Saturday, January 31, 2009

Erdogan's Anti-Israel Grandstanding

"Turkey: Cheers for Premier After Dispute With Peres"
A10, Saturday 1/31/09, World Briefing
By Sebnem Arsu

The last sentence in this brief is key. A report that Peres called to apologize was disputed. With his impassioned explanation of Israel's predicament, Peres had no reason to apologize for refuting Erdogan's warped view of the conflict and shilling for Hamas.

Erdogan's performance at the Forum in Davos should've been a source of embarrassment for the Prime Minister. Touting propagandistic lines by the second, Erdogan misstated several important facets about Gaza, the ceasefire and Israel's responsibility for the deaths of Gazans. Erdogan's remarks, ostensibly made in the spirit of peace, spread misunderstanding and anger at Israel.

Some have suggested Erdogan's performance will foment anti-Semitism. Considering the rise of anti-Jewish bigotry currently in Turkey, not quelled by Erdogan's recent shilling for Hamas,[both unmentioned in the brief or the larger online article] Turkish leaders should be speaking with a thoughtful and nuanced understanding of Israel's predicament.

Instead, Erdogan's appealing to his country's and the region's Islamists, and hailed as a hero.

"Take Time to Explain" Settlements

"Israeli Advocacy Group Begins Campaign to Help Palestinians Sue Over Settlements"
A10, Saturday 1/31/09
By Isabel Kershner

The tired and unexplored "much of the world views" line about the supposed illegality of Israeli settlements is offered. Kershner, though, breaks with media tradition by offering an Israeli counterpoint:

“Israel argues that the settlement enterprise does not violate the law against transferring populations into occupied territories, but that it represents a voluntary return of individuals to places where they or their ancestors used to live.”

Kershner makes several key points here, but doesn’t go far enough. The Fourth Geneva Convention is what Kershner obliquely refers to when she writes of “the law against transferring populations”. Why not give readers the opportunity to look it up themselves?

She equivocates in not stating the law’s intent, which was to protect local populations from a forcible transfer into our out of the occupied territory. She could’ve cited “various international jurists” who have been less ambiguous on the reading of this law and the legality of Israeli settlements.

Kershner correctly states that “it represents a voluntary return of individuals to places where they or their ancestors used to live.” Most people understand the “ancestors” part, but it’s too bad Kershner didn’t feel the need to add that the Jews wanted to return due to their explusion by Arab forces.

Finally, the parsing over “transfer” is a mere defense against settlement critics. The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land” from the river to the sea. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this right to settlement, affirming that “nothing in the [UN] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.”

Kershner could’ve capsulized these points in a sentence or two, perhaps in the same way she capsulized the very loaded “much of the world”. Thorough examination of settlement legality may be construed as legitimizing them, so the Times takes a pass.

Kershner also makes no distinction among the "285,000 [West Bank] Israelis". Helpful would’ve been another sentence stating that “a vast majority of which are on lands likely to be annexed to Israel as part a final peace accord.” Again, the legitimacy of 200,000+ settler presence hinges on her doing so.

“Some of the data has been obtained by non-governmental groups and has already been published, including in The New York Times in 2006." As the media watchdog CAMERA has reported, there were major flaws with that published data.

On the reliability of the “private land” claims, Kershner does a fair job citing “an Israeli defense official,” who “noted that, in total, the settlements are built on 6 percent of the West Bank” and that private land is a "complicated" issue, “given the different administrations going back to the Ottoman Empire”. Also, Kershner airs the claims that some Palestinians sold their land to Jews, but are now silent, fearful they’ll be labeled “collaborators,” and that “others have no papers to prove ownership”.

Palestinians coming forward apparently “is a sensitive issue,” according to Dror Etkes of Yesh Din. This seems to be a more sensitive issue to Etkes than say, how the Holocaust is treated by Israelis. He wrote in Haaretz that Israel “uses the Holocaust as an alibi” to “preserve the occupation project” showed a lack of sensitivity, and intelligence.

Kershner's article ends with Etkes contending that this sensitive issue “takes time to explain.” The legality of settlements; why “much of the world” considers them all illegal; why many Israelis don’t see them as an obstacle to peace; and the problem of forcibly evicting tens of thousands of settlers. What about these issues surrounding settlements? Shouldn’t they take time to explain?

Friday, January 30, 2009

Israeli Democracy an Impediment to Peace?

1) "A Gaza Talk Sets Off Tempers in Davos," A6, by Katrin Bennhold
2) "Israeli Elections and Gaza Violence Complicate New U.S. Envoy's Peace Mission," A12, by Isabel Kershner
3) "Where the Still Flourishing Underground Economy Is the Only Economy," A13, by Michael Slackman

The Times publishes three poor articles on Israel today, which is pretty much par for the course.

*****
1) A Gaza Talk Sets Off Tempers in Davos

Beginning straight off with the article's poor title (in the print edition), the reporter attempts to create a sort of equivalence between the remarks of the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and those of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey. There is no rationale, however, to explain Erdogan's inflammatory anti-Israel diatribe.

"Tempers" were not set off at the Davos Forum - simply the temper of Erdogan, who was probably looking to score easy political points on the 'Turkish Street.' Peres, on the other hand, was amazingly composed, given that he incredibly "called Mr. Erdogan five minutes later [after he stormed off the stage] to apologize for any misunderstanding." It was clearly Peres that was deserving of an apology.

If the reader has a keen eye, they should be able to clearly differentiate between the statesman-like behavior of Peres and the thuggish intimidation displayed by Erdogan. Among other obscene remarks directed at Peres, Ergodan said, "When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill." Well, Turkey has been amazingly efficient at killing Kurds in Turkish Kurdistan, with little of the concern for international law as distinguished with Israeli efforts to prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip. In terms of sheer numbers, their have been more Kurdish deaths than Palestinian deaths in the respective conflicts of Turkey and Israel.

The presentation of this sort of information would have added much value to the article, undermining Erdogan's shallow propaganda. And back in Turkey, it is important to note, that such state-sanctioned anti-Israel propaganda has greatly increased anti-Semitic incidents against Turkey's Jewish population.

*****
2) Israeli Elections and Gaza Violence Complicate New U.S. Envoy's Peace Mission

Examining the framing of this article in with greater rigor, the reader should note the absurdity of its premises - that Israeli elections are a central impediment to progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace. Elections are a natural function of democracies and should not be viewed as an impediment to peace. Does the Times believe that Israel should alter its political system?
President Obama took office on January 20 and Israeli elections are on February 10. Should the conflict been resolved in less than a month?

Focusing on Israeli elections corresponds with the Times obsession on Israeli actions and developments while largely ignoring those in the Palestinian arena. With regards to Palestinian 'elections,' what about the fact that there was supposed to be Palestinian elections for a new President in January, but current Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas decided to ignore such calls for fear of a Hamas victory? This internecine Fatah-Hamas struggle, coupled with the reality of Hamas' control of Gaza, seems much more of an impediment to peace than Israeli elections.

Beyond this, the Times provides an open platform to senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who sustains the falsehood that Israeli settlements are THE obstacle to peace (as is the NYT position), rather than one obstacle that needs to be resolved. He remarks that "Israel's continued settlement activity in the West Bank" is having a "devastating effect" on the peace process. He then is able to propagate a blatant untruth, saying that
"Mr. Netanyahu had never expressed support for the two-state solution and possibly 'never will.'" Such propagandist statements should not be given a platform without response, but since the Times essentially supports such assertions, they can be printed without scrutiny.

An unfortunate reality.

*****
3) Where the Still Flourishing Underground Economy Is the Only Economy

Times reporter Michael Slackman publishes yet another poetically overwrought article that seeks to minimize the extremism within Arab society, arguing that Arabs simply want the same things we want in the West. In this light, Slackman covers the tunnels between Rafah (Gaza) and Egypt and the smugglers that operate them.

To support this position, Slackman quotes a Palestinian furniture maker: "On the other side, they want to eat. Here we want to eat, too. That’s why we have the tunnels." Many Palestinians surely want to create a viable society, but the way in which the journalist writes the story, one would think that Palestinians aren't accountable for building such a society. Slackman writes that "with every Israeli bomb just over the border, and with every increase in Egyptian security, there is less and less room for any kind of normal life."

So then, disregarding these factors, is Hamas actually interested in creating a "normal life" for Palestinians? To Times readers, it should be clear that Hamas and its legion of supporters are much less interested in creating a viable society than they are in destroying Israel. Slackman, however, refuses to accord agency to the Palestinians (a paternalistic, colonialist throwback). They are simply powerless - their fate controlled by Israel and Egypt.

