|
Friday, May 30, 2003
Is Bush betraying Israel?
Read Caroline Glick's essay, "Washington's Betrayal" and you will have little doubt that the answer to that question is in the affirmative. Not nearly as bleak, but still disappointing (in its assessment of the President) is Charles Krauthammer's "No Phony 'Cease-Fires' With Terrorism." Krauthammer allows that the president can still extricate himself. I don't believe President Bush to be as frivolous as his predecessor. Still, it's disturbing that he's had nothing to say as the PA flouts his basic premises.
The problem of course is that President Bush has made a Palestinian state the centerpiece of his Middle East policy. Thus all actions must be evaluated by how they work toward that end. Peace should have been the centerpiece, with statehood for the Palestinians the reward for peace. (Not that I think that Palestinian statehood is in any way a good thing. But I'm arguing from Bush's perspective.
Oh and in case anyone tells you that Peace Now is pro-Israel. Tell them that they are lying.
Cross posted on Israpundit and David's Israel Blog.
Soccer Dad 11:06 AM
Monday, May 26, 2003
Wishful thinking Times?
According to the New York Times:
Mr. Sharon has told the Bush administration that he cannot take several of the steps the Americans want, particularly on endorsing the plan, without provoking a cabinet crisis. Many cabinet members are conservative opponents of anything that would create a Palestinian state.
A diplomat knowledgeable about the negotiations said some in the Bush administration think that it would be better for Mr. Sharon's cabinet to break apart so that he could then form a unity government with the Labor Party.
Of course the Times doesn't report if those hoping for a national unity government are senior officials or simply State Department professionals who consider the road map to be progress. However the Washington Post gave a slightly different view of things...
In an effort to avoid a deadlock in the Middle East peace process, the Bush administration has acceded to Israel's demands that a U.S.-backed peace plan be subjected to significant revisions as it is implemented, a move that quickly brought a public acceptance of the plan's broad outlines by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
In winning Sharon's support, the administration relented on its insistence of no changes in the peace plan, known as the "road map." The White House issued a statement today by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice saying the United States recognizes Israel's concerns and will seek to address them.
"The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace," Powell and Rice said. "The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap.
Whereas the NY Times has it that the administration - or unnamed officials - wish to see a more pliant Israeli government; the Washington Post reports that the admistration is willing to consider the Sharon government's objections in order to keep the road map. I realize that these two views are not necessarily incompatible. But the emphasis of the Times article is telling.
Maybe I'm not being generous to the Times, accounts of the cabinet decision have Sharon saying that it was necessary to accept the road map in order to avoid friction with Washington.
Cross posted on the IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog
Soccer Dad 8:36 AM
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
3 Times bias = bias
The recently discovery of Jayson Blair's deception has been cause of much discussion in the media. Part of the problem with the media (specifically the New York Times) is not the outright deception, but the articles which contain no overt falsehoods but are dishonest when taken as a whole.
To be sure there are many details in each story. Part of reporting is understanding what's important and what isn't. Making that choice does tell something about the reporter (and his/her editor.)
I know that news organizations defend themselves against charges of bias by saying that pro-Israel advocates don't want to face the truth. It's more accurate to say that we don't agree with the truths that the media selectively presents.
Take for example Sunday's article about a new Hezbollah created video game.
In an article that seems more a video game review than an investigation of Islamic extremism, Daniel J.Wakin reported "Video Game Mounts Simulated Attacks Against Israeli Targets."
It seems that the most popular video game in parts of Lebanon is one that allows the player to simulate destroying Israeli soldiers or simply popping PM Ariel Sharon in the head for the heck of it.
While not the first politically oriented video game to enter Middle Eastern cyberspace, "Special Force" is a sign of Hezbollah's elaborate propaganda efforts. Its popularity is also an indication of Hezbollah'ssuccess in permeating popular consciousness in Lebanon and in gaining political legitimacy here.
Washington has implicated Hezbollah in terrorist attacks in the 1980's and says it remains a terrorist force with worldwide operations. With the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the United States hasrenewed pressure on Lebanon and one of Hezbollah's sponsors, Syria, to disarm the group and halt its activities.
