Media Criticism

My reply to Mitch Potter

My reply to Mitch Potter’s letter (see two blog posts ago) is published at ZNet.

I sent it to him, and he replied quickly, saying:

> You take months to compose what those of us on print deadlines do
> daily and you manage only to add “lazy” to my glossary of sins?
>
> Pathetic.
>
> Enjoy your chorus of one.
>
> Mitch Potter

I replied simply:

Good to read that you got it, even if you didn’t read it.

Cheers Mitch.

-J.

He replied:

Read it. Wounded by it. Have no intention of engaging further as you seem only interested in selectively distorting the spirit of my work to inflict further pain.

You are off-base in branding me racist. If you knew me you would soon come to understand how wrong you are.

Mitch Potter

I replied to that, too, saying that I had set out to wound, out of frustration at not being able to do anything to change the imbalance of the situation and its misrepresentation. I also acknowledged that I didn’t think he was a racist in the sense of hating a group of people and being a bigot against them, but that he, like I, participated in a system that leads to their suppression and ongoing destruction, and that we’re going along with it, not doing enough to fight it. I also worried that I may have personalized it too much, such that the wider points about the bias in the coverage and the patterns and frames for the discussion of Israel/Palestine have may have gotten lost.

I suppose that is the end of my interaction with Mitch Potter.

My article is below.

Dear Mitch Potter,

It has been some time since you wrote me on September 10, 2006, in response to my blog post at killingtrain.com of July 28, 2006. You wrote me with serious concerns that I had maligned your reputation – attaching, in your words, a slur to your name, and doing so “cavalierly”. I should have replied sooner, and for that I apologize.

I cannot, however, apologize for what I called you, “a truly disgusting racist”. In fact, going over your work over the past six months, I have to add that you are lazy, a liar, and a cliché-ridden writer.

I looked at your work on the Israel/Palestine conflict, including the Lebanon war but excluding solely domestic issues in Israel, from June 29 2006 to December 18 2006. That is 44 stories.

If the stories are an indication, you were in the region from June 29 – July 25, then again from September 2-September 16, again from October 30 – December 18. During that six month period you filed 4 stories from Gaza and 4 from Ramallah. You filed one from Pesagot Settlement in the West Bank and another from Haifa. You filed the other 34 stories from Jerusalem. If, as you suggest, it was premature to call you a truly disgusting racist after reading one story in which you liken Palestinians to rodents, perhaps we can agree that 44 stories (over 80,000 words) is enough to start to discern patterns.

The strong language (“truly disgusting racist”) came to mind for two reasons after reading your article (“After Hamas, another Somalia?”, July 9, 2006). First, because I knew instantly upon reading it that you would never liken Israelis to rodents, nor indeed to any other kind of animal, and you did not ever do so in any of the 44 stories I read, though you did use many disparaging terms to describe Palestinians and Lebanese (I’ll return to that below). Second, and more importantly, because your flippant use of language throughout your reporting obscures Israel’s genocidal policies towards the Palestinians.

Disgusting racism: Obscuring the disparity, causes, and consequences

“Genocidal” is another strong word. It means, according to the UN Genocide Convention, attempts to destroy a group of people. Most people only accept the definition if it also includes attempts to physically destroy a group, not just to culturally destroy them and displace them. With the whole world, starting with Canada, assisting in Israel’s starvation of the Palestinians, while Israel casually (should I say “cavalierly”?) kills dozens of Palestinians every week, and given the direction of Israel’s political and military changes, I think the label genocidal applies. So does Ilan Pappe, a historian at Haifa University, and one of the diverse Israeli expert sources that are readily available that you don’t speak to, favouring a homogeneous group of military and strategic studies experts from think-tanks close to the state.

You were in Gaza in July 2006. To get there you would have had to go through various checkpoints and fortified walls, something most Palestinians are not allowed to do. You were in a place where, by now, probably the majority of children are chronically malnourished and will suffer long-term developmental problems because of it. The two references to Gaza’s children that I found in your stories, though, were as follows. First, you noted how, because Israel had destroyed all the electricity supply in Gaza, that “entrepreneurial street kids who normally can be found hawking gum yesterday switched to candles at Gaza City intersections” (“The war of nerves in Gaza”, June 30, 2006). Second, that after Israeli planes flew over Gaza to create sonic booms (a story I will return to) you could hear children crying, which was “hardly surprising, given that half of the territory’s 1.4 million Palestinians are 15 or younger.” (“Sonic onslaught in Gaza”, July 1, 2006)

At any time, you could have looked around and seen what some (no one you would talk to, perhaps) call the Apartheid Wall but which you referred to, when you wrote about it (before July 2006), as the “separation barrier” or the “security barrier”. Does being Middle East Bureau Chief mean you have some say over the selection of graphics? Could you have published maps of the wall and the checkpoints, the cantonization of the West Bank, the locations of the artillery strikes in Gaza, or the cluster bombs in Lebanon? Could you have published them alongside the locations where all the Qassams or Katyushas landed in Israel? Could you have published the lists and numbers of casualties on both sides?

All this might have given your readers a better chance to understand what Israel is doing. And what Israel is doing is controlling every detail of Palestinian life, including such details as whether a person will live or die, watch their child or parent live or die, be taken off to prison to be tortured, watch their child or parent be taken, be allowed to leave their home, be allowed to leave their town through a massive gate in the massive wall, be allowed to see a loved one, be allowed to see a doctor, have food or fuel or medicine. These details are missing from your stories. So is the agenda behind them missing, which is to take the land of the Palestinians, remove them from it, and destroy those who resist. Both the details and the agenda are things you are in a position to know. The consequences are so serious for so many (starving, murdered, terrorized) people that presenting the conflict as if there is parity, the way you do in some stories, or from the point of view of Israel, the way you do in others, is not innocent deception, but complicity in a major, ongoing crime. That is what is truly disgusting about what you have done.

Human rights organizations document the disparity. According to B’Tselem, from the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 to the end of January 2007, Palestinians had killed 1020 Israelis, 704 of whom were civilians, 119 of whom were children. According to the PCHR, up until September 2006, when you sent me your email, Israel had killed 3859 Palestinians, 3069 of whom were unarmed, 724 of whom were children. It had completely demolished 2831 Palestinian homes and partially destroyed 2427. It had leveled 37 square kilometers (an area 10% the size of Gaza) and destroyed 677 industrial facilities.

You also must know that the disparity has grown in recent years. For the period during which I looked at your work (July 2006 – December 2006), Israeli forces killed 479 Palestinians, wounded 1650, and arrested 1570. By contrast, Palestinians killed 4 Israeli security personnel and 2 Israeli civilians.

In your two stories on Louise Arbour’s visit to the region on November 22 and 23, you framed the issue in a way that assumed parity even as you reported massive disparity, with paragraphs like: “As Qassams keep falling (eight more yesterday, landing without causing injury) and Israel Defense Forces operations against Palestinian rocket-launchers in Gaza intensify (five dead yesterday, two of them civilians) Arbour diagnoses the violent stalemate as an acute ‘protection-of-civilians deficit,’” and “One day after decrying ‘massive’ Israeli violations of human rights against Palestinian civilians, Canadian Louise Arbour got a close-up view of Israeli suffering yesterday”. Here you made sure to put the word “massive” in quotes, perhaps to ensure that you not be seen calling Israeli human rights violations “massive” (what would be “massive” in your opinion, I wonder?). You separated Arbour’s words from your own when she was calling Israeli human rights violations “massive”, but you were willing to paraphrase her giving advice to the victims: “To paraphrase Arbour’s approach, a different message to the Palestinians might be, ‘Behave like a state. Be legal. Respect and enforce the law, including international law against rocket attacks on civilians.’” How you or Arbour thinks that imprisoned Palestinians suffering periodic massacres who starve at the whim of an occupying power that periodically massacres them can “behave like a state” is unclear – but a lack of clarity about the situation is precisely what your stories induce. But the worst line in your stories on Arbour is your approving introduction to Arbour’s most repulsive statements: “in that spirit, she is not about to be drawn into debate about the uneven death toll of the continuing violence.” Mitch, the uneven death toll matters. It matters on its own merits, and it matters as a clue to the causes, effects, and possibilities for a solution to the conflict. Your presentation, your endorsement, of Arbour’s cowardly refusal to “be drawn into debate” about this basic and fundamental point, helps obscure clear thinking and understanding about what is being done to the Palestinians.

