Soccer Dad

Ambiguity everywhere but not a drop of irony

Last week the Washington Post explained the problems that President Mahmoud Abbas is facing in "For Abbas, a Crisis of Perception". The sub-headlines clarify things a little.

Reform Plans Stymied by Difference in Palestinian, Israeli Views of Security Forces

First paragraph (emphasis mine):

The entryway of the Nablus police headquarters is plastered with posters memorializing dead comrades. Some were killed by Israeli tank fire. Others were picked off by Israeli army sharpshooters. In addition to being police officers, most were members of Palestinian militant organizations.

Second and third paragraphs:

In the drab hallways of the Nablus station house, the policemen on the posters are considered heroes, resistance fighters who died defending their homeland against an occupation army.

In Israel, they are considered terrorists.

Wouldn't their membership in a "militant" organization qualify them as terrorists by an objective standard? If these organizations are committed to the destruction of Israel and target civilians where's the doubt? Why is balance needed here?
Indeed, if we look at much of the reporting in the article it backs the Israeli assertions that many members of the Palesitnian security forces are terrorists or members of terrorist organizations and that President Abbas wishes to incorporate terrorists into his security forces instead of arresting them as he is obligated to do. Consider:

"We're part of Fatah -- we're already part of the security forces," a senior Nablus commander in the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Abbas's Fatah political movement, said of the president's proposal. The commander declined to be identified by name because he is wanted by Israel.

Of course it was preceded by:

But for many Palestinians as well as Israelis, it is often difficult to distinguish between Palestinian militants and Palestinian security officers.

Difficult to distinguish? But didn't the "militant" admit that he's a member of the security services?
Then there's:

And in some cases, Palestinian security officers were militants who participated in attacks on Israeli civilians, settlers and soldiers. In one case, a Bethlehem policeman blew himself up on a city bus in Jerusalem in January 2004, killing 11 people.

But the next paragraph:

For the Israeli public, the weapons ban effectively equated Palestinian police with terrorists; for Palestinians, it undermined the authority of the police, because every time a police officer spotted an Israeli patrol, whether or not he was a militant, he ran to hide.

But that's right after noting that some security officers have been involved in terrorist acts. The weapons ban was a result of actions that led the Israeli public to associate Palestinian police to terrorists, not the other way around.
The article ends off with a number of other disturbing items:

Militants themselves are not fully behind Abbas's integration plan.

"The backbone of al-Aqsa see themselves as involved in a political struggle," said Rabbani, of the International Crisis Group. "They took up arms against the occupation, and the idea of disarming before the underlying causes are addressed -- telling them, 'Lay down your weapons and we'll give you a salary' -- is insulting."

It's insulting? To whom? To people who believe that terrorists should be disarmed and brought to justice? Somehow I don't think that's what he means.
Finally at the end of the article we get our obligatory quote from Saeb Erakat:

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator with Israel, said complaints that Abbas was not moving quickly or forcefully enough were "nonsense."

"We've done so many things . . . as far as aborting suicide attacks and other attacks, and they know it," he said. "The quiet and cessation of violence is Abu Mazen's doing, stopping the rockets in Gaza, reconfiguring the security operations in Gaza, preparing for legislative elections. I'm not saying we've done everything or that we've finished, but it's a start."

The timing of his statement could not have been worse. The previous day the Jerusalem Post reported "Terror attacks increase 54% from March to April" and the Israeli cabinet showed their confidence in the PA's security measure "44 communities near Gaza to be classified as 'front-line' towns". No Dr. Erakat, you haven't done everything, in fact it would be fair to say that you've done just about nothing.
The article is anxious to take a "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist approach." Unfortunately, the way it does that is to obfuscate the real reporting and make excuses for the PA's inexcusable inaction. The problem in the Middle East is that the PA's security forces are populated with terrorists and Abbas's plan to confront terrorists means to recruit even more of them into those security forces! The problem here is that too many news organizations refuse to acknowledge that Abbas is failing in his commitments and instead make excuses for him. This is not reporting it is advocacy.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 8, 2005 05:16 AM | TrackBack