrimage To Roots Of Faith And Strife". Reporter Isabel Kershner details a trip she took with some religious Jews to Joseph's Tomb. The site is one of the holiest in Judaism, and located in the PA-controlled West Bank town of Nablus. This tour, which Kershner explains as an "operation," happens at least once a month. Jews are "escorted by the military," and "rushing through the darkness" sliding "quietly along deserted streets". It's part religious pilgrimage, part special forces op.
Why? Kershner gives readers a half-explanation. First, she begins by correctly noting that under the Oslo Accords, Israelis were to be "assured free access to Jewish holy sites" within areas under PA control. "But," Kershner points out, "the tomb became a frequent flash point." Strife? Flashpoint? Trite. Equivocal. Kershner continues:
“In 1996, six Israeli soldiers were killed there in a wave of riots by the Palestinian police and militants throughout the West Bank. The second Palestinian uprising broke out in September 2000, and the tomb was the scene of a battle in which 18 Palestinians and an Israeli border policeman were killed; the policeman was left to bleed to death inside.”
This description obfuscates a harsh reality. In 1996, there was in fact a wave of riots by the Palestinian police and militants throughout the West Bank. What Kershner doesn't say is that the Palestinian mob that assaulted the tomb was led by PA police, who opened fire on Israeli troops. After the Israelis withdrew, the mob entered and set fire to the site – prayer books and relics. As for October 2000, more descriptive than a "scene of battle," is that an armed Palestinian mob descended upon the site. This is a fact not in dispute.
Soon after, PM Ehud Barak ordered the handover of the tomb to PA police, who not only stood aside and let an ensuing mob attack the site, but took part. This is unmentioned in the article's rendering: “Hours after the handover, however, a Palestinian mob ransacked the structure, smashing the dome with pickaxes and setting the compound on fire.” Importantly, readers are told of the Palestinian mob’s tool of choice.
Kershner continues: “Since then, according to settlers, the Palestinians have continued to desecrate the tomb, using it as a local garbage dump and sometimes burning tires inside.” Kershner didn’t have to cite biased settlers when she could’ve referred to PA security forces from February of this year. They reported fire damage to the tomb after finding 16 burning tires inside. Momentarily embarrassed, the PA stated it was forming a joint committee to find those responsible. They then came to their senses and issued the following statement:
"Pay no attention to the rumors that we will work with Israel to restore the burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph. We are going to guard this holy Muslim site." (emphasis added)
Holy Muslim Joseph, Batman! It’s Palestinian Two-Face! It’s one thing for Kershner to report nothing of past PA desecration of holy sites like the Temple Mount and Rachel’s Tomb. It’s another to report nothing of PA desecration of the holy site that's ostensibly her focus.
Kershner ends the article with a sympathetic tone towards the Jewish visitors. “For those present it was as if the tomb, like Joseph, betrayed by his jealous brothers and sold into slavery in Egypt, had been temporarily redeemed.” Earlier, Kershner also noted the Jewish pilgrims’ heartfelt connection to the tomb, writing that “they were praying to be infused with some of the righteousness of Joseph, as well as to be able to return.”
The question of whether Jews will be able to return to this holy site is one that cuts right to the heart of the conflict. As Kershner states, it’s at Joseph’s Tomb that the conflict is “boiled down to its very essence of competing territorial, national and religious claims”. Yet she doesn’t want to spell out two big issues Israel has with the PA: access to holy sites and security cooperation. Kershner thus fails to challenge readers with two necessary questions:
If Israel completes a West Bank withdrawal, as the Palestinians seek, will the PA be willing and able to protect Jewish holy sites like this one? More important, will such an authority be willing and able to prevent attacks against Israelis?
For the Times, in this case, the less its readers know, the better.
Ignoring the Observable Evidence, Refusing to Delve Deeply
"Israeli Man, 86, Is Killed in a Knife Attack"
A11, Friday, 10/24/08
By Myra Noveck and Graham Bowley
This article details a knife attack perpetrated by a West Bank Palestinian in the southwestern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo in which an 86-year-old Israeli man is murdered and an Israeli police officer is seriously wounded. The authors do a successful job in further detailing this trend of Arab attacks in Jerusalem, highlighting the four other Arab attacks that have been carried out since March 2008.
Nevertheless, this piece has multiple problematic elements that are common to NYT coverage on Israel.
First of all, when the facts surrounding the knife attack seem quite clear, the authors essentially reduce it to uncorroborated Israeli assertions. Examine the wording: "A Palestinian man stabbed and killed an 86-year-old Israeli man and seriously wounded a police officer on Thursday in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, the Israeli police said." In adding "the Israeli police said," the authors essentially question the seemingly factual account. This sort of device is rarely used in relation to Palestinian sources even though there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrations there commonplace manipulation of the media. Israel, as a liberal democracy that is committed to the rule of law and scientific method, is committed to truthful and objective observation. It is unmerited that the validity of the statements of Israeli governmental bodies are so commonly mistrusted. This is not done out of a commit to journalistic integrity.
Secondly, after providing the details of the attack, the authors deem it necessary in the next paragraph to state: "Palestinians and other countries consider Gilo [where the attack occurred] a settlement." This appears to be a convenient way of saying, 'Yes, the attack was bad... BUT, it took place in a location that is considered a settlement, so it is therefore more understandable to stab a defenseless 86-year-old elder.' It is hard to explain to those uneducated in Israeli history to explain why Gilo, which has long been part of the municipality of Jerusalem, should not be considered a "settlement" since as the NYT explains, it is "within territory that was conquered and occupied during the 1967 war." By this logic, the holy Old City of Jerusalem, part of the Jordanian-occupied West Bank between 1948 to 1967, should also wholly belong to a future Palestinian state. No part of the Old City, even the Jewish Quarter then, would be under Israeli sovereignty. That would be nonsensical and does not respect the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which at no point claims the whole of the West Bank to be Arab territory.
Third, the article mistakenly labels these incidents as "individual attacks." Yes, the attacks were carried out by individuals but they were not individual attacks in the sense that the person singlehandedly and spontaneously decided that the 'socioeconomic discrimination and the oppresion of the Occupation' was too much to bear and had to kill Israeli Jews. That would be the so-called 'Lone-Wolf' scenario. What more likely happened, which no NYT article delves into, is that these 'individuals' were dealing with difficult situations (I.e. In the BMW attack last month, the attacker had recently asked the hand of his cousin in marriage, who rejected him) and that certain extremist groups exploited their troubles to kill Israeli Jews (as a means to saveface and regain their honor).
