Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

The Arctic Sea & the North Korea/Middle East connection

Sunday, October 18th, 2009
The ship's name may appear to be the North Korean cargo ship, Jin Jon 2, but don't be fooled: it's still the Arctic Sea.

The ship's name may appear to be the North Korean cargo ship, Jin Jon 2, but don't be fooled: it's still the Arctic Sea.

(Part Four, in an apparently never ending series.)

The last time we left off the saga of the Arctic Sea, the crew had been freed by the (once again mighty?) Russian navy–after a bizarre incidence of piracy in European water. But now, you’d think with the alleged pirates thrown into the slammer, the story would end. And yet …

What exactly befell the ship, called the Arctic Sea, is still largely unknown. In fact, nearly eight weeks after it was supposedly liberated by the Russian Navy, the ship is said to remain at sea under military control and has yet to make port for needed repairs. Four members of the ship’s crew have not been able to leave, despite repeated calls by their families for their release.

As if that wasn’t strange enough, one more bizarre tidbit has leaked out: the hijackers tried to change the name of the ship to “Jon Jin 2.” It just so happens that the name, as well as the corresponding identification number, belong to a North Korean general cargo ship. Which looks nothing like the Arctic Sea, and was docked in Angola at the time.

Photographs from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Investigative Committee document the new name, painted on the ship:

Jon Jin 2 -- nope, really, its the Arctic Sea.

The Arctic Sea's masquerade.

The second in in command insists there was nothing but lumber on the ship.

“There was only lumber on board,” Mr. Falin said. “I was personally in all areas and in the ballast tanks. There was nothing else in there. I can say this with 100 percent certainty.”

Perhaps. Hijackers, what do you have to say for yourselves?

The hijackers … continue to deny any wrongdoing, maintaining that they were ecologists conducting research in the Baltic Sea when they encountered inclement weather and sought refuge aboard the Arctic Sea.

Well, I bet those Russian government officials and investigators will give us the straight truth. The government, naturally, maintains that there was nothing but lumber aboard as well, but why would the wayward “ecologists” commandeer this ship in heavily trafficked/policed European waters? Why would Russia send warships on a frantic chase … three weeks after the hijacking? And why would they not let the crew go over a month later, nor let the ship dock? The Russian government line and Choose Your Own Ending to the Tale, after the jump.

(more…)

Proportionality and Collective Punishment

Saturday, August 29th, 2009
A Gazan tunnel in Rafah

A Palestinian tunnel digger in Rafah.

The AP is reporting that an Israeli airstrike killed 3 Palestinians and wounded 7 others inside a smuggling tunnel between Gaza and Egypt, according to a Palestinian Health Ministry official.

The Israeli military said the strike was in retaliation for a mortar attack from Gaza on Monday that lightly wounded an Israeli soldier.

The tunnels are the only way for Palestinians to bring in fuel and other goods (e.g., live animals for fresh meat) because of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. It is rumored that Hamas maintains its own, secret tunnels for importing arms, including the mortars and rockets used to attack Israel. The AP doesn’t specify what exactly these smugglers were doing; however, to my knowledge the Palestinian Health Ministry is not run by Hamas,  therefore the official’s involvement points to civilian smugglers. This is clearly a point requiring more reporting, so take that nugget with a lump of salt.

If the Palestinians were indeed civilians, this is truly beyond the pale. Even if they were militants, the proportionality is both disturbing and telling. The math reads like this:

Wounding an Israeli = Wounding seven Palestinians

If the math stopped there, it would be hard to justify. But to kill 3 additional Palestinians? Taken together, this one incident does a lot to reinforce and instill the perception that Israel does not consider Palestinians to be fellow humans. It also gives Palestinians little cause to extend the same consideration to Israelis. With air strikes like these, Israel does not help itself to reach a negotiable peace.

One of the more uncomfortable aspects of Quentin Tarantino’s latest bloodbath of a movie (Inglourious Basterds) is the unquestioning use of collective punishment. I am most definitely not going to argue that the Nazis were good, wholesome folks; but I think it’s safe to say that not every soldier was a Goebbels, or even an Eichmann, for that matter.

