The other night (Transcript or Audio) NPR's senior news analyst Dan Schorr described the impasse in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations as: "Netanyahu will not accept the Palestinian state with its own defense capability. The Palestinians will not accept a Jewish state that nibbles away with settlements in Occupied Territory."
"Nibbles away?" Israel gobbles up 42 percent of the West Bank and Schorr reduces its greed to bunny-tidbits? Palestinians are half a "deadlock" because they object to an incredible shrinking state? In the name of self-defense, Israel is allowed to bombard imprisoned Gazan civilians, as well as shoot humanitarians many times in the head and back, but "Netanyahu will not accept the Palestinian state with its own defense capability"?
Why can't Schorr look at the scales--as he has just described them--and say the obvious? Israel--not Palestine--freights the bargaining with impossible demands.
NPR gives Schorr three slots a week to blither ignorance. Why make itself irrelevant by refusing time to those who care about equality--who care enough to look at actual facts? Perhaps NPR, like Schorr, fears what we will see.
“Perhaps NPR, like Schorr, fears what we will see”
I mentioned this before, but, well, why would anybody listen to me, perfectly understandable.
Anyway, NPR has been involved in a bold new experiment in public broadcasting, which started in the Bush years with a man named, I believe Tomlinson, who IIRC eventually had to leave for something having to do with horse-racing. Really. IIRC.
Anyway, this bold new experiment: NPR is determined to find out how a public broadcasting network can survive after alienating all the people that would normally be their contributors.
I’m very involved in this experiment. I canceled my donations to NPR long ago, when they threw in with Bush.
I love musicals, and public broadcasting, but have no desire to hear the Fugue for Tinhorns” all the time. Can do!
Daniel Schorr would have had no career worth speaking of if he hadn’t been on Nixon’s ‘enemies list’. A few years ago, he was part of the contingent of public figures who picked up the “Israel has done some not very nice things” mantra. Elie Wiesel had stretched his very limited mind to make this stunning observation — “Israel has done some not very nice things” — so a slew of people felt free to parrot it.
That said, I heard this Schorr piece and was surprised he even managed to say that.
To make a long story short, in a capitalist democracy the media inevitably becomes a propaganda organ for the rich and powerful, and for their elected government. Letters to the editor and complaints are fine, however, true media reform is impossible, and working for it a waste of time and effort. The media are not going to put themselves out of business in order to make a few lefties happy. Besides, NPR is not irrelevant.
They are performing their propaganda function in a professional manner, hence, are rewarded with continued funding.
Yes, nibbling. Like the US has been ‘nibbling’ at Iraq for nearly two decades since 1991. Does anyone recall those ‘nibbling’ Clinton-era sanctions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi infants? How about the Shock and Awe campaign of 2003 and the subsequent destruction of the entire country’s infrastructure? They were all itsy bitsy acts of nibbling. There is one redeeming characteristic among non-Jewish American progressives, they don’t make excuses for their government’s immoral and criminal actions. Why can’t those who are **allegedly** liberal and progressive Jewish American do the same in regard to Israel?
And yes, I do realize that ironically, many Jewish Americans treat Israel as if it were their first and only homeland.
I think you’re splitting hairs with this criticism. I think what he meant was that Israel is taking over what was supposed to be a mini-Palestinian state piecemeal, rather than having a mass eviction like they did in 1948. And he said that Israel doesn’t want the Palestinians to have any way to stop them(defensive capabilities). That’s not really too far from the truth-he left out important issues like the brutality and humiliation the Palestinians suffer daily. But he only has a minute or two to say his piece.
I don’t go for this scolding someone if they don’t phrase something exactly the right way-and dismissing them as immoral and/or ignorant beings. That’s what they did to Helen Thomas. This orthodoxy tends to turn people from saying anything or asking any questions for fear of seeming like an anti-semite or orientalist. I think what this issue needs is more debate and less sniping.
Joer, I wish you were right, because I agree that we shouldn’t “scold… someone if they don’t phrase something exactly the right way,” “dismissing them as immoral and/or ignorant beings.” But I can’t hear the essay as you do. Schorr’s comment seems like”non-criticism criticism”–a study in passive voice, disguising Israeli government agency as “the current atmosphere.”
Melissa Block announces that “tentative signs of forward movement in the peace process” give Schorr “a feeling of deja vu,” which he sums up at the end, “Once more, back from the brink.”
*****
“MELISSA BLOCK, host: Following President Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, there are tentative signs of forward movement in the peace process. That’s left NPR senior news analyst Daniel Schorr with a feeling of deja vu.
“DANIEL SCHORR: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may qualify as the oldest established standoff in the world. Since 1991 when the United States and the Soviet Union summoned the two sides to a peace conference in Madrid, efforts have been intense, sometimes appearing breathtakingly close to success.
“That notably happened during the Clinton administration when a peace agreement founded at the last minute. But each time, [sic] a new president has tried to unite the antagonists in some version of the idea of two states living peacefully side by side[, t]here are new frictions to overcome.
“Most recently, while special envoy George Mitchell was striving to resume modest contact through so-called proximity talks, the tension was increased, first by the provocative announcement of new Jewish settlement activity at the moment Vice President Joseph Biden was in Jerusalem. Then the Israeli commando raid on a Turkish-led flotilla of relief ships for blockaded Gaza.
“And yet, once again, President Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clasped hands before the cameras and renewed the unbreakable bonds between their two countries. They may succeed in helping the limping peace process to its feet, pressing for early face-to-face talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But the current atmosphere is not conducive to agreement.
“The basic deadlock remains firm. Netanyahu will not accept a Palestinian state with its own defense capability. The Palestinians will not accept a Jewish state that nibbles away with settlements in occupied territory. But never mind, we are a long way from tackling these ancient deadlocks.
“The emphasis now will be on confidence-building measures, if any can be found, to set the stage for more substantive negotiations, once more back from the brink. [sic: negotiations. Once more back from the brink."]
This is Daniel Schorr.”
******Listen to the audio if you’ve time. In the broadcast, “Once more back from the brink,” sounds like a separate sentence, where it implies that we are falling inevitably once more back from the brink of peace. What a sad, stunted version of possibilities.
I think Daniel Schorr, who, as hugh samson reminds us, prides himself for having risen to Nixon’s Enemies list, could level explicit criticism of Israel’s recalcitrance. More, though, I wonder why NPR or any news organization hires one who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that theft of 42 percent of Occupied land is not a “nibble.”
And, Mooser, thanks for reminding us about Kenneth Tomlinson: his ghost reigns.
Schorr is speaking from the present. Apples to Kneadler’s oranges.
The settlement expansion is a big deal. The extent of settlements in the West Bank and EAst Jerusalem, is close to a tipping point for the PA, reasonably.
I understand Netanyahu’s reluctance for an officially armed Palestine, with the prospect of Hamas election. Who knows how confrontational they would be, agreements or not.
It also indicates a failing on Netanyahu’s confidence, an indication that he is not confident that he can realize a good neighbor to good neighbor relationship with Palestine, that would against both communities’ interests to disturb (if it gets there).
There are MANY that would wish to mess up that prospective relationship between the communities. Militants on all sides establish their street cred by disruption, not by participation.
Actually 60% of the West Bank is unavailable to Palestinians as it falls under Area C which is under full control of Israel. This is not taking into consideration Areas B which is under joint Israeli and Palestinian control. Only area A is under full Palestinian control.