Comments on: Slater Slams ‘Times’ for Imbalanced Coverage of Breaches in Truce http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html The War of Ideas in the Middle East Mon, 28 May 2012 01:16:47 +0000 hourly 1 By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57385 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57385 <p>YOU missed the story Phil.</p> <p>The cease-fire applied to Gaza only. The attack on Islamic Jihad was in the West Bank.</p> <p>There was NO VIOLATION by Israel of the cease-fire.</p> YOU missed the story Phil.

The cease-fire applied to Gaza only. The attack on Islamic Jihad was in the West Bank.

There was NO VIOLATION by Israel of the cease-fire.

]]> By: Peter D http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57386 Peter D Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57386 <p>Richard, you are right about the attack on IJ happening in the WB, however, there were indeed violations of truce by Israeli side in Gaza too. Mark Lincoln of Haaretz talkback, whose comments I always found researched and correct says this:<br /> "The first violation was the shelling of fishing vessels by an IDF ship at about 0600, on 19 June. This was followed by gunfire aimed at farmers near Khan Younis about 0830 the same day." <br /> However, he adds in a separate comment:<br /> "The Israeli government seems to be observing the ceasfire, though individual Israelis are violating it.<br /> Each of the first three days IDF warship(s) fired on fishing boats.<br /> Such activities have halted. Conclusion, someone in the chain of command made their displeasure known.<br /> The IAF has engaged in daily over flights, one on 19 June involved a sonic boom which appeared to be intended to harass the residents of Gaza.<br /> Ongoing activities, clearly with government approval. Mostly for legitimate reconnaissance purposes."<br /> There have been several instances of fire being directed at Palestinians from IDF vehicles. No pattern of government approval.<br /> [...]<br /> The sudden change in behavior by IDF naval forces, and the cessation of sonic booms by the IAF, make it clear that quiet pressure is being brought to curb violations."<br /> (the article is here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996294.html)</p> <p><br /> </p> Richard, you are right about the attack on IJ happening in the WB, however, there were indeed violations of truce by Israeli side in Gaza too. Mark Lincoln of Haaretz talkback, whose comments I always found researched and correct says this:
"The first violation was the shelling of fishing vessels by an IDF ship at about 0600, on 19 June. This was followed by gunfire aimed at farmers near Khan Younis about 0830 the same day."
However, he adds in a separate comment:
"The Israeli government seems to be observing the ceasfire, though individual Israelis are violating it.
Each of the first three days IDF warship(s) fired on fishing boats.
Such activities have halted. Conclusion, someone in the chain of command made their displeasure known.
The IAF has engaged in daily over flights, one on 19 June involved a sonic boom which appeared to be intended to harass the residents of Gaza.
Ongoing activities, clearly with government approval. Mostly for legitimate reconnaissance purposes."
There have been several instances of fire being directed at Palestinians from IDF vehicles. No pattern of government approval.
[...]
The sudden change in behavior by IDF naval forces, and the cessation of sonic booms by the IAF, make it clear that quiet pressure is being brought to curb violations."
(the article is here: link to haaretz.com

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57387 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57387 <p>The intention of the IDF and the chain of command is to keep the truce.</p> <p>Even in response to the Islamic Jihad (maybe) shelling from Gaza, the IDF's response was (my sense, not a quote) 'give Hamas time to reign them in. We'll see if they are in earnest or just rationalizing'.</p> <p>Slater and now Phil are just off the plate. (The plate of representation and reason.)</p> The intention of the IDF and the chain of command is to keep the truce.

Even in response to the Islamic Jihad (maybe) shelling from Gaza, the IDF's response was (my sense, not a quote) 'give Hamas time to reign them in. We'll see if they are in earnest or just rationalizing'.

Slater and now Phil are just off the plate. (The plate of representation and reason.)

]]> By: Charles Keating http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57388 Charles Keating Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57388 <p>Is this a talmudic commentary? Witty seems to show all the signs. </p> Is this a talmudic commentary? Witty seems to show all the signs.

]]> By: Jerome Slater http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57389 Jerome Slater Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57389 <p>My mistake--I was wrong not to have pointed out that the Israeli attack was in the WB, not Gaza, so technically the attack didn't break the ceasefire. But only technically. There isn't a prayer that the ceasefire can take hold if the Israelis attack Islamic Jihad, or anyone else in the West Bank, but claim--with the support of the NY Times--that it was only the IJ that violated the truce, because the launch point of the retaliatory rocket fire was from Gaza. </p> <p>The larger picture, which the NY Times (and Witty) can't seem to understand, is that Israel continues its de facto or indirect occupation of Gaza--and certainly its repression there--and its direct occupation of the West Bank. The West Bank and Gaza are not separate countries or populated by separate peoples--it is preposterous to think otherwise.</p> <p>Try this thought experiment. Suppose that Israel launched a major offensive in the West Bank, killing hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, but didn't attack Gaza. Suppose further that IJ or Hamas then retaliates by launching rockets from Gaza. Would any thinking person argue that it was the Palestinians rather than the Israelis who broke the ceasefire? Would it be inappropriate to further note that, regardless of who fired the first shot or from which particular part of Palestine a shot was fired, it is Israel that represses the Palestinians, not the other way around? </p> My mistake–I was wrong not to have pointed out that the Israeli attack was in the WB, not Gaza, so technically the attack didn't break the ceasefire. But only technically. There isn't a prayer that the ceasefire can take hold if the Israelis attack Islamic Jihad, or anyone else in the West Bank, but claim–with the support of the NY Times–that it was only the IJ that violated the truce, because the launch point of the retaliatory rocket fire was from Gaza.