Hezbollah says it is focusing on resisting the Israeli occupation of a disputed patch of land on Israel's northern border and on providing moral support to the Palestinian struggle in the West Bank and Gaza.
Its relentless attacks helped drive out Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation. That has given Hezbollah a certain stature here and elsewhere in the Arab world.
Hezbollah has capitalized on that stature, entrenching itself in Lebanese society with the patronage of Syria, the power broker here, and with Iranian financing and arms, United States and Israeli officials say.
Take, for example, the above five paragraphs.
A few things are presented as unqualified facts. Hezbollahs' "relentless attacks" forced Israel from southern Lebanon. That success translated into "stature."
What's presented as opinion? That Hezbollah has been "implicated" in terrorism by the United States. Adding a degree of remoteness to Hezbollah's terror Wakin only mentions Hezbollah terrorism from the "1980's." What about the three soldiers who were kidnapped and apparently murdered in October 2000? What about Elchanan Tenenboim who was kidnapped by Hezbollah later? Hezbollah isn't simply "implicated" in terror, its involved in it up to its members' eyeballs.
Another thing: Why is Israel's presence in Lebanon described as an occupation but Syria - which has occupied Lebanon longer and more brutally than Israel - is simply described as a "power broker" not an occupier in Lebanon?
Finally Wakin cites Hezbollah claim that "... it is focusing on resisting the Israeli occupation of a disputed patch of land on Israel's northern border ..." without comment. Until three years ago, no one claimed that Shebaa Farms was part of Lebanon, it was always considered part of Syria. Once Israel withdrew from Lebanon and the Security Council certified that Israel has totally withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria "ceded" Shebaa Farms to Lebanon in order to allow Hezbollah's grievance to persist. The reporter had a responsibility to point out that the "patch of land" was not considered part of Lebanon. Instead he chose to promote Hezbollah's view without challenge.
Mr. Zain said the video game also served as a counterweight to other games on the international market that depicted Arabs as terrorists instead of as freedom fighters with legitimate grievances. He said "Special Force" was less bloody than many other games.
"We want others to know our land is occupied, our people are imprisoned in Israeli jails, our houses are being demolished," he said.
The border area controlled by Hezbollah is quiet for now, he said. "But we do not want the resistance concept to vanish," he said. "We want this idea to live among the Arab people, the Islamic people."
Now we get the scoop on this game from one of its developers. Apparently Mr. Zain is most concerned about PR. He wants Hezbollah to be viewed as "freedom fighters with legitimate grievances." Where's the NY Times telling us uncomfortable truths that Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization?
I remember an episode of "Get Smart" where the bad guys, KAOS, issue an ultimatum via a commercial, complete with a jingle and a disclaimer that KAOS is a Delaware corporation. It was very funny having a criminal organization passing itself of as a commercial enterprise. At least it's funny in fiction. It's not funny in real life, but that's exactly what the NY Times is doing here: portraying a terrorist organization as a video game manufacturer with a message.
By coverning for Hezbollah the New York Times squanders its role as an uncoverer of the world's ills and instead becomes an advertiser for a terrorist group.
The hottest video game for the teenagers of Beirut's southern Shiite neighborhoods is "Special Force," a creation of Hezbollah, the strongly anti-Israel militant organization that is on the United States' terror list.
Of course I have no reason to be offended by the Times's reporting. Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization; it's a "militant" organization.
What I'm complaining about is not uncommon at the NY Times. Last week, when reporting on the British suicide bombers, the Times used a tone in describing the terrroists that suggested that they were little more than mischievous boys stealing hubcaps off of cars. Little Green Footballs critiqued the Times very well last week.
I realize that this doesn't have much to do with video games, but again it speaks volumes about the bias at the Times when dealing with the Middle East. Overall, James Bennet gave a reasonably good survey of Rabbi Elon's plan in "The Exit That Isn't on Bush's 'Road Map'" Still the following 4 paragraphs really bother me:
Mr. Elon has formed ties to other Christian leaders, including Pat Robertson. In October, he addressed the annual convention of the Christian Coalition. According to The Forward, a weekly focused on American Jewish life, he was cheered by thousands of evangelical Christians waving Israeli flags when he called for the "relocation" of Palestinians to Jordan. Mr. Elon says he envisions a voluntary transfer.
