In keeping with this month's theme of reporting on bias in the media, here is a reprint of a blog I put out on July 19th, 2006 about a New York Times article that was thrown at me during a message board discussion about whether or not Israel's response during the 2006 Lebanon War was acceptable. Like other wartime posts, please take into account the high level of emotions that people with family in Israel experienced during that time period.
If you do not want to read the entire article, feel free to skip past the italicized part as I will reprint the parts I am quoting as I go through it. Enjoy!
------------------------------------
Original NY Times Article:
With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion
Hussein Malla/Associated Press
(caption) A Lebanese man in Hadath rushed away from the scene where a convoy of trucks was targeted before dawn. Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: July 19, 2006
JERUSALEM, July 18 — The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israel soldier has died from his own army’s fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants.
The cold figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations, that Israel is guilty of “disproportionate use of force” in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of “collective punishment” of the civilian populations.
Israel has heard these arguments before. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.”
Israel is confronting a regional threat, she and the government argue, which begins with Iran and Syria and their proxy, Hezbollah, and stretches to the radical Islamic Palestinian group Hamas.
Nor does Israel deliberately single out civilians, she argued, as Hezbollah and Hamas do through rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Intent matters, she said.
But in Gaza and Lebanon, civilians are inevitably harmed when militants hide among them. And in Lebanon, she said, some of the dead may be civilians associated with Hezbollah, assisting it or storing its rockets.
“Terrorists use the population and live among them,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists.” Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.
“When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”
Those arguments leave Lebanese and Gazans cold.
Dalia Harati, 33, a Lebanese Sunni in Beirut, said: “The world is just standing by while Israel kills more and more. They come here and urge Hezbollah to free the prisoners and then stop firing rockets against Israel, with only about 30 killed so far, and then ask the Israelis to stop their attacks when they have already killed more than 200.
“It is as usual the West’s famous double standards, but we were hoping that would change when so many innocents are being killed.”
Last week, Khamiz Essaid sat beside the Gaza hospital bed of his son, Muhammad, 18, who had been wounded in the liver by shrapnel when an Israeli rocket hit the escape car of some Hamas military leaders, who had survived the bombing of the house where they were meeting. Muhammad, resting after an operation, had gone out to try to help the survivors, his father said.
What did Mr. Essaid think of Hamas having a meeting in his neighborhood and the consequences? “Gaza is too small,” he said. “Where can they go?”
Despite the damage, he says he supports Palestinian efforts to hit Israel, however ineffective. “We don’t have F-13’s or 14’s or 17’s, or whatever they are,” he said. “What do we have? These little rockets, like needle pricks. And the Israelis exaggerate the impact of these needles and say we’re destroying their state! But we have to resist any way we can.”
A ground attack is more surgical than airstrikes. The operation in Gaza, for example, has killed more militants than civilians, often through direct exchanges of fire. But Israel wants to avoid being bogged down on the ground, as it was in Lebanon for 18 years.
Israel has been careful to drop leaflets warning civilians in southern Beirut and southern Lebanon where it knows that Hezbollah keeps stores of rockets and launchers in apartment houses, garages and homes.
Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, a member of Israel’s general staff, said there were military rationales for the targets Israel had chosen: to reduce and destroy the ability of Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israelis, to move freely and to be resupplied from Syria and Iran. He insisted that “the Israeli military tries our utmost to avoid civilian casualties.”
Israel attacked the Beirut headquarters of Hezbollah, the specially built “Security Square,” where leaders like Sheik Hassan Nasrallah live and have offices, and where they are now in bunkers.
The point was strategic and also psychological, he said, to destroy “the symbol for the power of the state-within-the-state of Hezbollah” and attack Sheik Nasrallah’s “image as the defender of Lebanon.”
Israel has now “demolished the entire compound, and the residents, the leaders of Hezbollah, are now living underground or as refugees, and that’s a significant achievement,” the general said.
While a vast majority of Israelis support the operation in Lebanon, some argue that once Hezbollah attacked across an international border whose path had been drawn by the United Nations, Israel could have demanded that the United Nations Security Council insist that the Lebanese comply with its Resolution 1559, which requires Hezbollah to disarm.
“You don’t have to be a political genius to realize that once you have the moral high ground, you should use it,” said Ari Shavit, a columnist for the daily Haaretz. “And then if we had to act, we would have more legitimacy to act and prove how serious we are about our borders.”
Wars end with diplomacy, he said. Opinion polls show that Israelis back the Lebanon campaign because they see Hezbollah as a clear threat. They have also become inured to international criticism. Uri Dromi, director of international outreach for the Israel Democracy Institute, said, “Public opinion is not so sensitive, because we feel, generally speaking, the world is against us and we’re a little island in an ocean of enmity.”
Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist at Hebrew University and a former diplomat, said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was under pressure to project strength.