The use of collective punishment, for the people of Gaza, is tangentially related. Except in this example, rather than being soldiers of a nation perpetuating mass genocide, the people of Gaza are civilians–punished by the blockade for the sins of a few.

Troubled times for a Yemeni minority remnant (not the Houthi)

Monday, August 24th, 2009
The mass exodus of Yemeni Jews in 1949, a.k.a. "Operation Magic Carpet"

The mass exodus of Yemeni Jews in 1949, a.k.a. "Operation Magic Carpet"

Reuters is reporting that 3 Jewish families are leaving Yemen for Israel, where about 200-300 Jews total live among the nation’s 23 million Muslims.

Rabbi Yahya Yusuf Musa, 31, told Reuters the three families were from Raida, a town about 70 km (45 miles) north of the capital Sanaa, where a Jew was killed in December by a Muslim compatriot who has been sentenced to death for the crime.

Sixteen Yemeni Jews from Raidah moved to Israel in June, including relatives of the victim, Mashaa Yaeesh al-Nahari.

According to the rabbi, who is now living in Sanaa along with 66 other Jewish Yemenis after threats by one of the other prominent Yemeni minorities, the Shi’a Houthi in the north are to blame:

“The Houthis kicked us out,” Musa said, recounting attacks on property, theft of religious books and other abuses. “They gave us 10 days to leave, or they would kidnap and kill us.”

If the allegations are true, it would give credence to the government’s arguments for cracking down on the Houthi, whose periodic insurgency exploded recently.

It’s important to note the government’s role in this saga:

Evacuated to Saada city and then flown by helicopter to Sanaa, the Jews of Al Salem now live in government-supplied housing with a small monthly stipend and food rations.

The government accuses rebels, led by Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, of seeking to restore Islamic rule by the Zaydi imamate which was overthrown in 1962. Zaydis, which belong to a branch of Shi’ism, are a minority in mainly Sunni Muslim Yemen.

Is the government playing its small minority’s woes for politics? It’s very opaque from here. The rabbi’s allegations are eerily similar to the government’s claims about the Houthi in general. I don’t want to draw any unwarranted conclusions without more info, but the government has been pretty extensively involved so far:

Musa said President Ali Abdullah Saleh had looked after the Jews from Al Salem, but said his promise to transfer them from Amran province, where Raida is located, had not worked out.

“Their concern and fears increased day by day. This forced them to leave the country because they had no other option.”

Saleh’s government is publicly supportive of the remaining Jews, as is the main Islamist opposition party, Islah.

“The Yemeni Jews are citizens. They should have their own life as Yemenis,” said Mohammed al-Sadi, the party’s assistant secretary-general. “I prefer for them to stay in Yemen, not move to another country, because they are part of this society.”

The 200-300 embattled Yemeni Jews were once members of a much larger community:

Israel organised the departure of about 50,000 Jews, the bulk of a once-vibrant minority famed for its craftsmen, to the newly created Jewish state in 1949.

Just as an interesting aside about comparative coverage, Haaretz’s republication emphasized in the headline that the Yemeni Jews were subject to “Islamist fervor.” The original Reuter’s headline emphasizes the small and shrinking nature of the Yemeni Jewish population.

(HT: IB)

Obama as magician: prospects for a Middle East peace deal

Friday, August 21st, 2009
Obama rolls up his sleeves in preperation for pulling a coin out of Egyptian President Mubarak's ear. For his next trick, he will pull from thin air a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

President Obama rolls up his sleeves in preperation for pulling a coin out of Egyptian President Mubarak's ear. For his next trick, Obama will pull from thin air a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Lest I be accused of painting too bleak of a picture of prospects for the Middle Eat peace process (which Aaron David Miller, depressingly and convincingly, did already in a recent interview with IPF), I wanted to share some more reassuring thoughts from Scott Lasensky, in another recent interview with IPF. The interview is worth reading in its entirety, so I’ll point you to it here.