For Palestinians, Mr. Elon's message amounts to incitement. "Imagine a country that said, `These Jews aren't really happy here, and we're going to give them rights in another country,' " said Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization. "The entire world would rightfully see that as anti-Semitic. And there would be, correctly, public outcry."
In 1989, in his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon argued that Jordan was the Palestinian state. He said then that Palestinians in the West Bank should be granted political rights in Jordan, while living under Israeli security control among Israeli Jews.
Mr. Elon adds that Israel should deport "terrorists and their direct supporters" and dismantle refugee camps, settling refugees abroad in Arab nations. Palestinians call this forced transfer, or ethnic cleansing. Mr. Elon calls it "the completion of the exchange of
populations that began in 1948."
Bennet is perfectly willing to use the loaded term "ethnic cleansing" that Tarazi, Arafat's American born mouthpiece, to define Elon's plan. All he offers in Elon's defense is a single fragment talking of the "exchange of populations." There's a strong historical precedent for population exchanges after wars. But more importantly, Elon is referring to the expulsion of nearly the same number of Jews from Arab countries as Arabs who fled "Palestine" in 1948. The main difference being that the Jews who left were not leaving in fear from a theater of war, but were forced from their homes. These Jews of course were absorbed by Israel. Their Arab counterparts were allowed to languish in order to preserve a culture of grievance and hate against Israel. It's a significant point that Elon was making here, and it deserved further exposition. Bennet might also have noted that the situation Tarazi described is what happened to the Jews 55 years ago. How ironic.
One last exapmple the Times's bias (for now.) Bennet's choice of words in "Israel Pulls Back From Peace Plan After 4 Attacks" leaves something to be desired:
After convening his cabinet tonight, Mr. Sharon issued an implicit repudiation of a new international peace plan, which calls for simultaneous concessions by both sides and rapid political progress to achieve peace and a Palestinian state in just three years.
Which side is repudiating the road map? The side that refuses to fight terror or the side that responds. Worse he refers to the Palestinian Arab obligation to fight the terror against Israel as a "concession." It is and has been an obligation of the PA to do so since 1993. Even if you argue that Oslo Accords are now a dead letter, launching attacks - or allowing them - against your opponents makes one the aggressor. Israel is the aggrieved party here and to suggest that its response is somehow hurting the chances for peace is unoforgiveably obtuse.
Cross posted on David's Israel Blog and Israpundit
Soccer Dad 3:06 AM
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Terrorists from Arafat's compound murdered Israeli
Was it earlier this week or last week that it was reported that the terrorists who were expelled from Bethlehem last year after taking the Church of the Nativity hostage, were asking to return to their homes? Regardless, no doubt international pressure will increase that Israel should allow those thugs to return. But we're not talking about worthy boy scouts here. We're talking about the sort of person who's holed up with Arafat in his compound. As the Jerusalem Post reports:
A terror cell left Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Mukata compound in Ramallah on Remembrance Day Eve, murdered Gideon Lichterman, 27, of Ahiya, near Shvut Rahel, then returned to the compound, security officials said on Monday.
Officials believe the terrorists, who may be members of the Palestinian Authority's security forces, received their orders from inside the Mukata.
"The terrorists responsible for Lichterman's murder left the Mukata to perpetrate the attack and then returned to the compound. The same cell also shot at a vehicle on the Aboud bypass road last Thursday night, but no one was wounded. We cannot rule out, but have yet to ascertain, that the same cell also murdered Zion David [north of Ofra] on Sunday morning," an IDF officer said.
Gee, do you think the NY Times or Washington Post will report this? Or will they keep claiming that Israel's holding up the Road Map because its stalling for time? I can answer that. Nope. Neither the NY Times nor the Washington Post published this damning charge.
