14.8.05
A dishonest little eulogy
The New York Times has invited readers to shed a tear about the impending withdrawal of colonist fanatics ("settlers") from the Gaza Strip. Touching.
But the tears streaming down our faces (whether due to anguish, or joy, or whatever other reason) should not blind us to the blatant dishonesty present in the article. It seems impossible for many journalists to write an analysis or background article on Israel/Palestine without such gross distortions appearing. But this NYT piece surpasses these already high standards of deceit by intentionally denying an important fact cited in the article.
The article notes that
[o]n Thursday, the newspaper Haaretz reported that the proportion of Jews in the combined population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza had dropped below 50 percent for the first time.
Right - Jews no longer form the majority in all the territory under the direct control of the State of Israel. But in the very next sentence, Ethan Bronner, the journalist, denies the implications of this demographic fact:
This means, many Israelis argue, that unless they yield territory, they will have to choose a Jewish state or a democratic one; they will not be able to have both. (emphases added)
No, what this means is that Israelis have already chosen the "Jewish state" over the "democratic one". The use of the future conditional here is a bald denial of the reality of the situation or, in expansionist Zionist terminology, the "facts on the ground". "Disengagement" means nothing in terms of "Israeli democracy" since Gaza is not achieving any kind of independence through the removal of the settler fanatics and will still be subject to Israeli approval for virtually any important decision. Palestinian Gazans, in other words, will still be subject to the whims and laws of a ruling class that is now not the majority in the territory over which it rules. Needless to say, this is hardly "democratic" in any accepted sense of the word.
Unlike Bronner and his ilk, I have real news for Israel's supporters: the "undemocratic Jewish state" and the "apartheid state" are not "dangers" that Israel faces at some hazy point in the future - they exist right now. And any attempt to deny these facts is a denial of reality.
The New York Times has invited readers to shed a tear about the impending withdrawal of colonist fanatics ("settlers") from the Gaza Strip. Touching.
But the tears streaming down our faces (whether due to anguish, or joy, or whatever other reason) should not blind us to the blatant dishonesty present in the article. It seems impossible for many journalists to write an analysis or background article on Israel/Palestine without such gross distortions appearing. But this NYT piece surpasses these already high standards of deceit by intentionally denying an important fact cited in the article.
The article notes that
[o]n Thursday, the newspaper Haaretz reported that the proportion of Jews in the combined population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza had dropped below 50 percent for the first time.
Right - Jews no longer form the majority in all the territory under the direct control of the State of Israel. But in the very next sentence, Ethan Bronner, the journalist, denies the implications of this demographic fact:
This means, many Israelis argue, that unless they yield territory, they will have to choose a Jewish state or a democratic one; they will not be able to have both. (emphases added)
No, what this means is that Israelis have already chosen the "Jewish state" over the "democratic one". The use of the future conditional here is a bald denial of the reality of the situation or, in expansionist Zionist terminology, the "facts on the ground". "Disengagement" means nothing in terms of "Israeli democracy" since Gaza is not achieving any kind of independence through the removal of the settler fanatics and will still be subject to Israeli approval for virtually any important decision. Palestinian Gazans, in other words, will still be subject to the whims and laws of a ruling class that is now not the majority in the territory over which it rules. Needless to say, this is hardly "democratic" in any accepted sense of the word.
Unlike Bronner and his ilk, I have real news for Israel's supporters: the "undemocratic Jewish state" and the "apartheid state" are not "dangers" that Israel faces at some hazy point in the future - they exist right now. And any attempt to deny these facts is a denial of reality.