Lastly, the NYT continues to use language that questions whether last month's attack was intentional when it clearly was: " a car owned by a Palestinian rammed [my emphasis] into Israeli soldiers and civilians..." The agency in the action is transferred to the car - the car did the ramming - rather the Palestinian employing the car as a tool of destruction. As further evidence of this grammatical sophistry, this is the language the NYT uses for the previous two vehicle attacks: "In July, a Palestinian driving a construction vehicle in central Jerusalem crushed..." AND "Later that month, a Palestinian plowed a large construction vehicle..." In these statements, the agency is focused on the Palestinian, making it clear that the Palestinian perpetrated the attack. For whatever reason, in the latest vehicle attack, the NYT refuses to admit that the East Jerusalemite Arab purposely committed the violent action, despite the fact the overwhelming body of evidence indicates that it is so.
A11, Friday, 10/24/08
By Myra Noveck and Graham Bowley
This article details a knife attack perpetrated by a West Bank Palestinian in the southwestern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo in which an 86-year-old Israeli man is murdered and an Israeli police officer is seriously wounded. The authors do a successful job in further detailing this trend of Arab attacks in Jerusalem, highlighting the four other Arab attacks that have been carried out since March 2008.
Nevertheless, this piece has multiple problematic elements that are common to NYT coverage on Israel.
First of all, when the facts surrounding the knife attack seem quite clear, the authors essentially reduce it to uncorroborated Israeli assertions. Examine the wording: "A Palestinian man stabbed and killed an 86-year-old Israeli man and seriously wounded a police officer on Thursday in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, the Israeli police said." In adding "the Israeli police said," the authors essentially question the seemingly factual account. This sort of device is rarely used in relation to Palestinian sources even though there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrations there commonplace manipulation of the media. Israel, as a liberal democracy that is committed to the rule of law and scientific method, is committed to truthful and objective observation. It is unmerited that the validity of the statements of Israeli governmental bodies are so commonly mistrusted. This is not done out of a commit to journalistic integrity.
Secondly, after providing the details of the attack, the authors deem it necessary in the next paragraph to state: "Palestinians and other countries consider Gilo [where the attack occurred] a settlement." This appears to be a convenient way of saying, 'Yes, the attack was bad... BUT, it took place in a location that is considered a settlement, so it is therefore more understandable to stab a defenseless 86-year-old elder.' It is hard to explain to those uneducated in Israeli history to explain why Gilo, which has long been part of the municipality of Jerusalem, should not be considered a "settlement" since as the NYT explains, it is "within territory that was conquered and occupied during the 1967 war." By this logic, the holy Old City of Jerusalem, part of the Jordanian-occupied West Bank between 1948 to 1967, should also wholly belong to a future Palestinian state. No part of the Old City, even the Jewish Quarter then, would be under Israeli sovereignty. That would be nonsensical and does not respect the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which at no point claims the whole of the West Bank to be Arab territory.
Third, the article mistakenly labels these incidents as "individual attacks." Yes, the attacks were carried out by individuals but they were not individual attacks in the sense that the person singlehandedly and spontaneously decided that the 'socioeconomic discrimination and the oppresion of the Occupation' was too much to bear and had to kill Israeli Jews. That would be the so-called 'Lone-Wolf' scenario. What more likely happened, which no NYT article delves into, is that these 'individuals' were dealing with difficult situations (I.e. In the BMW attack last month, the attacker had recently asked the hand of his cousin in marriage, who rejected him) and that certain extremist groups exploited their troubles to kill Israeli Jews (as a means to saveface and regain their honor).
Lastly, the NYT continues to use language that questions whether last month's attack was intentional when it clearly was: " a car owned by a Palestinian rammed [my emphasis] into Israeli soldiers and civilians..." The agency in the action is transferred to the car - the car did the ramming - rather the Palestinian employing the car as a tool of destruction. As further evidence of this grammatical sophistry, this is the language the NYT uses for the previous two vehicle attacks: "In July, a Palestinian driving a construction vehicle in central Jerusalem crushed..." AND "Later that month, a Palestinian plowed a large construction vehicle..." In these statements, the agency is focused on the Palestinian, making it clear that the Palestinian perpetrated the attack. For whatever reason, in the latest vehicle attack, the NYT refuses to admit that the East Jerusalemite Arab purposely committed the violent action, despite the fact the overwhelming body of evidence indicates that it is so.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
New York Times Stirs Israel-Vatican Controversy
"Israel: Anti-Pope Image on Web Site"
By Ethan Bronner
Published October 21, 2008 - Section A10
Despite its brevity, Tuesday's blurb in the Times speaks a lot about a troubling pattern: consistently reporting barely newsworthy stories that shed a negative light on Israel, while barely reporting newsworthy stories that shed a negative light on the Palestinian Authority.
Attempting to define "newsworthy," one can reasonably argue that it is an event which impacts people's lives, or a government, or international relations; or an event which reflects a pattern of relevant behavior. Ethan Bronner's "Israel: Anti-Pope Image on Web Site," appears to be none of the above.
The website of note, Yalla Kadima, is not an official Kadima site, but considered pro-Kadima, run by its supporters. It posted a picture of Pope Benedict XVI with a swastika superimposed on his face.
Bronner reports that the site said the image was "sent by descendants of Holocaust survivors," and was a "legitimate form of protest against attempts by the Vatican to beatify Pope Pius XII, the pope during World War II, who has been criticized for not speaking out against Nazi genocide." Bronner then relates that party leader Tzipi Livni asked the site to take the picture down.
If Bronner, as most correspondents in Israel, scours the Israeli papers for stories on which to report, he would weekly find stories on senior elements of the Palestinian Authority encouraging rejection of Israel, often through violence, as well as promoting the right of return and other positions antithetical to peace. Earlier this year, for example, Israeli papers were buzzing about Mahmoud Abbas' interviews in which he both kept open the possibility of armed struggle against Israel and rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. Bronner and the Times were silent on these relevant stories. There was no hard-hitting analysis on how these positions of Abbas -- reportedly the most moderate of Palestinians -- will reconcile his people to peace with Israel. There wasn't even a blurb in the Times. Why the double standard?