Each of those papers had other items of note. From the Washington Post ("Sharon's Refusal To Accept Plan Vexes Powell Trip "):
Further complicating the picture during Powell's visit for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the Israeli military imposed the tightest crackdown on travel between Israel and the Gaza Strip since the current Palestinian uprising began in September 2000, closing Gaza's borders to everyone except diplomats and aid workers. Maher indicated the tightened closure undercut earlier gestures announced by Israel to ease Palestinian suffering that Powell had hailed as "very promising."
At the same time -- and adding to the impression that Powell's tour has not eased tensions -- three Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, including a farm worker who Palestinian news reports said was tilling a field near an army observation post in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza.
Israel's position on the peace plan, known as the "road map," has stirred anger in the Arab world and has become a major point of contention during Powell's tour of the region. Palestinian officials have accepted the road map, and they complained that Israel's crackdown in Gaza, which also barred journalists, belied the symbolism of any of the gestures announced earlier.
In three of the first 4 paragraphs, the Washington Post puts the full onus of the lack of progress on Israel. It even mentions the killing of a "farm worker" according "Palestinian news reports". If the reporters had read Ha'aretz, they'd know that Minister of Defense Mofaz made that charge. It would also support Israel's hestitation over making any further concessions. Alas the only way reporters know how to present the Middle East is whether or not there's been talks. Actions - particularly Arab actions against Israel - get ignored.
The New York Times, surprsingly, does a little better.
In the Gaza violence, the Israeli Army said troops had found two tunnels used by weapons smugglers in the town of Rafah, on the border with Egypt. Soldiers in the area spotted two Palestinians trying to plant a an explosive device and shot them, the army said. Palestinians said both were killed.
Israeli troops also shot a Palestinian farmer dead in his fields outside the nearby town of Khan Yunis, according to the Palestinians. The army said it was checking the report.
noting that Israel found weapon smuggling tunnels. Still the Times mentions the dead farmer quoting unidentified "Palestinians," but no mentions of Mofaz's charge.
Cross-posted on IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog.
Soccer Dad 10:47 AM
Friday, May 09, 2003
Denying history
I call your attention Ethan Bronner's review of a book 'Shattered Dreams' from Sunday's New York Times Book Section. Bronner starts off with an excellent observation:
I once asked King Hussein of Jordan whether he considered Zionism legitimate. Did he accept that there was any historical basis to the Jews' claim to a portion of Palestine as their homeland? He looked at me as if I were from Mars and ducked the question. Later he told a Jordanian colleague that only a Jew could have posed such a strange question. Perhaps by the time of his death in 1999 he had softened his view. But his reaction still exemplifies that of the vast majority of Arabs today.
Unfortunately, it's all downhill from there. Next he writes:
Ask most Israelis about Palestinian nationalism or the centrality of Jerusalem to Palestinian history and you will get a dismissive wave of the hand and a lecture asserting that there was no Palestinian identity until the Arabs invented it as a weapon to wield against Israel.
That's right, the denial of Jewish history is equated with denying the "centrality of Jerusalem to Palestinian history." Bonner acknowledges later that "Palestinians refuse to accept that the spot ever contained the temples, despite near unanimity on the point among archaeologists and historians." But as Daniel Pipes has shown (on more than one occasion) there is no Muslim claim to Jerusalem.
There's another line where Bronner seems to acknowledge the lack of symmetry between the two sides:
Until the two sides teach their children what it means to have stood in the shoes of their adversaries -- something the Israelis began doing but stopped, and something the Palestinians have never done -- the chance of real peace remains slim.
Unfortunately Bronner handles this on the sly. Why did Israelis stop trying to understand their enemy? Is it because they were rewarded for making efforts at coming to terms with the Palestinian with the brutal violence of the "Aqsa" intifada? Of course Bronner wants to explain that away too.
The accepted story in the United States is that after several years of halting negotiations, at Camp David the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat some 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and a reasonable deal on Jerusalem. Arafat balked, made no counteroffer and two months later gave his real response, the violent uprising, complete with suicide bombings.
Again, so far so good, but then ...
