The danger of verbiage

March 27, 2009

Reporters, myself included, tend to fall into use of hastily created phrases that become part of our verbiage. Israeli analyst Barry Rubin points out some of the offending phrases in the following column:

It's Worse Than a Crime, It's Blundering Analysis
By Barry Rubin
March 21, 2009

The problem, as we see repeatedly, with much media coverage of issues involving Israel is the way the story is defined. There need not be any sense of bias by a reporter. Merely copying what other journalists do or from a specific ideological framework—not because reporters have preconceptions but because they make far less effort than in the past to balance them—leads to a conception of the story that is skewed.

This appears subtly in news stories but very openly in analysis pieces. Consider Steven Gutkin, “Analysis: Mideast peace up to interlocking deals,” March 16, 2009. The lead is innovative but a bit clunky: “The fate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a collection of moving parts that somehow need to come together in a single package: an Israel-Hamas prisoner swap, a truce for Gaza, and new governments on both sides of the firing line that could pursue peace.”

There is an attempt to present the issue as involving a number of aspects. Yet the article mixes two very different things: the situation between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza, and prospects for a comprehensive peace. In a very real sense, these are not related or, to put it another way, they are inversely related.

The undercover assumption here is that the more peace there is between Israel and Hamas, the more likely a comprehensive peace becomes. In fact, the first would damage the second. The reason why should be obvious: Hamas is against any compromise peace but favors long-term, bloody struggle using terrorism. If Hamas survives as ruler in Gaza, and even more damaging if the Palestinian Authority and Hamas make a coalition, the chances for a comprehensive peace—low enough already—decline to zero. All-out war is guaranteed.

The article next discusses the ups-and-downs of Israel-Hamas negotiations over a prisoner exchange and continues: “Such a swap could have helped pave the way for a long-term Israel-Hamas truce deal that in turn might have opened the Gaza Strip's blockaded borders to allow for reconstruction after Israel's punishing offensive there.”

This can be summarized as: truce brings open borders brings reconstruction to repair damage caused by Israel.

The words “rockets” or the phrase cross-border attacks do not appear in the article. There is no hint that Hamas aggression is the cause of conflict, nor that the fighting started because Hamas unilaterally rejected the existing truce (which it wasn’t enforcing any way). Equally, there is no mention that the issue is not just opening the borders but what is allowed to go across them, nor that there is some problem with rebuilding things in order to benefit a radical and repressive Islamist regime to keep it in power.

Thus the story is this: Israel attacked and destroyed Gaza, let’s have a truce so it can be rebuilt.

And who do you think that places the blame on?

Then we turn to an equally important—and misexplained—subject: “Rebuilding Gaza will almost surely also depend on the success of current reconciliation talks in Egypt between Hamas militants and the Western-backed Fatah movement in efforts to reverse the results of a brief 2007 civil war that left rival Palestinian governments in Gaza and the West Bank.”

At least the reporter wrote “Western-backed” rather than moderate, though no hint is given that the civil war was started by Hamas. It was a rather one-sided civil war.

Yet next comes a truly terrible and profoundly misleading sentence: “Getting Hamas and Fatah to reconcile is also key to the success of U.S.-backed Mideast peace talks, as it's unlikely Israel would sign on to a deal if moderates are in control of just the West Bank while militants rule Gaza. The latest news from Egypt is that the Hamas-Fatah talks are not going well.”

Well, where to begin? While it is true that Israel understandably wants to sign a peace deal only with a united Palestinian side which can deliver on its pledges, putting Hamas and Fatah together will ensure no such deal can ever be signed.

There is no hint in this article of why the word “militants” is used to describe Hamas. A lot of people critique the media for not using the word “terrorists” I don’t agree. Terrorism is a tactic and Hamas uses terrorism yet that does not encompass the organization’s views or goals. I’d prefer to see such phrases as: radical Islamist or determined to wipe Israel off the map or repressive, or even genocidal.

But the implication is not that Hamas would block peace—much less that the Palestinian Authority would—for we are next told: “The biggest question now is whether Israel would sign a deal under any circumstances. Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, a political hawk, early Monday initialed a coalition agreement with the ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party, increasing the likelihood that Israel's next government will spurn peace talks.”

