http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/pretend-two-state-solution-1.3919996
Kim Porte
if the world can give a place
for the Jewish to live why can not the Palestinians have the same. I've
had it with the good vs evil horse manure. there are no good guys until
we decide to treat each other with some basic respect.
David Raymond Amos
@Kim Porte I agree
David Raymond Amos
@Kim Porte Food for thought byway of The Associated Press and CBC a couple of days ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/netanyahu-improper-gifts-alllegations-1.3918768
Israeli police question Netanyahu over corruption allegation
Netanyahu has denied what he calls 'baseless' reports that he received inappropriate gifts
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 02, 2017 6:01 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/netanyahu-improper-gifts-alllegations-1.3918768
Israeli police question Netanyahu over corruption allegation
Netanyahu has denied what he calls 'baseless' reports that he received inappropriate gifts
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 02, 2017 6:01 PM ET
David Raymond Amos
@Kim Porte Then there is the news in CBC today
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israeli-soldier-azaria-convicted-1.3920444
Netanyahu urges pardon for Israeli soldier who killed wounded Palestinian assailant
Supporters of Sgt. Elor Azaria clash with police outside Tel Aviv courthouse
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 04, 2017 5:53 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israeli-soldier-azaria-convicted-1.3920444
Netanyahu urges pardon for Israeli soldier who killed wounded Palestinian assailant
Supporters of Sgt. Elor Azaria clash with police outside Tel Aviv courthouse
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 04, 2017 5:53 AM ET
Let's stop pretending Israel is heading toward a two-state solution: Neil Macdonald
The 'peace process' itself has become a ridiculous term
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 04, 2017 5:00 AM ET
Senior Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, above, have rejected the two-state solution, and the
U.S. already arguably funds settlement building in the West Bank and
Jerusalem so why are we still pretending, asks Neil Macdonald? (Atef
Safadi/Associated Press)
The diplomatic rictuses that were so long fixed in place
are not just slipping. They've been torn off and discarded. In the
ascendant Trump nation, they are no longer of any use.
What lies underneath shouldn't be a surprise: the Trump campaign official in New York who declared that Michelle Obama should return to Zimbabwe and live in a cave with Maxie the Gorilla; or Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, who malevolently labelled Barack Obama — the man who recently signed the largest aid package to Israel in history — a "Jew hating anti-Semite" because he refused to veto a UN resolution declaring Israel's settlements illegal, a position, incidentally, that is shared by most nations, Canada included.
But other masks are probably best dispensed with. It is past time to stop pretending, for example, that Israel and the Palestinians are on a slow but inevitable journey toward a two-state solution.
President-elect Donald Trump appears ready to do this. He says he intends to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Previous presidents have promised to do the same and then decided against it, advised by experts of the possible consequences. But Trump is not previous presidents, and by his own word, he knows better than the experts. Trump also appears ready to embrace Israeli settlement building if his choice of ambassador to Israel is any indication.
This will be refreshing. Since money is fungible, the U.S. already arguably funds settlement building, and there would be no more need for weak murmurs of protest every time Israel announces a few thousand more homes on a West Bank hilltop. No more carefully written statements about how settlements are "not helpful" to the peace process.
The peace process itself has become a ridiculous term — weasel words that give politicians a refuge from hard truths and ill-educated journalists a rote talking point. That it ever existed at all is dubious.
Former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir once bluntly explained his motives for going to Madrid and participating in the conference that gave birth to the peace process. "I would have carried out autonomy talks for 10 years," he told the newspaper Ma'ariv as he was leaving office, "and meanwhile, we would have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria." (Judea and Samaria are otherwise known as the West Bank. At the time, the West Bank settler population was around 90,000. It is somewhere around 400,000 today.)
A pause here to acknowledge Palestinian intransigence. I lived and worked in Jerusalem for five years and met most of the important players at the time. I am well aware of the Fatah's capacity for deceit and of Hamas's ridiculously unrealistic agenda.
Yes, the Palestinians have chosen violence over negotiation in the past, but they are powerless, and they were crushed. Israel, on the other hand, is not only every bit as capable of deceit and double dealing, it has all the power. Any Palestinian state will exist only on Israel's terms, and anyone curious about Israel's terms should read the words of some of the most senior politicians and officials in Israel's ruling right-wing coalition: Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon and, of course, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, all of whom have dismissed the idea of a Palestinian state.
