DanielPipes.org*
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/
* Cross-posted with permission

1,378 Words Later – Or, How to Mangle an Interview with the Secretary of State I was one of the many readers who jumped (in my case, at "Will the Gaza Precedent Haunt Israel?") on seeing this passage recently in the New York Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday [Aug. 17] offered sympathy for the Israeli settlers who are being removed from their homes in Gaza but also made it clear that she expected Israel and the Palestinians to take further steps in short order toward the creation of a Palestinian state. "Everyone empathizes with what the Israelis are facing," Ms. Rice said in an interview. But she added, "It cannot be Gaza only."

It turns out that this is a massive distortion of her words and meaning. In another instance of the blogosphere catching out the mainstream media, Rick Richman shows in "Condoleezza Rice and The New York Times" how the two Times interviewers, Joel Brinkley and Steven Weisman, manufactured the above quote.

Drawing on the full transcript of the interview, as provided on the State Department website, Richman shows that the first sentence of the quote comes from this statement by Rice:

Let me say, first, a word about Gaza disengagement and the withdrawal that's going on. First of all, it is an enormously courageous decision on the part of Ariel Sharon and his government. And it is a decision that, in having talked to these people a lot, they took because they believe it is the right thing for the Israeli people and that it is going to improve the security of Israel. I know, in having talked to them and watched how hard and I think everybody empathizes with what every Israeli has to be feeling and with people uprooting from homes that they have been in for a generation and the difficulty and the pain that that causes. And so I watched Prime Minister Sharon's address to the nation and it was really remarkable statesmanship.

(Note the inaccuracies in wording of the New York Times version.) The second part comes 1,378 words later, from here:

QUESTION: Do you think you'll go back there [the Middle East] in the fall to keep the momentum going?

SECRETARY RICE: Let's see, you know, what's required. We will have a Quartet in New York because the world comes here for the UNGA. And we'll certainly have a Quartet meeting at that time. There's a Quartet envoys meeting that's scheduled for this week and part of their job is to kind of prepare the meeting of the Quartet and I think we'll look at where we are. But by no means do I think that this is the end. The other thing is, just to close off this question, the question has been put repeatedly to the Israelis and to us that it cannot be Gaza only and everybody says no, it cannot be Gaza only. There is, after all, even a link to the West Bank and the four settlements that are going to be dismantled in the West Bank. Everybody, I believe, understands that what we're trying to do is to create momentum toward reenergizing the roadmap and through that momentum toward the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state.

Alex Safian of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) explains the difference between the Times version and the actual interview:

What the Times portrays as Ms. Rice's statement was actually her recounting of what others are saying "to the Israelis and to us." Yes, she expresses the US position in favor of the Roadmap and the "the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state," but that's a far cry from immediate pressure on Israel to go beyond the Gaza withdrawal, which is what "It cannot be Gaza only" clearly means in this context.

Safian then goes on to document "outright inventions" in other parts of the Times reportage.

Comments: (1) One finds oneself wondering if the mainstream media was always this fraudulent and in the pre-internet age one just did not find out; or whether it has degenerated as partisanship has taken hold. I suspect the latter.

(2) Acquired habits of credence must be shed; the New York Times and like sources of information now must be read with an "interesting if true" spirit.

(3) Most mysterious: Why did the secretary of state's office, which surely noted this mangled quotation, not correct it? (August 27, 2005) Permalink

"City to Pay Woman's Fine for Breach of Burka Ban" That's the Expatica News headline that symbolically sums up the quandary of a newly assertive Europe.

The city council in Maaseik, Belgium on December 27, 2004 approved the so-called "burka decision," criminalized the wearing of the burka (a full body-covering that covers even the eyes) and the niqab (a face covering that covers the face up to the eyes) in its public places. Breach of the law carries a €125 fine.

Five women have been booked for this crime, one of whom, a young woman of Moroccan origin who wore a burka, has now been found guilty and charged the fine. Ironically, in all five cases, the women are receiving social security payments – and these will pay for the fines.

Comment: I would be hard pressed to find a more apt illustration of the self-contradictory nature of European policy toward its Muslim minority. (August 25, 2005) Permalink

Mainstream Reporter Coaches Sami Al-Arian The wiretaps on Sami Al-Arian's telephones in Tampa picked up not just his terrorist chatter but everyone he spoke with, including reporters. For years, the local press divided on him, with the Tampa Tribune critical of him and the St. Petersburg Times very gentle on him.

Actually, we now learn, not just gentle but complicit. Fox News' O'Reilly Factor last night played back two parts of a conversation between Al-Arian and Jim Harper, a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times that took place on Nov. 2, 1995. (The transcript of the show is available online, as is a streaming video; but, relying on the original FBI transcript, I have made changes to the transcript and added to what was played back on television.) In the first clip, Harper brings to Al-Arian some useful news:

JIM HARPER: You probably read … in the Tribune that a former state senator thinks you ought to be fired and so on and so forth.

SAMI AL-ARIAN: Is that what she said?

HARPER: Yes.

AL-ARIAN: Who's she?

HARPER: Huh?

AL-ARIAN: Who is she?