Enderlin's story makes clear that there is truth to this version but, by itself, it will not do. Unless you understand the way Barak ignored the Palestinians in 1999 in a failed effort to cut a deal with the Syrians first; unless you see the accelerated level of Jewish settlement building; unless you grasp the dynamic by which the Israeli right interrupted the peace process, forcing Barak to pull back, you will not have a complete picture. In this book, we learn what was offered at Camp David -- 76 percent of the West Bank -- and how it grew to 92 percent the following January before talks broke down. Errors, misjudgments, false moves and internal tensions -- Israeli, Palestinian and American -- are all part of the sad story.
One example concerns the visit of Ariel Sharon, then the leader of the opposition, to the holiest Muslim site in Jerusalem, followed by the uprising. Israelis have long argued that the visit was an excuse for an already planned uprising. The Palestinians have said the violence was spontaneous. Enderlin shows that it was the poor judgment of an Israeli deputy police commander -- based on faulty intelligence -- that set off the worst of the violence, which was then taken over by Palestinian leaders seeking to make their mark.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As Joseph pointed out earlier this week, there's a movement afoot to absolve Arafat from blame for the intifada. Read for example Amb. Yehuda Lancry's letter from October 2, 2000. He noted that the violence started on September 13. Take a contemporaneous account from Ha'aretz on September 18, 2000 that Arafat had released every single Hamas and PIJ leader from jail and you realize that the violence occurred because the ringleaders were released from prison and allowed to operate freely by the PA.
Clearly Bronner has to toe the company line at the NY Times and can't admit that Arafat never wanted peace. Like Friedman and many others in the media (and the diplomatic corps) there's no crime committed by the PA that is so large that it can't be explained away.
Bronner ends by writing:
But in the end, this book suggests, until there is a mutual acceptance of competing historic and religious claims, a lasting solution will not emerge.
That indeed is the problem. What Bronner won't allow himself to say is that Palestinian nationalism is built upon the denial of Zionism and that until that changes there will be no peace. It's not a balanced issue here. There is a good side and a bad side. Trying to blame both sides is not the sign of even handedness but the sign moral blindness.
Cross posted to IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog.
Soccer Dad 1:28 AM
Fisking Dennis Ross
Dennis Ross has retired from peacemaking and landed with Robert Satloff's Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Given the sloppiness of Ross's work, I wonder how he got such a prestigious position. No mind. Let's critique his work.
In the last week the prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians appeared to be improving. The Palestinians approved Mahmoud Abbas as their first-ever prime minister, and he declared that terrorism threatened to destroy the Palestinian cause — language one never heard from Yasir Arafat. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel reiterated his understanding that it would take painful concessions by Israel to achieve peace, including a willingness to part with areas central to Jewish history like Bethlehem, Shilo and Beit El. And Secretary of State Colin Powell is on his way to Jerusalem to promote President Bush's "road map" toward a peacefully coexisting Israel and Palestine.
True, as Ross notes, that one never heard Yasir Arafat saying that violence was counterproductive. So then why did Ross put so much stock in Arafat for eight years if Arafat never acknowledged that violence was not the way to achieve the PA's goals. It's nice for Ross to make this observation now, but why didn't he make it - and force Clinton to act upon it - during the 90's?
Still I suppose even a little progress is preferable to none at all. So what if Abbas, just a few weeks ago, said that he considered Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza legitimate targets? Well we'll just ignore the inconvenient stuff.
But these hopeful signs were accompanied by a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and an Israeli incursion in Gaza, which yet again left noncombatants dead on both sides. Then Mr. Abbas was stymied by Mr. Arafat and other Palestinian leaders over his plans to reorganize the Palestinian security services. And aides to Mr. Sharon said Israel was unlikely to commit to the road map until after he meets with President Bush in a few weeks.
Here's one of those annoying equivalences. "...noncombatants dead on both sides." Yes but which side targeted the noncombatants? And which side hides its combatants among noncombatants?