In fact, with Trump about to take office, some of them are talking about outright annexation of most of the West Bank, something the Israeli far-right has had on its mind ever since Rabbi Moshe Levinger and his followers moved into the Al-Nahr Al-Khaled hotel in Hebron after the 1967 war and refused to leave, founding the settlement movement.
Again, it's probably time to stop pretending and just get on with it. Having colonized the West Bank, Israel can proceed with whatever its plans are for the Palestinian underclass governed by the Israeli military.
Because what to do with that underclass is the real issue.
Right now, 1.4 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens, in a population of eight million. There are at least 2.4 million more Palestinians in the West Bank. Annex the West Bank, and you annex a great many of them. And then what? Offer them citizenship? Don't forget, Palestinians have a significantly higher birthrate than Israelis.
At some point, perhaps as soon as 2020, the aggregate Palestinian population in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank will exceed the Jewish population.
So, what will Israel do? Forcibly transfer them to tiny Bantustans? Difficult. More likely, there will be three echelons of residents: full Jewish citizens, many of whom immigrated from abroad, indigenous Arabs with Israeli passports and millions of indigenous Arab residents with no real rights at all.
There is a term for that sort of political system, and it's ugly.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry touched on it when he said
that if the status quo continues, Israel will be either Jewish or
democratic, but not both. That wasn't an original thought; former
Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert have
all said more or less the same thing. Olmert and Barak both invoked apartheid South Africa.
Israeli intellectuals, including authors David Grossman and Avi Shlaim and Yaron Ezrahi of the Israel Democracy Institute, regard this question as existential to Israeli democracy.
But Israel's fervent supporters in the U.S. or Canada will no doubt be fine with whatever course the Jewish state chooses. They may have to modify their rhetoric and start calling Israel the "only Athenian democracy in the Middle East" or some such thing.
Or, this being a post-Trump world, just resort to name calling, like the Jew-hating-anti-Semite slur. That's always much easier.
This column is an opinion. For more information about our commentary section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
Neil Macdonald
Neil Macdonald is an opinion columnist for CBC News, based
in Ottawa. Prior to that he was the CBC's Washington correspondent for
12 years, and before that he spent five years reporting from the Middle
East. He also had a previous career in newspapers, and speaks English
and French fluently, and some Arabic.
What lies underneath shouldn't be a surprise: the Trump campaign official in New York who declared that Michelle Obama should return to Zimbabwe and live in a cave with Maxie the Gorilla; or Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, who malevolently labelled Barack Obama — the man who recently signed the largest aid package to Israel in history — a "Jew hating anti-Semite" because he refused to veto a UN resolution declaring Israel's settlements illegal, a position, incidentally, that is shared by most nations, Canada included.
But other masks are probably best dispensed with. It is past time to stop pretending, for example, that Israel and the Palestinians are on a slow but inevitable journey toward a two-state solution.
U.S. president-elect Donald Trump appears ready to embrace Israeli settlement-building. (Mike Segar/Reuters)
President-elect Donald Trump appears ready to do this. He says he intends to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Previous presidents have promised to do the same and then decided against it, advised by experts of the possible consequences. But Trump is not previous presidents, and by his own word, he knows better than the experts. Trump also appears ready to embrace Israeli settlement building if his choice of ambassador to Israel is any indication.
- David Johnston walks fine line on Middle East visit
- Canadian policy on Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Global Affairs Canada)
This will be refreshing. Since money is fungible, the U.S. already arguably funds settlement building, and there would be no more need for weak murmurs of protest every time Israel announces a few thousand more homes on a West Bank hilltop. No more carefully written statements about how settlements are "not helpful" to the peace process.
What peace process?
The peace process itself has become a ridiculous term — weasel words that give politicians a refuge from hard truths and ill-educated journalists a rote talking point. That it ever existed at all is dubious.
Former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir once bluntly explained his motives for going to Madrid and participating in the conference that gave birth to the peace process. "I would have carried out autonomy talks for 10 years," he told the newspaper Ma'ariv as he was leaving office, "and meanwhile, we would have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria." (Judea and Samaria are otherwise known as the West Bank. At the time, the West Bank settler population was around 90,000. It is somewhere around 400,000 today.)
- UN Security Council approves motion demanding end to Israeli settlements
- CBC Ombudsman ruling on reporting on Israeli settlements
A pause here to acknowledge Palestinian intransigence. I lived and worked in Jerusalem for five years and met most of the important players at the time. I am well aware of the Fatah's capacity for deceit and of Hamas's ridiculously unrealistic agenda.