HARPER: She's just—she doesn't hold any office now but she's I think considered a leader in the local Jewish community.

AL-ARIAN: Oh, she's Jewish, huh?

HARPER: Yes, Helen Gordon Davis.

In the second, Harper advises Al-Arian how to deal with the rival Tampa Tribune:

HARPER: I think you should confront the Tribune directly.

AL-ARIAN: Hmm.

HARPER: And ah, ah I think that every error that they make I think that you should at the least, ah, write them a letter.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: And point it out.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: Ah you know, even if you're not gonna do any other action. You know, file any suits or anything …

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: Ah, just so, just on general principles … but also to preserve your legal rights, in case you do decide you want to file, you know. Suppose they do something else?

AL-ARIAN: Right.

HARPER: Later on.

AL-ARIAN: Yes.

HARPER: That's not the truth. You can show that you have a record of making complaints …

AL-ARIAN: Uhm.

HARPER: And you'll have a record of how they responded.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: And ah.

AL-ARIAN: Good point.

HARPER: You know, I mean, actually … I'm giving you advice as a journalist. … That's how you build a record against somebody that's treating you unfairly.

AL-ARIAN: Uh-huh.

HARPER: I'll give you that advice 'cause I don't [laughs] plan to treat you unfairly.

The conversation ends on a touching note.

HARPER: Well, I feel like you and I are getting to know each other pretty well.

AL-ARIAN: Yes. Well, ah … I don't regret that.

HARPER: I don't either.

AL-ARIAN: Very well, thank you.

HARPER: I don't either. Thank you for calling me.

AL-ARIAN: Very well.

HARPER: Bye.

AL-ARIAN: Bye bye.

O'Reilly reports that Harper no longer works at the St. Petersburg Times and no one there will say what has become of him – "He just kind of vanished." Steven Emerson, discussing this topic with O'Reilly, points out that Harper "not only bought into Al-Arian's denials that he was a terrorist, but he actually started coaching him. … This was a wholesale bias that was deliberately perpetrated by the St. Petersburg Times for years."

Comment: It would surprise me to learn that Jim Harper and the St. Petersburg Times are the only media guilty of siding with accused terrorists. More than a few other reporters and newspapers come to mind. (Hint: Look for the reporters who win awards from pro-terrorist organizations.) Sadly, their conversations may not make it to prime-time television. (August 23, 2005) Permalink

Dallas Jews, Secrecy, and Security A resident of Dallas, Texas recently sent me a report about the North American regional JCC Maccabi games, hosted on July 31-August 5, 2005 by the Dallas Jewish Community Center:

Held at the Resistol Arena in the suburb of Mesquite, the competition involved 1,400 athletes from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Israel. Some three to four thousand spectators (in addition to the athletes) attended the opening ceremony, which included a keynote address by Mark Cuban, the charismatic owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, reminiscing about his boyhood participation in JCC basketball leagues in Pittsburgh.

But an eerie secrecy surrounded the Maccabi games. They were well publicized within the Jewish community via the local Jewish press, synagogue newsletters, direct mail from Jewish community centers, and the internet. But the general Dallas media – television, radio and newspapers – barely mentioned them. Particularly striking was the marquis at the Resistol Arena, which did not indicate the activities within.

Also, security was intense. Those who wished to attend the opening ceremony or the athletic competitions had to pick up tickets in person from the JCC campus in North Dallas. Security on site included at least five staffed Mesquite police cars on the premises and many uniformed and armed officers in the arena. All spectators were screened at the door, with handbags prohibited in the arena.

I sent the above to Kenny Goldberg, one of the organizers of the Maccabi games, asking for comment. He pointed out in some detail what an impressive volunteer effort the games were, the benefits they brought to the participants, and the like, none of which I for a second doubt. He also called it "not accurate and even a little offensive" to describe the games as secret because

if you could talk to any of the 1,500 young Jewish athletes, their families, the 500 coaches and delegation heads, and particularly the more than 2,000 local volunteers and host families you would get a sense of the phenomenal results we were able to accomplish. This event electrified and energized our community and created life changing and lifelasting experiences for our "kids."

As for the lack of publicity, he informed me that there was

a plan in place to execute later in the week. The Dallas Morning News' religious and sports departments were contacted and encouraged to participate after opening ceremonies. Our media team was told to activate the general community with the same timing. I cannot tell you why this p.r. did not occur, only what the plan was.

Comment: (1) To me, observing from the outside, the reason for the quiet and the security seems obvious – a concern that Muslims would make some kind of trouble. In the city that hosts the Holy Land Foundation, the Elashi brothers, and Mufid Abdulqader, the Jewish community is understandably anxious. Such a prospect is made all the more real by the subsequent arrests in Los Angeles of Levar Haney Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, and Hamad Riaz Samana (who had in their possession the addresses of synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and the El Al ticket counter at LAX).