“The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever.”
Note that there has not been one phrase or sentence to suggest that Hamas or Fatah or the PA are obstacles, only Israel. The Palestinians problem is just that they cannot unite, not that they oppose peace.

By the way, from a purely analytical point of view it should be pointed out that the reason PA-Hamas talks don’t go well is that both want to be in command, while Hamas is not going to give up control of Gaza. There isn’t going to be any Palestinian unity at all. You can bet on it.

And of course both Netanyahu and the Yisrael Beitenu party support a two-state solution.

But that one sentence is so important let me repeat it: “The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever.”

So this is what is allegedly needed for peace:
---Palestinian unity (in which Hamas would veto any peace);
--Open borders for Gaza (which would not only make Hamas rule permanent but would allow in items used for military purposes so Hamas could build up its army).
--“A peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood”

As always, there is no mention of a peace deal that would: end the conflict forever, bring full recognition of Israel, or provide Israel with security structures and guarantees.

This is the standard practice of AP and a lot of the media. What Israel wants in a peace deal is never ever mentioned.

The rest of the article discusses the prisoner exchange using such phrases as “Israel's crushing economic blockade of Gaza” and “bloody Israeli military offensive in Gaza.” No criticism of Hamas; no mention of rockets; no mention of repression and executions of oppositionists in Gaza.

And we are told: “Hamas is desperate to reopen the area's borders to allow in reconstruction supplies.” This makes Hamas seem humanitarian. But usually those who are desperate are ready to make concessions to get what they need. This is not true in Hamas’s case.

And finally, the ending: “If Hamas sticks by its refusal to recognize the Jewish state, as seems likely, a new right-wing Israeli government could use that as an excuse to shun a future Palestinian unity government, and perhaps even intensify the blockade of Gaza.”

Let us consider the full implications of this sentence: If Hamas says that it will never recognize Israel, will continue to attack Israel, does continue to attack Israel, teaches children to be terrorists, and has the goal of wiping Israel off the map, this merely gives Israelis of the “right-wing” an “excuse” to be mean to them.

Can people really be writing this kind of drivel, the slightest examination of which shows its absurdity? Can the AP and other news organs sneeringly reject any criticisms and assert that this is fair and balanced and good and accurate coverage?

Yes.

But is this fair, balanced, accurate, and accurate coverage?

No.

Shalit deal doesn't go through

Captive to remain in Hamas' hands for now
March 18, 2009

In the last week support has swelled for releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners with blood on their hands in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit's parents and hundreds of supporters swarm around the tent erected by the prime minister's house in a show of support every day. It's been an emotional week for the nation.

Negotiations failed, however, and it looks like it will fall to the next administration to do anything about it. Here's a glimpse of what might in my article that first appeared here:

The next Israeli government is expected to resume targeted assassinations of Hamas terrorist leaders and cut off family visits to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in an effort to pressure Hamas to allow visits to kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and ease up on its demands for an exchange, sources close to the prime minister designate say.

These hardline tactics are likely elements of future attempts to free Shalit since negotiations will now most likely fall to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, officials said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the nation in a televised news conference to explain why Israel and Hamas failed to reach an agreement in Cairo.

“The government of Israel, so long as I stand at its head, will not agree to the dictates [of Hamas] as they were presented,” Olmert said. “Israel agreed to generous and far-reaching compromises. I approved these compromises, which meant releasing dozens of prisoners, some of them murderers.”

But in the end, the deal fell through over 100 prisoners in what could be Olmert’s last chance to leave office with a positive legacy after a stormy three years in office wracked with corruption scandals and two wars. Olmert’s special envoy Ofer Dekel and Israel Security Agency Chief Yuval Diskin blamed Hamas for its “unwillingness” to be flexible and for toughening its stance in recent days. The Israeli cabinet today voted to release to the public Hamas’ prisoner list.

Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Reuters on Tuesday he hoped Israel would resume talks soon.

“If the Israeli government sticks to its negative position, it will not be possible to clinch a deal, at least at the present time,” he said. “If Israel wants to reach a deal, it should come with a serious offer.”