“If you don’t respond, it’s perceived as weakness,” he said. “If you do respond, it strengthens the extremists. But only if you respond robustly do you have a political horizon in Israel. Compromises can only be made from a position of strength.”
There is nostalgia, Mr. Dromi said, “for the good old days, when we had deterrence, and when it failed, we went to a real war, kicked butt and went home.”
“Those days are over,” he said, “but there’s a yearning for something lost. Olmert is trying to bring back some of this deterrence.”
Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, “You’re damn right we are.”
“If your cities were shelled the way ours were,” he said, addressing critics, “you would use much more force than we are or we ever will.”
Raji Sourani, a Gazan lawyer who founded and directs the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, is running out of patience.
“What is happening here is resistance to the occupation,” he said. “What Israel is doing in Gaza now has nothing to do with the captured soldier. I don’t think bridges, power stations or airports have anything to do with the soldier. I don’t think denying access for goods and people has anything to do with the soldier, or denying medicine, or bombarding one of the world’s most densely populated areas by day and night.”
Mr. Sourani said he was becoming discouraged. “People can’t be expected to be ‘good victims,’ ” he said. “People like me who are committed to coexistence are losing patience. People are being held hostage in Beit Hanun and no one is talking about it anymore, and Israel will pay very dearly for what is happening here.”
The problem, said Ms. Livni, the foreign minister, is that Israel is dealing with two semi-states, Hezbollah and Hamas, which have pledged to destroy Israel.
“The leaders who support an acceptable process are the weak ones,” she said, citing the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen. “This is a real problem and a real similarity. Siniora is against the Syrians and has the same ideas as the international community, and Abu Mazen favors a two-state solution, but neither of them can deliver.”
Mr. Avineri said United Nations resolutions had never been enforced properly here. “So they become a piece of paper to which foreign ministries respond, but not terrorist organizations.” Resolution 1559 gave Mr. Siniora legitimacy to take his army to the border, but no means to do it.
“It’s the Middle East,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s always choosing between bad options. And that’s true for the international community, too, and not just for us.”
Original source: NY Times editorial peice
Ok - objective = representing both sides fairly and equally correct?
We can agree on that. Remember, just because someone says something that you like does not make it objective. I love a lot of the articles I read in the Jerusalem Post and the stories they run on Fox News, but just because I feel they show my viewpoint when others do not, does not mean they're objective. TRUE objectivity must include BOTH viewpoints, equally shown, in the same article or story or whatever.
Taking that as a given, let's analyze this article. On the surface it appears you are right, both sides' viewpoints are presented. Almost even time is given to both sides' opinions. However, there are a few glaring inconsistancies. Starting with the picture and caption that appears DIRECTLY below the title...
Exhibit A:
A Lebanese man in Hadath rushed away from the scene where a convoy of trucks was targeted before dawn. Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.
First of all, one could argue that if you were going to show a picture of the impact on civilians of one side - you must show the impact on civilians on the other side as well to be truly objective. This is not an editorial on the suffering of the Lebanese this is a discussion of whether or not the Israeli response is "disporportionate" - well, why not show a picture of the Hezbollah response? Or better yet, the Hezbollah action that PROMPTED the Israeli response? If the original attack terrorized 100 people and the response also terrorized 100 people, that's not disproportionate, correct? Unfortunately, we would never know from this article.
But the picture itself isn't so much the issue. It's more the caption, specifically the part that says:
Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.
Interesting, casualties mounted as they "blasted targets" in Beirut? What targets were they? Hezbollah targets? Anti-aircraft guns? Rocket launchers? Schools? Hospitals? Puppy farms? We are left to ponder these questions. TRUE objectivity would have stated they "blasted (which is an incendiary term itself) Hezbollah targets in response to rocket attacks on Israeli towns" - in fact, I don't think there was any SPECIFIC mention of civilian casualties as a result of Hezbollah attacks on Israel at all in the entire article. Which brings me to...
Exhibits B and C:
Dalia Harati, 33, a Lebanese Sunni in Beirut, said: The world is just standing by while Israel kills more and more. They come here and urge Hezbollah to free the prisoners and then stop firing rockets against Israel, with only about 30 killed so far, and then ask the Israelis to stop their attacks when they have already killed more than 200.
It is as usual the Wests famous double standards, but we were hoping that would change when so many innocents are being killed.
Last week, Khamiz Essaid sat beside the Gaza hospital bed of his son, Muhammad, 18, who had been wounded in the liver by shrapnel when an Israeli rocket hit the escape car of some Hamas military leaders, who had survived the bombing of the house where they were meeting. Muhammad, resting after an operation, had gone out to try to help the survivors, his father said.
What did Mr. Essaid think of Hamas having a meeting in his neighborhood and the consequences? Gaza is too small, he said. Where can they go?