Presenting massive disparity in victimization and crimes as if there is parity helps the victimizers. Helping victimizers who are conducting a campaign of massacre and ethnic cleansing is disgusting racism.

Disgusting racism: The partisan use of language

Another element of your racism comes from your use of language.

You likened Palestinians to rodents, something I cannot let you off the hook for even when you accompany it with quotations from sociologists. Not when you never used any animal analogies about Israelis, and never would.

You describe the Palestinian capture of an Israeli tank gunner by saying they “seized” him (September 12 and November 9). But the 1019 people Israel seized to take off to prisons, many of whom were children, many of whom were tortured, were “arrested” or “detained”, never “seized”.

Further on your use of the word “seized”, you use it elsewhere to make reactions to Israel’s aggression and destruction sound opportunistic. Hizbollah “seized” the leadership (July 16, quoting Buttu) and “seized” the moment (July 14). Indeed, when Israeli shelling killed 7 members of the same family, Palestinians “seized on” this, too, to end a ceasefire (how awful of them to treat the massacre of a family as a sign of the end of a ceasefire).

When you describe Palestinians’ Qassam rockets, which you know and have stated are militarily ineffective and basically a gesture of defiance, you describe them as a “scourge” (November 26) and a “blight” (November 28). You never used such words for Israeli shelling, bombing, and gunfire, which regularly kill dozens of people. These you usually describe as “errant” (November 10 and November 23), although once, and only once, you used the world “horrific” (November 13) to describe the massacre of 19 people by shellfire you elsewhere called “errant”.

By far your most disgraceful use of language comes from the story (July 1) in which you make light of Israeli sonic booms to terrorize Gaza’s population, already starving in the dark. This is so repugnant that readers might not believe it unless quoted at length:

“Then, two teeth-rattling whumps course through your body at thousandth-of-a-second intervals, packing so colossal a wallop they simply defy description. Whump-whump. You, my friend, have just been carpet-boomed. Something in the neighbourhood of 139 decibels of wakey-wakey courtesy of your friendly, neighbourhood Israeli F-16 warplane… How to explain the oomph of a sonic boom in Toronto terms? Say that someone chops down the CN Tower and it lands beside your head. Say they chop down a second CN Tower and it lands on the other side a nanosecond later. And say that, at the very moment of impact, a cardiac surgical team shouts, “Charging to 120 – Clear!” and proceeds to defibrillate your torso…You laugh at the alarm clock on the bedside table, and your earlier worries you might sleep through its ring. Not to worry. Another F-16 should be by in an hour or so. And another after that.”

“Wakey-wakey”, “Oomph”, “Whump-whump”, “boom-boom”, and “carpet-boomed”, are how you write about the threatening actions of an air force that destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, dropped 500-pound bombs into crowded apartment complexes, and has killed hundreds of people in the very zone from where you wrote your clever quips.

Compare this story to your piece on people in Haifa on July 15, who were going through “fretful days” because Hizbollah’s rockets, which you had described as “terrifying” (July 14) had fallen on them. You celebrated the “resilience of the thriving port city” and the “resilience” of its mayor. I saw no references to Palestinian “resilience” in the 44 stories of yours that I read. Nor did I see any reference to Israel’s sonic booms, to say nothing of its artillery and bombing attacks, being “terrifying”.

As for the mayor of Haifa, who in your eyes exemplifies Haifa’s resilience, you quote him saying about the Palestinians and Lebanese that “now we have the right to take them hostage. We have the right to destroy them.” You let this pass without comment, but you referred to Nasrallah’s speeches (July 16) as “invective rich” and “counterfactual bluster”.

On July 22, you explained an alliance between Hamas and Hizbollah by using a “timeworn Arabic adage, ‘Me and my brother against my cousin.’ What the Hamas-Hezbollah dynamic augurs now is the possibility of a religious realignment that could introduce the other half of that parable: ‘Me and my cousin against the world.’ Or, if not the world, Israel.“ Would it ever occur to you to explain Israeli politics or alliances by reference to timeworn Hebrew adages, or would that seem to you to be anti-semitic? It would, to me.

In the same story of July 22 you demonstrated your mind-reading capacities: “Hezbollah, with its daily shower of random rocket fire into northern Israeli towns and cities, is clearly intent upon killing civilians.” I saw no statement from you about what Israel’s intent was in all the massacres of civilians that have occurred while you have written about the conflict. As you may know (but haven’t yet reported that I saw), estimates of deaths in the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 are that Israel killed over 1100 Lebanese, most of whom were civilians, and that Hizbollah killed 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 Israeli civilians. And yet, even now, I bet you are willing to stand behind your statement that Hizbollah was “intent on killing civilians” but that Israel was not. You are willing to impute motives and intent to some, but not others.

These are all signs of racism, and they are disgusting.

Laziness, lies, and clichés

It would be too much to expect you to cover the carnage proportionately by reporting on Palestinian suffering 80 times as much as Israeli suffering (of course 80 times underestimates the disparity, since Israelis control every detail of Palestinian life and use that control to abuse, humiliate, and degrade at whim). But rather than fail to capture this incredible disparity, you inverted the relationship and gave a disproportionate voice to the victimizers. In your 44 stories, you used about 170 sources. 100 of these were Israeli, 39 were Palestinian, and 31 were other (Lebanese, US, or European). To say you used 39 Palestinian sources overstates the case: You used two sources (Diana Buttu and Saeb Erekat) 3 times each, and another (Ghassan Khatib) twice: all three of these are on the same negotiating team and members of the same political faction. You have about a half-dozen other sources (businessmen Sam Bahour and Ali Abu Shahla, academics Naji Shurab and Nader Izzat Said, mental health spokesman Marwan Diab), and another half-dozen “man-on-the-street” interviews. The rest of the Palestinian voices in your articles come second-hand, from television or other media.

Your list of Israeli contacts seems much more impressive, by contrast, particularly in think tanks and universities. The majority of your stories, even on Palestinian questions, are anchored by analysts at Israeli think tanks (Shalem Center, Jaffee Center, Reut Center), by Israeli analysts writing in newspapers (Alex Fishman in Yediot Aharonot), or Israeli academics (at Tel Aviv University or the Hebrew University in Jerusalem). Most of your stories follow a predictable pattern: Some news reported from wire services or media, followed by some analysis by an Israeli columnist in Ma’ariv or Yediot Aharonot, concluding with some analysis by an Israeli expert at a think-tank or university. Recent stories following this pattern are December 18, December 15, December 1, and November 28. Your recourse to Israeli experts and Palestinians close to President Abbas, and the absence of government officials from Hamas, leads to an especially unbalanced view of the fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah. Do you consider yourself to be part of the boycott against the government the Palestinians elected? You frequently mention how Hamas is supported by various Muslim countries, but I didn’t see (I may have missed) references to the supply of cash and weapons to Fatah in Gaza by the US. In the context of starvation, that supply and support makes the conflict in Gaza more of a proxy war than a civil war. But that perspective, widely understood by many Palestinians and Israelis, people both inside and outside the region, is unavailable to your readers. Because of you. At best, this is laziness. Regardless of cause, it has serious consequences.

Though most of your lies are by omission and were discussed above, the article by Daniel Freeman-Maloy, which I referred to in my original blog post shows one direct lie:

“On June 30… Potter made the following assertion: ‘Despite five days of international headlines there has been but a single death – that of kidnapped 18-year-old Israeli hitchhiker Eliyahu Asheri.’”

