Angry White Kid

Lazy reporting by Matthew Kalman

Matthew Kalman is the San Francisco Chronicle's reporter in Israel.  For me, reading his work, it is not unusual to get the feeling that one is reading an Israeli government press release instead of a newspaper article.  And I'm not the only one.  The pro-Israel media harassment organization CAMERA likes him.  And I was at a Chronicle "community meeting" a couple years ago where the director of Israel programming for the Jewish Community Relations Council stated how pleased they were with Kalman's reporting.

The first paragraph of the article up for discussion displays well Kalman's point of view.

Standing by the grave of Israel's famously pragmatic founding prime minister, Israeli leader Ehud Olmert set out a new vision of Israeli policy, abandoning ideology in favor of an attempt at peacemaking that David Ben-Gurion himself might have drafted  --  peace, statehood and prosperity for the Palestinians in return for an end to violence.

Of course, many us view Ben-Gurion and Olmert  in a harsher light, not as "peacemakers" but as ethnic cleansers, bent on maintaining, through horrific violence, an apartheid colonial-settler state on land emptied of its indigenous inhabitants.  But that perspective doesn't make it in the paper.

Not only does Kalman's pro-Israel slant pose a problem, but so does what appears to be his laziness.  As with any news article, the one linked to above contains several quotes.  But the problem with Kalman's article is that he does not identify the original sources of the quotes and through this omission, presents it as if he had tracked down the quoted sources himself.

For example, in the article, Kalman quotes Rami Khouri, Emad Gad, Gershon Baskin and Saeb Erekat.  All of these quotes are presented as if that person had told Kalman their words.  But in fact, all of these quotes come from previously published sources, sources which are not identified by Kalman.

Here's the evidence: Rami Khouri's quotes come from this syndicated column.  Emad Gad's quotes come from this Reuters article.  Gershon Baskin's quotes from his column in the Jerusalem Times.  And Saeb Erekat's quotes come from this Associated Press article. For Khouri and Baskin, Kalman even uses the verb "said", though they only "wrote" the words in question.  The only original quote in the entire article comes from Avi Bachrach, whose basis for being quoted is that  his "son Ohad was killed by Palestinian militants near Jericho 11 years ago."  A seemingly arbitrary inclusion when compared to the background of the others quoted.

Though this is not an earth-shattering discovery, it raises concerns and further calls into question Kalman's commitment to accuracy and disclosure.  Why would he lift quotes from other sources and then implicitly portray them as his own?  Also, if all he is doing is stealing quotes from other publications, why does he need to be in Jerusalem to do that? 

I inquired with a journalist friend of mine and he said that reporters get fired for lifting quotes from another publication without citation.  What will be the Chronicle's response to Kalman doing just that?  I emailed their Reader's Representative and have so far received no response.  Will the Chronicle accept such behavior?  How committed is the Chronicle to accuracy and disclosure?

Those are sadly largely rhetorical questions.

Al Jazeera in English: Might as well watch CNN?

Like many others, I was initially excited about the news of an Al Jazeera TV channel in English.  Though under no illusions that it was going to be something other than a massive corporate news entity, it at least held the promise of offering Western viewers a counterpoint to the dominant, uncritical, jingoistic rhetoric that passes for news on Western outlets. 

Yet as time has passed, information has come out that Al Jazeera International, as the English station is to be called, is shaping up to be nothing more than another standard fare Western news channel.    Khalid Amayreh's article below is the most recent and in-depth indication of Al Jazeera International's trajectory.

Not only does he speak about the TV station, but the English website - which as of now is the only indicator the public has as to the course of the English station's coverage.  And it's not good, especially in regards to Palestine/Israel.  As a long time reader of the English website, I can attest to the marked decline in the quality of coverage of the conflict.  Whereas they used to run original articles, virtually all the news on the conflict now is straight off the Reuters wire - or else a compilation of the AP, AFP and Reuters wires.  By its near-universal use of European and U.S. wire services, when it comes to Palestine/Israel, Al Jazeera's English website is already a typical Western news outlet.

For those concerned like I am about the troubling direction of Al Jazeera International, I urge you to write to AJI's managers: nigel.parsons@aljazeera.net and manager@aljazeera.net and let them know what you're looking for in a news source.  The world - especially now - doesn't need another CNN or BBC.

Amayreh, a reporter for Al Jazeera and Al-Ahram Weekly, writes,

[I]t seems that disappointment may be awaiting many of those who expect to see a world TV channel that is fair and objective and especially free from the usual Anglo-American (and Israeli) worldview.