Yes, the Palestinians have chosen violence over negotiation in the past, but they are powerless, and they were crushed. Israel, on the other hand, is not only every bit as capable of deceit and double dealing, it has all the power. Any Palestinian state will exist only on Israel's terms, and anyone curious about Israel's terms should read the words of some of the most senior politicians and officials in Israel's ruling right-wing coalition: Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon and, of course, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, all of whom have dismissed the idea of a Palestinian state.
In fact, with Trump about to take office, some of them are talking about outright annexation of most of the West Bank, something the Israeli far-right has had on its mind ever since Rabbi Moshe Levinger and his followers moved into the Al-Nahr Al-Khaled hotel in Hebron after the 1967 war and refused to leave, founding the settlement movement.
Get on with it
Again, it's probably time to stop pretending and just get on with it. Having colonized the West Bank, Israel can proceed with whatever its plans are for the Palestinian underclass governed by the Israeli military.
Because what to do with that underclass is the real issue.
Right now, 1.4 million Palestinians are Israeli citizens, in a population of eight million. There are at least 2.4 million more Palestinians in the West Bank. Annex the West Bank, and you annex a great many of them. And then what? Offer them citizenship? Don't forget, Palestinians have a significantly higher birthrate than Israelis.
At some point, perhaps as soon as 2020, the aggregate Palestinian population in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank will exceed the Jewish population.
So, what will Israel do? Forcibly transfer them to tiny Bantustans? Difficult. More likely, there will be three echelons of residents: full Jewish citizens, many of whom immigrated from abroad, indigenous Arabs with Israeli passports and millions of indigenous Arab residents with no real rights at all.
There is a term for that sort of political system, and it's ugly.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Israel can be either Jewish or democratic, but not both. (The Associated Press)
Israeli intellectuals, including authors David Grossman and Avi Shlaim and Yaron Ezrahi of the Israel Democracy Institute, regard this question as existential to Israeli democracy.
But Israel's fervent supporters in the U.S. or Canada will no doubt be fine with whatever course the Jewish state chooses. They may have to modify their rhetoric and start calling Israel the "only Athenian democracy in the Middle East" or some such thing.
Or, this being a post-Trump world, just resort to name calling, like the Jew-hating-anti-Semite slur. That's always much easier.
This column is an opinion. For more information about our commentary section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
About The Author
Neil Macdonald
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israeli-soldier-azaria-convicted-1.3920444
Netanyahu urges pardon for Israeli soldier who killed wounded Palestinian assailant
Supporters of Sgt. Elor Azaria clash with police outside Tel Aviv courthouse
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 04, 2017 5:53 AM ET
Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, who was convicted of
manslaughter, sits to hear his verdict in a military court in Tel Aviv,
Israel, Jan. 4, 2017. (Heidi Levine/Reuters)
Sgt. Elor Azaria, 20, faces a maximum penalty of 20 years behind bars, though he is not expected to receive that much time. The military said he would be sentenced on Jan. 15. The defence team said it would appeal.
The verdict — which marks an extremely rare case of an Israeli military court siding against a soldier over lethal action taken in the field — caps a nine-month saga that has deeply divided the country. Defence officials have criticized Azaria's conduct while large segments of the Israeli public, along with members of the nationalist ruling coalition, have rallied behind him.
With Azaria's sentencing weeks away, the country now faces a heated debate over whether he deserves clemency. Within minutes of the verdict, leading politicians were already calling for him to be pardoned.
Under Israeli law, the country's largely ceremonial president has the authority to issue a pardon.
Hours after the verdict, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for Azaria to be pardoned, plunging into the raging political debate that has divided the country and putting himself at odds with the military.
On his Facebook page, Netanyahu wrote: "I support granting Elor Azaria a pardon."
He also urged the public to support the army and its commanders.
Israeli soldier convicted of manslaughter0:27
'Disproportionate response'
In delivering the verdict of the three-judge panel, Col. Maya Heller systematically rejected all of Azaria's defence arguments, saying "the fact that the man on the ground was a terrorist does not justify a disproportionate response."
Those arguments included a claim that Abdel Fattah al-Sharif was already dead when Azaria shot him in the head and that he was acting in self-defence, though the man had already been disarmed and was lying on the ground.
