Who to believe in reportage of the Fatah conference: the New York Times‘s Isabel Kershner or Khaled Abu Toameh, the Jerusalem Post‘s veteran reporter on the Palestinians, himself an Arab Muslim?
The new leaders [elected at the conference] are considered more pragmatic than their predecessors and grew up locally, in contrast to the exile-dominated leadership they are replacing. . . . By the end, many of the participants seemed buoyant. They said that Fatah, led by the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, had emerged from the conference energized and more unified than it had been in years.
The rest of her report is a litany of mostly self-serving quotes from Fatah leaders, interspersed with Kershner’s own credulous analysis.
Reading Toameh, one wonders if they attended the same event:
The assumption that [the newly-elected] Muhammad Dahlan, Jibril Rajoub, Marwan Barghouti and Tawfik Tirawi are more moderate than old-timers like Ahmed Qurei, Nabil Sha’ath and Hani al-Hassan is completely mistaken. . . .
In fact, all the newly-elected Central Committee members voted during the Fatah convention in Bethlehem last week in favor of a political platform that does not rule out the armed struggle option against Israel.
The kind of thing that might have been useful for Kershner to point out, no?
The young guard members also voted in favor of a series of hard-line resolutions that were brought before the conference, including one that endorses Fatah’s armed militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, as an official organ of the faction, and another that states that the Palestinians will never relinquish the “right of return” for refugees to Israel proper and that they are willing to make “sacrifices” to liberate Jerusalem. . . .
During the Fatah meetings in Bethlehem, most of the young guard activists appeared to be more radical than their older colleagues, especially with regards to the peace process with Israel.
The power struggle between the old and new guards in Fatah has never been over ideology or the future of the peace process. On these issues, there’s almost no difference between Barghouti’s views and those of Sha’ath and Qurei.
Rather, it’s a power struggle between a camp that for two decades denied young guard activists a larger say in decision-making and access to public funds and jobs, and those younger activists.
You’d know none of this reading the Times‘s coverage. But that sort of might be the point.
Too many Americans, to include a number of left leaning Jews, are too willing and eager to swallow the swill poured into their empty heads by Arab and Leftist propagandists. Oliphant’s despicable cartoon, so revolting to some, will produce little more than a yawn in most.
The cartoon was absolutely digusting, irrespective of whether the allegations in question were, as ian states, “at worst aberrant behavior among individuals” or actually something more grave.
But is the problem here really coverage of alleged atrocities, whether based on shoddy journalism or not?
Seems to most other observers that the relevant “false outrage” here relates to the defining-down of antisemitism, such that newspapers can be angrily attacked as antisemitic for simply including such coverage, and David Broder becomes an antisemite for failing to deny that organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists played a central role in the efforts against Chas Freeman.
Can we really be surprised now that in the face of actual antisemitism, as in the case of the Oliphant cartoon, outraged denunciations by Abe Foxman or JPod no longer have any impact on the Washington Post.
You conservatives have long maintained that trumped-up charges of sexism or racism often dilute the impact and signifiance of legitmate struggles against bigotry.
Why should antisemitism be the exception?
Except where, Eric, did anyone of note accuse Broder or the conventional media of antisemitism in the manner you describe? It seems to me that both ian and Abe Greenwald, and most intelligent observers, have been much more careful and specific, in short that one-sided and irresponsible coverage and commentary facilitates antisemitism so that, eventually, the underlying impetus is revealed, you might say sublimated, in a cartoon that you yourself recognize to be “absolutely disgusting.” Your position isn’t that Oliphant’s drawing just emerged out of thin air, a random attack of the Israel-bashing vapors, is it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLJ155314
U.N. rights envoy sees Israeli war crimes in Gaza
Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:17pm EDT
* U.N. rights envoy sees grave Israeli war crimes
* Sealing Gaza border may also be a crime against humanity
* Falk urges experts probe alleged crimes by both sides
(Adds byline, quotes, background)
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA, March 19 (Reuters) – A United Nations human rights investigator said on Thursday that Israel’s military assault on densely populated Gaza appeared to constitute a grave war crime.
Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the Geneva Conventions required warring forces to distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians.
“If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law,” Falk said.
Group accuses Israel of committing war crime in Gaza
By KARIN LAUB The Associated Press
JERUSALEM — Israel fired white phosphorus shells indiscriminately over densely populated areas of Gaza in what amounts to a war crime, Human Rights Watch said in a report Wednesday.
The New York-based group called on the United Nations to launch an investigation into allegations that rules of war were violated, both by Israel and Hamas, during the three-week Gaza war.
Human Rights Watch said Israeli troops frequently fired the shells over densely populated areas. The firing “was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes,” the report said.