Surely Israel-Vatican relations warrants coverage, but it is questionable if the actions of a truly rogue and isolated element within the ruling party -- especially after swift action was taken by the party -- has any bearing on those relations.
When a paper with the global reach of the Times reports on something so insignificant, it makes it significant. The finer details of the blurb will be lost and all that likely will be remembered is that Israel's ruling party tars the pope as a Nazi. If that is what happened, then the New York Times is obligated to report it. Nothing of the sort happened, and the Times should've be more responsible by not reporting this non-story.
By Ethan Bronner
Published October 21, 2008 - Section A10
Despite its brevity, Tuesday's blurb in the Times speaks a lot about a troubling pattern: consistently reporting barely newsworthy stories that shed a negative light on Israel, while barely reporting newsworthy stories that shed a negative light on the Palestinian Authority.
Attempting to define "newsworthy," one can reasonably argue that it is an event which impacts people's lives, or a government, or international relations; or an event which reflects a pattern of relevant behavior. Ethan Bronner's "Israel: Anti-Pope Image on Web Site," appears to be none of the above.
The website of note, Yalla Kadima, is not an official Kadima site, but considered pro-Kadima, run by its supporters. It posted a picture of Pope Benedict XVI with a swastika superimposed on his face.
Bronner reports that the site said the image was "sent by descendants of Holocaust survivors," and was a "legitimate form of protest against attempts by the Vatican to beatify Pope Pius XII, the pope during World War II, who has been criticized for not speaking out against Nazi genocide." Bronner then relates that party leader Tzipi Livni asked the site to take the picture down.
If Bronner, as most correspondents in Israel, scours the Israeli papers for stories on which to report, he would weekly find stories on senior elements of the Palestinian Authority encouraging rejection of Israel, often through violence, as well as promoting the right of return and other positions antithetical to peace. Earlier this year, for example, Israeli papers were buzzing about Mahmoud Abbas' interviews in which he both kept open the possibility of armed struggle against Israel and rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. Bronner and the Times were silent on these relevant stories. There was no hard-hitting analysis on how these positions of Abbas -- reportedly the most moderate of Palestinians -- will reconcile his people to peace with Israel. There wasn't even a blurb in the Times. Why the double standard?
Surely Israel-Vatican relations warrants coverage, but it is questionable if the actions of a truly rogue and isolated element within the ruling party -- especially after swift action was taken by the party -- has any bearing on those relations.
When a paper with the global reach of the Times reports on something so insignificant, it makes it significant. The finer details of the blurb will be lost and all that likely will be remembered is that Israel's ruling party tars the pope as a Nazi. If that is what happened, then the New York Times is obligated to report it. Nothing of the sort happened, and the Times should've be more responsible by not reporting this non-story.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Neighbors on Edge
"Symbol of Peace Stands at Divide Between Troubled Jerusalem’s East and West"
A8, Saturday, October 18, 2008
By Isabel Kershner
Palestinian violence, however unfortunate, is the inevitable result of Israeli inequities and settlements. This is the implied whopper in Isabel Kershner’s latest report about the Arab-Jewish divide in Jerusalem. This is a familiar theme – the Times leaves out for readers a contrived rationale for Palestinian violence, but doesn’t exactly state it.
Kershner reports first on the recent unveiling of the city’s Tolerance Monument – a bronze column split down the middle in which is placed a gilded olive tree. It “seemed to encapsulate both the promise and the fragility of peace in a city increasingly on edge”. Moving.
Kershner rounds up recent attacks by East Jerusalem Arabs against Jews in Jerusalem: the yeshiva massacre, two bulldozer attacks on pedestrians and when a 19 year old from East Jerusalem – driving his older brother’s BMW no less – plowed into a group of soldiers. Kershner says the guy did it “deliberately, according to police”. (emphasis added) That’s fair. The guy's mom could've misplaced his medication. He spazzes out and revs the engine, turbo-boosting into some soldiers. Crazy things happen in the Middle East. Or the 19 year old's cousin could've rejected his marriage proposal, causing him to flip out and turn to Hamas in making the most of his ensuing self-destructive phase.
Kershner adds that none of the attackers “were known to have had any strong political affiliations”. Yet Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported last month that the driver, Qassem Mughrabi, was a member of Hamas. This doesn't necessarily mean he had any "strong" political affiliations. He could've just been a gofer for some of Hamas' senior members -- parking cars and the like. About the other two attackers having no political affiliations, what a relief. So now that Kershner eliminates politics, what could've motivated these men to commit these heinous crimes? Kerhner provides a reason:
“About a quarter of a million Palestinians…live in the generally poorer and less developed Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Almost 200,000 Jews live alongside them in a patchwork of new neighborhoods, like Armon Hanatziv, that have been built over the 1967 boundaries on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state.”
The above is true, yet is missing a lot, and nowhere else in the piece is any other motivation for this sort of violence from Palestinians. The problem with the first sentence is that it stands alone. What could've been added?
East Jerusalem Arabs are offered Israeli citizenship but overwhelmingly reject it. Becoming Israeli citizens and participating in local politics -- running or voting -- wouldn't simply be considered selling out, but suicidal since it would legitimate Israeli control over the entire city. Some Israelis nevertheless believe that that boycott of the Israeli political system, along with the anti-Israel radicalism emanating from East Jerusalem do not necessarily justify the minimal funding and services allocated to the area.
Here, Kershner missed a chance to make a somewhat fair indictment of Israel and inform readers. Regardless, these facts should be reported, no less in a piece about East Jerusalem Arabs.
The second sentence of this paragraph has problems. Kershner states that “a patchwork of new neighborhoods like Armon Hanatziv” has been built over the Green Line. Criminal.
Along with violating the sanctity of the 1949 armistice lines, these new neighborhoods, Kershner states, were built “on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state”.
Exactly how new is Armon Hanatziv? It was built in the early '70s, two decades before Palestinian leaders started pretend negotiations. It was also two decades before Palestinians stated their demand that East Jerusalem be their capital. To be more accurate, Kershner could've referred to it as "territory the Palestinians now demand as the capital of their future state”. Yes, they demanded it in the early 70s, while their leaders were high-jacking planes and shooting Israeli children as policy. (With the peace process, that business with the planes ended.)