One must wonder if Slackman recognizes his own 'soft racism.'

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Benedict XVI on the Shoah

  1. "Pope, Expressing Solidarity With Jews, Reacts to Uproar Over a Holocaust Denier"; By Rachel Donadio; A6
  2. "U.S. Envoy Urges 2 Sides To Fortify Gaza Truce"; By Isabel Kershner; A14
The statements of Pope Benedict XVI are welcome, considering the role that the Catholic Church played in abetting and failing to stop the Shoah. 

That said, accompanying his statements should have been a policy reversal wherein Holocaust-denier Bishop Richard Williamson - may his name be blotted out - remains excommunicated. 

Director General of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Oded Wiener, is to be commended for his call to postpone a meeting between Israeli rabbis and the Vatican in March. 

The fact that Benedict XVI did not consult Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Commission for Religious Relations With Jews, before revoking Bishop Williamson's excommunication demonstrates willfulness and insensitivity.  

In an article about US envoy George Mitchell's visit to Jerusalem, Isabel Kershner once again refers to "the reopening of the Gaza border crossings" as a "Hamas demand." Hamas, which is a terrorist organization with a strong social services network, is in no position to make demands since it is not a member of the international community.

One of Mitchell's recommendations - "an end to weapons smuggling into Gaza" - is aligned with Israel's objectives. The other - reopening border-crossings based on a 2005 agreement - does not meet the newly articulated Israeli demand for the release of Gilad Shalit in exchange for the crossings' reopening. 

Kershner mentions Mitchell's role "as chairman of an international fact-finding commission" in 2001, which made an equivalence between settlement-construction and terrorism. On its face, this equivalence is problematic, as it identifies a non-violent action with one that is violent. 

Kershner's reporting suffers at the very end of the article, where she refers to the terrorism following the fallout of Camp David 2000 as "the second Palestinian uprising" even though evidence abounds that Yasir Arafat orchestrated Palestinian attacks on Israelis. That is hardly an "uprising."

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Friedman's Faulty Mind-Reading

"Abdullah II: The 5-State Solution"
A31, Wednesday 1/28/09
By Thomas Friedman

A big reason why the Saudi peace plan “has deteriorated,” writes Friedman, is because “neither the Bush team nor Israel ever built upon it.”

"Build upon" the initiative? The Saudi proposal is more of an ultimatum, with all of its provisions needing to be accepted first before any further dialogue can take place. One of those provisions is the complete “withdrawal” of Israeli forces (as if we’re in June 1967) to the 1949 armistice lines. Considering this is impossible, how is an Israeli leader to “build upon” the initiative?

Nevertheless, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres did respond in a direct, but diplomatic way. “It’s an important step, but liable to founder if terrorism is not stopped.” The plan was put forth in the midst of the worst terror war in Israel's history. Peres also cited the “harsh and rejectionist language used by some of the speakers” at the Summit. One can only imagine the vitriol if Peres referenced it.

Since 2002, the Saudis have consistently corrected Israeli offers to parse over the proposal by stating very clearly that it is “take it or leave it”. Saudi diplomacy at work.

Still, Thomas Friedman knows something all of us don’t. He knows how to read the mind of King Abdullah. He then downgrades this to a “guess,” at “the memo King Abdullah has in his drawer for President Obama”.

In this magical letter, Abdullah proposes that “any territories Israel might retain in the West Bank for its settlers would have to be swapped with land from Israel proper.” Fatah and Hamas would form a unity government, in preparation of a final peace deal with Israel. Israel would phase its settlement withdrawals over five years, “at the same pace Palestinians meet the security” needs of Israel.

Egypt and Jordan “would act as transition guarantors that any Israeli withdrawal would not leave a security vacuum.” As Hamas would seek a takeover, how would the prospect of inter-Arab fighting on behalf of Israeli security, sit with the King?

Friedman would do well to read former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to the US Prince Turki, who made an appeal to Obama in recent op-ed in the Financial Times. The President should “condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon.” How reasonable.

If Obama disregards these simple steps, we all should know what awaits Israel. “So far," the Prince writes, “the kingdom has resisted these calls” of Jihad against Israel.

Apparently in Friedman’s world, any Arab peace proposal is a hopeful one.

Obama on Al Arabiya

"U.S. Is 'Not Your Enemy,' Obama Tells Islamic World"
A8, Wednesday 1/28/09
By Alan Cowell

Obama’s deft handling of Palestinian propaganda was not conveyed in this piece. In the interview, Al Arabiya’s Hisham Melhem tells Obama of the mass frustration because a two-state solution is slipping away…due to Israeli settlements. Melhem asks Obama what he would say to these frustrated souls.

Obama responds that he thinks it’s “possible for us to see a Palestinian state that is contiguous,” which is a point left out in this article. This an important point that Obama answers the charge that settlements have made a Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible.

One paragraph typifies the way the Times presents the source of Middle Eastern ire directed at the US.

"Let’s see your promise, American president, for an independent Palestinian state,” said a commenter on Al Arabiya’s Web site. “Then for sure we will learn to love America through your actions.”

If only the creation of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel, not in place of it, was the overriding goal of Palestinian nationalism. US mediation would then be unnecessary.

Both of the problems above are indicative of Times coverage of Israel: settlements misleadingly portrayed as the nail in the coffin for a two-state solution, and even more misleading, a two-state solution [with Israel retaining its Jewish character and balance of power] is truly desired by the region’s America critics.

For Hamas, Two Out of Three Ain't Bad

"Israeli Soldier and Palestinian Are Killed at Gaza Border"
A8, Wednesday 1/28/09
By Ethan Bronner

On a positive note, Bronner reports that “Hamas seemed eager to play down what had happened, saying it was not clear who was responsible for the explosive device, which had been planted inside Israel, apparently under cover of fog in the early morning, set off by remote control when an Israeli military vehicle was nearby.”

Such a detailed description of Palestinian attacks, as opposed to Israeli operations, are rarely offered.

Bronner then continues that “Israeli officials interpreted the attack as an ominous sign that Hamas was testing them after the recent three-week war.” He reports Israel’s response as bombing smuggling tunnels from Egypt and closing the Gaza crossings.

Aside from this solid reporting, Bronner falls into old Times traps.

He claims 1,300 Palestinians were killed in the recent Gaza operation, citing Gaza “medical officials,” without stating that the Gazan Health Ministry is run by Hamas. If these medical officials were from elsewhere, he should’ve stated that.

In the next sentence, Bronner writes that “the cease-fire is contingent on a full border opening, Mr. Youself [political advisor to Ismail Haniya] said.” Of course, that’s Hamas’ rendering, but Bronner should have added that there is no agreed ceasefire, Yousef is only referring to Hamas’ own policy and that Israel only agreed to humanitarian aid until Gilad Shalit is released and the most obvious point, that borders will not be opened fully following attacks against Israel.

Bronner must’ve spent a good deal of time with Yousef, since he cites him on a number of issues, including his being pleased about Obama’s election, his respect for George Mitchell and his disappointment that he has foregone talks with Hamas, especially since Obama wants to engage with Iran.

Of the quartet’s three conditions placed on Hamas – respect previous agreements, renounce violence and recognize Israel, “Mr. Yousef said the first two could well be fulfilled through an extended cease-fire that Hamas hoped to negotiate with Israel via Egypt. He said Hamas was not prepared to recognize Israel but hoped that with two of three demands met, attitudes toward Hamas might shift.”

With reporting like this, they likely will.

[Article on] Gaza Aid Goes Nowhere

"At a Border Crossing, Drivers and Truckloads of Aid for Gaza Go Nowhere"
A5, Wednesday 1/28/09
By Michael Slackman

A news brief is more befitting the amount of relevant information here, where the only conclusion one should draw is: Israel is irrationally obsessed with security, at the risk of Gazans’ health and alienating Egyptian truck drivers.

Slackman cites the problem of stalled Gaza aid sitting at an Israeli border crossing when he writes that “Egypt is unprepared to meet strict Israeli packing requirements, which would allow the goods to be passed through security scanners and onto Israeli trucks for delivery to Gaza.”

This is the only reference to Israel’s security concern. Are Israeli packing requirements more strict than say the United States at one of its border crossings? Or is it that Egypt is unprepared and ill-equipped for security scanning? Does Israel have cause for concern about mass aid shipments containing weapons? Are these concerns based on experience? What do Israeli officials say?