The group documented some of the cases, including white phosphorus shells fired at a Gaza City hospital, U.N. headquarters, a school and a market. In six attacks, 12 civilians were killed and dozens wounded, said Human Rights Watch researcher Fred Abrahams.
Each shell bursts into 116 burning white phosphorus wedges, over a radius of more than 135 yards. The wedges burn on contact with oxygen, creating intense heat, and can cause severe burns. The phosphorus kept burning for many days and was still smoldering well after Israel’s withdrawal Jan. 18.
Abrahams said the Israeli military was aware of the destructive nature of white phosphorus.
Eric R’s #2 is interesting in a couple of ways.
First, this question:
“But is the problem here really coverage of alleged atrocities, whether based on shoddy journalism or not?”
What sensible meaning is that latter clause supposed to have: “whether based on shoddy journalism or not?” The point is, precisely, that too often, coverage of alleged atrocities IS based on shoddy journalism. If it is not, then it is not at issue. You cannot morally conflate these forms of allegation. Allegation based on sound journalism is by definition not the same issue as allegation based on shoddy journalism — and it is airing the latter that makes news editors justly susceptible to the suspicion of anti-Semitism.
It may be legitimate — to a limited extent — to differ with others over what constitutes shoddy journalism. Differing on that topic should be done explicitly, as the writers here always do when they outline the elements of a shoddy story in excruciating and usually convincing detail. The implication that Jewish writers are reacting, dishonestly, in the same way to sound journalism as they do to shoddy journalism is merely offensive and tendentious — unless it is asserted forthrightly, and supported with examples, in which case there can be an honest debate. Trying to slip it in through a non-parsing rhetorical device won’t fly.
This passage is also informative:
“…and David Broder becomes an antisemite for failing to deny that organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists played a central role in the efforts against Chas Freeman.”
We can skip over the would-be sardonic tone with the “failing to deny…” etc, although it is characteristic of this genre of comment. The use of buzzwords — “organized” and “pro-AIPAC” — that (a) are not substantiated, and (b) have more emotive than concrete, logical meaning — is even more noteworthy.
To which “organized” groups does Eric R refer? To make his assertion valid and coherent, there should be evidence of more than one organized group, presumably avowedly Jewish in character, that put pressure on Obama’s staff, on the DNI, and on members of Congress to get Freeman’s appointment withdrawn. I know of editorials and articles written by some Jewish pundits. I also know of editorials and articles written by Christians, and people whose religious affiliation/ethnic heritage we don’t even know. I am still waiting to hear the names of the “groups” with implied Jewish sympathies that “played a central role” in getting Freeman the boot.
The “pro-AIPAC” modifier is another of those buzzwords that seem meaningful but break down on closer examination. The assertion here is about “organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists.” What does this mean? Is this an assertion that AIPAC itself was involved? Is it an attempt to insert the abbreviation “AIPAC” into the sentence, in order to evoke the idea of an Israel lobby, without actually asserting that AIPAC was involved? AIPAC being a lobbying organization, what does it mean to be “pro-AIPAC”? Is the intended meaning “pro-Israel”? Or, as they like to put it around contentions, “pro-Lieberman”? — as in, a specific political perspective on pro-Israelism? Since “organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists” has no empirical meaning, I deduce that it is the vague allusive idea of “AIPAC” being invoked here, rather than a disprovable assertion being made.
As far as I can ascertain, the “organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists” seem to be a list of individuals like Alan Keyes, Rich Lowry, Gabe Schoenfeld, Michael Ledeen, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, and Phyllis Schlafly — who may have her differences with The Neoconz on the North American Union, but who found Chas Freeman’s monetary and employment ties to China and Saudi Arabia too much to swallow.
I am not just going to take Eric R’s word for it that there are “organized groups of pro-AIPAC activists,” and that they “played a central role in the efforts against Chas Freeman.” Names of groups, evidence of their organization, a history of their documented activism that proves they merit the name “activist,” and specific information on what makes them “pro-AIPAC,” what measures they took against Chas Freeman, and in what way those measures can be characterized as central to the outcome, are required.
Otherwise, it looks to me like pundits of various backgrounds, some Jewish and some not, some more concerned about Israel, others more concerned about different priorities, publicly pointed out the many ways in which Chas Freeman was unsuitable for a high national intelligence position. Senators and Congressmen listened, and Congress made it clear to the White House and the DNI that Freeman would be unsatisfactory enough to sour relations with the Hill.
someone pointed out that if you look at the background of the picture, it and the star of david form the israeli flag. small consolation i know, but it’s not JUST the star of David. I still don’t really get the cartoon
If you look very carefully, Lester, the woman being chased is wearing a suicide belt. It only looks like the word Gaza. So, in actually it’s a pro-Israel cartoon. /sarcasm
One of the greatest gifts of multiculturalism is the humbleness it imparts on you. There is nothing living in another culture to teach you that you don’t know anything, So many social cues are small and require deep understanding of the culture. You can be standing right there and not hae a clue as to what is going on.
