Slater Slams 'Times' for Imbalanced Coverage of Breaches in Truce

Jerome Slater, the scholar of press coverage of Israel in the Times and in Haaretz, had an incisive take on the Times coverage of breaches in the fragile truce between Hamas and Israel:

"The Times may be a-changing, but not that much.  Last Thursday a truce
between Israel and the Palestinians went into effect in Gaza.  On
Tuesday morning, the Israelis broke the truce, sending a hit team to
kill two Islamic Jihad militants.  Later that day, Islamic Jihad
retaliated, feebly, by firing several rockets into Israel, with little
effect.

Here's how the Times played the story, entitled: "Rockets Hit
Israel, Breaking Hamas Truce": 

"Three Qassam rockets fired from Gaza on
Tuesday struck the Israeli border town of Sderot and its environs,
causing no serious injuries but constituting the first serious breach of
a five-day-old truce between Israel and Hamas."  Sure, four paragraphs
into the story the Times mentions that Islamic Jihad says it was
retaliating for the Israeli attack, but the clear intention of the story
is to convey the impression that it was Islamic Jihad--or Hamas, who the
Israelis say they will "hold responsible" for what happens in Gaza--that
broke the agreement.

And, of course, in the usual Times fashion, there is not even a mention
of the overwhelmingly most important fact about the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict: that Israel continues to occupy, repress and deliberately
impoverish the Palestinian people, which just conceivably might account
for Palestinian attacks on Israel.

How do you suppose the NY Times justifies to itself this ongoing
dishonesty (to put it mildly, if not too mildly)?  I suppose that 20
years from now we'll get some kind of confession from Times
memoirists--too late to do a bit of good."

Comments

[Richard Witty]

YOU missed the story Phil.

The cease-fire applied to Gaza only. The attack on Islamic Jihad was in the West Bank.

There was NO VIOLATION by Israel of the cease-fire.

[Peter D]

Richard, you are right about the attack on IJ happening in the WB, however, there were indeed violations of truce by Israeli side in Gaza too. Mark Lincoln of Haaretz talkback, whose comments I always found researched and correct says this:
"The first violation was the shelling of fishing vessels by an IDF ship at about 0600, on 19 June. This was followed by gunfire aimed at farmers near Khan Younis about 0830 the same day."
However, he adds in a separate comment:
"The Israeli government seems to be observing the ceasfire, though individual Israelis are violating it.
Each of the first three days IDF warship(s) fired on fishing boats.
Such activities have halted. Conclusion, someone in the chain of command made their displeasure known.
The IAF has engaged in daily over flights, one on 19 June involved a sonic boom which appeared to be intended to harass the residents of Gaza.
Ongoing activities, clearly with government approval. Mostly for legitimate reconnaissance purposes."
There have been several instances of fire being directed at Palestinians from IDF vehicles. No pattern of government approval.
[...]
The sudden change in behavior by IDF naval forces, and the cessation of sonic booms by the IAF, make it clear that quiet pressure is being brought to curb violations."
(the article is here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996294.html)

[Richard Witty]

The intention of the IDF and the chain of command is to keep the truce.

Even in response to the Islamic Jihad (maybe) shelling from Gaza, the IDF's response was (my sense, not a quote) 'give Hamas time to reign them in. We'll see if they are in earnest or just rationalizing'.

Slater and now Phil are just off the plate. (The plate of representation and reason.)

[Charles Keating]

Is this a talmudic commentary? Witty seems to show all the signs.

[Jerome Slater]

My mistake--I was wrong not to have pointed out that the Israeli attack was in the WB, not Gaza, so technically the attack didn't break the ceasefire. But only technically. There isn't a prayer that the ceasefire can take hold if the Israelis attack Islamic Jihad, or anyone else in the West Bank, but claim--with the support of the NY Times--that it was only the IJ that violated the truce, because the launch point of the retaliatory rocket fire was from Gaza.

The larger picture, which the NY Times (and Witty) can't seem to understand, is that Israel continues its de facto or indirect occupation of Gaza--and certainly its repression there--and its direct occupation of the West Bank. The West Bank and Gaza are not separate countries or populated by separate peoples--it is preposterous to think otherwise.

Try this thought experiment. Suppose that Israel launched a major offensive in the West Bank, killing hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, but didn't attack Gaza. Suppose further that IJ or Hamas then retaliates by launching rockets from Gaza. Would any thinking person argue that it was the Palestinians rather than the Israelis who broke the ceasefire? Would it be inappropriate to further note that, regardless of who fired the first shot or from which particular part of Palestine a shot was fired, it is Israel that represses the Palestinians, not the other way around?

[Peter D]

Jerome, WB and Gaza are not two separate countries, of course, but a deal is a deal. If Israel violates the deal, then you are justified to blame it. However, suggesting that while Israel remains the occupier, the Palestinians are justified in violating the deal is antithetical to the whole purpose of the truce, which is - thinking large - to gradually reduce tension to the point where the two people can start having a meaningful discussion and end the occupation. That some tolerance should be afforded to the Palestinian violations - in fact, much bigger tolerance than to Israeli violations, for obvious reasons - is undeniable. But currently even Hamas seems to be more upset about the latest Kassams than some pro-Palestinian folks in the West.

[Jerome Slater]

Well argued, Peter. However, my main point is not that the Palestinians are justified in breaking the ceasefire, because they are the victims, but rather that the Israeli attack in the West Bank, while technically not a violation of the terms of the ceasefire, is the kind of action that will surely destroy the ceasefire, as it is nearly certain to guarantee a Palestinian retaliation. Whether the launch point of that retaliation is from Gaza or from the West Bank is not truly relevant to the central issues.

[Peter D]

Yes, Jerome, in principle you are right. Israel is guilty of many such stupid provocations at sensitive times in the past. I cannot help thinking of all this as one big poker game: partners totally distrust each other, test limits of each others patience and bluff all the time. Israeli operation in the WB could have been a run-away accident or a deliberate staking out of territory with eye to a future bargaining position. Neither Hamas (and other Palestinian parties) nor Israel can start behaving totally rationally, and one can only hope that in the testing of limits neither side will go too far.

[Richard Witty]

On the other hand, using unequivocal language, that is functionally inflammatory (look how Phil jumped on it) is an ESCALATION, when deescalation is what is needed.

"On
Tuesday morning, the Israelis broke the truce, sending a hit team to
kill two Islamic Jihad militants. "

Its hard to then describe that as "peace-advocacy" or even "advocacy of Palestinian rights or well-being".

Even Hamas is saying that Islamic Jihad breaking the truce is against Palestinian national interests and Palestinian well-being.

For what its worth, you have a LOT of audacity to imagine what I understand and what I don't.

But, thanks for acknowledging your "technical" error.

[Richard Witty]

Also Jerome,
It was a few and specific Islamic Jihadi's that were killed in the West Bank, not hundreds.

Please avoid the straw dogs.

[Charles Keating]

Here's the right approach to this issue, less technical or tactical, more to the core of the problem:

http://www.haaretz.com/GA/pages/ShArtGA.jhtml?itemNo=360539

[Diane]

Ynet is reporting that the IDF violated the truce five times - in the Gaza Strip, not the West Bank - before PIJ fired their first Qassam: http://tinyurl.com/3q74rp