Freeman-Maloy pointed out that two children aged 2 and 17 had been killed on June 28 at Khan Yunis by unexploded shells. The New York Times caught these deaths, though you didn’t. On June 22, Israeli special forces assassinated a member of the al-Aqsa Martys Brigades in Ramallah. In the week June 22-28, Israeli forces wounded 6 Palestinians, including 3 children, according to PCHR. Asserting a single death was dishonest, given how much violence had been meted out to Palestinians over the summer. Not correcting it in light of information makes it a lie, the worse because several Palestinians were killed even as Canadians were reading your story of a single death.

As for your use of clichés, I have already pointed out how your story of July 1 made light of the terror of Israel’s sonic booms. But your writing is replete with clichés, of Palestinians “enflamed” with “militant rhetoric”, of Hizbollah “well-armed, well-trained and well-acquainted with the promise of martyrdom” conducting an “unprovoked kidnap raid”, of Hamas “sworn to Israel’s destruction”, of Israeli soldiers “getting their boots dirty”, Israelis worrying about “a thousand pound gorilla of a question”. All these clichés, and this is but a small sample, have the same effect: debasing the gravity of the situation, defiling and dehumanizing the victims, and confusing readers as to causes and possible solutions.

Why bother?

My original intention was to look at all of your work since the second intifada began. But I had neither the time nor the stomach for such an exercise, so instead I confined myself to the 44 stories you filed on Israel/Palestine over the past 6 months. I think we both know this was a fruitless exercise on my part in any case. Each of the things I pointed out, you will minimize, rationalize, or find some excuse for. I could tell you how to do your job better. I could give you lists of people, Palestinians and Israelis, you could interview to diversify your sources considerably, facts and arguments you could read, ideas you could expose yourself to so that you could decide where you stood and report both the range of views and justify honestly why you hold yours.

But we both know what would happen if you were fair: if you interviewed a more diverse set of sources, conveyed the massive disparities and the power interests at work, and showed something other than contempt for the lives and thoughts of Palestinians. We know that a person who was fair would not sit long as Middle East Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star, but would face pressure for being, in your words, “overempathetic to the plight of Palestinians” (Interesting that you used “plight” in your email to me. In the past six months you used the word “plight” three times, always to describe Israelis – air force commander Halutz, Israel in general, and tank gunner Shalit, never to describe Palestinians). That pressure would eventually cost such a person his or her job. And whatever you have done with it, no doubt it is a comfortable and interesting job. In the society we’re in, to get and keep such a job requires either overt or covert partisanship for the powerful. Your reporting is a mix of both, and neither you nor our society are going to change any time soon. My hope is not for you, then, but for your readers. I hope that some of them realize that going to you for information on the Israel/Palestine conflict is a good way to be deceived and confused, and that there are far better sources.

Sincerely,

Justin Podur

An Open Letter to Mitch Potter, on Truly Disgusting Racism

published in znet feb 13/07

Dear Mitch Potter,

I looked at your work on the Israel/Palestine conflict, including the Lebanon war but excluding solely domestic issues in Israel, from June 29 2006 to December 18 2006. That is 44 stories.

Disgusting racism: Obscuring the disparity, causes, and consequences

Disgusting racism: The partisan use of language

Another element of your racism comes from your use of language.

These are all signs of racism, and they are disgusting.

Laziness, lies, and clichés

Though most of your lies are by omission and were discussed above, the article by Daniel Freeman-Maloy, which I referred to in my original blog post shows one direct lie:

Why bother?

Sincerely,

Justin Podur

Mitch Potter’s letter:

Sept 10, 2006

Mr. Podur,

Whatever you may think of my work, how in good conscience do you come to brand me “a truly disgusting racist” in a public forum?

I have been called many things in my time in the Middle East — in fact, the dominant thrust of my critics after nearly five years of reporting from the region is that I am overempathetic to the plight of Palestinians. But “truly disgusting racist” is an altogether new low.

You completely misunderstand the intent of the phrase “lemming-like,” which in fact was written to remind readers of the terribly mismatched battles in Gaza, battles that I have written about repeatedly since 2002. It goes like this: whenever an Israeli armoured column so much as nudges the edge of a refugee camp, lightly armed gunmen from Izzidine al-Qassam Brigades, Al Aksa Martyr Brigades and as many as a half-dozen other groups at any given time pour forth to their almost certain death.

I have asked Palestinian militant leaders many times why they pursue this particularly self-defeating strategy of confronting Israeli tanks, when these very same groups have demonstrated a greater military sophistication in the planning and execution of certain other attacks, such as the June 24 tunnel-born raid that resulted in the capture of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

The answer is that the reaction is by rote. Or, rather, lemming-like. When tanks are on the doorstep, emotion takes over, and many Palestinian fighters launch themselves spontaneously into the losing end of a decidedly unfair fight. Some Israeli military officials, in fact, have been quoted as calling these engagements “unfair” in Israel’s favour for that very reason.

According to sociologists I have spoken to and quoted extensively from Gaza (Google my article the “Lost Boys of Gaza” for context) the impulse is somehow connected to feelings of powerlessness. In other words, Palestinian fighters are drawn out not by the promise of certain death, but rather, the subconscious need to feel they are somehow taking control of a situation that has left their entire community powerless.

Sociologists also say a similar impulse contributes to the high casuality rate among Palestinian boys. In Palestinian society, as in the broader society of the Arab world, the father is the traditional symbol of power and authority. Yet many of the boys of Gaza appear to be turning away from their helpless fathers and instead identify more with the “father figure” of armed gunmen in their streets, who are the only ones to demonstrate strength. There are many terrible ways that children die by Israeli weaponry. But one of them, I believe, includes the fact that the children are drawn to being with the militants in the streets.

It is sick. And the sickness, in my view, is one of the by-products of multiple generations of Israeli occupation.

The reality of daily print journalism is that not every story comes replete with the context it deserves. There is neither the space nor the time. And the story you cite on your Blog could have benefited from more.

That said, I have written dozens of lengthy, contextual reports from Gaza, the West Bank and many points beyond that have an afterlife on the Web. I challenge you to find even one to support the slur you so cavalierly attach to my name.

Sincerely,

Mitch Potter

Middle East Bureau Chief

Toronto Star of Canada

An Open Letter to Mitch Potter, on Truly Disgusting Racism

http://www.zcommunications.org/an-open-letter-to-mitch-potter-on-truly-disgusting-racism-by-justin-podur

Dear Mitch Potter,

It has been some time since you wrote me on September 10, 2006, in response to my blog post at killingtrain.com of July 28, 2006. You wrote me with serious concerns that I had maligned your reputation, attaching, in your words, a slur to your name, and doing so ‘cavalierly’. I should have replied sooner, and for that I apologize.

I cannot, however, apologize for what I called you, ‘a truly disgusting racist’. In fact, going over your work over the past six months, I have to add that you are lazy, a liar, and a cliche-ridden writer.

I looked at your work on the Israel/Palestine conflict, including the Lebanon war but excluding solely domestic issues in Israel, from June 29 2006 to December 18 2006. That is 44 stories.

Disgusting racism: Obscuring the disparity, causes, and consequences

‘Genocidal’ is another strong word. It means, according to the UN Genocide Convention, attempts to destroy a group of people. Most people only accept the definition if it also includes attempts to physically destroy a group, not just to culturally destroy them and displace them. With the whole world, starting with Canada, assisting in Israel’s starvation of the Palestinians, while Israel casually (should I say ‘cavalierly’?) kills dozens of Palestinians every week, and given the direction of Israel’s political and military changes, I think the label genocidal applies. So does Ilan Pappe, a historian at Haifa University, and one of the diverse Israeli expert sources that are readily available that you don’t speak to, favouring a homogeneous group of military and strategic studies experts from think-tanks close to the state.