"The court said … he was a poor witness, they didn't believe him, he changed his story many times and, in the end, there was no objective danger to him," freelance reporter Irris Makler said from Jerusalem.
This still, taken from cellphone video, shows
Israeli soldier Sgt. Elor Azaria, in the highlighted area, moments
before shooting Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, the incapacitated
man seen lying on the ground, in Hebron. (Reuters)
Azaria was 19 at the time, and working as an army medic. Al-Sharif and another Palestinian assailant were shot after attacking and stabbing an Israeli solider manning a military checkpoint in Hebron. The second assailant died immediately.
The shooting occurred at the height of what has become more than a year-long wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
Soldier's family outraged
Azaria entered the court smiling and appearing confident, and he was embraced by a few dozen relatives and friends. But as the verdict was delivered, he stared gloomily ahead, and tensions quickly boiled over in the cramped, crowded courtroom.
Members of Azaria's family clapped sarcastically as the decision was delivered, some screaming "Our hero!"
A female relative was kicked out of the courtroom for screaming at the judges, and a second woman stormed out, shouting, "Disgusting leftists."
After the judges walked out, Azaria's mother, Oshra, screamed, "You should be ashamed of yourselves." Azaria tried to comfort her and calm her as she wailed. Another family member whipped his jacket at a female reporter, missing his target and instead hitting another relative.
Scuffles, violence erupt after Israeli soldier ruling0:33
Protests, threats
Hundreds of the soldier's supporters, many of them young religious men wearing skullcaps, gathered outside the military court in Tel Aviv ahead of the verdict. The crowd, holding large Israeli flags and banners, periodically scuffled with police.
Some demonstrators chanted veiled death threats against the Israeli army's chief, Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, insinuating he would face the same fate of slain Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated 20 years ago by an ultranationalist Israeli.
"Gadi, Gadi, watch out. Rabin is looking for a friend," the demonstrators chanted. The crowd was quickly dispersed without any further violence.
A supporter of Elor Azaria holds a placard
during a protest calling for his release in Tel Aviv, on April 19, 2016.
(Baz Ratner/Reuters)
Israel's defence minister said he disagreed with the verdict, but called on the public to respect the court's decision.
"Despite the difficult verdict, the defence establishment will do everything it can to assist the soldier and his family," Avigdor Lieberman told reporters.
Al-Sharif's father called the verdict "fair."
"This is an achievement of the court that it condemned the soldier," said Yousri al-Sharif, who watched with his family as the verdict was read on live television.
It took the lead judge almost three hours to deliver the verdict.
"I was exhausted and tense," he said. "I smoked two packs of cigarettes while watching."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/netanyahu-improper-gifts-alllegations-1.3918768
Israeli police question Netanyahu over corruption allegation
Netanyahu has denied what he calls 'baseless' reports that he received inappropriate gifts
The Associated Press Posted: Jan 02, 2017 6:01 PM ET
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was questioned
by police over allegations he improperly 'received benefits.' He denies
any wrongdoing. (Gali Tibbon/Reuters)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was grilled by
police investigators for over three hours at his office Monday night,
opening what could be a politically damaging criminal investigation into
suspicions that he improperly accepted gifts.
Netanyahu has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but the arrival of the national fraud squad indicated questions raised about him are considered serious enough to merit an investigation.
Police said Netanyahu was questioned "under caution," a term signalling that he is a suspect.
Police spokeswoman Luba Samri said Netanyahu was questioned on "suspicions he received benefits." She said there would be no further details released at this stage.
The police team did not speak to journalists.
Israel's Justice Ministry later issued a statement saying Netanyahu was questioned "on suspicion of receiving benefits from business people."
A black screen was placed in front of the building in apparent anticipation of the investigators' arrival and to obstruct the view of journalists seeking to film them.
Netanyahu has denied what he calls "baseless" reports that he received inappropriate gifts, a point he reiterated at a meeting of his Likud faction earlier in the day.
"We've been paying attention to reports in the media, we are hearing the celebratory mood and the atmosphere in the television studios and the corridors of the opposition, and I would like to tell them, stop with the celebrations, don't rush," he said. "There won't be anything because there is nothing."
Israel's Channel 2 TV has said that Netanyahu accepted "favours" from businessmen in Israel and abroad and that he is the central suspect in a second investigation that also involves family members.