In fact, there are already ominous signs showing that pro-Israeli sympathizers, some of them with a background in the BBC, are already trying to control the editorial policies of the new channel, all under the rubric of professionalism and journalistic standards.

This writer, who has been working for Aljazeera.net/English (which has now been incorporated into AJI) has discovered by chance efforts by some senior western editors at AJI to minimize and avoid as much as possible the publication of articles, especially news and feature stories, portraying Israel in bad light and exposing Israeli occupation practices against the Palestinian people.

The carnage demands divestment

Gaza is still under a horrific siege (that even the Washington Post has noticed) and the situation in Lebanon is far from resolved.  In Israel, anti-Arab racism taints even the rehabilitation efforts in the north of the country.  The Environment Minister has said Palestinian Israelis should not receive assistance.  Though the Education Minister disagreed, a look at the situation shows that Palestinian Israeli towns and businesses actually are receiving less compensation than their Jewish Israeli counterparts.  In the face of all this, it's good to see the divestment from Israel movement still making its mark. 

Recently, the acclaimed British director Ken Loach backed the Palestinian call for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel. 

Loach, who won the Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival three months ago for his film about the Irish war of independence, The Wind the Shakes the Barley, has announced his support for the appeal to boycott Israeli institutions and even said that he urges others to do the same.

"Palestinians are driven to call for this boycott after forty years of the occupation of their land, destruction of their homes and the kidnapping and murder of their civilians," said Loach in a statement.

"They have no immediate hope that this oppression will end. As British citizens we have to acknowledge our own responsibility. We must condemn the British and U.S. governments for supporting and arming Israel."

And in Canada, the three million strong United Church of Canada adopted a "pro-peace investment strategy for the Middle East."  The pro-Israel forces are calling it a victory because a stronger resolution was not passed.  Yet the policy that will go into effect still calls for the church to not invest in companies that:

• providing products, services, or technology that sustain, support, or maintain the occupation
• having established facilities or operations on occupied land
• providing products, services, or financial support for the establishment, expansion, and/or maintenance of settlements on occupied land or settlement-related infrastructure
• providing finances or assisting  in the construction and/or maintenance of the separation barrier within occupied  territories

So it still is essentially a divestment resolution, just not worded as such.  Whatever gets the job done.

Jewish activists across U.S. protest Israel's war crimes

On Tuesday in San Francisco, 14 Bay Area Jews were arrested at a die-in and lockdown in front of the SF Jewish Community Federation, home to the Jewish Community Relations Council. They were there to

[draw] attention to the role that JCRC and JCF play in rallying unconditional political support and financial aid for Israel and defending Israel’s attacks against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

“JCRC and JCF use expensive PR campaigns and scare tactics to equate Jewishness with the uncritical support of Israel,” explained Dr. Susan Greene of San Francisco. “We are here to say loud and clear that the JCRC and the JCF do not speak for us. There are hundreds of thousands of silent Jews who believe in justice and oppose Israeli policies and it's time we stand up and speak out. If 5000 Israelis can demonstrate against Israel’s policies, so should I.”

What an amazing action.  Nothing like a good ol' fashion lockdown to get your message across and in the media.  You can see lots more photos at Lisa's blog. 

Tuesday was a Jewish day of action across the U.S. against Israel's attacks on Palestine and Lebanon.  Inspiring actions happened in NY, Boston, Philly, and LA.  There are photos and videos over at Jewish Conscience.  It's great to see the myth of the Jewish consensus on Israel, that is pushed by groups like the JCF and JCRC, being challenged in such a direct way.  Awesome job, folks!

UPDATE: Here's a video of the demo in SF.

When will the fire be ceased?

Supposedly it is now "ceasefire" time, though we'll see how long that lasts.  I can't imagine it will be for long, since any ceasefire that leaves in place an occupation is no ceasefire at all.  And Israel's broad interpretation of "defensive" operations leaves one questioning what an "offensive" operation looks like.  After all, wasn't the massacre of Lebanon in "self-defense"? 

Though it seems after receiving what some might call a "bloody good hiding," the Israeli army is stating that "Israel should begin withdrawing its forces from Lebanon relatively quickly."  That's good news.  In other good news, nothing happened to the civilian convoy I mentioned below, though they weren't able to achieve their goal.  Regardless, I'm glad they're safe - especially in light of the Israeli bombing of a UN-coordinated civilian convoy heading north on the same day.