Just after mentioning Nof Zion, “a luxury apartment complex that is being marketed to religious Jews and that sits at the entrance of Jebel Mukaber” (but does it have a gym?), Kershner ostensibly gives readers balance, stating that "meanwhile, an increasing number of Arab families are quietly moving into Jewish areas on both sides of the 1967 line.” That's an understatement.
The point obviously begs another line or two. Kershner should know that Arab families are moving into, and building in, Jerusalem at a rate outpacing Jewish families; that since '67, both the Arabs and the Jews have waged a demographic battle; that the Arabs are winning: Arab population growth has been 100% more than the Jewish; that it's more political than natural growth. Yet Kershner reaffirms, using an edgy verb, a propagandistic line, stating that Jews “Judaize the eastern part and squeeze the Palestinians out,” airing what she says is a charge by Arab residents.
Readers may be foaming at the provocative and self-defeating Judaizing efforts of Israelis in Jerusalem by the time Kershner reports on inspiring reconciliation attempts. She reports that Arabs and Jews are finding common ground in a US-sponsored concert and an Israeli led group on weight loss. If only the Israeli government would stop the building in Jerusalem and accept as equal citizens its Arabs.
Kershner ends the piece quoting a resident of Armon Hanatziv, Dalia Ben Shitreet. Dalia's for coexistence, but feels “Jebel Mukaber is ‘hostile’ and should be ‘razed to its foundations — though I am sorry and ashamed to say it’.”
Contrite end aside, a statement like that seems pretty extreme. All Kershner reports about Jebel Mukaber is that three recent Arab attackers happened to reside there. (Who'd want to raze Milwaukee only because of Jeffrey Dahmer?) Well, thanks to Kershner, we're now better acquainted with the belligerent tone of those Israelis living on the wrong side of the 1949 armistice line . Of course, Kershner left out how celebrated is the Mercaz massacre gunman throughout the neighborhood, and the influence of Hamas. There's always the next article.
The kind of animosity that turns young men into killers exists in Jebel Mukaber not because the neighborhood is poorer or less developed than nearby Jewish neighborhoods.
As with the rest of the region, it’s the widespread taboo of normalizing relations with Israel that slows development. It’s the existence of Israel – the rendering of Arab Muslims a minority – that is the offense, the engine of Palestinian violence against Israelis. It sounds dramatic, but it's true. The longer this point remains mostly absent in Times coverage, the longer its readers will continue to misread the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A8, Saturday, October 18, 2008
By Isabel Kershner
Palestinian violence, however unfortunate, is the inevitable result of Israeli inequities and settlements. This is the implied whopper in Isabel Kershner’s latest report about the Arab-Jewish divide in Jerusalem. This is a familiar theme – the Times leaves out for readers a contrived rationale for Palestinian violence, but doesn’t exactly state it.
Kershner reports first on the recent unveiling of the city’s Tolerance Monument – a bronze column split down the middle in which is placed a gilded olive tree. It “seemed to encapsulate both the promise and the fragility of peace in a city increasingly on edge”. Moving.
Kershner rounds up recent attacks by East Jerusalem Arabs against Jews in Jerusalem: the yeshiva massacre, two bulldozer attacks on pedestrians and when a 19 year old from East Jerusalem – driving his older brother’s BMW no less – plowed into a group of soldiers. Kershner says the guy did it “deliberately, according to police”. (emphasis added) That’s fair. The guy's mom could've misplaced his medication. He spazzes out and revs the engine, turbo-boosting into some soldiers. Crazy things happen in the Middle East. Or the 19 year old's cousin could've rejected his marriage proposal, causing him to flip out and turn to Hamas in making the most of his ensuing self-destructive phase.
Kershner adds that none of the attackers “were known to have had any strong political affiliations”. Yet Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported last month that the driver, Qassem Mughrabi, was a member of Hamas. This doesn't necessarily mean he had any "strong" political affiliations. He could've just been a gofer for some of Hamas' senior members -- parking cars and the like. About the other two attackers having no political affiliations, what a relief. So now that Kershner eliminates politics, what could've motivated these men to commit these heinous crimes? Kerhner provides a reason:
“About a quarter of a million Palestinians…live in the generally poorer and less developed Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Almost 200,000 Jews live alongside them in a patchwork of new neighborhoods, like Armon Hanatziv, that have been built over the 1967 boundaries on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state.”
The above is true, yet is missing a lot, and nowhere else in the piece is any other motivation for this sort of violence from Palestinians. The problem with the first sentence is that it stands alone. What could've been added?
East Jerusalem Arabs are offered Israeli citizenship but overwhelmingly reject it. Becoming Israeli citizens and participating in local politics -- running or voting -- wouldn't simply be considered selling out, but suicidal since it would legitimate Israeli control over the entire city. Some Israelis nevertheless believe that that boycott of the Israeli political system, along with the anti-Israel radicalism emanating from East Jerusalem do not necessarily justify the minimal funding and services allocated to the area.
Here, Kershner missed a chance to make a somewhat fair indictment of Israel and inform readers. Regardless, these facts should be reported, no less in a piece about East Jerusalem Arabs.
The second sentence of this paragraph has problems. Kershner states that “a patchwork of new neighborhoods like Armon Hanatziv” has been built over the Green Line. Criminal.
Along with violating the sanctity of the 1949 armistice lines, these new neighborhoods, Kershner states, were built “on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state”.
Exactly how new is Armon Hanatziv? It was built in the early '70s, two decades before Palestinian leaders started pretend negotiations. It was also two decades before Palestinians stated their demand that East Jerusalem be their capital. To be more accurate, Kershner could've referred to it as "territory the Palestinians now demand as the capital of their future state”. Yes, they demanded it in the early 70s, while their leaders were high-jacking planes and shooting Israeli children as policy. (With the peace process, that business with the planes ended.)
Just after mentioning Nof Zion, “a luxury apartment complex that is being marketed to religious Jews and that sits at the entrance of Jebel Mukaber” (but does it have a gym?), Kershner ostensibly gives readers balance, stating that "meanwhile, an increasing number of Arab families are quietly moving into Jewish areas on both sides of the 1967 line.” That's an understatement.