(2) It was just a few years ago that American Jews met openly and publicly in Dallas and elsewhere, but this appears no longer to be the case. I take it as further proof of what I have been saying for some time, that the golden age of American Jewry is coming to an end. (August 23, 2005) Permalink

Idiots' File Just as there are especially insightful statements (a few of them collected by me at "Caught My Eye – Noteworthy Quotes"), so there are assertions that dazzle with their stupidity. Here is a sampling, in reverse chronological order:

Ali Hamka, 25, the son of Lebanese immigrants and a high school economics teacher in Rochester, a Detroit suburb, discussing the press focus on the London bombings of July 7, killing 52: "The media is always ready to point out that it's Muslims involved in terrorism. I don't think they get the message that, you know, we're a religion, about peace, not killing people." (Quoted in "Michigan Mosque Is Testament to Islam's Integration in American Society," RNS, Aug. 22, 2005)

Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, London: there is "nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim. … The key issue is the slide into extremism." (Sarah Blaskovich, "London Police Chief Reaches Out to Muslims," July 15, 2005)

David Dickson, a specialist on Africa: "Political Islam, by definition, is neutral. It is any variant of Islam inspiring or serving as a vehicle for political mobilization or activity. Productive scholarship and policymaking must reject definitions that categorically treat political Islam as either a malevolent or benevolent force." ("Political Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Need for a New Research and Diplomatic Agenda," U.S. Institute of Peace, May 2005)

Larry C. Johnson (note the date below before reading): "Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

"None of these beliefs are based in fact. … when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

"Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.

"Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they ‘discovered' terrorism as an important priority. … terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way." ("The Declining Terrorist Threat, The New York Times, July 10, 2001) Permalink

The Gaza Withdrawal – A Dreamy Return to Oslo Israel's Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed important points about Likud's thinking about the Gaza withdrawal in a speech today in New York to the Israel Policy Forum.

He calls the withdrawal "a remarkable process … that will have an enormous impact on everything that will happen thereafter, in the State of Israel and in the Middle East." He emphasizes its unilateral nature: "we don't have to wait anymore, that we really don't need the United States to lead the process in the Middle East, we will lead this process in the Middle East." He then soars with this theme of leadership:

We will lead it because it's good for us. And we will lead it because it may do good to the Palestinians. And we believe that if it will be good for us and will be good for the Palestinians, then it will be good. It will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity, and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East. … Everything depends on the success of this disengagement.

Then comes the plaintive Song of Oslo that I never expected to hear from a leader of Likud:

And we all desperately need it. We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors.

For all the talk of a grizzled, post-Oslo realistic approach to the Palestinians, Olmert still proffers some old (and one would think discredited) hopes, saying this friendship

is within reach if we will be smart, if we will dare, if we will be prepared to take the risks, and if we will be able to convince our Palestinian partners to be able to do the same. So that together we will move forward in this direction of building up different relations, better understanding, and greater trust between us and them.

In an insight into the Sharon camp's thinking, Olmert explains the logic of the withdrawal:

We have reached the conclusion that this is essential in order to change the realities and to move forward to break the status quo, and to start something that ultimately will lead to a new dialogue between us and the Palestinians.

Oh, in other words, the hopes of Oslo really do live on. Further confirmation of Likud's ascent to Cloud Cuckoo Land comes next:

we know that there is no alternative and we pray that the Palestinians will understand that there is no alternative. And if they will understand what we know now than things will change. And we will spare no effort in order to convince them, not by fighting with them, not by killing them, not by reaching out for their leaders, but by sitting with them, and talking with them, and helping them, and cooperating with them, and partnering with them in order to establish a new foundation for economic growth, for cooperation, for the improvement of the quality of life of the Palestinians and the Israelis, so that the Middle East will indeed become what it was destined to be from the outset, a paradise for all the world.

It does not get much more woolly-minded than that.

Olmert ends by praying that with the removal of all Israelis from Gaza, "a new morning of great hope will emerge in our part of the world." He also prays that "the Palestinian leadership will seize this opportunity, will become as responsible as they need to be, will manifest courage and determination."

Comment: (1) I have known and thought well of Olmert for years (see my 1997 interview with him, "I Am the Most Privileged Jew in the Universe"); I can't imagine what has happened to him.

(2) I see Olmert roughly in the role to Sharon in 2005 as Peres was to Rabin in 1993.

(3) Although the Gaza gambit is portrayed as unilateral, the above speech sure sounds like a plea for the Palestinians to respond in kind. In other words, it's really just another Israeli concession in hopes of winning a later reward from the Palestinians.

(4) "A new morning of great hope"? Forgive me for the interjecting a note of realism, but the whole of Oslo proved one thing clearly, that unilateral concessions by Israel to its enemies makes things worse, not better for Israel. So it will be, I predict, this time. (June 9, 2005)

August 28, 2005 update: That "new morning of great hope" may already have ended. Today, at 8:30 a.m. Israel time, less than a week after the Gaza withdrawal's completion, a suicide bomber identified as as Ayman Zakik, 25, from near Hebron attacked the Beersheba bus station with the intent to murder as many Israelis as he could. Thanks to the quick action of two guards, he could only blow himself up outside the station and so appears not to have killed anyone, though the two guards are fighting for their lives. It amazes me that anyone could have "great hope," given the ferocious rhetoric and intense planning of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to attack Israel as soon as the withdrawal ended. Permalink