Yoni Ben-Menachem, chief editor of Israel Radio, said the gap between what Hamas was asking and what Israel was willing to cede was too large to overcome, including 100 disputed prisoners accused of direct involvement in deadly terror attacks against Israelis.

“Hamas did not change its initial demand to release the hard-core terrorists, 450 prisoners,” he said at a media briefing in Jerusalem. “They have been very persistent about this demand for three years now.”

Ben-Menachem said that military aides close to Netanyahu believe the next prime minister will renew targeted killings of Hamas, update Israel’s security policy and “make new rules.”

“It’s a new government, it’s a different ball game. If you apply the right pressure ... they will change their position,” he said referring to Hamas. “With the right pressure and incentive ... you can do it.”

Another bargaining chip Israel has, Ben-Menachem pointed out, is the $5 billion in foreign aid promised to rebuild Gaza: “Hamas will want to start rebuilding Gaza. But to get equipment there, the passages must be opened. The passages cannot be opened without Shalit.”

Joshua Teitelbaum, a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center, agreed that Israel would likely adopt a tougher stance against Hamas under Netanyahu’s administration.

“Definitely there will be a bit of a harder line,” he told Newsmax. “They will resume targeted killings and generally turn up the pressure.”

Shalit was abducted on June 25, 2006 in cross-border raid near the Gaza border. Volunteers at a tent erected outside the prime minister’s residence have marked the 996 days since the kidnapping.

Shalit’s father, Noam, told reporters after Olmert’s speech that the government failed and begged leaders to do everything in its power to return his son.

“We’ve been dealing with these hopes, expectations and disappointments for 1,000 days,” he said. “What's important now is actions, and not hopes and expectations.”

In the last week, a groundswell of public support in favor of exchanging prisoners for Shalit peaked in Israel with 69 percent supporting handing over hundreds of prisoner for a single soldier’s life, according to a poll by the Dahaf Institute.

Hamas has prevented Israeli and international officials from visiting Shalit, but intelligence reports indicate that the soldier, now 22 years old, is still alive, in Gaza and is reportedly being held with explosives strapped to him.

Several Palestinians families in Gaza and the West Bank were disappointed when Israel and Hamas failed to agree on a swap. A few Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails were so confident they would be released, they had started to pack on Monday. Ben-Menachem expects Palestinians to apply some pressure to the Hamas government to get their family members in Israel prisons back, but not as forcefully as in Israel.

”We’re talking about a dictatorship in Gaza,” he said.

Report: British support of Palestinians funds hate textbooks

March 17, 2009

Here is how British taxpayer money is being spent: According to a study due out tomorrow, 100 million pounds of British taxpayer money has been spent promoting terrorism and encouraging young Palestinians to hate the West and to become suicide bombers.

The report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance alleges that British money given to the Palestinian Authority has been used to print textbooks that teach children “death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers" and that the Iraqi insurgency is a "brave resistance" against Britain and the U.S.

Palestinian TV shows and newspapers also call for terrorism and urge Palestinians to pick up weapons. For example, one TV presenter on the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation called Ayat al-Akhras, 18, the youngest Palestinian female suicide bomber, is a hero.

The Daily Mail quotes Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative delegation in the European Parliament, who said that no more aid money should be sent to the Palestinian territories unless monitored: "Money has been misspent in the area before and used to buy weapons. This time they may not be using it on bullets and guns, but they are using it to turn the minds of young people towards militancy.”

The report mocks claims that textbooks encouraging terrorism stopped being used in classrooms after the Annapolis conference of November 2007, in which both Palestinians and Israelis pledged to reach a peaceful two-state solution.