The above questions would only take up valuable space in this article, which Slackman devotes to more important issues, like amply quoting truck drivers and other aid facilitators [who, go figure] “blame the Israelis”. Slackman even devotes a paragraph to describing truck drivers laying down to share small glasses of tea. Great. Now, what's really holding up this aid?

Most egregious is that by focusing on this border crossing, and not putting into perspective how much aid Israel has facilitated into Gaza through other crossings, Slackman misleads readers. Over 35,000 tons of aid, including raw materials, have passed through the Kerem Shalom, Kissufim, Karni, Nahal Oz and Erez crossings since the end of the ceasefire.

Citing this information might render this a non-story. Looked at another way, it would put the burden on Slackman to explain why all these other crossings are operational and the one he's covering isn’t. Why burden yourself with investigative reporting, when you can just..."blame the Israelis"?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

BBC Takes a Stand for Journalistic Integrity, and Faces the Wrath of the Street

1) "Gaza War Strengthens Israeli Hard-Liners, Not Those in Power," A8, by Isabel Kershner
2) "BBC Assailed for Refusing to Carry Aids' Group Video Appeal for Gaza Relief," A8, by John F. Burns
3) "Obama Sends Special Envoy to Mideast," A8, by Mark Landler

*****
1) Gaza War Strengthens Israeli Hard-Liners, Not Those in Power

The first article discusses gains made by Israel's center-right and rightist parties in the aftermath of Israel's military operations in Gaza. In a truly obnoxious tone, Kershner writes that "the politicians who seem to have benefited the most from the military offensive against Hamas in Gaza are those who were not involved in planning or carrying out the war. That is not because Israelis have regrets or have become faint-hearted about the casualties and destruction in Gaza." In this comment, she appears to be insinuating that if Israelis were more humane (had more "regrets"), they would have recognized the brutality of their actions and turned to more dovish parties.

Instead, the center-right Likud party has solidified its support and Yisrael Beitenu, the right-wing party led by the always controversial Avigdor Lieberman, is slated to gain more parliamentary seats in upcoming elections on February 10. Kershner labels Lieberman with the aggressive-edged adjective, "hawkish," as she has used to previously describe Bibi Netanyahu, leader of Likud.

In the end, this article comes off as somewhat overstated. Only several paragraphs in, does Kershner mention that Ehud Barak, current Defense Minister and leader of the left-of-center Labor Party, also benefited politically from the Gaza campaign. Actually, these military operations essentially made Labor relevant again. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, polls predicted that Labor would receive less than 10 parliamentary seats in the next government. Now polls place Labor at around 15 seats. That would probably make Labor the greatest political beneficiary of the conflict, even if the right has gained as a whole. An inconvenient fact I suppose.

In the end, the Times continues to paint Livni as the "good guy" who will actively continue negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, the right-leaning parties come off as intransigent for not being as enthused about negotiating with a feeble Palestinian Authority that continues incitement against Israel and Jews, and still has failed to dismantle the terrorist apparatus in its midst. The Times does not really recognize the merit of any of these concerns.

It's amusing to note that rising extremism in Palestinian society is reflexively blamed upon Israel, but if Israel takes a slight turn to the right, Israelis are perceived as senselessly "hard-line." Overall, an overstated article.

*****
2) BBC Assailed for Refusing to Carry Aids' Group Video Appeal for Gaza Relief

The next article discusses BBC's decision not to air a video appeal for Gaza relief "prepared by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an organization representing 11 relief agencies." The BBC rightfully claimed that such an appeal would rightfully jeopardize their impartiality in reporting the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sky News has also refused to air the appeal. As a result, BBC News has come under severe pressure, including widespread protests throughout the United Kingdom.

This piece suffers, like Times coverage of other protests that involve an anti-Israel posture, from an inability to communicate the extremism of the protesters involved. Instead, their demands are presented as quite reasonable, even if their actions involve violence or outright anti-Semitism.

For example, dozens of protesters stormed the BBC's headquarters in Glasgow, Scotland to communicate their anger at BBC's decision. This is not normal, reasonable behavior. Furthermore, those in protest have made widespread use of anti-Semitic motifs, particularly the view that the Jews and Israel possess a preponderance of power and wield it in a conspiratorial manner. Take the comments of British Health Minister Ben Bradshaw: "I am afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally." I suppose all this Israeli power somehow explains why more than 170 British MPs have signed a parliamentary motion criticizing BBC and Sky News for their refusal to air the appeal.

The Times reporter calls the Gaza appeal "a purely humanitarian issue" when it carries clear political overtones. For the sake of journalistic integrity, BBC made the right decision here, despite their common criticism of Israel on their airwaves. The Times should be supportive of BBC's stand, rather than paint the BBC protesters as being perfectly reasonable. These protesters are willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for narrow political interests, constituting a danger to the free press of liberal democracies.

3) Obama Sends Special Envoy to Mideast

The last article succinctly summarizes the upcoming Mideast travels of Senator Mitchell, special envoy to the Middle East. President Obama said that "Senator Mitchell has is to engage vigorously and consistently in order for us to achieve genuine progress."

It appears that Obama still views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core" conflict of the region, the sort of fantastical notion that if that conflict reaches a peaceful resolution than the tide of radicalism in the Middle East will somehow dissipate.

If I were an ordinary American, I would be puzzled why the President - who phoned "Arab and Israeli leaders on his first full day in office" - is dedicating so much time to such a narrow issue at the cost of focusing on the economy, Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Gazans' Irrationality

"Skies Silent Over Gaza, but the Wait to Hear the Rumble of Rebuilding Lingers"; By Sabrina Tavernise; A6

Israel would consider lifting the embargo - the topic of today's article - if Hamas recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Really, the matter is that simple. 

When viewed independent of this context, of course, Israel appears stubborn. "Just open the border-crossing. What's the big deal?" many, including NYT, seem to say. Submit to this basic, "Hamas demand," which has a clear humanitarian thrust, as the lives of the people of Gaza will improve. 

Without acknowledging the context surrounding the border-crossing issue - Hamas' rejection of Israel's legitimacy - one cannot understand the Israeli rationale, which is sound. The outcome of a closed border is, of course, unfortunate for Gazans, but if they would insist upon Hamas' recognition of Israel, or if they would even vote out Hamas, then their lives would be considerably better. 

Taking into account the fact that "nearly all of Gaza's imports come through Israel," as Tavernise reports, Gazans' rejection of Israel's right to exist is irrational. To move forward, the international community must pressure Gazans to overcome their irrationality and embrace reality. 

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Egypt Facebook Group Offers Kernel of Hope

"Revolution, Facebook-Style"
MM34, Sunday 1/25/09
By Samantha Shapiro

Samantha Shapiro offers a much-needed look at Egypt’s budding pro-democracy movement. Aside from the Muslim Brotherhood, there is nothing else typically described as challenging the Mubarak grip on power.

This piece focuses on a growing (70,000+) “April 6 Youth Movement” that has coalesced around Facebook, due to a relatively unregulated internet in Egypt. The opening describes how Facebook groups, including “April 6” organized Gaza protests.

Searching for some of these diverse groups online, she “found a group called ‘With all due respect, Gaza, I don’t support you,’ which blamed Palestinian suffering on Hamas and lamented the recent shooting of two Egyptian border guards, which had been attributed to Hamas fire.”

Shapiro doesn’t point out how small the group is, but it's assumed, and while she also spends the first page of the piece describing Egyptian groups rallying against Israel, it’s nice to see some dissent when it comes to Israel exists. A kernel of hope is better than nothing.

Bush's Mideast Legacy

"What is Bush's Legacy in the Mideast?"
WK9, Sunday 1/25/09
Letters to the Editor

Eden asserts that “Bush’s ardent support seemed to be directed more to one political faction in Israel – the extreme right – than to Israel as a whole.”

In an obvious pander to Israel’s extreme right, Bush has declared that the “unauthorized outposts need to be dismantled,”. Was Bush’s support directed at the right when he refused to pardon Jonathan Pollard, or refused to move the US embassy to Jerusalem (despite a campaign promise)? What about when Bush spoke of the need to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Bush obviously knows what Israel’s extreme right likes to hear.

Of course Eden offers no examples to support his point, because there are none. But he does offer best wishes to President Obama, hoping that he will “support Israel’s mainstream”.

It can reasonably be argued that Bush, with his rhetoric, didn't support Israel's mainstream, but its left wing.

********************

In a similar vain to Eden’s, Levy writes that Bush’s friendship to Israel was lacking. He references Hezbollah and Hamas, but not to show that Bush’s push for Palestinian elections brought Hamas to power, nor to show that Bush’s Secretary of State pushed a flawed Security Council resolution ending the Hezbollah war, only strengthening the group.