The newspaper Haaretz said billionaire Ronald Lauder, a longtime friend of Netanyahu's, was linked to the affair. Channel 10 TV has reported that Netanyahu's oldest son, Yair, accepted free trips and other gifts from Australian billionaire James Packer.
In October, Lauder was summoned by police for questioning "related to
a certain investigation conducted by them and in which Mr. Lauder is
not its subject matter," said Helena Beilin, Lauder's Israeli attorney.
"After a short meeting, he was told that his presence is no longer
required and that there shall be no further need for additional
meetings."
A campaign is underway by Erel Margalit, an opposition lawmaker of the Zionist Union party, seeking for Netanyahu to be formally investigated over suspicions of prominent donors improperly transferring money for the prime minister's personal use as well as reports that Netanyahu's personal attorney represented a German firm involved in a $1.5-billion sale of submarines to Israel.
Netanyahu, who took office in 2009, has long had an image as a cigar-smoking, cognac-drinking socialite, while his wife, Sara, has been accused of abusive behaviour toward staff. Opponents have portrayed both as being out of touch with the struggles of average Israelis.
Over the years, reports have been released about the high cost of the Netanyahus' housekeeping expenses.
In one case, he was chided for spending $127,000 in public funds for a special sleeping cabin on a flight to London. Even their costly purchases of scented candles and pistachio-flavoured ice cream have been derided.
The Netanyahus have denied any wrongdoing, and say they are the target of a witch hunt by the Israeli media.
Netanyahu moving Israel in 'wrong direction': Joe Biden
Netanyahu has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but the arrival of the national fraud squad indicated questions raised about him are considered serious enough to merit an investigation.
Police said Netanyahu was questioned "under caution," a term signalling that he is a suspect.
Police spokeswoman Luba Samri said Netanyahu was questioned on "suspicions he received benefits." She said there would be no further details released at this stage.
The police team did not speak to journalists.
Israel's Justice Ministry later issued a statement saying Netanyahu was questioned "on suspicion of receiving benefits from business people."
A black screen was placed in front of the building in apparent anticipation of the investigators' arrival and to obstruct the view of journalists seeking to film them.
PM calls allegations 'baseless'
Netanyahu has denied what he calls "baseless" reports that he received inappropriate gifts, a point he reiterated at a meeting of his Likud faction earlier in the day.
"We've been paying attention to reports in the media, we are hearing the celebratory mood and the atmosphere in the television studios and the corridors of the opposition, and I would like to tell them, stop with the celebrations, don't rush," he said. "There won't be anything because there is nothing."
Israel's Channel 2 TV has said that Netanyahu accepted "favours" from businessmen in Israel and abroad and that he is the central suspect in a second investigation that also involves family members.
Family members under scrutiny
The newspaper Haaretz said billionaire Ronald Lauder, a longtime friend of Netanyahu's, was linked to the affair. Channel 10 TV has reported that Netanyahu's oldest son, Yair, accepted free trips and other gifts from Australian billionaire James Packer.
Haaretz reports that billionaire Ronald
Lauder, a longtime friend of Netanyahu's, is linked to the
investigation. (Remo Casilli/Reuters)
A campaign is underway by Erel Margalit, an opposition lawmaker of the Zionist Union party, seeking for Netanyahu to be formally investigated over suspicions of prominent donors improperly transferring money for the prime minister's personal use as well as reports that Netanyahu's personal attorney represented a German firm involved in a $1.5-billion sale of submarines to Israel.
Netanyahu, who took office in 2009, has long had an image as a cigar-smoking, cognac-drinking socialite, while his wife, Sara, has been accused of abusive behaviour toward staff. Opponents have portrayed both as being out of touch with the struggles of average Israelis.
The allegations against Netanyahu have
surfaced while his opponents paint him and his wife Sara as being out of
touch with everyday citizens. (Amir Cohen/Reuters)
In one case, he was chided for spending $127,000 in public funds for a special sleeping cabin on a flight to London. Even their costly purchases of scented candles and pistachio-flavoured ice cream have been derided.
The Netanyahus have denied any wrongdoing, and say they are the target of a witch hunt by the Israeli media.
Netanyahu moving Israel in 'wrong direction': Joe Biden
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/2015/benjamin-netanyahu-s-congressional-address/
Benjamin Netanyahu's congressional address
The executive director of Honest Reporting Canada, Mike Fegelman, complained that Middle East correspondent Derek Stoffel said that Benjamin Netanyahu offered no alternative to U.S. and other western powers negotiating a deal with Iran on its nuclear capability. Netanyahu called for more and stricter sanctions, and called this an alternative. The reporting was not clear in its use of language.