You were in Gaza in July 2006. To get there you would have had to go through various checkpoints and fortified walls, something most Palestinians are not allowed to do. You were in a place where, by now, probably the majority of children are chronically malnourished and will suffer long-term developmental problems because of it. The two references to Gaza’s children that I found in your stories, though, were as follows. First, you noted how, because Israel had destroyed all the electricity supply in Gaza, that ‘entrepreneurial street kids who normally can be found hawking gum yesterday switched to candles at Gaza City intersections’ (“The war of nerves in Gaza”, June 30, 2006). Second, that after Israeli planes flew over Gaza to create sonic booms (a story I will return to) you could hear children crying, which was ‘hardly surprising, given that half of the territory’s 1.4 million Palestinians are 15 or younger.’ (“Sonic onslaught in Gaza”, July 1, 2006)

At any time, you could have looked around and seen what some (no one you would talk to, perhaps) call the Apartheid Wall but which you referred to, when you wrote about it (before July 2006), as the ‘separation barrier’ or the ‘security barrier’. Does being Middle East Bureau Chief mean you have some say over the selection of graphics? Could you have published maps of the wall and the checkpoints, the cantonization of the West Bank, the locations of the artillery strikes in Gaza, or the cluster bombs in Lebanon? Could you have published them alongside the locations where all the Qassams or Katyushas landed in Israel? Could you have published the lists and numbers of casualties on both sides?

In your two stories on Louise Arbour’s visit to the region on November 22 and 23, you framed the issue in a way that assumed parity even as you reported massive disparity, with paragraphs like: “As Qassams keep falling (eight more yesterday, landing without causing injury) and Israel Defense Forces operations against Palestinian rocket-launchers in Gaza intensify (five dead yesterday, two of them civilians) Arbour diagnoses the violent stalemate as an acute ‘protection-of-civilians deficit,’ and “One day after decrying ‘massive’ Israeli violations of human rights against Palestinian civilians, Canadian Louise Arbour got a close-up view of Israeli suffering yesterday”. Here you made sure to put the word ‘massive’ in quotes, perhaps to ensure that you not be seen calling Israeli human rights violations ‘massive’ (what would be ‘massive’ in your opinion, I wonder?). You separated Arbour’s words from your own when she was calling Israeli human rights violations ‘massive’, but you were willing to paraphrase her giving advice to the victims: ‘To paraphrase Arbour’s approach, a different message to the Palestinians might be, ‘Behave like a state. Be legal. Respect and enforce the law, including international law against rocket attacks on civilians.’ How you or Arbour thinks that imprisoned Palestinians suffering periodic massacres who starve at the whim of an occupying power that periodically massacres them can ‘behave like a state’ is unclear but a lack of clarity about the situation is precisely what your stories induce. But the worst line in your stories on Arbour is your approving introduction to Arbour’s most repulsive statements: “in that spirit, she is not about to be drawn into debate about the uneven death toll of the continuing violence.” Mitch, the uneven death toll matters. It matters on its own merits, and it matters as a clue to the causes, effects, and possibilities for a solution to the conflict. Your presentation, your endorsement, of Arbour’s cowardly refusal to ‘be drawn into debate’ about this basic and fundamental point, helps obscure clear thinking and understanding about what is being done to the Palestinians.

Disgusting racism: The partisan use of language

Another element of your racism comes from your use of language.

You describe the Palestinian capture of an Israeli tank gunner by saying they â€œseizedâ€ him (September 12 and November 9). But the 1019 people Israel seized to take off to prisons, many of whom were children, many of whom were tortured, were ‘arrested’ or detained, never ‘seized’.

Further on your use of the word “seized”, you use it elsewhere to make reactions to Israel’s aggression and destruction sound opportunistic. Hizbollah ‘seized’ the leadership (July 16, quoting Buttu) and ‘seized’ the moment (July 14). Indeed, when Israeli shelling killed 7 members of the same family, Palestinians ‘seized on’ this, too, to end a ceasefire (how awful of them to treat the massacre of a family as a sign of the end of a ceasefire).

When you describe Palestinians’ Qassam rockets, which you know and have stated are militarily ineffective and basically a gesture of defiance, you describe them as a ‘scourge’ (November 26) and a ‘blight’ (November 28). You never used such words for Israeli shelling, bombing, and gunfire, which regularly kill dozens of people. These you usually describe as ‘errant’ (November 10 and November 23), although once, and only once, you used the world ‘horrific’ (November 13) to describe the massacre of 19 people by shellfire you elsewhere called ‘errant’.

”Then, two teeth-rattling whumps course through your body at thousandth-of-a-second intervals, packing so colossal a wallop they simply defy description. Whump-whump. You, my friend, have just been carpet-boomed. Something in the neighbourhood of 139 decibels of wakey-wakey courtesy of your friendly, neighbourhood Israeli F-16 warplane… How to explain the oomph of a sonic boom in Toronto terms? Say that someone chops down the CN Tower and it lands beside your head. Say they chop down a second CN Tower and it lands on the other side a nanosecond later. And say that, at the very moment of impact, a cardiac surgical team shouts, “Charging to 120 – Clear!” and proceeds to defibrillate your torso. You laugh at the alarm clock on the bedside table, and your earlier worries you might sleep through its ring. Not to worry. Another F-16 should be by in an hour or so. And another after that.

‘Wakey-wakey’, ‘Oomph’, ‘Whump-whump’, ‘boom-boom’, and ‘carpet-boomed’, are how you write about the threatening actions of an air force that destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, dropped 500-pound bombs into crowded apartment complexes, and has killed hundreds of people in the very zone from where you wrote your clever quips.

Compare this story to your piece on people in Haifa on July 15, who were going through ‘fretful days’ because Hizbollah’s rockets, which you had described as ‘terrifying’ (July 14) had fallen on them. You celebrated the ‘resilience of the thriving port city’ and the ‘resilience’ of its mayor. I saw no references to Palestinian ‘resilience’ in the 44 stories of yours that I read. Nor did I see any reference to Israel’s sonic booms, to say nothing of its artillery and bombing attacks, being ‘terrifying’.

As for the mayor of Haifa, who in your eyes exemplifies Haifa’s resilience, you quote him saying about the Palestinians and Lebanese that “now we have the right to take them hostage. We have the right to destroy them.” You let this pass without comment, but you referred to Nasrallah’s speeches (July 16) as ‘invective rich’ and ‘counterfactual bluster’.

On July 22, you explained an alliance between Hamas and Hizbollah by using a ‘timeworn Arabic adage, ‘Me and my brother against my cousin. What the Hamas-Hezbollah dynamic augurs now is the possibility of a religious realignment that could introduce the other half of that parable: Me and my cousin against the world. Or, if not the world, Israel.’ Would it ever occur to you to explain Israeli politics or alliances by reference to timeworn Hebrew adages, or would that seem to you to be anti-semitic? It would, to me.

In the same story of July 22 you demonstrated your mind-reading capacities: “Hezbollah, with its daily shower of random rocket fire into northern Israeli towns and cities, is clearly intent upon killing civilians.” I saw no statement from you about what Israel’s intent was in all the massacres of civilians that have occurred while you have written about the conflict. As you may know (but haven’t yet reported that I saw), estimates of deaths in the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 are that Israel killed over 1100 Lebanese, most of whom were civilians, and that Hizbollah killed 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 Israeli civilians. And yet, even now, I bet you are willing to stand behind your statement that Hizbollah was ‘intent on killing civilians’ but that Israel was not. You are willing to impute motives and intent to some, but not others.

These are all signs of racism, and they are disgusting.