Instead, Levy’s complaint is that Bush “supported the use of military force, despite the fact that a military solution to these problems does not exist.”

Israel doesn’t take military action against these groups because it thinks it will be an automatic “solution” to the problems they pose. It is because of an obligation to protect its citizens that Israel uses military force. This is a concept even Bush can understand.

Confusing "Sacred" and "Material"

"How Words Could End a War"
WK12, Sunday 1/25/09, Op-Ed
By Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges

Lives and dollars sacrificed “demonstrate the advantages of peace and coexistence; yet both sides opt to fight.” As if the title’s assertion that “words” could end this conflict isn’t enough to dim the lights in your house, there's this gratuitous equivalence in the opening paragraph.

The writers demonstrate a narrow view of “sweetening the pot”. It is not in the proposal of international aid that the Palestinians reject as extortion, but the very notion of compromise with Israel.

One conclusion reached involves “Palestinian hard-liners" who “were more willing to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist if the Israelis simply offered an official apology for Palestinian suffering in the 1948 war.”

There are major problems with such an “official apology". Many Israelis rightly see Palestinian suffering in that war as a result of the Arab, and specifically the Palestinian-Arab, choice to launch that war. Issuing an apology, some conclude, would backfire, rendering legitimate the pretext for, and thus perpetuating, armed struggle.

"Similarly, Israeli respondents said they could live with a partition of Jerusalem and borders very close to those that existed before the 1967 war if Hamas and other major Palestinian groups explicitly recognized Israel’s right to exist.”

In proving their theses, the writers' language is flawed. According to the question posed to them, Palestinian hard-liners would “consider” recognizing Israel’s right to exist [which could just be some public pronouncement, as Fatah has done when politically expedient] in return for an apology not completely anchored in historical truth.

Meanwhile, Israelis were seemingly posed a more specific scenario [“living with”], which would include dividing Judaism’ holiest city and creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza…and only in return for a promise.

These scenarios are hardly similar.

The asymmetry continues as the writers stretch their thesis to oblivion when recounting their “discussions with political leaders from both sides.” Hamas Deputy Chairman Abu Marzook “said no [to] a trade-off for peace without granting a right of return.”

The writers overlook that “granting a right of return,” means the end of Israel. This is not simply a sacred value that can be catered to with pronouncements, but one that must be actualized, as Hamas has stated explicitly many times.

Abu Marzook, when asked about the Israeli apology “brightened,” but also revealingly said “it’s not enough because our houses and lands were taken away from us and something has to be done about that.” Drawing an uninformed conclusion on Hamas, the writers state “his response suggested that progress on sacred values might open the way for negotiations on material issues, rather than the reverse.”

Yet progress on return will not “open the way for negotiations,” only its implementation will placate Hamas, which has consistently expressed deep antipathy to the idea of ever recognizing Israel. Still, to better understand how twisted is the logic of these researchers, using terms these writers could understand, Hamas says: We’ll have an agreement with Israel when there’s no more Israel. Hamas has apparently not made this demand clear enough.

Netanyahu agrees to “seriously consider accepting a two-state solution following the 1967 borders if the Palestinians were to recognize the right of the Jewish people to an independent state in the region.” He offers a rational qualification that “the Palestinians would have to show that they sincerely mean it, change their textbooks, and anti-Semitic characterizations.”

This demand, as implied by the writers, isn’t simply a “sacred value,” meant to mollify long-simmering tensions. It is the most basic requirement for any tangible peace agreement to hold. Rather than qualifying a two-state solution on the other party’s demise (Abu Marzook’s stance that recognition of the right of return “is not enough,” and “something has to be done” about it), Netanyahu qualifies a two-state solution on the tangible promotion of peace – which manifests itself just as much, if not more, as a “material issue” than as a “sacred value.”

What was intended to be research to offer insight only served to mislead.

Friedman's Window Closers

"This Is Not A Test"
WK10, Sunday 1/25/09, Op-Ed
By Thomas Friedman

We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution,” writes Friedman, “because the two chief window closers – Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank – have been in the driver’s seats.”

The settlers in the driver’s seat? What play is Friedman watching? In order to neatly make his little equivalence, Friedman disregards that settlement activity for the past decade has been seriously curtailed; the Israeli government is laying the groundwork for evacuating Jews east of the barrier – publicly debating compensation packages for those settlers, as well as dismantling no small number of outposts.

Yet Friedman writes “No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the [outposts]."

This is all happening while Abbas and his supposedly two-state minded party promote the right of return and deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state, which Friedman doesn’t mention. That Israel has no genuine partner for peace is just too hard to accept.

While Friedman rightly points out the danger of Israel allowing “independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy,” he pretends that soaring popularity for Hamas doesn’t mean resistance to Israel not only dominates Palestinian politics, but is the engine for it.

"Because without a stable two-state solution, what you will have is an Israel hiding behind a high wall, defending itself from a Hamas-run failed state in Gaza, a Hezbollah-run failed state in south Lebanon and a Fatah-run failed state in Ramallah. Have a nice day.”

A neatly packaged picture, but one mixing cause and effect. It’s because of all these failed terror states surrounding Israel – including the one based in Ramallah, that Israel has no prospect for a stable two-state solution.

Friedman writes that “it’s true Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away.” (Well, not with that attitude.)

A movement, willing to rain death and destruction on its own people to prove its commitment to armed struggle against Israel, Friedman thinks, can be “bought, cajoled and pressured.”

Israeli security measures within the West Bank are a result of a similar policy by Fatah to foment, or turn the other cheek to, anti-Israel militancy, and in the process hold back economic development and nation-building. The PA then points to these Israeli restrictions and yells loudly to the world that Israel holds up peace. Friedman is listening.

Language War Corrupts Bronner

"The Bullets in My In-Box"
WK1, Sunday 1/25/09, Gaza Notebook: Op-Ed
By Ethan Bronner

Ethan Bronner says he's "confounded" in trying to "narrate the [Arab-Israeli] conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair." Bronner should be piercing through all the propaganda. In misunderstanding his responsibilities as a reporter, he winds up pleasing no one, and foments misunderstanding of the conflict.

The problem, of which Bronner seems unaware, can be seen in his Husseini anecdote. The late Palestinian leader "had no idea [one] could be a proud Zionist" because he “never heard” good things about them. The unanimity in which Israel's legitimacy is denied, the world Husseini illustrates, is why both side’s language cannot be viewed with blithe equivocation.

Dissent, complexity or alternative narratives are not just discouraged, but dangerous. Do the Jews have national rights? Is there room in Palestine for these rights and those of the Arabs? Questions like these are asked among Israelis and their supporters, but unasked among Palestinians and those who support their cause.

Bronner is accurate in saying for Israeli Jews "there is no higher value than Zionism." Yet Bronner uses different language for others in the region, for which Zionisim “stands for “oppression”. Has Zionism has actually oppressed them, or is that how it’s presented?

The double-speak among both sides’ mainstreams is beyond compare. “Resistance” and the Palestinian “right to resist” masks the bombing of children; the “occupation” refers to Israel. “Collaborator” is anyone not just actually working with Israel’s Shin Bet, but anyone who dissents from the view that Israel must be destroyed. Because much of the west accepts – more or less – Israel’s legitimacy, anti-Israel partisans are forced to use deceptive and loaded language.

Bronner inadvertently demonstrates this point, writing “the barrier snaking across and inside the West Bank is a wall to Palestinians, a fence to Israelis”. [95% of the barrier is a fence; the rest is a wall.]

Bronner offers a "set of assumptions" from either side, but they're assymetrical. He describes the Gaza fighting as reaffirming for “opponents of Israel” that “Israel is a kind of Sparta that dehumanizes the Palestinians and will do anything to prevent their dignified self-determination.”

Meanwhile, “those for whom Israel is the victim and never the aggressor,” [why not simply write “proponents of Israel”?] saw Gaza as reaffirming their belief that Hamas is Islamic terrorists, hides behind civilians and the Israeli army shows restraint and is moral.

That Bronner sees the sides here as mirroring each other in their perceptions of reality is troubling, and reflects his paper’s false and simplistic equivalence.

Bronner channels the anti-Israel view of Israel’s goal – to prevent Palestinian self-determination. Yet he doesn’t channel the pro-Israel view of the Palestinians’ goal – to destroy Israel, if not militarily, politically.