But there are three sections particularly worthy of attention. The first:

Much has been made of Israeli attitudes toward President Obama in recent weeks. How concerning should this be for the administration? How can it be overcome?

LASENSKY: The issue has been totally overblown. Don’t be fooled, there’s no crisis in U.S.-Israel relations. Apologies to those former advisors to Bush or Sharon who are trying to whip up a maelstrom. There’s been a lot of heated rhetoric, especially from the Israeli side, but this will soon pass, as cooler heads prevail.

Israeli politics are a blood sport, just read the Israeli press or watch a Knesset debate. Some Israeli political figures have taken to act similarly toward President Obama and members of his Administration, which is a mistake, and they are quickly learning how self-defeating such an approach can be, especially on an issue like settlements, which the Israeli public long ago abandoned.

I wasn’t too certain about this point; however, excepting for the latter half of the final sentence, it seems about right. The Israeli public is extremely divided on the settlement issue; a much trumpeted poll in June concluded that  a majority (at 56%) of Israelis support settlements, but it seems this was a bit of a push poll. After Obama’s Cairo speech, the same exact percentage said Netanyahu should freeze settlements. A different poll by the INSS in Israel said 75% of Israelis support removal of illegal outposts:

Forty-two percent of the public oppose expansion of the settlements, while 41 percent support further development of the settlements, “but not if it will result in a confrontation with the United States”; only 17 percent support further settlement activity “irrespective of the American position.”

These findings suggest that government can count on extensive public support should it decide to forcefully remove the unauthorized outposts after attempts to reach agreement with the occupants are exhausted. Overall, the issue of settlements continues to divide the Israeli public. However, the vast majority of the public does not want a confrontation with the United States over this issue. The government can expect public support should it decide to curtail settlement activity as part of a wider understanding with the United States.

One of the other disheartening recent developments was Aluf Benn’s op-ed in the nytimes, in which Benn, Israeli lefty and editor of Haaretz, said Obama is to blame for the peace process stalemate since he has not been talking directly to the Israeli people–choosing Cairo over Tel Aviv, in effect. Lasensky has a great point to make on that charge.

First, if President Obama succeeds in rebuilding America’s standing in the Arab and Muslim world–and in rebuilding America’s leadership position more broadly in the international arena, it will be hugely beneficial to Israel. When America’s power and influence are diminished, as they were in recent years, it’s bad for Israel.

It’s something that’s not always easy for Israelis to see–i.e. to take the wide angle approach–given the immediacy of their threats and the proximity of their enemies, but it’s a fundamental truth.

Another recent argument is that American requests for a settlement freeze amount to unjust pressure on Israel, which is then resisted and thus ultimately counterproductive. Lasensky?

Two, we’ve now learned just how incapable Israeli governments are when it comes to tackling the settlements question on their own — just read the government and military inquiries and reports, or take note of the court decisions. The late Zeev Schiff, the dean of Israeli strategic experts and defense writers, recognized some time ago that without American pressure, Israelis would continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

And, finally, onto the most important issue, the stalemate:

Three, on a certain level, it’s fair for Israelis to ask “what’s in it for us,” should they accede to Washington’s request for a settlements freeze. For this reason, it’s critical that the Administration comes up with a deal where everyone gives and everyone gets, Israelis, Palestinians and the Arabs—which is what I think they are doing.

Here we reach the crux of the matter. I’ll leave it to the final questiona and answer. I just hope Lasensky is right.

Despite being rebuffed in public appearances, Special Envoy George Mitchell has insisted that Arab states are ready to make gestures toward Israel. What kind of gestures can the US expect the Arab states to make - and do you expect the Arab world to do so without an Israeli settlement freeze?

LASENSKY: The intensity of the claims and denials by all sides suggests to me that something important is taking place behind the scenes. All this public posturing signals that there may be far more movement than commonly understood.  Arab states will be pleasantly surprised at the reaction in Israel should they decide to step forward. The impact of gestures, even symbolic ones, can create more political space for Israeli leaders. Many leaders in the Arab world probably view Netanyahu and his government with deep suspicion–not to mention an Arab political culture of caution and prudence. So the trick for the Obama Administration will be to choreograph a process whereby everyone moves at the same time, and no one appears to be giving away bargaining chips for free.