Laziness, lies, and cliches

It would be too much to expect you to cover the carnage proportionately by reporting on Palestinian suffering 80 times as much as Israeli suffering (of course 80 times underestimates the disparity, since Israelis control every detail of Palestinian life and use that control to abuse, humiliate, and degrade at whim). But rather than fail to capture this incredible disparity, you inverted the relationship and gave a disproportionate voice to the victimizers. In your 44 stories, you used about 170 sources. 100 of these were Israeli, 39 were Palestinian, and 31 were other (Lebanese, US, or European). To say you used 39 Palestinian sources overstates the case: You used two sources (Diana Buttu and Saeb Erekat) 3 times each, and another (Ghassan Khatib) twice: all three of these are on the same negotiating team and members of the same political faction. You have about a half-dozen other sources (businessmen Sam Bahour and Ali Abu Shahla, academics Naji Shurab and Nader Izzat Said, mental health spokesman Marwan Diab), and another half-dozen man-on-the-street interviews. The rest of the Palestinian voices in your articles come second-hand, from television or other media.

Though most of your lies are by omission and were discussed above, the article by Daniel Freeman-Maloy, which I referred to in my original blog post shows one direct lie:

On June 30th Potter made the following assertion: Despite five days of international headlines there has been but a single death “that of kidnapped 18-year-old Israeli hitchhiker Eliyahu Asheri.”

As for your use of cliches, I have already pointed out how your story of July 1 made light of the terror of Israel’s sonic booms. But your writing is replete with cliches, of Palestinians ‘enflamed’ with ‘militant rhetoric’, of Hizbollah “well-armed, well-trained and well-acquainted with the promise of martyrdom” conducting an ‘unprovoked kidnap raid’, of Hamas ‘sworn to Israel’s destruction’, of Israeli soldiers ‘getting their boots dirty’, Israelis worrying about ‘a thousand pound gorilla of a question’. All these cliches, and this is but a small sample, have the same effect: debasing the gravity of the situation, defiling and dehumanizing the victims, and confusing readers as to causes and possible solutions.

Why bother?

But we both know what would happen if you were fair: if you interviewed a more diverse set of sources, conveyed the massive disparities and the power interests at work, and showed something other than contempt for the lives and thoughts of Palestinians. We know that a person who was fair would not sit long as Middle East Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star, but would face pressure for being, in your words, ‘overempathetic to the plight of Palestinians’ (Interesting that you used ‘plight’ in your email to me. In the past six months you used the word ‘plight’ three times, always to describe Israelis: air force commander Halutz, Israel in general, and tank gunner Shalit, never to describe Palestinians). That pressure would eventually cost such a person his or her job. And whatever you have done with it, no doubt it is a comfortable and interesting job. In the society we’re in, to get and keep such a job requires either overt or covert partisanship for the powerful. Your reporting is a mix of both, and neither you nor our society are going to change any time soon. My hope is not for you, then, but for your readers. I hope that some of them realize that going to you for information on the Israel/Palestine conflict is a good way to be deceived and confused, and that there are far better sources.

Sincerely,

Justin Podur

Mitch Potter’s letter:

Sept 10, 2006

Mr. Podur,

Whatever you may think of my work, how in good conscience do you come to brand me “a truly disgusting racist” in a public forum?

It is sick. And the sickness, in my view, is one of the by-products of multiple generations of Israeli occupation.

Sincerely,

Mitch Potter

Middle East Bureau Chief

Toronto Star of Canada

From Mitch Potter

In response to my blog post of July 28, 2006, in which I called him a “truly disgusting racist”, Mitch Potter, the Middle East Bureau Chief of the Toronto Star, wrote the below to me on September 10, 2006 (last year).

I prepared a reply which I will post tomorrow, but I thought I would post his letter to me here first.

(I also watched the preview screening of Amu, which I’ll try to get a review of up soon.)

Mitch Potter’s letter to me:

Mr. Podur,

Continue reading “From Mitch Potter”

The latest from the Canadian roster of mediocrity

It isn’t the racism of Canadian pundits that is so distasteful so much as the combination of smug confidence and ignorance. Take Jeffrey Simpson, a frequent commentator and purveyor of conventional thoughts on various topics, in his analysis of the Canadian political landscape relative to Israel/Palestine. He talks about the shifts from the parties, and then attacks the NDP – most of whom are no friends to Palestinians – for their “utterly uninformed positions”. This is where the above mentioned combination of smug confidence and ignorance that characterizes Canada’s mediocre punditry comes in.

“It was discouraging at the recent NDP convention in Quebec City to listen to the overt hostility that speakers directed at Israel. And it was scary to hear the booing against those who sought more modulated party positions and the uncritical (and therefore utterly uneducated) lamentations about what had been done to Palestinians, as if they hadn’t done anything to themselves.”

Well, let’s see. Some questions.

Discouraging to whom, exactly? To Simpson, presumably, because “overt hostility” (to which we’ll return) ought not to be directed at Israel (only at the those Israel invades, occupies, and massacres, presumably?)

“Overt hostility” – according to who? And what is this overt hostility? Simpson provides no quotes of what these “speakers” said. Might it have been just reporting on what Israel has been doing recently, killing over a thousand in Lebanon and hundreds in Gaza over the past months? We don’t know.

“Scary” – again, Simpson is very easily scared, when he gets scared to see a party that has little chance of gaining power – a party he doesn’t support or vote for, I’ll wager – saying rather timid things against an ongoing slaughter of a helpless population. He didn’t find it scary that Israel killed a thousand people, has 10,000 in prison, sowed southern Lebanon with cluster bombs. No, he finds some speeches at an NDP convention that probably mentioned some of these things (timidly) scary.

And then, we have Simpson begging for nuance. How Canadian, to look at an utterly unbalanced conflict and call for modulation and nuance, so that we can be even-handed between the person who has a boot on the other’s neck and the person who’s being strangled. That’s a standard tactic and a long-standing way of opposing Palestinian rights in particular. It was the line taken by the Liberals when they switched their voting pattern at the UN. It was Harper’s line on the UN resolution on the Lebanon war. It’s because Canadians – including Simpson – can’t understand the difference between the aggressor and the victim.

And then Simpson makes a foray into the revolting, talking about uncritical and uneducated lamentations, “as if Palestinians hadn’t done anything to themselves”. Yes, Jeffrey, those Palestinians are starving their own children in Gaza by blockading themselves behind an electric fence, they are blowing up their own children on beaches, they are stopping themselves at checkpoints, they are building walls through their own lands, they are killing four or five or more of themselves for every Israeli who dies. How utterly educated of Simpson to express his knowledge of the subject. How critical of him to show how he understands all these things Palestinians have done to themselves.

With mediocrities like Simpson as our leaders of public opinion, it’s no wonder we’re so ill-informed.

Buzz Hargrove and Terrorism

ZNet just posted an exchange between a unionist from the Canadian Auto Workers’ union and the union’s president, Buzz Hargrove. Given the amount of democracy in Canadian unions, it wasn’t exactly an “exchange”, so much as the unionist’s reaction to the Official Position laid down by the President, who also spends an awful lot of his time cavorting with Canada’s wealthiest and most powerful people. Joe Emersberger, who has appeared in this blog in the past and who I respect a lot for his letters, is the unionist in question. And while I thought his letter was good, I felt a point-by-point response to Hargrove’s letter is in order. Here it is, below. My comments are in bold.

Dear Prime Minister,

The crisis in the Middle East cannot be allowed to escalate and I believe Canada can take a leadership role in finding a diplomatic resolution.

Unfortunately, Harper has already squandered Canada’s diplomatic credibility by his pronouncements of unconditional support for Israel and for the United States, and his military operations in Afghanistan. While the Martin liberals were headed in this direction, Harper has accelerated matters to the point where Canada’s credibility is close to zero.

The potential of provoking a much wider conflict, plummeting the entire region into chaos, is a real danger. Up to 200 people in Gaza and Lebanon have been killed and thousands more may die because of the destruction by Israeli bombings of power plants, homes and hospitals.

At least Israel’s agency in the bombings has been acknowledged here. But the passive voice appears in this letter “Up to 200 people… have been killed…” as it does throughout the media, when Israel is doing the killing.

Hamas and Hezbollah must assume responsibility for this latest crisis, but this does not give Israel the license to kill innocent citizens and destroy the infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon.