Bronner gets hate mail, the “bullets in his in-box”. He’s called “scum” by someone concerned that he’ll describe as “random” Israel’s killing of hundreds. He contrasts this with a concern for Israelis, from someone who writes of “poor filthy Arabs.” This isn’t the only selective reference to Israel and racism. Earlier, citing what “opponents of Israel” might say, he referenced “the racist graffiti left on the walls” in Gaza. Of course, the anti-Jewish bigotry rampant in
Palestinian and Arab culture, dwarfing anything produced by Israel, is unmentioned, even from Bronner’s fictitious Israel partisans.

Bronner praises Taghreed el-Khodary, who stood down Hamas intimidation because she was reporting on its executions of “collaborators”. For this, she’s called a Zionist, “fully complicit in Israel’s atrocities, so say Arab bloggers.

These ludicrous accusations are ostensibly on a similar level with Israel’s supposed justification of its media ban, as Bronner states it, “because no independent journalism could possibly occur in an area run by Hamas.” Bronner responds “have any of these people ever read Taghreed’s work? Or any of our work out here”?

First, Israel’s media ban was likely due to the possibility that the press would’ve been used by Hamas as shields and that they would’ve broadcast Israeli troop movements (intentional or not) as happened during the 2006 Lebanon war.

Second, Bronner glosses over how independent journalism is very difficult in Gaza, notably if a journalist is outwardly critical of the regime and questions Gazans on the ills Hamas brings. It’s unclear from one case if el-Khodary reports critically of Hamas and its tactics. Clearer is her unwillingness (or possible inability) to critically question Gazans.

In falsely assuming that one cannot weigh the merits and facts of each narrative, Bronner ultimately proves himself incapable of properly reporting this conflict.

"Vatican Heals Itself, Whatever the Consequences"

"Pope Embraces 4 Rebel Bishops"
A1, Sunday 1/25/09,
By Rachel Donadio

Four “schismatic” bishops had their excommunications revoked by Pope Benedict XVI. One of the bishops is a Holocaust denier. The article appropriately appears on Sunday’s front page, above the fold.

However, rather than seeing the decision as possibly fomenting anti-Semitism throughout the Catholic world and beyond, the decision is described as, first and foremost, “provided fresh fuel for critics” who disapprove of Benedict’s revocation of the Second Vatican Council’s reforms. One of these reforms was to absolve the Jews for Jesus’ death.

This is a valid way to look at Benedict’s moves, of course, but it overlooks the demonizing effects on millions of people’s views of Jews, a humanitarian issue. This is given a short mention, and cabined as “jeopardizing 50 years of Vatican efforts to ease tensions with Jewish groups.” No doubt Jewish groups are upset, but there should be reference to the detrimental effects on Jewish communities. The story is much bigger than the offense to Abe Foxman.

Another questions unasked is, what exactly is a more “traditional” Vatican? Are there others ways, aside from legitimizing Holocaust denial, to reinstate a more traditional, less open, way of the Vatican?

A smart observation is made by Gillis, who writes that the move is about healing “our own house, whatever the consequences are externally.” Indeed.

Neighborhoods Devastated, Reconstruction Blocked

"Amid the Destruction, a Play About Shells for Gaza Children Back in School"
A6, Sunday 1/25/09,
By Ethan Bronner

This piece is marred by Bronner's failure to explain why some of Gaza's neighborhoods were "devastated," and why Gaza "has not been able to bring in raw materials."

Bronner neglects to note the shift in Gaza schools, from plays devoted to showing Jews as enemies deserving no mercy to plays "devoted to how to handle dangerous materials, like shell parts, still in or near homes." Such a wry observation may seem unprofessional in a piece like this, yet would help illustrate why Gaza's children have to worry about shell parts in their homes.

After the play, each student "described what had happened to him and to his friends and family" during Israel's operation. One wonders whether Hamas militants using them, their homes and institutions for military cover received mention.

“Gaza remains in a kind of stupor. There are numbers, of course, to describe the misery - 4,000 homes destroyed, 21,000 badly damaged, 100,000 people homeless - but they do not tell the full story.”

In his attempt to tell the full story, Bronner writes that "wedding halls are blackened hulks, mosques are gone". He points out that most of Gaza is intact. "This is not Dresden after World War II." This disclaimer, only when considering the misleading media coverage of this operation, is not so obscene.

Yet in describing the devastation of specific neighborhoods, Bronner makes little attempt to explain what was so special about them. A map Israeli troops said showed booby-trapped homes "was hard to match" with the area, "and residents said they were farmers, not fighters, and that there had been no explosives or booby traps in their houses. But several acknowledged that under the area’s main street was a long tunnel used by Hamas fighters, now collapsed by Israeli explosives.”

Of course the residents may be farmers, but weren't they used by the fighters? How exactly was this tunnel used by Hamas? Could there have been residents not interviewed who tell a different story? Or those interviewed who are afraid to? Reading this article, one would get no sense that Hamas' war strategy was to use Gaza's civilian infrastructure, as described by Steven Erlanger.

"Little came (Israeli soldiers’) way, apparently because Hamas fighters decided that it was not worth dying.” Hundreds of Hamas militants decided that it was. Bronner seems to have concluded that most if not all Hamas were killed not engaged on the battlefield. How does he conclude this? For those Hamas that weren't killed, who for instance fled after firing rockets, mortars or bullets, they felt it was worth their fellow Gazans dying, when Israeli soldiers returned fire.

Bronner makes an incomplete point when he writes of no functioning glass or cement factories, as Gaza has been unable to import “raw materials for months because Israel and Egypt closed commercial crossings.”

A UN relief official states “the Israelis don’t say no, but they say we need to have assurances it will not be misused by Hamas. We are trying to work out the mechanisms.” This isn't enough.

Bronner should've noted that the crossings haven’t been closed to food, medical and humanitarian shipments, and that cement, in particular, is a material cited by Israeli officials as one directly used not just for infrastructure, but for military purposes like tunnels and underground bunkers.

Unfortunately, that Hamas is violently committed to Israel's destruction seems to have little bearing on explaining Gaza's closed commercial crossings.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Bill Moyers Morally Flawed Universe

2) "Israel and The Use of Force, as Bill Moyers See It," A20 (Letters to the Editor)

Times coverage falls to only a single article and single letter to the editor, but both are of conspicuously poor quality.

*****
1) As Israeli Bombing Stops, Gazans Get Busy Rebuilding Damaged Tunnels

This problematic article details the reconstruction of tunnels that Israel had destroyed during its recent military operations in Gaza. Hamas had used these tunnels to smuggle in weapons as well as certain commercial goods, since Egypt and Israel refuse to engage in economic trade with Gaza while the radical Islamist movement controls the Strip.

This piece propagates significant narrative falsehoods on the conflict, including the belief that:
  • Gazan "resistance" (use of terrorism) is simply in response to Israel's "economic blockade."
  • Israeli operations are singularly responsible for rising extremism within the Strip.
Regarding Palestinian reconstruction, the reporter relates:The defiant pose seemed surprisingly brazen in light of recent events:
Israel said smuggling tunnels were a prime concern, after Hamas rockets, in attacking Gaza, and it hit dozens of them in airstrikes during the war. But the tunnels are the principal livelihood for many people here, and as soon as the bombing stopped, they were right back in them with their shovels. “Do you think we’d be busy digging underground if there was no embargo?” said Ahmed, a tall man in a leather jacket who was overseeing work on his tunnels on Friday. “If there was no embargo, we’d have real jobs.”
By "defiant pose," is the reporter referring to an unbridled desire to destroy Israel among Palestinian radicals? The way she phrases it, one would think that Palestinians are simply motivated by socioeconomic gain, when it should be clear that Hamas is more interested in destroying Israel than building a viable society. The onus for the "embargo" is placed on Israel when it has no obligation to engage in economic trade with a regime that is committed to its destruction (though Israel humanely continues to provide Gaza with the requisite humanitarian aid so as to avoid a humanitarian crisis).

This all leads to the faulty conclusion that Hamas attacks Israel with the support of Gazans simply because of Israel's economic blockade. No mention is made of Hamas' intense indoctrination of Jew-hatred and unyielding commitment to liberate Palestine. By this logic, attacks against Israel should cease if the crossings were to be open. But when the crossings were open in the past, rockets still dropped into this Israel.

This piece also fails to note that it is not simply Israel that has enacted such an "embargo." Of key significance is Egypt's refusal to open the Rafah border crossing with Gaza. Why is Egypt not held accountable?