If the ceasefire does hold, then at least the racist Western governments and their mouthpieces, the racist Western media, can congratulate themselves on creating a "peace" that allows Israel to save face and wreak horrible destruction at the same time.  And the illegitimate Arab police states can breathe a sigh of relief for surviving another crisis by doing nothing in the face of U.S./Israeli aggression.  The status quo of ignoring the crisis in Gaza and the nearly daily murders in the West Bank sure is easier than providing Israel with diplomatic and military cover for its Lebanon invasion.  (Not to mention the Wall, where at a protest against it this weekend, the brutal occupation army beat down and fired rubber-coated bullets at nonviolent protesters, wounding 13, including my friend Jonas.  One Israeli protester has a bullet lodged in his skull. Video.)

A month from now, here in Nacirema, the people will have forgotten the events of July and August - if they even noticed in the first place - only to be reminded by the various "Year in Review" summaries.  And the root cause will remain unaddressed: the Israeli occupation of Arab land.  And until those occupations end, and until those Arab prisoners held by Israel are released, and until the rights of the Palestinian refugees are fulfilled, there will be more July wars - and August ones, and Sept., Oct., Nov...

From Beirut to...those who love us

I don't normally just put up emails I receive, but Electronic Intifada was right, these are things to pass on.  Please check these out and tell others. You won't regret the five minutes it took to do so.

FROM BEIRUT TO ... THOSE WHO LOVE US (Broadband Video)
Video from Beirut, Lebanon, Electronic Lebanon, 4 August 2006
A must-see video from Beirut...

BEIRUT: BEFORE AND AFTER ISRAELI BOMBING
A picture speaks 1000 words...
Multimedia, The Electronic Intifada, 4 August 2006
or view the image only version.
Maps of Israeli targets in Lebanon.

Another Qana Massacre

Qana, 1996                                                               Qana, 2006

Ten years ago in Qana, Lebanon, under orders from then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres (a "dove"), the Israeli army massacred 106 Lebanese civilians taking shelter in a UN compound. 

Today in Qana, they did it again.  The Israeli army massacred at least 54 Lebanese civilians, including 37 children, in their sleep.  And just as before, one of the men behind it, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, is a "dove." 

Israel has the most blood-soaked doves I've ever seen.

As the death toll in Lebanon passes 500, almost all civilians, and the footage of Israel's latest slaughter of Arab civilians streams into tens of millions of homes, the familiar name - Qana - makes it all that much easier to recall the decades-long trail of massacres perpetrated by Israel against innocent Arab civilians.

It matters not that Israel "apologized."  What, does that make it ok?  Israel always "apologizes," yet refuses to learn from its "mistakes." 

It matters not that Israel told the inhabitants to leave.  First of all, where would they go?  Israel  has bombed all the bridges out of the south and has shown it has no problem bombing civilians fleeing the violence.  Second, why should they have to leave?  Israel is playing a twisted game here - trying to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon by ordering all to leave, then blaming those who don't for their own deaths. 

By that logic, if Hezbollah told all Israelis in the north to leave before they started shelling, then any civilians who died would have had only themselves to blame.  Or if Islamic Jihad told all Israelis to leave Tel Aviv before carrying out a terrorist attack, any who stayed and died would be responsible for their own death.

Such reasoning is rubbish and completely unacceptable.  The ruthless murder of civilians is to be condemned, not rationalized.   The failure of the U.S. to join in that condemnation is, well, not surprising, but still disgusting.  Maybe instead, Congress will pass a resolution congratulating Israel for it and rush them some more bombs.

The path to death and destruction in Lebanon and Palestine runs through Washington and we've got to make it stop.

Break the Siege

On Thursday, around 300 people gathered in San Francisco to protest Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Palestine, as well as the U.S.'s support for, and funding of, Israel's actions.

The demo was organized just a few days before by the recently formed Break the Siege Coalition, a grouping of organizations and individuals from the Arab American community and their allies. 

It began with a press conference and rally in front of Senator Dianne Feinstein's office.  That was fairly unexciting.  It was impossible to hear the speakers, which was a mixed blessing.  It meant we didn't have to hear the standard drivel from ANSWER or the ISO, but there were some people I was interested in listening to, even though I'm of the opinion that getting preached at is lame.

Things got better when the marching started.  We ended up at the SF Chronicle, an apt target considering their "coverage" of the war reads like an Israeli goverment press release.  Folks blocked the road and eight people were arrested, cited, and released.  And then everyone went home.

