Ok, once again my children were subjugated to a string of profanities as I took them to school this morning (my son asked me why I was mad at the lady on the radio). I wish I wouldn't do that, but the so-called "librul" NPR continues to stick like glue to tired, beltway conventional wisdom. That's bad enough, but today's segment was as shoddy a piece of journalism I have heard from them in awhile.
Today, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro had a piece titled "After U.S. Trip, Netanyahu Weighs Next Steps". Sounds innocuous enough, doesn't it?
As I was listening, my blood pressure went up incrementally.
More below the fold.
I have been critical of the Administration for things I don't like, namely the handling of the Big Banks, the refusal to prosecute Bush Administration war criminals, the embrace of many of Bush's wacky state secrets and executive power theories, and the scuttling of the Public Option in the health care debate.
But I recognize that President Obama inherited a big mess, so I will continue to give him wiggle room on some of these issues. And I think he and Secretary Clinton have been very good on working with the international community. Indeed, the President deserves tremendous praise for finally putting some teeth into the negotiations over some of the more contentious issues in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is probably no issue more contentious that the building of settlements. It is really at the core of this conflict, in my opinion. I am not a middle east scholar or expert. I will admit that. But this is one of those rare instances where I believe that Thomas Freidman is absolutely correct.
Ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and its Palestinian population in 1967, Israelis have faced a dilemma: Do they want a Jewish state, a democratic state and state in all of the land of Israel (Israel plus the West Bank)? In this world, they can have only two out of three. Israel can be Jewish and democratic, but not if it keeps the West Bank, because the Palestinians there plus all the Israeli Arabs will eventually outnumber the Jews. It can be Jewish and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be democratic; Arabs will be the majority. It can be democratic and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be Jewish.
Freidman has documented the lawless nature of the residents of settlements many times. At least in this area, he knows what he is talking about, and actually won a Pulitzer Prize in 1988 for his reporting on this subject.
Back to NPR's piece. It starts out on an what I thought was ominous note:
The Israeli media is in a frenzy over Netanyahu's reported "humiliation" by the Obama administration. The U.S. has given the Israeli leader a list of demands, which he must decide whether to accept. Israel and the U.S. have been at odds over Jewish building in East Jerusalem, an area that Palestinians want for the capital of their future state.
(Indiana Bob's blood pressure rises) So Netanyahu is humiliated because our President makes a completely legitimate proposal trying to broker a peaceful solution to this decades-old conflict. It is one which the international community and US public opinion are in agreement? That's humiliation? Ok, Garcia-Navaro is stating the concern, fair enough. But it would have been nice to have a Middle-east scholar, or maybe an actual Palastinian official, like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, explain how stopping settlement building, only the Eastern part of the city, is "humiliating".
Now I believe that the Israeli government is actually doing some things right. The piece properly lists the "confidence-building measures", that are steps in the right direction.
a Palestinian prisoner release with two caveats — that it does not affect the negotiations for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who is being held hostage in Gaza by the militant group Hamas, and that those who are released and who have the potential to kill more Israelis be sent to a third country; handing over certain areas that are overseen by the Israeli security forces to Palestinian security control; and a possible easing of the blockade on the Gaza Strip, where Israel has for years severely restricted the flow of goods.
(Indiana Bob's blood pressure lowers a little) These are positive steps. And NPR should have put them in the report. That is fine.
But as Netanyahu's said in his recent speech to AIPAC, his position on Jerusalem is that the city the capital of the Jewish state and will not restrict building (I thought Tel-Aviv was the capital - maybe if we want to grab some Mexican land, we can say that Ciudad Juarez is our capital).
But this is what made me angry:
Israeli press reports said that Netanyahu was unprepared for the chilly reception he got at the White House. He was hoping to mend ties that have been strained in recent weeks by a series of announcements of new Jewish building in East Jerusalem. But instead the Israeli press said Netanyahu was "ambushed," detailing how at one point Obama cut the first meeting with Netanyahu short and left to go have dinner without inviting the Israeli premier.
There were, uncharacteristically for a visit of a key ally, no photo opportunities and no statements to the press. One commentator described the Obama administration as treating the Israeli leader with "swinish contempt."
(Indiana Bob starts screaming profanities at the "lady on the radio") Who is that commentator? What is his/her scholarship on these issues? Why is he/she being quoted anonymously? Who knows, Garcia-Navarro won't say.
I hate this kind of shit. This "commentator" was able to say that our President is treating Netanyahu with "swinish contempt", an incredibly loaded term given the players, without bothering to explain either who he/she is or why he/she gets the shield of anonymity to spout this garbage.
It went on to quote Ehud Yaari, and Menachem Hofnumg about how Netanyahu's wittle feewings were hurt. That's also fair enough, but perhaps they could have also explained why the blindly pro-Palestinian US Military says that the settlement activity threatens US troops. Or far be it for NPR or Ms Garcia-Navarro include that Palestinians are being killed by the Israeli Military for protesting these settlements, which, whether one agrees with the settlement issue or not, puts a human face on the consequences of the enduring conflict.
No, let's just leave the gossip in there. I absolutely despise this kind of "journalism". If there isn't enough time to get all of this into the segment, then don't air it in the first place, or maybe schedule it in parts so listeners can get a larger picture.
Anyway, "Good on ya" Mr President. President Obmama will probably be the first president since Carter to actually do something that has positive consequences for this troubled region.
If you agree or disagree with NPR, you can contact them.
Update: I have to run some errands. Thanks for the comments, I will be back in awhile to check for more. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera has some good reporting on this (h/t boydog)