The point obviously begs another line or two. Kershner should know that Arab families are moving into, and building in, Jerusalem at a rate outpacing Jewish families; that since '67, both the Arabs and the Jews have waged a demographic battle; that the Arabs are winning: Arab population growth has been 100% more than the Jewish; that it's more political than natural growth. Yet Kershner reaffirms, using an edgy verb, a propagandistic line, stating that Jews “Judaize the eastern part and squeeze the Palestinians out,” airing what she says is a charge by Arab residents.
Readers may be foaming at the provocative and self-defeating Judaizing efforts of Israelis in Jerusalem by the time Kershner reports on inspiring reconciliation attempts. She reports that Arabs and Jews are finding common ground in a US-sponsored concert and an Israeli led group on weight loss. If only the Israeli government would stop the building in Jerusalem and accept as equal citizens its Arabs.
Kershner ends the piece quoting a resident of Armon Hanatziv, Dalia Ben Shitreet. Dalia's for coexistence, but feels “Jebel Mukaber is ‘hostile’ and should be ‘razed to its foundations — though I am sorry and ashamed to say it’.”
Contrite end aside, a statement like that seems pretty extreme. All Kershner reports about Jebel Mukaber is that three recent Arab attackers happened to reside there. (Who'd want to raze Milwaukee only because of Jeffrey Dahmer?) Well, thanks to Kershner, we're now better acquainted with the belligerent tone of those Israelis living on the wrong side of the 1949 armistice line . Of course, Kershner left out how celebrated is the Mercaz massacre gunman throughout the neighborhood, and the influence of Hamas. There's always the next article.
The kind of animosity that turns young men into killers exists in Jebel Mukaber not because the neighborhood is poorer or less developed than nearby Jewish neighborhoods.
As with the rest of the region, it’s the widespread taboo of normalizing relations with Israel that slows development. It’s the existence of Israel – the rendering of Arab Muslims a minority – that is the offense, the engine of Palestinian violence against Israelis. It sounds dramatic, but it's true. The longer this point remains mostly absent in Times coverage, the longer its readers will continue to misread the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Can Kadima Cajole?
"Israel's Leading Parties Sign a Draft Agreement to Form a New Party"
A14, Tuesday 10/14/08
By Ethan Bronner
The article factually details the signing of a draft coalition agreement the previous day between Tzipi Livni's Kadima Party and Ehud Barak's Labor Party. Livni is attempting to form a new government following the resignation of Ehud Olmert due to corruption allegations.
As part of the agreement, Barak is to be granted "official status as the cabinet's second in command," entitled Senior Deputy Prime Minister. According to one of his associates: “No issue will be decided in the cabinet without the coordination and agreement of Barak.. It amounts to almost, but not quite, a veto power.”
If Barak will possess such great power in Livni's Kadima-led government, it begs the question: what are the substantive policy differences that separate Labor and Kadima? With Kadima holding less of a clear outlook vis-a-vis the Palestinians, these two parties are looking more and more similar in their foreign policy perspective, which counts on the Palestinian Authority as a viable negotiating partner in the West Bank. To what degree, if any, elements of unilateral disengagement will be implemented in these disputed territories is yet to be seen.
The more pressing issue at hand is whether Livni will succeed in forming a new coalition. While wooing Labor was a significant step in this process, inroads still have to be made with lesser Israeli political parties, mainly the Sephardic Orthodox party Shas.
If Livni fails to create this coalition, Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, the current favorite if general elections were to be held in the near future, would readily take advantage of the situation.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Monday's Paper
"The Man Behind the Whispers About Obama"
By Jim Rutenberg
A1
Here.
By Isabel Kershner
A11
Here.
By Peter H. Schweitzer
A29
Here.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Israel - Oppressor of the Indigenous, Arab AND Jew
"They Were Lost"
BR17 (Book Review), Saturday 10/11/08
Review by Gal Beckerman
In this article, Gal Beckerman reviews Israeli journalist Ariel Sabar's personal biography of his father in My Father's Paradise: A Son's Search for His Jewish Past in Kurdish Iraq.
In general, the book seems to be quite fascinating, particularly regarding the family's escape from persecution in Iraq, the discrimination they faced as mizrachi Jews in the newly created Jewish State, and his father's role in preserving the neo-Aramic language of the Jews of Kurdistan.
Nevertheless, narrative disortions (either by the author or book reviewer - it's difficult to tell) slip into the book review. The reviewer, Beckerman, writes that in the book, "we hear of a unique 20th-century Jewish upheaval, a community whose central trauma, after living peacefully with their Christian and Muslim neighbors, was being dispatched to a Europeanized Israel that failed to properly absorb them."
The first error is the idealization of the condition of Jews in Arab-Islamic lands. In the twentieth-century, the conditions of Jews did improve in Iraq, but much of this improvement was a result of the top-down pluralism that the British colonial administration brought to the country. Historically, the Jews of Islamic lands in the Middle East were institutionally discriminated against and socially marginalized. This historic characterization reemerged when the Arab world demonstrated it would not tolerate any sort of Jewish sovereign presence in the Middle East and that there own Jewish populations would be punished, even though the overwhelming majority did not affiliate themselves with Zionism.
Secondly, the reviewer speakers of a "Europeanized Israel that failed to properly absorb" the mizrachi immigrants. While the Ashkenzi-elite did dominate the incipient state, characterizing Israel as Europeanized implies that the Jews had no indigenous claim to the land. This demonstrates an internalization of a principle tenet of the anti-Zionist Arab narrative by which the Jews had no legitimate connection to Israel.
In relation to Israel's failure to "properly absorb" the mizrachi Jews, it is evident that the Ashkenazi leadership discriminated against these peoples. Nevertheless, one must understand the full context of the situation. First of all, at the same time Israel was accepting the refugees from Arab countries, they were also absorbing Europe's remaining Jews that survived the aftermath of the Holocaust. As a result of this situation, the mizrachi Jews were not always accorded the necessary attention, but in the context of the situation, Israel still did its utmost to accommodate these refugees, even while lacking the requisite funds. Furthermore, many mizrachi, particularly those from Morocco and Yemen, were very uneducated and their former professions did not correspond well with Israel's modernized society.