Whether it be slight of hand or saving face, this is just crazy enough to work. Stay tuned.

Updates and retreads on the Middle East Peace Process

Friday, August 21st, 2009
Palestinian P.M. Fayyad

Palestinian P.M. Fayyad (Haaretz)

In the interest of getting a little more comprehensive, to give a broader sense of what’s going on with the peace process, I’ve plucked a few compelling narratives from around the region.

For America & Egypt, CFR fellow Steven A. Cook sees rapprochement after Mubarak’s recent visit to D.C.:

The importance of the visit was in part exactly what you pointed out–that this is President Mubarak’s first visit to the United States since April 2004. There’s an effort on both sides to put the Bush years, which were characterized by mistrust and discord, behind them and to forge a new relationship. And for the United States, that means looking at the U.S.-Egypt relationship in its totality, not looking through the narrow prism of reform and democratic change and holding Egypt to certain benchmarks and conditions based on their progress towards a more democratic and open political system. That was really the major issue that came between the two countries, and what created the discord between them. There obviously were policy differences on Iraq and policy differences on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the perception in Egypt that the United States was interfering in Egypt’s domestic affairs was something that did not sit well with Egypt’s leadership.

The word of the week in peace process affairs seems to be “rut,” which is where Obama acknowledges negotiations are currently stuck. Who is to blame? The ADL says: Mr. President, it’s not settlements. It’s Arab Rejection.

In the meantime, both sides are waiting for the other to go first:

From the Egyptian perspective, they say, “We have a peace treaty with the Israelis, we have security cooperation with the Israelis. Our head of general intelligence, Omar Suleiman, spends a lot of time working to get Lieutenant Gilad Shalit, who was taken by Hamas three years ago, free from capture. What more is it that we can possibly do?” The Arabs, and the Saudis in particular, say, “We tabled this Arab initiative in 2002 that offers Israel full normalization for withdrawal from territories, establishment of a Palestinian state, settlement of the refugee issues, all [issues] related to a final status agreement. What more is it that we can do? We don’t want to give the Israelis something for nothing.” On the other side, the Israelis say, “We’re not going to agree to a settlement freeze because we’re not going to get anything in return.” So everybody wants something and doesn’t want to give something for nothing, and the president is stuck in between these two sides that are not willing to go through the door first.

Jewish settlers watched over by an Israeli policeman in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem

Jewish settlers guarded by an Israeli policeman in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem (AP)

Palestinians and Israelis are currently trading the blame for the current stalemate and lack of negotiations. The Palestinians insist that the Israelis must stop settlement construction. So what’s going on in Israel that would stop the Israelis from going first? Howard Schneider for Washington Post says that Israeli P.M. Netanyahu is scoring major points by standing up to American pressure on the settlement issue.

Although Israeli leaders have historically been reluctant to publicly break with the United States for fear of paying a price in domestic support, polls show that Netanyahu’s strategy is working. And that means that after months of diplomacy, the quick breakthrough that President Obama had hoped would restart peace talks has instead turned into a familiar stalemate.

Arab states largely have rebuffed Obama’s request for an overture to Israel until the settlement issue is resolved — a stand that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak emphasized in a meeting with Obama on Tuesday — and the Palestinians have said a settlement freeze is a precondition for resuming negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli public seems to have rallied around Netanyahu’s refusal to halt all settlement construction, a backlash that intensified when the Obama administration made clear that it wanted Israel to stop building Jewish homes in some parts of Jerusalem as well as in the occupied West Bank.

The settlement issue is rapidly becoming intractable, and Obama’s position is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has weighed in, suggesting that the burden is on the Palestinians to initiate negotiations.