Hamas: the elected government of the Palestinians, who had held a unilateral ceasefire for months while Israel attacked and provoked, while Canada, the US, Israel, and the rest of the world imposed tremendous suffering on the Palestinian population by embargo – an embargo that has over 1/4 of the children of Gaza starving, while Israel dropped bombs and sent death squads to assassinate Palestinians, must assume responsibility for the latest crisis. Hizbollah: the political movement with elected members in the Lebanese government, that didn’t want to disarm, arguing that they needed to maintain their arms in the event of an Israeli invasion, and has no arms that are any match for the US/Israel military machine, after constant low-level incursions and conflict with Israel on the border, must assume responsibility.

The continuing killing of Israeli soldiers and over 25 innocent citizens alike cannot be ignored by the world community.

Although the world community can, and has, ignored the continuing killing of Palestinian civilians. As Hargrove has, in his letter. Palestinians are not qualified as “innocent citizens”. They simply do not exist in Hargrove’s world.

We are extremely concerned about the recent killing of 7 Canadians in the bombing of Lebanon.

Hargrove here follows the media in using the passive voice, referring to the Canadians as if they were killed by a natural disaster. Israel bombed the place they were vacationing in, as it has bombed so many civilian areas over the past several months (years) and killed so many civilians – thousands, since 2006.

Certainly Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens by extremist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

But the Lebanese and Palestinians do not have such reciprocal rights. The Palestinians do not have the right because, in Hargrove’s world and Hargrove’s letter, they do not exist. The Lebanese, perhaps, because in Hargrove’s world and his racist calculus, because to exercise a right of self-defense against Israel is the same as “terrorism”.

Countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran that harbour extremist forces must expect that there will be consequences to their complicity in the attacks on Israel.

This is the most interesting aspect of the letter. Read this carefully. This seems to me to be tantamount to a military threat from the President of a Canadian union to the “countries” (NOT merely the governments) of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The words “harbour extremist forces” and “consequences”. This is pure Bush-language.

And the world knows very well what these “consequences” are – tremendous violence, against defenceless civilians, from the air. It is hard for me to see how this section of this letter is not supportive of terrorism. It amounts to a threat of violence against civilians, and Hargrove knows it. This is kind of posturing is unworthy and frightening from the president of the United States. From the president of a worker’s union in a small country, it is utterly revolting.

Finally, if these COUNTRIES are to face some dark and unknown “consequences” for their “complicity”, what “consequences” are WE going to face for ours, since theirs is a matter of speculation and ours a matter of public record?

However, Israel’s military response has been brutal and disproportionate to the provocation by Hezbollah and Hamas.

Emphasizing again the inversion of provoker and provoked, and removing the Palestinians from the equation.

The killing of innocent civilians and destruction of the infrastructure destabilizes the region and impedes advancing the goals of democracy and peace for Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people.

Ah, I was wrong. The Palestinians have finally appeared, as a people who need democracy. But what was Canada’s response to their democratic election? To cut aid to a starving, besieged people and then to describe their being bombed as a “measured response”. What does Hargrove say to Harper, the man who cut this aid and made this description, about it, in a letter to him? Nothing.

The CAW calls for:

the immediate return, unharmed, of captured Israeli soldiers. an end to the shelling of Israeli cities by Hamas militants. an end to the shelling of Israeli cities by the Hezbollah militants.

The demands of Hamas and Hizbullah in this are clear: Hamas wants, of the 9,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, most of whom are there on “evidence” taken under torture, the 1,000 “administrative detainees” who have not been charged, plus the 400 children, plus the 100 women, returned, in exchange for the tank gunner they captured. Hizbullah wants the Lebanese prisoners and an end to Israeli attacks. These would be easy for Israel to grant, and easy for Canada to ask Israel to grant as part of a negotiated solution. But nothing on this from Hargrove.

Another interesting question is why Hargrove sees fit to make his first demand in a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister a demand to Hizbullah and Hamas, a demand Harper agrees with, and over which Harper (and now Hargrove) has absolutely no influence or credibility.

-an end to Israeli bombing of Lebanon and Gaza and all military operations including the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and Lebanon.

This section at least acknowledges that Israel is bombing Gaza, for the first time in the letter. Withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, while it would be a good thing, would not lift the siege. And Hargrove, who doesn’t acknowledge the siege, doesn’t acknowledge this need either.

-the release of the Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians arrested by the Israelis

But not the 400 children, 100 women, and 1000 administrative detainees, plus the Lebanese prisoners, who, if they were released, would lead immediately to the release of the Israeli soldiers.

-the immediate reinstatement of international aid to the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas.

No mention of the elected government?

-expedite the evacuation of all Canadians who are caught in the war zone in Lebanon.

Canada must take a leadership role in bringing the parties to the table to find a resolution to this crisis, which has cost too many innocent lives.

In order for Canada to take a credible leadership role, the federal government must end its unsavoury attempts to mirror George Bush’s policies during this crisis and instead, reflect the strongly held Canadian values of fairness and justice – and to uphold our obligations to international law.

We propose the Canadian government withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and further propose they be reassigned to a peacekeeping role in the Middle East.

The last few paragraphs clash strongly with the previous content, so much so that they suggest a different writer. If Harper does what Hargrove suggests, Canada will be precisely doing “unsavoury attempts to mirror George Bush” and will have lost all hope of a “credible leadership role”.

The Rise and Fall of “Counterspin”

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-and-ldquo-counterspin-and-rdquo-by-justin-podur

Continue reading “The Rise and Fall of “Counterspin””

FLR Report: Canadian Election Coverage!

For the next two weeks, the Killing Train will be offering special, daily coverage of the Canadian election! This part of the blog will be called the “Fear and Loathing Report”. Why that name? Because it seems that these are the two emotions that are driving the election.

If the Conservatives under Stephen Harper win, Canadians will have succumbed to their LOATHING of the ruling Liberals.

If the Liberals under Paul Martin win, Canadians will have succumbed to their FEAR of Stephen Harper’s fascism and mouth-foaming desire to destroy the public sector and take Canada into foreign adventures as quickly as possible.

Canadian readers can look for the Fear and Loathing Report in this blog, once a day, from now until June 28. Non-Canadian readers need not fear: the Killing Train will continue its other coverage as well.

And now some electoral thoughts.

Zeynep Toufe of Under the Same Sun had this question yesterday:

“Why is this happening, and why now? Especially at a time when the world’s elite is mostly trying to damage control from the Iraq War, why is Canada jumping in like this?”

In addition to Joe Emersberger’s response I would add the following.

Elections are a time when I spent a lot of time wondering how much of a say we really have. It isn’t just that politicians once they get into power ignore what the people voted for. It’s also the role of the media in picking the candidates and the winners. The media isn’t taking the NDP seriously, for example. Is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If the NDP got into power, they would have to be domesticated quite quickly (and were, when they were in power in Ontario, for example) or fight back in ways that we haven’t figured out how to do here yet. But in any case, the media keep on saying that Martin is “plagued by scandals” and that Harper is “on the rise”. I can’t help but think that this is a factor in the fall of Martin and the rise of Harper — which brings us to Zeynep’s question: when every other elite in the world is trying to jump off a sinking ship, why is the Canadian elite preparing to put someone in power who will jump on?

I’m not sure myself why Canada has to buck the global trend of throwing out hard right regimes — India did it, Spain did it, and even the US will probably do it in November. Hell, Colombia did it halfway in October 2003 and Ontario and Toronto did so recently as well, throwing out the filthy Conservatives in provincial government and a bizarre mayor (who once said he didn’t want to go to Africa for Toronto’s olympic bid because he feared being roasted alive in a pot with snakes by natives).

It’s not just broken promises, as Joe suggested, although that’s a factor. The poll I mentioned yesterday was analyzed today in the Toronto Star. It turns out that Canadians don’t want any of the vicious right-wing policies that Harper promises. They just want to punish the Liberals electorally for their corruption. This is one of those cases where the public will say to the Liberals: “This is going to hurt me a lot more than it does you…” How strange.

