Mideast Media Sampler 04/13/2011

From an email from DG:

1) Speculative reporting

In the ceasefire article by Isabel Kershner that I cited yesterday, there was another troubling item that I didn't get to.

In another development that has changed the equation in the region, Israel’s new Iron Dome antirocket missile defense system managed to intercept eight of the nine longer-range rockets fired out of Gaza at cities in southern Israel, destroying them in mid-air.  

The success of the Iron Dome system, which is still undergoing evaluation, prevented additional damage and increased the Israelis’ sense of security. Mr. Barak, the defense minister, said it provided the government with added room for maneuver and allowed for proper decision-making.  

Nonetheless, independent commentators noted that the Iron Dome system could not protect Israeli communities close to the border and does not preclude the possibility of either Hamas or Israel carrying out a strike that exacts a large civilian toll, even unintentionally, and setting off a war. 

Iron Dome was developed in order to counter the thousands of rockets launched into southern Israel from Gaza by Hamas and its allies. While Kershner mentions the recent successes of Iron Dome, she leaves out the years of rocket attacks that Israel has endured. However that doesn't stop her from citing "independent commentators" who suggest that Iron Dome doesn't necessarily mean that a "large civilian toll" could result from future attacks. Why is this even relevant? Iron Dome was developed to protect a civilian population, why suggest otherwise? And who are these "independent commentators?" We have no idea if they're bloggers who have thoroughly researched the topic, reporters who are wedded to a specific narrative or op-ed columnists who think that stringing together a series of unsupported assertions makes them profound.

Contrast that with a report yesterday that included:

Underlining the stark difference between the West Bank and Gaza — and the challenge that internal Palestinian divisions present to the goal of Palestinian statehood — the only commercial crossing between Israel and Gaza remained closed for a fourth working day on Tuesday, with Israel citing specific security threats against the terminal.  

The Israeli Defense Ministry ordered the crossing at Kerem Shalom closed last Wednesday afternoon, a day before an antitank missile launched from Gaza hit an Israeli school bus, critically wounding a 16-year-old boy and setting off days of intense exchanges of fire that killed 18 Palestinians, about half civilians.

While the subsequent paragraph gives support to the "security threats," Kershner uses the construction, "Israel citing" rather than "due to." By qualifying it in this fashion, Kershner is effectively making the security concerns a matter of Israeli speculation.

My question about the bloggers, reporters and columnists wasn't just a smart alecky dig at newspapers. 

It's because Elder of Ziyon found support to the Israeli security concerns. Palestinian Islamic Jihad threatened the Kerem Shalom terminal.

When it came to the need of Iron Dome, Kershner found speculation that it could lead to even more war, but when it came to the threat against Kerem Shalom, she didn't do the research necessary to prove the Israeli concern.


2) What are the donors for?

The second article I cited above, was about a UN panel that has found that the Palestinians are ready for statehood.

I sent it to Elder of Ziyon who wrote about how Israel needs to respond.

Israel's path is clear. 

Israel must say that all of the concrete actions detailed above that have been done out of good faith in order to help the PA's economy and institution building will end immediately, until the PA goes back to the negotiating table. It is beyond belief that the PA can wantonly threaten to declare a unilateral state at Israel's expense at the exact same time that Israel is doing so much for the PA (despite Robert Serry's implications that Israel isn't doing nearly enough.)

Israel must stress that it continued to support Palestinian Arab state building even as the PA/PLO refused for well over a year to engage in any significant negotiations.  

Israel must stress that it continued to support Palestinian Arab state building even as the PA/PLO refused for well over a year to engage in any significant negotiations. That support must end, now, absent any indication of compromise on the PalArabs' part. If Israel doesn't cooperate with the PA, there will be no chance for a viable Palestinian Arab state no matter how much the world says they support it. Until the threat to declare a state in September is withdrawn, Israel cannot continue to do so much to facilitate a move that would cost Israel so much monetarily, defensively - and spiritually.

The PA economy is dependent on two external factors: billions of dollars in aid from the West and continued cooperation with Israel on jobs and trade. Israel can cut the strings without affecting her economy unduly, but the effect on the PA would be immediate and devastating. Unemployment would soar, its GDP would plummet and the EU and US would not be keen on picking up the slack. 

The PA economy is dependent on two external factors: billions of dollars in aid from the West and continued cooperation with Israel on jobs and trade. Israel can cut the strings without affecting her economy unduly, but the effect on the PA would be immediate and devastating. Unemployment would soar, its GDP would plummet and the EU and US would not be keen on picking up the slack.

In the UN article one word stood out for me:

The United Nations report, published on the eve of a Palestinian donor meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, echoed similar assessments by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in reports issued last week. 
That word was "donor." As the Elder points out the Palestinian Authority is still a welfare case. The donor meeting proves that. The Palestinians are the highest per-capita recipients of foreign aid. Without the donors there would be no functioning government.

The UN reports fault Israel security measures for the difficulties of the Palestinians, but that ignores the reason they were implemented.

A few years ago, Ethan Bronner wrote an article about how Jenin had become a symbol of the emerging peaceful PA.

He started out with:

Pessimism is a steady companion these days for advocates of Middle East peace. A lame-duck Israeli government is negotiating with a weak Palestinian leadership in the twilight of an unpopular American administration. Few forecast success.  

But a quiet revolution is stirring here in this city, once a byword for the extremes of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. In 2002, in response to a wave of suicide bombers from Jenin, Israeli tanks leveled entire neighborhoods. 

From that rubble, now newly trained and equipped Palestinian security officials have restored order. Israeli soldiers have pulled back from bases and are in close touch with their Palestinian colleagues. Civilians are planning economic cooperation — an industrial zone to provide thousands of jobs, mostly to Palestinians, and another involving organic produce grown by Palestinians and marketed in Europe by Israelis. Ministers from both governments have been visiting regularly, often joined by top international officials. Israeli Arabs are playing a key role.

Note how Defensive Shield is portrayed. Jenin has become a success despite the destruction wrought by Israel. But the opposite is, in fact, true. If not for Defensive Shield, the terrorists would still hold sway in Jenin, the possibility for peace wouldn't exist. Similarly now, the Israeli security measures, which Israel is given little credit for reducing, were put up for a real purpose. The PA didn't deal with terrorism, so Israel did.

It seems that the UN report on Palestinian statehood, like the Goldstone report before it, had a predetermined conclusion, with all evidence manufactured to support that conclusion.

The Washington Post covers the report too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un_report_palestinian_authority_ready_for_statehood/2011/04/12/AFoKaUSD_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east

Israeli-Palestinian talks were relaunched last September with the aim of reaching a framework agreement for a Palestinian state within a year. The talks later broke off in a dispute over continued Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.  

In a government plan initiated in August 2009, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad set a two-year target date for Palestinian institutional readiness for statehood. In his report for Wednesday’s donors meeting, Fayyad asserts that the Palestinian Authority is now prepared “to assume all the responsibilities that will come with full sovereignty on the entire Palestinian occupied territory.” 

Palestinian leaders say that if there is no progress in peace efforts, they will ask the U.N. General Assembly in September to grant membership to a Palestinian state whose territory would include all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. 

And of course what this doesn't tell you is that it was the Palestinians who walked out of the talks last year and who refuse to resume them. It's a great passive aggressive strategy, refuse to negotiate and ask the rest of the world to impose a settlement according to your demands.

Technorati Tag: Middle East.