Huckabee at the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim (AP)

Huckabee at the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim (AP)

Meanwhile, construction continues in East Jerusalem, while Mike Huckabee had a party at the disputed Shepherd Hotel, where he stated his opposition of the establishment of a Palestinian state “in the middle of the Jewish homeland,” effectively precluding the consensus two-state solution.

So what’s next? WaPo says that pro-settlement groups have become more vocal, and the future is left unnegotiated:

The two sides are still expected to reach some kind of compromise on the issue, though short of the initial demands made by the White House. Netanyahu is meeting U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell in London this month, and he expects to meet with Obama when he visits the United States for a U.N. General Assembly meeting in September. Discussion has centered on freezing settlement activity for six months to a year.

So that would put us back in 2003, when the Israelis agreed to freeze settlement construction in accordance with the Road Map. Let it never be said that history is anything but cyclical.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan held an election that’s considered generally successful, while the leading candidates begin disputing election results; Blackwater is still in big business, loading up Predators for attacks in the AfPak region.

Snoop Dogg in Lebanon

Snoop Dogg in Lebanon (AP)

To end on a more positive note, Snoop Dogg rocked the Beirut Forum in Lebanon:

At one point toward the end of Thursday’s 75-minute concert, he rapped, “East side! West side!” as he ran back and forth across the stage in a bright yellow jersey.

Of course, it’s a song about shuttling between the richer and poorer sides of Los Angeles.

But in a country where the Christian East and Muslim West sides of the capital were at war until 20 years ago and continue to eye each other suspiciously, it carried a special resonance.

“Both sides!” he cried out as he held up the Lebanese flag.

When the “two-state solution” is no solution

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Borders? What borders?

Robert Malley and Hussein Agha published an op-ed in today’s nytimes, decrying the meaningless of the phrase “two-state solution.” Their arguments rests on pairing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Khaled Meshal, essentially his Hamas counterpart. Both have recently accepted the need for a two-state solution, but only leads to what the authors call “an existential struggle between two worldviews.”

That so many attempts to resolve the conflict have failed is reason to be wary. It is almost as if the parties, whenever they inch toward an artful compromise over the realities of the present, are inexorably drawn back to the ghosts of the past. It is hard today to imagine a resolution that does not entail two states. But two states may not be a true resolution if the roots of this clash are ignored. The ultimate territorial outcome almost certainly will be found within the borders of 1967. To be sustainable, it will need to grapple with matters left over since 1948. The first step will be to recognize that in the hearts and minds of Israelis and Palestinians, the fundamental question is not about the details of an apparently practical solution. It is an existential struggle between two worldviews.

For years, virtually all attention has been focused on the question of a future Palestinian state, its borders and powers. As Israelis make plain by talking about the imperative of a Jewish state, and as Palestinians highlight when they evoke the refugees’ rights, the heart of the matter is not necessarily how to define a state of Palestine. It is, as in a sense it always has been, how to define the state of Israel.

For Malley & co., the proposed settlement freeze is nice, but meaningless. Even if Netanyahu’s government relents, the settlements must be removed, not frozen, so we’re back at the 1967 borders. But even if we do that, the Spirit of ‘48–the existential struggle–will remain. So, basically, why even try?

What Malley is invoking–the definition of the state of Israel as Jewish, right of return for Palestinian refugees, etc. etc., are what the peace process calls final status issues. To be resolved at the end, that is. And as Malley sees it, there is no reconciling the two positions. E.g., Either Jerusalem is the undivided capital of eternal Israel, or half of it becomes East Jerusalem and the capital of Palestine–and thus divided.

Luckily, Obama’s Mitchell team at State has a better handle on things, re: settlement freeze. What Malley is calling for, in between the lines, is for Israel to concede all their current positions–predominantly, the idea of Israel as a  Jewish state. Proponents of defining Israel as Jewish usually (conveniently?) fail to mention that 20% of Israelis are Christian and Muslim (and Jewish) Arabs.

And while many would agree (including myself) on the need for concessions from Israel (with simultaneous concessions from the Arab states, e.g. normalization of relations with Israel), simply dictating terms to the Israelis won’t work. The Israelis won’t accept it. And then there’s no peace agreement at all.