Despite the damage, he says he supports Palestinian efforts to hit Israel, however ineffective. We dont have F-13s or 14s or 17s, or whatever they are, he said. What do we have? These little rockets, like needle pricks. And the Israelis exaggerate the impact of these needles and say were destroying their state! But we have to resist any way we can.
All right, it's terrible that innocent civilians are being killed or injured in this conflict, on any side...right? That's the point of these statements isn't it? Whether the innocent civilian is in Lebanon, Gaza or Nehariya - it's tragic when they are hurt. Well are any innocent civilians being hurt in Israel by Arabs? Aside from a non-detailed sentence in the beginning, I wouldn't know that from this article, would I? Clearly, there are no innocent civilians with tragic stories from Israel interviewed in this article. True objectivity would have required quotes from non-academic/governmental Israelis giving their opinions or stories of similar tragic incidents - just like the Arab civilian opinion was voiced. Where is the Israeli pain and anguish? Is there any? I wouldn't know from this article one way or another, now would I? In fact, I wouldn't even know for sure that Israeli civilians in Israel were being killed by non-Israelis at all! Because there is none of that in this article - because the idea is NOT to present an objective view of the situation, rather it is to paint the Israelis in a certain way and the Arabs in a certain way.
Exhibit D:
Terrorists use the population and live among them, Ms. Livni said. Its difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists. Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.
When you go to sleep with a missile, she said, you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.
GREAT "Rah rah we're right, go Israel" quote. I love it, and she's 100% right. So the Israeli Foreign Ministry is basically saying that those who collaborate with terrorists deserve whatever they get. Ok, we're not GOING AFTER civilians, but if you're caught on the wrong side...oh well...oops...don't consort with terrorists and you'll be fine. This "rah rah" sentiment is further expanded upon in
Exhibit E:
There is nostalgia, Mr. Dromi said, for the good old days, when we had deterrence, and when it failed, we went to a real war, kicked butt and went home.
Those days are over, he said, but theres a yearning for something lost. Olmert is trying to bring back some of this deterrence.
Wow! Now THAT is a pretty brazen statement...so there were two academics (non-governmental) they chose to interview on the Israeli side. The other guy - a columnist for the liberal Haaretz newspaper (the left-leaning nature of which is NOT disclosed) - to paraphrase essentially says that the Israelis should have negotiated through the UN instead of responding with force.
In any case, the Israeli academics are saying that a) the Israelis should NOT have attacked and b) that the main reason for the attack is for NOSTALGIC "we can still kick butt" reasons?? It's NOT about self-defense?? How about showing an academic that AGREES with the Israeli response? As if that's not enough, the only Arab academic quoted in the article (shockingly!) believes also that the Israelis are not justified and that the Arabs are being "held hostage" in Gaza! Wow, academics on all sides UNITE! And to further add fuel to the fire...
Exhibit F:
Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israels United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, Youre damn right we are.
YEAH! GO ISRAEL! KICK SOME ASS! So basically, the government, as represented by Livni and Gillerman say attackattackattack and the academics (on BOTH sides) agree that this isn't about self-defense. Seems to me like the "smart people" (the academics) are all about peace, while the "politicians" (the government) are all about war. Seems to me it's obvious which side WE should be on. Obviously the academics are more honest, having no personal agendas and the government is all about rallying support so they can stay in power. Boy talk about OBJECTIVE!
And finally...I bring to you the Hezbollah and Hamas leadership quotes from the article. After all, true objectivity would require including statements from the "other side's" leadership since we have Israeli leadership being quoted. So let's see what they said...
Exhibit G:
Hamas quote: ????
Exhibit H:
Hezbollah quote: ????
Wait, nevermind there were no quotes from their leadership. What happened, they couldn't use any of Nasrallah's quotes because they are decidedly more bloodthirsty than the Israeli leadership quotes? Why don't they quote something from Ismail Haniya or the late, great Rantizi or Sheikh Yassin? Why don't they quote anything from Khalid Meshaal who's enjoying unhindered freedom in Syria? Why don't they quote anything from Faoud Siniora about how he is SWEARING that he will finally re-assert the Lebanese government's authority over South Lebanon after having 16 years (or at the very least 6 or at the VERY VERY least 2 years)?
I'll tell you why, because as usual, a blatant attempt at directing your opinion was cleverly disguised as an "objective" article. It's not about a DISCUSSION over whether or not Israel is going overboard...it's about saying that they ARE going overboard and the government is basically saying "oh well" ! Slanderous! Sadly, this is the norm at the NY Times and in fact in most newspapers (on both sides). This is why I generally don't read opinion peices from either side (except for the Arab side because I like to see what they say about us). I prefer to get my opinions from raw facts.
By the time you reach the end about Livni's "it's always a bad choice it's just a matter of which choice is worse" (paraphrasing of course) quote, of COURSE it seems corny because you've already been put in a different frame of mind by the rest of the article.
Don't believe the hype folks.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment