Soccer Dad

Chasing ahmed

One of the first articles I found about yesterday's violence in the Middle East was particularly troubling. It was presented as an analysis by Stephen Farrell a correspondent for the Time of London, "Who's to blame for the Gaza violence."

First paragraph:

"This incident broke out because Israel wanted to arrest Ahmed Saadat, a Palestinian leader who has been accused of ordering the assassination of Israeli cabinet minister, Rehavam Zeevi, in 2001.

Not because the Palestinians were preparing to violate an agreement, but because Israel "wanted" to arrest Saadat.

"His detention is all very messy. He has not stood trial. Eventually a deal was beaten out for him to stay in a Palestinian prison under British and American supervision, to make sure that he stayed there.

The detention was "messy?" He hasn't stood trial because the Palestinians refused to allow it. Saadat was holed up in Arafat's Muqata, protected by the Rais, himself. Israel relented and allowed the Palestinians to hold him under foreign supervision (because the local Palestinian supervision would have been, shall we say, inadequate.)

"The British, Americans and Israelis will say that the Palestinans failed to abide by their side of the bargain. It is said that Saadat had free rein in the jail, he was allowed access to a mobile phone for example. Those supervising said that it was not a proper prison.

"The Palestinians also failed to guarantee the safety of British and American monitors. These monitors gave repeated warnings that they would pull the plug. They told the Palestinian and Israelis that they intended to do this.

"There is anger among Palestinians against the British and Americans. They see the monitors' withdrawal as a British and American betrayal. But the monitors will say that the safety of their people is paramount, and the Palestinians failed to hold up their side of the agreement.

"Israel is saying, 'This guy was jailed under an agreement and the agreement has broken down, so we're going to take him into custody'.

Notice how national interests are presented as "will say" "[i]t is said" and "is saying." The only national grievance that is presented as "fact" are "[t]here is anger among Palestinians." (I'm not addressing the claims of the monitors. Farrell seems to sympathize with their plight but not with the larger problem that failing to protect the monitors is not just a breach with the monitors, but a breach of an agreement with Israel.)

And of course, before concluding that it would be difficult to make predictions, Farrell does just that

"Clearly there has been a gun battle, provoking a political crisis which is going to have a destabilising effect. It will create anger on the Palestinian side. I don't think Hamas will blow something up over this issue but that does not rule other Palestinian factions.

There's that famous Palestinian "anger" again. Of course Farrell's warning of possible violence is presented as a consequence of Israel's decision to capture Saadat. Not that any violence would be one more breach of faith by the Palestinian against Israel. For some people, there's always an excuse for Palestinian violence.

Daled Amos compares reactions without comment.

Technorati tags: Saadat, Jericho.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.