Negotiation on final status issues must correlate with everyday, on-the-ground improvements in the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians. That’s why the settlement freeze matters.

There is injustice, certainly. But reality is not black and white. Its shades of grey call for an incremental approach, one that works toward resolving final status issues while also improving the lives of the people.

The Oslo approach failed for a number of reasons, but on the practical level–which is where Malley directs his argument–the people didn’t see any change. They saw Palestinians and Arabs concede and compromise, and in the end, the Israelis elected Netanyahu to his first term in the 1990s, on the principle that land for peace would never work. Negotiations cooled pretty quickly after that. The second intifada and Operation Cast Lead in January of this year put an end to the little steps taken toward normalization between Israel and the Arab states following Oslo. It’s easy to say we’re just back to where we started. But now is not the time to give up on the peace process; some things have changed, particularly with the Arab Peace Initiative. Grievances have grown on both sides, but so has experience. We have tried before, and now know what doesn’t work. The only options are to alter the approach and try again, or to give up.

Cynicism is probably warranted, considering the way things have gone before. But let’s try to keep a little bit of hope alive.

Thumbing their noses?

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

In March, Secretary Clinton warned against further evictions in East Jerusalem. And yet:

Nasser Ghawi, one of the evicted Palestinians, said his family had been living in its house for 53 years. Maher Hanoun, the head of the other evicted family, was out on the street like Mr. Ghawi.

“I do not need a tent or rice,” Mr. Hanoun said. “What I need is to return to my house, where I and my children were born.”

Thirty-eight members of the Ghawi family were removed from six apartments that made up one of the houses. There are 17 people in the Hanoun family.

The houses were built in the 1950s by a United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees when the area was under Jordanian control. Jordan gave the families ownership of the houses but had not formally registered the buildings in their names by the time the 1967 war broke out, according to the families’ lawyer, Hosni Abu Hussein.

In the early 1970s, a Jewish association claimed ownership of the land around the tomb, based on property deeds from Ottoman times. At first the Palestinian families agreed to pay rent to the association to continue living there as protected tenants. Mr. Abu Hussein said they stopped paying when he learned that the Jewish deeds had been forged.

Eviction orders were issued, though the authenticity of the property deeds is still debated in Israeli courts.

This is a long-standing dispute. But with the timing, it’s inevitably going to be cast as Israeli defiance to an American administration. Is it? Only Netanyahu knows for sure.

The paradox of Israeli settlements in the West Bank

Friday, July 31st, 2009

WaPo has a moderately encouraging article about how left-leaning groups in Israel are using the rule of law to reduce the encroachment of settlements on private lands.

Toward the end of the piece, one of the first settlers in Migron, established about 10 years ago (”beginning with a communications tower and followed by a cluster of homes and a fence around approximately 90 acres of land”), gives a startling quote:

“Why should we leave here? If we leave, it is acknowledging it is occupied land,” rather than Israel, said Harel, 35, who is raising four children here.

I’m finding it really difficult to unpack the logic here, but here goes. I’ll try reversing it: “Why should we stay here? If we stay, we deny that it is occupied land.”

So essentially, the land is not occupied … but only if settlers can occupy the land.

(I use occupy in the sense of take up space, not necessarily its military connotation.)

After the jump, greater context for the quote.

(more…)

The Israeli Arab Jewish Robin Hood

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Ethan Bronner wrote an engaging short profile of a Jewish, Israeli, gay, Arab (Iraqi-descended) plumber who has decided to push back against aggressive settlers in the West Bank:

Watching him call for an ambulance for a resident and check on the progress of a Palestinian school being built without an Israeli permit, you might have thought him a clan chief. Then noticing the two Israeli Army jeeps trailing him, you might have pegged him as an Israeli occupation official handling Palestinian matters.

