Middle East Continued Again...

[Arrian]

I'd say we need to have a little chat with the Kurds. They cut it out or we avert our eyes when the Turks decide they've had enough.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Heh. From Haaretz:

'Shut up, you barefaced liar'

By Zvi Bar'el

"The war against Lebanon caught us completely unprepared," an editor on Jordan's television station told Haaretz. "All of us were focused on what was happening in Palestine or Iraq. I know that the majority of Arab stations, except for news channels like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya didn't even have permanent correspondents in Lebanon after the completion of the Syrian withdrawal, and after the elections in May-June 2005.

"Lebanon wasn't an object of interest. And then all of a sudden - war. How are we supposed to relate to it? How are we supposed to define Hezbollah? What is the official line we are supposed to take on the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers? What vocabulary should we be using? Everything needed to be rethought. Even the system to which we answer didn't quite know how to deal with it." Yet now, even after a week and a half of warfare, no one on the Jordanian station seems too troubled by the fighting. The same is the case on the Libyan and Moroccan networks, and most especially so on the Iraqi network. After all, Iraq has a large daily dose of death, with numbers several times higher than those in Lebanon.

This war has also rekindled the question of what format the reporter's interviews should take, and primarily how to relate to Israeli interviewees.




Advertisement

"There are times when I am forced to suppress a voice that rises within me, and which wants me to tell the Israeli interviewee: shut your mouth, you barefaced liar," says Mai al-Sharabani, a newscaster on the Al-Arabiya network, in an interview with Ibrahim Totanji, a reporter for Al-Hayat, the Arabic-language newspaper published in London.

"The newscaster has to always be ready to make the Israeli interviewee uncomfortable, to pin him down in the narrow alleys of his lies," declares al-Sharabani, who began her career at Egyptian television, from which she moved three years ago to the Al-Arabiya network. The problem is that you don't have enough time to prepare for interviews with "the Israeli," and events dictate both the pace and the length of the interviews, explains al-Sharabani.

Nevertheless, when they simply can't restrain themselves any longer, the newscasters have at their disposal those precious final seconds of the interview, in which they can make a venomous remark that will not garner any response by the interviewee, for the simple reason that it is the end of the conversation.

"Newscasters understand the magnitude of the responsibility placed on them in interviewing Israelis. Millions of Arabs watch them, waiting to see how we will embarrass them or crush them in an interview." says Mohammed Abu Obeid, another al-Arabiya journalist, who claims that he knows how to deal with Israelis, due to having worked in Palestine in the past.

Ibrahim Totanji, the writer of the article, has his own feelings on the subject. "Nobody wants to hear the Israeli drivel. But that is professionalism and its obligations. This is the 'curse' of democracy, of one opinion and of the other opinion that you can't avoid."

Interviewing Israelis, which has over time become an inseparable part of Arab news programming, broke a taboo that went back decades. "The curse of democracy," as Totanji calls it, continues to elicit protests from Arab listeners: They send letters in response to the Arab networks' Web sites, in which they express revulsion, a "sense of betrayal" and at times, abusive language over the fact that the networks devote their airtime to "Zionist propaganda," and especially at such a sensitive and difficult time as the days of war in Lebanon.

The breakthrough Al Jazeera network, the network that interviews the most Israelis, has not only generated competition among several other Arab networks, but has also provoked a proper response by Israeli PR spinners in the office of the IDF Spokesman and at the Foreign Ministry. These two institutions now dispatch articulate spokesmen who are fluent in Arabic, but who do not usually succeed in breaking through the familiar sheaf of cliches.

However, sharing airtime on Arab television with Israelis isn't the only thing drawing criticism. With the outbreak of war in Lebanon, there has also been a rise in sensitivity toward the vocabulary employed by newcasters on the various stations to describe the war. Egyptian television is the object of the most strident criticism, for example, for not broadcasting martial overtures before the news programs, or for not playing songs by Fairuz or other national Lebanese songs, as was the case during the first Lebanon War and even at the start of the Palestinian Intifada.

In addition, the Egyptian vocabulary has been softened, and broadcasters on state-run Nile Television seem to have been given instructions by the station manager, Hala Hashish, not to use the term "aggression against Lebanon" to describe IDF attacks, but to make do with the softer sounding "siege of Lebanon." Similarly, greater use has been made of the words "tension" and "military dispute" in place of "war." This vocabulary is fundamentally similar to that employed by the government newspaper Al Ahram, which quotes Mubarak talking about "military activities" and not about "aggression."

The terminology closely reflects the diplomatic consensus reached between Mubarak, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah of Jordan. Because they consider Hezbollah to be the source of all evil, any war against it cannot take on the air of an Arab war against Israel. But what is even more vexing is what is seen as the apathy of television stations outside Lebanon to what is going on in the country.

Again, the Egyptian stations are the main target of criticism, because of the excessively brief news coverage they offer about Lebanon and the fact that they have not, so far, adjusted their broadcast schedule to the war. "It's as if no Arab country was being attacked. As if there is no war here," read an e-mail to the Web site of a station in the Persian Gulf. Another writer wondered how the Lebanese satellite TV station, LBC, terms those who have been killed in Israel by Katyushas "victims," and why Lebanese civilians killed by Israeli bombs are termed either "victims" or "casualties," but not shahids [martyrs].

One of the most infuriating but amusing episodes took place on Egypt's Channel 1: The hostess of a light entertainment show said, "The war in Lebanon seems to be once again reviving the Arab dream of Arab unity... To that end, we have invited to the studio an important researcher in the interpretation of dreams."