COMPLAINT
In your capacity as Executive Director of Honest Reporting Canada you wrote to complain about the characterization of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments to the United States Congress about a potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program. On March 3, 2015 the Israeli prime minister spoke to the members of Congress. The speech was controversial for many reasons. Its main focus was the ongoing negotiations between the United States and some other western powers and Iran. The Israeli prime minister has been, and was during the address, very critical of the United States’ positions on negotiations.
On the 7:00 a.m. EDT version of World Report, Derek Stoffel broadcast a story from Jerusalem about Netanyahu’s address. You said “Derek erroneously said the following: ‘He (Netanyahu) didn’t say anything new yesterday. He presented no alternatives to make sure Iran isn’t able to build a nuclear weapon and that has left many Israelis wondering if the speech was worth it.’”
You said this was a mirror of Barak Obama’s characterization of the address. You added the truth was that “Netanyahu says he gave a ‘practical alternative’ to the Iran deal.” You pointed out that he said that a much better alternative would be to use the threat of sanctions to keep Iran in line, and that any easing of sanctions would have to be contingent on good behavior – on the nuclear front and more generally in the region. You think that Netanyahu was clearly proposing an alternative “wherein he insisted in his speech that the world powers not accept the present deal, walk away and increase sanctions against Iran.”
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Paul Hambleton, Managing Editor of CBC Radio and Television News, replied to your concerns. He told you that Mr. Stoffel’s report was not analysis of the speech but focused on Israeli reaction to it. He acknowledged that Mr. Netanyahu referred to his proposition to impose stricter sanctions as a “practical alternative.” He added:
Is that an alternative plan? Bear in mind that by definition an
alternative is one of several possible courses of action and, commonly, a
choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities. So is a call for
more sanctions and added conditions actually an alternative? While the
speech itself is open to interpretation in many places, it is not at all
clear that Mr. Netanyahu came to Congress offering what could be
properly called an alternative to the US initiative.
He said it was accurate for Mr. Stoffel to say that there was no alternative because:
In the absence of a deal (which neither the U.S. and its partners nor
Iran have agreed to as yet) or any knowledge of what restrictions the
U.S. and other powers might impose if a deal is reached, then it’s
unclear whether what Netanyahu said can fairly be labelled an
alternative. He’s supporting his overarching message that any deal with
Iran is fraught, but should it happen, it must be carefully monitored.
Finally, he acknowledged that because of the “highly charged political atmosphere” related to the Congressional speech, the report could have been clearer and nuanced. He said Mr. Stoffel might have had a “slightly more detailed” description of the Israeli prime minister’s proposal.
REVIEW
CBC News Journalistic Policy calls for accuracy in reporting. Some of the tools that add to accuracy and understanding are precision of language and context. The context of Mr. Stoffel’s report was a view from Israel and its impact on the electorate there. He characterized the speech but did not report any of the details. What he said about the speech in this World Report piece was this:
...Netanyahu has been beating the drum against Iran for years. He
didn’t say anything new yesterday. He presented no alternatives to make
sure Iran isn’t able to build a nuclear weapon. And that’s left many
Israelis wondering if the speech was worth it.
The fact is, though, the Israeli prime minister did say he was offering an alternative, and the script should have mentioned it. His alternative is continued and possibly stiffer sanctions to prevent Iran from building a bomb. The transcript of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech says:
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. A better deal
that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a
short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on
Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.
According to the reporter, the intent was to link the two thoughts – Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t say anything new, and his proposed alternative to a negotiated deal with Iran. His intent was to say that there were no new alternatives. While the two thoughts are in the script, the language is too ambiguous. There either should have been attribution – that some observers, including the president of the United States, did not consider there had been any alternatives presented – or a clarification that the Israeli prime minister considered his proposals an alternative to any negotiated deal with Iran he could envision. (At the time of the speech no deal had been announced yet.)
Clarity of language would have avoided this problem. Experienced reporters are able to draw inferences and provide some interpretation. If that was the intent in this case, more information should have been provided to show how the conclusion was reached. If more details of what had actually been said in the congressional address had been provided, members of the public would have more easily been able to draw their own conclusions as well.
Esther Enkin
CBC Ombudsman
No comments:
Post a Comment