Soccer Dad

Nothing for tat

Michael Getler, the ombudsman of the Washington Post (i.e. the guy whose job it is to justify questionable news judgments that the reporters and editors make, wrote:

Some readers wrote to take issue with a story on Page A13 Monday by Jerusalem correspondent Molly Moore, reporting on action by the Israeli cabinet with regard to dismantling West Bank settlements under the terms of the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

The critics compared Moore's coverage unfavorably with that of the Associated Press and the New York Times, both of which reported that the cabinet affirmed it would dismantle 24 illegal West Bank settlements but did not say when that would happen. Moore's story reversed the sequence in the lead, reporting that the cabinet delayed action while acknowledging that evacuation of these outposts is required. She didn't use any numbers in the lead. I saw nothing wrong with this and Assistant Managing Editor David Hoffman points out that the cabinet statement doesn't mention any specific number of settlements. He also notes that there is a dispute about the number of unauthorized outposts established since March 2001 that fall under this requirement; the Israeli Defense Forces says there are 24, the activist group Peace Now says 51, and a special investigator appointed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently said there are 105 such outposts that should be dismantled regardless of when they were established.

The only flaw in Moore's account, as I see it, is that the sole figure included is the one asserting that there are 105 such illegal settlements.

So Moore's story was accurate because it illustrated that Israel was in breach of the Road Map.
Funny but he had nothing to say about a Moore story a few days later, "Militants Extend Pledge Not to Attack Israel". The article starts:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas won pledges Thursday from Islamic militant organizations to extend the suspension of attacks on Israel until the end of this year if the lull in violence continues, but he failed to persuade them to agree to a formal cease-fire.

In an accord reached during three days of meetings outside Cairo, the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups said their pledge not to resort to violence would depend on whether Israel honored its commitment to withdraw its troops from all Palestinian cities in the West Bank and release significant numbers of Palestinian prisoners.

"What was agreed upon today is calm until the end of this year, as maximum period of time, in exchange for an Israeli commitment to withdraw from cities and release prisoners," Mohammad Nazzal, a senior Hamas official, told reporters after the meetings.

One could argue, I suppose, as Gen. Zeevi-Farkash did in his Q & A with Arab readers on Ynet:

He knows that he can’t begin the process from the end – namely to collect arms, arrest people and put them on trial. And so he has opted for a path of persuasion.

You must remember Abu Mazen has problems from within the Fatah ranks, and in fact faces several central oppositions: Hamas, which activates and ceases terror at will, and the opposition from within.

Therefore he has not started at the end but he has opted for the rout of calm and persuasion and so far Hamas is going along with him.

If he continues on this path and also brings to justice those who perpetuate terror, which he didn't do with Islamic Jihad who claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing at the Tel Aviv nightclub, I believe there is a chance he would succeed in holding up. That is providing no large-scale terror act is carried out until July. Hamas also seeks calm, it senses it on the street and it supports it at present.

But the Post article doesn't say that. That would provide a context for understanding why Abbas isn't sticking by the Road Map. However, Moore's article, nowhere, gives any indication that Abbas, by not disarming and disabling the terror groups, is failing in his primary obligation in the road map. And, by the way, the understandings of Hamas are presented as normative. (i.e. as long as Israel does what we say Israel must do we won't attack.)
It does not in any way suggest that peace is a condition for negotiation, but that peace is a reward for Israeli compliance.
This imbalance was prevelant in the media during the 90's. Israel's obligations are judged not by any objective standards but by Palestinian declarations of sufficiency. Meanwhile Palestinian obligations are minimized to the point of irrelevance.
This will not bring peace. It will simply foster growing expectations on the part of the Palestinians that will never be met and serve as a justification for the inevitable terror.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at March 22, 2005 06:47 AM | TrackBack