[Wezil]

Why were they there Guardian?

Purpose of the UN mission and its results?

[Sandman]

Kofi Annan has said that he thinks the Israelis targetted the UN compound deliberately.

Which will probably summon the usual shower of nutcases blethering on about 'intent' - as if it can be meaningfully applied to a state.

I doubt that the order came from on high. It was probably a combination of IDF field decisions and the grim logic of air campaigns. What do you do when you've hit all the big targets, but you've been ordered to intensify the air campaign?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Wezil
Why were they there Guardian?

Purpose of the UN mission and its results?

It's a monitoring mission that's part of UN resolutions 425 and 426, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon (back in 1978). Israel definitely should have known they were there.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


It's a monitoring mission that's part of UN resolutions 425 and 426, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon (back in 1978). Israel definitely should have known they were there.

I think the mission was a little more involved than that but I don't feel like playing that game today.

Yes, their presence was known but **** happens in war. 'Friendly fire' incidents are proof of that...unless of course you want to argue friendly fire incidents are intentional as well...

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Wezil


I think the mission was a little more involved than that but I don't feel like playing that game today.

Yes, their presence was known but **** happens in war. 'Friendly fire' incidents are proof of that...unless of course you want to argue friendly fire incidents are intentional as well...

Not really:

According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

* Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
* Restore international peace and security;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

Most recently the mandate of UNIFIL was extended until 31 July 2006 by Security Council resolution 1655 (2006) of 31 January 2006.

The UN post was shelled for 6 hour before a missile was launched on it and according to the article I posted, they contacted Israel for 10 times. That seems like a pretty big ****-up.

[Arrian]

Seems to me that the mission failed in 2 of its 3 objectives.

Setting that aside, that doesn't excuse the bombing. If the Israelis have run out of targets, they need to stop shooting, at least until more targets present themselves.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

There are media reports that the UN guys contacted Israeli forces several times over hours when the hits came closer and the Israeli commander promised that the bombardment would stop, but it never did. Fubared.

edit. Ahh, missed that in Colon's previous post.

[Colonâ„¢]

A rescue team that was sent after the bunker was destroyed was also shelled BTW.

An article from last year:

Last update - 10:24 11/09/2005
Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel is lobbying to have the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mission in southern Lebanon reduced in size, saying that the organization collaborates with Hezbollah.

"The UN is in fact collaborating with a terrorist organization," says a political source in Jerusalem. "This is an intolerable situation, when the UN speaks at the same time of fighting terror."

In diplomatic meetings with the U.S. and France in the past weeks, a series of complaints about UNIFIL were brought up: The UN force maintains a permanent dialogue with Hezbollah, chiefly because of UNIFIL's own interest in survival; in many places along the Israel-Lebanon border, Hezbollah has posts and positions adjacent to UNIFIL positions; deployment of the force serves as an excuse for the Lebanese government not to deploy in the south, as required by UN Security Council resolutions; and UNIFIL treats the IDF as equivalent to the Hezbollah terrorist organization when reporting violations of the cease-fire.

The Israeli violations are mostly flights over Lebanon's skies, which are "few and insignificant," the political source said.

Israel's position is that, given the political changes in Lebanon, it is time to reevaluate UNIFIL's size and mission, ahead of the periodic discussion in the UN on extending its mandate, which will take place in January. Israel is not demanding that the organization be completely dismantled and, the political source says, "UNIFIL will be closed when Lebanon realizes it doesn't need it anymore, but there is still cause for a gradual reduction process."

France rejected the Israeli position. French government officials told the Israeli ambassador in Paris, Nissim Zvili, that UNIFIL's mandate allows it to maintain ties with "all sides," including Hezbollah, and that the force fulfills a "stabilizing role" and that reducing it would not help achieve stability in the region. The U.S. administration prefers to coordinate its position on Lebanon with France and not to upset the sensitive Lebanese political structure.

UNIFIL was created in 1978, after the Litani campaign, and has been deployed on the Lebanese side of the border ever since. Currently, UNIFIL has 2,000 soldiers and 50 observers, backed up by a force of 400 civilian workers.

According to the political source in Jerusalem, at the last semiannual discussion about UNIFIL in the Security Council, which took place in July, a resolution was passed calling on Lebanon to exercise its sovereignty and take responsibility for the southern border, and instructed the UN secretary general to assist in this. Israel wants the change to be reflected on the ground as well.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=623427

[Wezil]

Colon: Point 3 was the one people keep glossing over. I repeat - Typical UN effort.

If your safety depends on Koffi and the UN then kiss your butt goodbye.

[Colonâ„¢]

Wezil, we were discussing how the UN post got bombed, not whether the UN mission was effective. You asked why the mission there and that question got answered. If you haven't got an explanation to offer you might just as well keep mum.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Wezil, we were discussing how the UN post got bombed, not whether the UN mission was effective.

The fact these people were somewhere dangerous NOT performing any useful purpose i think is quite relevant to them getting bombed. If they weren't there this COULD NOT have happened.

You asked why the mission there and that question got answered. If you haven't got an explanation to offer you might just as well keep mum.

Sorry you can't see the connection. Your problem not mine. Keep mum till you figure it out.

[Barnabas]

Is this like the usa bombing the chinese embassy in serbia?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Wezil


The fact these people were somewhere dangerous NOT performing any useful purpose i think is quite relevant to them getting bombed.

"Useful purpose" or not has nothing to do with it. Targets don't become responsible, and attacks don't become justified just because of an arbitrarily defined category of "performing useful purpose".