It really is offensive for commentators to use the word “violence” to mean “violence against one side in a conflict.” As in Martin Indyk’s op-ed in the New York Times yesterday (8/27/10), which argues that there is “For Once, Hope in the Middle East,” because, “First, violence is down considerably in the region.” Here’s his complete explication of this point:
Throughout the 1990s, Israel was plagued by terrorist attacks, which undermined its leadersâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢ ability to justify tangible concessions. Israelis came to believe that the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was playing a double game, professing peace in the negotiations while allowing terrorists to operate in territory he was supposed to control.
Today, the Palestinian Authority is policing its West Bank territory to prevent violent attacks on Israelis and to prove its reliability as a negotiating partner. Hamas–mainly out of fear of an Israeli intervention that might remove it from power–is doing the same in Gaza.
These efforts, combined with more effective Israeli security measures, have meant that the number of Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks has dropped from an intifada high of 452 in 2002 to six last year and only two so far this year.
Missing, of course, is any mention of violence against Palestinians. According to the Israeli human rights group, there have been 100 Palestinians killed by Israelis in the time period following Israel’s December 2008 assault on Gaza; the assault itself killed 1,397 Palestinians, a large majority of whom were either minors or non-combatants.
It’s difficult to be hopeful about peace in the Middle East when major U.S. news outlets treat Palestinian deaths as absolutely irrelevant.
Just as interesting is the comment he sneaks in: “Hamas–mainly out of fear of an Israeli intervention that might remove it from power–is doing the same in Gaza.” I see. So the Palestinian Authority is policing its turf because it honestly seeks peace, but Hamas does so only out of fear of attack. Which, of course, sneakily attempts to justify the attack on Gaza (and claim it as a success) on the basis of the end justifying the means.
Propaganda at its most nauseating. Got to hand it to the NYT.
Indyk ignores substantive issues like the Jordan River Valley and Right of Return and has the nerve to claim that a “slowing” of settlements is progress. Blaming Arafat for the Israeli walkout and election losses in 2000 is also standard.
I join that 70% of Arabs who responded to the online poll saying they don’t care about the peace process. These talks are about Obama and Netanyahu selling a lipsticked pig to their own citizens and global opinion. They have zero to do with seriously resolving the situation.
From these examples it would seem we should be hopeful when the Palestinian government is just powerful enough to enforce a treaty, but not to stay in power. But that begs the question: how the heck is a treaty then enforced?
For the record, the number “452 killed in 2002” quoted from the Israeli “general security service” is ambiguously labeled “fatalities”, rather “civilian fatalities” and it does, in fact, apparently include soldiers killed.
B’Tselem provides a breakdown by year, area and civilian/military (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Index.asp). In 2002 there were 185 Israeli civilians killed in Israel and additional 87 civilians killed in the West Bank and Gaza. This brings the total to 272. (In addition, there were 17 soldiers killed in Israel and 101 soldiers killed in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.)
In the same year there were 1019 Palestinians killed by Israeli military and civilians.
Thanks for writing this Jim. This is the kind of stuff we need to read/hear over and over again so that we can correct those jerks who obfuscate the truth. Great job.
What can you expect? Indick is a rabid zionist P.O.S. and accordingly sees Palestinians as sub human.