If you run with the bulls you might some hot sex from horny Spaniard or you might get gored. As long as you understand what is going on its your risk to take. But, I have long been under the impression that conservative Jews don’t know that they are running with bulls. Why do conservative Jews through their lot in with biological, theological, political, and intellectual descendants of those that were blowing up Synagogues? Do they really think that things have changed?
Being a Southerner who was raised an evangelical Christian. I know the signals. It can be confusing at first because the person who is warming greeting you at work, may well be planning your lynching for that very night. But the underlying realities of movement conservatism are always the same.
Do you really believe that they share your hatred of Muslims out of love for Israel, or because some New Yorkers were killed. Get a grip. The civil war was fundamentally an act of treason. The Southerners fired on the American flag. After losing the war they started terrorist organizations, and targeted African Americans in uniform for lynchings. They formed “sovereignty” commissions, defied lawful court orders, and slandered federal troops sent to enforce them. They make it a badge of honor never to have left the country. The Israel they support has nothing to do with an actual place in Middle East, believe me it doesn’t.
The core principal of movement conservatism is its members reject unions and other forms of collective effort because they believe themselves to be superior. Part of this message is religious. When they talk about the chosen people, they mean themselves the true descendants of the Israelites of old. Part of appeals to the machismo. The idea that one person can take care of himself with no help. Which is true for most of the people for most of the time.
But when things go wrong. When the chosen people aren’t the winners there has to be someone to blame. Some out group member has to have caused the misfortune that prevented them from receiving their just reward. It may have been comfortable when it was the Muslims.
But virtually any deviation will do. Where I was raised, the word “Christian” virtually always was used to assure people that the speaker was not Catholic and not Jewish. My mother was earnestly enjoined not to pray with people from a different branch of Christianity. If eating with a member of the another faith she was told to look at the salt shaker during prayer. At one evangelical event I let it slip that my favorite Gospel was John. No spoke to me for the rest of the night.
And as with Hitler it doesn’t have to be one or the other it can be all deviants. But victim doesn’t matter it always plays out the same. The perpetrators will be young generally (15 to 25) unemployed white males. It will happen quickly and be brutally violent.
When it does happen liberals like me will hide you and protect you. You may foolishly call your conservative friends who will convincingly feign being appalled, even though they were the ones that drove your attackers over the edge.
How could people who were your “friends” whose children played with your children do it Because, its not personal, its just business. They’ll be sad your daughters got blown up, but three dollars an hour over hundreds of employees, is worth slitting your mother’s throat over.
I implore you look. Really look at the people who think you are friends. I am amazed when Jewish or Catholic people stand smiling next to Evangelicals while they use widely known code phrases expressing their hatred of there religion. But having lived in various cultures I know how easy it is to miss the hatred which is right in front of you.
9: Yes, especially when looking in the mirror.
got a link for that?
is it morris’ code by the way?
Mr. Almasov,
Statistically it just doesn’t matter what I think. I have passed out profile age and I have no influence with people who are. It may be very difficult for people raised in a rule based culture to understand, these things have nothing to do with morality. Money + aggrieved members of profile group = violence. Nothing else matters.
Deep down I have no dog in the race. Anyone believing what I say won’t help the liberal cause which is my motivator. If you want to know find out for yourself. Read the material put out by Evangelicals then talk to a fifteen to twenty old unemployed evangelical and ask them what they think they mean.
watch for Oliphant’s dinner invitation to the White House soon. this is a guy with whom Barack and Michelle can feel comfortable.
why should we blame Oliphant for merely illustrating what the world (and our president and secretary or state) believes?
Israel can never win in the court of public opinion of this suddenly Orwellian world.
That is what 78% of Americans Jews voted for when they voted for Obama. We deserve what we got.
No, elen, nobody deserves this.
Maine’s Michael,
I agree with Elen. America as a society is getting exactly what it deserves. If we, as a people, were too ignorant and foolish to recognize Obama and the Dems for what they are, or worse, recognized it and approved, we deserve to suffer.
If the Jewish people throughout the world don’t see the writing on the wall, ————– then they’re blind.
And this is NOTHING to what’s coming.
Our elites, slavish to the fashions of their peers in Europe, are slowly but surely emulating their rabid anti-Semitism, so far they’re still trying to veil their animus behind the fig leaf of “valid” criticism of Israel.
But those with eyes to see discern what’s coming.
The idea that the liberals will step to the plate for the Jews is laughable.
Where are the liberals when presitigious institutions are spouting anti-semitism.