The larger picture, which the NY Times (and Witty) can't seem to understand, is that Israel continues its de facto or indirect occupation of Gaza–and certainly its repression there–and its direct occupation of the West Bank. The West Bank and Gaza are not separate countries or populated by separate peoples–it is preposterous to think otherwise.

Try this thought experiment. Suppose that Israel launched a major offensive in the West Bank, killing hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, but didn't attack Gaza. Suppose further that IJ or Hamas then retaliates by launching rockets from Gaza. Would any thinking person argue that it was the Palestinians rather than the Israelis who broke the ceasefire? Would it be inappropriate to further note that, regardless of who fired the first shot or from which particular part of Palestine a shot was fired, it is Israel that represses the Palestinians, not the other way around?

]]> By: Peter D http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57390 Peter D Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57390 <p>Jerome, WB and Gaza are not two separate countries, of course, but a deal is a deal. If Israel violates the deal, then you are justified to blame it. However, suggesting that while Israel remains the occupier, the Palestinians are justified in violating the deal is antithetical to the whole purpose of the truce, which is - thinking large - to gradually reduce tension to the point where the two people can start having a meaningful discussion and end the occupation. That some tolerance should be afforded to the Palestinian violations - in fact, much bigger tolerance than to Israeli violations, for obvious reasons - is undeniable. But currently even Hamas seems to be more upset about the latest Kassams than some pro-Palestinian folks in the West.</p> Jerome, WB and Gaza are not two separate countries, of course, but a deal is a deal. If Israel violates the deal, then you are justified to blame it. However, suggesting that while Israel remains the occupier, the Palestinians are justified in violating the deal is antithetical to the whole purpose of the truce, which is – thinking large – to gradually reduce tension to the point where the two people can start having a meaningful discussion and end the occupation. That some tolerance should be afforded to the Palestinian violations – in fact, much bigger tolerance than to Israeli violations, for obvious reasons – is undeniable. But currently even Hamas seems to be more upset about the latest Kassams than some pro-Palestinian folks in the West.

]]> By: Jerome Slater http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57391 Jerome Slater Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57391 <p>Well argued, Peter. However, my main point is not that the Palestinians are justified in breaking the ceasefire, because they are the victims, but rather that the Israeli attack in the West Bank, while technically not a violation of the terms of the ceasefire, is the kind of action that will surely destroy the ceasefire, as it is nearly certain to guarantee a Palestinian retaliation. Whether the launch point of that retaliation is from Gaza or from the West Bank is not truly relevant to the central issues.</p> Well argued, Peter. However, my main point is not that the Palestinians are justified in breaking the ceasefire, because they are the victims, but rather that the Israeli attack in the West Bank, while technically not a violation of the terms of the ceasefire, is the kind of action that will surely destroy the ceasefire, as it is nearly certain to guarantee a Palestinian retaliation. Whether the launch point of that retaliation is from Gaza or from the West Bank is not truly relevant to the central issues.

]]> By: Peter D http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57392 Peter D Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57392 <p>Yes, Jerome, in principle you are right. Israel is guilty of many such stupid provocations at sensitive times in the past. I cannot help thinking of all this as one big poker game: partners totally distrust each other, test limits of each others patience and bluff all the time. Israeli operation in the WB could have been a run-away accident or a deliberate staking out of territory with eye to a future bargaining position. Neither Hamas (and other Palestinian parties) nor Israel can start behaving totally rationally, and one can only hope that in the testing of limits neither side will go too far.</p> Yes, Jerome, in principle you are right. Israel is guilty of many such stupid provocations at sensitive times in the past. I cannot help thinking of all this as one big poker game: partners totally distrust each other, test limits of each others patience and bluff all the time. Israeli operation in the WB could have been a run-away accident or a deliberate staking out of territory with eye to a future bargaining position. Neither Hamas (and other Palestinian parties) nor Israel can start behaving totally rationally, and one can only hope that in the testing of limits neither side will go too far.

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57393 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57393 <p>On the other hand, using unequivocal language, that is functionally inflammatory (look how Phil jumped on it) is an ESCALATION, when deescalation is what is needed.</p> <p>"On<br /> Tuesday morning, the Israelis broke the truce, sending a hit team to<br /> kill two Islamic Jihad militants. " </p> <p>Its hard to then describe that as "peace-advocacy" or even "advocacy of Palestinian rights or well-being".</p> <p>Even Hamas is saying that Islamic Jihad breaking the truce is against Palestinian national interests and Palestinian well-being.</p> <p>For what its worth, you have a LOT of audacity to imagine what I understand and what I don't.</p> <p>But, thanks for acknowledging your "technical" error.</p> On the other hand, using unequivocal language, that is functionally inflammatory (look how Phil jumped on it) is an ESCALATION, when deescalation is what is needed.

"On
Tuesday morning, the Israelis broke the truce, sending a hit team to
kill two Islamic Jihad militants. "

Its hard to then describe that as "peace-advocacy" or even "advocacy of Palestinian rights or well-being".

Even Hamas is saying that Islamic Jihad breaking the truce is against Palestinian national interests and Palestinian well-being.

For what its worth, you have a LOT of audacity to imagine what I understand and what I don't.

But, thanks for acknowledging your "technical" error.

]]> By: Richard Witty http://mondoweiss.net/2008/06/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html/comment-page-1#comment-57394 Richard Witty Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/06/26/slater-slams-times-for-imbalanced-coverage-of-breaches-in-truce.html#comment-57394 <p>Also Jerome,<br /> It was a few and specific Islamic Jihadi's that were killed in the West Bank, not hundreds.</p> <p>Please avoid the straw dogs.</p> Also Jerome,
It was a few and specific Islamic Jihadi's that were killed in the West Bank, not hundreds.

Please avoid the straw dogs.

]]>