The second key problem is in this pargraph:
Israel has contended that the bombing is a way to drive a wedge between the people and Hamas, but it seems to be having precisely the opposite effect. A tunnel manager in his 30s named Mahmoud said he had felt closer to Hamas since the war, because, however flawed, Hamas was the one group that stood up to Israeli aggression.
Israel's main objective was to halt, or at least strike a severe blow, to Hamas' incessant rocket fire upon Israel - not to "drive a wedge between the people and Hamas." Hamas indoctrination of its people and Palestinian attraction to radicalism is an internal Palestinian problem. To say that Israel is responsible for Palestinian extremism is to deny agency to the Palestinian people (as European colonialists did to their indigenous subjects).

If a reader were curious, they might ask, why is it that Palestinians are so attracted to a political entity that wishes to engage in a life-and-death struggle with Israel and all the consequences it entails? What might that say about the Palestinian psyche and how they view Israel? Why is there such a lack of compromise?

*****
2) Israel and The Use of Force, as Bill Moyers See It

This extremely manipulative op-ed, penned by acclaimed journalist Bill Moyers, makes some egregious assertions. Responding to a William Kristol op-ed critical of his views, Moyers complains that "According to him [Kristol], I 'lambasted Israel' for what I 'called its state terrorism.'" The amusing part of the letter though, is that this is what Moyers goes on to exactly argue - that Israel did in fact engage in state terrorism.

First though, lip-service is provided to Israel's obligation to defend its civilians and Hamas' extremism: "Every nation has the right to defend its people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead. But brute force can turn self-defense into state terrorism."

Is Moyers, an intelligent gentleman, actually arguing that Israel unleashed even a fraction of its force upon Gaza? Apparently he is: "By killing indiscriminately the elderly, kids, entire families, by destroying schools and hospitals, Israel did exactly what terrorists do and exactly what Hamas wanted. It spilled the blood that turns the wheel of retribution."

Moyers does not make a distinction between Hamas' purposeful targeting of civilian targets and Israel's purposeful targeting of Hamas targets in which Palestinian civilians have also incidentally been killed. Civilians die in any conflict, but Israel's desire to avoid civilian casualties is made all the more difficult by the fact that Hamas willfully uses its population as a human shield, showing no regard for their lives. It is appalling that Moyers fails to address this difficult reality.

That Moyers cannot differentiate between the intentionality of both sides is a great moral failing. Instead he establishes a shallow moral equivalence in which Hamas engages in terrorism and Israel engages in state-terrorism. He does not wish to attune himself to the realities of fighting a terrorist force. In Moyers' world, Israel would have no redress to defend itself, because regardless of what it would be doing, it would be guilty of state terrorism.

This morally flawed reality must be denied.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Letter-Writers Thrash Qaddafi

  1. "Letters: Qaddafi's Solution: A State of Isratine'"; A26
  2. "A Palestinian Rival Says It Is Under Attack by Hamas in Gaza"; By Sabrina Tavernise; A5
  3. "Hamas to Start Paying Gaza Residents Compensation and Reconstruction Aid"; By Isabel Kershner; A8
The only redeeming aspect of NYT’s decision to print Qaddafi’s “cosmically absurd” editorial is the ensuing slew of letters thrashing his ideas the following day.

In addition to the letter of our very own Shamsham, several other letters made some excellent points.

Hillel Buechler presents a rebuttal to the “one state solution.” Such a state, he argues would constitute “instant politicide for the Israeli government.”

One letter-writer, Rosemary Wolfe, publicly shames NYT for publishing Qaddafi, who is responsible for the murder of her stepdaughter on Pan Am flight 103.

Carol Shoshkes Reiss provides the most innovative idea of the Letters section today, recommending a three-state solution, wherein Gaza and Judea & Samaria, or the West Bank, are two separate states a la the arrangement in South Asia between Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Historical precedent is on Reiss’ side here, as it is not on that of those who advocate one state – the wrongheadedness of which the examples of the former Yugoslavia and Lebanon attest to.

Separately, the aftermath of the Gaza war is all about who won - Hamas or Israel. 

Sabrina Tavernise reports on Hamas' efforts to maintain control over Gaza, an indication that the group was weakened by Israel's incursion. "Members of Fatah contend that Hamas has begun harassing Fatah supporters to reassert its authority in Gaza." writes Tavernise. According to Fatah members, "Hamas might feel somewhat weakened by the Israeli offensive." NYT is generally resistant to giving voice to this view. 

A second indication that Hamas is trying to retain control of Gaza is that it has offered to pay for the damages to homes sustained by the Israeli offensive. After all, in order to maintain the loyalty of the people, Hamas has to provide for them. Isabel Kershner discusses the matter of reconstruction in "Hamas to Start Paying..."

The title misleads, however, as much of the reporting is about Israel's desire to stop weapons-smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. Israel recommends "more technical assistance on the Egyptian side, heavier policing in the Egyptian Sinai and international action to stop shipments of weapons en route to Egypt by sea."

Kershner subtly tries to undermine the Israeli decision to keep the border-crossings closed, suggesting that "European and international pressure is mounting" to open them. She does not, however, substantiate this claim. 

Referring to the opening of the border-crossing as a "Hamas demand" is an underhanded way of legitimizing the group. 

On a promising closing note, Olmert and Barak are calling for the release of Gilad Shalit in a prisoner exchange with Hamas. 

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Once Upon Isratine

"The One-State Solution"
A33, Thursday 1/22/09, Op-Ed
By Muammar Qaddafi (no kidding)

For its bi-annual One-State op-ed, the Times could’ve gone with a Palestinian spokesman, like Michael Tarazi or Diane Buttu. A respected Jewish professor, like Tony Judt, is a trendy pick. Yet Libyan dictator and 80s terrorist icon Muammar Qaddafi got the nod this time.

Qaddafi knows that his terror star power alone isn’t a ticket to getting published in the Times. He has to strike a certain tone. While lamenting “tired rhetoric,” he describes in ambiguous New York Times fashion a “wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence,” “religious extremists in the region” and a “cycle of destruction”.

The artificial even-handedness, including a few pandering points, though, serves a bigger purpose since the colonel has an even-handed approach in solving the conflict.

He begins by bestowing on Palestinians a centuries-old national identity, replacing what should be “Arabs/Muslims” with “Palestinians.” He writes “the state of war between the Jews and Palestinians has not always existed,” and “many of the divisions between Jews and Palestinians are recent ones.” One wonders which older divisions existed between Jews and Palestinians before the 20th century.

He mentions that Jews until 1948 referred to the land as Palestine. True, but he doesn’t mention that the Arabs of Palestine started referring to themselves as Palestinian predominantly after 1967. He mentions the refuge and shelter Jews found in Arab lands – a relative and incomplete truth.

Diminishing the significance the land has for Jews, and setting up his utopian vision of a shared future, Qadafi writes of “waves of peoples from all directions,” which “complicates claims by either party.” He refers to a Palestinian “history of persecution,” in the same vain as the Jews. In a piece like this, these are minor quibbles, but still worth mentioning.

A two-state solution, we’re told, “will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel,” with an “armed Arab state” right next door. Sounding like the IDF Chief of Staff, Qaddafi speaks of Israel’s strategic depth and points out Israel is “less than 10 miles at its narrowest point”.

Qaddafi then moves on to resolving the Palestinian refugee problem. “Any situation that keeps the majority in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.”

It’s unclear what two-state plans Qaddafi perused, but none call for keeping any refugees in camps and all call for settlement and normalization within a Palestinian state – which would be within the borders of which Qaddafi speaks. He states that “Palestinian held areas” (which would no doubt expand under a peace deal) “could not accommodate all of the refugees.” Baloney.

It’s also unclear what he means by the “older idea” of dividing the West Bank “into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them.” One can only guess he’s referring to the propagandized “bantustan” version of the Camp David proposal.

He writes that Israelis and Palestinians have “become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.” The economic cooperation has in the past decade decreased as Palestinian armed struggle has increased. One can only guess what he was thinking with “politically”.

Qaddafi returns to Palestinian refugees, this time spelling out the “right of return”. Just when you think Qaddafi has a grasp of Jewish history, he writes that it is not Jews, nor their ancestors, who were original inhabitants of Palestine.

Fascinatingly, Qaddafi strings together four relevant points. He writes that Palestinians “fled in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 – violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.”

Qaddafi actually embellishes, using absolute language with each of these points. They fled in fear during 1948; violence against the Arabs, much of which was rumored, did occur; Jews did forcibly expel some Palestinians; it’s hard to imagine that Palestinian Arabs were never un-welcomed. Nevertheless, Qaddafi’s points enforce a greater truth that the Palestinian exodus, the Nakba, was self-induced.

The next point revisits Isratine's absorption capacity. “Only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace.” This point, along with increasing the use of his “Isratine,” are what he really seems to want to drive home.