Such as State.
Such as Harvard, such as Columbia.
And now, such as The Washington Post.
Liberals are wandering up to the petrosheiks, with their hands outstretched, waiting for their 30 pieces of silver.
Liberals are the ones raming this anti-Semitism down our throats.
Very profound Ian.
I was really moved by your exculpatory phrases, having decided that the IDF’s official denials must be true, not withstanding the mass destruction and much higher death toll on the Gaza side, but no matter.
Through your analysis of this carton you have discerned that this cartoon, this image that seems to be so hurtful, is based on “bogus allegations of war crimes and atrocities, the type of atrocity mongering that always travels in a single direction in this conflict.”Moreover, it is apparently evidence that the “door” has been opened “more and more to rhetoric and motifs that relect traditional anti-Semitism, and how this demonization has facilitated the erosion of moral prohibition…”
You mean, people are being a bit too critical in identifying Israelies as acting seemingly without any moral prohibitions?
Is it your want that Israel be exempt from criticisms, and for such motifs to recognised as inherently anti-Semitic? And perhaps banned?
This is utter madness. You sound like like the sort of lefty PC crank one finds on campus and elsewhere, seeking a special exemption for your special group, no matter what you do…
Will, except for its total lack of truth, your comment is a masterpiece.
What I wonder is whether the WaPo published the Danish cartoons that provoked worldwide Muslim furor as part of their coverage, or whether they declined to publish them on the grounds that doing so would offend Muslims. If the former, I suppose that as offensive as that Oliphant cartoon (and many of his others) is, it’s part of so-called journalistic “balance”. If the latter – which I’d bet money is the case – then it is blatant anti-Semitism i.e., holding Israel/Jews to a standard to which no other country in the world has ever been held.
And, anyone relying on the UN or any of its agencies for unbiased views of anything is delusional.
To repeat what I suggested in the linked thread, the cartoon, however offensive and defamatory, does not contain classic anti-Semitic imagery. On a psychic level it basically says, “Hide your women and children, the hard-cocked Jew warriors are coming to devour them.” That is obviously hostile lunacy but still only a negative variant on the logos reportedly popular on the IDF’s own (unauthorized) teeshirts . Not every caricature equals Der Sturmer. If the magen david with teeth were an Islamic crescent and the fleeing Arabs were Jews, I would hardly regard the cartoon as racist on its face. Oliphant undoubtedly wanted to bait Jews (and seems to have succeeded) but pushing popular anti-Semitic buttons was self-evidently not his aim here – unless you want to chataracterize the anti-military psychosis of the typical leftist moral pervert and Oedipally-fixated weakling as inherently Hitlerian.
“That is what 78% of Americans Jews voted for when they voted for Obama. We deserve what we got”
wow I didn’t know President Obama was also a professional cartoonist
anyway for me, the bottom line on this cartoon: it’s an artistic failure.
Seth,
Years ago, Oliphant did a cartoon on some pretext or other showing Hasidic looking Jews in Israel contorted into the shape of swastikas. The Jewish Observer monthly included this in an article along with other contemporary cartoons echoing Der Stuermer. He’s put out a whole body of bigoted work which has not gotten him into meaningful hot water yet, because his Jewish targets are far more civilized than he is.
Oliphant’s vile theme is the one that appeals especially to a certain type of guilty European and a certain type of guilty Middle Easterner—namely, the characterization of Jews, especially in Israel, as Nazis, and Judaism as Nazism.
Regarding #2, 4 and 5, no one wants irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism or anything else, although while Broder has been called tiresome and the like, I don’t seem to recall anyone ever implying that he was antisemitic. However there is a repetitive pattern where any reference to antisemitism is considered a smear automatically, and which even attempts to accuse people of recklessly or malaciously accusing others of anti-semitism as a method of deflecting criticism. But if as you claim people are crying wolf too often, that doesn’t mean you do nothing when the wolf actually shows up. As to the UN and HRW making the usual accusations of Israeli misdeeds, when don’t they?
Regarding #21, I don’t mind people being critical of Israel. Just so long as it’s based on real events, not innuendo or rumor. Here you had blazing headlines of first hand reports of things like Israeli snipers intentionally targeting civilians which becomes something someone may have heard although their not sure who they heard it from the split second any critical light is shown on the accusation, headlines not included. The whole accusation and debunking has been copiously discussed on other sites, and the debunking was pretty thorough and not mere IDF disclaimers. Certain segments of the media have been writing the story of Israeli abuses from the moment the shooting started, and seem intent on writing it with enough persistence that the story comes true. The Oliphant cartoon, whatever his history, was triggered by the latest round of headlines. It seems the minimal to be expected that we at least make sure the accusations are true before firing off in self-righteous outrage.