In this context, Israel's failure to properly absorb these refugees must be understood. Today, mizrachi Jewry is an integral part of the country and while still underrepresented in many sectors in various ways, the community has generally succeeded.
Given the lack of context, this review provides support to the notion that Israel is a racist, fabricated state, an alien among the indigenous. As usual, the NYT behaves as a platform for those that are willing to strongly criticize the Jewish State without providing the necessary context or balance.
BR17 (Book Review), Saturday 10/11/08
Review by Gal Beckerman
In this article, Gal Beckerman reviews Israeli journalist Ariel Sabar's personal biography of his father in My Father's Paradise: A Son's Search for His Jewish Past in Kurdish Iraq.
In general, the book seems to be quite fascinating, particularly regarding the family's escape from persecution in Iraq, the discrimination they faced as mizrachi Jews in the newly created Jewish State, and his father's role in preserving the neo-Aramic language of the Jews of Kurdistan.
Nevertheless, narrative disortions (either by the author or book reviewer - it's difficult to tell) slip into the book review. The reviewer, Beckerman, writes that in the book, "we hear of a unique 20th-century Jewish upheaval, a community whose central trauma, after living peacefully with their Christian and Muslim neighbors, was being dispatched to a Europeanized Israel that failed to properly absorb them."
The first error is the idealization of the condition of Jews in Arab-Islamic lands. In the twentieth-century, the conditions of Jews did improve in Iraq, but much of this improvement was a result of the top-down pluralism that the British colonial administration brought to the country. Historically, the Jews of Islamic lands in the Middle East were institutionally discriminated against and socially marginalized. This historic characterization reemerged when the Arab world demonstrated it would not tolerate any sort of Jewish sovereign presence in the Middle East and that there own Jewish populations would be punished, even though the overwhelming majority did not affiliate themselves with Zionism.
Secondly, the reviewer speakers of a "Europeanized Israel that failed to properly absorb" the mizrachi immigrants. While the Ashkenzi-elite did dominate the incipient state, characterizing Israel as Europeanized implies that the Jews had no indigenous claim to the land. This demonstrates an internalization of a principle tenet of the anti-Zionist Arab narrative by which the Jews had no legitimate connection to Israel.
In relation to Israel's failure to "properly absorb" the mizrachi Jews, it is evident that the Ashkenazi leadership discriminated against these peoples. Nevertheless, one must understand the full context of the situation. First of all, at the same time Israel was accepting the refugees from Arab countries, they were also absorbing Europe's remaining Jews that survived the aftermath of the Holocaust. As a result of this situation, the mizrachi Jews were not always accorded the necessary attention, but in the context of the situation, Israel still did its utmost to accommodate these refugees, even while lacking the requisite funds. Furthermore, many mizrachi, particularly those from Morocco and Yemen, were very uneducated and their former professions did not correspond well with Israel's modernized society.
In this context, Israel's failure to properly absorb these refugees must be understood. Today, mizrachi Jewry is an integral part of the country and while still underrepresented in many sectors in various ways, the community has generally succeeded.
Given the lack of context, this review provides support to the notion that Israel is a racist, fabricated state, an alien among the indigenous. As usual, the NYT behaves as a platform for those that are willing to strongly criticize the Jewish State without providing the necessary context or balance.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Exclusive and Exclusionary Domain of the Arabs
"Lebanon: Whose Hummus?"
A14 (World Briefing), Wednesday, 10/8/08
By The Associated Press
This brief article describes a Lebanese Industrialists Association's plan to sue Israel "for falsely taking credit for traditional Middle Eastern dishes like hummus" and "for marketing... [those] regional dishes as Israeli." The President of the association remarks, “It is not enough they are stealing our land. They are also stealing our civilization and our cuisine.”
Given that this article has such little informative value (Example: In what way has Israel taken credit for these dishes beyond marketing them as Israeli? I doubt it has taken exclusive credit and denied it to the Arabs) and this news has such little regional or global bearing, it appears that the piece was included principally for entertainment value. Depending on how the readers views the contemporary conflict though, it will probably reinforce their views in one way or another.
If the reader believes that Israel is a white-colonial implant among the indigenous Arabs, they will agree with the remarks of the Lebanese trade group's president that Israel is usurping Arab culture after having usurped their land. On the other hand, if the reader believes that Arab rejectionism is at the heart of the conflict, the president's incendiary comments will only serve as further evidence of that view.
Does hummus have to be an exclusively Arab or Lebanese product? Is the land of Israel-Palestine exclusively under Arab province? Interestingly enough, these two questions are closely intertwined as this article indirectly shows.
A14 (World Briefing), Wednesday, 10/8/08
By The Associated Press
This brief article describes a Lebanese Industrialists Association's plan to sue Israel "for falsely taking credit for traditional Middle Eastern dishes like hummus" and "for marketing... [those] regional dishes as Israeli." The President of the association remarks, “It is not enough they are stealing our land. They are also stealing our civilization and our cuisine.”
Given that this article has such little informative value (Example: In what way has Israel taken credit for these dishes beyond marketing them as Israeli? I doubt it has taken exclusive credit and denied it to the Arabs) and this news has such little regional or global bearing, it appears that the piece was included principally for entertainment value. Depending on how the readers views the contemporary conflict though, it will probably reinforce their views in one way or another.
If the reader believes that Israel is a white-colonial implant among the indigenous Arabs, they will agree with the remarks of the Lebanese trade group's president that Israel is usurping Arab culture after having usurped their land. On the other hand, if the reader believes that Arab rejectionism is at the heart of the conflict, the president's incendiary comments will only serve as further evidence of that view.
Does hummus have to be an exclusively Arab or Lebanese product? Is the land of Israel-Palestine exclusively under Arab province? Interestingly enough, these two questions are closely intertwined as this article indirectly shows.
Reading Russia
"Russia Gives Israel No Firm Word on Arms Sales"
A8, Wednesday, 10/8/08
By Reuters
This short piece details Prime Minister Olmert's visit to Russia and his attempt to prevent Moscow from selling advanced anti-aircraft weapons (namely the S-300 system), to "Israel's enemies," specifically Iran but also Syria.
Despite Olmert's belief that "the Russian government understands well the Israeli position and is aware the possible influence such supplying could have on stability in the region,” the article concludes that Olmert failed to win a firm pledge from Moscow to not sell such weapons.