Anyway, here are some photos I took (you can see more here, and some from a demo in LA here).  Click on the link at the bottom to view them all.

The Break the Siege folks made some hot signs for the demo, such as the two above.

A reference to these photos.

Israel is losing

They won't admit it, but Israel is losing.  You can see it in how their rhetoric and swagger are changing. 

• At first, Israel wanted to destroy Hezbollah.  Now they just want them to move north of the Litani River.
• Israel rejected an international force, but now they will accept one.   Of course, only after ethnically cleansing and re-occupying southern Lebanon. (Do they never learn?)
• On Monday, the Israeli army claimed it seized Bint Jbeil.  But now they say they're just on the outskirts and are playing down the importance of the town.
  
• Israel is stealing the bodies of Hezbollah fighters to use as "bargaining chips."
• Colleagues in the area have said Israel is "stunned" by Hezbollah's resistance.

In six days, Israel defeated four Arab states, but in two weeks they have barely penetrated southern Lebanon.  And in this war, Hezbollah doesn't have to win for Israel to lose, as Ashraf Isma'il's excellent analysis points out:

The logic of power politics also implies that a no-win situation for Israel is a definite loss, because Israel is the stronger party and thus has the most to lose.  In an asymmetric war, the stronger party always has the most to lose, in terms of reputation and in terms of its ability to project its will through the instruments of force.

This can only be considered "good" news  - for those opposed to Israel's barbaric assault, of course - given the horrific context we find it in.  And I do not mean it to elevate Hezbollah, which certainly has not be conducting an ethical resistance with its firing of rockets into Israel. 

However, Israel, like the U.S., has shown it only knows how to respond to situations with disproportionate military force and has no qualms about killing civilians in order to get its way. 
In the face of a military machine that shuns diplomacy, coupled with an impotent world response, the only way to get Israel to cease is for those facing its aggression to exact a military toll.  That is what ended Israel's last occupation of Lebanon, as well as the U.S. occupation of Vietnam, and it's also what will end the current occupation of Iraq (the anti-occupation resistance, not the terrorism against civilians).

And given the question of whether the Israeli soldiers were possibly captured in Lebanon and not Israel,  Hezbollah's position could be further strengthened as it turns the entire pretext for Israel's wholesale slaughter - replete with the intentional bombings of civilians, ambulances, UN observers, dairy factories and wheat silos - on its head.

Yet regardless of the military outcome, the real losses are the civilians killed and the Lebanese nation, ground to dust because of Israel's bruised ego and maniacal vision for the Middle East.

And let us not forgot that through all this, Palestine continues to bleed...

U.S. adds bombs and fuel to the fires of Lebanon

In order to facilitate the destruction of Lebanon as quickly as possible, the U.S. is doing its part for the war effort.

The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets [sic] in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said.

That's on top of last week's commitment to a stable Middle East.

The Pentagon notified Congress of plans to sell Israel jet fuel valued at up to $210 million "to keep peace and security in the region".

"The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory," the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in notice required by law.

In general, on the U.S. and international fronts, things are looking good for Israel. 

According to the jingoistic Jerusalem Post, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office and the army are delirious at their success in dictating the headlines and tone of foreign news broadcasts.

Ehud Olmert's media adviser, Assif Shariv, told the Post that the international media were interviewing Israeli spokespeople four times as much as spokespeople for the Palestinians and Lebanese. Another government adviser, Gideon Meir, boasted: "We have never had it so good. The hasbara [propaganda] effort is a well-oiled machine."

The Israel uber alles crowds are out in mass in DC, urging Congress and the President to allow Israel to continue its savage slaughter of Lebanon.  There's the Jewish establishment:

In an effort to head off calls in Washington for a quick cease-fire, some officials with Jewish groups have spent the past few days urging policymakers to make sure that Israel is given ample time and freedom of action to inflict as much damage as possible on Hezbollah's infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

and the Christian Zionists:

More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel.

Delegates have come from all 50 states and have 280 meetings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Pastor John Hagee said.

And it worked.  Both the Senate and House overwhelmingly passed resolutions unconditionally cheering Israel's state terrorism and war crimes.  Hillary Clinton headlined a pro-Israel rally in NY last Monday and Diane Feinstein will be featured at one tomorrow in San Francisco.  Rice had the inhumanity to refer to the bombing of Lebanon as "birth pangs."

And all the while Lebanon and Palestine are ground to dust.