Are we watching yet another brief moment of opportunity undone by Palestinian terrorism and Israeli reprisal? Perhaps not — we are at a promising stage because the interests of the Israelis and Palestinians have greatly converged. But everyone involved must recognize what is possible and what is not. These shared concerns of the leaders on both sides only involve stopping the current Intifadah. We must focus on changes in the near-term reality, not a lasting peace that would require concessions neither side can make now.
Despite what Ross implies here it's not up to both leaders to stop the intifadah. That is the responsibility of Abbas alone. And no, I don't buy excuses such as "our police can't do their jobs until the Israelis retreat." Israel's retreated before only to watch terrorism increase. There is plenty of work the PA can do even with Israel around. (The PA, it should be noted, has little difficulty rooting out those they thinking are helping Israel.)
Mr. Sharon knows that Israel's economic woes cannot be overcome so long as the daily struggle with the Palestinians goes on. Nor can the Israeli Defense Force stay in the Palestinian cities of the West Bank indefinitely. It is not only that Israel's army, largely made up of reserves, is being sapped in terms of manpower and morale, but also that the Palestinians' hostility toward Israel will continue as long as they feel the cities are under siege.
I get the impression that morale is not a problem among Israeli reservists. Why suggest it? And is the hostility the result of the "siege" or is it the result of an orchestrated hate campaign? Did the level of hate go down when Netanyahu was Prime Minister and there were few if any closures?
Thus neither prime minister is focused on the endgame of peacemaking right now. Mr. Abbas has no authority to make concessions on issues like the control of Jerusalem, borders and refugees. To gain credibility on tackling these core questions, he has to show that he can reform the Palestinian Authority and reduce Israeli control of Palestinian lives. Ariel Sharon, for his part, won't consider addressing the major issues until he knows that he has a partner who will truly dismantle all the terrorism networks in the Palestinian areas. None of this will happen overnight.
As IMRA notes, Abbas claims he has no authorization to compromise on the right of return ever. Given that admission, it's hard to see where building trust will help.
Moreover, the absence of clear measuring sticks for judging performance will leave each side in a position to claim it has done what was required, no matter the reality. For example, the Palestinians are supposed to make arrests and dismantle terrorist groups. But how many people should be arrested, and who are the key targets? What does the essential terrorist network consist of, and does it include the Dawa — the social support structure of the terrorist group Hamas?
On the Israeli side, what is the real number of illegal settler outposts? Israel is supposed to withdraw to its defense force positions of September 2000, but where exactly were they?
Terrorist infrastructure clearly includes the "social services" branch of Hamas. No distinction necessary. And this lack of specificity is one of the failures of Oslo. Of course the PA even ignored its obvious obligations. So it's not clear that adding specificity to the Road Map will bring any improvement in PA compliance.
The two sides need to be clear on what each is going to do, where it is going to do it, how it is going to do it, and when it is going to do it. Can they come to an agreement on their own? I doubt it. From my long experience dealing with the two sides, I know that the potential for using the same language to mean different things existed even in the best of times of dialogue and cooperation. Now, in a very hostile environment, the potential to talk past each other and inadvertently create profound misunderstandings is even greater. It is already visible in the debate over "confronting" Hamas — with Palestinians feeling this means persuasion, the Israelis that it means physical destruction.
Israeli expectations must be reconciled with Palestinian capacities — and that will happen only with American help. Mr. Powell has the best chance of success this weekend if he puts his emphasis on near-term specifics. His success at getting the two sides to agree on what to do now will determine whether the road map is a genuine path toward peace or yet another Middle Eastern cul-de-sac.
And if this is to work, Powell must bring pressure to bear on the PA that controlling Hamas means destroying it. Persuasion is long past. In the past whenever Arafat tried to co-opt Hamas, his apologists - in the media and in the diplomatic - would excuse it as Arafat trying to moderate Hamas. But these agreements always included permission for Hamas to strike at Jews in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. So the PA was violating its commitment to end violence by entering into those agreements. It was up to the world to condemn him for it. The world didn't then. Now there's no choice. Hamas must be destroyed. And the United States must bring pressure to bear to make that happen.
Cross posted on IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog.
Soccer Dad 1:14 AM
|