While it is yet to be seen what actions Russia will take, it is clear that Iranian acquisition of such devices could complicate any potential aerial assault on Iran's nuclear sites.
A8, Wednesday, 10/8/08
By Reuters
This short piece details Prime Minister Olmert's visit to Russia and his attempt to prevent Moscow from selling advanced anti-aircraft weapons (namely the S-300 system), to "Israel's enemies," specifically Iran but also Syria.
Despite Olmert's belief that "the Russian government understands well the Israeli position and is aware the possible influence such supplying could have on stability in the region,” the article concludes that Olmert failed to win a firm pledge from Moscow to not sell such weapons.
While it is yet to be seen what actions Russia will take, it is clear that Iranian acquisition of such devices could complicate any potential aerial assault on Iran's nuclear sites.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Letter to Editor Sets Record Straight on Jerusalem
Letter: "Jerusalem and History,"
A28, Monday, 10/6/08
By Rabbi Avi Shafran
As analyzed on this blog in "Morally Equivalent Manichaeism," Ethan Bronner drew an uninformed parallel in his Jerusalem Journal, published September 28, "Jews and Muslims Share Holy Season in Jerusalem". Bronner simplistically placed on a par the widespread Palestinian rejection of Jerusalem's centrality for Jews and the marginal Israeli rejection of the city's centrality for Muslims:
"The same problem exists on the other side as well — some Jews believe that the holiness here is theirs alone."
Yes, some Jews believe that. Yet it's nowhere near the same problem. That the Temple Mount is not Jewish and Jerusalem was never a Jewish city are views widely disseminated in the Palestinian press.
To get an even better sense of the contrast of both sides, it's important to look at official positions. Immediately following the Six Day War, Israel granted near total control of the Temple Mount -- the holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest in Islam -- to the Supreme Muslim Council (Waqf), so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities. In contrast, official Palestinian Authority media regularly accuse Israel of inventing the notion of a Jewish temple. In fact, this was Arafat's official position at Camp David, according to negotiator Dennis Ross.
Without going into these details, but providing a meaningful background to the issue, Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America takes issue with the Times' false equivalence:
"I question whatever notion of journalistic fairness led to your assertion that 'the same problem exists on the other side as well'.”
Shafran then provides essential context by pointing out that although "believing Jews consider the Temple Mount and Jerusalem to have been divinely deeded them...Muslims are free to live and worship in Jerusalem, unlike Jews or Christians in Mecca or Medina."
It was important that the Times printed Shafran's letter, as Israeli and Palestinian treatment of each others' holy sites is a reflection of the conflict generally, and should be documented.
A28, Monday, 10/6/08
By Rabbi Avi Shafran
As analyzed on this blog in "Morally Equivalent Manichaeism," Ethan Bronner drew an uninformed parallel in his Jerusalem Journal, published September 28, "Jews and Muslims Share Holy Season in Jerusalem". Bronner simplistically placed on a par the widespread Palestinian rejection of Jerusalem's centrality for Jews and the marginal Israeli rejection of the city's centrality for Muslims:
"The same problem exists on the other side as well — some Jews believe that the holiness here is theirs alone."
Yes, some Jews believe that. Yet it's nowhere near the same problem. That the Temple Mount is not Jewish and Jerusalem was never a Jewish city are views widely disseminated in the Palestinian press.
To get an even better sense of the contrast of both sides, it's important to look at official positions. Immediately following the Six Day War, Israel granted near total control of the Temple Mount -- the holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest in Islam -- to the Supreme Muslim Council (Waqf), so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities. In contrast, official Palestinian Authority media regularly accuse Israel of inventing the notion of a Jewish temple. In fact, this was Arafat's official position at Camp David, according to negotiator Dennis Ross.
Without going into these details, but providing a meaningful background to the issue, Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America takes issue with the Times' false equivalence:
"I question whatever notion of journalistic fairness led to your assertion that 'the same problem exists on the other side as well'.”
Shafran then provides essential context by pointing out that although "believing Jews consider the Temple Mount and Jerusalem to have been divinely deeded them...Muslims are free to live and worship in Jerusalem, unlike Jews or Christians in Mecca or Medina."
It was important that the Times printed Shafran's letter, as Israeli and Palestinian treatment of each others' holy sites is a reflection of the conflict generally, and should be documented.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
With Olmert, NYT Breaks Tradition
"Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank,"
A6, Tuesday, 9/30/08
By Ethan Bronner
This was a short, straightforward article reporting the remarks Olmert recently made in a Yediot Aharonot interview. There was much more reporting than analysis by the Times’ Bronner.
Some of Olmert’s hyperbolic remarks, however, could have used a thorough parsing. For instance, Bronner quotes Olmert as saying “who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security.” He also cited Olmert as saying that Israeli defense strategists are stuck on antiquated defense doctrine, that concepts like “controlling territories” are “worthless”.
Of course Olmert is referring to radical West Bank Jews and the outposts they try to establish deep in the West Bank, beyond Israel’s barrier. Yet these Jews don’t cite as their motivation security for Israel. Their presence there is ideological.
Also, “controlling territory” to enhance “Israel’s basic security” is not “worthless”. Later in the article, Bronner quotes Olmert detailing a prospective West Bank withdrawal as leaving “a percentage of these territories in our hands”. But keeping these territories is not based solely on demography or the nightmarish prospect of dismantling small cities. It is based on defense through topography. It is vital Israel has some of the West Bank’s high ground near the Green Line, as this high ground is essentially a cliff overlooking Israel’s coastal plain – the heart of the country. Its retention by Israel is vital to prevent rocket attacks and to secure itself against a future land invasion. This is why the majority of Israelis, including Olmert, understand the need to hold onto a small portion of the West Bank. This could have served as an informed counterpoint.
It is likely Olmert didn’t intend to mock the importance to Israel of strategic depth. So why did Olmert make these thoughtless comments? He was speaking to the large minority of Israelis who support perpetual Israeli control over the entire West Bank and its two million Palestinians. It’s unfortunate Olmert feels the need to sound provocative and make ludicrous comments like these. Of course, citing the defense risks in a current and complete West Bank withdrawal does nothing to sell his plan. At the very least, Olmert could’ve spoken of the impracticality of continuing to rule over a hostile and growing population.