The pollster said: “Canadians are somewhat aware that in the rush to punish the Liberals for real and imagined sins, they may in fact be setting the country on a course inconsistent with dominant values.”

There is something else going on — as always the real story with elections. It’s not just the population who is angry at the Liberals and wants to punish them electorally. It is the Canadian elite itself — and that’s what you’re seeing in the media. It’s hard to know why without knowing all the details of the various scandals — but it may just come down to things like corporate largesse being distributed unevenly. The Liberal party itself has had problems because of a power struggle between the “Martin faction”, that won, and all the losers who had sought the leadership. Martin was apparently not generous in victory, causing defection and dissension in the political machine.

So I guess the answer is that there are some singular local Canadian things going on that could cause Canada to buck the entire global and historical trend and put some diehard terror warriors in the saddle for the next five years, against Canadians’ own better judgement.

Stay tuned for more fear and loathing tomorrow.

Haiti: the coup that came out of nowhere

Yeah, right.

A friend passed this 4-year old article to me about the first stirrings of the destabilization program in Haiti. It’s quite good, from Haiti Progres (it is below).

If you’re in the mood for some serious obfuscation on the topic, take a look at the Canadian government’s official take on Haiti. All carefully written. Note the dates, for example: Canadian ‘concern’ for the human rights situation and demand that the government take care of it apparently ends when the coup happens. Canadian assistance with the situation apparently begins when the coup happens.

And it was the Liberals who did it. It is ironic — there is a lot of talk in Canada now, as the Liberals sink in the polls behind the racist, militarist, homophobic fascists of the Conservative party (I realize that isn’t a full description, but I am trying to be brief) about what kind of coalitions a minority government might form. Will the Conservatives form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois? Will the Liberals form a coalition with the NDP? The irony is that the only coalition that makes sense in terms of policy is one between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They agree on Haiti, for example. They agree on the US and the need to help the US violate self-determination and human rights in defenceless countries. They agree on corporate Canada, that its rights must be protected above all else. I suppose the Conservatives are more extreme (see the description above).

Gee, I hope no one in the Liberals and Conservatives sees this blog and realizes that amalgamation is the best hope for their winning the election.

Below is the article on Haiti from April 2000, as promised.

Haïti Progrès 5 au 11 Avril 2000 This week in Haiti

The Assassination of Jean Dominique: Is it part of Washington’s offensive?

At 6:15 a.m. on Apr. 3, a gunman entered the courtyard of Radio Haiti Inter and shot to death pioneering radio journalist Jean Dominique, 69, as well as the station’s caretaker, Jean-Claude Louissaint. Dominique, who was just arriving by car to prepare for his hugely popular 7:00 a.m. daily news roundup, was struck by one bullet in the head and two in the neck. He was loaded with Louissaint into an ambulance, but both men were pronounced dead on arrival at the nearby Haitian Community Hospital in Pétionville.

In recent weeks, Dominique had been sharply critical of the U.S. government’s heavy-handed meddling in Haitian elections and bullying of Haitian President René Préval, to whom Dominique was a close friend and advisor.

Are agents of Washington behind Jean Dominique’s brutal murder? Is this just the opening salvo of a more violent stage in the wide-ranging campaign to intimidate the Haitian government and people into following Washington’s directives?

That is the suspicion voiced by Haitians on radio call-in shows and street corners since the killing. For them, this is just the latest act of aggression in an escalating war which Washington is waging to see that its neoliberal agenda eventually goes through in Haiti. Vilifying articles in the mainstream press, warnings from diplomats, hold-backs of international assistance, and killings by the “forces of darkness” have all been part of a growing offensive to block the return to power of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his party in what has become known as the “electoral coup d’état.”

Let’s briefly review the various elements of this offensive.

The media offensive

There are four things which Washington wants you to know about Haiti: 1) President Préval dissolved parliament in Jan. 1999; 2) a new Parliament must be elected and seated by Jun. 12, according to the Constitution; 3) Préval is former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s puppet; and 4) Préval is a dictator or close to becoming one.

Unfortunately, every one of these assertions is untrue.

1) The term of most parliamentians expired in Jan. 1999 and Préval refused to violate the constitutional ban on extending mandates; 2) Jun. 12 is merely the date a sitting Parliament is supposed to return from vacation; there is no sitting Parliament; 3) Préval remains in touch with Aristide, but Aristide and his party have often differed with and criticized Préval’s policies and decisions; 4) Préval’s administration bears no comparison to the regimes of his predecessors like Duvalier, Namphy, Avril, or Cédras; many of those who today accuse Préval were themselves members or collaborators of those truly dictatorial regimes.

Nonetheless, U.S. and Canadian mainstream newspapers, as Washington’s handmaidens, have been blaring the four lies far and wide in recent weeks. This is their way of preparing the North American public for aggressive U.S. actions.

Take for example, the Mar. 20 Miami Herald editorial “Haiti’s Elections in Peril: President Préval to Blame for Latest Holdup.” It says that “Mr. Préval is validating suspicions that he’s delaying the parliamentary elections to help his party, Fanmi Lavalas.” First, Préval is not a member of Fanmi Lavalas, Aristide’s party. Second, he has often repeated that he just wants elections which are fair and inclusive. With probably half the estimated 4.5 million-member electorate without electoral cards (nobody knows for sure how many have been issued), it is obvious that elections cannot be held. But the editorial never once refers to the lack of electoral cards. Instead, it calls Préval “contemptuous of democracy” and a “despot.”

One week later on Mar. 27, the Herald published the article “U.S. presses Haiti over elections,” by Don Bohning. The author is not embarrased to write that both the Democratic Clinton administration and the Republican Congress have their “patience growing shorter… over continued delays by Haitian officials in holding critical legislative and local elections.” Why are they impatient? Are Haitian elections being held in the U.S.?

The article contains all the usual untruths (Préval “effectively dissolved Parliament” and “June 12 [is] when Parliament is constitutionally mandated to begin its second session of the year”). Like the Herald editorial, the article never mentions the lack of electoral cards, nor the fact that the shortage can be traced back to the U.S. State Department (which funded the cards), the U.S. State Department-spawned International Foundation for Electoral Systems or IFES (which chose the contractor), and the Canadian firm, Code, Inc (which produced the card materials). In short, the Haitian government was (to its shame) not even involved.

Instead, the main purpose of Bohning’s article is to deliver the threats that the U.S. will undertake “economic and diplomatic isolation and the denial of U.S. visas to those seen as obstructing the democratic process.” Ironically, the real obstructionists are all in Washington.

The diplomatic offensive

Indeed, a constant stream of diplomats bearing threats have passed through Port-au-Prince in recent weeks. “Failure to constitute a legitimate parliament risks isolating Haiti from the community of democracies and jeapardizes future cooperation and assistance,” said Arturo Valenzuela, the White House’s National Security Council official for Latin America who visited Préval with Donald Steinberg, the State Department’s special Haiti coordinator last week.

Two weeks before it was a bipartisan letter from Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), chariman of the House International Relations Committee, along with John Conyers (D-MI) and Charles Rangel (D-NY), who threatened Préval in no uncertain terms. “The Clinton administration informs us that it will use all diplomatic means to respond to those who seek to disrupt or corrupt the electoral process,” the letter said. “The administration has our full support to so act to protect vital American interests.” So at least they are honest. They are protecting American, not Haitian, interests.

Also earlier last month, former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake visited Haiti where he met separately with Préval and Aristide to warn them of dire consequences if elections were not held before June.