To further cement the logic of Isratine, he writes of assimilation as a success story in Israel. Although Arabs in Israel are citizens and “take part in political life,” they are hardly assimilated.

Even more ridiculous, he cites West Bank settlements, where “Israeli factories depend on labor, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.” It’s fitting that in a piece the Times likely saw itself as sophisticated and edgy in printing, Israeli
settlements are “models of assimilation”.

Early in the piece, Qaddafi wrote that “the Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.” Combine this with Qaddafi’s problematic contention that the “basis for Israel is persecution of the Jewish people,” and you have the most solid argument against the one-state idea.

Aside from the right of the Jews – as well as the Palestinians, if they truly desire it – to self-determination, what is consciously overlooked is the genocidal anti-Jewish propaganda that has for decades molded the minds of Israel’s neighbors. In this case, borders bring peace and justice.

Qadaffi revealed another fundamental flaw in this piece when he writes of “a just and lasting peace” which “lies in the history of the people of this land”. Yet it’s not just in the history of the Jews, but in their future that explains the Jews' overwhelming desire for a place of safety, a desire to control their own destiny.

In a speech in June, Qadaffi suggested that JFK was assassinated “when he promised to look into Israel’s nuclear program.” That was actually the less offensive part of a speech in which he sought to explain candidate Barack Obama’s support for Israel:

"We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him."

Perhaps the Times could solicit Qadaffi’s views on race relations. Actually, it's unlikely that if Qaddafi submitted a piece on something other than Israel, it would get printed.

Palestinian, American Jewish Illusions

"As a New Administration Tackles the Middle East"
A32, Thursday 1/22/09, Letters to the Editor

The Times finally prints a rebuttal to its push for “evenhandedness”. Included is a reference to “Palestinian illusions”. The breakdown is simple, yet captures a century of conflict:

“The Palestinians historically wanted Israel’s destruction and convinced themselves that if only they could engage in terror, get the UN against Israel, encourage boycotts and stimulate media criticism of Israel, they’d get their wish and Israel would disappear.”

Lewy offers a seldom-heard prescription for peace, albeit one lacking in detail. “Rally nations to help rid the Palestinians of these destructive illusions.”

Additional value of the piece is that it speaks to the harm caused not only to Israel, but “far more to the Palestinians themselves”.

In the second letter, the writer identifies himself as Jewish, which is sandwiched in between his claim of “unquestioned” support for Israel from America’s leaders and American Jews. Two questions: Have Bush’s policies – to name but one president – really been embraced by Israeli leaders? Has the writer read a Jewish newspaper or watched the Daily Show lately? The support is questioned, and in a shallow way.

Who knows where the writer got “the destruction of thousands of Palestinian homes to make room for Jewish settlers in the West Bank”. It is possible that thousands of Palestinian homes have been destroyed – to kill or capture militants, or previously for collective punishment on a suicide bomber’s family, or in the seldom-enforced demolition orders on illegally and rapidly built Palestinian homes – but to make room for Jewish settlements? The Times' fact-checkers, if on-duty at all, would likely just reach out to B'Tselem to confirm this defamation.

Bender writes of the “tragic cycle of violence” and ends with quoting the Times’ flawed editorial. He's right to say that “peace with the Palestinians” will be vital in bringing Israel “lasting security". This sentiment, as usual, is left hollow without stating that before the difficult reality of Palestinian moderation can be realized, “sieges, checkpoints or invasions” are the unfortunate realities of Israel defending its citizens.

Arab Radicals Part of Israeli Democracy

"Israel: High Court Rules for Arab Parties"
A15, Thursday 1/22/09, World Briefing
By Isabel Kershner

This short brief does a fair job explaining why Israel’s Central Elections Committee voted to ban United Arab List and Balad: support for terrorism and the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. One shouldn't expect a brief to cover all the sordid details of these party's leaders, like Azmi Bishara's work with Hezbollah, or platforms, like pushing rejection of national service. Nevertheless, an article likely would've done these issues little justice.

It’s also important that there was no reference to Israel Beitenu and National Union, two right-wing parties who filed the petitions with the Committee, lest a mainstream concern for these parties’ radicalism and its irreparable harm be relegated as right-wing.

A New Era of Balance

"Obama Plans to Call on Seasoned Negotiator to Serve as a Mideast Envoy"
A16, Thursday 1/22/09
By Mark Landler

George Mitchell, as reported earlier in the week, will be appointed President Obama’s special emissary to the region.

Before the President has a chance to articulate his approach to the Arab-Israel conflict, it’s being reported that he’s heralding in a new era of “balance”. Mitchell, as described by Martin Indyk, is “in a sense, neutral”.

It’s a relief that Israeli intransigence, like forcing Jewish settlers from their homes, using checkpoints and roadblocks to curb terrorism and operations to kill terrorists could now receive the same reproach as Palestinian intransigence, like blowing up children and educating its public for endless war. With this even-handedness, the Palestinians and Arab world may now finally start to take get a whiff of American morality.

Actually, during the past 15 years, both sides have received the same reproach. Profoundly different actions receiving the same non-response, along with plenty of financial aid. This is the imbalance.

Tepid Rendering of Palestinian Exploitation

"At Arab Gathering on Development, the Talk Is All About Gaza"
A16, Thursday 1/22/09
By Michael Slackman

Slackman presents another sad and disheartening fact of the Arab-Israeli conflict: the regional exploitation of the Palestinians. But he doesn’t go far enough. He’s comfortable enough to make broad statements about the conflict “serving as a convenient distraction, a “tool” in the hands of self-promoters. Yet Slackman’s deficient analysis is demonstrated in his stating that “the Arab world has been in the same self-defeating fight for decades," and then failing to define that fight. Later, his incomplete and deceptive reference to “Arab states fighting for a Palestinian homeland" is the ambiguity that fills the void.

What homeland? In place of Israel or next to Israel? An all-or-nothing approach in supposedly seeking this homeland is the “self-defeating fight” to which Slackman should be referring. The destruction of Israel, not simply a “Palestinian homeland,” is the goal for which the Arab world, not just exploitative leaders, pine.

An important quote at the end is from Mohammad al-Rumaihi, editor of a Kuwaiti newspaper. “If Hezbollah loves the Palestinians so much they want to fight Israel, why can’t they fight to give the Palestinians human rights in Lebanon?” This is a good sign. That hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon are languishing in refugee camps, with no rights, is a matter that merits virtually no ink at the Times, which would rather preserve the space for Israel’s use of white phosphorous.

Al-Rumaihi, however, over-extends himself when he writes “the masses, their hearts are with the Palestinians.” If so, how does one explain Hezbollah’s euphoric popularity among…the masses? The pawning of the Palestinians isn’t restricted to Arab leaders.

Israeli War Crimes? Let the Conversation Begin

"Outcry Erupts Over Reports That Israel Used Phosphorus Arms on Gazans"
A16, Thursday 1/22/09
By Ethan Bronner

The slogan of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign should be adopted for this article, which served no other purpose than inserting into public discussion whether or not Israel committed war crimes in its use of white phosphorous.

Too many issues remain unclear. The Israeli investigation into the matter has yet to be concluded. The politically-motivated investigations hoped for by NGOs have yet to begin. The statements of Amnesty International, as well as Palestinian officials and others have yet to be verified.

Did this still developing story warrant a half-page article? If Israeli use of the substance is deemed consistent with international law, will that story warrant a half-page follow-up?

While the article served to convey more Palestinian anger at Israel – “they should feel the pain we felt” – it served a larger purpose: let the conversation about Israeli war crimes begin.

Uncovering the Peace Process Charade

"For Obama, Choice is Unified Palestinian Government or an Isolated Hamas"
A6, Thursday 1/22/09
By Steven Erlanger

Erlanger gets closer to uncovering the farce that is the current peace process when he writes about Hamas’ “popularity growing in the West Bank,” and Palestinians’ views of of Fatah as “collaborationist”. Yet these are only quick references meant to reinforce the view the notion Hamas is going nowhere. He fails to contend with, and thus fails to admit, the scale of this problem.

Erlanger notes the obvious choices of engaging Hamas or isolating it. He notes that with engagement there's “hope that Israeli military power and political reality will trump Hamas’ religious conviction that Israel must be destroyed.” He neglects to mention the legitimacy engagement will confer on Hamas, which could make harder dislodging its rule.

With isolating Hamas, there's “hope that Fatah can somehow be resurrected.” He writes somehow even though he writes in the first paragraph “on building up the West Bank as a political alternative to radical Islam.” Of course, that economic prosperity will trump struggle against Israel should rightly be viewed as a “somehow” scenario.