Bronner reports another shift in Olmert’s thinking: dividing Jerusalem. Here, Bronner cites one of Olmert’s rationales in dividing the city, writing of “continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents.” Yet he neglects to mention the oft-discussed risk of looming rocket attacks on Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods if the city was divided. This too could have served as an informed counterpoint.
Bronner quotes Olmert giving his own citizens some tough love, “we face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians…” Who exactly is “we”? Are not a majority of Israelis “willing to tell” themselves what is required for peace with the Palestinians? What would've served to balance this remark is a telling line from the Yediot interview, omitted from the Times article:
"Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have the necessary courage, strength, internal determination, will or enthusiasm."
How could Bronner leave this out? Maybe it's because he would've had to explain to readers what Olmert wasn't saying when he spoke of peace based on Israeli withdrawal. It sort of seems like Olmert's talking out of both sides of his mouth. Unless of course one understands that Israeli withdrawal is predicated not on the unreasoned belief in reciprocal Palestinian compromise, but on Israeli self-preservation. The Israeli intent in talking up a peace deal with the Palestinians is to cover Israel as it more or less unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank in the coming years -- withouth a willing or able peace partner. Bronner chose not to share this with readers. It's more likely that he's unaware.
On Iran, Olmert remarks that the go-it-alone approach to preventing Iranian nukes is Israeli “megalomania”. Again, Olmert overextends himself with this hysterical remark that’s off the mark. Olmert's subsequent point -- responsibility for preventing a nuclear Iran should be shared by the international community -- could've stood alone. Bronner in turn could have commented on the international community’s meager efforts to date – Russian and Chinese obstruction, stalled sanctions, the IAEA reports, the U.S.'s politicized N.I.E., the energy deals Iran has struck with the EU. A few of these tidbits could’ve shown that an Israeli attack is a concept born primarily of realism and reluctance, not of bravado.
Throughout this very dry report by Bronner, he had an opportunity to offer some insightful analysis, to elaborate on some of Olmert’s points and to read between the lines. Instead, the common New York Times practice of challenging Israeli statements was shelved. This may be due to Olmert's statements -- incomplete points and condescension -- themselves reading like a New York Times editorial.
A6, Tuesday, 9/30/08
By Ethan Bronner
This was a short, straightforward article reporting the remarks Olmert recently made in a Yediot Aharonot interview. There was much more reporting than analysis by the Times’ Bronner.
Some of Olmert’s hyperbolic remarks, however, could have used a thorough parsing. For instance, Bronner quotes Olmert as saying “who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security.” He also cited Olmert as saying that Israeli defense strategists are stuck on antiquated defense doctrine, that concepts like “controlling territories” are “worthless”.
Of course Olmert is referring to radical West Bank Jews and the outposts they try to establish deep in the West Bank, beyond Israel’s barrier. Yet these Jews don’t cite as their motivation security for Israel. Their presence there is ideological.
Also, “controlling territory” to enhance “Israel’s basic security” is not “worthless”. Later in the article, Bronner quotes Olmert detailing a prospective West Bank withdrawal as leaving “a percentage of these territories in our hands”. But keeping these territories is not based solely on demography or the nightmarish prospect of dismantling small cities. It is based on defense through topography. It is vital Israel has some of the West Bank’s high ground near the Green Line, as this high ground is essentially a cliff overlooking Israel’s coastal plain – the heart of the country. Its retention by Israel is vital to prevent rocket attacks and to secure itself against a future land invasion. This is why the majority of Israelis, including Olmert, understand the need to hold onto a small portion of the West Bank. This could have served as an informed counterpoint.
It is likely Olmert didn’t intend to mock the importance to Israel of strategic depth. So why did Olmert make these thoughtless comments? He was speaking to the large minority of Israelis who support perpetual Israeli control over the entire West Bank and its two million Palestinians. It’s unfortunate Olmert feels the need to sound provocative and make ludicrous comments like these. Of course, citing the defense risks in a current and complete West Bank withdrawal does nothing to sell his plan. At the very least, Olmert could’ve spoken of the impracticality of continuing to rule over a hostile and growing population.
Bronner reports another shift in Olmert’s thinking: dividing Jerusalem. Here, Bronner cites one of Olmert’s rationales in dividing the city, writing of “continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents.” Yet he neglects to mention the oft-discussed risk of looming rocket attacks on Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods if the city was divided. This too could have served as an informed counterpoint.
Bronner quotes Olmert giving his own citizens some tough love, “we face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians…” Who exactly is “we”? Are not a majority of Israelis “willing to tell” themselves what is required for peace with the Palestinians? What would've served to balance this remark is a telling line from the Yediot interview, omitted from the Times article:
"Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have the necessary courage, strength, internal determination, will or enthusiasm."
How could Bronner leave this out? Maybe it's because he would've had to explain to readers what Olmert wasn't saying when he spoke of peace based on Israeli withdrawal. It sort of seems like Olmert's talking out of both sides of his mouth. Unless of course one understands that Israeli withdrawal is predicated not on the unreasoned belief in reciprocal Palestinian compromise, but on Israeli self-preservation. The Israeli intent in talking up a peace deal with the Palestinians is to cover Israel as it more or less unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank in the coming years -- withouth a willing or able peace partner. Bronner chose not to share this with readers. It's more likely that he's unaware.
On Iran, Olmert remarks that the go-it-alone approach to preventing Iranian nukes is Israeli “megalomania”. Again, Olmert overextends himself with this hysterical remark that’s off the mark. Olmert's subsequent point -- responsibility for preventing a nuclear Iran should be shared by the international community -- could've stood alone. Bronner in turn could have commented on the international community’s meager efforts to date – Russian and Chinese obstruction, stalled sanctions, the IAEA reports, the U.S.'s politicized N.I.E., the energy deals Iran has struck with the EU. A few of these tidbits could’ve shown that an Israeli attack is a concept born primarily of realism and reluctance, not of bravado.
Throughout this very dry report by Bronner, he had an opportunity to offer some insightful analysis, to elaborate on some of Olmert’s points and to read between the lines. Instead, the common New York Times practice of challenging Israeli statements was shelved. This may be due to Olmert's statements -- incomplete points and condescension -- themselves reading like a New York Times editorial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