Alarm in Washington grew last Friday, Mar. 31, when Préval and the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) met and agreed to postpone elections unrealistically set for Apr. 9 and to take about eight weeks to review and correct the deficiencies in the electoral machinery: recuperate all electoral registers, compile a definitive list of registration stations and authorized personnel, determine the shortfall in electoral card materials, check for duplicate registrations, verify electoral ballots with candidates, and so on. Despite this amiable accord between the only two instances concerned, State Department spokesman James Rubin used the death of Jean Dominique to reiterate U.S. pressure on Apr. 3. “From our standpoint, we believe that credible elections can be held in April and May, in time to convene the new parliament by the second Monday of June, consistent with Haitian constitutional law,” Rubin said. His “standpoint” is not relevant in a Haitian election.

Meanwhile, Albright buttonholed Foreign Minister Fritz Longchamp at the CARICOM meeting held in New Orleans, Louisiana on Mar. 29 to communicate U.S. displeasure over election delays.

The international assistance offensive

Then there are the dangled carrots. Whenever they want the Haitian government to do something, U.S. and “international community” officials inevitably announce that there are millions in international aid in jeopardy.

So last week , it was the turn of Gérard Johnson of the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) to announce that he would not release $200 million earmarked for over sixty projects until after elections were held.

The U.S. has often repeated that it has hundreds of millions more that it is ready to “unblock” as soon as a Parliament sits and passes legislation neoliberalizing Haiti’s state and economy.

The “observer” offensive

Since early March, the U.N. began deploying about 80 election observers throughout Haiti (see Haïti Progrès, Vol. 17, No. 51, Mar. 8, 2000). But more central to their plan is the “Haitian” National Council of Electoral Observation (CNO) headed by Léopold Berlanger, who is director of the USAID-funded Radio Vision 2000, a frequent recipient of National Endowment for Democracy grants, and a long-time agent of Washington (see Haïti Progrès, Vol. 17, No. 43, Jan. 12, 2000). Last week, Jean Dominique revealed over the airwaves of Radio Haiti Inter that Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) president Léon Manus signed an accord with Berlanger on Feb. 25, without the knowledge of any other CEP members. The deal would allow Berlanger’s CNO to pick not only the CEP’s accredited election observers but also the members of the registration stations, voting stations, and the supervisors.

Jean Dominique’s last editorial was precisely to denounce Berlanger and the secret accord which made the entirely self-appointed CNO a final arbiter of any upcoming elections.

The “opposition” offensive

For months we have reviewed how the principal currents of the opposition – the Espace de Concertation, the Patriotic Movement to Save the Nation (MPSN), the Organization of People in Struggle (OPL), the Democratic Nationalist Patriotic Assembly (RDNP), and Mochrena – have waged their war against Aristide’s party, the Lavalas Family, and the people. This week however they have upped the ante.

Evans Paul of the Espace has virtually called for civil war, seizing on chaotic street demonstrations, which closed downtown Port-au-Prince from Mar. 27-29. The anti-electoral-coup-d’état demonstrations, which were surely infiltrated by provocateurs, were blamed for breaking car and shop windows and the shooting of a policeman. “The Espace is now calling for the establishment of committees for legitimate defense,” Paul said. “The Espace asks people to identify the rioters, point out the houses where they meet, and write down their license plates. We ask for drivers to show solidarity. When rioters attack a driver, don’t run away. Instead, run down the rioters with your car.”

Meanwhile, Paul’s putschist-collaborator colleague, Serge Gilles, called for all Espace partisans in the government of Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis to resign, a step toward the “Zero Option” (i.e. removal of Préval and new presidential elections without Aristide) proposed by the MPSN and the OPL over these past weeks. “The Espace asks the people it has placed in the government and which today occupy posts of minister or secretary of state to leave the Préval/Alexis government,” Gilles said. “This appeal is also addressed to all other government members who consider themselves democrats and who refuse to be seen associating with the downfall of the Lavalas power.”

The offensive of the “Forces of Darkness”

Historically, alongside all the above-mentioned visible offensives, there has always been the “invisible” pressure exerted by “forces of darkness,” that is former Tonton Macoutes, soldiers, death-squads, and assorted putschist henchmen. For example, while the U.S. formally supported the return of Aristide during the coup, the CIA set up and supported Toto Constant’s FRAPH as a network to pressure, spy on, and kill the population. Many Haitians call this CIA-Pentagon-Macoute nexus the “laboratory.”

“The assassination of Jean Dominique, it is clear as a bell, is a political assassination,” said Ben Dupuy, secretary general of the National Popular Party (PPN) in an Apr. 3 press conference. “It was carried out by the ‘forces of darkness’ and it was a warning.”

Dominique’s murder is very similar to that of Lavalas businessman and activist Antoine Izméry on Sep. 11, 1993. They were both outspoken and progressive elements from Haiti’s bourgeoisie. In both cases, their deaths sent a chill through the entire population.

Whether it was “rogue” elements of Washington’s shadowy reserve army of former thugs or whether it was an ordered hit, the killing was a “professional job.” It is almost certain that, in some way, the “laboratory” had a hand in Jean Dominique’s murder.

The “forces of darkness” are also used to infiltrate genuine demonstrations such as those last week, which were demanding the resignation of the CEP, electoral cards for all, and a single election in November. “Often in demonstrations, I have seen elements who start violent acts like breaking windows and damaging property randomly,” said Leon, a long-time Lavalas organizer. “When you question what they are doing, they won’t listen to you. They are acting under somebody else’s orders.”

Change of Strategy

Finally, the U.S. and its proxies may be now changing strategy, as outlined by Dupuy at the PPN’s Apr. 3 press conference. He noted that the Haitian people have up until now been able to thwart the original version of the “electoral coup d’état,” which was to hold an election for parliament with a limited electorate.

Now they may have shifted to a new and revised plan. Since electoral technicians have estimated they will need about two months to straighten out the current electoral mess, a new election date could be no earlier than June. If the CEP and government cling to having two elections, that leaves only 5 months for the CEP to prepare for the November presidential elections. Already it has taken them 15 months to prepare the legislative and municipal elections.

“If after 15 months we still haven’t had legislative elections, we wonder how long we will have to wait for presidential elections which are supposed to be in Nov. 2000,” Dupuy said. “That is where it seems that USAID and IFES now want to lead the country. To arrive at a point where there is not enough time to have a presidential election and then the Presidential mandate of President Préval will end [on Feb. 7, 2001], and thus they will have managed to have us arrive at a sort of ‘zero option.’ Then we will see a real catastrophe. The head of the Supreme Court, a zombie, will take control of the country, and I don’t need to tell you what kind of mess we will have. The country will be upside down. And since the proponents of the ‘zero option’ know that they can’t do much without the ‘international community,’ many of them will call for another occupation of the country and in fact, several have already made declarations in this sense.”

In short, Washington and its local agents are upping the pressure on the Haitian government and the Haitian people in every way possible. This week, even the normally submissive Prime Minister Alexis had to speak out. “I am sure that the ‘international community’ knows better than us what is really going on here,” he said. “It is very strange that certain members of the ‘international community’ were at one point pressuring us in the executive to get more involved with the CEP and today these same people are saying that we don’t want elections. That is strange.” Alexis went on to conclude that “the ‘internaitonal community’… is orienting things in a sense that is not in the general interests of the country.”

This is the essence of the problem in Haiti today. This was the very problem Jean Dominique was denouncing in his last broadcasts. And this may well be the reason why he was killed.

Israel continues to kill, with media help

Its impunity ratified, Israel is continuing the slaughter in Gaza, and in particular in Rafah. MSNBC calls this ‘forging ahead’ to look for ‘tunnels’. The bizarre and contorted story calls three of the people Israel killed ‘militants’, citing ‘witnesses’, then tacks on almost as an aside the fact that ‘Medics said the mangled remains of two other men were found in what looked like another missile attack.’ Then it goes on to cite the Army’s justificaiton. Then another murder: ‘Witnesses said soldiers shot dead a 39-year-old man who went onto his roof and shouted a request for water.’ Followed by equal weight for the army: ‘The army said troops “spotted a terrorist and shot him.”‘ That’s 40 people in the past 3 days of slaughter — called ‘fighting’ by MSNBC.