After all, what does it say about Palestinian society’s readiness for peace with Israel when Hamas’ popularity is soaring? This is such an obvious question that remains unasked. The answer's obvious and it doesn’t jive with the Times’ ignoring the issue.

Armed struggle against Israel is the Palestinians' preferred path. What other conclusion could be drawn? A minor reference to Fatah’s corruption and lack of reform goes nowhere, because there's nothing there. It is Hamas’ ability to provoke Israel and live through the response – and not some contrived image of clean governance – that's carried the day.

Erlanger makes a feeble attempt to explain Hamas’ popularity by pointing out Abbas’ failures. “His months of negotiation with Israel and the U.S. have been fruitless, while he has failed to reform Fatah.” Perhaps the failure to reform Fatah is the reason for fruitless negotiations, if one counts as reform the Palestinian commitment to advocating for peace, including a campaign against militancy.

Further, there is nothing of substance with the idea that lack of results in the peace process will send Palestinians running into the arms of armed struggle. Also, what fruit has armed struggle born?

Erlanger turns to “independent legislator” Ziad Abu Amr, who spells out two points consistently conveyed in Times coverage. The notion that “Hamas is a reality, and ‘maybe this is the time to engage Hamas’,” as expressed by Amr, has been a position the Times hasn’t itself advocated, but has used others to present.

The article ends quoting Amr, who, in reference to the Israeli elections, says that “we’ll just have to see what emerges on the other side.” A frequently-expressed concern of the Times is that Israelis choose a leader “truly” committed to a two-state solution. If only the Palestinians had a partner for peace.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The NYT's "White Man's Burden"?

1) "The (Now Silent) Guns of January," A30 (Editorial)
2) "Israel Slows Withdrawal From Gaza," A8, by Ethan Bronner
3) "Few Israelis Near Gaza Feel War Achieved Much," A8, by Ethan Bronner
4) "Debating the Blame for Reducing Much of a Village to Rubble," A8, by Sabrina Tavernise
5) "Tensions in the Mideast Reverberate in France," A20, by Katrin Bennhold

The Times coverage of Israel continues full force post-inauguration with five article on Israel and related topics. Of special note is a NYT editorial that continues to place almost sole responsibility for peace on Israel's shoulder.

*****
The (Now Silent) Guns of January

The most important piece of the day is the Times editorial on the conflict in Gaza and how the new President can address it.

Per usual, the Times declares the need for a diplomatic solution that creates a "durable peace." With Israeli elections upcoming on February 10, the NYT hopes "that they [Israelis] choose a leader who is truly committed to negotiating peace with the Palestinians." A "truly committed leader" is codeword for an Israeli leader that heedlessly dive into peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

It is amazing how the Times makes no such demands on the Palestinian leadership, continuing to place the onus of the conflict squarely on Israel's shoulders. From this article, one would assume that the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority is good-faith negotiating partner, even though the PA continues incitement against Israel and Jews, and refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, fostering the rejectionist illusion that Israel and its Jewish inhabitants will one day disappear.

And that's without saying anything about Hamas, which is avowedly committed to Israel's destruction. How can a "durable peace" be forged while Hamas continues to control Gaza and has no interest in moderating its view or engaging in negotiations for a peace agreement? The Times fails to have answers for these complex problems, assuming that if Israelis elect the proper leadership, peace is within ready reach.

For the NYT, the answer to this conflict comes with an "evenhanded" U.S. policy, which it always fails to define. Judging by the Times own words, such a solution seems to basically entail pressuring Israel into "difficult concessions," while never truly holding the Palestinians accountable for their rejectionist philosophy that permits the purposeful targeting of civilians.

Is the Times engaged in its own version of "The White Man's Burden"?

*****
Israel Slows Withdrawal From Gaza

Ethan Bronner summarizes the latest events in Gaza, declaring that the cease-fire "suffered its first violations." Despite writing that "Israeli troops twice came under fire, and eight mortar shells were shot at Israel," initiating an Israeli response, Bronner cannot get himself to write that these violations rest with Hamas.

The article comes with requisite condemnations from the UN as Ban Ki Moon visited Gaza and Sderot. "He said Israel had used excessive force in Gaza." And how does an army viably fight a terrorist force that will use its own population as a human shield blanket? No answers, simply reflexive condemnation.

At least Moon recognizes that Hamas' use of "rockets against civilians violated international law" but follows that up with the demand that "Israel should lift its border closing on Gaza, strangling its economy." This is comically juxtaposed a few lines down with the comments of a Hamas spokesman that declares at a 'victory rally' that "We [the Palestinian people] are aiming for the liberation of all of Palestine."

Why would Israel increase trade with Hamas, when it will only use this as a means to strengthen itself to destroy Israel? Economic growth will not moderate Gazans, as Hamas is not interested in building a viable society, but in 'liberating Palestine.'

******
Few Israelis Near Gaza Feel War Achieved Much

The title may be a bit misleading, implying that Israelis were against the war, when the article actually indicates "most Israelis are satisfied that action was taken." Many Israelis bordering Gaza, however are understandably dismayed because they believe (or know) that Hamas will renew hostilities with Israel, once again placing their lives in peril. As the Israelis quoted in this article indicate, they would have preferred that Israel removed Hamas from power, eliminating the source of the rocket fire.

It would befit the Times to understand that Israelis simply want to live in peace and quiet, and not under the shadow of Hamas' rocket threat. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Israel "opened a regional medical clinic for the people of Gaza in the huge new passenger terminal at the Erez border crossing."

*****
Debating the Blame for Reducing Much of a Village to Rubble

This poignant piece describes the destruction wrought in one Palestinian village during the course of Israel's military operations against Hamas. The reporter ambiguously writes that "the destruction was a hard fact, but how it happened was not, with Israelis and Gazans each offering their own divergent versions of events, alternate realities that have come to typify this war."

Israeli minister Isaac Herzog, currently in charge of humanitarian relief for Gaza, related that "Israel had not planned to enter the village, but that it was left with no choice when six Hamas fighters shot at its troops from a water cistern there. Soon after, a group of houses detonated at once, wired to explode as Israeli troops passed..."

The mayor of the village, Mr. Abu Ayadah disputes the Israeli account, admitting that "Hamas fighters would occasionally drive up in a car, fire a rocket and leave," but they could not have booby-trapped the entire village. He does not deny though that Hamas would commit such an act - "So suppose there’s a bomb in one house, but in many houses — no."

The the one thing, then, that comes clear from this article is that Hamas was clearly using the village as a military staging ground and that it would not be beyond the pale (what really is for Hamas?) for the terrorist organization to booby-trap civilian homes.

The suffering of the Palestinians in this article is tragic - even if some two-thirds of Gazans voted for Hamas. It's a shame that Hamas has no consideration for their well-being.

******
Tensions in the Mideast Reverberate in France

The last article, on Jewish-Muslim tensions in France as a result of the Gaza conflict, is comical in its attempt to create an equivalence between Jewish and Muslim responsibility for these tensions. In fact, they're not even mutual "tensions"as the reporter would like one to believe. The Jewish minority, numbering some 600,000, is intimidated and frequently physically targeted by French Muslim population, numbering some 5 million. Jewish attacks against Muslims is exceedingly rare to the point of non-existence in comparison to anti-Jewish Muslim attacks.

The reporter writes:

Since the Gaza war began on Dec. 27, firebombs have been thrown at four
synagogues in France, although the police say it is not certain that the
culprits were Muslims. A Jewish student was attacked by youths of Arab origin in
a Paris suburb, and two Muslim students were attacked outside their high school
by pro-Israel assailants. Both Muslim and Jewish families said there had been an
increase in intimidation and verbal abuse.
Yes, of course, one incident against Muslims is equivalent to the firebombing of synagogues. Have any mosques ever been a target of Jewish violence? According to "Richard Prasquier, the head of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions... at least 60 anti-Jewish acts had been committed since the fighting began, or five times the amount in a typical three-week period."

It is clear that a significant segment of France's Muslim population has an anti-Jewish problem, but this reporter isn't able to connect the obvious dots.

Instead, the reporter attempts to whitewash the anti-Jewish sentiment rife among French Muslims in the last sentence of the piece, quoting a Muslim who says that “The only way this issue will go away is if there is a proper and durable peace agreement.” I suppose that means France's Muslim population is truly moderate and peace-seeking when it comes to Israel.

This anti-Israel, pro-Hamas rally in Paris, involving the torching of cars and chanting of "Allahu Akbar," seems to belie that point.