The following are examples from media or textbooks:

"Palestine is our dream. Brothers, Oh Fatah's loyal masses the land is thirsty [for martyr blood] […] Jaffa, Haifa and Acre are calling. Ramallah.. Nablus and Gaza: "When will we meet and break the chains? To Jerusalem march millions of Martyrs" - Ahmed Dughmus, 8 January 2008

“It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [all of Israel], but in our current political program, we [PA] say we want a state on the 1967 borders […] We [Palestinians] were created on this land in order to liberate it, to live on it, to continue as people of Ribat [Religious war]. We are on the land of Ribat and must remain [on it] until Resurrection.” - Najat Abu Bakr, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, 26 February 2008

“There are diseases like smallpox, that can be eradicated, but the disease that was inflicted on the Palestinian people and the Arab nation in general, that's the Jewish disease, the Zionist disease, which is a cancerous disease, that started with occupying and taking over lands in 1904 […] Those (Jews), from 1904 to 1947, reached 605,000. That’s the cancer that spreads over the lands.” - Adnan Ayash, History Professor, 5 June 2008

Saudi gang-rape victim gets punished for committing 'adultery'

March 16, 2009

Another dispatch from the religion of peace: A Saudi judge sentenced a pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery even though she isn't married, the Daily Mail reported.

The judge ordered that the woman be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes, but the lashes could wait until after she delivered the baby, he ruled.

Where's all the women's rights groups to speak up for this woman whose testimony in Islamic court counts as one-fourth that of a man?

The woman, 23, became pregnant from the rape. She was reportedly assaulted after accepting a ride from a man. It is illegal in Saudi Arabia for a woman to be with a man unless he is a relative.

The man took her to a house where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night. The judge ruled that she she had committed adultery despite not being married.
She later discovered she was pregnant and tried to get an abortion.

The Saudi Gazette reported that she eventually 'confessed' to having 'forced intercourse' with her attackers.

Women have very few rights in Saudi Arabia. They are not allowed to drive and are banned from going out in public in the company of men other than male relatives.

Terror attack in Jordan Valley leaves two cops dead

March 16, 2009

In the last two weeks, two terror attacks have created an eerie reflection in Israel. After each attack, every Israeli wonders if this will be the one to set off the next intifada (uprising). Two weeks ago, a bulldozer driver went after a police car in Jerusalem. he was shot dead before he did any damage.

The story ended differently Sunday night. Last night two Israeli policemen were shot and killed in the West Bank, the first Israeli deaths in that area in nearly a year, on a road that both Israelis and Palestinians frequent Highway 90 is used by Israelis as well as Palestinians to cut through to the Sea of Galilee in the North and the Dead Sea in the South.

The police officers were shot a close range in the valley between Jericho and Jordan.

Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said that the two officers were on patrol near the Jewish town of Massua. The small Jewish community is in an agricultural area of the Jordan Valley, north of Jericho and near the Jordanian border.

Police are searching for the killers. The last Israeli deaths in the West Bank occurred on April 25 last year, when two security guards at an industrial park near the city of Tulkarm were shot dead.

More dismal thoughts on the new admin’s Israel tack

Obama has, in essence, turned on Israel
March 16 2009

In a New York Post editorial, John Bolton, the former U.N. Ambassador, notes how the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel to find a solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute is another sign of America’s slow abandonment of the Jewish state.

Bolton explains why:

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser -- because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to U.S. pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.

How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals. ...

Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not lightly be put at risk.

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic 'outreach.'

Defining 'moderate' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

March 15, 2009

Mustafa Barghouthi, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, is considered a moderate in the Palestinian world by the West. His column in Friday's Atlanta Journal and Constitution defines 'moderate' for us as he asks for America's help:

The administration can help level the playing field by taking three steps. First, insist Israel immediately stop all settlement activity. Second, reject Israel’s embrace of apartheid. One set of laws for Jewish settlers and another for Palestinians is unacceptable. Third, accept our democratic choice.

The democratic choice mentioned here is the election of Hamas:

Despite the Obama administration’s reluctance to deal with the government Palestinians elected, a breath of fresh air is clearly blowing through Washington. And just in time....

Barghouthi also argues that American principles and interests should make them pro-Palestinian. He doesn't mention any requirements from the Palestinians, for example recognizing Israel's right to exist and cessation of terror.

I am convinced that an evenhanded mediator such as former Sen. George Mitchell will soon find that we are not the recalcitrant party. He will uphold American principles and serve American interests if he has the courage to say so. And let us hope that more American officials go see for themselves the harm Israel is causing Palestinians — and long-term Israeli interests — with American tax dollars.