But Mr. Nawi is neither. It is perhaps best to think of him as the Robin Hood of the South Hebron hills, an Israeli Jew helping poor locals who love him, and thwarting settlers and soldiers who view him with contempt. Those army jeeps were not watching over him. They were stalking him.

The piece is great for giving insight into the Israeli left, who finally have a cause to rally around (charges against Nawi for allegedly assaulting a police officer), after seeming to be dead and buried–particularly after the second Intifada (uprising), the 2006 Lebanon war, and 2008 Gaza war …

Back to Nawi:

His family has trouble understanding his priorities. His mother says she thinks he is wasting his time. And many Israelis, when told of his work, wonder why he is not helping his own. Mr. Nawi has an answer.

“I don’t consider my work political,” he said between phone calls as he drove. “I don’t have a solution to this dispute. I just know that what is going on here is wrong. This is not about ideology. It is about decency.”

I think that’s a great philosophy. It’s about humanity, not about politics. After the jump, Bronner’s description of life in the West Bank–to show what he’s fighting for.

(more…)

Ethics, sources and journalism

Friday, June 19th, 2009

In this upcoming sunday’s nytimes, journalist Joshua Hammer chronicles his involvement with a Palestinian militant … including his grand jury testimony against him, after eliciting his confession (to organizing the kidnapping/murder of an American Israeli during the second intifada):

The Justice Department lawyer warned me that my involvement might not end with the grand-jury hearing. I could be called back to testify against Jaara at his murder trial. He told me that, while I was not legally barred from discussing or writing about my testimony, he hoped I would respect the sensitivity of the investigation. He would not compel me to testify but, should I decide to do so voluntarily, he would provide me with the excuse of a federal subpoena. “Take your time and think about this,” he said.

My employers at Newsweek offered little guidance, saying that the testimony was connected to my book, not my magazine reporting. My publisher, Simon & Schuster, raised no objections. I reassured myself that I wasn’t betraying a source and that everything I would testify about had appeared in print. Moreover, I felt little sympathy for a figure who helped organize the execution of an unarmed man in his 70s. (By contrast, my Palestinian interpreter refused to cooperate after prosecutors approached him. When I asked him about his decision, he cited the potential dangers and the political context of the crime: “He wasn’t Daniel Pearl. He was an Israeli settler, and the U.S. government is trying to turn him into a big American patriot.”) But the proposal continued to nag at me. Should journalists take part in the prosecution of a source or subject? Wasn’t there a degree of entrapment in eliciting a confession for the sake of an article or book, then turning around and using that information in court? Did it not constitute an act of betrayal?

I don’t think are easy answers to these questions. There is always an element of exploitation involved in journalism, since it involves telling stories about peoples’ lives. It just gets so messy when the stakes are raised higher, and it becomes this ideological stance: cooperate with authorities, and play the role of an “auxiliary of justice,” in the words of a WaPo corrspondent who refused to tesify Bosnian Serb military commanders indicted for war crime; or don’t, and look like they’re perching “loftily above the due process of the law,” violating the moral obligation cited by a British correspondent, “to stand by their stories on oath.”

Hammer’s story does not really offer an answer either way, but it’s still incredibly telling, in a parable kind-of-way–especially in his riveting conclusion (read it here).

A gray BMW was parked in the driveway of the house I was seeking. I approached, peered through thin white curtains into an empty living room and rang the bell. Jaara, in a gray sweatsuit, appeared in the doorway. He looked at me quizzically. I knew who he was instantly — the square jaw, the gap between the lower teeth, the thick black hair, the haggard features. He didn’t recognize me, though, from our meeting years before.

“Jihad Jaara?” I said. He had an expectant, half smile. “I’m from The New York Times. Would it be possible to ask you a few questions?”

“Who told you I was here?” he demanded. Then he shouted: “Who told you?”

“I tracked you down through some friends in Dublin,” I said. “I — ”

Jaara wasn’t listening. “Who brought you here? Was it the C.I.A.? Did the C.I.A. bring you here?” He began pacing about the hallway, agitated, making a half turn, then reaching for the telephone. “I’m going to call the police,” he said.